-
John McCain’s Opportunity
July 11, 2008 | 0 comments
-
Restoring Decency
June 8, 2006 | 0 comments
Another Perspective
Cut, Cap, Balance Is a Moral Duty
It is easy to lose sight of the spiritual and moral implications of our current debt crisis.
Early Christian churches, based on teachings of the Old and New Testament, prohibited usury — the charging of interest at any rate — and defined the act as sinful. This was because at the time, coin money was either hoarded or spent. The ability to invest in an enterprise was extremely limited, and corporations as we know them — whether large or small — did not exist. There was no national or global financial market, and money by itself did not have the intrinsic value it does today.
Today, the lending of money empowers entrepreneurs to use their God-given abilities to generate wealth and create jobs. This risk-taking activity is responsible for the higher quality of life all Americans enjoy, which is unique in human experience. For the last 235 years, we have truly been, to borrow from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, a shining “city on a hill.”
However, because the lending of money is justified does not mean that Christians should overindulge and live beyond our means. When a debt becomes too great, it can negatively impact career choices and destroy families.
Our misguided leaders in Washington, D.C. continue to run up an enormous national debt, one now approaching $14.4 trillion. Politicians, blinded by ambition, are offering great benefits at no cost and are thereby enslaving future generations of children with a crushing pile of unpaid bills.
A child born today will be handed a $44,000 bill from the federal government at the hospital. And as America’s debt continues to consume greater portions of America’s economic output, that debt will only worsen while job opportunities for that child, due to today’s failed fiscal policies, will be limited.
It is easy to lose sight of the spiritual and moral implications of our current debt crisis. Christians must stand up against an immoral political regime which indebts us to such foreign powers as the anti-Christian Communist Chinese.
China, which now holds more than $2 trillion of our debt, has shown itself to be no friend of the West. And because of this indebtedness, the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama have not spoken out forcefully on behalf of persecuted Christians in China.
The Shouwang Church, which was founded in 1993 and is closely monitored by the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs, rejected the theology dictated to them by the Communist Party. The state expressly forbids members to evangelize, and often detains church members for interrogations and a forced “re-education.”
As reported by David Aikman in the Wall Street Journal, there is a recent story in which the wife of a blind human rights activist, Ghen Guangcheng, said she and her husband were severely tortured by a gang of Communist Party thugs.
To fund the ever-expanding welfare state, which itself destroys families and builds a cycle of dependency, we have become financial and political servants to brutal and immoral lenders.
We must pray and assist our Christian brothers and sisters in communist China. And an important first-step to reducing our ties to this Communist state would be to support the pledge taken by such Tea Party leaders as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Senator Mike Lee of Utah, which is called “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” This pledge is being required by conservative legislators in exchange for the debt ceiling increase.
The first step of this proposal would be to make serious cuts in the federal budget, which would make immediate reductions in the deficit.
Then, by statute, enforceable spending caps would be in place to tie the hands of future legislators and put America on a path to a balanced budget by limiting spending to a historically average 18 percent of GDP.
Finally, the pledge involves the passage of the Lee-Hatch Act, which would send to the states for ratification a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative rights which prohibit government from taking your liberty. This amendment would not only require that expenditures equal revenue, but all tax increases would require a two-thirds supermajority vote.
These three steps will ensure that no matter who is in Congress and the White House, their ability to borrow from China and continue to burden our children with massive debt will be severely limited.
As Congress schedules votes and debates such mushy alternatives as Senator McConnell’s almost unconstitutional proposal to allow President Obama to arbitrarily increase the debt limit, it is critical that conservatives stand on principle and win.
Our leaders must cut spending, cut the debt, and end fiscal obligations to oppressive regimes. How Members of Congress vote on Cut, Cap, and Balance will speak volumes about their willingness to accept their moral duty to confront the wave of debt that threatens the futures of our children and grandchildren.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (120) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Tony Perkins
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/20/cut-cap-balance-is-a-moral-dut
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 6:29AM
In the House, nine Republicans, including presidential hopefuls Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, voted against the measure.
Paul said the measure did not make substantial enough cuts to win his support and said that similar promises to cut future spending have often gone unfulfilled.
“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. Each time, it’s said that if we act immediately to avoid a crisis, we will give the matter proper debate at the next vote. But, time and again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy. Promises of cuts remain unfulfilled, and we soon find ourselves once more in a crisis that we are told can only be addressed by upholding the status quo yet again,” Paul, R-Texas, said. “I have never voted to raise the federal debt limit, and I have no doubt that we face financial collapse and ruin if we continue to grow our debt. We need to make major spending cuts now, in this budget, and we can no longer afford to allow more deficit spending based on promises of future cuts.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
vtwin| 7.20.11 @ 7:15AM
“Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.” -- Ronald Reagan, 9/26/1987
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.20.11 @ 11:04AM
Clint,
This is why Paul should not retire: the quote says exactly what needs to be done, and accurately describes the situation we are in. Cheer lead him to stay in congress, he is the voice we need.
Wayne | 7.20.11 @ 7:12PM
Does Paul have any more sons or daughters like Rand?
Elron H.| 7.20.11 @ 11:54AM
In the House, Republican Representative Ron Paul voted against the measure.
Paul said the measure did substantially address the coming crisis with the Zenuvians from the 9th dimension and their continued use of human growth hormone in poultry.
"Our turkeys, chickens, and turduckens are under assault!" said Paul while addressing the 15th Annual Lyndon LaRouche Appreciation Society Dinner and Intestinal l De-Bugging in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. "If we fail to protect the purity of our poultry for our children and our grandchildren from extra-dimensional alien interlopers, then we have no hope of stopping the Lava-people from their nefarious plans to implant recording devices in gold-fish!"
“For decades,"Paul continued, "Politicians have promised a hormone-free chicken - or turducken - every pot, in exchange for the assurance that our wives and daughters will not be forced into sexual slavery by Mingo the Merciless and his Lemurian hordes. Each time, it’s said that if we act immediately to confront Mingo, we will only provoke him. These politicians reveal themselves to be nothing but untrustworthy agents of Mingo, in thrall to his lobbyists on Capitol Hill . Promises of protecting our women remain unfulfilled, and we soon find ourselves once more in a crisis that can only be addressed by rampant printing of paper underpants. upholding the status quo yet again. I have never voted tfor paper underpants and I have no doubt that we face societal collapse if we adopt such attire."
The Tea Party Rebellion Vomits
Crapae Diem.
Elron H. Brooks| 7.20.11 @ 2:18PM
I'm American Spectator's Resident Negative Attention Craving ObamaBoy Israel Firster Fool.
I Think I'll Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:18PM
I'm not involved in this squabble directly, but I've suddenly taken a liking to Golden Age Science Fiction.
Mr. Elron, Clint, has never mentioned Israel. And it ain't me. You just seem to attract critics who assume you are a little light in the loafers. Wonder why you set off all the Gaydar detectors from Coast to Coast?
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:15PM
Yes You Are Elron H.'s Co-Israel Firster Fanatic Screwball Agenda Queen.
You & Your Girlfriend The Ant-Catholic White Trash Bigot Dr.Reich, Also Seem To Attract Each Other & Got Sugar In Your Pockets, Screwball Sex Fixated Government Loser Excuse For A Shrink,Tool Job.
Aaaaand Interesting, That A Jewish Israel Firster Zealot, Like You, Uses The Name Of A Catholic Heretic, While You've Made Snide Reference To Our Catholic Knights Of
Columbus.
We Got Your Number, Screwball Israel Firster,Tool Job.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:34PM
I thought I WAS TAS' Resident Negative Attention Craving Israel Firster Fool.
Mama told me I could never count on the permanent affections of a boy like you. (Sniff)
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:22PM
You Seem To Talk About Attracting Boys Quite A Bit, Sorry-Ass Excuse Of A Loser Government Shrink,Tool Job.
Sounds Like Pill Pushin' Government Shrink, Tool Job Got A Bit Of A Blow Sniff There.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 4:25PM
I crave conjugal relations with other men, but to hide it, I assume a really cool, butch nickname - like a cowboy - and hope that no one sees through my faux-aggressive language.
...sniff...I LOVE you, Brad Pitt!
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:31PM
Uh Oh !
The Poseur American Spectator Squirrel Feeder Is In The Building.
Get Bent Slandering Liar Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Posseur, Chickenshit Coward.
We Tea Party Patriots Will See You, Fixated Israel Firster Sociopaths At The 2012 Elections.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:20PM
Dear Elron,
did you mean to say "did not address the coming crisis?"
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:35PM
"Dear" ?
That Sums Up This Sorry-Ass Loser Government Shrink, Tool Job & His Girlfriend.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Gonna Run Right Over You Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Screwball Fanatics.
Carpe Diem.
mames| 7.20.11 @ 12:40PM
THis is exactly w3aht a progressive Marxist lives for, to freighten folks into folowing thier lead. The goal is to destroy our Republic and then the Marxist can pretend to fix it by settting up a pure socialist state. Americans however are either too stupid or to apathetic to care. "Morality", say the socialist "we don't need no stinkin morality". IN the near future the only answer will be violence against these congressional enemies of the state as Jefferson so well understood.
Alan Brooks| 7.20.11 @ 9:30PM
Perkins is SMARMY; he makes Christianity appear tasteless, when it isn't-- or shouldn't be.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.20.11 @ 7:04AM
While the Ruling Class inside the beltway engages in shameful shenanigans concerning the national debt, there are still even more shameful shenanigans going on behind the scenes.
Members of both parties are engaging in a public demonstration of rolling back ethanol subsidies. Amazingly, the ethanol industry is behind it. The reason for that is the real intent by Congress is to actually strengthen and increase the subsidies but in another way.
It's a secret tax on every gallon of gasoline which adds somewhere between 40 cents to 64 cents a gallon. It's not only less efficient, the artificial shortages caused directly by the use of ethanol in fuel has caused the price of food to increase.
While Congress puts on a show about Cut, Cap and Balance which has no way of surviving the political maze, they would save the public tons of money by honestly eliminating ethanol subsidies.
Instead a major pretense has been hatched, cooked up by the Master Chefs in both parties, to mislead the public into believing that ethanol subsidies will be eliminated while they are in fact going to be strengthened and will lead to greater profits for the ethanol mafia and a reduced standard of living for middle class America.
It's a classic example of buying your votes with your money. Read all about it below. Our nation is being led by illegitimate scum.
From the Examiner:
Last month, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, R., and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D., proposed the Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act. The bill ends the most famous ethanol subsidy, a handout to ethanol blenders called the "Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Incentive." While the government accounting books treat the VEETC as if it were a tax credit against the fuel excise tax, it is really just a transfer payment from the Internal Revenue Service to anyone who blends ethanol with regular gasoline. Blenders simply fill out a form stating how much ethanol they mixed with gasoline last month, send it to the IRS, and then wait for a check amounting to 45 cents per gallon. You can get this credit even if you pay zero excise tax.
Historically, this blender's subsidy boosted ethanol demand by bringing down the effective price of a gallon of ethanol. But the 2005 energy bill created an ethanol mandate, requiring refiners to use a certain amount of ethanol every year. The 2007 energy bill expanded the mandate, and in 2011, refiners are required to use 13 billion gallons of ethanol. This mandate now sets demand, with the tax credit having little or no effect. The Congressional Budget Office recently wrote: "In the future, the scheduled rise in mandated volumes would require the production of biofuels in amounts that are probably beyond what the market would produce even if the effects of the tax credits were included."
So if the ethanol blender subsidy doesn't increase ethanol demand, what does it do? It simply lowers the blenders' costs, resulting in a subsidy for blenders, gas stations, and even consumers. Ironically, because the subsidy lowers the price of a gallon of blended gasoline without boosting ethanol demand, it ends up spurring more driving, and thus subsidizing petroleum.
Unintended consequences -- in this case, accomplishing the opposite of what subsidy proponents promised -- are the whole story of ethanol subsidies. Government support for ethanol has wreaked environmental damage (massive water use, dangerous fertilizer runoff), economic damage (higher gasoline prices, at times), and hurt some farmers (those who use grain as feed). That's why ethanol backers in Congress and industry felt compelled to "reform" the boondoggle.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....z1SdtAZedI
Big J| 7.20.11 @ 7:24AM
Bill,
You forgot to mention lower gas mileage (I lost two miles per gallon in my service truck), as ethanol is not nearly as efficient as MTBE.
Oh yeah, and the damage done to two-stroke motors such as weed whackers and boat motors.
Unintended consequences indeed.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 7:35AM
Without a stitch of revenue raising, this proposal is simply not serious. The balanced budget Amendment is akin to the term limits on Congress. That was rejected, rightly or wrongly, because the term limit is imposed by the voters. A balanced budget Amendment is not necessary, Congress needs to do it's job. When your household is in financial trouble, you cut back on expenses - but you also get another job, part time perhaps to RAISE MORE REVENUE. How blind can the right-wing be. The issue is the health of the American system, not the ideological goal of "Starving the Beast" which I know you would all dearly love to do. But how many grandmas, kids and disabled vets are willing to throw under the bus? Don't start the "freeloaders" that take money for nothing unless you have real numbers (which you don't) and not just hype from Rush Loudmouth.
potkas7| 7.20.11 @ 7:53AM
There is a flaw in the "Revenue Raising" argument as old as Adam Smith and it is this: government spending is by nature unproductive and does nothing to increase the national wealth.
This statement does not equate "Unproductive" with "Unnecessary." Police Forces, Fire Departments, the Navy, for example, do nothing to increase national wealth but they are very necessary expenditures.
However, government spending consists by and large of the administrative overhead expenses of life and siphoning off more of the nation's income to fund overhead expense instead of allowing the actual earners and creators of wealth to seek out and find productive uses with which to increase the national wealth is the reason we're in the sorry state we're in now.
Pecos Pete| 7.20.11 @ 8:12AM
Okay, let's raise revenue by raising the federal tax rate on everyone with income above $250,000 per year to 70%. How much revenue will that raise?
I await your answer.
Pecos Pete| 7.20.11 @ 8:16AM
OOPS, the question above is asked of PurpleGuy, not Potkas.
potkas7| 7.20.11 @ 8:19AM
Thanks for the clarification. I looked at than and wondered. "What's that got to do with what I wrote?"
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 10:10AM
Blind, blind like I said. Although government doesn't actually create wealth - government provides the framework within which capitalism can flourish. But left totally on it's own with no government oversight, capitalism will always run amok, and the survival of the fittest (or meanest, or most deceitful or most greedy, pick your poison) will win and to h* with the rest of the country. We did that, and rejected that barbaric system for a civilized world to live in. The bigger question as you pose is what is unproductive vs unnecessary? The definition of what I consider unnecessary is surely not the same as yours - ergo the divide. But it isn't as much as you'd think.
It has been my experience that the "earners and creators" of wealth find ways to work within the system, work around the system, or sometimes even cheat the system. They will be fine. Since I am positive no one on this site lacks freedom or the opportunity to succeed, you all will be fine too, despite paying your taxes, assuming you do. Fine, yes, wealthy, no.
potkas7| 7.20.11 @ 10:40AM
"...like I said. Although government doesn't actually create wealth - government provides the framework within which capitalism can flourish..."
Sorry, untrue. This is just another way of saying there exists a cadre of enlightened intellectuals who can centrally plan a successful economy. There never has been such a corps and there never will be. And your rather dystopian view of the Creative Class has a certain cartoonish quality that suggests your experience with the "earners and creators" consists solely of watching re-runs of Dallas.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:11PM
Yes there was - they were called the "Founding Fathers", with Alexander Hamilton first among them. He set Industrial Policy in this country, set manufacturing first for 200 of our 235 years of USA - until the time of Reagan started to dismantle what they had created. You'll notice manufacturing started leaving this country around then...
As far as "earners and creators" I have done both, which I'm sure you have not. If you don't believe the government has a purpose to provide for the common defense, the general welfare, establish justice, and the blessings of liberty then you don't know where you came from or who you are.
Liberals created this country and progressives moved it forward - dragging the conservatives kicking and screaming into the future ...
Pecos Pete| 7.20.11 @ 11:26AM
I notice, PurpleGuy, that you haven't answered my question about how much revenue would be raised by increasing the tax rate to 70% on those earning more than $250,000.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:15PM
You tell me, you seem to have some amazing response you're dying to throw out there ... do your own research.
Pecos Pete| 7.20.11 @ 4:37PM
Gee PurpleGuy, I was expecting you to enlighten me as I really don't know the answer. You are so much more intelligent and worthy than I am I just knew that you would justify your belief that raising taxes on the rich will solve the debt problem of the federal government. I guess I was wrong about you.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:09PM
That's okay, we can't all be right. It would help, but I never said just raise taxes and problem solved. You can take off your pointy hat now.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:21PM
Wealthy is useful, purpleguy, since I don't trust you to clean the toilets at a Ron Paul Convention, much less appropriate my money.
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:38PM
Cleaning The Toilets At A Ron Paul Convention, Is Israel Firster Screwball Fanatic,Tool Job's Job.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.20.11 @ 9:43PM
After his earlier quote I'll clean the toilets at the Ron Paul convention. (but that really wouldn't take much cleaning as anal as that crowd is)
jolizoom| 7.21.11 @ 2:05AM
Is there any way to block the responses of certain people that are consistently not worth the pixels they're printed on? Clint is a perfectly useless waste of my very limited time, and Occam goes nutso whenever Clint shows up. Much easier for me if I can just hide any responses from both.
jolizoom| 7.21.11 @ 2:44AM
In fact, AS, if you haven't noticed, these two exist solely to disrupt intelligent discussion. These trolls routinely hijack any thread that demonstrates the potential of providing valuable insight. Consequently, people who actually WANT valuable insight go somewhere else.
OT has apparently run off the very intelligent, thoughtful Occam's Razor by hijacking part of his name--Razor no doubt doesn't wish to be associated with such drivel, so he stays away entirely. Due to my extremely limited time for reading political websites, I have decided that it is necessary for me to stay away entirely as well, until you find a way to get these idiots under control.
Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 9:10AM
Your new here aren't you. OT has posted many intelligent, thought out post. Clint started this fiasco when OT failed to worship Ron Paul. Stick around, you will soon learn that Clint attacks anyone that does not worship Ron Paul with Juvenile name calling and he is very, very easy to bait. If you don't want to read it, simply scroll past it. I promise it won't waste but a few seconds of your precious time.
fmm| 7.20.11 @ 9:39AM
It would be interesting if you would define what you think the job of congress is. From there, a somewhat intelligent discussion might be possible. The devil, as always, is in the details, not in platitudes.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 10:15AM
Oh, actually, that's quite easy - it's all laid out in Article I of the US Constitution ... How Congress operates is under their own control (how many and which committees, their rules of order, etc.). Perhaps they could stop harping and get the job done negotiating with the Senate instead of throwing red meat legislation to their supporters that has little chance of going anywhere. That is the cowardly, lazy way of saying "See, we did what you wanted, and they won't agree with us - we are spineless, wimpy victims" that apparently can't understand that they have to work with the other 2/3 of the legislative government that doesn't share their right wing extremist views. Elections have consequences and you cannot get all you want whenever you want it. That attitude is so childish and immature. And you elected these brats?
Drunken Sailor| 7.20.11 @ 12:14PM
"Elections have consequences and you cannot get all you want whenever you want it"
Ironic isn't it as that statement can be used to describe the left who's idea of bi-partisan ship is, give me what I want and I will promise to give you what you ask for at a later date.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:18PM
You are correct ... but in this case, your team has only 1 bullet while the other team has 2 - sorry they win - unless you negotiate in good faith and stop pandering to the brainless idiots that would see this country go down the tubes to prove a point, whatever their point is.
Drunken Sailor| 7.20.11 @ 3:01PM
"pandering to the brainless idiots that would see this country go down the tubes to prove a point, whatever their point is"
Once again you provide a quote that can be used to describe the left. And granted you have 2 bullets vs our 1 for now. Obama may get re-elected by hook or crook, however the odds of the Senate going Republican and keeping the house are greater. Do you think Obama will enjoy being a Lame Duck President? Personally I think we will get 3 of 3 but even if we don't get the presidency I will enjoy watching Obama throw temper tantrums and play golf.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:10PM
Obama got Osama and that's all that matters over the longterm.
Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 9:11AM
Yep, he got 1 thing right. Just 1,that will surely get him re-elected and forgiven for all! Pathetic.
Clinton Lovell| 7.20.11 @ 11:59AM
You point out that a person gets another job - thus EARNING new revenue while you would have government STEAL new revenue. Your understanding of macroeconomics is lacking.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:19PM
when it's codified into law, it's legal, therefore not stealing, dittohead.
darcy| 7.20.11 @ 2:04PM
It's merely theft by another name, much the same way as abortion of babies has been legalized through Roe v Wade, but it is still murder. Theft and murder are moral issues first and only secondarily are they legal issues. What is legal is often immoral -- and only the Orwellian will attempt to deny immorality by legalizing it, and of course the drones, too, who blow with any wind because they are empty vessels and believe whatever is right or wrong is determined by the current zeitgeist.
In short, they deny absolutes, and believe that only one man's interpretation versus another's determines what is right or wrong. That's why mid-century totalitarians were able to lead their people to accept atrocities against their fellow citizens: they had been purged of the idea that there are universal absolutes and a standard of right and wrong that exists outside of the individual and that is true at all times and all places.
The God-is-dead types erect a new set of standards that suits their personal lifestyle and agendas and that makes them feel self-righteous. Chief among these standards is the impulse toward "tolerance," as long as it's not tolerance of those people who believe in absolutes.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:17PM
If you want to live under Sharia law, by all means enjoy yourself - I prefer American law myself. What is legal may or may not be moral in your view or mine under American law. But Sharia law reflects the Quran and you are welcome to live under moral law if you like, but not me.
Oh, and the reason mid-century totalitarians were able to do anything was because they offered a way out of the Great Depression which was more severe in Germany and elsewhere than even here in the U.S. More important things can happen if the U.S. defaults on its debt. Worldwide consequences will ensue and the President may have to declare a national emergency with curfews and who knows what else. Keep dicking around with the economic disaster that is looming to prove your point... and not raise the debt ceiling to pay our debts and don't raise revenue and cut spending - go ahead and reap the whirlwind. Those that will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:23PM
Your hero, Purple Guy, the Obamaturd, is doing all he can to bring Sharia about in the US, in combination with Dennis Kucinich and the ever flatulent Ron Paul, defender of Texas from Zionist Chickens.
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:42PM
We Tea Party Patriots Will See The Big Israel Firster Traitor Bastard,Tool Job At The 2012 Elections.
"Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, won a poll of 882 “highly active” Republican voters in Texas. Paul won the poll with 22 percent of the Republican vote. Texas Governor Rick Perry grabbed second with 17 percent of the Republican vote, while pizza magnate Herman Cain took third with 14 percent of the vote."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
darcy| 7.20.11 @ 6:25PM
Sharia law? From what I said you deduce I endorse Sharia Law? Really?
Depressing.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:31PM
You are of course referring to Purpleguy, darcy. I like 'ya. It's interesting that OBAMA, along with PAUL and KUCINICH, are the ones advancing the spread of Sharia.
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:46PM
You're A Serial Slandering Liar & A Screwball Fixated Israel Firster Fanatic,Tool Job.
Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.
“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.
“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
YeloStalyn| 7.20.11 @ 12:41PM
Since history has shown, repeatedly, and even Obama admitted in an interview (I only wish I could remember who it was with) that LOWERING taxes will increase revenue... are you suggesting we... LOWER taxes? After all, that would be akin to "getting another job" or "increasing revenue" in your example.
If you're not suggesting we do that, but instead are insisting we raise taxes... why? Higher taxes reduce overall economic activity. Yes, people will survive, but it will be far less effective and effecient versus a low tax system. Same with regulation. Sure, we all want our meat to be safe to eat. We can agree on some forms of regulation to create, as you put it, the framework for there to be an honest economy. There will still be cheaters, we can agree on that too. But when you go past minimal regulation and into economic "five year plan" mode like the left oft wants to do... you're doomed to fail. History says so and you can't win that argument. But when you let the people, aka the market, make their own decisions with as much fluidity as possible, you'll get increased economic activity and in return increased employment... and that means more tax payers.
As for your idea of not wanting to deal with "freeloaders".... that's like saying "Prove that 2+2=4.... BUT YOU CAN'T USE MATH!"
The freeloaders ARE a problem. You can NOT sustain a system where less than 50% are paying for over 50% of the people. You can't do it... it's not workable in any world. It may work for a bit.. but eventually you'll crush the system. No way around it. And when over half of the government outlays are social spending in some form (SS, Medicare/cade, welfare, etc.) then you HAVE to look there for the problem. The rest of the budget is divided up into such small chunks for everyone else that any cutting on them would be futile.
And to clear up a point about the role of government... the fed is not the agency who should be doing the regulation. It's not allowed to by the Constitution. Instead, that is a power that is reserved (not GRANTED... there's a difference) by the states and people respectivly. The FED should be in business to maintain peace between the states in the realm of business (the original intent of "intersate commerce" clause) and to protect the nation as a whole from enemies both foreign and domestic. The rest... it's not their concern.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:41PM
1) there is no "free" market ... it is run by people with way more money than any of us here, and they want you to believe it's free.
2) Higher taxes under JFK, Reagan, Clinton all produced boom times. Why? Because if you give the wealthy tax breaks, they might save it, might spend some. But hit them with higher taxes and they are apoplectic to reduce their tax burden. How? By investing to gain tax advantages. The happy result is more innovation and more jobs. It's history, go look it up.
3) Reagan didn't cut taxes - he reformed the tax code - he actually raised taxes a number of times. That resulted in the wealthy moving capital to the advantage of the country.
4) First off, just because a worker doesn't pay much or any in tax, doesn't make him a freeloader - that's the fantasy in your argument. So you aren't "paying" for him, you're still paying for defense, roads, college, grandma, General Petraeus with your taxes - he just isn't paying the same or at all.
5) Interesting how you want to reverse 200 years of settled law because YOU have the unique insight about what the Constitution means and the Supreme Court for all those years says you're full of hooey.
6) But I am certain original intent did not include politicians that are bought by lobbyists and Supreme Court Justices that take bribes and peddle influence
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:24PM
Reagan cut taxes dramatically. They were much less under him than Carter.
Wayne | 7.20.11 @ 7:18PM
Government does have a certain role to make sure their is a level playing field in the marketplace. However it should not be deciding who the winners and the losers are. This leads to corruption and cronyism. We see this with the FDA which has banned many products that people find beneficial and allows other products that are questionable on the market because they benefit Big Pharma.
As Von Mises said. Without the interference of Government there will be no monopolies. It is competition that keeps the marketplace honest. As an independent contractor, I know.
W| 7.20.11 @ 6:21PM
Purp, "revenue raising" will occur if the economy gets better, more people working means more income taxes paid, more purchases leads to sales tax. This is basic economics that you libs either do not understand or refuse to understand because you prefer the government to increase taxes. Obama has ruined, either intentionally or unintentionally, the economy through his excessive regulation, refusal to drill for oil leading to high energy prices which translates to higher prices for all products, the debt, the unemployment, in short he is JIMMY CARTER II.
You cannot simply continue to raise taxes and expect to generate more revenue, that is called static analysis which no real economist supports. You can raise taxes only to a certain level but the economy is the key, not more taxes.
What income tax rate do you pay and what do you want to pay?
Melvin| 7.20.11 @ 7:59AM
I don't know if anyone noticed yesterday. But through the Drudge Report various links by-lines were that the Speaker of the House John Boehner was wanting to have a vote on the Tea Party Plan for debt ceiling.
I kept reading this on many web sites, "The Tea Party Plan." It is of no secret that establishment Republicans loath the Tea Party, and nothing that would please them more, if the Tea Party was publicly humiliated through political machinations of the establishment Republicans and the Speaker of the House.
By having the Tea Party out of the way and politically weakened by being blamed for the debt ceiling failure, this would please both the Democrats and establishment Republicans so that they could go back to business as usual and make secret deals behind closed doors.
John Boehner is not to be trusted. As long as his feet is held to the fire, he has no choice but to town the Conservative line, but given the chance, he'll get weaken the Tea Party members of Congress and regulate them to making him coffee and making his tanning bed appointments.
Mimi| 7.20.11 @ 8:15AM
The LIST of Senators who fail to pass this will be MARKED in indelible ink ! They will become famous overnight....by failing to contain the DEBT and hurting the country....they will be primaried and defeated.
It matters not what party, or how famous they think they are....The PEOPLE will speak....they have to!!!
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 10:17AM
Childish - my way or the highway attitude. Grow up - no one is uninterested in containing debt - it's how to do it that is at issue.
Mimi| 7.20.11 @ 10:37AM
Why did it occur in the 1st place...you know "O" made matters worse! Tell Soros I said it!!!
potkas7| 7.20.11 @ 10:47AM
You know...I think you'd be surprised to learn that no one is more concerned about the government debt levels dragging down the economies of the West than George Soros. He is, after all, a Fund Manager. His own wealth is at risk. Though you may disagree with his proposed remedies, you'd probably find his diagnosis of that the problem is matches your own.
buckeyeman| 7.20.11 @ 11:34AM
Soros is first and foremost a megalomaniac. A control freak. Money is not the only way control freaks establish control over others. Politics is another way. Often control freaks dabble in both. Control is more important to control freaks than money. Look at all your favorite control freaks, Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Mao. They didn't need a large amount of cash, per se, in their bank accounts to achieve what they really want - CONTROL. Control is an end in itself, the final outcome. Money is secondary.
potkas7| 7.20.11 @ 12:09PM
Megalomania is a psychiatric condition. Are you qualified to make such a diagnosis?
I recently saw a video symposium presented by, I believe, the American Enterprise Institute, in which Soros and Prof. Richard Epstein were participants. The subject: Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Soros mentioned that he had studied under the famous philosopher Karl Popper at the London School of Economics. That led me to read Soros' lectures given at the Central European University. I found his statement of the causes of present day problems astute. It's his proposed remedies that are wrong-headed. However, if you were to read what he actually says, and not what someone says he said, you might find you have something in common.
Margie| 7.20.11 @ 1:55PM
Yeah, we know. George Soros has a really great head on his shoulders.
But seriously, potkas7~ have you read this that he said?
"How can we escape from the trap that the terrorists have set us? Only by recognizing that the war on terrorism cannot be won by waging war. We must, of course, protect our security; but we must also correct the grievances on which terrorism feeds. Crime requires police work, not military action."
Hmm, now who else does this sound like?
"We have to try and "understand" why the terrorists are terrorists".
Ron Paul: "They're terrorists because of us!"
