Thanks for pointing out that he is one NJ's best members of the congressional delegation. Being fiscally responsible is good for the district. Gaming the system for kickbacks isn't. Particularly for NJ which is a DONOR state to the Federal System. That's right, we send more in then we get back, by a lot.

Are you kidding? We all know Garrett. His voting record is definitely appalling and doesn't even fit in with forward-thinking, compassionate human beings. Please take a look at how he votes, and vote him OUT this next voting opportunity.

Lee what compassion is there in theft?

Yes Tommy. As moral persons we really ought to focus our sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of wealthy persons who must pay some tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/opinion/kristof-markets-and-morals.html?_r=1&hp

Big Ben, Are you aware of anything Stealth Garrett has done for anyone in NNJ other than collect a paycheck and pay his staff? Even for big business. It's okay. I am cool with that. I want to vote for this man but nobody can tell be what he has done. He's pro life. Okay. How much money has he brought to NJ to help fund pro life organizations in NNJ? He's pro private industry. Fine. How much money has he brought to the state to support construction, pharmaceuticals, financial, etc? Won't somebody please tell me? He's pro that and this, and against crime. How much money has he brought to NNJ to put support homeland security, and law enforcement, or traffic safety? Show me the money. Has anyone ever seen this man other than in pictures?

You never heard of SuperGarrett. Why he is the man that really gets it done for North Jersey. Why he is so fast and so swift that nobody has ever really seen him but he is there to make sure we here in Northern New Jersey tighten our belts and get just what we deserve. He has been watching over us making sure we squeeze every Northern NJ taxpayer for no more than the next guy. And if we need money to relieve NNJ taxpayers, well that is too bad, Super Garrett does not compromise his principles, especially when he is up for re election. Big Ben says that Garrett is tune in to mainstream America. I agree, he is tuned in alright. He keeps his ear close to the ground and when he hears trouble or controversy coming near, he likes to show off his fast feet. It's a deer, no it's Super Garrett off into the sunset.

You are correct wendyc. I cannot point to anything this man has done for NNJ. Let's ask Garrett himself. What do you want to be remembered for? Mr. Garrett, you have been the leader in this district a long time. What do you want Bergen County to remember you for? Let's see. Did you stick your neck out and fight for any of our issues? Please Mr. Garrett, I really need your help with this.

The sadder truth is that too many people think like you, that government exists to give us stuff. "Where's mine, where's mine??" You and yours are our doom.

Dn,
If you don't feel that government should be there yo "give us stuff," what do you feel the government should be there for? Do you feel that government should be there to take? Or just to watch without providing anything?

Dear Ridgewood Mom, do YOU believe the government exists to give us stuff?

Yes, times are different than when this country was founded, but 99% of what the federal government is in to and controls now was NEVER envisioned by our Founding Fathers. As a matter of fact, the Constitution was written with specific language to PREVENT the kind of big nanny government that exists now. The Federal government's role was to provide national sovereignty for this country to protect the union of the states in law and common defense, so that individual citizens could flourish. It is supposed to PROTECT the individual's rights and liberty and a civil society, not control them and administer them as if the Government in in charge of doling out our rights. Of course, times have changed in 235 years - I hear the chorus. There are some things that the government is uniquely positioned to oversee. But the further we get from being grounded in fundamental Constitutional principles, the more untenable our position becomes.

No, I don't believe the government should be taking so much and I don't believe the government should be giving out four times more than it has. Role play for a moment - would that kind of living work for your family? The kind of debt that YOUR children, MY children, and ALL children of this country are being saddled with is incomprehensible. All in the name of creating a utopian fantasy of "universal fairness", but is that really FAIR?

"do YOU believe the government exists to give us stuff?"
I believe that it is the job of government to govern, and that part of that means to provide for the common welfare of its citizens.

I'm not sure that either one of us is qualified to speak on behalf of the finer details of what the "founding fathers" were thinking inside their heads. I'm not even so sure that the most well versed of constitutional scholars will come to unanimous agreement on such matters. But what we can safely say, for certain, is that they were interested in establishing a government premised on the belief that there was a core set of rights that could be taken as matters of entitlement for all citizens.

