The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

An Intransigent President

By on 7.21.11 @ 6:09AM

He is willing to risk default rather than pass up a chance to enact tax hikes.

The politicians most responsible for America's debt crisis are portrayed by the media as "grown-ups" while those least responsible for it are dubbed "intransigent." Veteran profligate spenders have been credited in recent days with a "balanced approach" to the crisis, even as Tea Partiers in Congress with no fingerprints on the debt have been cast as recklessly indifferent to it.

The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.

Polls suggest that this media manipulation of the debate over the debt ceiling is paying off for the Democrats. One recent poll says that the American public views Republican leaders as more responsible for the stalemate than Obama. Perhaps a political version of the Stockholm Syndrome is at work here. Obama certainly likes to play the captor turned hostage negotiator, saving the people from a crisis into which he has thrown them.

At his barrage of press conferences in recent days, he has presented himself as the people's advocate who is bravely confronting a problem that both Democrats and Republicans have long ignored. This role ill-befits a president who spent two and a half years pooh-poohing the calls of deficit hawks.

He said at one of the press conferences, striking a remarkably patronizing tone: "Now, what is important is that even as we raise the debt ceiling, we also solve the problem of underlying debt and deficits. I'm glad that congressional leaders don't want to default, but I think the American people expect more than that. They expect that we actually try to solve this problem, we get our fiscal house in order."

Obama considers it very heroic that he is even contemplating unspecified spending cuts and expects Republicans to make a similar "sacrifice" and swallow tax increases. This line of negotiation is a self-serving diversionary sham given that the crisis is due wholly to overspending. He is simply using a crisis that he compounded through trillions of dollars in heedless expenditures to push an ideological agenda extraneous to the issue under discussion.

An honest media would expose this gambit as raw exploitation of a self-generated crisis. But, instead, it treats his euphemistic calls for tax hikes -- he wants any deal to include a "revenue component" -- as the epitome of reasonableness, and has assisted him in turning the discussion into a referendum on Republican flexibility.

Obama is, in effect, asking overtaxed Americans for yet another bailout, a bailout that will allow him to resume the very deficit spending that catapulted the country into this crisis in the first place. Republicans have properly pointed out that tax increases will only make a bad economy worse. But the more fundamental argument against what Obama proposes is that it is unjust: Why should the American people have to pay more taxes for Washington's habitual mistakes?

Overspending pols are in no position to demand "sacrifice" from others, including from the rich whose already enormous tax payments make spending sprees in Washington possible. "Millionaires and billionaires can afford to do a little bit more," says Obama, adding that "we can close corporate loopholes so that oil companies aren't getting unnecessary tax breaks or that corporate jet owners aren't getting unnecessary tax breaks."

The media calls this the "balanced approach" of "grown-ups," but it is nothing more than scape goating by a childish pol who would rather engage in juvenile and idle class warfare than acknowledge his own complicity in the crisis. He had two and a half years to fix the problem and he didn't. Corporate jet owners, oil company executives, small business owners, and Tea Partiers aren't responsible for this mess; he is. While he was monitoring the "sacrifices" of others, he was making none himself and burying America in debt.

About the Author

George Neumayr is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (349) | Leave a comment

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 6:37AM

Talk about slanted opinion. Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times with not a concern in the world or from any Senator or Congressman! In Reagan's own words: "The full consequences of a default,' he said, '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.'"
But, here we have a manufactured crisis created by the House Republicans holding hostage the American economy to extract concessions on spending cuts from the President. And you talk about who is the grownup in the room? The American people are smarter than you give them credit for. What you don't say is that most Americans think raising taxes on the upper income brackets AND cutting spending is what should be done - and who is with them? The President and the Democratic Party, and they know it. Just as they would cut their spending and find new sources of revenue when they are financially hurting, they expect the government to do the same. So, Republicans have lost this battle, they should raise the debt ceiling and move on. Do they really want to tempt fate and see if the country will fall off a cliff come August 2nd? Idiots should lose their seats come 2012...

Paul| 7.21.11 @ 6:51AM

No, the American people are not smarter than I give them credit for. If they were we would not have the Muslim, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semetic, friend of terrorists and communists, affirmative action super-star as President.

MWK| 7.21.11 @ 10:23AM

Sorry, but there is no evidence that he is Muslim.

