Sigh. Maybe the American dream will die after all.

This graph is lifted from a Reason.com story about deficits.

Too bad Reagan ran up those huge deficits in the 1980s that Democrats are always crowing about.

Talk about heroic choices in every day life...

Democrats in 1987 and 2000-2008 were all up in arms about the deficit. Their almost universal reply to Reagan fans is the deficit. Their first anti-Bush (but certainly not the last) sentiment was that he turned Clinton's surplus into a deficit.

Now comes Obama, and well, the deficit, that's not such a concern anymore. Because, well, we need to "save" our economy. But since the economy shows signs of having started turning around in January 2009, before Obama was even sworn in, how much "saving" did it really do? And what will happen when the the turn around continues and runs head on into the stimulus that will begin to take affect in late 2009 or early 2010?

Before you think I'm on a rant... the Republicrats are no better. They talk up deficits and conservative spending, only to turn an about face when in power. Just look at the Bush years on that chart.

Think every day choices aren't heroic? Think choosing between two courses doesn't need to be in line with reality. If the pols had taken a second to consider the reality of economics, of growth and destruction, of the balancing of economics, they might not have done anything, and where would we be? Right about where we are now; except without the trillions of "stimulus" deficit that is coming our way, the possible inflation it will bring with it and the 100% guarantee of higher taxes in the future to pay that debt off. Think those choices won't matter? And those aren't even really "big" life questions.

I should probably read "Scratch Beginings" soon, before its either:

A) a comedy in that its no longer possible,

B) I have to sell it to eat or

C) all of the above.

This is truly, truly scary.

'WORDS' UPDATE: Add gaurantee, which I haven't been able to spell since, to my memory, 2000 and probably longer. Love to miss that first "u." Oh, and deficits, apparently, which I spelled wrong throughout.

Faux outrage (or more embarrassing - real outrage)

Reason has hit it on the head again. This time regarding Senate outrage about the AIG bonuses. I had heard on talk radio driving home yesterday that the bailout to AIG specifically protected bonuses agreed to prior to Feb. 11, 2009. It was a righty show, so I wanted to check before I got all indignant.

Now, Reason has said the same thing. The provision was included by Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D- Conn.). It really is unreal. They voted for the bailout, with few, if any conditions, specifically included an allowance for bonuses, and then express outrage when bonuses are paid and propose a special tax on the bonuses they approved.

From Reason: "It not only is dishonest but also means they, in a breathtaking abuse of power, believe using punitive taxation to appropriate someone's salary is a legitimate function of government."

Obama has asked his Treasury Secretary to pursue every avenue to block the bonuses. To bad he and his fellow Dems didn't think about this before, you know, they specifically approved the bonuses. Its sad that Congress could overlook that this would happen; its dishonest and shameful to specifically allow for it and then express shock. I'm sickened, angry and fearful.

As Reason points out, AIG and the government/people had a contract (the bailout), and now the government/people want out because they don't like the terms they agreed to and created.

That's just now how it works. Or at least it isn't.