The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Obama’s Debt

By on 7.14.11 @ 6:08AM

Will the President pursue McConnell’s plan?

America’s debt crisis is due not to undertaxation but to overspending, not to “right-wing partisanship” but to bipartisan collusion. Spending profligates who demand “more revenue” on the occasion of an impending debt-lifting deadline are like thieves who turn back to their old victims upon the arrival of new bills.

The conventional wisdom — that opponents of tax increases and big spenders stand equally responsible for the crisis — is false. But even that bogus equivalence is too much for liberals to take; they consider opponents of tax increases wholly responsible for it.

How evil are opponents of tax increases in the eyes of the liberal chattering class? Evil enough for a member of it to compare Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor unfavorably to a murderous king. “To understand Cantor, think Macbeth with all the vaulting ambition and none of the accompanying guilt,” writes Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus.

President Obama, meanwhile, plays the innocent bystander who strolls up to a crash he caused and asks to help. “Now is the time to deal with these issues,” he said at Monday’s press conference. “If not now, when?”

On crises he has ignored or made much worse, Obama never fails to present himself as the expert at solving them. He can add trillions of dollars to the deficit and then blithely cast himself as a deficit hawk, all the while portraying real deficit hawks who warned of the debt crisis as the parties least concerned about it.

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” said Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — a motto for Obama that applies particularly to his self-generated ones. And so this crisis — accelerated by Obama’s overspending — has become a useful pretext for him to propose new taxes while presenting himself as an above-the-fray centrist who favors spending cuts over the objections of his party (cuts which he would undo later, as he signaled to his base through the word “investments” in this line from his Monday press conference: “Let’s get this problem off the table…with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future.”)

But Senator Mitch McConnell has now proposed a plan that complicates Obama’s posturing. Let’s just give Obama the authority to lift the debt ceiling without having to hash out a compromise, argues McConnell. This is not his “first choice,” he says, but at least it would avert a default, saddle Obama with responsibility for raising the debt limit, and spare Republicans from having to accept any tax increases as part of a compromise.

The can of peas that Obama claimed to want on the table and promptly eaten could be kicked down the road by him after all, if he takes McConnell’s proposal. This might cause Obama some embarrassment, but, let’s face it, that’s never stopped him before. According to the press, “senior Democrats” like what they are hearing from McConnell.

It turns out that the wish of Nancy Pelosi — raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts — isn’t as fanciful as some thought. Her position was mocked last week; now it looks ahead of the curve.

“At Thursday’s White House meeting between President Obama and congressional leaders, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner laid out in stark terms the awful economic repercussions of allowing the debt ceiling to lapse. Everyone in the room agreed that defaulting on U.S. debt would be disastrous and that something must be done. At that point, Nancy Pelosi asked: Why couldn’t the debt ceiling be decoupled from deficit reduction?” reported Time. “Her query, after so many weeks of reports and talks centered on deficit reduction tied to a debt ceiling deal, visibly surprised some leaders in the room, several Republican and Democratic sources say. Obama politely informed the House Minority Leader, those same sources say, that that train had left the station weeks ago.”

McConnell’s “detour” suggests that train may roll back to pick her up, with Obama boarding too.

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (218) |

Teaghan| 7.14.11 @ 8:19AM

It just shows Robbins level of frustration and I totally get it. Thought it was funny too, so I suppose I'm a RACISTS as well.

Shamus| 7.14.11 @ 11:48AM

Obama is a weak minded little geek who can barely understand the alternatives. He'll waffle around until there are real problems and then pick the most worthless response. This is what you get when you elect a community organizer.

Redstateboy| 7.14.11 @ 11:49AM

Well put..

dick| 7.14.11 @ 1:02PM

McConnell, I thought better of you.

Jon B| 7.14.11 @ 1:45PM

Lets ignore, for a moment, that the big spending and wealth redistribution to the top of Ronald Reagan, which quintupled US debt in 11 years, and deregulation of the financial industry, that Bush repeated for 8 years, hasn't got ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the current crisis. Even ignoring that, 45% of today's debt comes from Bush spending programs and the loss of revenue from 8 million job losses due to Bush blocking the feds from regulating the banks when they saw this crisis coming.

Forget taxes altogether, the Bush administration raped America, and articles like the one above teach you to ignore the sources.

Stupor Mundi| 7.14.11 @ 2:22PM

Bush and Obama are the Beavis and Butthead of American politics.

RN in Houston| 7.14.11 @ 7:04PM

Not to defend GW but the Executive only proposes and approves spending bills from Congress. All spending bills start in Congress. Congress controls the purse strings. From 2001 thru 2006, the GOP controlled both houses. The cumulative deficit during that period was $1.5 trillion. From 2007 through 2010, both houses were controlled by the Dems. The cumulative deficit during that period was over $3 trillion. Although the GOP took over Congress in 2010, 2011 spending is largely a democrat design since it was passed when the Dems controlled both houses in 2010. Adding the 2011 projected deficit of $1.3 trillion, the total deficits under Democrats is over $4 trillion from 2007 -2011. That is better than a 3 to 1 deficit ratio under Democrat control. Bush had his faults but to equate him with Obama is disingenuous.

Mimi| 7.15.11 @ 6:23AM

Thanks for setting the record straight. George Bush was in office 9 months when the attack on the mainland of our country occurred. The bravery and leadership he displayed, throughout the remaining years of his two terms was truly remarkable....He was truly "FOR" us . The expences he occurred in response to that great tragedy...was well spent.
The wasteful, ignorant spending now pales in comparison!!!

Tolerance| 7.17.11 @ 12:38AM

Since you've so aptly pointed out that both sides of the political game are to blame, do you people think we could stop this childish bickering over "No, you're to blame!" "No, it's your side !" "No, it's you!" "No, it's you!" Blah, blah, blah.... Why do you think your elected politicians cannot get anything done? Because they were elected by you, you Jackasses! Why should they be any different?

Hawker 1| 7.14.11 @ 2:25PM

you seem to be the one ignoring the Constitution . the House of rep.s has the purse strings to aprove any and all spending by the goverment. Do a little research into how our Gov. works before making a fool of yourself.

Nick| 7.14.11 @ 6:16PM

Is this the same moronic "Jon B" who came here last year falsely claiming that President Reagan gave the Soviets $450 million?

This was after days of falsely claiming that he had given the Soviets $450 billion!
Go away, dope.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 6:50PM

Democrat Congress from 2007-2010 pinhead
.

Alan Brooks| 7.14.11 @ 6:58PM

Not even your God Reagan was serious about debt (or about "balancing" "the" budget,) it has always been 'wait and see', leaving as many options open as possible.
You guys are very motivated, toughminded-- just don't get too tricky for your own good.
I accept it all as a game-- nothing more

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 4:02PM

Twaddle. Reagan repeatedly said that if Congress would send him a balanced budget he would sign it in a flash.
The reality is that the House Appropriations Committee and the Dems that ran the House were not at all interested in what Americans had to say in the election of 1980. So they forced the deficits onto Reagan as the price of getting his tax cuts. That calculus was not Reagan, period. There were no Reagan deficits, only HAC and Democrat deficits.

IzeHavitt| 7.16.11 @ 11:57AM

Amen to that, George. The libs conveniently "forget" such details. It is clear-yea, documentable fact- that Tip O'Neill reneged on his deal with Reagan, and, of course, the Dems blame the Republicans for the messes they created. It's also yet another reason why this former Young Democrat concluded back then that he could never- ever- vote for any Democrat again.

Sue| 7.17.11 @ 10:43AM

So, if Reagan were a God, what does that make Obama? If Reagan were so powerful as president, why can't Obama get it done? Leftists always have four arguments: presidents are most powerful except when there's a republican controlled house and a democrat president; republican presidents with a democrat controlled house are dunces and those republican presidents with both houses are complete idiots; but, a democrat president with both houses can never do wrong! What a joke! When that happened we got SS, Agriculture subsidies where they still pay to billions to slaughter our food, Wagner Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Community Reinvestment Act, Obamacare, and now proposed spending of 25% of our Nation's production to pay for it all. Man oh man, give me more democrats, I just love eating all those peas!

WRTolkas| 7.14.11 @ 8:30AM

The difference between a lady-of-the-evening and Nancy Pelosi: The lady-of-the-evening only screws the public one at a time.

Dick Nome| 7.14.11 @ 6:30AM

McConnell's deal is appealing to Dingy Harry which itself should set off alarms. Being the case however. it would never get past the House where it has to originate. Mitch needs to wake up and go find his cajones.

JayDick| 7.14.11 @ 6:50AM

You may be correct about McConnell's plan not getting through the House, but I see merit in it nevertheless. McConnel's plan is an attempt to deal with the possibility (probability?) that a deal with Obama that is acceptable to Republicans is not possible. If a deal is not possible, at least it is important to place the blame where it belongs, with Obama. That is what McConnell is trying to do; that objective certainly has merit and could help get Obama defeated in 2012. The surest way out of our financial mess is to get Obama and the Democrats defeated in 2012.

Carol| 7.14.11 @ 7:20AM

This is not 1995.

Americans are dumber now than they were then. They voted in the empty suit after all in November 2008 because he was 1/2 black.

Take a look at any site where libtards and conservatives go back and forth. Libtards think the Republicans are being mean to Obama while not knowing all the crap he and the Piglosi and Dinghy Harry rammed down our throats are going to hit all of us hard, especially Obamacare - the largest tax hike of all time.

And now that the Democrat Party is mostly the Communist Party and the media reports only positive about the dunce in the White House - you actually think Americans are smart enough to figure out who's BSing who?

And don't forget: The Commiecrats now recruit illegals, dead people and gang members to vote as many times as possible.

And the worst of all: GEORGE SOROS HAS MADE SURE TO GET IN HIS OWN SECRETARY OF STATES WHO WILL COUNT THE VOTES - EVEN THEY AREN'T THERE FOR OBAMA.

McConnell's plan sucks and if the GOP goes for it - I will sit it out in 2012 because they will have destroyed themselves.

I will not support a party that is afraid of the enemy of the United States: Barack "Insane" Obama.

JayDick| 7.14.11 @ 7:43AM

You can rant all you want, but that doesn't address the real issue. If you assume an acceptable deal with Obama is not possible (I don't think it is), then what do you do?

WeMustResist| 7.14.11 @ 8:54AM

You do three things:
1) You do not increase the debt limit
2) You do not increase taxes
3) You tell Obama that cutting expenses is his duty and his privilege. He is the one who put the expenses into dangerland. He needs to be the one to bring them back to reality. If expenses were at the level of GDP when he took office there would be no problem. Problem belong Obama.

Here is a link to someone who explains that there is an infinity of ways of cutting spending:

http://www.americanthinker.com.....nario.html

See - it can be done in many ways.

buckeyeman| 7.14.11 @ 9:13AM

Absofreakinglutely!!

Simple and to the point. Cuts the massive, bloated budget by 45 percent AND forces Obama (a highly paid CEO) to prioritize. Let Obama explain to the American people why he chooses the priorities he does. The Repubs absolutley STINK in dealing with this issue.

JayDick| 7.14.11 @ 9:46AM

Sure there are lots of ways to cut spending, but which ones would Obama use? The most painful ones. Then he would blame Republicans and the press would back him. The electorate would buy it for the most part.

Cutting Federal spending by 40% or more overnight would be enormously disruptive and it would make Republicans co-owners of the lousy economy, even if that characterization were not accurate. It would ensure Obama's re-election.

A 40% cut would be a good goal over time but even with careful planning it would be disruptive.

Pete| 7.14.11 @ 10:07AM

Republicans would have to be ready with a menu to show where he could/should have cut when he starts making punitive cuts to punish the electorate. Think cuts to school funding where they axe teachers first instead of worthless administrators and then whine about class size, performance, etc....

Jordan| 7.14.11 @ 12:21PM

Cutting expenses is Obama's duty? You do know what the Executive Branch and what the Legislative Branches of Government do, right?

HINT - BUDGETS are a CONGRESSIONAL duty.

Now then, Obama put the expenses in "dangerland"? Really?

