Sunday, January 22, 2012

All events are at Duval Auditorium, 1501 North Campbell Avenue.

Parking is free in the visitor parking structure.

8-9:15 am – Cafe Inquiry. Open Forum. The hot topics of the day will be discussed.

Moderator, Gil Shapiro

10-Noon:– Lecture: Beyond Kumbaya: Culturally Relevant Humanism

by Sikivu Hutchinson

Despite media fantasies of post-racialism and post-feminism, the U.S. remains a deeply segregated, separate and unequal nation. The election of President Barack Obama brought heady claims of equality, yet anti-secularist, xenophobic Tea Party-style white nationalism is on the rise. So while the mainstream New Atheist movement battles over science and the separation of church and state, atheists, freethinkers, and humanists of color bring an entirely different set of priorities to the table. Author Sikivu Hutchinson discusses these challenges, providing a social justice lens for Humanism that goes beyond Kumbaya.

About the Speaker – Sikivu Hutchinson is a senior intergroup specialist for the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission. She received a Ph.D. from New York University and has taught women’s studies, cultural studies, urban studies, and education at UCLA, the California Institute of the Arts, and Western Washington University. She is the author of Imagining Transit: Race, Gender, and Transportation Politics in Los Angeles and Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars. She has published articles in Free Inquiry, American Atheist Magazine and Secular Nation. She is also the editor of blackfemlens.org, founder of the Black Skeptics and a senior fellow for the Institute for Humanist Studies.

Upcoming FreeThought AZ events:

February 19 – 9am Annual FreeThought Membership Meeting

10am “Conservative Evangelicals in American Politics: Reflections from the Field” by Karen Seat. She is Associate Professor of Religious Studies Program U of A

As an election year, 2012 is going to challenge our critical thinking skills in politics as well as everyday life. Let’s rise to the challenge. Resolved:

1. Do not forget our nation’s heritage of a strong separation between church and state. If you need a reminder of our history, here’s a good resource: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html. Politicians who promise or suggest that their religious beliefs will determine their decisions in office are not only spitting on the graves of our founding fathers, they’re extremely dangerous.
2. Do not be taken in by any hoaxes, scams, pseudo-science, or mysticism. Question everything. Criticize ruthlessly. Follow your own conclusions regardless of what “everyone else” seems to think. Also: the world isn’t likely to end, literally or figuratively, in 2012.
3. Create something unique, original, and valuable. Distribute it as widely as you can. You don’t have to make money from it, but if you do that’s even better.
4. Discuss controversial subjects like politics, religion, and economics with the smartest people you can find who disagree with you. Don’t waste your time with idiots, and if you agree with someone about everything or nearly everything then one of you is redundant to the discussion. Try to get information from as many diverse sources as you can.
5. Do not be fooled by public professions of piety and insinuations that a candidate’s political opponents are infidels. President Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim nor much as I might wish, an Atheist. All of Obama’s major Republican challengers are…Christians. All of the third party candidates you are likely to hear about are…Christians. Regardless of the wisdom of doing so, in the 2012 presidential election there will be little opportunity to vote based on a candidate’s major religious beliefs because they’re all Christians. This is true for most of the other races as well. Some semblance of Christian belief is practially and unfortunately a requirement to win election to high office in this country.
6. Learn and practice something that is both useful and new. Age is no excuse to stop growing your knowledge base.
7. Establish a set of core values and principles that you can live your own life by and also judge candidates by. As a start I suggest:
   * Critical thinking informed by logic and evidence rather than mystical and wishful thinking.
   * Integrity, responsibility, and accountability rather than endlessly kicking the can down the road.
   * Respect for all human rights, including: freedom of and from religion, privacy, due process, equal treatment,  speech, property, and self-defense.
8. Do not cast your vote based on a candidate’s promises or statements - such statements are usually composed of far more lies than truth. Instead, vote based on the candidate’s actual track record, the effect of their party affiliation on wider political outcomes, and who their campaign funding comes from — since that’s who they are most likely to listen to once in office. This requires a little more research than listening to whatever sound bites happen to be playing on Fox News or CNN. Either do the research, or stop calling yourself an informed voter.
9. It is possible that no candidate in a particular election race will measure up to earning your vote. If none do, then there is no shame in withholding your vote in that race. Voting is neither a legal nor a moral imperative and non-voters have just as much right to criticize government policy as voters do.
10. Treat your body and your mind with the respect they deserve. Accept neither the hedonism of short-term thinkers nor the asceticism of mystics. Lean on your own understanding, and run…don’t walk…from anyone who counsels you to have faith.

