Debt Clock

[Tom]

The National Debt Clock hit $14 TRILLION this week, just as Obama finished running up a $1 million bill for his 10 day vacation in the Islands.

You remember Obama, the guy who kept talking about our "shared sacrifices?"

Between he and his wife's vacations so far, how many people could have good health care policies? 10? 100? 1000?

Your Tax Dollars at work.

[boxcar]

But all is well. Have no fear; for beneath the clock in the Big Apple is an IRS office. Talk about irony!

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

The National Debt Clock hit $14 TRILLION this week, just as Obama finished running up a $1 million bill for his 10 day vacation in the Islands.

.

He provided employment didn't he?

[boxcar]

He provided employment didn't he?

'tis true. Look at all those census workers...................who are now, again, unemployed.

Boxcar

[Saratoga_Mike]

But all is well. Have no fear; for beneath the clock in the Big Apple is an IRS office. Talk about irony!

Boxcar

I thought it was a Bank Of America.

[ArlJim78]

speaking of debt, watch this video of the highly qualified Harry Reid discussing the raising of the debt limit back in 2006. He railed against raising it to the astonishing level of 9 trillion, laying all the blame on Republicans. Well after a mere 4 years of Democratic rule we're now told that it must go up to 14 trillion or else Democrats say that we'll be in effect defaulting.

http://nation.foxnews.com/debt-ceiling/2011/01/05/reid-raising-debt-ceiling-06-weakens-country-hurts-economy

i don't know which is funnier, this one, or Pelois saying yesterday that Democrats are all about deficit reduction, that it is their mantra. In a sane world she would be laughed off the stage and committed.

[mostpost]

The National Debt Clock hit $14 TRILLION this week, just as Obama finished running up a $1 million bill for his 10 day vacation in the Islands.You remember Obama, the guy who kept talking about our "shared sacrifices?"

Between he and his wife's vacations so far, how many people could have good health care policies? 10? 100? 1000?

Your Tax Dollars at work.
I want to talk about the bolded portion of your post. It is a perfect example of how the right here uses incomplete and inaccurate information to make their points. The idea that the Obama's Hawaiian vacation cost the taxpayers $1.4M can be found on many blogs, but the origin appears to be this story.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/president-obamas-million-dollar-plus-trip-to-hawaii-costs-to-taxpayers-detailed

The article begins by pointing out how luxurious the accommodations are and wondering why Obama and family and friends did not stay at the nearby Marine base. The implication is that us taxpayers are paying for Obama's desire for luxury. But the third paragraph states:
Instead, Obama and his friends annually pool their money to pay for the rental of three luxury beachfront homes.
In other words, the rentals cost us nothing.

Then the article states:
This year, the president’s wife and family flew ahead of the President on an Air Force C-40B Special Mission Aircraft, a 32 passenger plane, which according to a White House Dossier analysis, cost taxpayers an estimated $63,000 or $6,330 per hour.
"White House Dossier" makes one think this is an official estimate from the White House itself. In fact, WHD is a blog. A blog which has titles like "Obama's Depleting US Lobster Supply." Obama Fails to Commemorate D-Day" and "The Nine Snootiest Practices of Barack Obama."
As for the $63,000, I don't know if that is right, but the article itself points out that it is money which goes from one part of the government, the White House, to another, the Defense Department. Not only that, but it is very possible that the plane was going to Hawaii anyway.

The president followed four days later on Air Force One, which according to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, costs $181,757 per hour to operate. The Government Accountability Office estimates the cost of a roundtrip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One at $1 million.
I copied and pasted "National Taxpayers Union Foundation" to my search bar. It came up "no results found". The National Taxpayers Union Foundation does not exist. The author of the article used a phony organization to claim a phony cost. I searched the GAO website and found no estimate for a trip to Hawaii.

Just one more example of the Bash Obama facts be darned philosophy. And you fall for it every time.
ETA: Apparently I need to practice my search skills. There is indeed a NTUF. I have no idea why it came up as "no results" the first time. I still question the validity of their estimate.