The reason our expenses are out of line is because we invaded Iraq, didn't pay for it, and literally threw away money there.

Then we invaded Afghanistan and didn't pay for it.

Then we cut taxes on the wealthiest of Americans and didn't pay for it.

We removed the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.

We agreed to bail out the big banks.

We agreed to bail out the automotive industry.

Oh yeah, and it was George Bush and the Republicans who did all of this.

Now, if you want to blame Obama for not shutting down Bush's plans and instead going ahead and seeing them through to the end, you've got a point.

But you can't blame Obama when it was Bush and company out spending money like drunken sailors.

G. Field| 7.14.11 @ 12:48PM

What the last administration did is only part of the story. This administration tripled the last administration's problems, refused to do yearly budgets, and spent like crazy plus started another expensive war. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. The activities of the past are behind us so now we must concentrate on solving the spending problems and cutting our debt so we can remain solvent.

Oregonian| 7.14.11 @ 1:02PM

So, Jordan, when Obama is President, expenses are a legislative responsibility, but when Bush was president, expenses were an executive responsibility. And for the first 4 years, when the Republicans had a majority, the Republicans were also at fault; but during the last 4 years when the Democrats controlled the legislature, they had no responsibility.

Better cut back on the Kool Aid; your teeth are beginning to turn purple!

dick| 7.14.11 @ 1:08PM

Granted Bush spent too much but if we were at 2007 spending levels we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It is all on President Do Little.

Hawker 1| 7.14.11 @ 2:34PM

even if what you say is true,and its not, then why keep going on a bigger spending spree as the pres. and the dem.s have been doing for the pass two years when they had a majority in all branches.
Does the old saying "two wrongs do not make a right" mean anything to you?

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 6:57PM

yea...it has nothing to do with huge bailouts, wasteful stimulus billions, run amok social justice house ownership programs that lay at the heart of the financial crisis. nope...none of that! you sure have an honest and firm grasp on reality. I truly hope the natives ransack your neighborhood before mine when all of this collapses in one violent crescendo.

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 4:11PM

Basically, though not totally, nonsense. Most of the huge spending increases occurred under Obama. Even if they didn't it is not a reason to keep them.

The actual debate , if anyone has noticed, is over how much of the new spending to make permanent. In the language of DC, anything less than all of it is a 'budget cut'.

Sue| 7.17.11 @ 10:51AM

Funny! The left always use "reverse" analysis against conservatives. Bush, spending like drunken sailors? That's looking pretty good to me right now. I'll take it! But Obama and Pelosi/Reid, spending increases where the MONTHLY shortfall is the equivalent to the YEARLY shortfall of Bush? Or, the one year deficit is the equivalent of 8 years of Bush's deficits? That's okay? I do believe we have an ostrich among us!

How come is it that it's "we agreed" to do all these things, but the Iraq war wasn't agreement?

The federal government's enumerated powers includes "war." It doesn't include "socialism."

It's easy to identify partisan hacks; use their words.

Rob Roy| 7.14.11 @ 7:58AM

McConnell is afraid of the media and how the Republicans will be portrayed. No matter what happens to the debt ceiling, Obama will be favorably covered and the Republicans will be made out to be out of touch and extreme. Perhaps McConnell thinks this will influence the way the voters see Obama but the major networks will still made the chosen one look good. What I find depressing is the number of misinformed voters who still think Obama is the way to go. The amount of money raised from small donors for the Dems shows how many voters are "lost" and probably there is no way to open their eyes. This election will either save the country or if the "Demander in Chief" is reelected, lose it forever.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:02PM

I doubt it......think about the folks you deal with on a daily basis. I travel a fairly wide spectrum of belief systems...and even my most liberal friends opt for financial security over social justice feel good programs when their friends and livelihoods are threatened. Obama is Quicksilver. He has no plan. moreover.....he lacks one critical ace: the backing of millions of people - you know...the producers big and small - whom he is gonna need to convince to make sacrifices for his ego. aint gonna happen.

eric siverson| 7.14.11 @ 2:11PM

Seems to me the melt down started before the electon even . Even the bailout was instigated befoe Obama was chosen over Mc Cain .

mark James| 7.14.11 @ 4:58PM

True, but the first "bailout" was the Tarp program and that has been repaid with interest ( and it did what it was touted to do).
The "Stimulus Package" was twice the size and has not been repaid. It also has NOT performed as advertised and therefore only Obama's effort impacted the deficit.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 7:57AM

The Republicants have surrendered to the President. It's as simple as that - he outfoxed them and they know it. He appears as the adult in the room and every time they repeat "no tax increases", every Democrat and every Independent shudders at the immaturity of the remark. But that's okay, 2012 is shaping up to be a blue year.

Carol| 7.14.11 @ 8:23AM

Guess you didn't hear the smartest guy in the room stormed out of the room last night?

He must not of had his peas.

Kurt in S.L.C.| 7.14.11 @ 11:31PM

The "smartest guy in the room"? The Zero wouldn't even be the smartest thing in a restroom stall if there was a turd in the toilet

Redstateboy| 7.14.11 @ 8:26AM

"On crises he has ignored or made much worse, Obama never fails to present himself as the expert at solving them. He can add trillions of dollars to the deficit and then blithely cast himself as a deficit hawk, all the while portraying real deficit hawks who warned of the debt crisis as the parties least concerned about it."

This is brilliant... which is way over what could be said about you Perp.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 10:14AM

"In the latest Quinnipiac University poll, President Obama's approval rating is down to 44 percent, the lowest number so far in that poll, which also says 48 percent disapprove of the president's job performance.

Mr. Obama's approval numbers have been dropping for months, says Quinnipiac pollster Peter Brown."

Peter McGrath| 7.14.11 @ 10:55AM

I tend to agree with Palin - giving Obama another blank check (allowing him to increase our national debt by 15% or so) is an obscene, extremely bad idea.

The President is not to be trusted.

His vile, false comment to that credulous fool, Scott Pelly, about the government not having enough in its "coffers" to write social security and disability checks revealed his true (lack of ) character.

One simple idea: give the Moral Coward an increase in the debt ceiling to cover the debt service, alone (about $250 billion for FY 2012).

This would prevent a default but the legislation - even if it passed the Senate - would face an Obama veto threat. Now, THAT would tie our nebbish POTUS in knots.

He'd either veto the legislation (with the resultant "disruption" of government "services") or be forced to actually prioritize current spending (beyond him - but maybe little Timmy can help).

Of course, the Ass-Clown of the Senate, Reid, might refuse the bait. But there are enough Senators who smell the bitter coffee brewing in the Heartland (Nelson, McCaskill, Tester, esp. Manchin in WV) who might go along with the idea - or something equivalent.

Keep applying pressure. Don't give in. By now, America has awakened to the realization that Obama is the true enemy of prosperity.

tfgray| 7.16.11 @ 8:20AM

Prioritizing is not a problem, it's pretty much common sense: end the wars, stop giving subsidies to the most profitable companies in the history of the world, end the Bush tax breaks, have Medicare negotiate drug prices like the VA does, and the budget pretty much balances itself. But please tell me who is objecting to those ideas?

Slacker| 7.14.11 @ 12:34PM

Easy there Purpleman,

Ultimately we win either way. We are out of money and can’t possible collect enough taxes to cover our debts. Government spending will be cut. Obama can’t endure to be the guy to do it. Fine. Let the fiscal problem worsen so when the spending cuts do come they will be deeper. Major cuts are coming either way. Sure, the public will be pissed. Who cares who takes the blame? The progressives can’t possibly hold onto their precious entitlements for long –which is why they are so frustrated. The conservative/libertarian model wins now, or wins later by default.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:06PM

hope you aren't serious! I know I will withhold two dollars of consumption for every new dollar I have to pay. major capital expenses? I'll buy foreign goods. If he wants class warfare....then what the H let's have it for real. he will go down in history as the President who presided over the most destructive individual to ever disgrace the White House.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:08PM

...who presided over the most destructive economic period in American history and will prove the most destructive individual to have ever disgraced the WH.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.14.11 @ 2:12PM

With the lady of the evening there is by definition a happy ending. Another difference, the resultant contagion transmitted by Pelosi arrives on April 15th.

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:38PM

ANSWER:

One's a whore, the other is a prostitute.

Drunken Sailor| 7.14.11 @ 10:00AM

Let's not forget with a Lady of the Evening you usually know the cost in advance. With Nancy you have to wait until the deed is done to know the details.

Richard Davis| 7.14.11 @ 12:27PM

Your comment is irrelevant and pointless.

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:39PM

Only to a nit-wit or a liberal...

Same thing, really...

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:09PM

how true!

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 6:58AM

" (Ron) Paul was the only GOP House member TPM found Tuesday afternoon willing to take a firm stand against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) plan to hand the White House full authority to raise the debt ceiling with Congress only able to disapprove with a two-thirds vote. Conservative groups, Tea Party members outside Congress and activists are incensed over McConell's fall back plan.

"I wouldn't like that," Paul told TPM. "Congress should assume responsibility for itself" and figure out a way to cut spending.

Paul also dismissed talk that McConnell's lead trial balloon has undercut Republicans position in the debt talks.

"I don't think it has much effect," Paul said. "If it were [Speaker John] Boehner, it would have been a different story because we have the majority" in the House.

Michele Bachmann, a competitor for the GOP primary, declined to comment on the plan. "

mark James| 7.14.11 @ 5:10PM

Good post. That also should apply to Congress having ducked it's responsibility to declare War. We have won every War in which we first got Congress to "grow a set" and follow the Constitution. The wars that have been "police actions" or like Iraq, giving the Pres. the authority to declare have been losses or stalemates (Korea onward). The only outliers in this causality position are the Revolutionary (there was no Congress or President) and the Civil war which could not have been Congressionally supported for obvious reasons.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.14.11 @ 7:02AM

The U.S. Congress is full of greasy politicians who use that grease to slide from one disastrous situation to another, all the while with smiles on their faces, paint on the fiascoes and pink flamingos on the White House lawn.

In spite of that I got a kick out of this quote from Eric Cantor, call it lesson one on bipartisanship:

“I asked the president, would that be something that he would consider,” Cantor told reporters. “Well, that’s when he got very agitated, seemingly, and said that he had sat here long enough and that no other president — Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this, and he’s reached the point where something’s got to give.”
“So he said, ‘You’ve either got to compromise on your dollar-for-dollar insistence, or you’ve got to compromise on the big deal,’ which means on raising taxes,” Cantor continued. “And he said to me, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff.’ He said, ‘I’m going to the American people on this.’ Again, I was somewhat taken aback, because look, I was compromising.”

Pecos Pete| 7.14.11 @ 7:11AM

King O doesn't compromise. It is always his way or the highway.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 8:00AM

Eric Cantor compromise? Not a chance. He sees this whole affair as one more nail in Boehner's coffin so he can step into the Speaker's chair. He has said nothing but "no tax increases" ... which is a hard right, no compromise stance.
You also left out that he insists on interrupting the President like the petulant child Cantor is.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 8:59AM

As always, Perp, what you say is the exact opposite of the known facts. F-A-C-T-S. You know, things that are actually true. Not the wishful thinking, leftist boilerplate claptrap that you always come here with. Obama, in everything he says and does, is the Ultimate petulant child. And Obama should be interrupted each and every time he lies. Unfortunately, that would mean interrupting him virtually every time a sentence comes out of his mouth.

Anybody with an ounce of sense knows that it isn't the lack of new tax increases that is the problem. IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID.

Steve A| 7.14.11 @ 9:01AM

Hey Purple, answer this one honestly (if you can).

Why were taxes not increased the last few times the debt limit was raised & Dems had control of Congress?? If this was such a critical issue, such a winner, sooooooo important, why not when they had control??If you are stumped, I will answer for you. Just let me know.

Richard Davis| 7.14.11 @ 12:32PM

I believe that the correct framing of this question would be "Why didn't the Democrats hold the economy hostage when the debt ceiling came up during the Bush administration?" OR, "Why didn't the Republicans hold the economy hostage when the debt ceiling came up during the Clinton years?" In either case, the answer is that up to now, neither party used the debt ceiling to hold the economy hostage.

