Don’t throw stones

During the last few years of the Bush administration, I became frustrated with the Democrats, who seemed to have no agenda beyond opposing Republican policies.

Now that the tables have turned, I see that the Republicans are no better. Most recently, E. Thomas McClanahan (7/5, Opinion) and Todd Tiahrt (7/6, Opinion) argued eloquently that current Democratic policies must be stopped -- but offered nothing in return.

Merely assaulting the other party is not statesmanship, does nothing to improve the state of the nation, and certainly does not lead to resolution.

Whatever happened to the concept of a "loyal opposition," which lays out alternatives, shows a willingness to debate and seeks to find solutions that result in a better America?

Come on, folks. Let’s talk, not yell. Let’s recognize that both sides of the aisle have the country’s best interests at heart and behave that way.

I expect better from our nation’s elected leaders and also from commentators who hide behind the fact that their opinions are guaranteed by the Constitution but who should be leading a discussion instead of throwing stones.

Robert Powell, Ph.D.

Independence

Comments

[JoCo]

IOW, screw you Dr. Powell. EAT GRANITE!

[Zesto]

Oh, Dr. Powell. How naive.

"Let’s recognize that both sides of the aisle have the country’s best interests at heart and behave that way."

If only that were true. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the country's best interests at heart. It's depressing.

[JoCo]

EL,

In your first of 3, really 2, cited Obaman arguments, you propose "the unproven notion that deficit spending can end recessions" as if fact. The debate on the efficacy of fiscal policy to that end is far from over and even the historical ramifications split along economic schools as to cause and effect through the use of varying sets of "statistics", the mathematics of agendists. That's clearly arguable.

But then you assert that Obama "pushed through a massive stimulus bill whose very purpose was to bring the budget deficit to nearly 2 trillion". Though you uncover the obvious result of spending increasing debt, I don't believe that was Obama's purpose any more than it was fiscal "conservative" GWB's intent with his agenda.

And citing congressional approval of initiatives during the GWB era as being somehow totally complicit ignores that GWB took the "signing statement" presidential prerogative to new and constitutionally troubling heights in Congress' face, shifting the balance of power to the executive that Obama now occupies.

The trouble with party talking points in most arguments is that that are only that and don't serve the debate well.--not my space?

[EL]

Under President Obama, the 2009 budget deficit is set to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion. It took President George W. Bush seven years to run up $1.8 trillion in debt.

Obama and his supporters try to defend this debt with three arguments.

First, he asserts that he "inherited" his large deficit from Bush (despite his Senate votes in favor of nearly every policy that created the deficit). This argument could be plausible if Obama had tried to rein in -- or at least not worsen -- the deficit. But after "inheriting" a projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009, he decided this deficit was too small.

Based on the unproven notion that deficit spending can end recessions, Obama pushed through a massive "stimulus" spending bill whose very purpose was to bring the budget deficit to nearly $2 trillion. This suggests that even if he hadn't inherited a big deficit, he'd have created one.

Second, Obama claims he'll cut the deficit in half by 2013. So what? The deficit has quadrupled this year -- a 50 percent cut from that bloated level would still leave deficits twice as high as before the recession. By the president's own projections, deficits would rise back up over $1 trillion by 2018. The national debt would still double.---my space

[Jim]

"You are forgetting the $765 billion stimulus bill that is 100 percent Obama. Zero republicans voted for it."

The FY 2009 deficit was 1.3 trillion when Bush left office. That's HIS deficit. It includes things like the bailout as well as earlier revenue drains like the tax cuts and Republican-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit (which will end up costing $1 trillion over 10 years). And the wars, being off the books, take that number further up.

The stimulus is not included in the numbers I cited. Try again.

"Dishonest. Idiot."

Name-calling is the last refuge of those who don't have the facts on their side and know it. You're only proving that point by engaging in such elementary-school tactics.

[Roger Lambert]

Bush left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit without either of the wars on the books. With both of them now being honestly accounted as part of the budget, it balloons up to around $2 trillion. This is before Obama took any action. Roger and others love historical revisionism, but the facts speak for themselves.
Posted by: Jim | Jul 10, 2009 4:24:21 PM

Dishonest. Idiot. You are forgetting the $765 billion stimulus bill that is 100 percent Obama. Zero republicans voted for it.

This can't be posted enough times to show the clear difference between the two parties:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html

[solomon]

Federal tax, state tax, local tax, county tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, 911 tax, automobile tax, boat tax, restaurant tax, dog license, fishing license, cigarette tax (glad I gave up the squares)......did I miss any?

[Jim]

Bush left us with a $1.3 trillion deficit without either of the wars on the books. With both of them now being honestly accounted as part of the budget, it balloons up to around $2 trillion. This is before Obama took any action. Roger and others love historical revisionism, but the facts speak for themselves.

[Roger Lambert]

Pointing out the negatives of borrowing $2 trillion this year alone is "offering nothing in return"?

It saves us $2 trillion, doctor!

[JoCo]

I'll say it. Who knew PhDs could be so entertaining. He sounds like he's whipped in the wind anyway. Kinda baseless for a Doctor of Philosophy.

[JoCo]

Arminius,

Just logged on. Haven't read any posts yet, but saw your signature. Did my seesaw make any sense? You said, recall ,that I duplicated my senselessness on the thread "Moderate Democrats".

Curious if I at least cleared up my views.

[Jazz-Man]

Although I can feel the pain of Robert, you are talking about Unfettered Letters!

[Arminius]

Kee:

"Its funny that the lefties like the Gayhawk only see partisanship in the eyes of their oppostion. My gosh, he would never see Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Pelosi as the least bit partisan!"

Correct. Saying the environment changed in 1994 with the Contract with America (which was a positive agenda) ignores the Bork hearings of 1987.

[Arminius]

The letter is not logical. Let's say you had a son in his senior year of college and he had a 4.0 GPA. He suddenly announces that he is going to drop out of college, sell his possessions, and join a cult that worships Obama. If you told your son that that is a very bad idea and proceeded to tell hmj why that's a bad idea, would Powell scream, "That's an eloquent argument, but you've offered nothing in return!"

Some times it's enough to point out that someone is going off track.

[Kee]

Gayhawk you are such a left coast ninnie. It is called a two-party system, and it goes back a helluva lot further than Newt, and 1994. Eever read any of the Lincoln-Douglas debates?

Its funny that the lefties like the Gayhawk only see partisanship in the eyes of their oppostion. My gosh, he would never see Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire Pelosi as the least bit partisan!

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Actually GayHawk a fair portion of the so called "bad economy" is relative to priorities. If everyone is so broke how come you can go to the casino and it is busy? Oh I forgot only rich wealthy white Republicans go to the casinos. Whu is always busier on the first Friday of the month? So GayHawk, you think 100% income taxationa nd full government control of enterprise would make everyone a millionaire? Let's mandate more higher risk loans to people that do not justify the loan, out of fairness. Maybe Congress can just sign off on the blank pieces of non-existent legilsation that BIg O Daddy claims must just be pased wand worry about what is in the bill later. Maybe it will all work as well as his Cash For Culnkers jive, you know, the so called stimulus that can not even be utilized.

[JayhawkinMO]

Well, there is Kee perpetuating what Powell is commenting on. Typical... But don't blame the Dems for the current environment. It started in 1994 with Newt's "Contract On America."

[Jazz-Man]

Yipee, thought I was going to puke, wait I am after this letter.

[Kee]

Hey, hey, new letters! Stupid, but new!