"All in the name of creating a utopian fantasy of "universal fairness", but is that really FAIR?"
So then fairness isn't fair?

I think that there are far more pressing moral concerns in our times then seeing to it that the very best off can become more so, within the burden of considering those who have it worse.

I think that it is very un-American to feel no sense of responsibility toward other Americans.

@dn: I sympathize with your vision of the Constitution & this (once) great country. I defer to a famous quote on the dismal state of the union and citizens' expectations of their government:

"Can the real Constitution be restored? Probably not. Too many Americans depend on government money under programs the Constitution doesn't authorize, and money talks with an eloquence Shakespeare could only envy. Ignorant people don't understand The Federalist Papers, but they understand government checks with their names on them."

If only it weren't so......GXR

@ Ridgewood Mom - "I believe that it is the job of government to govern, and that part of that means to provide for the common welfare of its citizens."

All very vague and cliche, your words could mean anything. I respect your good intentions, but your rhetoric sounds like that of the left -- whose prescriptions have been taken (pun intended) liberally the past 40 years, with disastrous effects (out of wedlock births, levels of violent crime, substance abuse, divorce,etc.). You prescribe more "hair of the dog" that has bitten us. At what point do you concede failure "Ridgewood Mom"?
>"I'm not sure that either one of us is qualified to speak on behalf of the finer details of what the "founding fathers" were thinking"
But then you go on and tell us EXACTLY what they were "thinking".....
>"But what we can safely say, for certain, is that they were interested in establishing a government premised on ....." etc. etc.
So only you can read their minds?....what the?....

>"So then fairness isn't fair?"
We can have "fair" processes and treatments -- same tests, same expectations, or "fair" outcomes -- same groups achieving same results, but evidence tells us you can't (or rarely achieve) both. I think "dn" argues for "fair" (equal) treatment/processes, whereas you (and all leftists) argue for "fair" (equal) outcomes. You are asking the first group to pay for "fairness" for the second group -- that is the crux (or one of the biggies) of what irks tea partiers.

GXR - so depressingly true.

1. Bringing in social issues (out of wedlock births, levels of violent crime, substance abuse, divorce,etc.) as a means of supporting economic assertions won't help much here because I don't box them together as you seem to. I also don't consider myself to be a "liberal."

Moreover, I don't see why such a label as "liberal" ought disqualify me from civic discussion any more so than should a label of "conservative" or something else. I would hope that differences would inspire us to work to understand one another better as we work to persuade one another, or just agree to disagree, rather then functioning as a means for putting each other in one of two teams. There really isn't much value in name calling or preaching to one choir or another.

2. I did not "go on and tell us EXACTLY what they (the founding fathers) were 'thinking.'" I said that we can state clearly that the founding fathers supported the notion of "rights" BROADLY via the fact that they drafted such things as a "bill of rights" and a declaration asserting "inalienable rights." Social contract theory. This is no way contradicts my statements about the lack of authority over the sorts of "finer points" that dn laid claim to.

3. "I think "dn" argues for "fair" (equal) treatment/processes, whereas you... argue for "fair" (equal) outcomes."
I think that what you and I disagree about is what constitute "fair" (equal) treatment/processes, and that we are both, indistinguishably, concerned with outcomes.

@ Ridgewood Mom -- "Bringing in social issues as a means of supporting economic assertions won't help much here because I don't box them together as you seem to. I also don't consider myself to be a "liberal.""
> Certain "social issues" are tied to economic issues -- like welfare. This thread is, in my mind, focused on entitlements which leads (read on) to social issues.

> "I don't see why such a label as "liberal" ought disqualify me from civic discussion"
It should not. Your rhetoric suggests you are left-leaning.

I concluded that most "leftist" approaches to issues have failed.

@ Ridgewood Mom >"I would hope that differences would inspire us to work to understand one another better...etc."
Differences generally tend to "divide" people, though not always the case. A big difference driving much of today's politics and, in my mind, this discussion, is the chasm b/t a middle class who contributes most of tax base funding entitlements, a wealthy elite (aka the "1%") who funds disproportionate share of entitlements (but not the majority) and who have vastly different values than the middle class, and a strata of the population that are entitlement dependents (for instance, the ~45-50mm food stamp recipients, the 9mm who get disability, the 35-40 mm who get SSp or in NJ the $4.4 billion that goes to Abbott School districts in places like Paterson, Camden, Newark). As "dn" has stated -- and which I agree -- is that these #s are NOT SUSTAINABLE. Your rhetoric about "differences" and such ignores unpleasant math; further, and it also ignores some even more unpleasant demographic and social pathology data (which leads me back to the "social issues," family, culture, etc.).
>I think that what you and I disagree about is what constitute "fair" (equal) treatment/processes, and that we are both, indistinguishably, concerned with outcomes. NO, I am NOT as concerned with outcomes as much. I am more concerned with treatment. I respectfully disagree with you on. "Outcomes" were better prior to the debasement of traditional values/morality caused by "leftists."

Gary,

Perhaps there are necessary correlations between some social and some economic issues for you, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about values that other people, besides yourself, actually have. It is peculiar that you will not recognize or accept a distinction at all, being as the Bergen county area has at least as many libertarian (economic right / socially liberal) minded persons as it does traditional republicans (center right / conservative) or democrats (center left / liberal). And I think it is a shame that you will not allow that anyone might think outside of the boxes that you have chosen for them, and speak for themselves.

Your claim of valuing "fair" (equal) treatment/processes as opposed to outcomes also strikes me as inconsistent, considering that you are now arguing that certain "unpleasant demographics" have "social pathologies." And you even focus on family and child raising issues.

Social pathologies are, by definition, social. If entire demographic groupings of people are being raised in pathological ways, such would constitute a clear unfairness in what you term as "treatment/processes," as opposed to "outcomes." Not the other way around. As such, we are talking about profound social disadvantaging and not a simplistic lacking of the exercise of "personal responsibility." This strikes me as a powerful argument in favor of intensive government intervention.

@ Ridgewood Mom -- this thread has grown tired. I either failed to communicate properly or you misunderstood (or both) my points -- I understand 'others' have different values and there are many shades/hues of political thinking. This topic is too big to tackle here in a comments forum. The mere fact that folks like me, "dn," you, "Billy Mays," "Luca D" et al tend to disagree so much just reinforces a conviction of mine that our current polities (states, cities, nations) are becoming too big to govern effectively. THAT, however, is a topic for another day.

>"Social pathologies are, by definition, social. If entire demographic groupings of people are being raised in pathological ways, such would constitute a clear unfairness in what you term as "treatment/processes," as opposed to "outcomes.""
NO -- it does not in any imply this. To the contrary, it implies a cultural/behaviorial problem related to individual behaviors. Again, yours is the language suggesting we "socially engineer" these problems away. WRONG....social engineering has failed. Miserably. By way of example, and a couple of trillion and 40 years later after welfare was implemented, the "war on poverty" has been lost. Worse, the perverse incentives like preventing "free-riding", along other 1960s trends, has been an unmitigated disaster for our lower class' family lives and patterns of child rearing. I am done, "RIdgewood Mom". Thanks for the spirited debate. God bless and enjoy your long weekend. CHeers! GXR

"To the contrary, it implies a cultural/behaviorial problem related to individual behaviors."

The case of an individual not exercising personal responsibility is one in which making a bad choice is a matter of causation resting within the individual and not being necessitated on the basis of an environmental origin. If a case is one in which causation stems from community, cultural or otherwise socio-environmental forces, evidenced by very large groups of people simultaneously engaged in such negative behaviors, then it is not a matter of an isolated individual making a bad choice. Indeed, it is the par for the course.

"*Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

*Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf

Let's do something about this current social engineering that is status quo. Let government do its job of governing, and seeing to it that people be treated fairly with regard to "treatment/processes."

DN, THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT GARRETT IS THE ONLY NUMBSKULL THAT STANDS FISCAL CONSERVATISM FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE. IF HE FOUGHT FOR NNJ HALF AS MUCH AS OTHER SO CALL CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMEN FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN STATES, WE WOULD NOT BE GETTING SQUEEZED AND ON THE EDGE OF A CLIFF. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED FOR GARRETT? OH, YOU STAND FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE? HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY DID YOU BRING TO NJ? YOU STAND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY? HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY DID YOU BRING TO NJ? HOW MUCH CONSTRUCTION MONEY HAVE YOU BROUGHT TO NJ TO HELP THE STATES BIGGEST INDUSTRY? SPEAK UP. DON'T BE A LIMP WRIST GIRLY MAN.

Sad, Bob at Bob, sad. No, I reserve my loathing (as I thought was apparent from my comment) for attitudes of people like you and nomomoney. I'm not on any of those Big Government plans you mention, but I don't give a rat's ass if some Tea Partier is or not. My sole point is that all this crap that's been put in place is completely unsustainable. And instead of some real effort at trying to undo the USA's completely upside-down "budget" and spending, what we mostly hear from is whiners that don't get their "fair share". Oh and if Garrett is a Tea Partier, I thought that states that elected Tea Party members got more money than those that didn't. Or did I misunderstand your point?

I think you hit the nail on the head there B@B. Dn used the words "You and yours are our doom." The issue is a lack of willingness to accept all Americans, broadly, as members of one's "own." It is all about who one is and isn't willing to include in their sense of community. It is about inclusion and exclusion.

The idea is that we have entitlements within our own circles and that we have obligations to persons within our own communities, but we have no responsibility when it comes to "those people over there." For example, one does not hear of the care taking of one's own elderly parents or a handicapped child as a dolling out of "hand outs." The language of "hand outs" and "personal responsibility" is something that is reserved for the poor people and minorities, and specifically when one is not a member of those groups themselves. It is also a delusional denial of the fact that those individuals, and sub-groups, exist as aggregates of the same broader social and economic groupings to which more privileged individuals and sub-groups belong- that they are not really separate unto themselves.

Dear Ridgewood Mom, you crack me up with your psychoanalysis. And so utterly miss the point, that I never conceived that possibility of my comments being interpreted in that way when I wrote them. "We" are all in this country together, however, the pronouns "you and yours" were used to denote citizens with a thought process that I do not share. That was my error in political insensitivity. Good grief!

So then you agree that you have responsibilities and obligations toward those members of your greater community and nation who are less well off then yourself, and that such persons can benefit from government welfare as a form of collective enterprise?

RM, you don't own me the time of day and I don't owe you anything. I 100% agree that I don't owe ANYBODY anything, and that it is 100% MY CHOICE if I choose to help out my fellow man. There are truly needy people in this country - we do not owe them anything irrespective of whether it is the right thing to do or not. However, I do believe it IS the right thing to do (to help the truly needy). It is very debatable, though, whether the government or private charities are best suited to deliver that help. Not all government employees are bad - that's not what I'm saying. But time and again big bloated, faceless bureaucracy is almost always more inefficient at accomplishing a task than private entities that often have actual "skin in the game".

I'd be happy to let you know what time it is, if you were ever to need to ask. It would be uncivil not to.

At any rate, if nobody owes anyone anything then I ought feel entitled to take as much money from you as I can find a legal way to do, and "dole" it out to the needy as I see fit. You can't reasonably reject the very notion of responsibility based on the idea that others have an obligation to respect your "right" of liberty. I'm happy to accept that we will find differences in which "rights" and "responsibilities" we assert, but the idea that there are none just won't do. We must either accept that we have obligations to others, or we must be prepared to embrace a complete absence of care about one another.

Consider, do you feel that you don't owe anything to your mother (and she not to you) or is that just the case with strangers and anonymous posters on the internet? How about your children or siblings or cousins? How about a fourth or a fifth cousin? A spouse or a girlfriend or boyfriend? A neighbor? You have no obligations to them? None?

You seem to love to misconstrue. "Owe" implies a mandatory debt. I do not have any mandatory debt to you (for example). However, it would be civil of me to help you out if you trip and fall in front of me (for example), even if it were because of your own clumsiness.

"if nobody owes anyone anything then I ought feel entitled to take as much money from you as I can find a legal way to do, and "dole" it out to the needy as I see fit." You got it! It's called capitalism and it's called charity. There's hope for you! I'll even wager you might be good at it if you could try to see more things as YOUR responsibility and less of the government's!

I never said we have no rights and responsibilities. We all have rights, endowed by our Creator. The government, through our founding documents, is charged with protecting these. And like Obama once said, the Constitution is a bill of negative rights - you betcha - it is SUPPOSED to be a document that in part says what the government CAN'T do to us. It was not written to make a list of all these marvelous things the government can do for us, other than protect our individual right, preserve private property, and promote the civil society. I don't have to conduct a personal conversation with a Founding Father to know that the current state of affairs with our out-of-control nanny government is NOT what was envisioned.

Isn't there some irony in the moral argument that advocates wealth transfers to achieve social goal forgets to consider there are only two source of that wealth and both involve theft. You can either create more money which steals from everyone in the form of an inflation tax or by using a direct threat of force to take it.

Where can I see the statistics on what the Tea Partiers "want"? How many of them receive Social Security and Medicare payments without having paid into those funds? How many receive Food Stamps?

BOB, IT'S ALL A BIG HYPOCRITE ACT AND NOBODY SAYS ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE TOO POLITE. THE TRUTH IS THAT THESE SO CALL CONSERVATIVES ARE CONSERVATIVE WITH MONEY GOING FOR THE FELLOW NEIGHBOR STATES AND NOT CONSERVATIVE FOR THEIR OWN POCKETS. THAT IS WHY GIRLY MAN GARRETT MUST GO. WE NEED A REAL MAN OR WOMAN THAT IS CONSERVATIVE WITH MONEY GOING TO OTHER STATES, AND NOT NEW JERSEY. HOW HARD IS THAT TO FIGURE OUT? THERE IS A PICTURE OF GARRETT ON THIS PATCH, IT SHOWS HOW CLEAN, MANICURED FINGERNAILS, DELICATE HANDS HE HAS. HE SEEMS TO BE DOING A COMMERCIAL FOR A HAND SKIN LOTION. HE IS NOTHING BUT A LIMP WRIST GIRLY MAN WITH A GOOD CUSHY JOB. HAS HE EVER HAD A REAL CHALLENGE FOR HIS OFFICE? I WILL TAKE EVERY WORD BACK IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME HOW MUCH REAL MONEY HAS HE BROUGHT BACK TO NNJ IN SUPPORT OF THE INDUSTRIES OF THIS STATE.

People use the word unsustainable as if it was something new to us. Nothing on this earth and beyond is sustainable. In private business if you can't sell because you got sick, that is unsustainable and your business will close. In nature if you don't water a plant, that is unsustainable and the plant will die. In taxes if there is no revenue that is unsustainable and there will be no services ranging from defense to fixing roads. In the southern states, if there is no money being collected from the Northeastern states, they will have no money for their welfare programs. That is unsustainable. It takes a type A personality in congress to fight for NJ to bring money to NJ. Garrett is not a type A personality. He belongs in a basement, low profile, watching the news on TV, and not being the center of attention. We need a hawk in Congress that knows how to fight for us and knows how to get the job done for us.

His voting record says Main-Stream America.

He is a tea party pal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLuTRT6cQqc

Look I want to vote for this man, but I need to know what he has done for us. He seems like a nice guy. Won't somebody please tell me what he has done?