Happy New Year!

Here’s the latest from Jim Wilson:

I have been involved with atheist, secularist and skeptics organizations for a considerable amount of time and being involved has done a lot for me on a personal level.  For starters it introduced me to many ideas, activities and wonderful people who later became friends.  I know it is not for everyone but I feel there are people who really don’t understand how much an atheist group can offer.  The movement allows me to meet people from a wide variety of backgrounds.  I have even developed relationships with some exceptional freethinking women.  Atheists attract other atheists who are represented by a variety of ages, lifestyles as well as philosophical and political philosophies.  For me, discussing these differences has been a source of enjoyment and highly informative.  None of this should come as a surprise, since the only things that unite us are a lack of religious beliefs, a general pro-science attitude and a desire to see our government not over run by religious zealots.

With this in mind, the general sense one gets coming to an atheist or secularist function is what a bunch of freakin’ white guys this is.  Often really nerdy white guys at that. If I were to attend an atheist function in a new city, I would not bet against it being a total sausage fest.   Personally, I like seeing a wide range of perspectives being brought to the table, but with that I recognize there is a huge part of the population who might not even know we exist. Our conversation would be enriched by having a wider range of perspectives, and society would be enriched if more of the general population knew about the freethought/atheists/skeptics movement and what motivates us.    Involvement is a great way to spread our values and encourage activism, and I fear that if our message is confined largely to and associated with upper middle class white men, it’s a problem.  I see a need to reach out more to people who are not as interested in particle physics and lord of the rings but like to discuss the complexity of religion, social issues and society at large.

It’s not just gatherings and functions either.  White males are far more likely to identify as atheist and support secularist causes, than members of racial minorities and women.  As a young white guy, I do not think I can speculate too much about why this is, but I encourage our readers to explain this and what can be done to appeal to a larger segment of the general population.  One explanation is that people who are already part of one minority group are not in a hurry to identify with another one, especially one as heavily demonized and vilified as atheists.

It may appear to some, that leading icons of the movement are people like Dawkins and Hitchens who are both not only educated white guys, but highly abrasive.  It seems likely to me that a lot of people have trouble relating to prominent people like them; perhaps some would prefer Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Julia Sweeney.  In many minority communities as well as working class communities, churches play a large role as sources of social support and self-help.  In addition I will readily acknowledge churches serve as part of the culture in many communities.  I see this as a positive thing and I see a need for this role to be performed by secular organizations in general.  Religious organizations are often willing to do a lot for people but ask for their souls in return (and likely a 10th of their income).

All that said, I see hope knowing my generation is one of the most atheistic this country has had in a long time. No doubt, the Internet has been a valuable tool in getting people to question all sorts of beliefs and assumptions.  While more people are becoming involved, I wanted to take this time to invite everyone reading this to reflect on the current state of affairs and consider joining us and know we won’t ask for your soul.

—

To that end – the next meeting of Freethought Arizona will be this coming Sunday, December 11th at 10am in Duvall Auditorium at University Medical Center. I will post more details on Friday, but I echo Dave’s invitation to join us and hope to see lots of you there!

Niall Ferguson makes a compelling case that the west is moving away from 6 key factors that were the cause of our prosperity. Take a few minutes and watch him make his case.

http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html

Ferguson’s 6 key factors, along with my thoughts, are:

1. Competition - At a surface level the markets - the job market, the stock market, the consumer goods market…just about any market you care to name – are as competitive as they have ever been if not more so. But there’s a growing and justified sense that the competitive game is rigged. The government bails out the wealthy and well-connected when things go wrong for them, and in the process makes things much worse for the average American. The overt and covert bailouts of the affluent during the last recession had a doubly pernicious effect: it further entrenched people who had made bad decisions in the lavish lifestyle to which they’d grown accustomed, and it simultaneously slammed shut many of the doors of opportunity that typically open up during recessions when the people at the top are allowed to go under. Verdict: In decline.

2. The Scientific Revolution – This is most immediately threatened by the rise of fundamentalist Christianity. Laws and restrictions on medical research are real and growing, with ever more calls to “protect the unborn” and prevent human genetic research. Attempts to ban or restrict genetically modified crops have gained more traction in Europe than here. But then again, understanding of the best scientific theories we have like evolution is being displaced by nonsense like intelligent design in the minds of many more Americans than Europeans. Verdict: Under attack.

