Hail to the Chief, Baby!
Posted by Jake G. on 03.26.2009
Obama in Evil Dead IV: Revenge of the Reagracronomicon...
This was the funniest, coolest and most astute thing I've seen in a while. Rarely are political cartoons this interesting, but the message here is a good one coupled with one of the all time great cult classics in the Evil Dead franchise. Barack Obama is buried knee deep in debt that's been building largely since the Reagan administration. For a brief crunch of the numbers, check out this chart:
Carter added $75 billion in debt.
Reagan added $232 billion in debt.
Bush I added $390 billion in debt.
Clinton added $175 billion in debt.
Bush II added $637 billion in debt.
When you look at those as inflation dollars, you can see where the root of the issue of national debt is. By no means am I suggesting that Obama won't eventually be responsible for cutting through some hellish creatures of his own summoning, but likening him to Ash dropped in the middle of a battlefield of zombies hits the spot. Before Obama can make any steps foreward he has to cut through a lot of undead policies from years past and the last people who should be talking about fiscal responsibility are the ones who started the chaos to begin with.
Yet Obama is supposed to fix the largest financial crisis in recent history without adding to the national debt. It's an unrealistic expectation that the Republican talking heads are droning on and on about like a bunch of Deadites. President Obama as Ash fighting off a horde of lingering failed Republican economic policies is brilliant. You could add in a lot of other Evil Dead characters as well and have some fun with it (Hilary Clinton as the Pit Witch?), but as far as political cartoons come, this one is tops.
You do realize that Kennedy, a Democrat, was the first President to run with a budget in the red? Granted, it's only got more and more hellish since then, but imagine if that trend had never started?
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Stupid point, Kennedy barely finished half a term.
Posted By: phlesh (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Those statistics are meaningless without a constant meter upon which to compare. By the way if you are using nominal numbers for comparison you ought to put Obama's planned contribution of $9 trillion to national debt according to CBO or $7 trillion according to President Obama.
You may notice that $1 trillion is greater than Bush II's contribution or in other words 9x less than Obama's. You may also notice that Obama's contribution to the national debt will be 9x greater than Carter, Reagan, Bush I and Clinton combined.
I don't attribute any of this information to any one President or political party as any cursory study of the topic reveals that both parties are mutually and symbiotically complicit in producing the result through both legislative and executive branches.
Even if you use a horror franchise to analyze the history of fiscal policy, making the claim that Obama is fighting a horde of lingering failed Republican economic policies is disingenuous or stupid. You pick.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Blah blah blah...more hagiography from the Obama Hero-worship cult.
Obama could add a gazillion dollars (in fact, it won't surpise me when future Obama budgets include nothing but imaginary dollar amounts) to the debt and you'd rationalize it.
Posted By: lol (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 06:45 PM
The problem with your article is that he is on par to absolutely blow your examples out of the water. Analysts are talking about trillion dollar (with a T) deficits under Obama's plans. I disagree with his policies, but I would be more agreeable if there was some financial restraint. Quick fixes are not the answer. We are making the same financial mistakes that got us here. The country needs an overall from top to bottom on how its uses debt personally, professionally, and politically. I was amused they used Reaganomics, especially as you pointed out the trend started under Carter. Evil Dead IV here could be shown as Obamash vs. Carter's failed policies (which he seems to think using a 2nd time will work).
Posted By: Obrie007 (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 06:56 PM
LOL
You know that Republicans are about to "jump the shark" when they actually, and honestly believe that this problem lays at the feet of Jimmy Carter!
Look at what Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did to the national debt and then compare that to what Clinton and Carter did to that same national debt!
There's honestly no comparison whatsoever.
The "savior of the Republican Party" was, in my opinion, the original "borrow and spend" President, yet people love him for his "small government principles"!
How oxy-moronic is that?
And the real crazy thing about it is that the only time, where people actually made a concerted effort to balance the budget, and live within our means, was when Democrats were in office!
You can't "have your cake and eat it"!
If the argument is down to either a "borrow and spend" Republican, calling for small government without making the necessary cuts across the board, or a "tax and spend' Democrat, looking for ways to actually pay for what they would like to see done in this country, in a clean race, the Democrat wins!
Simply put.
You can't have things both ways. If the base of the message of the Republican Party is to constantly cut taxes, you must let people know what programs the government will no longer be funding.
