Who is more to blame for the debt?

[Mike Honcho 5,518]

:popcorn:

 

You know that I you Worms, but getting into a debate with this is while engaging, not in your best interest.

 

Reasons:

1: RP has too much time on his hands to prove you wrong with credible links

 

 

 

 

:lol:

[Blitzen 1]

Yes, but what choice do we have?

 

It'll be really hard to pivot from deficit obsessing to not giving a fock. Although granted they did this very thing last time. What's different is they've got the country obsessed about deficits because the budget is so seriously out of whack. It's harder to stay disciplined to a balanced budget or get people excited about it when the budget is already balanced. It's not on people's mind unless it's broken.

 

I get the sense that they are really focking serious about cutting spending this time. It's like the Dems who took a lot of political heat and lost many seats to pass something that had been a priority for them for ages in Health Care reform. The Dems probably feel it was worth it. I get the sense that given the opportunity, this time, the GOP is ready to fall on the sword as well over slashing/eliminating entitlement programs. The backlash would be incredible and they'd lose lots of seats as well, but you get the sense if they get that opportunity, they'll be willing to do it.

 

People will be obsessed with cuts until their favourite program is cut and then they'll be obsessed with spending to get it back. I'm sure that the people obsessed with cuts are convinced that none of the cuts will have an impact on stuff they approve of.

 

I'm thinking that the international financial community is beginning to make phone calls to the US to tell them to get an agreement.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yes, I absolutely do believe that. Where were all these small government conservatives when Bush was in the White House? I know some of them existed but they were effectively marginalized by their own party. I believe the same thing will happen again when Republicans regain control of the presidency.

 

 

Anyway, let's look at the modern Republican presidencies:

 

George W. Bush - Blew up the deficit, as we all know

George H.W. Bush - I thought he was generally a good President, but he presided over the largest increase in U.S. debt until his son came along

Ronald Reagan - Pretty much invented deficit spending...his economic advisors openly said that deficit spending was a good thing

 

Also, take a look at this chart analyzing the federal debt as a percentage of the GDP. It shows that every Republican President since Richard Nixon presided over an increase in the debt as compared to the GDP:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Gross_federal_debt

 

So if history is any lesson, yes the Republicans will absolutely go back to blowing up the deficit as soon as they are back in power.

 

 

Debt accumulated under total Dem control:

 

$7.9 Trillion or 60% of total debt

 

 

Debt accumulated under total Rep control:

 

$1.7 Trillion or 13% of total debt.

[KSB2424 3,174]

To be fair, there was a growing number of 'republicans' that were calling out GWB in the last year(s) of his Presidency. Espcecially when he signed off on Bank Bailouts. The growing concern over to much spending was festering back then (before Obama was elected). The folks getting upset back then turned into the Tea Party folks of today. As Obama pushed the snowball down the mountain the antagonism only grew larger. However the point, is that the spending concern had been started by a large segment of the republicans/libertarians even before Obama was sworn in. He just made it even worse than before with his liberal agenda.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You always say this and it's not true.

 

Year GDP-US $ billion Total Direct Revenue-fed $ billion

2000 9951.5 2025.19 a

2001 10286.2 1991.08 a

2002 10642.3 1853.14 a

2003 11142.1 1782.31 a

2004 11867.8 1880.11 a

2005 12638.4 2153.61 a

2006 13398.9 2406.87 a

2007 14077.6 2567.98 a

2008 14369.1 2523.99 a

 

Legend:

a - actual reported

 

 

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=2000_2008&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

 

The Bush cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. Looks like revenues went from 1782 in 2003 to 2567 in just 4 years. So, exactly how does this prove my statement wrong?

[MDC 8,011]

The Bush cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. Looks like revenues went from 1782 in 2003 to 2567 in just 4 years. So, exactly how does this prove my statement wrong?

 

Revenues go up every year we're not in a recession, regardless of tax policy. Even Bush's own people never claimed that their tax cuts would boost overall net revenue.

 

hth

[drobeski 3,061]

Every senator, congressman and president prior to the 2010 elections.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Buchanan!

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I get the sense that they are really focking serious about cutting spending this time. It's like the Dems who took a lot of political heat and lost many seats to pass something that had been a priority for them for ages in Health Care reform. The Dems probably feel it was worth it. I get the sense that given the opportunity, this time, the GOP is ready to fall on the sword as well over slashing/eliminating entitlement programs. The backlash would be incredible and they'd lose lots of seats as well, but you get the sense if they get that opportunity, they'll be willing to do it.