[bigmack]

I copied and pasted "National Taxpayers Union Foundation" to my search bar. It came up "no results found". The National Taxpayers Union Foundation does not exist. The author of the article used a phony organization to claim a phony cost.
If I were you I'd put a little grease on the old search bar.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/ntltax.png

[newtothegame]

So is Obama for or against the debt ceiling being increased....??????:lol:


Gibbs: Obama Opposed Raising Debt Ceiling Before He Was For It
In 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama had some stern words for his colleagues who were voting to increase America’s debt ceiling. But just four years later, President Barack Obama is singing a very different tune.

Just four years ago, Obama decried (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=1&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.abcnews.com%2Fpoliticalpunc h%2F2011%2F01%2Fsenator-obamas-vote-against-raising-the-debt-ceiling-and-the-assassination-of-salman-taseer-todays-q.html&rct=j&q=The%20fact%20that%20we%20are%20here%20today%20to %20debate%20raising%20America%27s%20debt%20limit%2 0is%20a%20sign%20of%20leadership%20failure&ei=LRUlTeG3MOfpnQeBmND4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFkxTG2qTHWKTHpOqYU0ywTMYwqIw&cad=rja) politicians’ lack of leadership and failure to rein in federal spending:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gibbs-obama-opposed-raising-debt-ceiling-before-he-was-for-it/

lol :lol:

[teddy]

45000 PER AMERICAN. My question is, if we owe that much in national debt then isnt it mostly loans on our houses that others hold paper on. So if they housing market tanks and they get forclosed on, then we win! Our debt goes down. Also. how much debt is china in.... ect... maybe were not so bad off.

[teddy]

US Gross Debt 2008 10024.7bn 72.5% of GDP (EST) (US Debt);
Japan National Debt 194% of GDP 2008 est) 836521 trillion yen 2007;
Italy National Debt 107% of GDP (FT) ...

Japan has almost triple our debt based on gdp... ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC BY POLITICIANS IS HOW I SEE THIS WHOLE ..NATIONAL DEBT STUFF.

[lamboguy]

i was always taught that the best measure of wealth is not how much you have but how much you owe

[RaceBookJoe]

i was always taught that the best measure of wealth is not how much you have but how much you owe

Exactly !!! You cant get out of credit debt by piling on more credit. rbj

[Saratoga_Mike]

US Gross Debt 2008 10024.7bn 72.5% of GDP (EST) (US Debt);
Japan National Debt 194% of GDP 2008 est) 836521 trillion yen 2007;
Italy National Debt 107% of GDP (FT) ...

Japan has almost triple our debt based on gdp... ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC BY POLITICIANS IS HOW I SEE THIS WHOLE ..NATIONAL DEBT STUFF.

There's a huge difference between Japan and the United States. Historically Japan has financed the vast majority of its deficits internally* (Japanese citizens/institutions), which has allowed their govt to borrow below global rates. A 10-yr bond in Japan yields about 1.2% right now, while a comparable maturity in the US yields about 3.4%. Anyway, the Japanese economy isn't one we really want to emulate at this pt. Finally, the numbers you cite exclude consumer debt. In the US, consumer debt to GDP is approximately 97% or 98% (the long-term avg since the 1950s is 55%).

*due to changing demographics, this probably isn't sustainable, but some very smart people have been burned on this thought over the past couple of yrs.

[Tom]

We need to get serious.
Spending must be limited to not a penny more than we take in.
Anything else needed must be 100% covered by cuts in other areas, and a list of those areas and how much should be available to instant use so there are no surprises.

[Saratoga_Mike]

We need to get serious.
Spending must be limited to not a penny more than we take in.Anything else needed must be 100% covered by cuts in other areas, and a list of those areas and how much should be available to instant use so there are no surprises.

And we both know that's going to happen!