Paul from SA| 7.21.11 @ 10:45AM

During the election, I saw Obama wearing Mulim garb, reciting a passage from the Quoran, speaking in Arabic. There was no teleprompter. Where is that video?

He speaks English and Arabic, but not Spanish or even French?

Delta Zelda| 7.21.11 @ 10:48AM

I cannot remember when or where in his campaign he said, "When the evil winds blow, I will side with the muslims." He is the one the muslims were waiting for.

LMajito| 7.21.11 @ 2:35PM

it was a statement in his book the audacity of hope...

here's youtube for you...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu0nea2Iu3g

Gladius| 7.21.11 @ 11:34AM

There is no doubt he is Muslim friendly.

Clinton Lovell| 7.21.11 @ 11:43AM

Except the Muslim name...

And the Muslim father...

And his own admissions...

Other than that there is no evidence. hahahaha!

Bill S| 7.21.11 @ 12:38PM

Obama certainly hates Israel like a good Muslim.

masly| 7.21.11 @ 11:56PM

This is incisive, accurate, immensely strong, and gives even more light on the real duplicity of the left wing media, who are also culpable by way of diverting public attention away from the truth.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

Client 9| 7.22.11 @ 2:23AM

Dr. Masly: How much do you charge? Please keep this confidential, as I have a TV show now and need to be discreet...I can't pay $4,000.00 per hour like I used to....

GRANDMOTHER| 7.21.11 @ 12:08PM

Of all the appelations you chose to deny the 'muslim' label!! You, are one of the morons responsible for the END OF MY COUNTRY.

Joe Six-Pack| 7.21.11 @ 12:15PM

In the eyes of Islam, a person who is born to a Muslim father is automatically Muslim. (Kind of like a person born in the U.S.A. is automatically a U.S. Citizen. Islam is a national entity, not just a religion as we know them. )

It does not matter if we believe he is a Muslim or not. What matters is that Islamic law sees things in that way.

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:50PM

Exactly the same in Catholic and Jewish religions .. so what?

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 1:59PM

Purpleguy: Matrilineal in Judaism, and we don't kill people who convert to something else.

By the way, do you have the schedule showing when it's my turn in the Barbados' World Control of Money JewCave? You seem like the sort of person that might maintain such a schedule, since you know so much about Judaism.

blackwatch| 7.21.11 @ 2:42PM

They moved to the JEWcave in Barbados? WTF!

I didn't get the ultra secret email on that.

Purpleguy| 7.22.11 @ 11:57AM

My wife was Jewish, you twit. Be gone.

John Barleycorn| 7.21.11 @ 3:27PM

False. The Catholic Church marries a couple on the condition they raise their children in the Church. That child is not considered to be Catholic until they have received the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Purpleguy| 7.22.11 @ 11:59AM

True, but when you sit with the Priest before the Banns and discuss your impending marriage, you proclaim you will raise you children Catholic, if the mother is Catholic - not so much if the father is Catholic. Why?

Joe Six-Pack| 7.22.11 @ 7:08AM

Just like the Catholic and Jewish religions? Islam is CURRENTLY fielding an army. Just listen to those guys. "Occupied" Muslim land and talk about sinking enemy warships that pass through "Muslim waters". These are not uncommon ideas in the Islamic world.

The Catholic and Jewish 'religions' have not done this stuff for centuries. And this is just the start. Islam has a complete legal system that has been and is still being enforced. Islam is a Nationality. Muslims (Not all, but plenty to cause many wars) claim Islamic sovereignty. Loyalty is to Islam over ANY nationality. Not so with Catholic and Jewish 'religions'. This is the cause of warfare as was seen countless times throughout history, as it is doing today. The last time I checked, the Catholic church in Chicago was not being defended by Catholics from Brazil and Canada.

You need to study the 'Nation of Islam'. It has an economic system, a legal system (With 1400 years of jurisprudence) and an army that actively defends its interests. This 'Nation' is at war against us. And this war has not really even begun yet.

Purpleguy| 7.22.11 @ 12:01PM

Have you missed the part where the Islamic world is back in the 14th or 15th centuries - ergo they are where the Christians and Jews were centuries ago. Duh.
BTW - are you intimating Christianity and Judaism don't have armies to defend the religion? Islam a nationality? Are we not a Christian Nation? Is Israel not a Jewish Nation? Your arguments are weak at best. Be gone.

tinnerjim| 7.22.11 @ 10:31PM

so what? Jews and Christians haven't come out to kill us...that's "so what".

soljerblue| 7.23.11 @ 2:27PM

So what? Christians didn't crash planes into American buildings 10 years ago. Jews didn't murder 13 people at Fort Hood. Neither Christians nor Jews blew up Norway's main government building or shot up a camp full of kids because of published cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims did those things. Muslims also set off bombs in London and blew up the subway in Madrid. Muslims have stuck explosives in their underwear and shoes boarding commercial flights. A Muslim murdered a Dutch producer who filmed a documentary describing some of the more misogynistic practices of Islam. That's "so what"!

I have to say, Purpleguy, your lack of ability to process fact ill befits you for comment on this site. JMO.

soljerblue| 7.23.11 @ 2:27PM

So what? Christians didn't crash planes into American buildings 10 years ago. Jews didn't murder 13 people at Fort Hood. Neither Christians nor Jews blew up Norway's main government building or shot up a camp full of kids because of published cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims did those things. Muslims also set off bombs in London and blew up the subway in Madrid. Muslims have stuck explosives in their underwear and shoes boarding commercial flights. A Muslim murdered a Dutch producer who filmed a documentary describing some of the more misogynistic practices of Islam. That's "so what"!

I have to say, Purpleguy, your lack of ability to process fact ill befits you for comment on this site. JMO.

soljerblue| 7.23.11 @ 2:27PM

So what? Christians didn't crash planes into American buildings 10 years ago. Jews didn't murder 13 people at Fort Hood. Neither Christians nor Jews blew up Norway's main government building or shot up a camp full of kids because of published cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims did those things. Muslims also set off bombs in London and blew up the subway in Madrid. Muslims have stuck explosives in their underwear and shoes boarding commercial flights. A Muslim murdered a Dutch producer who filmed a documentary describing some of the more misogynistic practices of Islam. That's "so what"!

I have to say, Purpleguy, your lack of ability to process fact ill befits you for comment on this site. JMO.

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:41PM

whats that old duck comment walks like etc. how about talks like a commie walks like a commie. you get the drift.

Purpleguy| 7.22.11 @ 12:02PM

I don't think you're a communist - ignorant, uneducated maybe ...

spektator| 7.21.11 @ 2:45PM

No evidence that he is a muslim? How about his name? How about the 20 years he spent in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's so-called "church" where this other self-described "ex-muslim" gave sermons antithetical to the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth but with hate speech that would be right at home at "Friday prayers" in many of your average radical mosques? And what about little Barry's Indonesian school records that list him as muslim? How about the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit saying on television that Obama told him in a private meeting that he, Obama, was a muslim, not to mention Muammer Muhammad al Gaddafi's public statements? How about the fact that his dishonesty and overall behavior does not comport whatsoever with Christianity (extensively described in the New Testament by Jesus and his followers)? How about his foreign policy toward muslims and his overboard hospitality in the White House toward questionable muslim groups? Now, I cannot say for 100% absolute certainty that in his heart he still considers himself a muslim, but lying to kafir would not be inconsistent with that. What I can say with 100% confidence is that Barack Hossein Obama II is not a Christian based on his explicit dishonesty and abject behavior and his running on the messiah theme. "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).

Anthony| 7.21.11 @ 4:01PM

Well pick your poison pal. He was born a Muslim, to a Muslim father, and under Islamic law, that makes him a Muslim.
If not, and he's one of Rev.Wright's demented Black Liberation Theology groupies, does that make your case any stronger?
Regardless, Muslim or Black radical, he is a threat to America. And that's the bottom line.

Anthony| 7.21.11 @ 4:04PM

Oh yes, as a child he attended Islamic madrasses.

Purpleguy| 7.22.11 @ 12:04PM

Obama got Osama - case closed. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

W| 7.22.11 @ 9:35PM

Obama did not "get" Osama. The U.S. military did.
And if clinton did not turn down the offers, twice, in the mid 90's, to have Osama turned over to us then there would have been no 9/11, and no need for anyone to "get" Osama.

The Clintidote| 7.22.11 @ 12:16AM

Working hard to kill the USA = Moslem.

It's time for Allah to die.

Kurt in S.L.C.| 7.24.11 @ 2:40PM

And your point is?

MM| 7.21.11 @ 10:38AM

WHY do you all respond to these turds? It just hogs all of the space at the top of the comments and provides frustration for newcomers who won't bother to scroll down and read the better comments.

Especially as the norm for a troll is to sit at dawn and wait for a post to comment on at the top of the section -- so morons (?) will comment on HIM rather than the article!

Wake Up! Resist -- for crying out loud.

davelnaf| 7.21.11 @ 2:21PM

The main point of the article, Purpleguy, is that dems are largely responsible for the overspending and Republicans are not getting anything close to fair reporting from the usual suspects. You can go off on a tangent all you like—this is what dem supporters do whenever the facts are too inconvenient to face, which for dems supporters is almost all the time.

Kindy| 7.21.11 @ 2:34PM

YOu want to talk about facts? Take your own advice. You say the dems are responsible for the overspending, which implies they are responsible for deficit (spending). That is not even close to correct.

The deficit grew far greater with republicans, starting with Reagan. Again with Bush I, back to balanced with Clinton, and then fell off with Bush II and so far with Obama (though a portion of that was due to financial crater and 2 wars he inherited). Want proof? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N.....tial_terms

Kinda ironic to accuse someone else of not facing facts, when you weren't doing it yourself, isn't it?

spektator| 7.21.11 @ 2:58PM

Yes, Clinton was blessed by a 2-house Republican Congress which imposed spending discipline on him. In contrast, Reagan was burdened with a 2-house Democrat congressional majority that reneged on their promises to him to cut spending in a tradeoff. If the conservatives succeed in forcing spending cuts on Obama, I am sure you and your ilk will be back in a few years to tell us how thrifty Obama was, the veritable prince of deficit spending.

SCPOret| 7.21.11 @ 5:13PM

Just like under Reagan the democrats promise cuts down the road for tax increases today

Has anyone besides me noticed that congress is a cartoon?
Democrats play Wimpy with the Popeye Conservatives.
Wimpy says "I'll gladly give you spending cuts next congress for a debt ceiling and tax increase today!"

Mike| 7.21.11 @ 5:27PM

Kindy

I followed your link and it is rather interesting to me that they fail to go back before the 70's with the GDP analisys. I wonder what throwing LBJ's numbers in there would do for his theory.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)

Andy| 7.21.11 @ 10:05PM

Dear Mike,

I don't think the issue in question is overall trends. The issue is who should be held responsible for the latest deficit. To me, the chart appears to show that most of it was created by the republicans during the second Bush era, but perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

davelnaf| 7.21.11 @ 5:31PM

Kindy, are you saying that dems did not get the Great Society and the rest of the huge wave of entitlement spending going back in the sixties? Dems have been the main drivers of government spending since Roosevelt. Fact-check your own self. You’re just another party hack hustling for a losing cause.

Andy| 7.21.11 @ 10:10PM

To clarify, you're suggesting we should scrap social security and medicare?

davelnaf| 7.21.11 @ 10:34PM

Andy, I think Social Security should be for people that need it, as in those who have saved virtually nothing or have little or no money whatsoever coming in—and we both know that this entails means testing. But dems have been adamantly against this simple corrective for decades. If you’re still unclear about what I mean I suggest you visit the HuffPo, Nation, or Salon—there is no point is flailing about in this space among people sincerely interested in an exposition of facts.

Joe Six-Pack| 7.22.11 @ 7:17AM

Deficit spending began long before President Regan. The problems we are seeing today began long before him as well. And yes, the problem began long before President Carter as well, although he is an excellent example of the ideology of Democrats and its impact. I will not say that Republicans are innocent. But they are generally against it.

President Eisenhower said that he did many of the things he did (Like starting HUD) because "It is clear that the American public wants the Democrats running things in this country." I find it ironic that a former GENERAL (And one of our best) DID this stuff against his own views. At that same time, we all know how Democrats generally feel about generals.

wodiej| 7.25.11 @ 7:36AM

Who gives a RAT'S ASS who did what?? That does not solve the problem!! The fact is our GOVERNMENT, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAVE SPENT TOO MUCH. It's time to stop it and stop the blame game.

jordanlund| 7.21.11 @ 7:19PM

Remember how everyone was upset over his pastor, Jeremiah Wright? You know, from the Christian Church Obama attended for 25 years?