 

Don't get taken in Volty. The Republicans' current stance has little to do with ideology and a lot to do with frustrating Obama's agenda and making him a one term President. Yes there are some purists in the House who mean what they say when it comes to deficits, but the rank and file will abandon the fiscal conservative mantra as soon as it suits them.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Debt accumulated under total Dem control:

 

$7.9 Trillion or 60% of total debt

 

 

Debt accumulated under total Rep control:

 

$1.7 Trillion or 13% of total debt.

 

Link?

 

And could you provide a link to back up your claims on page 1 as well. TIA.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link?

 

And could you provide a link to back up your claims on page 1 as well. TIA.

 

 

Um. I pulled that cut and past from a link on page one. And already posted the same fukking thing on page one.

 

Fukking idiot. :wall:

[Voltaire 5,506]

Don't get taken in Volty. The Republicans' current stance has little to do with ideology and a lot to do with frustrating Obama's agenda and making him a one term President. Yes there are some purists in the House who mean what they say when it comes to deficits, but the rank and file will abandon the fiscal conservative mantra as soon as it suits them.

That's a very good point. Pretty much any Republican who was in Congress during the Bush years and supported the Bush presidency is totally unreliable on budgetary matters and is a hypocrite when it comes to talk of deficits. I spent eight years p*ssed off royally at Bush and his Congressional Republican flunkies running up massive debts and fighting stoopid-ass, pointless focking wars, enthusiastically flushing $Trillions of taxpayer money down the toilet.

 

I hated them so focking much and I was really happy when Obama and the Dems took over and started focking them in the ass. Well, it was fun at first anyways and it was always fun to watch them squirm and suffer and cry and complain. They richly deserved every tear. But Obama and the Dems are not the answer either. They bring their own set of problems, are just as fically irresponsible as the GOP, and we're still knee deep in the Middle East hemorrhaging taxpayer money and p*ssing everybody off.

 

As for the Tea Party, Considering they started crying the day after George Bush left office, I didn't have any use for them at first. Fock You. But I soon realized that I was liking what I was hearing. I had assumed it was going to be 'tax cuts at all costs, and deficts/shmecificts who cares?' More of the same warmed-over repackaged Bushtarded policies. But now, I've really come to appreciate that they are serious about deficits too. They're willing to take on popular entitlement programs to cut spending and if that's the case, they deserve my support.

 

I've been a deficithawk since I was a teenager (I'm 39 now) looking at this stuff unfold and seeing how royaly focked over my generation was going to be. It's always been my #1 issue by far. It's why I've supported large spending cuts to entitlement programs and defense, and/or supported tax increases all my life. It's why I fell in love with Clinton the moment I realized the budget was balanced. Even though I never voted for him and was a Republican supporting Gingrich at the time. With both parties working together and the economy purring along, it made the 90s such a great decade (the music of the '90s royally sucked but that's not the politicians' fault).

 

For the first time in ten years, people are taking deficit reduction seriously. And the people responsible for this shift are mostly the Tea Party Republicans so they deserve massive credit as far as I'm concerned.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

As for the Tea Party, Considering they started crying the day after George Bush left office, I didn't have any use for them at first. Fock You. But I soon realized that I was liking what I was hearing. I had assumed it was going to be 'tax cuts at all costs, and deficts/shmecificts who cares?' More of the same warmed-over repackaged Bushtarded policies. But now, I've really come to appreciate that they are serious about deficits too. They're willing to take on popular entitlement programs to cut spending and if that's the case, they deserve my support.

 

Really? Because it seems to me that conservatives of all stripes--including Tea Partiers--were falling all over themselves to support Paul Ryan's budget plan. Well as it turns out, Representative Ryan's plan would increase the public debtfrom $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. But how can that be so when it calls for spending cuts? Easy, because it also calls for very deep tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Again, this new-found era of fiscal conservatism is a fraud. It's main intention is to frustrate President Obama's agenda and weaken him politically. It has very little to do with actually reducing the deficit in this country. I wish Washington politicians were serious about the deficit too, but unfortunately that just isn't true for most politicians on the right or the left.