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:40PM

I guess you forgot the Gov't shut-down fiasco of 1995??

And the Democrats couldn't hold-up Bush because for six years of Bush's Presidency, the GOP controlled the House AND the Senate.

Duh.

Drunken Sailor| 7.14.11 @ 10:14AM

So let me get this straight, your going with the lines given by all the Democrats spokespeople, since Obama didn't defend himself. Yet Cantor was man enough to represent his view to the press himself, yet he is the one lying?

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:16PM

in all of this...what is Obama's plan?

focus on the essential. HE DOESN'T HAVE ONE. not his job? then why negotiate?

Beadley| 7.14.11 @ 10:56AM

Since Obama has been nothing but petulant and childlike throughout his presidency, maybe its the only thing he's proven he can understand.
As far as Cantor only saying "no tax increases" as far as I'm concerned that's the only thing that needs to be said. Obama, on the other hand, has set forth such compromising and compassionate points as the seniors not getting their Social Security checks. For shame, how pathetic and petty. If this is his caring for the underdog, his compassion, his true American spirit well I guess that would make you right on your thinking he's not a petulant child. It would simply make him a thug.

Ground Control| 7.14.11 @ 11:44AM

Purpleguy calling someone ELSE a "petulant child"?! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Teaghan| 7.14.11 @ 8:26AM

What an effing baby, bully, street thug we have for a president. And to invoke the name of Reagan whom his uses despite his hatred for anything conservative, is disengenuous. He makes me gag. You're right Pete, it's his way or the highway. Petulant spoiled child, obama.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 7:10AM

Call This Shuck & Jive Chump Obama's Bluff.

American Voters Are Realizing That This Trash Talkin' Hot Dog Got No Game.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 8:02AM

Nice racism there Pollock - but who's telling you what the American people think? Santa Claus? Polls are overwhelmingly on the President's side. He's put 4 Trillion dollars on the table of cuts and increases and the stupid Republicants walk away. Idiots

Teaghan| 7.14.11 @ 8:32AM

OH NO!! The screams of RACISM are here!!!! How dare you Clilnt! The hate speech police are here to arrest you and take you to "sensitivity training".
Where do you get your news PG? NPR? Media Matters? MoveOn.org? HuffPo?

Indiana Alex| 7.14.11 @ 8:59AM

You have to acknowledge that what Liberals are asking for are not just tax increases, but ADDITIONAL tax increases ABOVE and BEYOND those already in place for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and those rolled into Obamacare.

Once you acknowledge this, you cannot with a straight face say that all you are asking for is a return to Clinton rates (without the massive cut in captial gains taxes).

All tolled, Libs are probably asking for a top effective rate around 62%.

Of course this will in absolutely no way help in terms of deficit reduction because nobody will ever pay that rate, and the resulting loss in productivity from clamorous efforts toward tax avoidance, and capital flight will likely once again result in stagflation.

Once again, in this economy of shared pain the only ones who prosper are those already rich. Everyone else gets the comforts of knowing that will all wallow in equally lower living standards.

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 4:21PM

The 'rich' aren't going to prosper; that's silly. Hiring is weak because no one in business is willing to commit money when the outlook is so uncertain -- meaning whatever the blazes this administration is going to do next.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 9:09AM

Again, Perp-troll, what you are saying is the exact opposite of the truth, and you know it. Not a single poll currently shows a majority approval for any of Obama's policies.

For all practical purposes, Obama has put NO spending cuts on the table. He is proposing about 5 Billion, not Trillion, worth of cuts in discretionary spending. As this amounts to about 1/200th of just the current year's 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit, nobody with any common sense would consider this to be in any way a serious proposal to solve the problem.

For calling people idiots who point out this rudimentary, inescapable fact, you identify yourself as an ignoramus.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 10:05AM

Do Your Homework Before You Run Your Uninformed ObamaBoy Mouth, You Purple Pigger.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 "

Drunken Sailor| 7.14.11 @ 10:22AM

Really? According to this Poll, 77% of the public want to reduce spending while only 9% want to increase taxes (9% also wanted to do both).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....03544.html

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:42PM

"Shuck and Jive Chump"...LOL!

Huggy Obama...

mark James| 7.14.11 @ 5:26PM

To the gentleman in Purple:
1- Using a modern slang phrase that was "invented" in the African American community is not racist because is says nothing about race and is not derogatory toward race. It's just a cool phrase.
2- Applying race to his statement is actually more racist on your behalf because racism can mean overly attentive to racial origin like your response.
3- He put nothing "on the table" he just brought up an area of interest therefore there was nothing to refuse. All he offered was to discuss it. If he had given specifics on his position THEN you position would carry weight.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:19PM

he hasn't put anything on the table pinhead. please elaborate on specific programs he has put on the table. it's a legerdemain and the Republicans know it.

Jordan| 7.14.11 @ 7:25AM

I'm glad the Spectator is giving McConnell's plan another viewpoint for readers, because no other conservative publications are even trying to see the strategic merits of the plan because of their "purist" outlook. No idea if this is Constitutional or not and I have doubts it can get past the House, but in terms of guile and 2012 posturing, this plan doesn't get any better.

Again, I don't know if the plan is Constitutional or not, but let's face it, whatever "cuts" are made in a deal are not going to be in this year's budget or even next year's budget; they are going to be cuts in "future obligations" that can be overturned or replaced with "investments". McConnell knows this; he knows that as long as Obama is President there will be no substantial spending cuts to avert a PIIGS-like default.

And speaking of the PIIGS - Ireland was just downgraded, Italy is spreading contagian risk, and Greece may go into "selective default"; any PIIGS countries could implode in any given month; what happens if a Eurozone member goes into default and ruins the market, even for a few months? Obama will take a lot of blame because he is leading our country down the exact same path; and by being the proposer of spending cuts as he would be under McConnell's plan (cuts Obama will never make) he will be put into a corner that he can't squirm out of.

The GOP is going to use Obama's irresponsibility on fiscal issues as a major theme in 2012 anyway, so why not prove to the American people that he cares less about his own children's generation, and more about the votes of their parents and grand-parents, by giving him the power to have made considerable cuts.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 8:05AM

Just like America remembers who voted for the war (which was supposed to be remembered as giving GW Bush authority for war) , they will remember who voted to raise the debt ceiling (not who voted against it to let the President decide) . The Republicants are trapped and they know it. Their a scared bunch of school kids hoping they don't get found out and sent to detention ... Hahaha

Teaghan| 7.14.11 @ 8:39AM

No PG, they know and remember the election of 2010 and what the citizenry voted for.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 9:16AM

Who raised the debt ceiling in the past is all water under the bridge. What matters now is will the ruling class in Washington vote to continue raising it, and thus driving all of us into poverty with the resultant devaluation of our money. For that is what we are really talking about. And this hidden, massive tax increase hits the working poor and the elderly on fixed incomes harder than anyone else.

Your ignorance about this, Perp, and your unbridled arrogance displayed by your comments is breathtaking to behold. But then, that is oh so typical of a so-called "progressive".

JayDick| 7.14.11 @ 12:44PM

Don't count your chickens just yet. Republicans have been known to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, but it's not a sure thing.

Pity is that it looks like the Republicans really were trying to do what's best for the Country.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:21PM

no...Americans are gonna remember a range of numbers 9.0-10.1! those 8 characters crystallize and summarize the Obama Presidency.

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 12:49PM

Umm, this isn't about "purity"...

The "strategic" outlook is this:

The GOP doesn't have to do ANYTHING. They hold all the cards.

If Obama doesn't want to talk with them, WHY do they care???

Obama is Constitutionally obligated to slash the Federal Budget if the debt ceiling is not raised. He has NO choice, and the GOP can force his hand, and make him do it.

That said, WHY would they choose to do anything else? WHAT are Boehner and McConnell afraid of??

The GOP should pass a budget in the House, send it to Reid in the Senate, sit back and watch the fun.

No social security checks? REID AND OBAMA'S FAULT.

No pay for the military? REID AND OBAMA'S FAULT

No veteran's benefits? REID AND OBAMA'S FAULT.

Obama is lying through his teeth when he threatens social security recipients. The interest on the debt is 15% of the budget, and can EASILY be found by cutting elsewhere other than social security. SO CALL HIS BLUFF!

Additionally, hasn't every Democrat since FDR told us that Social Security is in an untouchable "trust fund"??

[Gasp!] What??? They LIED?!?!?

Again...CALL HIS BLUFF!!!

The problem we "purists" have with the "non-purists" is that the non-purists are weak and ill-informed...

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:23PM

bingo!!!!!

oldfart| 7.14.11 @ 7:31AM

The Pretender-In-Chief is now demonstrating that he has no clothes. He has no plan. He makes it up as he goes along. But he does have a goal that was directly put forth - redistribution of wealth.
Very interesting on c-span last night. What finally came out was that the financial planners in Europe have lost control of their situation in Greece and Italy and perhaps Portugal and Spain. The financial collapse of these countries will cascade throughout the rest of Europe and beyond.
Barry’s actions are those of a person who has had everything handed to him all his life. He has never had to work for anything. He has never had to balance a checkbook. He has never had to worry about running out of money before he runs out of month. He has never had to make serious financial choices – specifically – do I feed the kids or buy that shiny new car. He has never done anything for which he has been held accountable. That is why it is acceptable to him just to get up and walk out. We are in deep poo.

Old Soldier| 7.14.11 @ 8:03AM

The President doesn't need a plan - Congress does.

How about the House Republicans stop this nonsense and pass a bill the raises the debt limit (slightly) and has real spending cuts - maybe even cuts back on the personnel levels of some federal agencies.

Then Reid and Obama can pass it or kill it. Either way, put the ball in their court instead of sitting through meaningless meetings trying to appease them.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 8:07AM

Except that he didn't walk out, as Eric Cantor the baby squealed. The more they try to spin it, the more the Republicants look like obstinate little boys that don't play well with others. they are going down.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 9:22AM

Were you there??? No, you were not. So you don't know exactly what was said, by whom, and when. We do know that The One has a known history of not being able to face intelligent, incisive questions. So when Cantor asked a few logical questions, that anyone with common sense would ask, The One couldn't take it.

You are the squealing baby.

Clint| 7.14.11 @ 11:10AM

Purple Pouter Comes Here To Whine About Conservatives & Get His Negative Attention Craving Fix For The Day.

Box Of Tissues, Crybaby Purple Pouter ?

JayDick| 7.14.11 @ 12:52PM

Of course Obama has a plan. Here it is:

1. No increase in the debt limit despite phony negotiations.
2. Hold back on federal expenditures in a way as to cause the most pain to citizens, especially poor ones.
3. Blame the Republicans for holding back expenditures.
4. Blame the Republicans for the continuing lousy economy because they wouldn't increase the debt ceiling.
5. Win reelection handily, maintaining control of the Senate in the process.

In looks like the Republicans may even help him with his plan.

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 4:30PM

I don't know that redistributing wealth is what this bunch is after. It looks more like what they want is to control ALL spending themselves, including consumer and private outlays. Or more succinctly: power; money is the proxy.

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 7:48AM

---"There's no opposition, no response,
utterly NO outrage as these 'changes' are
being brought on. What accounts for this?"

NOW on record HAARP tech is capable of
mega mind control. HAARP has been around
since the 70's and active and operating since
2001.

Check your shortwave radio bands some night.

You'll pick up the beat of its frequency.
This is 24/7. It has been on since 2001.

It's also known to be capable of seismic
manipulation and weather warfare.
(THINK those 'unprecedented' 3/11
and 4/11 Japan tsunamis ---on top of
the also 'unprecedented' SE Asia tsunami
5 years ago on MAO's birthday).

Brzezinski himself has discussed this in
detail.

As this farce chugs on in Washington,
in this the probably final phase of the
POST American republic ---consider also
the on record weaponization of injections
(now produced overwhelmingly in RED China
with many, if not most, of the latest shots beiug
grown in the tisue of the unborn dead.

Also the drugged water, flicker-rate enhanced
media 'programming' and tainted food.

But then again, could it be the cyber-surveillance
backmail and extortion op ---which is surely,
surely, surely underway.

Anyway, surely something dirty and lowdown
is most certainly UP.

Fred| 7.14.11 @ 8:04AM

Dude, your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Old Soldier| 7.14.11 @ 8:11AM

It must be the full-moon. The trolls and crazies are out in force this morning.

Beadley| 7.14.11 @ 11:00AM

Dale? Is that you? Say "Hey" to Hank, Boomhauer, and Bill for me. Tell Bobby to quit screwing around with the comedy - he needs to be studying all about propane and propane accessories.

Purpleguy| 7.14.11 @ 7:52AM

"America's debt crisis is due not to undertaxation but to overspending, not to "right-wing partisanship" but to bipartisan collusion." - How wrong you are. This country has the lowest federal tax burden in over 60 years (google it). Some 4 Trillion dollars in deficit over 10 years is due to the Bush tax cuts, which were a good idea when the country was looking at a 5 Trillion dollar surplus over that time. But when it was clear that surplus was not going to materialize, the Republicants just went on their merry way increasing the deficit spending (and please remember, Bush DID NOT have the 2 wars "on-budget". All spending for the wars was considered "emergency supplementals" and kept off budget. An accounting trick that ballooned his deficits far more than what was admitted. Simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire will go a long way to righting our fiscal ship. Yes, we can do some spending cutting too - but you have to do BOTH - Spending cuts AND revenue increase. When people are hurting they cut their spending, but they also look for other sources of revenue. The U.S. should too. How about countries around the world pay for the "policeman of the world" role we play?

Old Soldier| 7.14.11 @ 8:08AM

I guess I imagined the top rate of 28% during the 80's. The company I work for is paying the highest corporate taxes in the world, but not high enough apparently.

Google it.

Indiana Alex| 7.14.11 @ 9:17AM

One major problem is that you people either are so ignorant that you just repeat what you receive in faxes everyday, or you are absolutely fine with using flat out misrepresentations in attempt to justify your positions.

Given what passes for intellectual rigor on the left these days, I guess it doesn't really matter. You people have never been able to justify your positions with any sort of rational cause/effect analysis.

People in general find your actual positions so reprehensible that you have to disguise your true intentions with convoluted mish-mash, and attack any other position or anaysis as morally corrupt, and distract as much as possible from your proposed solutions to the issues of the day.

Once and for all understand that the nonsense about the federal tax burden is not at all true unless you consider that there are so many people paying zero or negative in income taxes.

It is so easy to be a liberal because there is no requirement to think. One would have to wonder why such a low percentage of the population considers themselves prone to this ideology.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:28PM

the dishonesty extends into not recognizing all the furtive ways for dunning the citizen. check out your phone bill sometime...or...for vets like me.....two consecutive years of pension DECREASES on the pretext of deflationary indices (easily dispelled were one to visit the supermarket of fuel pump).

Jim from Virginia| 7.15.11 @ 9:00AM

calling the kettle black? I don't read any facts or see anywhere in what you write above a single reference to any data sources: it is all opinion.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 9:57AM

To the troll who calls himself Purpleguy: It is quite obvious from your rantings that you do not actually understand any of this stuff. You are merely posting the boilerplate leftist talking points that are emailed to you or that you glean from leftist nutroots websites.

Anyone who knows even BASIC economics would know that every bit of the drivel you just spouted is pure B.S. We have over 100 years of real world experience of Keynesian economics being imposed on economies, and we also know what happens when a truly free market is allowed to flourish. In every case where Keynesian economics have been foisted upon a nation anywhere in the world, it has failed spectacularly.

Conversely, every time the Austrian school of economics has been followed (truly free markets without over-regulation and over-taxation by government) it has succeeded overwhelmingly. (in the last few years of his life, Keynes said he was wrong about everything. You didn't know that, did you, Perp?)

You can spout all the leftist drivel and Keynesian nonsense you want to and you will still be wrong. You can come here and foam at the mouth while pointing fingers at Republicans and conservatives every day till the second coming of Christ, and you will still be wrong.

The ruling class in Washington, primarily leftists like you, but also including at least a plurality of Republicans, has royally screwed the pooch. All of us, including you Perp, will pay dearly for their folly. The real reason that gas is headed for North of $5 a gallon, and groceries have gone up by 50% is because the money we use to buy the necessities has been devalued.

This is due to printing money 24/7/365 to cover Obama's ONE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR DEFICITS each and every year for the past three years. This is an inescapable fact, and we will all be crushed by it. When an income of $100K a year only has the purchasing power of $20-$30K a year, we will all then be condemned to lives of poverty for the rest of our days.

Yet when anyone tries to steer us away from the cliff, brainwashed leftists like you, who understand exactly nothing about even the most basic economics, call them little boys. And when destroyers like Obama are steering us over the cliff in the name of "social justice", useful idiots like you get a tingle in your nether regions.

You are a real piece of work. You are not just ignorant of the most basic known facts, but you are willfully, proudly, arrogantly...ignorant. As Old Texican says, we can't fix stupid here.

AS Lurker| 7.14.11 @ 1:16PM

Thank you, sir. You summed it up well. Though it may feel useless, sometimes it gets through. As an ex-lefty, I would know. I am grateful to folks like you who eventually helped me see reason. Keep posting, please.

Passionate Patriot & Mom| 7.14.11 @ 4:16PM

How awesome!!! Your response to Purpleguy was
excellent and right on target to the present economic
condition of our country. It's not so much Republican/Democrat as it is basic economics. And more importantly, about Keynesian economics
versus a free market that adjusts itself without
heavy handed regulation by the government. When will Washington elected bureaucrats running our country get it??

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 4:44PM

(sigh...).
Yes, that is right. In Washington rhetoric is what is substituted for truth. That works when it comes to persuading or fooling people, but the economy obeys economic laws, which are considerably less malleable.

The real game is power - the power to shape civilization; money is a proxy. Conservatives say power (money) to the people; liberals say SPEND according to MY instructions. Not having the money doesn't matter - SPEND it anyway ACCORDING TO MY INSTRUCTIONS.

ACCORDING TO MY INSTRUCTIONS.
Is there anyone who does not understand?

NV| 7.14.11 @ 10:28AM

@purpleguy: Democrats have held the nation's purse strings for 4 of the last 8 years.  Whenever Obama claims he "inherited" the massive debt, it should be pointed out that the Democrats controlled Congress from Jan. 2007-Jan. 2011. Furthermore, it should be noted that, as Senator, Obama voted for every spending bill sent to Bush after 2006 and , as President, Obama enthusiastically signed every spending bill after 2008. So it cannot be argued that this financial mess is solely Bush's fault. Rather, the Democrats participated in the spending binge while in the minority, and then put that spending on steroids when they had the majority, resulting in approximately $5 trillion in deficit spending over the past three years. To support their reckless spending, the Federal Reserve has tried two rounds of "quantitative easing," a euphemism for printing astonishing amounts of money, to buy back, or monetize, our own debt.  All that new un-backed liquidity cheapens our currency, inflates prices for commodities, food and fuel among them, and threatens hyper-inflation. The result of the Democratic “stimulus” spending: Unemployment is still above 9% -- above 15% if those who have abandoned hope of finding work are counted.  Unemployed Americans are falling off the tax rolls. Welfare is expanding and record numbers of Americans receive food stamps.  Entitlement commitments for federally mandated Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable, yet Democrats resist reforms and then added another unsustainable entitlement, Obamacare. So who did all the stimulus money really help? Obama's banker, wall street, and union friends. In fact, election documents reveal that the wealthy, bankers, and wall street overwhelmingly supported the Democrats and Obama in 2008. Top fundraisers for Obama included the chairman of Swiss bank UBS's American arm, Robert Wolf, who generated more than $500,000 for the campaign. Bankers typically gave far more to Obama than to his rival, John McCain. Wealthy Silicon Valley people linked to Microsoft and Google contributed a combined $1.4m to Obama's campaign. The Los Angeles Times reported that the McCain received just $20,000 from Google staff. Goldman Sachs was the largest single source of contributions for Obama, providing over $690,000 .  Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase come in #3 and #4 for Obama as well.  Interestingly, over the last 20 years, Goldman Sachs has favored Democrats over Republicans by almost 2-1. A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 was then-Sen. Barack Obama”

Paul McGrath| 7.14.11 @ 10:52AM

Nice job NV. You nailed it. And now Bernanke is contemplating round III, which, of course, was predictable. My guess is that it will start in December and last through September of '12, enough time to give O-blah-blah-blah-ma a chance to get re-elected.

darcy| 7.14.11 @ 11:40AM

Speaking of Goldman Sachs, how much do you suppose their securities traders are making selling Treasuries to the Fed's Bernanke?

Watch the clip below, and beginning at about the three-minute mark the roll played by Goldman is explained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

Have you considered| 7.14.11 @ 12:16PM

NV, I'd like to echo Paul McGrath...Nice Job!

big bob| 7.14.11 @ 1:40PM

far too much energy and detail devoted to a marxist troll who will never understand or grasp, even with a dictionary, what you have just said. Remember: facts are only peripheral to the general intent of a liberal. He will NEVER figure out how what you identified and laid works. But all in all,nice job!!

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 8:24AM

"A form of 'SO--shall--ALL-ism' is being
brought in to control the world on behalf of
a fascist elite at the top--"
-ALAN WATT
(yesterday)

There you have it --------in a nutshell.

SO, beware the 'on show' 'CAP--IT--ALLLL-ists'
and that bankster 'CAP-IT--ALLLL-ism' generally.

DEMAND FREE ENTERPRISE and accept
NO substitutes ---------------EVER.

JimH| 7.14.11 @ 8:42AM

In making deals with Obama, the GOP ought to keep the fable of the scorpion and the frog in mind.

Louis Jenkins| 7.14.11 @ 8:46AM

Obama presents himself as the adult of the crowd, but he's the instigator. The Republicans aren't going to pull the plug and allow the Democrats carta-blanc and that's what they want. Shift the blame to the Republicans anyway possible. So far its working. I'm surpised they haven't already caved.

JP| 7.14.11 @ 8:58AM

In light of the the reaction from conservatives, the McConnell Plan is DOA.

This entire drama was planned months ago. It's called Re-Elect Obama. He has no intentions on negotiating with the GOP. He will take this nation into a financial crisis if only to show us rubes how adult, centrist, and mature he is. He isn't lieing when he threatens to withhold Granny's SS check. He will do it only to blame Boehnner. He could care less about Moodys downgrading the US credit rating -he can blame it on Cantor and McConnell. The sooner the GOP realizes this the better.

IMHO, I don't think the WH realizes how serious this brinkmanship is. Once Pandora is let out of the box, you can't get her back in. If Moody does lower our credit rating, the interest the federal government must pay on its bonds will sky rocket. And most people in the US still realize the President is the one who leads; it's his economy; its his defecits -not McConnells, not Boehnners. No amount of spin will convince voters otherwise. If Obama succeeds in taking us to the brink, he is finished. Congress will have no option other than to begin immediate slashing of discretionary spending immediately.

Dave Williams| 7.14.11 @ 12:22PM

Pandora OPENED the box, actually, and let loose the thousands of ills that beset the world. The last thing left, though, was "Hope." Kind of ironic in light of the slogan of the jug-eared petulant man-child who so fraudulently disgraces the Oval Office today....

Redstateboy| 7.14.11 @ 9:09AM

This is the message that'll put Das Messiah where he deserves to be - The unemployment Line! - This is Husseins and the Slave Party's Economy.
No matter what the likes of dweebs like Purpleguy blathers... This is There Economy.. and they going to Die by it.

buckeyeman| 7.14.11 @ 9:24AM

The real, unspoken risk to the democrat party is that if the debt ceiling is not raised the budget MUST be cut by about 45 percent. Barry and Timmy will be FORCED to prioritize. Even the marginally sane Obama will not be able to withhold the precious social security checks when we all know there's plenty of money to pay 55 percent of current expenses. Life will go on and we will discover just how much of our obscene spending we didn't need in the first place. The dems should be (and probably are) quaking in their boots at the thought of America finding out that it really doesn't need to spend 3.6 trillion dollars a year.

George True| 7.14.11 @ 10:07AM

You have hit the nail on the head, sir!

Anthony| 7.14.11 @ 9:27AM

My God, we have allowed political Washington to be populated with the worst of the worst.
First, our petulent, sullen, cold-blooded, empty suit SOB of a president, pushes back his chair and leaves the debt ceiling meeting because he's not getting his way.
"See you tomorrow" he tells them. Well, I guess the crisis isn't that big of a crisis afterall, which of course any thinking, rational, person knows. This is all Washington bullcrap at its absolute worst.
Wow, if Bush had done this, the LSM would be screaming for his head. Imaging the spit running down Chris Matthews' jaw if Bush walked. Imagine the comments of deserting the American people in a time of crisis. Dig up that dead fossil from ABC, Peter Jennings, to tell us "well, some people just aren't up to being leaders".
And on our side, we have the apparently senile Mitch McConnell, who, with all of his "institutional knowledge", arrives just in time to propose the most inane and assinine "compromise" to come out of Washington in a while, and that's saying a lot.
Yeah, give Obozo another $2.5T and then we can blame it on him!!!! Are we smart or what!!!!! We really fooled Obozo and the Ds, didn't we!!! The LSM will be all over Obozo!!!
Oh, but America is still sinking fast, well, we scored the political points, that's what's really important.
What we really need in order to save America is for all of these fools to push back from their chairs and leave Washington permanently. Or, we need to show them the door with a swift kick in the ass!!!

AS Lurker| 7.14.11 @ 5:02PM

Huzzah!

Indiana Alex| 7.14.11 @ 9:27AM

What the house should do is pass legislation stating the priority of paying US obligations in the event the debt ceiling is not lifted.

Debt servicing, Social Security, Medicare, Armed Forces and actual essentials (i.e. air traffic controllers) can certainly be paid from revenues.

The Obama Administration is continuing its position of irresponsibility, and attempting to score political points to the possible detriment of the country and the economy. This is typical and consistent behavior for Liberals.

The House should expose this as much as possible.

PJ| 7.14.11 @ 9:48AM

Wasn't there a default &/or govn't debt ratings downgrade under Jimmy Carter a yr before 1980? If so, the current debt-ceiling-spending crisis is a good thing to get the schmuck out of the WH.

If we look at any corporation that had some bad yrs & survived, debt ratings will always improve once fiscal discipline coupled w/ethical management is put in place. Same goes for USA.

Let me put it another way, I want the debt ceiling to increase & I want Moody's to downgrade USA debt. It will be the coup de grace to Obama. It will be so obvious to all voting Americans w/half a brain that this horrible person & president has an agenda to destroy America. A decent Republican will win by a landslide barring any Hillary aspirations or election rigging.

PJ| 7.14.11 @ 9:50AM

Correction for 3rd paragraph: I don't want the debt ceiling increase. I want a default. I want Moody's to downgrade USA debt.

Indiana Alex| 7.14.11 @ 10:01AM

There was a government shut down under Reagan. You see Reagan the "big spender" and "huge deficit" President wouldn't sign one of the budgets passed by congress. In this case Reagan didn't agree with the spending increases proposed by the Democrat congress. Reagan wanted to spend less and threatend to shut down the government.

Alas, he signed the bad budget bill because he knew he would be tarred and feathered by the press for shutting down the government.

Fast forward to 1996, where President and "deficit hawk" Bill Clinton did not agree with the budget submitted by the Republican congress. You see in this case Clinton didn't agree with the level of spending. The great deficit hawk wanted more.

In this case, he refused to sign the bill, the government shut down, and congress got the blame becuase they were Republican.

Conservatives cannot let politics determine their actions. They will always be the villian according to the press, and should not capitulate and bow to the roar of the Liberal mob.

They have to explain their position and the position of the Left. It is very difficult to shout over a mob that has one word answers for the most difficult problems of the day (Halliburton!! Speculators!! etc.), but they have to at least get in there and scrap.

Indiana Alex| 7.14.11 @ 10:02AM

Of course there was ultimately no shut down under Reagan, but the history is still relevant.

Mike Hihn | 7.14.11 @ 1:18PM

Alex that sounds a bit like 1986, when Democrats bragged they had "repealed Reaganomics." And they did. To pay for -- what else? -- a middle-class tax cut.

What they repealed were the depreciation reforms of BOTH Kennedy and Reagan. This took manufacturers back to the postwar tax structure that allowed 5 recessions in only 15 years.

We're still stuck back there.

PJ| 7.14.11 @ 10:13AM

I believe Reagan had time to recover. Carter, if it was true about the default, did not.

Gary| 7.14.11 @ 10:44AM

I say let the SOBs raise the limit with no cuts or new taxes, then it's their baby. More taxes only lead to more spending which we all know is the real issue. The democrats are despicable miscreants.

Peter McGrath| 7.14.11 @ 10:59AM

I tend to agree with Palin - giving Obama another blank check (allowing him to increase our national debt by 15% or so) is an obscene, extremely bad idea.

The President is not to be trusted.

His vile, false comment to that credulous fool, Scott Pelly, about the government not having enough in its "coffers" to write social security and disability checks revealed Obama's true (lack of ) character.

One simple idea: give the Moral Coward an increase in the debt ceiling to cover the debt service, alone (about $250 billion for FY 2012).

This would prevent a default but the legislation - even if it passed the Senate - would face an Obama veto threat. Now, THAT would tie our nebbish POTUS in knots.

He'd either veto the legislation (with the resultant "disruption" of government "services") or be forced to actually prioritize current spending (beyond him - but maybe little Timmy can help).

Of course, the Ass-Clown of the Senate, Reid, might refuse the bait. But there are enough Senators who smell the bitter coffee brewing in the Heartland (Nelson, McCaskill, Tester, esp. Manchin in WV) who might go along with the idea - or something equivalent.

Keep applying pressure. Don't give in. By now, America has awakened to the realization that Obama is the true enemy of prosperity.

Jordan| 7.14.11 @ 12:28PM

You know how weak the jobs report was last month, right? Only 18,000 jobs added to the economy?

That's more than Bush and the Republicans added in EIGHT YEARS.

Yet somehow Obama is the true enemy of prosperity?

Peter McGrath| 7.14.11 @ 12:43PM

During Bush's term, an anemic 3 million net jobs were added to the economy. A lousy record, to be sure but - please - do a little fact-checking before showing your slip on this site.

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:39PM

Gotta agree with Peter on this one. Jordan you seem a bit troll-like with your postings that entirely ignore the truth.

The Province of Alberta in Canada with a population of around 4 million added more jobs last month than did the entire United States. Alberta and Canada are led by conservative governments.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Who Knows?| 7.14.11 @ 11:07AM

See near things far.

See far things near.

If you think of the aggregated US economy as one huge company, perhaps as a mega-bank, in order to make as much sense as possible of the current debt ceiling-tax increase-spending reduction debate, maybe we should use the solvency-liquidity concepts.

Isn’t it obvious that we have a liquidity problem, NOT a solvency one?

Nobody in power will EVER let the USA “go bankrupt”, despite the fact that when you do a GAAP audit of everything the governments---local to city to state to federal---have promised, it sure seems like profligate spenders-taxers-promisers have brought us to “official” bankruptcy.

Any fool, though, knows in their bones that symbols, known as “dollars”, on paper or in computers, only TRY to re-present the real (on-the-ground, and in our increasingly more highly evolved society, in-the-air = ideas) reality.

In short, atop the soil known as America, there exists an amazing literal weight of “ordered mass”, such as buildings, roads, vehicles, right down to toothpicks!

How could all of THAT be considered “bankrupt?

So, what’s really going on in DC is a liquidity problem, and I say---hooray for that!

The anti-heroes in DC have been burning money for way too long!

And, remember, the “money” qua “dollars”, are stark symbols that point to REAL things, created by the hard work of the people in this country who literally “make things”.

When Lewis and Clark made it to the Pacific Ocean, they had to wait out the rainy winter. Thus, they built log structures within which to do so, with the most pertinent call to action, ‘er inaction, being---“Keep your powder dry!”

Just so, our cutting edge “political explorers” in DC, to wit those on the right, who are trying to turn off the money burning “spigot” known as Obama et al, essentially have to wait out the “rainy season”.

Yes---it is always imperative to face FACTS! Until early 2013, there CAN’T be a “change in the weather” in the powder = power center, DC.

Therefore, clear-eyed discretion is vital. To shoot “bullets”, now, against an enemy as entrenched as Obama and company is futile, bordering on suicidal.

The Siddharta of Hermann Hesse had three essential virtues---

He had patience, he could think, and he could fast.

May our right wing leaders in the cesspool known as the Beltway all be like Siddharta!

With prudence, and diligence, let them reflect the same qualities of the true backbone of freedom-loving America, who they re-present.

Be patient, think hard, and not only “fast” by resisting increased spending and advocating cutting spending, but---

HOLD FAST!

Have you considered| 7.14.11 @ 12:33PM

WKnows, great post, but I believe you ascribe too many virtues to our current crop of Republicans in congress.

""our cutting edge “political explorers” in DC, to wit those on the right, who are trying to turn off the money burning “spigot” known as Obama et al""

I just don't see that they are "trying to turn off the spigot" in a significant way.

Sshheessh, they can't even de-fund NPR and Obamacare (they let the 105Bil in implementation stand) so I'm just not convinced.

Wayne | 7.14.11 @ 11:12AM

Since when is capitulation a plan. Cantor has a better plan, putting the onus on the House to pass a small increase with an equal cut. 10 year projections are NOT A plan, but fantasy. Let Reid or Obama stop it and bare the consequences.

Anthony| 7.14.11 @ 11:17AM

NEWS FLASH: OBOZO TELLS THE TRUTH
Apparently, just prior to walking out of the debt ceiling meeting with Cantor, the petulant, childish, Obozo said, " I've sat here long enough".
Oh how true, Obozo, how true. Way long enough, along with that reprehensible reptile, Harry Reid.
Take your golf clubs, Michelle, Harry, and the rest of the Ds with you and move to the 57th state. "Adios amigos".

Ed| 7.14.11 @ 11:46AM

On top of everything else, Obama had a hissy fit during the debt negotiations yesterday and stomped out of the room. The man is mentally unstable.

Jordan| 7.14.11 @ 12:24PM

"Obama's Debt"?

The reason our expenses are out of line is because we invaded Iraq, didn't pay for it, and literally threw away money there.

Then we invaded Afghanistan and didn't pay for it.

Then we cut taxes on the wealthiest of Americans and didn't pay for it.

We removed the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers.

We agreed to bail out the big banks.

We agreed to bail out the automotive industry.

We raised the debt ceiling 7 times without corresponding service cuts.

Oh yeah, and it was George Bush and the Republicans who did all of this.

Now, if you want to blame Obama for not shutting down Bush's plans and instead going ahead and seeing them through to the end, you've got a point.

But you can't blame Obama when it was Bush and company out spending money like drunken sailors.

Mike Hihn | 7.14.11 @ 1:03PM

"Then we cut taxes on the wealthiest of Americans and didn't pay for it."

How about the middle class? They (we) got 80% of the Bush tax cut, but pay only 20% of the personal income tax.

IRS data shows that folks with income (AGI )of $40,000-100,000, report 31% of reported income, but only pay 20% of the income tax. That means the wealthy are now subsidizing 35% of the entire middle-class tax burden. We may be boxed into a corner with no way out -- also considering $60 TRILLION in unfunded middle-class entitlements.

Meanwhile, Obama's 10-year forecast shows deficits NEVER as low as Bush's WORST year.

We've seen this movie before. FDR inherited a recovery and destroyed it. Time out for war, then it's back to the New Deal for five recessions in only 15 years, 1945-1960, until Kenned started dismantling New Deal (as did Reagan later).

