25 1 min 10 yrs

The Democrat Progressive legacy – along with high unemployment and inflation – is trillions of dollar of national debt.  This is what the Democrat Progressive profligate spending has wrought. Shummer and his Democrat Progressive Caucus would like to characterize those who wish to rein in the outrageous spending as “extremists.”  But, really, the Democrat Progressives have a lot of nerve.  It’s not “extreme” to cut spending – it’s responsible, and it’s common sense.

 

graphic HT: gateway pundit

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

25 thoughts on “What Hath Democrat Progressives Wrought?

  1. Granted, even Republican stewardship has seen yearly deficits continue. However, what Obama and the Democrats are doing is an order of magnitude beyond that. They haven’t even had the expensive parts of their policies kick in. It’s madness dipped in left-wing ideology.

  2. I agree.

    I disagreed with the Republican spending under Bush and in fact, note that The Tea Party started as a response to the Republican profligate spending – earmarks etc.

    that said, Bush is gone and now we have Obama and the Progressives — crashing the country – fast.

  3. Just for a change i wonder would the ‘usual suspects’ actually like to comment on what Patty has said rather than attack her on a personal level?
    It would be most refreshing.

  4. Do you have statistics that run contrary to what she’s presented? If so, I’d like to read them. As for sources for economic information I highly recommend John William’s Shadowstats.com, Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem, Jim Puplava’s Financial Sense, the Financial Times Alphaville, and Finding Alpha for starters.

    Avoid Paul Krugman like the plague-that is unless you enjoy seeing a grown man routinely getting owned on his own blog.

  5. here is a slightly less partisan graph. It seems to suggest that there is a high correlation between the federal deficit and war.

    But you guys are pretty keen on war, so maybe you should give a little thought to how much of Obama’s deficit is a legacy of the neo-con warfare programme?

    Especially when some of you are screaming for yet more wars – especially against Iran, but also Syria and maybe even Egypt if the MB wins the election there? Never mind an even bigger military push in Afghanistan, maybe even an invasion of the Pakistan tribal areas? Go on, you know you want it!

  6. What a shame to see that those Tea party patriots have now slipped into negative poll ratings, not much different from the Dems and the GOP. But especially among those earning less than $50,000. Now why would that be?

    Link here

  7. >>Do you have statistics that run contrary to what she’s presented?<<

    None so blind.

    JM and Jim, Patty constantly posts bogus graphs telling lies that she picked up somewhere and can't explain. Their faults are pointed out to her each time, but she carries on regardless.

    In this case, it is simply not true that Obama tripled the US deficit. It was alredy over USD 1 trillion when Bush left office (according to the Congressional Budget Office). Patty posted this crap before – maybe even the same graph – and the above was also pointed out to her before. Hope you find that refreshing.

    Further light refreshment can be found in the fact that her graph also shows that the only time a surplus was recorded was under "Democrat Progressive" par excellence Bill Clinton.

    But don't expect that to be even noticed.

  8. they lack that capability, it’s what happens when you pretend to grasp a reality based in a faery tale.

    All of Patty’s ditractors, are weak little boys that most american women would chew up and spit out, and when boys lack confidence in facts they name call, and whine

  9. the war isn’t in those numbers, none of the wars are. that spending is off the books your graph contradicts your own statements.

    Each of those spikes threw out the graph represent A Demecrat Administrations catastrophic spending spree

  10. Noel: shame on you for your lack of intellectual honesty and your inability to argue with anything save personal insult aimed at me.

    You seem to be saying the enormous magnitude of this deficit is Bush’s fault? really? really?!

    Yes, Bush and the Republicans ran up a deficit! Yes! so true! we know that. Enough already. Bashing Bush achieves exactly nothing. The Tea Party formed before Obama was even elected in disgust of the BUsh/Republican spending. Bush and the Republicans were just like Obama — only much, much slower.

    Obama and the Progressives have cranked up the speed of spending such that there might not be any coming back from it if we don’t do something. why talk about Bush – Obama and the Dems still control the Presidency and the Senate.

    Also, why do you think Bill Clinton had a surplus? Can you explain? I can. But I’m wondering, can you? And what difference does it make. It’s yesterday’s news. We have a damn tanking economy to deal with. Don’t you get that?