[Voltaire 5,506]

Really? Because it seems to me that conservatives of all stripes--including Tea Partiers--were falling all over themselves to support Paul Ryan's budget plan. Well as it turns out, Representative Ryan's plan would increase the public debtfrom $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021. But how can that be so when it calls for spending cuts? Easy, because it also calls for very deep tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Again, this new-found era of fiscal conservatism is a fraud. It's main intention is to frustrate President Obama's agenda and weaken him politically. It has very little to do with actually reducing the deficit in this country. I wish Washington politicians were serious about the deficit too, but unfortunately that just isn't true for most politicians on the right or the left.

 

I have two major problems with Paul Ryan's budget. The first is that it includes massive new tax cuts targeting the wealthy. I have no idea why we're cutting taxes when the whole point is to balance the budget, especially since taxes on the wealthy are already too low to begin with.

 

The second major problem I have with the Ryan plan is that it waits ten years to do anything about Medicare then at that point, grandfathers in anybody that is on Medicare. IMO, I think it's fine that grandpa gets bent over, but that savings should start immediately and affect everybody. I don't see why we have to keep the same system in place for people on it now or will be on it in the next ten years.

[BudBro 185]

The ones you keep ignoring cause you're all butt hurt by your obsession with a powerful black male.

half black

[IGotWorms 4,063]

The second major problem I have with the Ryan plan is that it waits ten years to do anything about Medicare then at that point, grandfathers in anybody that is on Medicare. IMO, I think it's fine that grandpa gets bent over, but that savings should start immediately and affect everybody. I don't see why we have to keep the same system in place for people on it now or will be on it in the next ten years.

 

So the Republicans do not lose every single election for the rest of history.

[kutulu 1,719]

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79

09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62

09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00

09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00

09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00

09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00

09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00

09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00

06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00

06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00

06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55

06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09

06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50

06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54

06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93

06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41

06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88

06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54

06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48

06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64

06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30

06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41

06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87

06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05

06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37

06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22

06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81

06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43

06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32

06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62

06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46

06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57

06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43

06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93

06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Rounded to Millions

[bushy 0]

 

 

And this is from The New Republic, mind you, which is hardly a liberal bastion. If anything TNR skews a bit conservative.

 

 

Um, no. The New Republic does not skew conservative. It is a left of center magazine. It fancies itself in the mold of Bill Clinton and 'New Democrats'. As it pertains to domestic policy, they are very liberal. The one area they break with today's liberal is in the area of foreign policy. The magazine is generally very supportive of Israel and a muscular foreign policy.

[bushy 0]

Well as it turns out, Representative Ryan's plan would increase the public debtfrom $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021.

 

 

The president's proposed budget in January increased the public debt to $22T. Given the choice, I'll take $16T.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The president's proposed budget in January increased the public debt to $22T. Given the choice, I'll take $16T.

 

[IGotWorms 4,063]

The president's proposed budget in January increased the public debt to $22T. Given the choice, I'll take $16T.

 

That's all well and good, but wouldn't a true fiscal conservative try to cut the deficit, not just raise it by less than President Obama?

[bushy 0]

That's all well and good, but wouldn't a true fiscal conservative try to cut the deficit, not just raise it by less than President Obama?

 

The deficit will be cut under Ryan's plan to a more manageable 2-3% of annual GDP. And while the overall magnitude of the publicly held debt will increase, the percentage in terms of our GDP will slowly shrink as the growth in GDP outpaces the growth in government expenditures.

 

Right now, the U.S. govt has $20K in credit card debt, and makes $35K a year. Ryan's plan essentially will have the U.S. govt with $25K in credit card debt and making $75K a year. See that. The overall magnitude of the debt went up but the percentage of the debt in terms of income went down.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

The deficit will be cut under Ryan's plan to a more manageable 2-3% of annual GDP. And while the overall magnitude of the publicly held debt will increase, the percentage in terms of our GDP will slowly shrink as the growth in GDP outpaces the growth in government expenditures.

 

Right now, the U.S. govt has $20K in credit card debt, and makes $35K a year. Ryan's plan essentially will have the U.S. govt with $25K in credit card debt and making $75K a year. See that. The overall magnitude of the debt went up but the percentage of the debt in terms of income went down.

 

I understand the concept perfectly well, but I think you are mischaracterizing the plan. Paul was impossibly rosy with his projections of what the economy would do after his beloved tax cuts went through. In reality I think we would still see a pretty big increase in the debt as compared to the GDP, just like we did after Bush's tax cuts.

[bushy 0]

I understand the concept perfectly well, but I think you are mischaracterizing the plan. Paul was impossibly rosy with his projections of what the economy would do after his beloved tax cuts went through. In reality I think we would still see a pretty big increase in the debt as compared to the GDP, just like we did after Bush's tax cuts.

