Yes, he did


President Barack Obama has a new campaign slogan.

Yes, we did.”

Campaigning in Missouri last week for Senate candidate Robin Carnahan, then in Nevada for Harry Reid, President Obama “field-tested” the new slogan.  Attacking Republicans, he said “they wouldn’t have set the economy back on track, or passed a health care overhaul or financial regulatory reform.”  He also said that GOP control of Congress would usher in another era of a “you’re on your own philosophy.” 

Republicans immediately responded.

“Yes, he did.”

Yes, he did increase the deficit to record highs

Yes, he did keep spending

Yes, he did let his friends pile pork onto the the defense spending bill

Yes, he did set new records for one-day spending

Yes, he did bow to foreign leaders

Yes, he did apologize for America

Yes, he did spend more time golfing than visiting the Gulf

Yes, he did turn NASA into a late-night talk show joke

Yes, he did mispronounce the word “Corpsman” despite being a Harvard educated lawyer.

Yes, he did refuse international help in the oil spill crisis

Yes, he did create a vibrant tea party movement

Yes, he did create more czars than the Romanoff’s

Yes, he did give the Queen an iPod, the Prime Minister some DVDs, and removed Churchill’s bust from the White House

Yes, he did raise taxes

Yes, he did shove mandatory healthcare down our throats

Yes, he did refuse to let any crisis go to waste

Shall we continue?


15 Responses to “Yes, he did”

  1. rmwarnick Says:

    How much of the deficit is due to the Obama administration, and how much was a result of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression?

    Answer from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

  2. Melissa Says:

    Great post, Holly!

  3. Ronald D. Hunt Says:

    “Yes, he did increase the deficit to record highs

    Yes, he did keep spending

    Yes, he did let his friends pile pork onto the the defense spending bill

    Yes, he did set new records for one-day spending

    Yes, he did bow to foreign leaders

    Yes, he did raise taxes”

    So did Reagan!, Of course when Reagan raised Tax’s it was the largest increase in history but hell lets all forget that, with him being the false idol that conservatives worship and all(hmm isn’t that a sin?).

    “I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” — President Ronald Reagan

    I will never understand the conservatives and their Debt and Spend craziness. The Democrats have the guts to pay for their new programs like healthcare, where as the Republicans put everything on the credit care such as Medicare drug coverage, deficit funding tax breaks to the wealthy, 2 wars etc.

    Bush Jr. being the first president in history to cut tax’s going into war, A strong bit of foolishness that we haven’t yet been able to correct to this day. Foolishness that adds more to the deficit then anything else does(thanks Bush Jr. and Republicans).

  4. Pops Says:

    [The plural of “tax” is “taxes” – now you know.]

    So, you like what Obama is doing, Ron? Or maybe you’re revealing a double standard in your attempts to show a double standard on the part of conservatives-who-are-not-always-Republicans-who-are-not-always-conservatives?

  5. Gregory Says:


    Just like the Democrats talking about health care CBPP uses accounting gimmicks to hide the real cost of Obama’s unprecedented (his favorite word) spending spree.

    Another take on the numbers is found at:

    I quote:

    * President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
    * President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
    * President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
    * President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
    * President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
    * President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

    * President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

    Just one more point. Bush took eight years to accomplish his spending increases – Obama has been at it less than two.

    Any claim that Obama has not spent significantly more than Bush selectively ignores facts.

  6. Gregory Says:


    You have summarized the progressive liberal argument very well.

    Point 1 – It’s OK to make a mistake if 30 years ago someone else made a similar mistake.

    There are two problems with this. First, the fact that someone else did something foolish does not justify continued foolishness. And second, you are comparing apples to oranges. Reagan’s spending was based on supply side (voodoo) economics, and it worked. The balanced budget experienced during the Clinton presidency was a result of Reagan’s economic policy. Obama claims adherence to Keynesian economics, but is only implementing increased government spending, not reducing taxes. It has not worked. Obama’s claims about unemployment and economic recovery have not followed the schedule he promised nor are there many indicators it will.

    Point 2 – You claim the Democrats have the courage to pay for their spending.

    They only have the courage to push the payment to future generations. Obama has quadrupled the deficit with porkulus spending (sent primarily to political supporters – not to the hardest hit economies) and has introduced trillions in future mandatory spending with the health care bill. Where is the part where the Democrats are paying for anything?

    Point 3 – Conservatives idolize Reagan.