3. Property Rights – Wealthy and well-connected corporations and politicians get away with murder (sometimes almost literally), while taxes, regulations, and draconian penalties combine to make it harder than ever for those who don’t already have lots of property to join the ever more exclusive club at the top. Stated economically: The problem with our current system is that there are too many economies of scale in property retention, and too many diseconomies of scale in property acquisition. Almost all of these are the direct result of government policies, not the “free” market. The right is perfectly happy with this state of affairs, as it’s how they get and maintain power. The left isn’t happy with it at all, but they are perennially focused on the failed approach of using still more government power to steal and redistribute property. Average Americans by and large don’t like either side’s solutions, but the party machines are too powerful to allow any other approach to gain much traction. This leads to a growing sentiment that the entire property rights system is failing – Occupy Wall Street is not exclusively driven by that, but my suspicion is that a lot of it is. Verdict: Threatened and increasingly unstable.

4. Modern Medicine – Apart from the threats to the science responsible for modern medicine mentioned under #2, there are two additional threats to modern medicine. The first is the right’s push to suppress abortion by severely regulating all aspects of it. If this continues, we’re going to see more and more underground medical abortions (“back-alley” abortions) with horrendous consequenses for the health of the women involved. The second threat to modern medicine is the spiraling cost of the American health care system and the conservatism of the single payer systems in place in most other countries. Modern medicine is a lot less useful if most of the people in society can’t afford it, or if innovation is stifled because a “greatest good for the greatest number” single payer system cannot afford to provide certain treatments to everyone. Verdict: Threatened.

5. The Consumer Society – The consumer society is driven by a strong middle class, which is being eroded by the factors I mentioned under #3. Also, I’ve mentioned on this blog before there’s a large problem of demand because the banks aren’t lending – sometimes even to worthy borrowers for good projects. That said, this is one item where I think Ferguson has some faulty economic assumptions. Consumption per se is not what should drive an economy. Even with the recession and the “new reality”, Americans as a whole still consume way too much compared to what we produce. The focus should be on getting Americans to produce more, and invest more, and export more – if that happens then consumption will take care of itself. Verdict: Mixed.

6. The Work Ethic – I have observed three main approaches to work in the American population. The first, and most widespread approach has people doing the minimal amount possible to get by in whatever situation they’re in – whether it’s school, a job, or collecting government benefits. I prefer the term “unmotivated” to the more pejorative “lazy”, but the core problem with these folks is that they see no cause to exert themselves to be or do any more than it takes to keep themselves fed and entertained. I lay a lot of responsibility for this state of mind at the feet of the public school system, which does not generally encourage individual initiative. The second approach has people doing whatever they can get away with to get the most money/power/prestige. They are motivated – which is good – but they are not out to create value nor are they constrained either by morals or by law beyond whatever fear of being caught and unable to buy their way out provokes (increasingly little). The third approach has people actually out to create value for their fellow human beings and in the process do more than just get by themselves. If we’re honest with ourselves, we all spend some time with the attitude of each group. But unfortunately I see approach number 1 and number 2 increasing at the expense of approach number 3. So unlike Ferguson I don’t think the problem is the amount of time we spend at work, but rather what our mindset is while we’re there. Verdict: In decline.

This adds up to a picture that’s not hopeless, but not very pretty either. Can we turn it around?

War. Terrorism. Violent Crime. Economic Depression. The End of the Middle Class. Failing Schools. Natural Disasters. Drug Resistant Diseases. Toxins in the Environment.

Just watching the evening news or reading the headlines can be downright depressing. This is true even moreso when the economy actually is pretty bad and large segments of the population are financially going backwards.

Then we have nutcases like Harold Camping who proclaim that the end of the world is imminent. While most Christians don’t go that far, they do generally view the world as being on an inexorable downward path toward an eventual judgement day. Such a view is the only one compatible with their view of humanity as fundamentally flawed, fallen creatures in need of supernatual salvation.

Al Anon even claims Darwin, who some Christians regard as the patron saint of atheists, was a pessimest:

An associate of Charles Darwin recalled: “During my last conversation with Darwin [before his death] expressed very gloomy view future mankind.”

And according to a historian, Charles Darwin himself feared that the theory of evolution had “killed God and that the (harmful) consequences for future of mankind were incalculable.”