80 years of failure. So why are we still running New Deal tax policy on business and investment? Why is there a better business and investment climate in COMMUNIST China?

Makes me wonder.

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:19PM

Small error, Obama's forecast is actually for 14 years.

Making the burden considerably worse.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:36PM

Hi Jordan,

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan had next to zero impact on the U.S. debt. In fact military spending has a very high multiplier effect on the economy.

The banking industry was about to implode when Bush bailed it out. It was in this position for two reasons; legislation forcing banks to give more mortgages to unqualified buyers (Thank you President Carter for that bright idea) and their own greed in assuming (correctly) that they could give more mortgages to unqualified buyers because the government would save them from collapse.

The bail out of the Auto industry was strictly in the interest of currying union favor. Had GM and Chrysler failed a new and better auto industry would have been formed.

All Presidents screw up in a variety of ways, but you are entirely wrong to blame all of this on President Bush.

The real roots are on Carter and then President Clinton broadened the housing legislation, messed with the CPI to render it meaningless and increased the money supply at a rate that did not match any real growth in GDP. The resulting inflation hid out first in the Dot.Com market and on its heals the housing bubble.

Culpability is mainly in the hands of successive Democratic regimes, but both Presidents Bush share some blame too.

The truth is simple, President's end up with the dirt on their hands, while both Houses are for the most part to blame.

Your statement about President Bush outspending President Obama is both false and dopey. The numbers speak for themselves and are easily researched.

I know most Liberals do not particularly like actually arguing from a foundation of facts and with an eye toward the truth, but in this case you simply are not within spitting distance of either.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

PS The correct saying is not "spending like drunken sailors" but rather "spending like drunken Liberals."

Doctor Right| 7.14.11 @ 2:01PM

WRONG.

The cost of the Iraq War does NOT equal what Obama has spent in 2.5 years.

patrick| 7.14.11 @ 12:25PM

It never ceases to me amaze me how "conservatives" who supposedly "know" the Constitution talk about "presidential" deficits and how the writer here talks about how the president "added" a trillion dollars to the deficit. I'm sorry he did no such thing folks. Repeat after me ladies and gentlemen. All, repeat ALL spending bills originate where class? Not with the president, not in the Senate, but where? In the HOUSE! Presidents can propose any budget they want but they have no force of law whatsoever under the Constitution do they? For all, repeat all appropriations, the president is the last person in line, isn't he? The bills start in the House, go the Senate, and only when passed by both does the President get to veto or sign the bills. He may propose anything he wants but the House has no obligation to go along with him. They are free to totally ignore him. Please show me the article which says the House is in any way bound by ANYTHING the president proposes regarding spending. We can talk more accurately perhaps about Pelosi deficits, or Boehner deficits now that he's the speaker, but again, there are no such Constitutional creatures as "presidential" deficits". Class is dismissed.

Scott| 7.14.11 @ 12:30PM

THIS! Excatly correct. Congress authorizes every single dollar the Fed gov't spends. If the GOP was insistent upon cuts, they should have forced them through during the FY11 gov't shutdown debate this spring.

Have you considered| 7.14.11 @ 12:39PM

patrick, you are exactly correct, but I don't bother to correct this any longer.

Even the anchors at Fox misuse this, and I do believe it contributes to the general ignorance.

Siegfried X| 7.14.11 @ 12:49PM

This is incorrect because it ignores the fact that we have political parties, and votes take place along party lines, parties which don't have the 2/3 necessary to override a veto. Although it is fun to imagine the US being a parliamentary Democracy in which 2/3 of Congress disregards the President and passes legislation, this has almost never been the case.

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:17PM

This seems to ignore the reality of executive authority and influence on the budget process. Because Obama is unable to actually produce a budget himself, he is unique in the executive in not doing so.

He doesn't want to put much in writing, because then he can be held to account. So while technically this is true, it is difficult to parse this with Obama continually blaming President Bush for the financial debacle that Obama and his legions of socialist international Senators and Representatives have themselves created.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

big bob| 7.14.11 @ 1:47PM

This sounds like an engineer trying to parse literal meanings. I would like to ask just what would have happened had Pelosi and Reid NOT done what Obama wanted with his spending??? I remember that Obama did not even CARE what the details were with Obamacare, for example, only that it got done. We could go on about how Obama is ignoring the courts with several judgements, and just how he is showing nothing but contempt toward the Constitutional relationships shown between the various branches of government. But if you think you can sit there and defuse his responsiblity for the TRILLIONS HE has added to our debt, you are indeed to be greatly pitied.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:46PM

right on! and the Prez never influences or directs the Congress when his party controls the levers to follow his budget priorities!!!

Scott| 7.14.11 @ 12:28PM

Bottom line is the gov't is currently only receiving approx 14.9% of total national GDP, and spending upwards of 24%.

Post WW@ averages have put receipts at around 19-20% and spending at 21-22%.

The gov't currently collects the smallest % of GDP at any time since WW2. Some sort of revenue increases are going to have be phased in over time....there are many ways to do it that do NOT include raising marginal income rates. Reagan did it in the '80s and it can be done again.

The other options is to severely means test things like social security and Medicare, but I don't see the political will from either side to do that. We have an aging population, the newest Census just released has us as the oldest at anytime in our history, and its only going to get worse in coming years and decades.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:49PM

baloney......revenues as a percentage of GDP have dropped because the economy isn't growing. raise my taxes and I will reduce consumption by double the delta. that is a promise.

Siegfried X| 7.14.11 @ 12:42PM

Mitchell's plan is like "deeming a bill passed". It's a way for Congress to do something, but pretend they didn't. It's phony and that's why it's bad. Lying to the voters is bad.

Mitchell's plan really means that Congress will lift the debt ceiling with no strings attached. If they really are going to do that, it should be done honestly.

(The argument that this would force Obama to reveal spending cuts is absurd. Just yesterday Boehner was quoted as saying that Obama's cuts were phony smoke & mirrors. Politicians have been spreading this smoke since George Washington. Obama, backed by the left-wing media, will suffer no harm from McConnell's bill.)

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:51PM

yes he will...but its a truculent game being played. raising the debt and the spending we know will inevitably follow will only worsen things. heck it's not even clear that if the ceiling is raised the government will be able to find buyers for all the short-term treasuries it will need to sell. the problem will get even worse as interest rates begin to rise.

Skep41| 7.14.11 @ 12:55PM

The Dems, headed by Obama, want to borrow $2.5 trillion to keep solvent for 14 months...$178 billion per month. They want to borrow $500 a month for each American...and when you eliminate the 2/3 of the population who dont pay taxes its $1500 a month for everyone who can be expected to help pay it back. The Dems dont care how much damage they do to all of us. This is the party that claims to care about the 'middle class' while they put policies into place that will impoverish those same people.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:54PM

now we're getting somewhere. exactly. raising taxes will have to cover more than just "the rich". the priority has to be retiring debt....while not adding new debt.

Mike Gabel| 7.14.11 @ 1:01PM

There have been some characters who have presided in the White House, but I've never seen scum like Obama.

Obama is right in one sense, though:
He once said, "I'm LeBron, baby".
He's right, he doesn't come through in big moments.

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:12PM

I believe President Obama is the worst president since Wilson, beating out even the stunningly incompetent Jimmy Carter.

When he was elected I was stunned to see how the American electorate was so ignorant of the man. He had no past, no accomplishments other than hubris (writing his memoirs before he really had any), and was clearly the product of a red diaper upbringing. All anyone had to do to get a clear picture of the President was read about a dozen pages of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and they could see Obama's entire agenda laid out before them.

Instead they listened to his meaningless statements without thinking twice about how unprepared he was for office of any kind.

Now we in the rest of the world get to share in the disaster that this odious liar has perpetrated on the United States.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Bloefeld| 7.14.11 @ 1:05PM

I am Canadian. I am perplexed by the Debt Ceiling legislation. Perplexed because I cannot see any purpose for it if it is continually lifted.

Clearly, U.S. politicians simple cannot parse the Debt Ceiling with their spending and revenue plans. If they could, there would be no viable reason to lift the debt ceiling ever.

So, can someone please tell me why the legislation exists?

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Mike Hawk| 7.14.11 @ 3:48PM

The issue isn't debt, it is the excessive rampant irresponsible spending that creates debt.

carnot| 7.14.11 @ 7:56PM

as in a ceiling...at least symbolically...represents a cap on spending.

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 1:08PM

I am going to CUT TO THE CHASE of this argument. The target-point of same is this: WHO EARNS/OWNS THE MONEY THAT IS GIVEN IN TAXIATION TO THE GOVERNMENT? obviously the only answer is THE TAXPAYER, but according to Democrats' and liberals' way of think, it is the government that OWNS this money. Their Robin Hood Philosophy dictates that taxpayer-citizens have a moral responsibility to GIVE AWAY their earned income to the government, and therein lies the false premise-lie of their continual arguments. They think that the money belongs to them [the government and their liberal Democrat administrators]. Does anyone here believe that their own personal income-money rightfully/morally belongs to the government? This is the bullexcrement of the way these liberals think, and they believe that their FORCED CHARITY THROUGH TAXIATION is morally justified. This is why they are all mostly insane and demented. There's an old saying that CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME [in other words, one has the initially take care of their own personal needs before deciding whether or not to give or be charitable to someone else]. These liberals/Democrats conveniently ignore the RESPONSIBILITY side of the equation that says that RIGHTS = RESPONSIBILITIES. The indigents recieving governmental charity/benefits [paid for by taxpayers] have a responsibility to wean themselves from same, but historically that has not happened and will never happen unless they are forcibly weaned from same. We taxpayers must begin this weaning process now!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Gabel| 7.14.11 @ 1:10PM

Back to policy. I'm mixed on the McConnell plan.

On one hand, I want the House to pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling, while making specific and material spending cuts. Then, if the Democrats in the Senate fail to pass it, or if Obama vetoes, they will be responsible for any default. This is what I believe conservatives were elected to do in 2010.

If for some reason the above won't fly, then McConnell's plan is better than nothing. The big risk is that Obama balks when it is time to trade spending cuts for increasing the debt ceiling. If he does balk, then at least Obama will solidly be seen as the one who owns the deficit, debt and crappy economy.

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:07PM

Mike's argument is basically Newt's suggestion, and I agree. Put the political ball in the Democratic Senate's court and force them to take ownership rightfully of it!!!!!

Rodney Rodz| 7.14.11 @ 1:17PM

All of the politicians should be tossed, Cantor stood by and voted multiple times to spend out of control and to raise the debt ceiling under Bush, now he is playing the hawk. They all suck and until we put term limits on Congress it will be a joke. All of them just want our money and to be re-elected they could care less about the country.

Oregonian| 7.14.11 @ 1:26PM

Apparently, Scott, you neglected to actually read the article before making your comments:

"America's debt crisis is due not to undertaxation but to overspending, not to "right-wing partisanship" but to bipartisan collusion. Spending profligates who demand "more revenue" on the occasion of an impending debt-lifting deadline are like thieves who turn back to their old victims upon the arrival of new bills.

The conventional wisdom -- that opponents of tax increases and big spenders stand equally responsible for the crisis -- is false. But even that bogus equivalence is too much for liberals to take; they consider opponents of tax increases wholly responsible for it."

These were the first two paragraphs that you apparently missed in your haste to respond. Perhaps you should write your own article to submit to the Spectator, and we'll see if the dogs will eat it!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:12PM

The liberal proponents of tax increases are such because they view tax money as blonging to the government, instead of belonging to those that earned it!!!!!!!!!!

Sandy | 7.14.11 @ 1:31PM

The debt ceiling was $6 trillion in 2000. It was $12 trillion in 2008. Whose debt???
Could you people PLEASE stop lying. The country just cannot take anymore.

CalMark| 7.14.11 @ 4:22PM

Let's see...

Obama's budget deficits total well over $3 trillion. Plus TARP II. Total: $4 trillion-plus.

Obama is personally responsible for more than $4 trillion of the $14 trillion debt: his party passed it in Congress, he signed it. That's a 35% increase in national debt in less than three years.

The last two years of Bush were under Democrat Congresses. Total bill: $700 billion in deficits, another $700 billion for TARP I.

Annual Bush-GOP deficits were $150 billion, less than 10% of an annual Obama deficit.

Who's lying now?

The Sarcastic Cynic| 7.14.11 @ 1:45PM

Let me get this straight: We pass a balanced budget amendment spending no more than we take in. I know, just take in more and spend more. Silly wabbits...

Slacker| 7.14.11 @ 2:11PM

Do those who advocate a tax hike appreciate that the corporate leaders who pull the trigger on a new hires by and large have household incomes above 250k? They already scared and pissed. They will push back . Those who think otherwise are living in fantasy land.

The Republicans should allow Obama his precious tax increase. Let unemployment jump another 2% and tax revenues actually fall.

It seems like Republicans too often protect Obama from himself. Maybe the public deserves Obama’s proposed policies and the resulting train wreck.

Bob Grant| 7.14.11 @ 3:27PM

That would be devastating, so, no, let's keep Obama on a short leash. I'm not interested in living through a lost decade.

Slacker| 7.14.11 @ 5:31PM

I'm ready to take a lost decade if it discredits these idiots for subsequent 2. We're 3 years into it already. I can survive a lost decade better than the public and union sectors. Let them chase their golden geese overseas.

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:17PM

A tax increase would NOT go toward debt reduction, as it would entirely be spent upon new government expendatures; and therefore is not a solution. Only governmental spending reductions of a substantial amount would go toward true debt reduction!!!!!!!

Kelly Cox| 7.14.11 @ 2:54PM

It's funny how few facts are in this article or in the foaming-at-the-mouth comments. Here's a fact--tax rates across America are at their lowest rates since 1948. Another fact--we had far higher job growth during the Clinton years, when the top tax rates were just a few points higher.

Trickle-down economics has had 30 years to show results, and it has failed miserably. In that time, the GDP has doubled, and the income of the middle class hasn't budged. Also in that time, the income of the top 1% has doubled.

Americans are waking up to the fact that the GOP is only interested in power, and in keeping that power through enriching their billionaire friends.

John II| 7.14.11 @ 3:12PM

"Americans are waking up to the fact that the GOP is only interested in power, and in keeping that power through enriching their billionaire friends."

What an oddly asinine comment. Actually, many Americans are waking up to the fact that the Democrats are now doing precisely what the GOP supposedly used to do: power-grubbing and enriching billionaires. Have you checked Nancy Pelosi's personal and political background lately? Have you noticed how Professor Obama acquired his first millions? Have you checked into the the sources of major financial support for the Democrats? Have you checked anything, ever? Do you believe for a split second that Harry Reid is a better human being than Paul Ryan? Do you have a soul informed by experience and sound judgment--or just a big mouth in service to ignorant emotions and whatever crap you're spoon-fed by a degenerate media? Well? . . . WELL?

And now back to "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939), in which the conservative Republican Jimmy Stewart fights the corrupt big-money Roosevelt Democrats--and wins.

Bob Grant| 7.14.11 @ 4:36PM

Billionaire friends like Jeffrey Immelt, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ophrah Winfrey, George Soros, T Boone Pickens, Michael Bloomberg, etc.

What's that you say?... Oh, they are OBAMA'S buddies. Nevermind.

Dick Nome| 7.14.11 @ 3:47PM

I thought the billionaires like Soros , Buffet, Gates, Sen. Kerry were all Democrats. What do I know, huh?

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:22PM

Bullexcrement! That garbage is precisely why we're drowning in debt from these ever expanding defecits going back to Roosevelt. This crap is all due to you liberal Democrats' GREAT SOCIETY, AFFORDABLE HOMES, RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH cesspool political agenda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CalMark| 7.14.11 @ 4:25PM

Tell you what, Kelly.

Most Americans LIKE the way this country works. Why don't you move to some Socialist Paradise somewhere.

In other words: You hate it here? Then LEAVE. Get out of my country. You won't be missed. Don't let the door hit you...

Kelly Cox| 7.14.11 @ 5:48PM

Interesting that not ONE of the replies to my comment address either of the two FACTS that I posted.

Demonstrating once again that reality has a well-known liberal bias--and you right-wingers are entirely disconnected from reality.

One example--"deficits back to FDR" is a lie, since Clinton ran a SURPLUS--due in large part to higher taxes on the very wealthy.

George S| 7.14.11 @ 6:25PM

If trickle down economics had 30 years to prove itself, it must mean Clinton continued the policy (or it would have died on the vine in 1992). The FACT that it didn't means that trickle down is what caused the Clinton boom, right? Or could it be the Gingrich-Kasich tax cuts of 1997, the same year that Clinton rejected five budgets (FACT) before agreeing to the Republican's budget that balanced the budget (FACT). It is also a FACT that the surplus didn't occur until 1997, five years after the Clinton tax hikes and by coincidence just after Gingrich-Kasich lowered the capital gains tax to 20% from 28% (F-A-C-frigging-T)

Another FACT: the largest amount of money ever to come into the Treasury was 2007, right in the middle of the Bush tax cuts, yet the deficit that year was about half a billion dollars. What does that tell you? It is the SPENDING that is the problem. That's what this debate is all about: Stop Spending.

Another FACT: taxes on the 'rich' were once 90% and John F. Kennedy reduced them to 70%. Where was the corresponding increase in the debt that accompanied the 60 percent increase in revenue to the Treasury from 1961 to 1968?

Come back when you have real facts, not out of context factoids.

George S| 7.14.11 @ 6:27PM

... that's half a trillion for the 2007 deficit

Nick| 7.14.11 @ 6:10PM

Kelly Cox,

"Trickle-down economics has had 30 years to show results, and it has failed miserably."

Except for the 25 years of unprecedented economic expansion that followed President Reagan's trickle-down policies. In spite of the best efforts of both G.H.W. Bush and Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton.

Once the democrat party gained control of the Congress in '06, Renoldus Magnus' successful trickle-down policies were stopped dead in their tracks.

Thanks, democrats, for the Great Recession.

Jim from Virginia| 7.14.11 @ 3:17PM

George: you sarcasm only bests your disinterest in facts. Your positioning "opponents of tax increases" again "big spenders" suggests you forgot the Bush 43 years when tax policy and excessive spending increased our debt from less than $5.8 trillion in January 2001 to over $11 trillion in January 2009! (US Treasury data). In other words, the big spenders and the tax haters from 2001 to January 2009 were one and the same! Republicans administrations since 1980 are responsible for nearly $10 trillion of our $14.3 trillion debt! (US Treasury data). Then you write of Obama strolling up to a crash he caused! Get your facts right: You know the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, and the Bush economic and other policies which led to the Great Recession significantly reduced revenues are the origins of this crash. The "overspending" by Obama blocked unemployment from rising to `15% or higher. If you want to fault this administration’s economic policies, fault it for having grossly underestimated the damaged Bush 43’s policies had done to our economy from January 2001 to January 2009

John II| 7.14.11 @ 3:51PM

1. The word is "uninterest," not "disinterest."

2. The correct form of the word is "damage," not "damaged."

3. The undeniable imbecilities of drunken Republican RINOs during the Bush years are not a response to the disastrous and mendacious policies imposed on America by Lefty freaks for the past two and a half years.

Get your language and your logic straight before you tell other people to get their "facts" straight. It is a FACT that Democrats love to tax, tax, tax. (Your hero Clinton once admitted in the back seat of his limo while governor of Arkansas, "I've never seen a tax I didn't like." Whatever else he was doing when he said so is admittedly speculation.) And you are now working just over six months per year to pay for all those taxes-- federal, state, local, sales, property, etc.--and I'm not even counting the corporate taxes you pay in the form of higher prices to offset the expenses incurred by the foolish taxation of productive businesses. FACT!

Smug little moron.

And now back to "Stagecoach" (1939), in which Donald Meek pleads with the other passengers to show a little Christian charity.

DRed| 7.14.11 @ 6:22PM

When did Clinton say that about taxes? I like to keep my facts straight.

George S| 7.14.11 @ 6:48PM

Absolutely... and it was Tina Fey who said "I can see Russia from my house!"

DRed| 7.14.11 @ 10:06PM

Oh, I was just trying to bait John II. I guess he's too busy watching his movies to bother. My point was that while he was waxing pedantic, he was also using 'facts' that weren't actually true. It's amusing that he's using made up statistics (really, Americans pay over 50% of their income as taxes?) and what seems to be an unattributed quote as evidence that someone else is a smug little moron. But yeah, Sarah Palin just said that you could see Russia from Alaska. Which is true!

John II| 7.14.11 @ 10:46PM

DRreddy! We meet again. You're right--I didn't take the bait, because I was busy watching Toto Too in "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) escaping the consequences of a tornado. Not only am I fascinated by all movies made in the bumper year of 1939 (rather like 1951, come to think of it), but I am particularly taken by the relevance of those flicks to my own family's current trouble.

Not that you care, but my #2 son and his family have moved out of California to Kansas because of the policies pursued by your degenerate heroes in that troubled state.

I am sure you would be bored by the details because I perceive that, like Tolstoy, you are a dude who loves mankind and absolutely holds in contempt individual human beings who are directly affected by the policies of the Obamanation.

Anyhow, y0u asked for the facts, and that is a fair question. I first learned of the degenerate Clinton's preferential option for taxes, taxes, taxes during the "Troopergate" era, lo now, these many years past, when one of Associate Professor Clinton's limousine drivers spilled the beans about the kind of random comments your degenerate hero indulged in from the back seat, usually when he was indulging in autoerotic practices of a related manner.

Of course, the limousine driver was an Arkansas State Trooper (whence the appellation "Troopergate"), so a liberal such as your unfortunate self must surely dismiss such witness. After all, the witness came from a cop, and as liberals all know, cops are not to be trusted unless they are speaking for public service unions rather than speaking from their astonished hearts.

Anyhow, I have not made up the statistics. And your accusation that I have is a tiny measure of your own ideologically inspired liberal fraudulence. You may check with the scholars at Heritage and Cato in the unlikely case that you really give a damn. In fact, I really don't believe that folks such as yourself will be content (if not truly happy) until the figure is closer to 90 percent, rather than, as now, between fifty and sixty percent.

You have rejected traditional morality, and so you want the State to reign supreme, making all your shitty little decisions for you. Indeed, making all your BIG decisions for you.

That is how I see it, having worked in corrupt academia for more than forty years. They have rejected God, so they want the State to be god.

So let it be seen. So let it be written. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren will defeat you, DReddy--because you will no longer exist. I am sorry f0r you.

And now back to "36 Hours" (1964), in which James Garner of Maverick fame waxes serious and takes on the duplicitous Nazi renegade.

DRed| 7.14.11 @ 11:50PM

Frankly, my dear, I do give a damn.

http://www.heritage.org/static.....6C1EDE.jpg

Huh. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it looks to me like you were wrong again. To be fair, that chart is from 2007, so I'll give you another one. This is from the (conservative) tax foundation. It's skewed a bit so that it overstates when the average tax payer could celebrate his or her tax freedom, but it also suggests your math is a little fuzzy.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

John II| 7.15.11 @ 12:33PM

What's an "average tax payer," DReddy? I'd love to be one of those. Is there a way I could join THAT club?

Anyhow, read the fine print and caveats in those reports. I know exactly how much of my family's gross income is left after the bloodsucker lefties are through, and it's been considerably less than 50 percent for some years now. Partly because we don't live in Mississippi or even Texas, but mostly and generally because the bloodsuckers calculate strictly by averages to anticipate the aggregate political consequences when they cook up the next assault on the incomes of those who still work for a living.

Ah, bring on those averages: that way you can continue to love humanity while holding individual human beings in permanent contempt.

Good use of the Rhet Butler line, though. And now, with thanks for the reminder, on to "Gone with the Wind" in my steady recapitulation of 1939.