    You’ve got a point there. At least they waited till he was dead to deify him. Can’t say the same about Obama.

  7. rmwarnick Says:

    President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

    Say what?? The Bush tax cuts ensured that the top 1 percent of households paid a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than any time in the last 20 years.

  8. Gregory Says:

    In 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40% of all personal income taxes. This is up from just over 36% in 1999. The bottom 50% paid less than 3% in 2007, down from 4% in 1999. The assertion that the top 1% got some kind of special break at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers is simply untrue. They paid a larger percentage of a larger amount of taxes collected every year under Bush. These numbers come from the IRS.

    Your complaint seems to be that, because of the extended period of economic expansion, the the top 1% of income earners had income grow more rapidly than their share of taxes. So? It did for everyone else too.

    Is financial success now a crime that must be punished? How much greater percentage of their income must the top wage earners pay before the progressive left is happy? Is the purpose of our government to remove incentives for success and increase incentives for financial mediocrity or failure?

    Progressive liberals love to complain that the rich are not paying their share of taxes, and that current economic difficulties arise out of the Bush tax cuts – however, they rarely provide any numbers to back up their claims. The reason is simple, the facts will not support that argument.

  9. Ronald D. Hunt Says:

    Yes I do agree with what Obama is doing, given I don’t like every policy,(individual mandate,no public option,weak guaranty issue/community ratings in health reform,several things in the financial reform(no bank break up, no return of glass-stegall,no transaction tax,no leverage requirements, etc). But I do like the overall direction.


    I don’t consider raising tax’s a fault, Its perfectly reasonable that tax’s need to be adjusted up or down every now and then as the nation changes. Reagan saw that he had gone to far and very reasonably adjusted the tax rates not enough to fill the deficit but none the less he did it, Bush did not do this even after his budget went 100’s of billions into the red from the $236 Billion dollar surplus that President Clinton had left him.

    I agree with your second point, far to much of the stimulus was deficit funded tax cuts that created very few job’s, of course the republicans and “conservative pro corporation democrat sellouts” would not have voted for the ARRA in the senate without their pork barrel spending and tax cuts for their friends.

    As to your next comment,
    “he bottom 50% paid less than 3% in 2007, down from 4% in 1999.”

    Given the wage stagnation, and jobs number shrink that happened under the conservative economy lead by bush and congressional republicans its no wonder that the bottom 50% paid less, even given the massive Trillion dollar deficit funded tax cuts given to the top 1%. And this is true even given that you use jan 1 2007 as the cutoff date for comparison, Add jan 2 2007 though jan 21 2009 and its much bleaker.

    as to your heritage foundation link.

    “* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.”

    This is an outright lie, the 2009 budget with a $1.7 Trillion Dollar deficit was written by the Bush Whitehouse not the Obama Whitehouse.

    “* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.”

    Well when your disastrous conservative economic policy’s create 10%~ unemployment it’s no wonder that the next guy in office would have to spend more on antipoverty programs, such as unemployment benefits.

    “Is financial success now a crime that must be punished?”

    No in fact I would have to agree that the millionaires and the deca-millionaires are taxed to much, however the centi-millionaires and the billionaires are not taxed nearly enough given that they use off-shore tax havens, loop holes, and anything else they can use to get out of paying their proper due tax’s.

    Further I would also support lower corporate tax rates and replacing the revenue with a national vat sales tax, the corporations simply forward the cost onto products anyway, and it works as a nice side tariff to the benefit of local company’s, their is more to gain then lose even given the regressive nature of such a tax.

  10. Pops Says:

    The plural of “tax” is still “taxes”.

  11. rmwarnick Says:

    [T]he top 1% of income earners had income grow more rapidly than their share of taxes. So? It did for everyone else too.

    Say what?? During the Bush administration, job growth was the lowest under any president since World War II. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush’s administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. The decline in real incomes averaged $2,000 per family. Meanwhile, the rich got richer. Income inequality is back to 1920s levels.

    If the Bush tax cuts for the rich don’t expire on schedule at the end of the year, the Congressional Budget Office projects they will add $3.4 trillion to deficits by 2020.

    What do Republicans want? EVEN MORE tax cuts for the rich, and even bigger deficits.

  12. JBT Says:

    I find it amusing that the Republicans are taking a shot at Obama for mispronouncing one word and there are still calendars with a different stupid misuse of language (Bushism) for each of the different 365 days of the year.

    “Is our children learning”?