[teddy]

And we both know that's going to happen!
HOW BOUT WE SPEND LESS THAN WE TAKE IN, THEN NO BODY BUYS CHINESE PRODUCTS, THEN THEY DONT BUY ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANY MONEY OR JOBS, RIOT, AND THEN ATTACK US AND KILL US ALL.

[Tom]

And we both know that's going to happen!

Maybe when the Chinese take over.

[mostpost]

So is Obama for or against the debt ceiling being increased....??????:lol:


Gibbs: Obama Opposed Raising Debt Ceiling Before He Was For It
In 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama had some stern words for his colleagues who were voting to increase America’s debt ceiling. But just four years later, President Barack Obama is singing a very different tune.

Just four years ago, Obama decried (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=1&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.abcnews.com%2Fpoliticalpunc h%2F2011%2F01%2Fsenator-obamas-vote-against-raising-the-debt-ceiling-and-the-assassination-of-salman-taseer-todays-q.html&rct=j&q=The%20fact%20that%20we%20are%20here%20today%20to %20debate%20raising%20America%27s%20debt%20limit%2 0is%20a%20sign%20of%20leadership%20failure&ei=LRUlTeG3MOfpnQeBmND4AQ&usg=AFQjCNFkxTG2qTHWKTHpOqYU0ywTMYwqIw&cad=rja) politicians’ lack of leadership and failure to rein in federal spending:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said on March 16, 2006. “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gibbs-obama-opposed-raising-debt-ceiling-before-he-was-for-it/

lol :lol:
In 2006 the Republicans were in power (Presidency) and the democrats (Obama) were trying to make political capital out of the deficit. Now the Democrats control the presidency and the Republicans are trying to make political capital out of the deficit.
It's all posturing anyway. A few people will vote against raising the debt ceiling to assuage their more radical followers, but only because they know it has enough votes to pass without them.

The potential consequences of not increasing the Debt ceiling are greater than the consequences of adding to the debt.
If the quote is accurate, and that is a very big IF Obama was wrong then; he is correct now.

[bigmack]

Republicans are trying to make political capital out of the deficit.
I continue to see this myth urged at your Mothership, MSnBC. A common theme of late has been to cynically ax where these cuts are going to come from. Big Ed is on the rampage for unions and the working man.

Do you dopes realize the gravity of the situation at this juncture? It may have been a game in the past but you're stone cold fools if you don't 'get down' with the seriousness of our debt.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I continue to see this myth urged at your Mothership, MSnBC. A common theme of late has been to cynically ax where these cuts are going to come from. Big Ed is on the rampage for unions and the working man.Do you dopes realize the gravity of the situation at this juncture? It may have been a game in the past but you're stone cold fools if you don't 'get down' with the seriousness of our debt.

I watched his disgraceful program for 3 minutes last night, switching after he indicated Reps wanted to control minorities.

[teddy]

I hope they all dont buy up the student loan debt.. hahahahah kids these days got no shot

[mostpost]

I continue to see this myth urged at your Mothership, MSnBC. A common theme of late has been to cynically ax where these cuts are going to come from. Big Ed is on the rampage for unions and the working man.

Do you dopes realize the gravity of the situation at this juncture? It may have been a game in the past but you're stone cold fools if you don't 'get down' with the seriousness of our debt.
Not a myth. It's clear to anyone who has eyes and wants to use them.
it is also clear how most of the deficit came about. Beginning with Reagan who cut taxes and increased military spending, continuing through GWB who cut taxes, did nothing to cut domestic spending, and precipitated an unnecesary and expensive war. We can alo thank Mr. Bush for much of the deficit we have incurred in the last two years.

[bigmack]

Not a myth. It's clear to anyone who has eyes and wants to use them.
You are by far the most hyper-partisan gent around these parts. It's really quite putrid.

Camping in a rainstorm you'd be the one trying to figure out who forgot to pack the matches. Who cares.

How 'bout you just 'get out the way' and let some people try and solve this ghastly mess?

[Tom]

When you are done trying to point fingers, try joining those that are trying to tackle the problem.

