Let’s take a look at the budget deficits again, keeping in mind that the last Republican budget was the 2007 budget. In January of 2007, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, and all spending was in Democrat control until January of 2011, when the Republicans took back the House.
Obama Budget Deficit 2011
Next, let’s see what impact the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 had on tax revenue:
Federal receipts (1994-2008)
From the chart:
Revenue in 2001 was 2.0 trillion in the year of the first round of tax cuts
Revenue in 2003 was 1.8 trillion in the year of the second round of tax cuts
Revenue then rose in each subsequent year, ending at 2.6 trillion in 2007, when the Democrats took over the House and Senate
In 2007, Bush was only spending about 2.8 trillion – very close to what he was taking receiving in tax revenues
The budget deficit went down in each year after both tax cuts were in place (2004), until the Democrats took over the House and Senate
Obama is currently spending over 3.8 trillion per year, but he is only receiving about 2.2 trillion in revenue.
According to the OMB’s own figures, the Bush tax cuts resulted in an explosion of revenue to the U.S. government.
That’s not to say Bush wasn’t a profligate spender — he was. But in virtually no cases were Democrats arguing that he spend less (unless you count national security).
In fact, fiscal conservatives opposed Bush’s absurd policies on spending, amnesty and the expansion of Medicare.
Which is why they are certain to be rejected by the diminishing cadre of Obama-Democrat drones, who appear to be completely immune to facts, logic and reason.
And let’s just see what happened to the unemployment rate since the Democrats took over spending in January of 2007:
Unemployment Rate (Not seasonally adusted)
There are a lot of people who don’t know about these numbers because they watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on the Comedy Channel, or Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz on MSNBC.
I actually spoke to someone who voted for Obama about these numbers. He said that 2.6 trillion in tax revenues was worse than 2.0 trillion in tax revenues. And he said that a 4.3% unemployment rate was WORSE than a 9.2% unemployment rate. And he also said that a $160 billion dollar deficit was WORSE than a $1650 billion dollar deficit. Ok I just made that up, but still. That’s how Democrats think. Tax and spend.
Appearing on “Face the Nation” Sunday, Rep. Michele Bachmann stood by her comment in Thursday’s Republican debatethat when she said that wives should be submissive to their husbands, she meant that married couples should have mutual respect.
In 2006, Bachmann said her husband had told her to get a post-doctorate degree in tax law. “Tax law? I hate taxes,” she continued. “Why should I go into something like that? But the lord says, be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.'”
Asked about the comment by CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell Sunday, Bachmann reaffirmed that to her, “submission means respect, mutual respect.”
“I respect my husband, he respects me,” she said. “We have been married 33 years, we have a great marriage…and respecting each other, listening to each other is what that means.”
O’Donnell asked Bachmann if she would use a different word in retrospect.
“You know, I guess it depends on what word people are used to, but respect is really what it means,” Bachmann replied.
“Do you think submissive means subservient?” O’Donnell asked.
“Not to us,” Bachmann said. “To us it means respect. We respect each other, we listen to each other, we love each other and that is what it means.”
Michele won the Ames straw poll in Iowa, narrowly beating out libertarian Ron Paul.
I was very upset by her harsh words for Tim Pawlenty in the Iowa debate, but she is still my top candidate. Now that Pawlenty is out, my second choice is Rick Perry. I have to tell you, I am really sorry to see Tim Pawlenty out of the running. Whoever wins should pick him to be Secretary of State, for his strong foreign policy comments on Syria and Iran.
You can find out more about Michele Bachmann in the links below, stuff the mainstream media will never tell you.
Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear bomb, Republican candidate Ron Paul suggested during Thursday’s presidential debate.
The maverick Texas Congressman also said it was time to stop the half-century old embargo on Cuba and all troops should be brought home.
His comments brought scorn from rival candidates. Michele Bachmann said she would do everything in her power to prevent Iran becoming nuclear.
Rick Santorum said “Iran is not Iceland, Ron. “It’s been at war with us since 1979.
“Anyone who suggests Iran is not a threat to this country is not seeing the world very clearly.”