How do you go to a Christian Church for 25 years and still be accused of being a Muslim? Only in Right blinded eyes I guess.

p.s. Muslim's don't drink alcohol. Google "Obama +beer" and see how many different pics you can turn up.

The Clintidote| 7.22.11 @ 12:18AM

Just like the 9/11 hijacker Mohammadens pigs who went out drinking in strip bars the night before.

Just like that?

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 9:46PM

"No, the American people are not smarter than I give them credit for. If they were we would not have the Muslim, socialist, anti-American, anti-Semetic, friend of terrorists and communists, affirmative action super-star as President."

Vegetarian pinko faggot tofu potsmoking draftdodger long haired leaping gnome
twinkletoes Muslim Hindu buddhist...

Brian Mc| 7.21.11 @ 6:57AM

Your charitable heart, which you share in lockstep with every agency bureaucrat is destroying this country.

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 7:26AM

Give me a break! We do not have to default, all we have to do is cut the spending...NOW. We have plenty of money to pay our bills for what we really need. All the brainiack's in Washington knew this was coming and could have fixed it long ago, they decided to play politics and line the pockets of all they're friends by bailing out banks and big business along with all the entitlements we can not afford. "Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times" Gimme a break! All combined it did not amount to a fraction of what this guy has done. Add up all the raising of the debt by all past presidents and it does not add up to a fraction of what this guy has done!

Paul from SA| 7.21.11 @ 10:46AM

Spending is the problem! Cut spending!

Indeed, the debt and deficit are not thee problem; Dems love the deficit issue in order to raise taxes. But it's a ruse; spending is the problem!

SpiralArchitect| 7.21.11 @ 11:51AM

Ponder: All taxes @ 100% then what is the next step and who will be the blame boy (patsy) then?

Still no cuts at that point, but what then...?

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:51PM

We'll make sure to cut your sanitation, police, schools, pensions, fire protection, streets and road repair, snow removal ... first!

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 1:20PM

Let's see - I live in the country and have my own sewage system, I home school my kid because the public schools are nothing more than a place for kids to go during the day, I have worked the private sector all my life, I have my own fire protection system because the fire department in my county is inept, there is no money in my county for road repairs and it doesn't snow where I live, and instead of the police I have Colonel Colt.

Okay get rid of my sanitation, police, schools, public pensions, fire protection, street repair and snow removal now. Next okay - let's get rid of half the government agencies in DC and their workers.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 1:26PM

Good job, Kickerette. Ride on.

Richard Davis| 7.21.11 @ 1:43PM

The roads you use, repaired or not, were built by the government. How about electricity - there was no electricity outside of cites until the Federal government got involved in the production and distribution of electricity to rural areas in the 30s. Once the government established the market, private companies steped in. So two additional steps you need to take to cut the umbilical cord to socialism is to use NO roads and NO electricity.

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:46PM

i'm guessing she could do that. could you????

Kindy| 7.21.11 @ 2:55PM

Actually, no, I don't think she can. Richard Davis makes a good point you ignored... all the "government sucks, privatize everything" think these things don't cost $? Ever notice that the politicians who spout off about how bad government is... are getting a paycheck from the government? Hey, I'm all for getting rid of ineffective government, and not adding pork-laden programs at all. But it is silly to think private sector can do everything better/more efficient. There are just some things better done centrally.

Another point is, sometimes expectations are out of line. Is a public school, on average, going to be like a top private school? No. But do you really think you don't directly benefit from public schools? Sometimes the benefit is, hoodlums are not running around when you are at work, stealing your property. Or they are learning basics to fix your car, or manage a shift at a restaurant. Last point on that... you think heavy focus on uber-capitalism, along with the shift of income to the top 1% of income earners, doesn't in turn result in more 2 worker households, and less ability for most to home school? Less ability to give kids attention? Again, I like capitalism, but as with anything, it can be taken too far.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 6:29PM

Kindy,

On average, the public schools will be average. The private schools are generally better although one of the best public schools in Texas is Memorial High with great results.

The real problem is the above average cost of public schools over the typical parochial school. More expensive; less quality.

