New study by nonpartisan group finds that Bernie Sanders' economic plan would double the national debt, increase federal spending by 33 trillion dollars in 10 years.

Courtesy of the AP:

Sen. Bernie Sanders' tax and spending proposals would provide new levels of health and education benefits for American families, but they'd also blow an $18-trillion hole in federal deficits, piling on so much debt they would damage the economy. 

That sobering assessment comes from a joint analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute Health Policy Center, well-known Washington think tanks. 

Democratic presidential candidate Sanders would raise taxes by more than $15 trillion over 10 years, with most of that paid by upper-income earners. 

But that wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of his proposed government-run health care system, along with free undergraduate college, enhanced Social Security, family and medical leave, among other new programs. The cost of the health care plan alone is more than $30 trillion, according to the study. 

The bottom line: Sanders would add $18 trillion to federal debt over a decade. That's about double the current total government debt of $19 trillion.

Other news agencies have reported on the study as well.

Courtesy of Politico: 

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has proposed a whopping $33 trillion federal spending increase over 10 years, according to a new report likely to fuel complaints his campaign promises are unrealistic. 

His proposed tax increases would not come anywhere close to covering those costs, the centrist Tax Policy Center said Monday, and his plan would drive federal debt to “unprecedented” levels. 

Courtesy of the Washington Post: 

The studies, published jointly by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Urban Institute in Washington, concludes that Sanders's plans are short a total of more than $18 trillion over a decade. His programs would cost the federal government about $33 trillion over that period, almost all of which would go toward Sanders's proposed system of national health insurance. Yet the Democratic presidential candidate has put forward just $15 trillion in new taxes, the authors concluded. 

In principle, national health insurance could make many families better off overall, without imposing unsustainable burdens on the federal budget. For the system to work in terms of dollars and cents, though, the benefits would have to be less generous than they are in the system Sanders has proposed, or the taxes would have to be more onerous for the middle class, as they are in many European countries.

And the Chicago Tribune simply accuses Sanders of selling a "fantasy agenda."

This is certainly not the first report we have seen that Sanders' plans are simply not workable, but it seems to be the most comprehensive.

Of course ultimately it really doesn't matter what the cost might be because even IF Sanders was to win the nomination, and then the general election, there is absolutely no way any of this would ever make it past Congress.

And in fact it would be this very move towards a more socialist system that would help Republicans hold onto power and most likely increase their hold over the House and the Senate.

Newly elected Oklahoma Senator says that he will utilize a "Biblical worldview" to bring down national debt. Because when dealing with modern day problems why not rely on a book written over three thousand years ago?

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

Oklahoma Senator-elect James Lankford says his “biblical worldview” will guide his actions in the upper chamber. “Budget, for me, is still a huge area. The people have started to step back and say, ‘Well, our deficit is only $480 billion now so we are doing much better in deficit.’ We still have $480 billion. That’s a big deal,” the Republican congressman and Baptist minister told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Wednesday. 

“I come from a biblical worldview in the way I address issues,” Lankford said. “I look at Nehemiah and how he handled things when he stepped into Jerusalem. It was that the people were in disgrace and the wall was broken down, but the two things that he focused in on was the constructive side of things and the debt. Half of the Book of Nehemiah is just getting the people out of debt, so they could actually take on the other things.”

Lankford also suggested that it would help if more people prayed.  

“We are all pretty frustrated with what is happening in government, let’s lean in, let’s pray through, and let’s do this.”

It might be worth pointing out that President Obama has managed to cut the deficit in half without relying on the "wisdom" from Nehemia. So one can only wonder what Lankford's channeling of the spirit of Nehemia will instruct him to do differently.

I continue to be stunned that public officials are still attempting to perceive direction from a book written by primitive people who believed that the stars were stuck in a watery firmament, diseases were caused by demons, and that weather patterns could be changed through animal sacrifice.

Sarah Palin suggest that the politicians who "caved on the debt" should start drinking, and then attempts to compare running the country to her son Track running a lemonade stand. Wait, what?

When life gives you lemons, at this point make margaritas. Caving on debt could drive one to drink. This photo... http://t.co/iofNyTVbUB
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) October 16, 2013

That tweet linked to this photo:

Well somebody's been spending sleepless nights combing through old picture albums.

And this ghostwritten Facebook post:  

When life gives you lemons, at this point make margaritas.  Caving on debt could drive one to drink. (What kind of fucked up Margarita recipe calls for lemons?)

This photo of my son and nephew ran in our local newspaper about 15 years ago. I’m betting dollars to doughnuts our president skipped this universal childhood lesson in Economics 101, and perhaps that explains his problem understanding the tragedy to befall us as America drowns in debt. Running a lemonade stand teaches you to progress by the sweat of your brow and live within your means. It taught these boys that it was unacceptable and self-defeating to keep coming back to mama for more money for ingredients needed to concoct a product to sell to the public. Obviously more debt means less progress and opportunity to expand. Anyone who has run a business knows more debt equals less profit, and less profit means less ability to grow operations, employ more people, and even hold your head high above shortsighted economic decisions that history proves lead to failure. (Is she seriously comparing the running of  child's lemonade stand, to the running of a country the size of the United States? She was the Governor of Alaska, she HAS to know better than that, doesn't she?)


All these lessons about the kids’ lemonade stand and economic freedom apply to our families’ budgets, our businesses, and most certainly our government. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity. (Perhaps, but if the Republicans had not made taxes a four letter word we could raise enough revenue to pay the bills that we started to accrue the minute that George W. spent all of the Clinton surplus and then started two unnecessary wars.)  We’re in a deep hole; quit digging. We cannot ignore the economic realities of bankruptcy. (And there is nothing to suggest that the President is doing any such thing.)


President Obama is giddily enthused now about growing more debt, but just a few years prior when he was still a senator, he scolded America, proclaiming: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.…Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.” And on July 3, 2008, he declared, “driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars to $9 trillion is irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” If it was irresponsible and unpatriotic at $9 trillion, what is it at $17 trillion? 

Was he lying then or now? 

(The President defends that vote here: There is no daylight between his vote against raising the debt ceiling as a senator in 2006 and his call for Congress to increase the limit in the next 10 days, President Barack Obama said Wednesday. 

“Nothing has changed,” Obama told WFLA in an interview. “I voted against a debt ceiling increase at the time because I had some concerns about what President (George W.) Bush was doing.” 

The president said he has “no problem” if members of Congress choose to vote against raising the legal borrowing limit now, but took issue with House Speaker John Boehner’s choice not to bring a clean bill to the floor. And to be fair the President was signalling his dissatisfaction with the amount of spending done by the Bush administration and simply cast a protest vote, but he certainly would NOT have allowed the country to default no matter how indignant he was.)


Mr. President, boys and girls all across our great nation would no doubt share their lessons learned about the danger of debt. It’s our posterity you've made insecure when you doubled our national debt since taking office, which violates the preamble of our Constitution which speaks of securing “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” How can we secure our liberty when we’re hopelessly in debt to foreign nations? (Okay WHERE was this idiot when George Bush was borrowing money from China hand over fist?)You said today that the cool thing about being President is you can “pick up the phone and call anyone in the world and they’ll answer.” Call Track and Payton. I’m sure your NSA and IRS have their numbers. 

-Sarah Palin

I love how she keeps bringing up the NSA spying program as if it was Obama's creation and not Dubya's.

Look running the Federal government, keeping the country safe, and paying its creditors is so far removed from running a sidewalk lemonade stand that to suggest otherwise should be an indication of mental illness.

Sarah Palin may be a discredited has been today but at one time she really WAS the chief executive of the largest state in the union. However perhaps because Alaska is awash in oil money, and currently has a 21 billion dollar surplus, she is simply not aware of what it takes to run a country not bought and paid for with money from giant energy companies.

However I think Palin actually knows this, I don't think she is this stupid, she just assumes the paint chip eaters who still listen to her ARE that stupid.

And considering what we have seen of them, she is very likely right.

Thankfully the majority of the American people are not.

New study finds that "The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come."

George W. Bush: President, murderer, and traitor to his country.

Courtesy of the Harvard Kennedy School:

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history – totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid. Since 2001, the US has expanded the quality, quantity, availability and eligibility of benefits for military personnel and veterans. This has led to unprecedented growth in the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense budgets. These benefits will increase further over the next 40 years. Additional funds are committed to replacing large quantities of basic equipment used in the wars and to support ongoing diplomatic presence and military assistance in the Iraq and Afghanistan region. The large sums borrowed to finance operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will also impose substantial long-term debt servicing costs. As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives. The legacy of decisions taken during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will dominate future federal budgets for decades to come.

You know I have for all of my life had a pretty bad temper.  Actually a VERY bad temper.

I have much more control over it now than I did in years past, but this is the kind of thing that strips away those controls and throws me into an absolute rage.

As the Republicans bitch at our President for not balancing the budget, or not addressing the national debt, or not bringing down the deficit, they do so acting as if those were EVER their concerns when George Bush was spending billions of our dollars, murdering the Iraqi and Afghan people, while simultaneously sending American servicemen, and women, into the meat grinders of two unnecessary wars.