    “Need to put food on our families.”

    “Mis-underestimate me.”

    An then there is the intellectual “miss bendy straws”, “half-governor” who the Republicans wanted to be a heart beat away from the presidency who thinks that Africa is a country, and that she understands foreign policy because she can “see Russia” from where she lives.

  13. Pops Says:

    Well, there’s always the “57 states” thing…

  14. Gregory Says:


    I numbers I quoted included taxes paid in 2007, but not later because they have not yet been released. You do not provide a source for your statement that it is “much bleaker” after 2007.

    The claim that Bush tax policy was unduly weighted toward providing tax relief to the wealthy at the expense of the poor cannot be supported with tax statistics. IRS data tax collection data clearly disproves that assertion. The tax burden on the wealthy increased and the tax burden on the poor decreased every single year of the Bush presidency for which the IRS has released data.

    I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with raising taxes. However, that’s like saying you don’t mind rain. The problem comes when rain, or taxes, are concentrated for too long in the same place or if the they never stop. Progressives repeat the “tax the rich” mantra at a frenetic pace, but I have never heard one suggest that at some point it they should be reduced. The “adjustment” is only in one direction – up.

    Obama claims that his economic policy is based on Keynesian economic theory. Stated simply, Keynesian theory says that in times of economic slow down government should increase spending and decrease taxes, then in times of economic prosperity government should decrease spending and increase taxes. Obama is currently increasing both spending and taxes and has built into the system, though increased mandatory spending (via healthcare) and other entitlement programs, guaranteed increased government spending whether there is an economic recovery or not for decades into the future. There is no plan to ever decrease government spending or taxes – once again, the only adjustment is up.

    I agree that the tax code is insanely complex and that there are many people, including the wealthy, who find ways around paying the taxes they are currently accessed. The fact that some wealthy people cheat on their taxes does not change the IRS reported statistics about who is paying income taxes. The numbers do not represent who should be paying taxes, they represent who is paying taxes. The answer remain that is 2007, the last year where IRS tax numbers are available that the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% paying less than 3%, and the bottom 43% pay no income taxes.

    I agree that there needs to be a fundamental change to the way taxes are assessed. I like the idea of a consumption tax with exclusions for basic products such as groceries.

  15. Ronald D. Hunt Says:

    “The claim that Bush tax policy was unduly weighted toward providing tax relief to the wealthy at the expense of the poor cannot be supported with tax statistics.”

    You can make any statement you want looking at a single quantity of information, you need more information and context to understand why a set of numbers appears the way it does. Statisticians take advantage of this all the time, They attack peoples misunderstandings of things like growth problems, data-set context, number theory, etc. Both sides of the political aisle do this and i think it is gotten out of hand.

    Purely looking at the tax statistics will hide much of the picture, you need data from unemployment, wage growth rates, wealth movement, etc to understand the context of that data.

    For example fast facts median wages
    and national average wages

    If we compare Median wages to average wages in the united states we can see a sharp contrast. While from 1980 where the median wage was $46,700 to 2008 when the median wage was $40,000 we can see the obvious wage stagnation that has happened for the last thirty years. However if we look at the average wage in 1980 of $12,513 to the average wage of $41,334 in 2008, we can see that the data without context provides two completely different pictures, however these two data-sets taken together tell much more. Throw inflation and employment statistics in and you have a much more telling picture with far more to tell you.

    Its no wonder that tax revenue continues to sink on people below the median wage line, inflation is slowly transforming them from middle class to poor as their wages stagnate or worse go down. Inflation is eating the middle class from the bottom and wage stagnation is eating the middle class from the top. The conservative economic consensus of the last 30 years has been a disaster for the long term viability of our country’s economy and is clearly unsustainable.

    “Keynesian theory says that in times of economic slow down government should increase spending and decrease taxes, “

    The ARRA lowers tax’s by almost $250Billion dollars, I will assume you are referring to the Bush tax cuts?, The Bush tax cuts have a $3.8 Trillion dollar price tag to continue for the next ten years, I believe that we can’t afford to sustain them.

    Further if look at the CBO reports on Economic Stimulus, we can see that tax cuts don’t have a very large effect on job creation, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that when reversed that tax increases won’t have a large effect on job loses. About the only reliable job creation so far has been state aid and direct government spending, and the item with the most positive effect likely being unemployment benefits.

    So on this front I again have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, It appears to be the most sensible approach give the looming debt problems.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: