President Obama just finished speaking moments ago about his budget, a $3.8 trillion dollar document that will lead to $1.56 trillion in deficits for the coming fiscal year. The long-term outlook gets us back to deficits closer to 4% of GDP. FDL News has obtained this budget overview which includes all relevant statistics.
The budget outline includes the three-year freeze in non-security discretionary spending, but despite that, the deficit remains over $1 trillion dollars even in fiscal year 2012. President Obama explained that unfunded mandates, unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy put the nation on this unsustainable path. However, while President Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthy are allowed to expire, war funding continues to surge in this budget, well above the forecast in Obama’s budget from the previous year, and a sign that the federal commitment to Afghanistan is far from over.
Using again the poor metaphor that “we have to do what families across America are doing,” Obama talked about the priorities in his budget. They include $100 billion for job creation, featuring the small business job creation tax credits, encouragements for energy retrofits and investments in public infrastructure the President has previously cited as the pillars of his job strategy.
He also stressed the need for “a new foundation for lasting growth,” and highlighted investments in clean energy, scientific research, and a 6% increase in funding for the Department of Education, saying that “there is no better anti-poverty program than a world-class education.” Obama plans to remake the No Child Left Behind law to reflect closely his “Race To The Top” funding program, where states receive additional funding based on their commitment to various reform measures like teacher performance evaluations. While changing the apportioning of federal monies, Obama would also eliminate certain Bush-era provisions that rigidly designate failing schools. He would also consolidate 38 Education Department programs into 11, an effort to reform the system.
Overall, the budget does reflect a “cut and invest” strategy (Obama called it “cutting what doesn’t work to make room for what does”), though Obama used some clever rhetoric to talk about these cuts. He said that his budget team found $17 billion in cuts in last year’s budget, and $20 billion this year. However, the first example of a “new” program cut, one that pays states to clean up abandoned mines (even if they don’t end up doing the work), was in last year’s budget as well, only to be trimmed by Western-state members of Congress. So the inclusion of a budget cut does not ensure its approval.
Obama included his student loan reform package, where subsidies to middleman banks to perform student loans are eliminated and the savings plowed into Pell Grants, in the budget (this policy was passed by the House but not the Senate last year). He included his tax on big banks, set to recoup $90 billion in lost TARP money over ten years. And he plans to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, along with eliminating $40 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies. Obama also mentioned not continuing “a costly tax cut for hedge fund managers,” though it’s unclear whether this means taxing hedge fund profits as income instead of capital gains.
However, there are a multitude of tax cuts in the budget. The President would make permanent certain Bush tax cuts measures affecting those making less than $250,000 a year. He would also extend his “Making Work Pay” tax cuts from the stimulus ($400 for individuals, $800 for families), eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and add in the other small business tax cuts previously described.
Obama said that, while the Defense Department is exempt from the budget freeze, “it’s not exempt from budget common sense.” The big program that Obama is looking to pick off this year, building on the success of cutting the F-22 last year, is the C-17 transport aircraft. The Pentagon has 180 of these planes and does not want any more, yet Congress continues to slip in funding to build more year after year. Obama will seek to “eliminate this program that does nothing to keep us safe.”
As a supplement to the budget, the Administration will sign an executive order to create a bipartisan fiscal commission, which will recommend a plan specifically to balance the federal budget by 2015, excluding payments on the debt. Leadership has vowed to vote on these recommendations after the midterm elections, in December of this year.
The deficit persists throughout the decade, and while 4% of GDP is more sustainable, Peter Orzsag maintained that health care costs are driving those increases in the out years.
One of the drivers of the surging deficit in the second half of the 10-year budget window is surging healthcare costs. OMB director Orszag said in a Sunday briefing that the only way to change that would be to pass healthcare reform legislation. House and Senate Democratic leaders are trying to work out a compromise from House- and Senate-passed legislation that can be approved by both chambers.
“One of the reason why the administration has been pursuing health reform legislation … is not only that the legislation under discussion reduces the deficit over the next decade, but … it puts in place the infrastructure to allow us to constrain cost growth in the decades thereafter, while improving quality,” Orszag said. “Unless we do that, we will be on an unsustainable long-term fiscal trajectory regardless of what else we do.”
There is more at Budget.gov.



77 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thanks so much for this great summary, David.
I wonder if the new “bipartisan fiscal commission” will become one more way to push for “reform” of Medicare and Social Security. We can never be too alert.
And hooray for Orszag! Unfortunately, we have a WH determined to pursue “health insurance reform,” rather than to achieve decent, affordable health care for all Americans.
A quote for the ages.
What were you thinking of buying gold plated toilet seats? You’ll freeze your butt off sitting on that thing.
Why hire anyone if consumers are not spending? This won’t help us now but it will help create a bubble after the economy gets going which at this rate might take how many years?
Ah, tinkering at the margins of the education system. Never mind that the entire structure of the system in scheduling, aptitude mobility, curriculum, and resource utilization are configured to make a teacher’s job to educate a near impossibility, and that with what we know about child-psychology it’s a miracle that any child manages to garner an education out of the whole edifice at all.
So we spend 3.8 trillion in order to get 100b in tax cuts as part of a jobs program.
The Shock Doctrine continues unabated.
These people aren’t only dumb, they are just plain evil.
Hiring is good, but it needs to be projects with both vision and an investment with lasting return in our future.
Such as:
High speed affordable internet to every home.
Green grid and power supply infrastructure etc.
High speed rail.
Expanded training and hiring of medical professionals in prep for health care for all americans (including the aging boomers who will require a lot of care)
Ah, there’s some breaking news. :-(
We need drug prices the same as Canada and Mexico with all the extra money we voters would save we could then spend that money on our economy.
We need to sell a million GM Volts or more a year at 230 MPG just imagine a million people who fill up their cars with $20 of gas a week now having 7 or more weeks with an extra $20 in their pocket thats 7 *20 = $140
$140 * 1,000,000 = 140 million dollars in more consumer spending in 7 weeks most of which will go into our economy rather than having all of it go to Saudi Arabia and Ossama.
amen.
It’s deliberate evil, they know what they’re doing.
Now, you COULD make the argument that Obama is truly a Marxist and is playing eleven-dimensional chess to further advance right wing or moderate ideas and continue to let the country slide into irrelevance and misery so the environment for radical action has been necessitated by the sheer amount of decline and desperation that has been caused. However, this is ultimately unlikely because the ability to think in the long term has rarely been demonstrated by anyone in Washington.
The simpler and probably truer answer is that they like the system as it is because it benefits them. Never forget that the Congress is run mostly by the rich, or those who seek to become rich through the power of their office. Most of the heads of government are in this similar situation.
It’s highly unlikely that people who see their own ultimate benefit from the current system will do much to alter it.
Agreed but who will use a tax credit to hire people if consumers are not buying unless unemployment goes down there will be no hiring.
Hmm, let’s see…we give them $3,800B, and we get back $100B.
Who are the dumb ones again?
stupid empire, species too
on its way to dust
obama has no power
Freezing $ 25 billion in domestic spending to pay for a $ 33 billion war surge. Brilliant just brilliant.
I will put in that war and weapons are not a priority in my household, and we’d be tightening our belts a few notches there.
Just sayin’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm
What if all legal fines fees etc were proportionate Based on the latest available data on an offender’s income?
I remember going to traffic court in Illinois right after 9/11 and the Judge three times had to continue cases for freakin minor traffic fines because even after previous continuences. Three different homeless people in three different cases still had no jobs. Right then I knew the economy was bad despite the MSM cause I a regular at Traffic Court had never seen this before even once, let alone three in a day.
The Judge suggested they work at McDonalds or do something the judge did not seem to know that McD’s won’t hire people who don’t have regular access to showers.
Anyway I think their fines should obviously be less.
Rich people should pay more this is not punishing rich people for being wealthy.
Its about punishing rich people who break the law after all where is the deterrent effect of a $100 speeding ticket to Bill Gates?
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/2471
Imagine how much revenue financially troubled state governments like California could raise.
Legalize and tax Pot! Who says the Left does not have better budget ideas than the GOP.
You could simply use the tax credit for people you were already planning to hire anyway.
It’s highly unlikely the tax credit will increase employment as a whole, however. Or that it will lower long term unemployment. 100 billion is a teensy tiny little slice that will be eaten up by the people that get first bites at the economy (i.e. the rich or the top of the pack)
Classifying this nonsense as relief for Main Street is a brilliant lie. Too bad it’ll take a year or two to be revealed in effect for the excrement it is.
It’s really like a $100 billion loan from China.
Get some polling Data that asks Americans if they still want to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then end the wars if you want real savings.
I think they’re operating on the “make it up in volume” theory…
The left has always had and will always have better ideas than the GOP. After all, the GOP has only one set of ideas and nothing else.
But if you think decriminalization of marijuana is going anywhere anytime soon at the federal level, I’ve got a health care reform bill I might be able to interest you in.
Small business job creation. What kind of jobs? Making stuff (not burgers) or selling stuff (not burgers)? Where is a small business gonna get the capital to start making solar components or other renewable energy components? Seems the banksters don’t want to deal in anything but exotic instruments that bring them tons of money.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/healthcare_costs_and_us_competitiveness.html
Now imagine those numbers if every American with a job was forced to buy private health insurance Free Markets are more efficient Bwahahaha!
This is all horseshit. Obama’s healthcare legislation won’t restrain healthcare costs. What Orszag wants is to cut Social Security and Medicare. Obama’s healthcare plan has $400 billion in cuts to Medicare over its 10 year projection and is probably the biggest single component in his plan to “restrain” costs. Orszag is, of course, the one who put them there. They don’t call it slashing Medicare. They talk about cutting waste and improving efficiency. But then that’s what they always say. As for Social Security, the government is going to have start paying back the SS surpluses it spent over the years. 2017 was the original year for this but with the bad economy it could be sooner. That money has to come out of general revenues. This would crimp the power of Presidents to engage in their own little wars of empire so for people like Obama and Orszag the obvious solution is: cut entitlements.
Seems the banksters don’t want to deal in anything but exotic instruments that bring them tons of money.
Not trying to be rude, but… duh?
Bankers have no interest in doing anything other than what will bring them profit in the short term. Long term financial planning is a thing of the past in ‘our’ US banking system.
In any case, the banking system is now based on extraction instead of investment and return. Removing money from genuine economic value and replacing it with valueless financial instruments which then make them more money.
An example of why public education is failing, libs can’t add!
Thanks Dave for helping to sort out the budget implications… and the good parts and bad parts.
Two things strike me about the Obama admin and Orzag’s comment regarding healthcare:
“Unless we do that, we will be on an unsustainable long-term fiscal trajectory regardless of what else we do.”
1) The “health care reform” currently espoused by the Senate and WH does little to rein in actual costs of medical care… I’ve seen nothing to deal with escalating costs of medical equipment (does every hospital really need THE latest thing? no, if you compare us to Europe)… Orzag’s intepretation of “cost control” is the amount the Fed govt will pay… not a bottoms up approach to cost control for Americans…. which of course have been allowed to escalate because of the private insurance system.
2) Apparently, there is no “unsustainable long-term fiscal trajectory” when it comes to defense spending.
I guess the saying should now be “guns vs. medicine” instead of “guns vs. butter.”
Or small businesses will claim it for people they were going to hire anyway. The real kicker I would think is eliminating the capital gains tax on them.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
At this rate, America will collapse in on itself. Just imagine the economic effect of cutting entitlement spending… all that economic activity lost (How many people on Social Security or welfare do you know that don’t end up having to spend almost all of it every month?). Which will depress the economy. Which will lead to more what? Cutting of entitlement spending due to the loss of tax revenues! Social Security and Medicare will eventually be cut away because the continuing and coming crisis will give them justification for it.
The terminus of the United States as a democracy or a republic is coming to an end.
Forgetting my snarky comment about the banksters for the moment what about small business job creation?
Yes, and Republicans think mathematics and science in general are the devil’s work.
My point is that ethnocentrism is real (blasphemy!), Blankfein may possibly feel some of it (Hitler!), and his decisions as the head of the largest investment bank in the world might possibly be affected by it, to our detriment.
Our financial meltdown was rife with conspiracies. None of them were motivated by goodwill towards the average or below average American.
Don’t worry, though. All real investigation into the likely permanent downsizing of the middle class is being thwarted every step of the way.