    And finally – why the outrage? why are you so angry when I point out that we are alarmingly in deficit? are we supposed to not notice it? just ignore it? be happy it’s not even bigger because Obama is a great guy, or something?

    Nobody – anywhere – is arguing that Obama and the Progressive Dems have been fiscally responsible – except you! Ridiculous.

    You are projecting your partisanship on me, I believe.

  11. Noel

    I can’t comment on the context of this post because i freely admit that i don’t know enough about the subject to do so.
    What i do know is that the number of vicious personal insults that accompany each and every one of Pattys posts have risen from the sublime to the ridiculous.
    I’m quite sure that she can speak for herself but for others browsing this blog it’s uncomfortable and just plain wrong.

  12. People should be uncomfortable with Patty’s litany of lies, which I am sure is what you refer to JM. Perhaps you should try to encourage her to be less foolish.

  13. “litany of lies” — this is how the Left works. You don’t agree so you claim your opposition is “lying.” And if that doesn’t work, you ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you threaten.

    Why not try something different and engage on the topic, the issue?

    What do you think, Mahons, of the deficit projected and the accumulated debt and the unfunded entitlements? Are you concerned? Do you care?

  14. If a Leftist doesn’t agree they claim their opponent “lies” – when that tactic proves ineffective, they ridicule. when that tactic doesn’t work….

    why not just engage on the issue, Mahons?

  15. Ok so the graph above shows that the Democrats have best record when it comes to economy. Clinton ran a surplus, and the red representing Obama won’t inform you of the shit sandwhich he immediately inherited from his predecessor.

    But that wasn’t really the aim of this laughbly rudimentary attempt at propaganda.

  16. “You seem to be saying the enormous magnitude of this deficit is Bush’s fault? really?”

    Patty, you pretend I “seem to be saying” that because it lets you ignore what I really – and quite plainly – said: that it is a lie that Obama tripled the US deficit, one that you put up here before and one that was refuted here before.
    The big deficit was caused by the President you voted for and by his wars that you cheered on.
    Obama didn’t triple or even double the deficit, and it is unfair and untrue to claim he did. But you aren’t the slightest bit interested in fairness and truth here, are you? You are only in the businesss of cheap propaganda against Obama.

    “why the outrage? why are you so angry when I point out that we are alarmingly in deficit?”

    Again, I’m not. I’m angry that you keep picking up lies from the right-wing gutter and churning them out here, even when they’ve already been disproven several times before – to your anger and embarrassment then too, I remember.

    “And what difference does it make. It’s yesterday’s news.”

    Then why did post a graph pretending to show historical data?

  17. Then you dispute that it was already $1b in Nov 2008? That seems a pretty concrete fact.

  18. Noel, You could make the case that the budget is proposed and written in the Legislature – not by the President — and therefore Obama should share the headline of the graph. But you don’t do this.

    While the graph uses the Clinton years as a point of comparison, it is not a study of Republican v. Democrats – it is a commentary on the magnitude of our current budget deficit.

    You have yet to tell me why the graph is incorrect expect for your dispute with the characterization that it appears to put the blame entirely on Obama in 2009. Did you know that the Democrats held both the House and the Senate since 2006?

    I used to take you seriously, Noel.

  19. The point of the graph is not to compare the budget deficits or surpluses of the two political parties over time. While this could be interesting this type of exercise would need to acknowledge the political parties of the Legislature as well as the President at the time the budget is drawn up – and the graph does not do this.

    The point of this graph is to highlight the outrageous budget deficit of the past few years.

  20. Attention: budgets are created by the Senate and the House – with or without the leadership of the Executive branch.

    The graph I cite is not very useful for commentary on “Democrat” vs. “Republican” budgets – often the political persuasion of the President differs from that of the Senate and/or the House.

    The point of the graph (which I thought was blindingly obvious) was to highlight the enormous deficit of the last few years, the Obama Years.

    Why? Not to “bash Obama” — but to highlight the deficit! It’s extremely alarming to me. We are headed to Greece status – wake up!

Comments are closed.