So with all this pessimistic consensus, who would dare suggest that humanity’s current trajectory might not be downward?

The Wall Street Journal, for one. In a recent essay, “Violence Vanquished”, Steven Pinker makes the case that:

 Violence has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living
in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species.

Read the full article here: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180-lMyQjAxMTAxMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html

Of course, some will conclude that anything like this appearing in the WSJ is just happy talk promulgated by businessmen who want to keep exploited consumers happy and spending. Maybe so. And besides, this is just about violence. Maybe we’re more peaceful but getting worse in other ways?

Then there’s these guys at Ode:  “The Online Community for Intelligent Optimists”, http://www.odemagazine.com/, which has a decidedly leftward feel to it. Yet they also make a compelling case for optimism in “The best is yet to come”:

Humankind continuously exceeds its own expectations… However, we are really bad at one thing – predicting that development. And that’s a problem that leads to a lot of unnecessary pessimism.

Full text here: http://www.odemagazine.com/blogs/intelligent_optimist/23382/the_best_is_yet_to_come  OK, but they’re talking about mostly the impacts of technological innovations. So maybe we’re making better gadgets and tools, and we’re not killing each other as much…but aren’t our culture and morals at least on a downward spiral, which will take everything else down with it?

What really has me thinking about all this is a recent book by David Deutch, “The Beginning of Infinity,” which he opens with:

Progress that is both rapid enough to be noticed and stable enough to continue over many generations has been achieved only once in the history of our species. It began at approximately the time of the scientific revolution, and is still under way. It has included improvements not only in scientific understanding, but also in technology, political institutions, moral values, art, and every aspect of human welfare.

A larger excerpt can be seen here: http://beginningofinfinity.com/excerpt  David’s is a tall assertion indeed - improvements in every aspect of human welfare that are still under way. It’s hard to find a greater contrast with the seemingly prevalent view of our country and our planet as a decadent cesspool of poverty, violence, base culture, and immorality.

True, even pessimists recognize that sometimes good things happen; to be a pessimist is not to view every event negatively.  Conversely, optimists recognize that sometimes bad things happen and most recognize the possibility that a very bad event could alter humanity’s course. With all that said, there seems to be a pretty fundamenal difference in world view here. It’s not purely based in religion - while religionists do tend to be pessimistic about the only world that actually exists (the real one), many atheists are also pessimistic or at least seem to be.

One other point of clarification: some people will say that they’re optimistic, but ”only if…”, i.e. “only if we eliminate government initiation of force”, or “only if we return the government to the limits of the constitution”, or “only if we greatly increase taxes on the rich”, or “only if we overturn the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” or…whatever. The optimism in such statements is contingent on drastic and controversial and, at least in the near term, unlikely changes. That seems to me a mere variant on the fundamentally pessimistic world view. Like the Christians, they posit a downward spiral for humanity until and unless some revolutionary change that they advocate happens. They are pessimists on the question of where we are today and where we are headed, absent such a radical change.

So what’ll it be, folks? Are we currently in a bad state and headed for some version of armageddon, as the Christians believe, or are we at the beginning of infinite progress, as Deutsch assets? Or is it something else entirely? And I’m really interested in hearing your *reasons* for thinking optimistically or pessimistically about humanity’s current direction in comments.

As we all know, Rush Limbaugh is a right-wing windbag who won’t acknowledge simple truths even when they are respectfully offered with supporting evidence. His followers, including my idiot brother, are as adverse to critical thinking as any religious nut. To wit:

Listen to this from El Rushbo’s radio show.

jg

I suspect that some of you have been following the tumultuous, angry debates over the huge U.S. government debt and unfunded mandates. You each owe something like $67,000. Bummer!

The more liberal Democrats refuse to pay down the debt on the backs of the poor and middle class, so they want to solve the debt crisis by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Liberals use “fairness” to justify their ethical position. I say “ethical” because our political positions are just an extension of our ethical positions.

The more conservative Republicans couldn’t care less about the poor and middle class, so they have no ethical problem keeping taxes on the rich and corporations, who control 90% of America’s wealth, very low while substantially reducing the standard of living for the rest of us. Conservatives use “fiscal responsibility” to justify their ethical position.

Our national problem is not a lack of wealth to pay down the $15 trillion national debt and to fund the unfunded mandates, such as Medicare and Medicaid. There’s plenty of wealth. But it’s almost entirely concentrated in the hands of our corporations and richest Americans…trillions upon trillions of dollars.