 

Well then, what does that say about Obama's budget?

[bushy 0]

In reality I think we would still see a pretty big increase in the debt as compared to the GDP, just like we did after Bush's tax cuts.

 

It's funny, but the facts don't support your argument. The federal deficit as a percentage of GDP was decreasing until the recession hit in 2008.

 

Deficit as a percent of GDP:

 

2001: -1.24% (surplus, Bush tax cuts round 1)

2002: 1.48%

2003: 3.39% (Bush tax cuts round 2 enacted)

2004: 3.48%

2005: 2.52%

2006: 1.86%

2007: 1.14% (Democrats take control of Congress)

2008: 3.18%

2009: 10.01% (Obama takes presidency)

2010: 10.64%

[IGotWorms 4,063]

It's funny, but the facts don't support your argument. The federal deficit as a percentage of GDP was decreasing until the recession hit in 2008.

 

Deficit as a percent of GDP:

 

2001: -1.24% (surplus, Bush tax cuts round 1)

2002: 1.48%

2003: 3.39% (Bush tax cuts round 2 enacted)

2004: 3.48%

2005: 2.52%

2006: 1.86%

2007: 1.14% (Democrats take control of Congress)

2008: 3.18%

2009: 10.01% (Obama takes presidency)

2010: 10.64%

 

The Bush tax cuts account for almost $2 trillion of the current national debt. Are you really suggesting that the GDP was going to grow so much that $2 trillion (to date) would amount to a drop in the bucket?

[bushy 0]

The Bush tax cuts account for almost $2 trillion of the current national debt. Are you really suggesting that the GDP was going to grow so much that $2 trillion (to date) would amount to a drop in the bucket?

 

Can you not read? Do you understand what a percentage is? Percentage wise, the deficit numbers were fairly good and improving under Bush until 2008 when the recession hit.

 

And I quote, "In reality I think we would still see a pretty big increase in the debt as compared to the GDP, just like we did after Bush's tax cuts". Again, facts can be troublesome things, but they most definitely refute your statement. The deficit, in terms of percentage of GDP, most definitely did not see "a pretty big increase" after the Bush tax cuts passed.

[jerryskids 7,162]

It's funny, but the facts don't support your argument. The federal deficit as a percentage of GDP was decreasing until the recession hit in 2008.

 

Deficit as a percent of GDP:

 

2001: -1.24% (surplus, Bush tax cuts round 1)

2002: 1.48%

2003: 3.39% (Bush tax cuts round 2 enacted)

2004: 3.48%

2005: 2.52%

2006: 1.86%

2007: 1.14% (Democrats take control of Congress)

2008: 3.18%

2009: 10.01% (Obama takes presidency)

2010: 10.64%

Interesting data, what is your source? Also, are those end or beginning of year? I'm wondering of course who to blame 2009 on. TIA.

[bushy 0]

Interesting data, what is your source? Also, are those end or beginning of year? I'm wondering of course who to blame 2009 on. TIA.

 

Here's the link to the data. Those are fiscal years (i.e. 1 Oct - 30 Sep).

 

2009 normally would belong to Bush. The president in 2008 normally would sign the budget for FY 09. However, the democrats in congress knew Obama was coming in, and thus never passed a budget until Obama became president. They did continuing resolutions (which Bush signed) until shortly after 20 Jan 09. And then they filled up their wish lists and goodie bags and sent it to the White House for Obama's signature.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

2009 normally would belong to Bush. The president in 2008 normally would sign the budget for FY 09. However, the democrats in congress knew Obama was coming in, and thus never passed a budget until Obama became president. They did continuing resolutions (which Bush signed) until shortly after 20 Jan 09. And then they filled up their wish lists and goodie bags and sent it to the White House for Obama's signature.

 

 

The 2008 recession is what drove those numbers up. You can spin it until you are blue in the face but the reality is the economy and the budgetary mess began when Bush was in office and would have come to fruition regardless of what the Democrats did or did not do.

 

Now as it happens, things have not improved. That you can blame on the Democrats. But try to maintain a little credibility here, mmkay?

[bushy 0]

 

The 2008 recession is what drove those numbers up. You can spin it until you are blue in the face but the reality is the economy and the budgetary mess began when Bush was in office and would have come to fruition regardless of what the Democrats did or did not do.

 

Now as it happens, things have not improved. That you can blame on the Democrats. But try to maintain a little credibility here, mmkay?

