Tea Party Senate candidate dabbled in witchcraft

[Conan71]

Take a look at these figures:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575067350881049536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration's budget estimates 218% in 2050.

The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.

If Obama had simply kept Bush's spending policies in place, federal deficits over the next eight years would be 60 percent lower. In 2018, we'd have a deficit of just $188 billion, instead of the projected $996 billion under Obama's budget.

Heir neglects to note that during greater growth in debt, Democrats were in control of the HOR.  From 1994 to 2002, a GOP-led house kept the debt relatively in check along with having the good fortune of a relatively stable period of foreign relations and no major natural disasters.  Even during the Bush II years, until 2007 when Democrats again took control of the HOR, debt rose at a measured pace.  Since then the debt has grown by $4.5 trillion, a 50% increase in just four years.

[Gaspar]

Why not vote them back in?

[JeffM]

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/what-the-wall-street-journal-editors-want/

Finally, the WSJ editors said, "The Reagan and Clinton-Gingrich booms were fostered by a policy environment for most of that era of lower taxes, spending restraint and sound money." Spending restraint?? Have the editors forgotten how Reagan began the largest debt growth in post WWII history, and how Clinton's surplus introduced the 2001 recession?

I should commend the WSJ editors for one statement: " . . . much of the U.S. stimulus went for transfer payments such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance . . . " True, and a perfect reason why taxes ostensibly "for" Medicaid and unemployment insurance should be eliminated. Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.

The balance of the editorial contained the usual fulmination about the size of the federal debt and deficits, with also, as usual, no facts showing how debt and deficits harm the economy. They end their editorial this way: "With the economy in recession in 2008 and 2009, we argued that some stimulus was justified and an increase in the deficit was understandable and inevitable."

So, to summarize the WSJ position: Deficits were justified when times were bad; they are not justified when times are good. Today, times are bad and deficits are not justified.

Do you wonder why our politicians are confused?

[RecycleMichael]

Back to the topic about the witch...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/hl-50091017/saturday_night_live_christine_odonnell_ad_season_36/

[Ed W]

Back to the topic about the witch...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/hl-50091017/saturday_night_live_christine_odonnell_ad_season_36/

What witch?  Did someone switch witches on us?  If so, which witch?  Could it be a sandwich or a ditch witch?  Which witch swiped my sandwich and fed it to the ditch witch?  Wishy washy witches washed my sandwich dishes.

I gotta cut back on the espresso.

[RecycleMichael]

I gotta cut back on the espresso.

I witch you would.

[dbacks fan]

What witch?  Did someone switch witches on us?  If so, which witch?  Could it be a sandwich or a ditch witch?  Which witch swiped my sandwich and fed it to the ditch witch?  Wishy washy witches washed my sandwich dishes.

I gotta cut back on the espresso.

Can some one pass the Excedrin please?

[RecycleMichael]

I gots to get me this Christine O'Donnell Witch Doll...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-christine-odonnell-witch-doll/

[Conan71]

I gots to get me this Christine O'Donnell Witch Doll...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/this-exists-christine-odonnell-witch-doll/

Is there an inflatable version?

[Hoss]

Is there an inflatable version?

Now Conan, you know she wouldn't sell her likeness for things of that nature...she knows what one might do with it.

And I'll admit it; she's an attractive woman.  A bit of a cross with Tina Fey and Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

[nathanm]

Heir neglects to note that during greater growth in debt, Democrats were in control of the HOR.  From 1994 to 2002, a GOP-led house kept the debt relatively in check along with having the good fortune of a relatively stable period of foreign relations and no major natural disasters.  Even during the Bush II years, until 2007 when Democrats again took control of the HOR, debt rose at a measured pace.  Since then the debt has grown by $4.5 trillion, a 50% increase in just four years.

Whocouldanode that tax receipts fall during a recession? 

[Conan71]

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/what-the-wall-street-journal-editors-want/

Finally, the WSJ editors said, "The Reagan and Clinton-Gingrich booms were fostered by a policy environment for most of that era of lower taxes, spending restraint and sound money." Spending restraint?? Have the editors forgotten how Reagan began the largest debt growth in post WWII history, and how Clinton's surplus introduced the 2001 recession?

I should commend the WSJ editors for one statement: " . . . much of the U.S. stimulus went for transfer payments such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance . . . " True, and a perfect reason why taxes ostensibly "for" Medicaid and unemployment insurance should be eliminated. Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.

The balance of the editorial contained the usual fulmination about the size of the federal debt and deficits, with also, as usual, no facts showing how debt and deficits harm the economy. They end their editorial this way: "With the economy in recession in 2008 and 2009, we argued that some stimulus was justified and an increase in the deficit was understandable and inevitable."

So, to summarize the WSJ position: Deficits were justified when times were bad; they are not justified when times are good. Today, times are bad and deficits are not justified.

Do you wonder why our politicians are confused?

Rodger Mitchell has some interesting views on economics, like how Federal taxes could and should be eliminated because the government doesn't need tax money to create money, they can simply print it or transfer it to your savings account with no repercussions and that debts don't matter.

"Wrong, wrong and wrong. Federal spending relies neither on taxes nor on borrowing. For today's monetarily sovereign nations, federal spending neither is constrained nor facilitated by any form of income, either from taxes or borrowing. Federal spending is accommodated by the simple device of crediting bank accounts, which the government can do endlessly. If taxes and borrowing were reduced to $0, this would not affect by even one penny, the federal government's ability to spend."

(cited from Jeffm's article)

[Conan71]

Whocouldanode that tax receipts fall during a recession? 

Which means it's a bad time to pay back the unions, *cough* er um, well... help the "American worker"

[Gaspar]

[Gaspar]

Her ads are funny. . .
http://www.coonsthetaxman.com/