[JustRalph]

Mostie, you conveniently forgot to mention that "the debt" you speak of is now 13 times what it was when the Repubs were in the positions you speak of. The last Congress spent more money than the 100 before it, combined.

There is a huge reason to now be concerned about it.

[hcap]

So far

By absolute numbers

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

By % GDP


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html

This graph shows that $9.2 Trillion of the $12 Trillion supply-sider increase in national debt is considered problematic by economists. They say it is fine to increase the debt in step with national income. Republicans say the whole $12 Trillion is a problem.

WWII caused the debt to shoot up, starting in 1942, and reach 30% higher relative to the country's wealth than it is today. The economic stimulus of that government spending pulled us out of the great depression and into high gear to win the war. (When to save / when to borrow.)

... The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step with inflation and the economy—if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a president who said he'd do far better than those before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP.
By the end of the Reagan-Bush 12-year "revolution," the extra debt they had piled on the country was costing the country an extra 2.6% of GDP in interest—$300 million a day. Without that interest working against him, Clinton would have paid down the debt a bit faster. That helps the green-line goes down in the Clinton years. That's what would have happened without the Reagan-Bush interest burden.


Another view

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/09/debt.jpg


Previously

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Reagan-Revolution.gif

[RaceBookJoe]

Interesting show last night on History Channel called " Prophets of Doom ". There was a small group who gave a few crushing possibilities to the US...and one guy talked about the Financial problems...check it out when it replays. Couple of other areas they talked about were Peak Oil, Water, Energy, Self-aware artificial intelligences, and nuclear terrorism. The show had an apocolyptic feel to it, but it makes you think about things. rbj

[mostpost]

So far

By absolute numbers

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png

By % GDP


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/US-National-Debt-GDP.gif

http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html



Another view

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/09/debt.jpg


Previously

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-Reagan-Revolution.gif
Excellent presentation of the facts, (Even if it did screw up the page :lol: :lol:)which of course means it will have no effect on the opinions of the cons here. :bang: :bang:

[mostpost]

Mostie, you conveniently forgot to mention that "the debt" you speak of is now 13 times what it was when the Repubs were in the positions you speak of. The last Congress spent more money than the 100 before it, combined.

There is a huge reason to now be concerned about it.
You conveniently forget to mention that the debt, when the last Republican president (George W. Bush) left office, was already ten times what it was when Ronald Reagan took office. How many of those 28 years was there a Republican President? Twenty.
And how much of the extra $3T was made necesary to fix the Bush Recession?

[Tom]

Not the whole story though. Plot is again who controlled congress and it will show a 5 trillion dollar increase (35%) under Pelosi.

You know why it is a problem - because your guys still refuse to treat it as a problem and look only to try to blame it on some one.

One is a union boy...go figure.

[Tom]

FTFY.....

[mostpost]

Not the whole story though. Plot is again who controlled congress and it will show a 5 trillion dollar increase (35%) under Pelosi.

You know why it is a problem - because your guys still refuse to treat it as a problem and look only to try to blame it on some one.

One is a union boy...go figure.
Who controlled Congress? There have been fifteen congresses since 1981. This does not include the one which just took office. Republicans controlled the Senate in eight of those. Democrats controlled the Senate in five. Two were evenly split.
Democrats controlled the House nine times. Republicans controlled the House six times, all between 1995 and 2007. Each party controlled both houses of Congress five times.
But this is not really important. It is the Administration that sets the policy. The Congress can either reject it or accept it.

I am not denying the debt is a problem. I reject that it was caused entirely (or even mostly) by the Democrats. History proves otherwise.

[boxcar]

I am not denying the debt is a problem. I reject that it was caused entirely (or even mostly) by the Democrats. History proves otherwise.

Remind us again, of all the things the Dems have done in the last decade or so to reduce spending. My memory must be failing me 'cause I can't remember all their spending solutions.

Boxcar

[hcap]

From the article I quoted..

