There's nothing "absurd" about wanting to save your country from fiscal disaster. What's "absurd" is to look the other way and pretend nothing is wrong. Obama was supposed to bring change, not change for the worse.

As a percentage of GDP, Obama's deficits do not surpass, or even come close, to Roosevelt's time. We'll manage….I'm telling ya', we'll manage.

Here's the problem I have with conservatives getting all exercised about deficits whenever it's convenient: No Republican president in my lifetime has done anything other than expand government and run up deficits. Blindly, conservatives continue to vote for, and tout, Republican candidates and the Republican Party as small government, fiscally responsible adults.

But NOW, it's a freaking emergency where the pitchforks, or tea bags, must come out in mighty protest.

It's absurd.

Would that, somehow, be different from Reagan and both Bushes?

And if not, what's the point?

But I agree with Andrea, Specter should have become an Independent. He didn't because he thinks he'll have a better chance of winning with the Democratic machine behind him.

First this boldfaced lie – "And I understand that you are very exercised about Obama deficits….not like when Bush was running up his"

You must be talking to some other fella named King, because I have constantly complained about Bush's deficits THE ENTIRE TIME. I even complained about them IN THE LAST TWO POSTS I MADE TO YOU.

Then this colossal lie – "Reagan began the deregulation of the financial markets"

That is laughably wrong. Carter's Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 started financial deregulation, and Carter's 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act REALLY got the ball rolling by rescinding usury laws among other things, which gave banks the ability to create the subprime mortgage market. This stuff is EASILY verifiable, Rev. There's this new thing called Google which makes it quite simple to look up.
And the LAST significant banking deregulation came under Bill Clinton in 1999, which I guess you are admitting to. Hurray, a shred of honesty.

Your statement that Republicans have deregulated the financial industry while Democrats have regulated it does not stand up to the facts, not even close. The actual facts reveal that BOTH parties have deregulated the financial industry for the last 30 years. However, only Democrats lie about it, just as you are lying now.

And I understand that you are very exercised about Obama deficits….not like when Bush was running up his….but he was a Republican saving all of us from Islamic nuts who were going to kill us in our beds.

Reagan began the deregulation of the financial markets and corporate Democrats joined Phil Graham in finishing it off. Bush turned his back unless he had to grant authority for insolvent money shufflers to leverage more money so they could gamble. That's all Bush did.

Democrats, on average, regulate big money. Republicans, on average, deregulate big money. You're not a Republican, so you should recognize the truth in that comparison.

The war was not illegal. Congress authorized it. Let's try to be factual, okay ?

Obama is not running deficits because he inherited them. That's political hogwash. The bulk of Obama's projected budget deficits are due to Obama's own choices. You are not being honest.

I'm also not buying the argument you are making that long term deficits are okay as long as Obama has a good reason. There is NO good reason to bankrupt America over the long term, as Obama has signaled with his insane policies. Every single president in my adult lifetime has come up with a "good reason" to run up the deficits. That's why we're in an unsustainable financial position now, in debt up to our asses. I'm sick to death of it, and I'm not about to excuse what appears to be the biggest offender to ever come down the pike, Barockstar Obama, just because the inexperienced and naive dumbass has "good intentions."

The fact that Bush ran deficits is not the main issue for me. It's WHY he ran deficits. He did so to reward his "base" of very rich, mainly white, guys. He ran deficits, off budget naturally, to wage an illegal world war of choice, complete with gulags and torture.

Obama is running deficits, first because he inherited them, and second…in an attempt to restore an American economy thrown to the dogs over the last 28 years, for the sake of those very same, very rich, mainly white, guys.

Then again, with the Barockstar in control of the vertical and the horizontal, maybe you are in the right country after all.

I'm wondering how you can rightly oppose the GOP's Bush era deficits, and then heartily endorse Obama doubling those deficits. That requires a total mental checkout.

I'm also wondering how you can oppose the GOP Bush deficits, but then criticize Demint's call to eliminate from the party those Republicans who are for them, like Arlen Specter.

As for the GOP's low polling numbers – when you refer to the GOP becoming more "inclusive," I assume you mean the GOP should become more like the Democrats, who divide the country into special interests and then pander to each and every one of them. In other words, you think the Republicans should sell out their conservative principles of limited government, free markets, low taxes, and a strong defense, in favor of a big nanny state government, high taxes, welfare expansion, etc. That way, we'd actually have a one party system, which would inevitably lead to the totalitarian state you evidently crave. I most respectfully disagree with every fiber of my being. I don't want to become anyone's slave, least of all a slave to the biggest plantation owner in the world.

DeMint, Specter and the rest of the Republicans voted FOR Bush's many "charge and spend" big government projects. The Republicans made government bigger and ran up high deficits under Bush. Republicans in Congress fully supported their Republican president's initiatives.

What's laughable is DeMint's reference to the "free markets." Unregulated, free markets led us into the economic catastrophe we are enjoying today.

Worthy of comment also is King's total agreement with the purging of the Republican Party. No big tent for King in the GOP. Of course, that philosophy will only marginalize, and regionalize, an already very unpopular political party.

When only 21% of Americans want to be identified with the GOP…..it would seem inclusion, not exclusion, would be the road back to respectability. For the GOP, it's just the opposite.