You can cut taxes all you want; just let people know that cuts, to healthcare, education, Social Security, veteran care and any other programs are coming as well.
Quit lying to people.
The Congressional Republicans just presented a quasi-budget, with very few actual numbers, that proposes to cut the top tax bracket to 25 percent!
Twenty-five percent! The Republican budget calls for two tax brackets, the top being 25%, for people above $100,000, and the bottom bracket being 10%, for people making less!
They, effectively, CUT in HALF, the revenues available to the federal government!
And the worst part about it is that they give no clues at what would be eliminated from government funding.
People aren't stupid, and until the Republicans realize this, they won't see power again.
Obama has a budget which, on the front end, puts the key problems of our country "front and center".
He has a pretty clear idea of how he wants to fix these problems, and a clear idea for how to pay for it.
Love him or hate him; he has a clear plan.
Posted By: scipio2009 (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 09:44 PM
Just like the average American, to reduce debt spend less then you make.
1320 days and counting...
Posted By: Blah (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Obama is fighting a horde of lingering failed Republican economic policies though... Roughly 80% of the staggering current debt was accumulated under just three presidents: Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
The "trend" didn't really start under Carter. Yes, he had some debt... But take a look at the difference between Carter & Reagan. That's Reganomics my friends.
As for the debt numbers, you're not actually looking at the same numbers that I am. If we look at those numbers Bush II had about $5.1 trillion total. Even so your 7 Trillion figure isn't right.
And as I mentioned in the article, it's going to take money to fix this mess. None of the previous Presidents listed had to deal with a global economy in the dumps. It's not the debt that's the problem, it's that people are expecting him to "fix it" while not spending any money at all.
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 26, 2009 at 11:07 PM
I don't think anyone's going to debate that Obama's going to add a lot to the debt.
If you want stupid or disingenuous, however, you might forgive liberals for wondering why Republicans SUDDENLY care.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Stupid point, Kennedy barely finished half a term.
Posted By: phlesh (Guest) on March 26, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Great point...look how much damage that fuckwad Obama has done already, and he hasn't even been in office HALF A YEAR. Put down the Kool-Aid, cumrag, and deal with reality. Your messiah is a leper, and you're obviously infected, as well. Fuck him, and fuck you, too.
Posted By: Plain Spoken (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:48 AM
I don't think anyone's going to debate that Obama's going to add a lot to the debt.
If you want stupid or disingenuous, however, you might forgive liberals for wondering why Republicans SUDDENLY care.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Well, gee, Lefty T...is it because they aren't in power anymore? Seriously, dude..you're a stupid twat. Everyone knows this is how the game is played, but the Republicans NEVER jacked up the debt the way the leper messiah is going to. And not for any good reason, either...Obama is a liberal cunt's dream cum true, since every Socialist, Communist policy you fucks have wanted for the last half century is about to come true. Here's the thing: very soon, you shitbags are going to have to fight for it, and you've already proven you don't have the fucking spine for it. Those who work and produce are going to rise up and take back from you greedy shitballs who do not. And we will win, because we're used to working for a living, while you are used to everything being handed to you, because you're a pussy. We'll hand you one last thing: Defeat. Then, we'll stomp on your fucking neck and teach you the value of a hard day's work.
Posted By: Nietzche (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Who authorises some of these comments? Only in the USA could there be such fear about communism. Must be because Obama wants universal health care. The Boogyman! Cause that will be worse than the Iraq War!
Posted By: ingwa (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 09:03 AM
"Kennedy barely finished half a term"?
Kennedy passed three budgets, two of which (if not all three) featured a deficit and began our country on this fine path of trillion-dollar debt.
Also, keep in mind that Kennedy's first budget took effect 20 years before Reagan's first. That's a full twenty years for the deficit (now national debt) to compound and grow, and fiscal policy in the past 50 years hasn't helped matters at all, regardless of which party has been in office.
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:44 AM
"If you want stupid or disingenuous, however, you might forgive liberals for wondering why Republicans SUDDENLY care."
Agreed, however, the reasons why the historically irresponsible free spending Republicans suddenly care is not really important. There is more compelling question for liberals to wonder on that has more import to the current policy agenda.
Why have the more fiscally responsible Democrats SUDDENLY stopped caring.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Lalalalala, I can't hear any reasoning from people of the other party, lalalalalala, my side is right even when it lies and demonstrates glaring hypocrisy.
First, the debt figures here are obviously WAY off. How is our current debt around $9.6 trillion today if these figures are right?