 

I never claimed otherwise. You, sir, are the one having a problem with actual facts. I don't really care who's in office. I am presenting facts. You can go play your political games elsewhere.

 

I made it pretty clear that the recession had a great effect on the deficit. Having said that, the budget in FY 08 was $2.983T. The budget in FY 09 was $3.518T. That's a 17.9% increase in one year. A lot of that increase is from the so called 'stimulus'. The bailouts by both presidents also contributed a little. So, while a majority of the deficit was caused by a decrease in revenue, I don't think it can be argued that a huge spending increase also contributed to the deficit.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I never claimed otherwise. You, sir, are the one having a problem with actual facts. I don't really care who's in office. I am presenting facts. You can go play your political games elsewhere.

 

I made it pretty clear that the recession had a great effect on the deficit. Having said that, the budget in FY 08 was $2.983T. The budget in FY 09 was $3.518T. That's a 17.9% increase in one year. A lot of that increase is from the so called 'stimulus'. The bailouts by both presidents also contributed a little. So, while a majority of the deficit was caused by a decrease in revenue, I don't think it can be argued that a huge spending increase also contributed to the deficit.

 

Of course a spending increase contributed to the deficit. The question is, where did that spending increase come from? It was stimulus and bail-out money spent to prop up the faltering economy. Had the economy not faltered then perhaps the Bush tax cuts would not have wrought as much damage as they have. But then again it is dangerous to pass fiscal policy under the assumption that the economy is always going to perform swimingly. That is, incidentally, the same mistake that the Ryan plan makes.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Of course a spending increase contributed to the deficit. The question is, where did that spending increase come from? It was stimulus and bail-out money spent to prop up the faltering economy. Had the economy not faltered then perhaps the Bush tax cuts would not have wrought as much damage as they have. But then again it is dangerous to pass fiscal policy under the assumption that the economy is always going to perform swimingly. That is, incidentally, the same mistake that the Ryan plan makes.

 

Obama's budget paints a rosy picture beyond reality. And he still predicts he will rack up $1 Trillion deficits each year using these BS numbers.

 

 

Obama projects that the economy will contract by just 1.2 percent this year, swinging to a rapid expansion next year with a growth rate of 3.2 percent. That's quite rosy.

 

"I'm marveling that somehow they think the recession is over," said David Wyss, the chief economist for New York rating agency Standard & Poor's. "To me, this (budget) is extremely optimistic."

 

While the recent track record of most private forecasters leaves much to be desired, the February Blue Chip Consensus forecast predicts a deeper contraction this year — minus 1.9 percent — and a slower growth rate next year of 2.1 percent.

 

CBO offers the steepest contraction projection this year, minus 2.2 percent, and the slowest return to growth next year, an anemic 1.5 percent.

 

The gap widens in subsequent years. In 2011 and 2012, the White House sees explosive growth of 4 percent and 4.6 percent, while the private sector economists see a more sluggish 2.9 percent for each of those years.

 

The White House and private sector also part ways on inflation expectations, especially in the years beyond the current fiscal year. The administration expects headline inflation — the rise in consumer prices across the economy — to remain at a pleasant 1.8 percent in 2011. Private-sector forecasters see it at 2.4 percent in 2011 and 2.5 percent in 2012, which is still relatively mild, but significantly higher.

 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/02/26/62922/rosy-economic-predictions-underlie.html

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It's funny, but the facts don't support your argument. The federal deficit as a percentage of GDP was decreasing until the recession hit in 2008.

 

Deficit as a percent of GDP:

 

2001: -1.24% (surplus, Bush tax cuts round 1)

2002: 1.48%

2003: 3.39% (Bush tax cuts round 2 enacted)

2004: 3.48%

2005: 2.52%

2006: 1.86%

2007: 1.14% (Democrats take control of Congress)

2008: 3.18%

2009: 10.01% (Obama takes presidency)

2010: 10.64%

 

That one left a mark. Ever notice how Worms never brings links and supporting evidence for his opinions?

[Giants Fan 85]

Republicans are mostly hypocritical.

 

Surplus during the Clinton years? Thank Reagan.

 

Debt crisis under Obama? Obama's fault.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

That one left a mark. Ever notice how Worms never brings links and supporting evidence for his opinions?

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/

[Recliner Pilot 61]

http://www.slate.com/id/2296578/

 

We all knew that was one of your talking point sources. A lefty opinion piece isn't "evidence".

 

HTH