This graph shows that $9.2 Trillion of the $12 Trillion supply-sider increase in national debt is considered problematic by economists. They say it is fine to increase the debt in step with national income. Republicans say the whole $12 Trillion is a problem.

WWII caused the debt to shoot up, starting in 1942, and reach 30% higher relative to the country's wealth than it is today. The economic stimulus of that government spending pulled us out of the great depression and into high gear to win the war. (When to save / when to borrow.)

... The green line in the graph shows what would have happened if Reagan had proposed budgets that let the debt increase in step with inflation and the economy—if he had kept it at a constant fraction of GDP. That's not much to ask of a president who said he'd do far better than those before him, since every previous post-war president had actually reduced the debt as a fraction of GDP.
By the end of the Reagan-Bush 12-year "revolution," the extra debt they had piled on the country was costing the country an extra 2.6% of GDP in interest—$300 million a day. Without that interest working against him, Clinton would have paid down the debt a bit faster. That helps the green-line goes down in the Clinton years. That's what would have happened without the Reagan-Bush interest burden.

[mostpost]

Remind us again, of all the things the Dems have done in the last decade or so to reduce spending. My memory must be failing me 'cause I can't remember all their spending solutions.

Boxcar
Remind me of the things Republicans have done. I don't mean things they have talked about like eliminating Social Security, I mean things they have done.
Here is the official spending from 1995 to the present (2009) along with who was president and who controlled each house of Congress.
Year President Senate House Spending in millions Increase % increase
1995 D R R 1,515,884 xxxxxxx
1996 D R R 1,560,608 44,724 2.9 2.93
1997 D R R 1,601,307 40,699 2.6 2.34
1998 D R R 1,652,685 51,378 3.2 1.55
1999 D R R 1,702,035 49,620 3.0 2.19
2000 D R R 1,789,216 87,181 5.1 3.38
2001 R E R 1,863,190 73,974 4.1 2.83
2002 R E R 2,011,153 147,963 7.9 1.59
2003 R R R 2,160,117 148,964 7.4 2.27
2004 R R R 2,293,006 132,889 6.15 2.68
2005 R R R 2,472,205 179,199 7.8 3.39
2006 R R R 2,655,435 183,230 7.4 3.24
2007 R D D 2,728,940 73,505 2.7 2.8
2008 R D D 2,982,881 253,941 9.3 3.85
2009 D D D 3,997,842 1,014,961 34.0 -.34

What do we see from these figures. We see that during Clinton's years, spending increased at about the same rate as inflation. During the Bush years, spending increased at two to three times the rate of inflation; Until 2007 when he got a democratic congress. 2008 and especially 2009 are anomalies due to the economic crisis.

The figures above come from here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/hist.html
select table 1.1

The last column of my table is the inflation rate.

[mostpost]

Mostie, you conveniently forgot to mention that "the debt" you speak of is now 13 times what it was when the Repubs were in the positions you speak of. The last Congress spent more money than the 100 before it, combined. There is a huge reason to now be concerned about it.
Not even close to true!! Did someone tell you this or did you just make it up yourself?

Spending from 1989 to 2010. You need only go back through 2006, 2007, and 2008 to equal the spending of the 110th congress.
1,143,829
1,253,130
1,324,331
1,381,649
1,409,522
1,461,907
1,515,884
1,560,608
1,601,307
1,652,685
1,702,035
1,789,216
1,863,190
2,011,153
2,160,117
2,293,006
2,472,205
2,655,435
2,728,940
2,982,881
3,997,842
3,591,076
Same link as above.

[cj's dad]

Every time you post I am convinced that you are Robert Gibbs or a clone of same. Has BO EVER done anything wrong in your opinion ??

[Tom]

Nancy Pelosi left us with $5 trillion more in the hole than when she got that big gavel. Facts, mostie. Bush spent a lot of money reacting to 9-11 and rebuilding a military that Clinton left gutted while he allowed Al Qeda to grow and develop and lay the groundwork for 9-11 on our very oil.

