Really??

In answer to Julie's question, and to the naive responses to date: TARP was signed into law by George W.  Bush, not President Obama, so take that portion of the deficit and lay it where it belongs. Having said that, I believe any president would have done so.  The deficit is, if anything, symptomatic of the entire Western (Europe, Canada, US) economy which is running low on raw materials and facing competition from new sources (Brazil, China, India, etc.)  and in new areas (Indian tech ) which are new and never before seen, so no one can lay claim to ever having handled it "better."  What is absolute fact is that the rich have heralded the "Trickle down" theory of economics since I was in high school (a great long  time ago).  The Hoover administration (Conservative Republican, thank you) tried it in 1927-28 with the pumping in of massive federal money (the Reconstruction Finance Corporation [RFC]) to the top of the "food chain" which was supposed to start the economy working again. The principal result was a further weakening of the economy for  three significant reasons.

                 The RFC's concentration on "bailouts (by other names) .  The RFC program was controversial because the average person suffering the direct affects of the depression was not being aided directly. The big businesses who many people blamed for the economic mess were seen as being rewarded by the low rate loans and grants. Much of the trickle stopped in their bank accounts, not in pay envelopes.

                The 1920s had seen a widening of the gap between the poorest and richest Americans.  In 1928, the year before the US economy plummeted into the Great Depression, the top  . 01% of American families earned 892 times as much as the bottom 10%.   In  2006 the  top .01% of American families averaged 976 times more than the bottom 10%!  Any  Romney/Ryan further tax breaks for the already wealthy would simply serve to increase that gap even more.

                Ron Paul fans take note: another reason that the US (and in fact , world) economy continued to drop into the 1930s was the Republican insistence on adhering to the gold standard, which Mr. Paul maintains is a good idea. One of FDR's first actions was to order federal aid to stop people from starving (and head off possible revolution) and get the US off the gold standard.

                Regarding the Republican lies about taxes:  in 1944, the marginal tax rate on the highest income  bracket   was 94%. In that year, Americans earning the equivalent (in inflation adjusted dollars) of $1 million paid 65% of their  income in Federal income tax.  In 2005, taxpayers making more than $1 million paid 23% of their income in income tax,  three times less than in 1944. In 1953, during Eisenhower's first term, the highest tax bracket was 92%.  In 1964, during the LBJ administration, the "tax and spend"  Democrats lowered it to 77%.  Through the Reagan years a weird phenomenon  occurred: The income tax rate decreased and the deficit skyrocketed. (so much for fiscal responsibility) .  In the Clinton years another weird thing happened: The tax rate increased (a little) and the deficit actually disappeared. Those damned  Democrats just won't live up to the  lies told about their tax and spend ways, will they?  In 2000, another strange thing happened, President George W. Bush cut taxes, launched a war, the projected surplus vanished   and the deficit screamed upward.  Economics is all about the numbers, and Republican claims aren't supported by them at all! .  We also hear Republicans whining about the "death tax."  Their memories are short. The rate in 1976 for the top estate tax bracket was 77%;  it is now 45% .  

                As  previously stated,  one of the (universally agreed upon) triggers  of the Great depression was the  large and highest ever income gap between the highest earners and lowest earners in society.  In 1980, the last pre-Reagan year, the bottom 90% families averaged $30,446 in income. In 2006, adjusting for inflation, the bottom 90% averaged 30,374, an actual decrease . Over the same period, the top  .01% saw a factor of 5 increase in take home income!  We were there again, at a higher ratio by 2005, and the Republican  "solution" is to cut taxes on the rich and increase the gap even more? Really??

                Mr.  Romney is running a commercial right now bragging about starting his own business and "worrying about making ends meet." Trust me, Mitt Romney, the fourth richest man ever to run for President, like his Republican predecessor, "W," was born  rich and has never in his life had to worry about "making ends meet." The thing that is most astonishing to me is that anyone not of the same social status or class would believe for an instant that Romney  is in touch with any aspect of their lives, and even more significant in many cases, their concept of religion.

The "trickle down" theorists remind me of the old line, "Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining!"