Did even ONE of them mention spending in those days? (Yes, I know about Ron Paul, but he is really dealing with a whole different set of delusions.)

These soldiers, the ones that survived, will for decades to come need the support of a United States government that betrayed their trust and forced them to do, and suffer, unspeakable atrocities in the name of "freedom."

And we will also continue to spend, for generations to come, billions of dollars to repair the damage that our bombs and bullets did to countries that, through no fault of their own, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yet the Republicans who gleefully and wholeheartedly voted to support these conflicts, and the money spent to conduct them, now have the audacity to demand that President Obama clean up their giant, expensive mess more quickly, and with virtually no support from them.

Like I said, I have a bad temper. Let's just say that there are members of the Republican party that do not want to meet me in a dark alley anytime soon. And that goes for the people who voted them into office as well.

(P.S. Before anybody gets their panties in a twist, you should know that I am not planning to hurt anybody physically. I have too much to lose, and nothing concrete to gain by doing so. But that does not mean that a face to face meeting with me would be something that one of these lawmakers should look forward to. I also possess a rather impressive and colorful vocabulary. And THAT I'm not afraid to use.)

Sean Hannity has a freshly scrubbed and deloused Sarah Palin on his show to lie about the President, ALMOST apologize for being a bitch, and to teach us all a little about history. (You don't HAVE to drink alcohol before reading this, but I strongly suggest it.)

In response to a survey which indicates that Americans have a more favorable opinion of socialism than he can stomach and a less favorable opinion of capitalism than he considers patriotic, Hannity decides to ask the Lunatic from Lake Lucille her opinion, because well contractually he still has to.

"I think what the survey represents Sean is perhaps some survey recipients (I'm pretty sure she met "participants" here) who answered the questions are confusing corrupt, dirty crony capitalism with genuine free market capitalism. Which is the good kind of capitalism. You know we've shown a bright light on the problems caused by crony capitalism in recent months and last year to, and I think that capitalism in general has taken a hit because of this new public awareness, because of that light that has been shown on crony capitalism perhaps people are believing that capitalism in general isn't such a good thing, of course that's a mistake to believe that."

In his next question Hannity COMPLETELY misrepresents the President, the situation the country faces, and the reason for the situation. Of course mooseshit is where Palin wallows, so she doesn't bat an eye in responding.

"Well first let's address President Obama's flip flop on his philosophy thee when it comes to raising the debt ceiling, he certainly condemned President Bush in those years of raising the deb ceiling and..uh..look where he's taken this country. (Obama explains the change in his point of view about the debt ceiling here: "I think that it's important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president. When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit - for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff. This is the full faith and credit of the United States. And so that was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it." Oh and look he even takes responsibility for his naivete.) 

Snowdrift Snooki continues: He's taken us in to a state of bankruptcy...um..with his changed idea on it being a good thing to raise the debt ceiling. A very scary proposal was recently revealed to by Geitner essentially saying let the President have free rein in raising the debt ceiling to whatever level he wants it. That's a very scary thought because Barack Obama is a socialist, He believes in socialism, in redistributing the wealth, in confiscating hard earned dollars of our small business men and women so that they cannot reinvest their dollars and hire more people, and grow and expand. Instead he believes in these failed socialist policies, and I say that not to personally condemn our President (Ri-i-i-ght!). I say it because I face reality (I'm sorry, you face what?), and I see what's going on, and I see the path that we are on and the fact that Barack Obama has not had a budget in the four years he's been in office and not been worried about it and continues to spend recklessly other people's money, and that is a sign of that idea of loving socialism."

Next Ins-Hannnity makes us all chuckle when he tries to use "math" to make his argument and then uses the old Romney talking point of claiming that people want "free stuff" and that is why they support Obama. He then reminds Klondike Kardashian that she called Republicans "wusses" during her interview with Greta.

"Well I guess I shouldn't call politicians names."

Hannity: "Why not?"

