Do As We Say, Not As We Did

You have to wonder about the motives of billionaire Peter G. Peterson planning to spend $1 billion (yes, that’s billion with a “b”) to force America to get serious about the perils of deficits and debt, when over the last seven years, the federal debt has gone from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $9.372 trillion as of June 27, 2008. Moreover, despite all of Bush’s talk about “small government” and paying lip service to the memory of Ronald Reagan, the $3 trillion federal government has actually become over 50 percent larger during his term in office — even with a Republican majority in the Senate and the House in his first six years in office!

Head of the new foundation David Walker says the new Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF) will be non-partisan, although Peterson has long known McCain and supports his presidential campaign.

It seems more than a little odd that there wasn’t much zeal for evangelizing about slaying the deficit and forcing the government to “live within its means” when money was being squandered on tax cuts for the rich and unproductive wars on the other side of the globe. Now that there’s a possibility the Democrats might be in charge however, all of a sudden fiscal responsibility is crucially important again. Go figure.

21 Replies to “Do As We Say, Not As We Did”

  1. Speaking of kissing rings, you might be interested in featuring Julia Sweeney’s “Letting Go of God” which is available (for now) in 13 parts on YouTube.

    It’s a humourous/poignant story of one woman’s path to atheism. It’s touching.

  2. The polls (and too many people I know) tell me that the Conservatives/Republicans are better fiscal managers….
    Recent history to the contrary in US, Canada and Britain… the right is better at spin.

  3. You think thats bad, wait and see what b.o. and a democratic senate and congress will do, if they get power, god forbid.dont forget b.o. said that he was not going to takle the deficit or the dept. and he is going to spend more…not good for the canadian economy….I trust mccain more on tackling the deficit more than the democrats, as a liberal I dont understand why liberals would support protectionism, which is what b.o. and the democrats will do…free trade has been good for us…

  4. I’d like to know where you’re getting your information from because most independent analysis doesn’t fit with your version of imagined events.

  5. J
    thanks for proving my point –
    what does duh mean?

    “I trust mccain more on tackling the deficit more than the democrats”

    and elephants can fly

  6. I would normally agree that a Republican presidency is better for the Canadian economy, but given the trajectory Bush has set things on I’m not so sure that holds true any more. Also, Bush hasn’t done a whole lot for us in terms of living up to the spirit of NAFTA and free trade.

  7. The Republicans have had nothing to do with Fiscal Responsibility since Reagan was elected… after all it wasn’t called Voodoo economics for nothing. Now they have mortgaged the US economy to Red China to fund an unnecessary war on terrah and they want people to think they know *anything* about fiscal responsibility? Right….

    This idea of the Republicans being in favor of small government and fiscal restraint is as big a canard as the one about them being the party of National Defence and the only ones who can protect the US against terrah. Umm, which party did the President belong to when the US suffered its largest terrorist attack? Which party controlled the House of Representatives? Which party controlled the Senate? [Hint, in all three cases it *wasn’t* the Democrats….] So much for the party best able to protect *anyone* from danger, domestic or foreign, financial or military…..

  8. By-the-way, Reagan (as much as I admired his rhetroic against communism …) was not very “conservative” (whatever that means) on deficits and debt either.

    Chew on this:

    You have missed the point. We are all Keynesians (including ‘merkans …) now – and have been for close to 60 years.

  9. I wasn’t really holding Reagan up as a model “conservative” but thanks for illustrating the point so conclusively. 😉

  10. Red:

    I know you weren’t – but I cannot abide the constant mythologising of something that never was.

    Yes, on occasion I defend the old British Empire (in a relative historical sense), but I also own-up to its flaws (from a contemporary perspective).

    What we need in national life is a commitment to balance – to what Burke called “equipoise.”

    Achieving equipoise requires us to use reason, and thus to understand the most times the truth is in the middle – and NOT on the Left or Right.

    I cannot abide extremes, which is why I will always be a Monarchist. I would rather be elevated above the throng as they pitch the ship back & forth from starboard to port-side. Eventually, these fools will capsize the bloody thing. We should be seeking to elevate ourselves above theoretical nonsense (ideology).

  11. I couldn’t agree more. Nothing is more ridiculous than the idea that the left or the right somehow has an exclusive franchise on “the truth” (often misdescribed as being “plain and simple” which it almost never is) .

  12. “Nothing is more ridiculous than the idea that the left or the right somehow has an exclusive franchise on “the truth” ”

    Exactly right. We all know its us libertarians that have that.


  13. “pure and simple”?

    Would that be anything like “fair and balanced”? 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s