Paul said it is natural for Iran to want a bomb as it is surrounded by countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel which all have one and with China, the United States and Russia all involved in the region. He said the U.S. should not get involved in the country’s internal affairs.
Consider this recent article on Iran’s weapons development, from Investors Business Daily.
Excerpt:
Tehran’s navy deploys ships to the Atlantic capable of launching long-range missiles. This is not a joke. This is a dress rehearsal for the day an EMP attack ends our way of life.
‘Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?” Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asked at “The World Without Zionism” Tehran conference in 2005. “But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.” He added that Iran had a “war preparation plan” for, as he put it, “the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization.”
Electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, is not a subject familiar to most Americans. But it’s quite familiar to the Iranian military.
It’s been practicing for the day when an Iranian missile tipped with a nuclear warhead lifts off from a vessel parked in international waters off our shores, the warhead detonating high above the American heartland, sending electromagnetic waves rippling across the American landscape, frying every electronic circuit within range.
In a July 18 statement, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari said the Iranian navy plans on deploying warships in the Atlantic Ocean as part of a program to ply international waters.
Two days later, another Iranian rear admiral, Seyed Mahmoud Mousavi, revealed for the first time that his navy has equipped a number of its logistic vessels and units with long-range missiles.
The squadron will be equipped with the Nur missile, which is based on China’s long-range Silkworm C-802 anti-ship cruise missile and has a 125-mile range and 365-pound warhead.
It is not these ships and their missiles that threaten us, but what comes later as they use these forays to gain experience operating far from Iranian shores.
A simple Scud missile, with a nuclear warhead, could be fired from an inconspicuous freighter in international waters off our coast and detonated high over the U.S.
It would wreak devastation on America’s technological, electrical and transportation infrastructure. Masked as a terrorist attack, Iran would have plausible deniability of any responsibility.
Iran has practiced launching and detonating Scuds in midflight, launched from ships in the Caspian Sea. It’s also tested high-altitude explosions of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile, a test consistent with an EMP attack.
The warhead need not be of a staggeringly high yield — nor must the missile have an intercontinental range.
“One nightmare scenario posed,” according to Peter Vincent Pry, an expert on EMP who sits on a congressional panel looking into the threat of such a weapon, “was a ship-launched EMP attack against the U.S. by Iran, as this would eliminate the need for Iran to develop an ICBM to deliver a nuclear warhead against the U.S. and could be executed clandestinely, taking the U.S. by surprise.”
Iran has previously called for Israel, our ally, to be “wiped off the map“.
Excerpt:
Leaders around the world on Thursday condemned a call by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel be “wiped off the map,” and a top Iranian official said that mass demonstrations in his country on Friday would rebuff the rising criticism from abroad.
“I have never come across a situation of the president of a country saying they want to . . . wipe out another country,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair said at a summit outside London of the 25 leaders of the European Union’s member states.
Blair said Ahmadinejad’s comment was “completely and totally unacceptable.”
In a joint statement, the E.U. leaders “condemned in the strongest terms” the Iranian president’s call, saying it “will cause concern about Iran’s role in the region and its future intentions.” President Jacques Chirac of France told reporters that Ahmadinejad risked Iran “being left on the outside of other nations.”
Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, in Israel, called the Iranian president’s statement “unacceptable.”
The statement was widely reported in the Arab world; leaders there reacted for the most part with silence. Most Arab countries have no diplomatic relations with Israel. But the Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said, according to the Associated Press: “We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and . . . we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran. This is unacceptable.”
U.S. and European leaders have grown increasingly worried about the bellicose attitude of Iran at a time when it is pursuing a nuclear program that they have said may be intended to produce a nuclear weapon.
Is Ron Paul right to want to let Iran have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles? Does he understand modern weapon systems? Is he aware of the threats that Achmadinejad has made to Israel and the United States? Is he aware of Iran’s military interference in Iraq? Does he understand how Iran influences Syria, which is now imitating Iran in shooting innocent people in the streets? Is he letting facts influence his ideology?
WINTERY KNIGHT 