As to keeping the hoodlums off the street, I'll suggest that keeping the hoodlums in class with your kids is not a good thing either. Jails or "juvie" may be a better place.

So please give an example an example of a government provide service which exceeds the quality of a private sector offering. I'll give you a suggestion - Air Traffic Control. Even there, it is funded primarily by user fees collected in airline ticket sales and a tax on aviation fuel. We've also got the sleeping and, most recently, drunk controllers.

carnot| 7.21.11 @ 10:35PM

yes...your thesis is proven a thousand times over as government has inexorably expanded over the last 3/4trs century.

your argument is a canard....the ole laissez-faire strawman. yes...government can do some things better than "uber capitalism". this is precisely what the current debate is all about...but you haven't captured it correctly. what is the proper role of government? the current historical watershed moment isn't about "uber capitalism"...it's about "uber government".

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 2:42PM

Richard Davis,

Are you unaware that the government through the TVA squeeze the private electric companies out? It was private long before FDR federalized it.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 2:58PM

Dear Mr. Davis:
American political history did not begin in the 1930's. Please study up on the "internal improvements" debates of the 1820's.

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 4:53PM

What crap. We do not need the feds for this stuff.

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 8:17PM

Hey dude - the government did all that with my tax money - I can pay someone else to do all that and do it better, faster and for less money.

Liberals don't get it - the government function from TAXPAYER's money. Again, government functions from taxpayer money. Again government functions from taxpayer money.

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 8:24PM

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. I drive on dirt roads Mr Davis. The government has nothing to do with that - I have generators for electricity. The government has nothing to do with neither. You city folk don't have the first idea on how to surive.

Joe Six-Pack| 7.22.11 @ 8:54AM

The roads were NOT built by the government. They were built by private contractors who were Paid by the government. BIG difference. At least you can trace the money. No wonder we at least get some return for the investment.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 2:03PM

I live in the Country and have MY own sewage system and water well, I have geothermal power and my electricity/TV stations re provided by a coop not Federal related, I homeschool my kids because the local system teaches reading poorly, I work public sector but can easily switch and would be rich regardless, my county does cover road/fire/police/snow removal without Federal moneys.

I expect my pension, which I pay into, to go to hell first.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 2:45PM

Occam's Tool,

The guys in the country will be the survivors. It will get pretty tough in the cities when services are withdrawn. But with over half the world's population living in cities, I don't expect them to understand a completely different world.

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 6:44PM

Occam's Tool & Cowgirl -
Ditto for my family. I homeschooled 3 children-2 are college graduates, and the last one is just starting college as a pre-med. Our property tax bill goes up every year with the bulk of the spending going to public education we never used. We brought electric to our property (for a large fee), put in the well, the septic, the phone line and have satellite internet. We love it! But I do get angry when liberals threaten to take away services that taxpayers have paid for -- bullying and coersion seem to be all they can muster in defense of their positions.

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 8:21PM

As the song goes - I got a shotgun and rifle and four-wheel drive and a country girl can survive - a country girl can survive!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 9:51PM

"Okay get rid of my sanitation, police, schools, public pensions, fire protection, street repair and snow removal now. Next okay - let's get rid of half the government agencies in DC and their workers."

And when your kids get sick you have your own hospital, including ER, to treat them? surgeons on staff 24/7? medical research facility on-premises?
You are resourceful, self-reliant-- you don't need ANYBODY!

carnot| 7.21.11 @ 10:40PM

ummm....they can't receive those services in private transactions with other citizens? btw...it appears those doctors and hospitals you refer to are increasingly disappearing from the landscape as Obamacare works its magic.

Alan Brooks| 7.21.11 @ 11:41PM

"it appears those doctors and hospitals you refer to are increasingly disappearing from the landscape as Obamacare works its magic."

SELF-RELIANCE!, carnot. You can apply a tourniquet to yourself.

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:44PM

purple guy you should be called red guy as in commie red. jeez you are a socialist to the core. get out of town.

W| 7.21.11 @ 2:16PM

purp, most of these services are by local government, not the feds.

Anthony| 7.21.11 @ 4:19PM

Who's we you POS? You can't even get out of your mother's basement for lunch.
Can't wait to scrape you and your ilk off my boots when we clean up after the revolution.