"I apologize for calling the "wobbly ones" wusses (Did Palin just apologize? Can somebody check the temperature in hell for me?) because that distracts from the point that has to be made (Oh never mind, still hot as ever, and likely to stay that way), and the point is that we are a bankrupt country sixteen trillion dollars in debt, and with entitlement..um..future lookings..um..really we're sixty...seventy...eighty dollars in debt. (Did that economic genius Sarah Palin just arbitrarily increase the national debt by sixty plus trillion dollars? Are we sure her father was a teacher?) There isn't enough money in the world to pay back the future generations that we have stolen from, AND foreign countries that we have borrowed from, AND through quantitative easing..uh..the money that's been printed out of thin air so I say, Republicans, go back to what the planks in your platform represent. It represents reining in government, putting back the power and the responsibility in the individual, not in the state, not in government. Again, that gets us towards socialism. What goes beyond socialism…is communism. I know I’m going to get slammed for speaking so bluntly about what’s going on here, but that’s exactly what is going on. Just, you know,  read history, see what's going on, see how these once very mighty empires have fallen because of government being so burdensome on the people and taking away opportunity, and freedom. Taking away individuals work ethic that leas to the downfall of that country, of that empire.” (You know interestingly enough historian Mark Curtis attributes the fall of the English empire, to in his book 'Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World', to the exactly appositive reason: "The reality is that British governments bear significant responsibility for global poverty-not only as a former colonial power that shaped many of the current unjust structures, but in their championing of a world trade system and economic ideology that enriches the few and impoverishes many more...Yet I do not think I have ever seen a media article that mentions that Britain might in some way systematically contribute to poverty in the world. Is this not extraordinary?" Remarkable certainly, and extraordinary perhaps so, but somehow this tallies with everything anyone who merely wishes to be honest about the British Empire, and about the realities of empire; those of unequal power and wealth relations, and of little or no moral culpability or responsibility. The fuel of the British Empire was not coal or wool after all, but an incredible lack of concern for those trampled underfoot in the quest for bigger and bigger profits.)

Wow, math lessons from Sean Hannity and History lessons from Sarah Palin, I can almost hear my brain cells screaming in anguish.

Italy to strip churches of their tax exempt status. Seriously?

Courtesy of the Telegraph:  

The Church currently pays tax on several properties it owns that are commercial enterprises but is exempt if at least some of the activities on the property are "non-commercial" - for example a chapel in a hotel. 

"The regulatory framework will be definite by January 1, 2013 - the start of the fiscal year - and will fully respect the (European) Community law," Prime Minister Mario Monti's government said in a statement late Tuesday. 

In February, the government had amended Italy's property tax law to end the Church's privileges amid rising calls for the Vatican to share in debt crisis sacrifices and in the face of intense scrutiny from the European Commission. 

On Monday the Council of State, Italy's highest ranking court for administrative litigation, rejected the decree. But the government insisted everyone would pay property tax, Church included.

Way to go Italy!

I literally dream of the day when the churches in America are stripped of their tax exempt status and made to pay their fair share to support the services, like street repair, police support, and firefighters, which they currently enjoy for free.

By the way taxing the churches would bring in an additional 71 billion annually and essentially pay down this country's debts in no time at all. Just think about that for awhile.

Perhaps the Republicans should have considered the layout of their convention a little more carefully. Update: Picture is photoshopped.

Courtesy of Happy Place:

When Republicans devised their brilliant plan to shame the Obama administration by mounting this massive debt clock above the convention, they probably should've taken a second to consider the giant, ubiquitous catchphrase unfortunately placed right beneath it. If this is the kind of foresight Republicans bring to the table, it's no wonder Bush left us with two wars and a huge round of tax cuts we had no way to pay for. The only person who should be suffering a "job crisis" right now is whoever thought this juxtaposition was a good idea. Maybe Romney should fire him. We hear he's pretty good at that.

So what do you think? Is this the result of some mole within the convention center playing a prank, or just another example of the stupidity which oozes through the very veins of the GOP?

Update: Apparently the folks at Buzzfeed discovered that his photo AS photoshopped.

Oh well both of these signs WERE up at the same time in the same convention. So though they weren't up right next to each other, they WERE ironically on display which clearly inspired somebody to combine them in the photo above.

But hey, do you know what WASN'T photoshopped? Clint Eastwood arguing with an empty chair, which you can now see up above this post.

The truth about our national debt.

You can learn more by clicking here.

I think President Obama has finally found an effective way to explain the economy to the American people.

Courtesy of Politico:

 "I love it when these guys talk about debt and deficits," Obama told supporters in Baltimore. "I inherited a trillion dollar deficit." 

"We signed two trillion dollars in spending cuts into law," Obama said. "Spending under my administration has grown more slowly than under any president in 60 years." 

Obama said that the country's budget deficits and big debt were the result of the George W. Bush's two tax cuts, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. 

"They baked all this stuff into the cake with those tax cuts... and the war," Obama said. 

"It's like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, a martini and all that stuff, then just as you're sitting down they leave and accuse you of running up the tab," Obama said. 