Agree completely… I also called bullshit in #28.
Isn’t amazing that they are
1) framing the issue this way… remember Obama saying “the US will go bankrupt if we don’t pass healthcare reform”? and
2) no one in MSM that I’ve seen is calling them on the fact that they are setting the stage for cutting Medicare and SS
Rachel, Keith, Bill…. anyone?
Tax cuts are a remarkably inefficient way to encourage spending, especially when the government can ill afford to forego the revenue. Is there no end to Obama’s political and policy weakness?
Tax cuts aid only those already making enough to worry that they are paying too much tax. In reality, that leaves out the vast majority of taxpayers who need stimulus help. The trickle down benefits, from those who don’t need help to those that do, are slow and often never materialize. Like the wage gains of the last 30 years, the benefits stay at the top and never trickle down.
The last thing we need is more military spending, except politically and then only inside the Beltway. Defense spending is the one sure thing destined to garner support from everyone in the Village, exept a few DFH’s, Kuciniches and Feingolds. Congresscritters love it, never more than in an election year. Lobbyists love it, the Pentagon loves it. Spending agencies always love having more to spend, especially if the contracts are so weak that the seller determines when it’s performed and the government buyer always says yes, thank you.
Bush was weak, in part, because he knew nothing about governing, legislating or negotiating with Congress. His solution was to turn on the government tap and let Congress and its corporate supporters feed on it. Mr. Obama is showing signs he has the same weakness.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/universal.htm
Thats about 1/3 cost reduction per every person in America but right now we spend more but do not insure everyone.
We obviously cannot afford the Obama plan the costs are to high forcing every American to buy health insurance would hurt consumer spending lower consumer spending less tax revenue generated and less hiring by small business.
In other words we cannot afford not to have National Healthcare.
Agreed:)
I think as I recall President Carter got forced into the same squeeze of having to pay for military increases while reducing social spending, while he took evasive action in the face of deficit hawks. Same drill. How much are we up to now for the total Defense spending? Percent of our GDP? It is way more than 33 billion more for a war in Afghanistan. All those Patriot missile systems they sent to the Arabian peninsula. Were those gifts? How about the cost of maintaining armies in South Korea and Japan and Germany and so on? How much are we paying out for world wide empire??
I have worked for three small businesses (less than 25 employees) over the course of my work career. They were the most evil, heartless, immoral bastards one could imagine. Their businesses supplied them with a license to steal from their own companies, making them rich, and leaving their employees with pissy pay and no benefits.
I despise big business, but loathe small business even more. In fact this entire fucking capialistic system sucks.
I think we have plenty ideas for a Lefty budget lets see if the GOP even has an alternative budget with numbers that add up.
Come on Obama debate us next get our ideas some news coverage and support. Inspire your base. Dare Fox to not broadcast you mention FCC licenses and the fact Rupert is an immigrant who only became a Citizen to buy American Media.
Take away his FCC license force him to sell in this market ruin him make an example of him.
Agreed look into hours shaved off employees paychecks in the fast food industry Obama. Look into how many Private contractors like newspaper delivery people if they leave don’t get their last check. I knew one Chicago Tribune Manager with a whole drawer full of last checks he never sent out.
Obama we need a National Jobs program now. The GOP won’t vote for it fine then you got an issue in November. The Blue Dogs won’t vote for it fine if you support jobs we will vote them out and run our own candidates.
Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled post is now available: Senate Democrats Spend the Weekend with “Fat Cat” Lobbyists at the Miami Beach Ritz
General question related to a “lefty” budget.
Is there a “progressive” budget proposal from any org floating around? Do we have something we can actually point to that reflects the budgetary goals of the left? Other than a generalized “less on military, more on…” kinda thing.
I was just looking at that budget overview link and the budget projections table. Specifically I was looking at the GDP figures. It looks like they are projecting the GDP to grow by 4.5% between 2010 and 2011 and 5.5% the next two years. Does anyone think this is likely?
Consider what slower growth would do their deficit projections. In short this looks like an exercise in creative writing more than serious budget projections.
I’m not sure what you mean. What about small business job creation in what, the current proposals? Are you asking for my idea on how to create small business growth? Are you asking about if small businesses are interested in what the fat cats do?