My Girl Friday| 7.21.11 @ 4:42PM

Purpleguy,
In California they have already cut our sanitation,police, schools, fire protection, street and road repair, snow removal in addition to libraries, prisons, and the list of cuts goes on. As far as I am concerned, they have not cut enough. Yet, there still will not be enough money to pay for the unfunded liabilities made in the way of promissory notes to the public employee pensions. There are no pension reforms being offered by the new governor Brown. No, his union supporters will not allow him to touch their pensions. How will the governor pay for the exploding pension debt? The democratic way of course, tax increases. Add AB32 (climate-change bill), which will increase the cost of energy in California by 30% and what you have is a great sucking sound heard from one end of California to the other as its wealth leaves for friendlier territories.

You understand don't you that your threats come up empty. When you say "We'll make sure to cut your...." Who is the we? The Democrats? Hurrah! Hurrah! I say cut, cut, and more cuts are needed I'm happy to call your threat at both the state and federal level. Where possible, outsource every feasible department and its "services" at the state and federal level to the private sector, close redundant departments. In California, dismantle all unelected boards like California Air Resources Board. On the federal level, begin closure of the Department of Education, EPA, HHS would be a great start.

Regardless of political affiliation, wealth belongs to no party, it is both fickle and fleeting, as it simply moves on when opportunity dries up.

JmsA| 7.24.11 @ 8:17PM

My Girl Friday, your eloquence is as boundless as California's dire state of affairs. Thank you.

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 4:50PM

Go right to the things a government should do, just a local government. The Federal should never do more than absolutely required stuff. None of us are asking to get rid of all government. What we want and need is people bright enough to know the difference and provide benevolent services in a fair and balanced way. We could cut our spending by 50% and still do what is right. No freeloading, no bailing out buddies, no BS.

beebop| 7.22.11 @ 5:59AM

Let's be clear: what gets cut is a DECISION. In Cleveland the democrat mayor cut fire and police when he learned he was getting less from Kasich and DC. He sees this as an opportunity to appear to be a HERO to demos by attempting to make this a Kasich decision. Meantime, the payrule at the Mayor's office is untouched .... I love the way they never ever take responsibility for their own actions. I guess their mama's never taught them how to own up?

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 8:17AM

" If the debt ceiling is not increased, the Treasury can prioritize interest and debt payment to avoid a default and essentially put the government on a stringent pay-as-you-go basis. Would that involve extreme cuts in government spending? Certainly. But it could be done, if it had to.

Let's remember that the Treasury still rakes in quite a bit of money in revenues — it took in $604 billion (seasonally adjusted) in the third quarter of 2010. In FY 2010 the annual debt service was some $414 billion, working out to an average of about $104 billion per quarter. Although the numbers won't be quite the same going forward, the debt service will soak up only about one-sixth of the incoming revenues."

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Negro X| 7.21.11 @ 8:46AM

Purpletard,
I can't speak for the American people's intelligence but I can affirm that you are a retard of the highest order.

Maddox| 7.21.11 @ 10:11AM

Yes. Only a fool and blind follower of the liberal religion would believe this has anything to do with charity. The traitors in Washington are trying to take more of our money for themselves and their anointed ones. It is now or never or we lose America.

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:52PM

What's a matter, perky? No likey that St Reagan told you not to default?

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:48PM

purple guy. the u.s. will not cannot default unless those at the top refuse to pay .

Conserdude| 7.21.11 @ 9:11AM

Are you kidding me? What planet are you on, Sir? Obama has embarked on the most reckless spending binge in history, and the country wants the brakes applied, hence the Nov. 2010 election. Obama is the problem in his Marxian pursuit of more and more, disregarding his own previous (phony, it turns out) positions on not raising taxes during a weak economy (Dec.) and voting against increasing the debt ceiling (2006). Get a clue!

Jordan Lund| 7.21.11 @ 7:22PM

He hasn't "embarked" on anything. Now, if you want to argue that he's continuing to spend money hand over fist that began under Bush, I'll grant you that. Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, the bank bailout, the automobile bailout, the tax cuts for wealthiest Americans, all of those policies began under Bush, not Obama.

ds80| 7.21.11 @ 8:58PM

Yes - so what you're saying is the second rapist is never guilty.

Ignorant toad.