So, we have an easily solvable debt problem. What is harder to solve is the unemployment problem. And it can only be solved by SPENDING.

You may have noticed that businesses aren’t spending. They are not about to hire more employees or invest in new equipment until they believe there is more demand for their products and services. That’s rational.

Consumers aren’t about to spend more than they absolutely have to because they are either unemployed, under-employed, or fear becoming the unemployed. Under the circumstances, that too is rational.

Between the fears of business executives and the fears of consumers, we are at a stalemate and deeper recession or even depression is inevitable. Unless…

Wait a minute. There is one more entity that could get us out of this mess. You see, our economy is like a three-legged stool. Take away one leg and the stool collapses. The three legs of our economy are (1) business; (2) consumers; and (3) government. So, if we need spending to create new jobs, but neither business nor consumers will increase spending, that leaves….

WOW! What a concept. But wait. There’s a problem. We’re deep in debt. Won’t more government spending increase the debt? Sure. So what?

If the government doesn’t spend, we can, based on economic history, reasonably expect an even worse economy and much higher unemployment. Just like they did in the 1930’s, conservative Republicans are driving us to economic ruin. Paul Krugman put the situation as well as anyone when he wrote in the NYT this morning:

“For the fact is that right now the economy desperately needs a short-run fix. When you’re bleeding profusely from an open wound, you want a doctor who binds that wound up, not a doctor who lectures you on the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle as you get older. When millions of willing and able workers are unemployed, and economic potential is going to waste to the tune of almost $1 trillion a year, you want policy makers who work on a fast recovery, not people who lecture you on the need for long-run fiscal sustainability.”

I’m sure you can think of many other reasons to hate conservatism in general and Republicans in particular, but right now this one is on my front burner. jg

Nick Kristof was so insightful this morning that I had to pass his commentary along in the public interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Given recent comments on this blog, I should try to add some clarity, particularly to issues concerning political philosophy. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a political liberal, some would say progressive. Many who comment are self-described conservatives, and some are libertarians.

But where do these political perspectives come from? What is the philosophical foundation of each? These are the issues I will explore over the next few weeks. This effort will culminate in my reasons why freethought naturally leads to liberalism, with all of its inherent flaws, and why conservatism is, at base, always wrong from an ethical perspective.

When beginning such an undertaking, I usually start with definitions for the sake of clarity and consistency down the road. So here are standard definitions of terms that have been badly distorted in comments here and which I will use in future posts on political philosophy.

Definitions will include: socialism, capitalism, liberalism, libertarianism, Golden Rule, and many others used frequently in political debate. These definitions include both strict dictionary definitions and my understanding of their practical application in 21^st century America. I will try my very best to be unbiased as to these practical implications, but being human, I may show some bias that I am unaware of. Therefore, I will rely on you to point out any bias while demonstrating that your perspective has no bias.

If you have issues with these fairly standard and common definitions, now is the time to say so.

I envision a series, so consider this the first of many installments.

Part One.

Conservatism. A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability. A dislike or fear of political and social change. A disposition to preserve (conserve) established traditions and institutions; or to restore the old traditions and institutions of an idealized past or bygone golden era. A disposition to limit social change.

The guiding principle of American-style political conservatism is minimal government. Government is inherently wasteful and inefficient. The bigger the government, the more waste and inefficiency. Individuals make better decisions about how to use the money they have earned.

In practical terms, this means:

(1) Low taxes. A progressive tax rate is inherently unfair. High taxes result in “big government”. Taxation is little more than “Robin Hood” government; take from the rich, give to the poor. Taxation is unfair confiscation and punishment for success.

High taxation inhibits job creation and economic growth, and thus bad for America.

(2) Little if any government regulation of business conduct and personal financial affairs. The conservative guiding principle here is both “freedom” and “buyer beware!”. Individuals don’t need government to protect themselves from unscrupulous or negligent businessmen. Most businessmen will behave ethically and enhance the general welfare without any government oversight. Thus, there is little or no need for such agencies as the SEC, EPA, FDA, or FAA. Regulatory agencies are an unnecessary taxpayer expense. Moreover, government regulation of business inhibits job creation and dampens economic growth and prosperity.