Here's another choice one:
"Americans, sadly, are now victims who have turned into perpetrators. Indeed, since September 2001, the war on terror has claimed more innocent victims than those terrorist attacks. This fact is unrecognized at home because the victims of the war on terror are not Americans. But the rest of the world does not draw the same distinction, and world opinion has turned against America."
Ah, spoken like the true Paleo-con artiste, eh?
More:
"A global society does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions."
So, this power hungry, cold hearted, anti-American beast wants us to be under International Law?
He may get his wish, as some Americans are ready to lay down and "die", but not this individual, and not anyone who has 2 brain cells left to rub together.
Besides, upon the return of the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, that other Beast spoken of in God's Word~ namely the Anti-Christ under whom this all will come to pass~ will crush him under His feet.
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 2:25PM
RINO-CINO Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie-Sybil-Sandy Is In The Building.
"Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Republican Presidential debate held Tuesday May 15, when Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) stated that American foreign policy was a “contributing factor” in the 9/11 attacks.
“They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Paul said. He was then denounced by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani who said it was “absurd” and that he’d “never” heard such a thing before demanding a retraction.
Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:28PM
My goodness, Clint, what a wit you are. Like reading Shaw.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:29PM
I believe, Clint, that translates to "
Tthey're terrorists because of us."
Clint| 7.20.11 @ 8:50PM
The Terrorist Are The Israeli IDF, Who Attacked Our U.S. Naval Ship The U.S.S. Liberty And Killed 34 Of Our Seamen & Wounded 170 of Our Seamen, Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Fanatic Screwbal,l Tool Job.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Margie| 7.21.11 @ 10:18PM
heh, now we know Clint/Tim*s cult leader. Perhaps he IS this low life, Michael Sheuer, LOL.
Here's just a tidbit of what this creep thinks of good Americans, and I quote:
" Israel-Firsters, Evangelical leaders, and Neoconservatives: Each of the above problems is worsened by these U.S.-citizen-dominated but fundamentally anti-U.S. and Islam-hating entities; indeed, they also are fundamentally anti-Israel entities. Safely ensconced in North America with family, employment, and bank accounts safe, these groups champion a maximalist position for Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians; hunger for America to be at war with Iran — a non-threat to the United States; and work for an ever-increasing level of Western hatred for Muslims. These individuals are both war-lovers and cowards, ready to push others into fighting and dying for their selfish objectives, while they remain unctuously self-righteous and personally safe far from the front. Together these three groups are one of the main reasons America is facing an endless war with Islam, and the loyalty of each to a foreign nation — and their effective lobbying for that nation — will drive increases in defense and intelligence spending."
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:44PM
You forgot Murdoch in your list.... :)
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:25PM
Potkas---it is possible to make money during a financial panic. Soros broke the Bank of England and made cash.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:43PM
Yes, O is so bad, 11 Trillion was racked up before he even stepped into office, but my he is so bad fighting Bush's wars and staving off another Great Depression left to him by Bush baby- bad O, bad O.
Drunken Sailor| 7.20.11 @ 12:17PM
How do you contain th debt if you keep expanding it?
Bob| 7.20.11 @ 8:41AM
St. Michele voted against, does make her an immoral person? Uncut she's unbalanced no doubt, another migraine headache for the Tea Party.
fmm| 7.20.11 @ 9:43AM
This post exhibits excellent use of the English language, Bob. I wonder if this has any bearing on the merit of your opinions.
David Wilhelms| 7.20.11 @ 10:32AM
So I take it that non-Christians need not participate, apply, vote, hold American citizenship?
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.20.11 @ 11:13AM
Dave have you notices that the only place collection plates are tolerated is in church and in congress. As for "cut cap and balance" it is simply another "kick the can down the road" ploy to put off the difficult task of what we have to do. So is McConnell, so is the gang of six.
The money changers from the temple are all holding seats in the legislature. The only "morality" in this situation is not legislation or the legislators it is the Tea Party patriots who have x-ray vision. To us this is not a moral issue it is fiscal, everlasting salvation from taxation first; eternal salvation will come later.
Margie| 7.20.11 @ 12:33PM
Fiscal responsibility is a moral issue, though. Doing the right thing = good morality.
cicero| 7.20.11 @ 11:20AM
Purpleguy - If no one is uninterested in containing the debt, how in the hell did we get budget defificts in the $1.4 trillion range, and current debt of over $14 trillion?
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:46PM
When Reagan came into office, the National debt was 1 Trillion or so... he raised it to 2 Trillion and then Bush I raised it to 3 Trillion, then Clinton raised it to 5 Trillion and Bush II raised it to 11 Trillion (12.5 T if you include the budget he passed on to Obama) ... and voila - there you go. What a bad Obama, huh? Numbers are not exact of course - but you can do your homework and look them up, my little timmy.
Drunken Sailor| 7.20.11 @ 4:43PM
So you do agree that Obama has raised the deficit the same percentage as Bush did, but where Bush did it over 8 years Obama has managed to do in a little over 2?
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:21PM
Did you pass math in grammar school. I know Trillions are hard to fathom, but from 5 to 11 is 6 and 5 to 12.5 is 7.5. that is Bush's legacy. Now, from 11 to 14 is 3 and from 12.5 to 15 is 1.5 ... Now that is Obama's legacy so far. Hmmmm, 6 or 7.5 vs. 1.5 or 3. Which seems higher? You forgot to mention that Bush left office with fewer jobs created than when he started office -> and left that to Obama too, who has created > 2 million jobs in 2.5 years.
W| 7.20.11 @ 6:29PM
Purp. what is your sourece for the 2.5 million jobs,and don't quote Biden or O.
As for basic math, dont you understand that O raised it in less than 2 years, not 8, so you need to multiply the 3 mill of O by 4, so if O continues he will rack up 12 mil. I know this is algebra 3 is to 2 as x is to 8, i am using 8 years for O not because he will be there for 8 but to compare him to Bush.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 7:36PM
you can add the # jobs up yourself - just go to the labor dept website and add up the jobs created each month since Obama was sworn in. And, that after Bush handed him an economy losing 780,000 jobs/month in Jan 2009.
W| 7.20.11 @ 10:55PM
You have no answer so you say add yourself. The answer is easy. There is nothing, zero, to add. You have to subtract, not add, because we lost jobs. Or have you not noticed the 10% unemployment. If you had an answer you would post it,.stop lying and making up numbers, you have no credibility here. Can't even do basic algebra to calculate how much debt O would raise in 8 years at his current rate.