I’m just not sure what you’re getting at, is all.
Overestimation of the future is a wonderful tool in the present. It allows you to put a more pleasant veneer over a proposal and get more people to buy into it NOW. And by the time the future becomes the present and the overestimation becomes studied fact, you can’t go back and do anything about it.
The Obama admin knows this. And they’re desperate to make the American people feel faithful about SOMETHING since they haven’t delivered on much else.
GDP growth, if there is any at all, is unlikely to be as strong as they project. Which will just create a more desperate budget/economic situation in the future, which will just lend more justification for cutting things. Like entitlements…
One of my shitty jobs was industrial catering. The boss lady and her equally deranged husband wanted to turn us drivers into private contractors. We were supposed to somehow overnight, have enough money to pay for gas, maintainance, purchase food from her and assume all expenses. We all laughed in her face. She’d only been paying us $7.00 an hour. We weren’t shittin’ money.
That’s likely just from an inventory standpoint. And there is still $500 billion in the Recovery Act pipeline. Plus an additional $100 billion to the overall deficit. And the shifting of $300 billion to community banks. It’s trying to crawl out of the hole slowly so as not to awaken the inflation hawks who despise full employment. The problem isn’t the writing; it’s the strategy.
Small business owners and small businesses sure are wonderful, aren’t they?
/snark.
To politicians, those two are probably the Salt of the Earth for their ‘bold innovation in business strategy’ or something like that.
Expect more of these people in ‘small business’ in the present and coming economic climate.
Orszag, Bernanke, and Peterson are on the same page on this approach.
Bernanke on cutting Social Security: “That’s where the money is.”
I’m not intending to diss anyone but jeez, where were most of you libs during Econ 101, marching and carrying signs to legalize pot?
Here’s the deal – When your business is in the toilet you have to “spend money to make money”, not cut back on new product development or sales incentives for the marketing folks. Got it?
Same for governments – When the economy is in the toilet you don’t raise taxes or cut spending to get the country back on track. Don’t think so? Well then, just ask Hoover. He tried to do things on the cheap like rethuglicants alwways do and look what it got him and the country.
Here’s a simplified plan that will get IMMEDIATE results for our economy: Raise taxes on the filthy rich, lower witholding taxes for anyone making less that $250K, take the cap off SocSec and Medicare witholding and ram through basic HCR using reconcillation.
Then, stand back and watch unemployment go below 6% and the deficits shrink to manageable levels by 2012…
And no, I’m not smokin’ anything right now, just using common, everyday business practices that have proven to work time and time again…
while the Defense Dept. is exempt from the budget freeze, “it’s not exempt from budget common sense”!!!! According to the Project On Defense Alternatives, “the Obama administration plans to spend at least $5 trillion on defense during 2010-2017, which is 5% more in real terms than the Bush administration authorized for 2002-2009.” Of course this does not include “off the books” military costs! Couple this with the announced $6.4 billion arms sale to South Korea and the deployment of ships and “defensive” missiles to the Middle East and it seems that Obama wants to provoke the Chinese and Iranians. What separates Obama from Bush? Beats me!
Amen.
I actually completely agree with you with the exception of the ‘you don’t raise taxes’ during bad business periods thing. Cutting taxes is a bad idea during times of crisis. Tax cuts are better during periods of stability or prosperity, but they’re a terrible idea when you’re in a recession.
The government isn’t interested in sensible or smart policy, though. The government is only allowed to do what Congress allows them to. And Congress is ONLY interested in what gets them re-elected.
Mortgage your childrens future leave mine alone!
Nothing official yet but we have plenty of ideas the ideas work and will save more money.
Thank you.
Aside from begging on street corners, what “families across America” are doing is trying to find that first, second, third, or fourth job for INCOME. There are a lot of such “jobs” for the Fed — taxing the top brackets.
That would bring in some “extra income” without “losing jobs.”
Can anyone argue that that next $1 million, or $10 million, or $100 million that could be TAXED is doing a better job for the economy in the bankers’ pockets?
Just more of Obama’s continuing the Reagan “taxes are evil” mantra. He really ought to take a harder look at that “families across America” picture: it’s not just cutting expenses; there’s that increasing income thing too.