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:29PM

Typical bullexcrement from a liberal Democrat. Try going back to the Roosevelt's explosion of governmental welfare, Kennedy-Johnson's GREAT SOCIETY, and Clinton's AFFORDABLE HOMES, and Obama's tripling of our debt, non-issuance of a budget, forcing the unconstitutional WELFARECARE and STIMULUS-TO-UNIONIZED-GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and then explain how Republicans are solely at fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 7.14.11 @ 4:30PM

PS: throw in some more bullexcrement with Democrats' CRA of 1977!!!!!!

George S| 7.14.11 @ 6:40PM

You're wrong... the overspending by Obama did not keep unemployment from going to 15%. The real number is 58 percent. Look it up -- it's right there with the $2,500 decrease in health insurance premiums we are now enjoying since ObamaCare was passed.

Nick| 7.14.11 @ 11:13PM

Jim from Virginia,

"[...] when tax policy and excessive spending increased our debt from less than $5.8 trillion in January 2001 to over $11 trillion in January 2009! (US Treasury data)."

Projected national debt by 2016: $20 Trillion!
Projected national debt by 2020: $23 Trillion!

Thanks to O'Bama, democrats, and all tax and spend liberals. (President Ditherer extended the Bush Tax Cuts, remember?)

Paul in Colorado| 7.14.11 @ 3:45PM

As to our President, his idea of leadership is patiently guiding groups of obstreperous students to the correct conclusions (his). Actually taking positions and arguing their merits is beneath his dignity - when others have done the heavy lifting it is then for him to grant his approval and permission to proceed. In this case, though, no one is deferring to him, much less allowing his dishonest characterizations to go unchallenged, so President Obama finds himself on unfamiliar ground, and his petulant reaction is wholly predictable.

As to raising the debt limit, I think McConnell is right. He knows from experience that the Democrats will never, ever voluntarily cut their spending, and to his credit he's all done playing the Charlie Brown for their Lucy. He knows that even their promises to reduce the rate of growth in spending are worthless, and that any new tax revenue will be spent before it is even collected. As their new DNC chair said, the Democrats own this economy, and they'll have to run on it in 2012, unless the Republicans are foolish enough throw them a rope. This will be settled by electing representatives who see things differently, not by making deals with people who have no intention of keeping their promises.

Marc Jeric| 7.14.11 @ 4:12PM

There has been no known cure for that addiction over the centuries: the addiction to the money printing press (or putting copper in the gold coins in the Roman Empire, or lead in the silver coins under Henry the 8th). Our politicians emptied the Social Security "lockbox" years ago, starting with Johnson; now we owe our pensioners about $65 trillions.

martin j smith| 7.14.11 @ 4:43PM

If Obama gets everything he wants it will be the make Republicans look like fools plan. So, it comes down to this: It should look like this: There should be a short term increase in debt in exchange for some proportionate decrease in spending. The increase in the debt should also be limited in terms of amount.

Brian| 7.14.11 @ 5:14PM

Talk radio is one of the most socialized industries in America. Yes folks, our taxes subsidize Neal Boortz million $ pay checks

Larry| 7.14.11 @ 6:25PM

I guess I need to remind our liberal troll friends: deficits did not originate with George W. Bush, and spending occurring on most of the Federal programs today results from the creation of those programs by Democratic presidents and congresses.

Obama, in fact, has almost quadrupled in two and a half years the biggest Bush deficit in Bush's term - which happened to be the last two years of his term, when Democrats were once again in control of Congress.

Republicans may be guilty of enabling the ongoing addiction to government spending, and power is a heady addictive in today's Washington, D.C., but the true "drug dealers" are the Democrats, for they have created and maintained this corrupt system that only buys votes and places people in a position of increasing dependency upon big government. So stop failing to see the forest for the trees.

As Fine Gael did to Fianna Fail in Ireland's last election, we must eviscerate the Democrats in 2012. Eviscerate them!

Daezy | 7.14.11 @ 6:43PM

Unlike MacBeth, Ruth Marcus, Eric Cantor lives in the REAL world.

The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 7.14.11 @ 7:40PM

Don't call my bluff, Kelly Cox and Purplegay. I'm not kidding this time. I am more patient than Job, more of a leader than Moses, tougher than David, more humble than John the Baptist, nobody in that Bible is as good as me. I am the One with the nicely creased pants. Did you see what happened to the Minnesota governor? Whoa! Total cave and we are not talking Kansas. He apparently doesn't care what they call him as long as he could cave in to the Republicans. That wasn't how it was supposed to happen. Maybe the American public is really serious about this debt thing and see me as a wild spendthrift. Well they got that part right. I have had to endure the Boehner- Cantor good cop/bad cop routine and then I surrender? My trolls promised me that the Republicans would cave if they had a couple days to undermine confidence. It seems that they are enhancing confidence. This is what happens when you base your strategy on the actions of the borderline functional. No offense. I am in a panic and that Cantor is really bugging me. That smiley face and southern accent terrify me. He and Boehner are enjoying the whole spectacle while I am dying a thousand deaths. I need more golf now. Tomorrow the Republicans, in search of Democratic leadership are going to open negotiations with Bill Clinton and Martin Sheen of the West Wing. Maybe I will be able to get away for some golf. High speed rail to the wind farms of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. I am going to try and get myself into prison. Apparently black men live longer in prison than on the outside. What a wonderful culture.

J Baustian| 7.14.11 @ 9:02PM

Ruth Marcus wrote: "To understand Cantor, think Macbeth with all the vaulting ambition and none of the accompanying guilt."

But to understand Obama think Charles I, who repeatedly dismissed Parliament until he needed money desperately. For Boehner think Cromwell (hopefully). For McConnell, think Exeter. And for Cantor, think of any one of the many who Charles had executed for treason -- Obama would love to lop off his head and then send all the rest of his Republican enemies to the block.

Obama acts more like a divine-right monarch than the elected leader of all the people.

somnolence| 7.14.11 @ 10:04PM

Hmm Hmm. Obama has put 4 trillion in cuts on the table, but not one dime cut from Obamacare. The whole thing is a nonstarter and the GOP will prevail if they continue to ridicule it and ultimately walk away shaking their heads at this joke.

POST American| 7.14.11 @ 10:34PM

---SPEAKING of debt, a little blast from the
past---

"Her modern dwellings, gymnasiums, her fine public highways, her perfect factories
--ALLLL this was done on our money.
ALL this was given to Germany through the Federral Reserve Board.

The Federal Reserve Board has pumped so much many BILLIONS into Germany that they dare
not name the total."
-Rep. Charles McFadden D. Penn
1935
(SEE 'The Money Masters' on Google)

And likewise into Bolshevik Russia ---and
as we write, from the midst of probably what is
the definitive and FINAL American economic
collapse -----RED China.

"--Did you just hear me? ---THIS IS TREASON."
-ALEX JONES

----------------TAKE HEED AMERICA

Audit, prosecute, dismantle and END the
ILLEGAL and deeply sinister, wholly unaccountable,
private 'Federal' Reserve.

Start a REAL revolution and prohibit fractional
reserve lending, and debt serf generating
USURY generally.

"Kid Richie"| 7.15.11 @ 8:29AM

It seems to me that McConnell's proposal is akin to giving a gun to a terrorist and then point the finger at him after he uses it. All McConnell is concerned about is where the political blame will be placed. What about the victims, the American taxpayers? The people on both sides of the aisle have caused the problems and they sit around looking for "solutions" which will be dumped on the public. What a despicable mess and waste the establishment has created. We need Term Limits. Maybe we'd get more "service" from our so-called "public servants"!

ShortNSweet| 7.15.11 @ 9:55AM

McConnell is right - let the commies hang themselves! It will be the first time, they did their devastation, and couldn't turn the blame of it on someone else. I say let 'em bump!!!

ShortNSweet| 7.15.11 @ 10:16AM

P. S. These cuts they keep talking about are for Senior Citizens, and Veterans! Not one word about the dead beat drug heads on food stamps, and mediCAID. Cuts are great but cut these obese dead beats that haven't paid of dime of taxes and continue to suck the system dry! Don't cut our parents and grandparents after working their fingers to the bone all their lives taking care of us, & making this country great, or the veterans & their families who have sacrificed life and limb to protect us!!!! OMGosh what's wrong with this picture??? Let McConnell do his thing, let them cut their own ignorant throats, and BE GONE!!!!!

george kimball| 7.15.11 @ 5:40PM

Seems like reality took a vacation somewhere along the way.

First, what is being debated is not a budget cut - it is how much of a vastly expanded operating deficit created by Obama and the Democrats is going to be made permanent.

Second, the issue isn't money and spending per se, but the power to mold our society, and money is a proxy. The left wants to wield that power though it is grossly authoritarian to believe it belongs anywhere but the free market.

Third, the clamor led by the left about the horrors of default is total nonsense, mock responsibility. The left does not understand or care about financial responsibility - they care about power.

Fourth, a default created by a refusal to expand borrowing will not end the world. A default created by inability to borrow more money, i.e. a real federal bankruptcy, might well end the world. Getting control of spending, even through disruptive tactics, will enhance the credibility and creditworthiness of the US, not damage it.

Is that all so hard to grasp? Doesn't that clarify much of the considerable confusion on this blog?

And finally, as far as economic policy goes, Clinton was moderate right, lower taxes and constrained spending. Bush was a straddle - low tax rates, but a swelling deficit. Obama is hard left - raise spending (power!) vastly, huge deficit for 'financing', tax increases.

Antidote| 7.15.11 @ 7:55PM

The insanity is rampant in these comments, but guess that should be expected from those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, was created in 7 days by a big man in the clouds, and politicians and preachers have direct contact with the big man in the clouds who tells them what to do. This article, as most all of the articles in this publication, are nothing more that right wing blabber, promoting propaganda and false realities to people who have proven time and time again how gullible and ignorant they are. The perfect audience for the corporate machine that seeks to dominate politics and direct the political discourse away from their crimes, their greed, their lack of any degree of morality or ethics. They have created this ridiculous division, but it just may be their undoing if this ends in default of the most powerful nation in the world. I for one welcomed the financial calamity that was predicted in 2008, but which was averted by government bailout. Now the shoe is on the other foot, where is Wall Street to help bail us out? There you have it my friends, those financial giants who reported record breaking profits after the bailout by taxpayers, and yet, not even a gesture of reciprocity. Do I really need to say more? Wake up America, it's not the puppet politicians who are raping the middle class, it's the puppeteers of corporate America.

John II| 7.15.11 @ 9:59PM

Try reading the articles next time, moron, and you may just possibly--ever so remotely possibly--feel the need to say nothing rather than more.

And now back to "True Grit" (the superior 1969 version), in which the Duke, bless his soul, says much in few words, always alert to the dominance of braying jackasses in the public forum.

Kelly Cox| 7.17.11 @ 11:21AM

Absolutely. Not one of the commenters seems to care that middle class income has stagnated since 1980, while the income of the top 1% has doubled in parallel with a doubling of GDP growth.

That is exactly why trickle-down has FAILED. Nothing has trickled DOWN.

RICARDO36| 7.16.11 @ 11:22AM

HAVE WE LOST OUR MINDS, HE'S DOING THIS FOR THE GLOBALISTS AND HIS MUSLIM SPRING TIME HEIST OF THE WORLD. SMELL THE COFFEE AND DRINK SOME TO WAKE THE HELL UP!

Just me| 7.16.11 @ 12:03PM

First the dollar lost credibility, now not solving debt quickly USA as a continent does, as far as rating bureaus and speculators see. The bigger issue is of course politics against central bankers. This we see in Europe and USA. Trichet raises interest rates while Southern Europe countries can not pay the price. In USA Bernanke hints at QE3, burning the dollar further, just to make the American dollar higher ceiling seems less. However American people see their values in dollar diminishing and investors turn away from the American dream. Someone will win of course the central banker or politician, however than the battle with common people will start and it will be a harsh one.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Anyone Still Believe Me?

May 21, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Obama’s Rising Inequality

May 8, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

President Obama and ‘Uncaring’ Pro-Lifers

May 2, 2013 | Owen Strachan

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/14/obamas-debt

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|26 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.