You also did not answer what rate you pay and what rate you want to pay
Nick| 7.21.11 @ 12:30AM
PurpleJackass,
Do you just make up these numbers?
Bubba 'the pervert' Clinton left President Bush a national debt of $5.8 trillion. President Bush left O'Bama a national debt of $11.9 trillion. Over a trillion of that was from TARP, of which O'Bama was the main supporter, as he was for all the other bail-outs.
Add another trillion dollars for O.E.F. and O.I.F., which is actually quite cheap. President James Madison more than tripled the national debt during the War of 1812. President Lincoln increased the national debt by a factor of almost THIRTY!
I won't get into Wilson and FDR. President Bush wasn't even in their leagues.
Projected national debt by 2016: $20 trillion.
Projected national debt by 2020: $23 trillion.
Boy, you stinking liberal democrats are really fiscal hawks. I think NOT!
Clinton Lovell| 7.20.11 @ 11:57AM
We can get a Balanced Budget Amendment impact on our economy by simply not increasing the debt ceiling. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody in government is talking about, because; in the end, Republicans want the spending to continue just as much as the Democrats.
Yet the best possible outcome for America will be no increase in the debt ceiling, because:
1. Approximately $120 billion a month in available credit will be immediately restored to the private-sector economy, thus ending the Obama Recession-Depression immediately.
2. The stimulus to the demand schedule for capital investment caused by the restoration of the $120 billion a month in credit capacity will create a stimulus to the demand schedule for labor, thus reducing unemployment in the near-term window. Instead of seeing a 9.4% unemployment rate for July that will continue to trend upwards due to the reduction of available business credit caused by government spending, we would see a reduction of unemployment below 8.5% this year and below 8% next year.
3. The expansion in credit for the benefit of the private-sector will cause the economy to expand and as the economy expands more taxpayers will be created, thus increasing tax revenues to the federal government that can be used to actually reduce the outstanding principal amount of the $14.4 trillion national debt.
4. The expansion of credit and increased demand for labor will stimulate the demand for housing and this means the foreclosure burn rate will be reduced and the housing market will start a real recovery in 2013.
And we get all of these benefits by simply having Congress do what it does best - do nothing at all.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.20.11 @ 12:00PM
Too easy, too smart and unacceptable because it will work.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:49PM
The fallacy is spending - the raise in the debt ceiling is NOT like a credit card - it is to cover current debts, not future debts. Figure it more like a mortgage - you owe it, now you have to pay it. But you can't unless you cut spending, raise taxes or borrow it. I suggest some of all 3 is the best way to go...
DaveD| 7.20.11 @ 8:44PM
Are you fool enough to borrow money to pay your mortgage? No, I didn't think so. So why oh why is that a smart thing for the government to do?
Truncheon| 7.20.11 @ 12:24PM
"Cut, Cap, Balance" is an empty slogan. The plan itself makes dubious "cuts" that are the merest fraction of what would be minimally required by anyone serious at debt reduction.
And they unfold over ten years.....
This is not a serious plan, by serious people. It is a symbolic nothing, just like the Balanced Budget Amendment associated to it.
What this bill does, is establish baseline spending at 1% higher than what can be extracted from the private sector and converted into Federal Revenue.
It then raises the debt ceiling. It then advances a purely and utterly symbolic amendment predicated on the assumption that Washington cares what's in the Constitution.
Face it, folks, the GOP has *already* caved. As they telegraphed clearly in the first 72 hours of regaining the House, the GOP has zero intention of doing anything meaningful.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 1:50PM
Well, you're right about the last sentence for sure - where's the jobs Mr. Boehner?
martin j smith| 7.20.11 @ 2:27PM
Purple person and others of that ilk--where is the Socialist Plan Huh--where is their responsibility ?
Where is Obama's plan Oh yes and how muchg money has he spent. The Socialist Party is irresponsible and wants to have us all clap for them. Well--clap,clap,clap etc. Wonderful they have done a fine job--oh yeah there is Bush their favorite voodoo doll. I am tired of purples persons and your posts so go to lake George take a swim but you are useless .When I see the Socialists taking responsibility i will take them seriously
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:23PM
Obama presented his budget months ago .. and? Why do you listen to Fixed News and Rush Loudmouth .. they have an agenda and you fall for it all the time. Have you not heard what Murdoch has been up to?
DaveD| 7.20.11 @ 8:45PM
Is that the budget that was laughed out of the Senate on a vote of 97-0?
Intelligent Design| 7.20.11 @ 3:34PM
How about cutting ALL foreign aid, including all UN funding, right now? How much would that save? How about bringing home ALL the troops engaged in futile "nation building" in Iraq and Afghanistan? How much would that save?
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:24PM
over 100million/yr a good chunk of change, but still not enough. You can look up the Budget of the United States to see where the money goes.
Occam's Tool| 7.20.11 @ 6:27PM
Not much as a percentage, ID for foreign aid. Withdrawing troops might help, but I would definitely sterilize Afghanistan before leaving.
Derek Leaberry| 7.20.11 @ 4:24PM
Mr. Perkins is absolutely right. Deficit spending is a sign of a moral deficit. A huge deficit is a sign of a country living in moral squalor. And that is the case. Why would a country that condoned one million abortions annually, widespread divorce, 40 % illegitimacy rates and homosexual "marriage" really care that they are living parasitically off their progeny? The biggest problem that America experiences is that tens of millions of its people are rotten to the core.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 5:24PM
But St. Reagan said deficits don't matter and so did Dick Cheney ... are you denying your heros now?
W| 7.20.11 @ 6:32PM
Purp, put the entire quote in, not just the part you like. sloppy, sloppy.
Purpleguy| 7.20.11 @ 7:37PM
If you notice, I didn't put anything in quotes - by design. But thanks for the kind remarks.
W| 7.20.11 @ 10:58PM
I know you did not put it in quotes, I asked you to put the entire remark in quotes, I assume you dont have this quote either, just snarky comments.