This isn’t just in the “low end” jobs. There are national independent (insurance) adjusting companies that will retain up to the last 2 months of pay (it is a system based on a very low “draw” plus billing) if employment ends for any reason or if that person takes any vacation time within the last 30 days of their employment.
“We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.” James Clyburn. Most liberal economists!
Create jobs by reducing taxes for everyone including big and small business.
And your solution to the unemployment issue is?
Wait, wait, let me get primed for contact. If you really want to make my liberal head explode, give me an idea that isn’t a conservative platitude or talking point that’s been used for 50 years.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
And how does reducing taxes create jobs? Alright, so let’s say that my taxes DO get cut and I pay 200$ less than I did last year. How is that going to create a job? Are you expecting that my $200 is going to create jobs?
Bloomberg has a story about Lockheed taking a $614 million performance fee hit.
The good new is that the $614 million was just a lost spiff so no harm, no foul. Maybe they’ll take the money and give it to some worthy cause like Pell grants.
I think they would say that it would nudge you to spend that $200, creating more demand in the economy that could lead to companies hiring to fill the demand.
Have a great idea, why don’t you collect all of your liberal friends and pay for all of these programs, ask the President to create a higher tax for liberals, and keep your cotton picking hands out of the rest of America’s pockets!
Or maybe, we can tax all the corporations that do business with various levels of government but incorporate themselves in the Cayman islands to avoid taxes completely.
Seems that if they are companies worthy of doing business with our governments, they should also be good corporate citizens. After all, they ARE receiving benefits not available to the average citizen.
Take a lesson in Econ 101. You incorporate this administrations budget policy to the way you run your business or home and you would be bankrupt in one month. Look to business models that work, not to the MSNBC jibberish and blatther your using in your commentary.
Most of the current administration’s spending is simply a continuance of Bush policies. Bank bailouts, military spending being the two biggest culprits. It is the conservatives and corporatists who have had their hands in my pockets for more than the last eight years. Withdraw that money and give it back to me and then we can talk about so-called liberal policies.
So how well did your republican friends do all the years as they piss’d away a surplus on tax cuts for the rich and two failed wars/invasions (while continuing to fund the worthless star wars program and big ticket weapons systems that don’t work)?
So how do your financial remedies get to jobs. People who are unemployed don’t have tax burdens; tax cuts do them no good. Trying to do it with money instead of with demand to get work done (like infrastructure repairs) doesn’t draw investment in expansion of jobs, plants, or purchases of equipment.
As for dealing with the deficit, you approach does get the revenues in there and that will lower the deficit. But it still will not increase the rate at which normal employment levels return.
It worked so well for the last eight years.
Tell me again how the money that all of these folks get will actually turn into jobs and provide revenue to bring down a war-driven deficit.
Don’t limit it to pot. Legalize and tax all drugs, plus end the insane wars in the Middle East, then close and sell our military bases in foreign countries.
It’s already over.
Uhm, we need some small businesses first.
Probably because we live in a democratic republic and we’re ALL citizens of that democratic republic. Although if you’re saying conservatives should have their citizenship removed and exported as nationless refugees so you don’t have to contribute to the nation with your tax dollars, I guess we could do that. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about anybody trying to get into your pocket! Well, actually, you probably would, since you’d have no legal recourse as a nationless refugee.
Still, go for it, if you like. I don’t think you’d all be missed if you were discharged from the nation.
The government of the people, by the people, and for the people (at least as it is supposed to be, I make no qualms that it TRULY is in fact functioning in this manner) doesn’t function like a household budget.
Households don’t print their own money, or control the currency that is used within the household. Nor do households recollect money that they’ve spent via taxation. Nor do households negotiate and trade with other households directly (if you’re considering the government to government thing) on issues like people that live in which household, economic cooperation between households, etc.
I’m surprised that you really don’t understand the monumental differences between a household budget and a government budget, and it’s possible that you maybe just haven’t thought the issue out enough. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that is true. And hopefully this post gives you some perspective that you can use to improve your assumptions in future, but if you don’t, well… I suppose that’s your choice. I don’t expect much in terms of critical thinking from modern conservatives.