[mostpost]

Every time you post I am convinced that you are Robert Gibbs or a clone of same. Has BO EVER done anything wrong in your opinion ??
Obama is not perfect. He just looks good when you compare him to Republicans.

[mostpost]

Nancy Pelosi left us with $5 trillion more in the hole than when she got that big gavel. Facts, mostie. Bush spent a lot of money reacting to 9-11 and rebuilding a military that Clinton left gutted while he allowed Al Qeda to grow and develop and lay the groundwork for 9-11 on our very oil.
Hey, you got something right. OIL. Exactly why we invaded Iraq. Had nothing to do with 9/11

[Tom]

Soil


d'oh!

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hey, you got something right. OIL. Exactly why we invaded Iraq. Had nothing to do with 9/11

Idiotic. Just how have we made money from Iraqi oil? Do we control all of their production? Did we under Bush?

Let's say Bush's sinister plan was to keep 1 mm/barrels/day of Iraqi oil production, a little less than half. And at the time, he thought we could clear $25/barrel (the stuff doesn't come out of the ground for free and prices were much lower at the time). That's $9 billion/yr. At the time, let's say Bush foolishly thought the war would only cost $200 bb. That would still make it a negative net present value project, meaning it wouldn't make financial sense (upfront costs of the war wouldn't be justified).

All this said, the Iraq War was a huge mistake, but don't buy into the "it was about the oil" line. It's pure nonsense.

[hcap]

Further ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html

The lost decade for the economy

The U.S. economy has expanded
at a healthy clip for most of the last
70 years, but by a wide range of measures,
it stagnated in the first decade of the new millennium.

Job growth was essentially zero,
as modest job creation from
2003 to 2007 wasn't enough to make up
for two recessions in the decade.
Rises in the nation's economic output,
as measured by gross domestic product,
was weak. And household net worth,
when adjusted for inflation, fell as stock
prices stagnated, home prices declined in the
second half of the decade and consumer debt skyrocketed.


http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.jpg

[hcap]

One more item

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/recovery-act-kept-4-5-million-people-out-of-poverty-in-2009-helping-keep-poverty-flat/


Recovery Act Kept 4.5 Million People Out of Poverty in 2009,
Helping Keep Poverty Flat
January 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Our analysis of data that the Census Bureau released this week shows that the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was one of the single most effective pieces of antipoverty legislation in decades.In 2009, the Recovery Act’s temporary expansion of the safety net kept 4.5 million people out of poverty.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/1-5-11pov-f1-homepage.jpg

[hcap]

And you gentlemen want to return to the good old bush years?

Republicans these days can't get through a sentence without tossing in their new favorite adjective, "job-killing."

There's "job-killing legislation," in particular the health-care reform law. And "job-killing regulations," especially anything coming out of the EPA and the IRS. Big deficits are always "job-killing," which might come as something of a surprise to all you Keynesians out there, along with the "job-killing spending binge" and even "job-killing stimulus projects."

President Obama, we are told repeatedly, runs a "job-killing administration" with a "job-killing agenda" carried out by, you guessed it, a "job-killing bureaucracy."

In the fevered Republican imagination, the entire federal government is a "job-killing machine" or - my personal favorite - a "job-killing beast."

And if you're a Republican, it is now a violation of House rules to utter the word "taxes" or "tax increase" on the chamber floor without the "job-killing" prefix. (Okay, I'm exaggerating - but only slightly.)

Type "job killing" into Google and you'll get more than 1.2 million hits. On the Factiva news database, it comes up 11,115 times during 2009 and 2010, compared with 1,373 times during the previous two years. A Republican talking point, a Fox News broadcast or a Chamber of Commerce press release is now incomplete without it.

[bigmack]

And you gentlemen want to return to the good old bush years?
You failed to footnote. I like his piece from last year when he wrote a column calling those "spreading lies" about the content of President Obama's health care reform "political terrorists", characterizing them as misleading, disingenous and "poisoning the political well."