For the benefit of those who draw conclusions first, then cherry pick information to support them, Obama held a very informative press conference a few nights ago. The basic point was that things like energy independence, infrastructure and education need to be invested in now or they will cost far more later. He really drove the energy point home stating "We shouldn't wait until gas hits $4 again to address this problem". Even a budget hawk like myself can appreciate the concept of spending now for the specific purpose of saving in the long term.
Tragically, just as most politicians opt to deficit spend to make voters happy right now and next generation be damned, they likewise don't want to make policy decisions where the bite comes now and a future administration sees the benefits. It's understandably strange and unsettling for some to see a President who actually looks at the big picture. No one is even attempting to calculate our savings from getting off foreign oil. The fiscal benefits of infrastructure are impossible to calculate, but crumbling bridges can't be part of a prosperous nation. Educated children are our only hope of competing in a global market with more and more industrialized nations competing against us.
I'm still pissed at Obama for not cutting earmarks out of the stimulus bill, and for not debating individual issues rather than lumping everything together. But on the other hand he will never have more political capital than he does right now, so this is his best chance to get things done. Just don't quote a dollar figure and scream while simultaneously complaining that the spending isn't being debated. If you have specific criticism of elements of his agenda, that's what you should say, not "OMG $9 trillion of debt".
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Ingwa, please - you need to just take the comments on here for entertainment purposes only. None of these cunts are representative of the American people.
They are FRINGE, with nothing better to do and nothing fulfilling in their lives and to cowardly to actually act out on their processed outrage. I mean, if they were serious about 1/100 about what they believe, this country would be in the middle of civil war and Obama would probably be dead.
But most of us are okay with him, and he's still giving the finger to the FRINGE, so their panties are wet with the juices of "rage" - so it's all good.
Just watch, most of the FRINGE will spout off something inane and nothing will change, and all they will do is spout something inane again tomorrow -and again, nothing will change. See, they lack the BALLS to do somethig about their "plight".
So don't take them seriously. Accept it as bad comedy - like The Osbornes or Rush Limbaugh. Harmless, the whole lot of them.
Posted By: Anarchist (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Actually, Obama has consistently LIED about how much he has spent so far. He's already spent over $9.7 TRILLION! If you want to know what's really going on, check out this documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Jake G my number are not my numbers, they are the numbers published by the Office of Management and Budget and Congressional Budget Office.
As for the president's budget request, the CBO said it would add a cumulative $4.8 trillion to the baseline deficit forecast over the next decade for a total $9.3 trillion.
The CBO report said its estimate of the deficits caused by the Obama budget framework differ from the administration's by $2.3 trillion over that 10-year period. It attributed the discrepancy largely to differing projections between the CBO and the Obama administration for baseline revenues and outlays.
$9.3 - $2.3 = $7
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Have any of you actually looked at the deficit trend charts? Bush's budget deficits were trending downward until 2007, when the Dems took over Congress and this past year's mess.
Merely looking at the president and the corresponding budget number is idiotic. You have to factor in the makeup of Congress at the time as well.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on March 27, 2009 at 01:08 PM
It's a good point, Admiral. It seems extremely reasonable to worry about the debt. I do. Intent of complaint really shouldn't matter....
On another note, does anyone else immediately get worried when someone says "If you want to know what REALLY happened go to x fringe website"?
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 04:00 PM
Shockmaster my numbers are actually very accurate. I wasn't doing total debt, I was doing yearly debt. As I said before Bush added over 5 Trillion total.
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 06:29 PM
"Merely looking at the president and the corresponding budget number is idiotic. You have to factor in the makeup of Congress at the time as well.
"
The president still has veto power.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on March 27, 2009 at 08:36 PM
That's true JD, but when you are trying to keep major parts of your agenda on track, there are times when you have to spend more than you'd want to in order to keep the votes you need. That is certainly the case with Bush 43 and was also part of the problem with the excess spending during the Reagan years.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on March 28, 2009 at 02:31 PM
"Obama is a liberal cunt's dream cum true, since every Socialist, Communist policy you fucks have wanted for the last half century is about to come true."
Sounds great to me.
... Oh, sorry, you meant that it was bad. I didn't realize you were conservative, poster "Nietzche" (sic)! My condolences on your brain damage.
Posted By: Jord (Guest) on March 31, 2009 at 03:27 AM
STAY CURRENT