Well StewartR,

"Scott Garrett is the former drummer for Pop's Cool Love, The Cult and Dag Nasty.[1] He currently plays drums for Wired All Wrong and has been support drummer for J since 1997. He was also temporary drummer at the last few shows of God Lives Underwater.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Garrett_%28musician%29

@ "roberta sonenfeld" - point, sputter, fleck foam!...calm down, "roberta." Just because you or none of your friends would vote for the man, that doesn't mean he's "radical right wing." Fact is, he's "in touch" with the views of a majority of Americans, not so the richest "1%" or the large swath of those who depend on gov't entitlements. That he "cannot" (really, will not) "compromise" is something to be admired. Tell me - when is "uncompromising" really "sticking to his principles" or "showing leadership on an issue"? It's "uncompromising" if you disagree with the person (as you do), that's when. As for your gerrymandering charge, I tend to agree with you, but that is the way BOTH parties work these days. CHeers, GXR

Roberta, you are right. But he is more than that. He is a complete mistery. This man has been collecting pay as a NJ rep and he has never brought a single cent to NJ. At least the right wing congressmen from those states in the South, lobby for money for their states in the form of defense money, or whatever. There are some so called conservative states that get more money from the federal government than they send back. NJ for some reason just gives, gives, gives to support those so called conservative states, and gets less, less, and less. The common misconception in the South is that NJ is a welfare state. Why is Garrett not fighting for us? Where was this man during the floods? When factories close? When industry goes South or out of the country? This man is stealth. He does not really exist. We see his pictures but has he ever been seen by anyone? If anyone has seen Scott Garrett, please let me know. He is more mysterious than Carmen Sandiego.

Roberta,
Gary Rabid Half Wit is an idiot. Garret is an idealogue that has done absolutely nothing for our area since the district lines up north made him a shoe-in. He would never debate any candidiate unless it was on some farm radio station and he has voted against everything in our interest. Plus, he is a hypocrite. His "shrub farm", tended by his brother the farmer makes about $700 a year yet has gotten over 40k in tax breaks. and his buddy Grover Norquist preaches cuts while his state feeds like pigs at the federal trough with farm subsidies. I wonder why no one calls him out about his "farm". Red states are sucking this country dry. And I'm not even a progressive, I'm a proud JFK democrat. Only an idiot would think this empty suit is actually representing our interests.

Thanks. I need to know this. The problem with some fiscally conservatives in congress is that they lobby against money that should be going to their own states and expect us to be happy about it. Hey Guys, Scott Garrett just voted against a school funding bill written by those evil liberals. Now NJ is getting just what it deserves. Not getting s… now. Hey guys, Garrett just voted against a highway bill that would have helped NJ taxpayers. Now the PA will have to raise their tolls. Hey that is great. That guy Garrett he really has his finger on the pulse of NJ. I will vote for him. You knuckleheads.

Conservatives out there. I do not mind you voting for a right winger that is fiscally conservative, but let him be fiscally conservative for other states not NJ. When was the last time a Virginia Conservative voted against the biggest industry in Virginia. When was the last time an Oklahoma conservative voted against the biggest industries in the South West. You knuckleheads.

Where should I begin. Obama has actually SLOWED the rate of growth of the debt. Have a look... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/ As for the debt growth, have a look where we'd be today without the Bush Tax Cuts and the two wars Republicans put on credit cards: http://retiregarrett.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/garretts-world.jpg. This one is pretty clear as well... http://retiregarrett.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bush-versus-obama-spending.gif

Unemployment you say. Okay let's have a look at some actual FACTS... http://retiregarrett.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/govcuts.jpg

Seems to me that unemployment spiked around Oct of 2009 and when some of the programs Obama enacted went into effect the numbers started to improve. Coincidence? Maybe, but maybe not. What is certain is that under this administration we've seen 26 straight months of private sector job growth. Keep something else in mind: In the entire history of the United States we've never gotten out of a recession, depression or near depression without deficit spending by the Federal government. Never. Hasn't happened once.

Too much government? Like the lack of regulation that allowed virtually no oversight of a credit default swap market that was so large it exceeded our GDP? Nothing to see here, move along. BTW R's attempt at gutting SEC funding isn't going to solve the problem.

Hmmmmm, so much of what you know simply isn't so.

Obama has racked up 45% of the debt.