Sparky| 7.20.11 @ 4:41PM
While I agree with Mr. Perkins that there is a moral, as well as practical imperative, to stop deficit spending, making one's vote on this particular bill into a moral issue is a mistake. There are lots of good reasons to oppose this bill. For one, I don't think it cuts spending nearly enough. For another, I'm unconvinced that a constitutional amendment is the right approach.
Kingofthenet| 7.20.11 @ 6:42PM
You Conservatives don't understand, all this deficit is a game.You guy's are looking at it like some 'Rainman' accountant muttering under your breath how it's going to be hard to pay it off. Guess What? It NEVER will be paid off, and that's fine! Who 'Payed for WWII destruction? Germany? Japan? No and in fact we rebuilt them for FREE! All the destruction and death they caused was just 'forgotton' about, the world needed to move on.All the 'National Debt' is a kind of 'scorecard' to keep ALL Countries in line, and not go CRAZY producing NEW debt, that's all the warning from China are, just a gentle nudge to slow it down.Someday it either will be 'wiped' from the books, en masse or be PAYED for with the Printing Press, it doesn't mean anything. This is a game played by the World's Illuminati.
Nick| 7.21.11 @ 12:00AM
Kook of the Net,
Do you make your own tin-foil hats?
Or, do you shop at Kooks 'R' Us?
I'm still waiting for that explanation of the term enthalpy.
John II| 7.20.11 @ 7:15PM
All this angry talk of spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax overlooks important cuts in spending effected by the illustrious and popular denizens of the Obamanation.
Has no one noticed that the Professor and his enablers in Congress have succeeded in canceling the wasteful Space Program? Indeed, since its founding in 1958, NASA's entire budget has exceeded (slightly, to be sure, but exceeded nonetheless) what we now shell out for Medicare in a single year. What waste!
The Professor has ended such profligacy with a stroke of his pen and a serene gesture of his right middle finger. We are a better nation now, more prone to thoughtful inwardness and more ready to praise our supreme leader, who embraces us in his loving bosom.
And now back to "Rocketship X-M" (1950), which properly recollects the fantasy of space exploration as a liberal pipe dream subject to correction by a more sensibly earthbound lefty imagination.
David Wilhelms| 7.20.11 @ 9:08PM
Let us now bow our heads whilst we consider the words of Saint Ronald of Reagan.
And, you, you in the back row. No, not you but you shouldn't be kissing your cousin, anyway. No, the one with the seed corn cap. Take it off.
Our reading today comes from a 1983 letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) "The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of a default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The nation can ill afford to allow such a result."
Let us also reverently note the recipient of that epistle has also endorsed raising the debt ceiling.
Go no and sin no more.
"That's Ronald Reagan," Boxer emphasized, suggesting that Republicans recall that model. "All they have to do is look at their icon, Ronald Reagan, and understand you don't play with fire when it comes to the full faith and credit of the United States of America."
She was far from alone.
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to all the Republican members of the House to remind them of the Gipper's feelings as expressed in -- the same letter Boxer quoted.
John II| 7.20.11 @ 9:48PM
Yea, though I walk in the valley of death , I shall fear no evil. Boxer is firm. Boxer is cute. . . . Well, Boxer is firm, anyhow.
Conservatives, hearken to the message! Do not let your contempt for the lefty mindset sway you from the correct path. Keepeth in your hearts the message of that great icon of centrist Republicanism, Assistant Professor Schwarzennegger: "I'll be back!"
And now back to "Terminator" (1984), the first in an endless series of lefty bluffs.
W| 7.20.11 @ 11:01PM
Default is if we do not pay the interest on the debt. We will pay the interest on the debt. Do you understand that? obviously you do not.
Nick| 7.20.11 @ 11:56PM
Mr. Wilhelms,
"The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
- Senator Barak Obama, 2006
Hypocrisy and politics go together like bleeding heart liberals and stupidity.
gazinya| 7.20.11 @ 10:36PM
If homosexuality had the same preceived political weight as Christianity then we would see all our politians skipping down the aisles hand in hand. The Obama said 'he has Jesus in his heart' but when asked how is faith matches his policies he calmly stated ' I am a 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus believer. But there are passages in the Bible which are obscure and I don't and won't follow those.'
The Pelosi and The Reid Christian is like 'black face' in a minstral show. Look at what they do not what they say and never, ever believe anybody who says they are a Christian yet still believes the Democrat Party speaks for Jesus.
POST American| 7.20.11 @ 11:06PM
"Understand there's NO reason why ANY
country should be borrowing money ---and
certainly NOT a country like the U.S.. There's
absolutely NO reason at all. This is CRIMINAL."
-ALAN WATT
(yesterday's coverage)
----Are we begining to get the crying need
for HUAC meets Nuremberg the second chapter?
ARE WE?
Even the lead of this article is soft-programming
for the 'Cap n' Trade' farce. Open your eyes!
START getting the reality of sleaze-bag Rockefeller/CFR/RIIA Tavistock ops.
Its ain't going to get any better until they're
called out and put away ----FOR LIFE.
weddingdresses | 7.21.11 @ 5:59AM
nice
rowley| 7.21.11 @ 12:51PM
STOP SPENDING STUPID
LOWER THE DEBT CEILING
jgo| 7.21.11 @ 4:51PM
"Paul said the measure did not make substantial enough cuts" and he is correct. If the annual federal government deficit is $1.755T, then the government needs to cut spending by at least $1.8T per year, not the $3T spread over 10 years in the idiotic CCB proposal.
I'm with rowley: STOP FEDERAL SPENDING, PAY DOWN THE FEDERAL GOV'T DEBT, and LOWER THE DEBT LIMIT.
Vibram Womens Five Fingers Bik | 7.21.11 @ 9:59PM
Vibram Mens Five Fingers Flow have grown in fame enough to provide an amazing fashion appeal as well as the functionality of the shoe. There are very specific health benefits and shoe categories within this line.
Jim Hlavac | 7.22.11 @ 1:01PM
So how come me and Tony Perkins can agree on his basic thesis here -- there's too much debt, too much spending, too much government - - and then the man can turn into a raving lunatic when it comes to claiming that gay Americans, (very much apart of the "all" Americans he talks about who will suffer in this economic morass,) are attacking our families and our country? How can he and I agree on so much, and then on the gay thing he becomes an idiot? Weird, just weird. Maybe he should stick to what he knows best -- and leave off the gay thing for a while, he sounds more reasonable then.