"When I hear Gov. Romney say his 25 years in the private sector give him a special understanding of how the economy works, my question is, why are you running with the same bad ideas that brought our economy to the brink?" Obama said. "Why he believes it will lead to a different result this time, although there's no evidence of that." 

I think framing this as being struck with the check for somebody else's extravagance is the PERFECT way to make it accessible to the average American.

GOP claim that President Obama has "spent more than every other president combined" is a total fabrication, and actually the opposite of the truth.

Courtesy of Market Watch:

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree. 

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.” 

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true. 

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics: 

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget. 
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. 
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion. 
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August. 
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

I have to tell you that one of the most exhausting parts of political blogging is shooting down GOP lies. And the ones they tell about this President are relentless.

That is why it is so important to constantly make sure to find the truth and disseminate it as far and wide as possible.

Simply put this President has kept taxes low, won the war on terrorism, improved the economy, and kept government spending to its lowest levels EVER. In other words he has done everything the Republicans claim he has failed to do, and everything that they are trying to convince the American people Mitt Romney can do better.

Yeah, right!

The Right Wing will NEVER believe that they are wrong about this no matter how many times they are shown the facts, but there are still a number of independents and unsophisticated Democrats who need to see the truth as often possible.

So please do your best to make sure they do exactly that.  The country is counting on you.

P.S. By the way my headline comes from the whopper told by Mitt Romney, and repeated often since, that Obama "racked up as much debt as almost all of the other presidents combined."

As you now know that's a lie.

Do you know what's not a lie? That Mitt Romney is a fucking liar!

Update: Here is Rachel Maddow's take on this information.

Just something to keep in mind the next time you hear a Republican complain about Obama's increase of the national debt.

H/T to 2012 Presidential Candidates.

Update: Apparently the numbers used to make this chart were off when compiling the numbers for George W. and Obama. I don't think it was purposeful, but it was an error. (This chart originated with Nancy Pelosi.)

I realize this is not nearly as impressive, but I would like to point out that the largest amount which Obama added to the debt was the 19% added during his first year in office, which is due to the stimulus package that he launched in order to keep the economy from cratering, and to undue some of the damage that George Bush had inflicted during his previous eight years.

Personally I would like to keep that amount as part of George W. Bush's tally.

Will the recent tornadoes damage the GOP's anti-government argument?

From the Kansas City Star:

A pernicious story line, recited on talk radio, in state legislatures and in some quarters of Washington, says that government can’t do anything right. Government is the problem, Ronald Reagan famously said. And a vast political and business alliance works furiously to make his declaration a self-fulfilling prophecy by underfunding vital programs and disparaging public employees.

But when disaster strikes, we expect government to work. We need it to work. Last week, it did.
Police, firefighters and medics made their way through the dark and the rain Sunday night to rescue the trapped and aid the wounded. Kansas City had 50 firefighters en route within hours. Its police department sent communications specialists, tactical teams, a search-and-rescue dog and a traffic enforcement squad.

Other cities sent first-responder teams. They worked in the rain that first day, searching the rubble for survivors and for bodies. In a cruel sign that nature hadn’t quite finished its mayhem, two police officers from Riverside were felled by a lightning strike. Officer Jeff Taylor was gravely injured.
Like the city he was helping, he will have a long road to recovery.

Throughout the week, personnel from the state of Missouri poured into Joplin. The National Guard and the Highway Patrol got there quickly. Officials with expertise in emergency management, insurance, mental health, care of senior citizens, land use and power grids followed.

The often-maligned Federal Emergency Management Agency got a team to Joplin within hours of the tornado to set up telecommunications and help with logistics and support.

This in no way diminishes the vital role of the Red Cross and other nonprofit agencies, and of businesses, in responding to the disaster. But public employees and government agencies make up the underpinning of the recovery effort.

The need for government help in Joplin will continue for years. Streets must be replaced. Schools and a hospital must be rebuilt. Families will need temporary housing.

It is easy to wax poetic about trimming government spending, and cutting costs to taxpayers, but when disaster strikes, or our elderly loved ones suffer a health crisis, aren't we ALL suddenly fans of government programs like FEMA, Medicare, and even the National Guard?

That is why the Republican rhetoric is simply blown away in the wind when  you look out the window and see this bearing down on you.



I don't know about the rest of you, but after seeing the images of the devastation left in the wake of these massive tornadoes, I am one hundred percent on support of having my taxes raised to pay for the programs that help my fellow Americans.

But hey if we are going to get serious about cutting government costs, I know a couple of wars I would gladly see come to an end.  Just a thought.

Are Republicans really the fiscal conservatives they claim to be? Not according to this chart.