(3) No one is responsible for the success or failure of others. The rich did not cause poverty and, therefore are not responsible for alleviating it. America is the land of opportunity. We are all born with equal opportunity for success. Thus, we are all personally responsible for our success, including paying for our own decisions, retirement, and health care. Failure results from lack of self-discipline, ingenuity, and other individual character flaws, and is, therefore, not the responsibility of government to provide for these needs. Social Security, Medicare and other “social safety nets” are just welfare schemes that unfairly take from the hard-working rich and give to the lazy, undeserving poor. As the poor have no powerful lobby, conservative politicians need not address their concerns.

(4) Little government intrusion into personal affairs, except to use the coercive power of government to enforce conservative morality (personal responsibility over government assistance) and ideology (personal freedom over community interests) through law and public policy.

(5) Fiscal conservatism: both government and individuals should not spend more than their incomes allow. Both should save for a “rainy day”. All should maintain a balanced budget. Debt inhibits freedom and is, thus, bad.

To appeal to the greatest possible number of voters in order to gain or keep political power, fiscal and social conservatives often appeal to fundamentalist principles and beliefs.

Fundamentalism. Strict adherence to a particular theological doctrine or dogma, such as evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Fundamentalism is a theological reaction to modernity in general and enlightenment or liberal thinking in particular.

Both fundamentalism and conservatism harken back to an idealized or utopian golden age where men of a certain privileged class held all the power.

Fundamentalism and conservatism are often allies in political debates against liberalism and progressivism that promote the abandonment of old ways in order to establish greater fairness and equality at the perceived expense of the ruling class.

Fundamentalism is characterized by dogmatic beliefs such as:

(1) The infallibility of sacred texts. Sacred texts are the words of God (or gods) and are, therefore, without error.

(2) Literal interpretation of sacred texts. No wishy-washy liberal interpretations that promote tolerance of diverse views.

(3) Justice as retribution. “An eye for an eye” ethic. Harsh punishment for offenders of the traditional moral code.

(4) Absolute certainty about the will of God and what is right and wrong.

(5) Moral absolutes. Right and wrong, morality and immorality, are universal and eternal, rather than relative or situational.

(6) Theocracy: there should be no separation of government from the established, true religion. Religious law should govern civil law. (God, Jesus, Allah) should be the head of government. The most learned among their followers should govern.

Dogmatic beliefs are not subject to empirical evidence, scientific proof, independent historical accounts or sound logic.

END PART ONE.

Dear Jim

I was listening to NPR yesterday when they were interviewing people from Ohio about what they thought of raising the debt ceiling. Most were for it. But one man, who identified himself as a “lawyer” said he had two children and he didn’t want them to be saddled with more debt so he was against it. (This is a man you would not want to represent you under any circumstances. Far too stupid.)

Let’s get something straight. The debt ceiling has nothing to do, by statute, with cutting the budget. It is a ploy by the rabid right to destroy government. Is that what you want? No US govt.? Are people really that incredibly dumb?
Sure, nobody likes the fact that the govt. continues to go further and further in debt, the proportion of debt rising steadily against GDP. Not good. But let’s go back and look at some of the reasons for this imbalance. Let’s examine presidencies for the past 50 years:

President                            Term Years                    %/increase debt

 

Kennedy/Johnson    D              1961–1965                      -8.3%

Lyndon Johnson    D                 1965–1969                    -8.3%

Richard Nixon    R                     1969–1973                     -3.0%

Nixon/Ford    R                          1973–1977                    +0.2%

Jimmy Carter    D                       1977–1981                    -3.3%

Ronald Reagan    R                   1981–1985                      +11.3%

Ronald Reagan    R                   1985–1989                     +9.3%

George H. W. Bush    R            1989–1993                     +13.0%

Bill Clinton    D                          1993–1997                       -0.7%

Bill Clinton    D                          1997–2001                      -9.0%

George W. Bush    R                 2001–2005                     +7.1%

George W. Bush    R                2005–2009                   +20.7%

Barack Obama      D                2009–                             +9.0% (2010)

Source- Wikipedia

Please note that the largest increases were under Raygun and  George II, The Idiot. Clinton actually reduced the national debt, as did Carter and Kennedy/Johnson. Even Nixon. So why the imbalance with the last repubs presidents? The Idiot actually managed to add to the debt by trying every trick he could like declaring war on Iraq and reducing taxes on the rich. This fact was before the bailout!

John

This is just a portion of the letter from John Padget this morning. But it’s sufficient to tell you why I would never vote for a republican. jg