The Fed has monetized debt at a rate unprecedented in our history.

The idea that income would have remained flat in the face of higher taxes requires one to suspend reason. People and corporations would have taken less risk given the higher tax rates. More would have been done to avoid/postpone ordinary income. Actual income would have been lower. Using your logic, we could just increase rates to 75% across the board and could collect more money. In practice, when tax rates are cut, income goes up and we usually see more revenue from lower tax rates.

The unemployment number is rigged. The dept of labor has been reducing the percentage of adults 18-65 who are looking for work to make the percentage look better. The reality is, not only do we have fewer jobs, we have more people chasing that smaller pool. The real number (using the "old" method) is much higher than advertised.

As for CDOs, MBSs and Swaps, the reason the reason we have problems here is not the regulations but the implicit government guarantee. If you know the government won't let you fail, what risk is there in taking on a crazy bet that might actually win? If people knew they could lose lots of money or bankrupt their bank, the bubble would never have formed. A strong case can be made all of the bubbles in the past 100 years were cause by the same private bank, The "Federal" Reserve.

Dan, let me try using some left leaning news sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

Debt when Bush left office it was $10.626 trillion, as of a few months ago it was$15.566 trillion. Do I need to do the math to show you how it went up over 45%, should I highlight how Obama's debt is greater in 38 months then Bush's 96 months?

I am not sure which source you would accept which acknowledges Austrian Economics, but maybe I can appeal to your sense of logic. You would agree that taxing something makes it more taxing, ie less likely to happen, right? You would agree that to make a profit, you have to take a chance, ie risk money, right? You would agree that before someone takes risk, they usually want to know what the reward is, right? So if you know the tax rate, why wouldn't you factor that into a risk reward model? If fewer risks are being taken, fewer people are employed. Less people paying a higher tax rate usually has the effect of less total taxes. IE 30% of $1000 is more then 70% of $400.

As for implicit government guarantees causing problems, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae, while "poverty" regulations contributed, without the implicit government guarantee, the FannieMae bubble would never have formed. No one in their right mind would have bought the junk and if they did, they market would have dealt with them.

Tommy P ---
In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year Obama took office.
The economic downturn was in full bloom when Obama took office and before he enacted any policies as president, the CBO projected a 2009 deficit of $1.2 trillion (as well as significant projected deficits in years to come as well).

"Dr Doom" you confuse me with someone who thought Bush was a good President. He had many shortcomings, Obama is just amplifying those shortcomings and adding a few. There is no question a few bubbles that took the has been pumped up since Clinton was President started to deflate at the end of the second Bush term, but just like FDR's policies prolonged (created) the Great Depression, Obama is doing much of the same. Cash for Clunkers which hurt the poor, the 99 weekers, the NDAA, Libya, the privatization of forces in Iraq, the Obamacare tax, the GM theft (now exporting jobs to China), the Chrysler theft hello Fiat, monetizing the debt, gas prices, energy prices "necessarily skyrocketing", the pending largest tax increase in US history, I could go on.

Garrett is on the right side of the majority of those issues.

Tomy P. 90% of what you said is Obama's fault not because he did it, but he didnt revert the policies of the previous president

WE GET ALL OUR FEATHERS RUFFLED WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT A FAMILY ON WELFARE COLLECTING 1K PER MONTH AND FOOD STAMPS. WE GET ALL UPSET WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT A HIGHWAY DEPT. PLOW TRUCK DRIVER MAKING 30K PER YEAR. WHAT IS BREAKING THIS AND OTHER STATES IS THE RUTHLESS CROOK THAT CALLS HIMSELF A PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE AND RETIRES WITH A 6 FIGURE PER YEAR SALARY FOR LIFE WITH ALL THE BENEFITS.

You hit the nail on the head. Let the red states govern themselves according to the Tea Party Mantra- that means we actually geta a fair shake from Washingtion instead of 61 cents for every buck sent to the GOP congress. I pray that people understand what a useless hypocrite Garrett is and turn him out of office. He can then retire to his shrub farm and get those tax breaks.