W| 7.21.11 @ 9:19AM

Purp, since you parrot Obama's daily press conference lines, and since Obama has not, and will not, present his plan to reduce the deficity, he just criticizes the Republicans' plans, like you do, please tell us"
1. what if any is O's plan, give us specifics.
2. what programs would you cut or reduce, and how much will this save?
3. what income tax rate do you pay and what are you willing to raise your rate to?
4. Aside from eliminating the depreciation schedule for private airplanes, which O adopted in his stimulus bill and which he now criiticizes, that might save 300 million, what specifics has O given us about his plan? You do know that O's bill reduced the depreciation from 7 to 5 years on equipment, such as airplanes, as part of the stimulus bill, which according to you has created 20 trillion jobs,. if business stops buying the planes, and the factories lay off employess who build the planes, will this create more jobs or fewer jobs? This is your economics test for the day.

Gladius| 7.21.11 @ 11:38AM

W I'll bet you don't hear one word from Purp.

megapotamus| 7.21.11 @ 12:38PM

Where is the red in this Purpleguy?
Oh, there.
Okay.

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:57PM

1) he presented his budget in April 2011 - go look it up - they've lied to you that he didn't
2) your streets and sanitation, fire, police, interstate repairs, aid to your schools, your pension, your healthcare, and anything else you suck off the government - then see how you like no government spending pinhead.
3) my income tax rate is far higher than yours, but it's none of your business. I'm just not a greedy b* like you are.
4) Go back to April again if you really care.
Stimulus package also gave us all a tax cut - where are all the jobs from GW's tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts ? That DOES NOT WORK, get it through your thick skulls, will ya? Geesh ...

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 2:04PM

I'm well into the highest income rate. Yours is not higher.

skip| 7.21.11 @ 2:05PM

Pimplepus

Did you actually cite the budget proposed that was voted down 0 - 97 in the democratically controlled senate, that the CBO and OMB stated couldn't be scored, because there were no specifics they could use?

Don't ever quit posting here. You may be the most effective at proving the utter stupidity and dishonesty of all things liberal.

JmsA| 7.24.11 @ 8:19PM

No, of course he didn't, Skip; such omission doesn't fit the propaganda template.

W| 7.21.11 @ 2:26PM

Purp, streets, fire,sanitation, schools, are all paid by local and state, not the feds. my healthcare insurance is paid by me. so you will cancel the interstate road system? How much will that save?
You forgot to answer question 4.
You neglected to tell us what tax rate you are willing to pay. I already feel much better that you are in a high income rate. You must sell Che Guevara T-shirts in San Francisco or Madison,Wisc.
You also forgot to answe yesterday's algebra question, If Obama raised the debt by 3 billion in 2 years,what would it be in 8 years to compare him to GWB. I will go s l o w, if 3 is to 2, what is X to 8?
Maybe you can call Bident's office for help.
I agree with Ski, dont go away, keep posting, we could not make up the stuff you write.

SCPOret| 7.21.11 @ 5:25PM

Even the CBO has said they can't score a speech that doesn't have anything specific. Obama's april budget did not cut anything, wanted more spending and increased taxes. It was so bad even the democrats would not buy into it. As I remember if failed misserably in the Senate.

Kindy| 7.21.11 @ 2:16PM

You say that as if the Repub plan (Ryan plan) was a "real" plan. Many Repubs don't support it either. The Ryan plan was political ploy designed to do these things:
1) can say we submitted "something"
2) Put the marker WAY to the right so, thru negotiation, we'd end up right of center instead of center.
3) Allow conservatives to go back home to constituents and say "I voted for Ryan" knowing full well it would never pass.

It is a political strategy, not a "real" plan. The Pres rarely submits a detailed plan, Obama or otherwise. That's because such bills start in Congress, not with Pres. He does (and has), clearly designed the parameters of what he would and would not accept.

I hear "cut the spending!" on this site. All neutral parties, and many pretty conservative commentators, say Obama has offered a gift in terms of spending cuts, yet the Tea partiers don't realize they live in a democracy in which, currently, 2 of the 3 governing bodies are held by dems. Do they not believe in democracy? DeLay is the one that screwed that up -- since that crook was in power, the civility went away completely and "compromise" became a dirty word. Now the new generation thinks that's the way it is. Sad.

The real goal is "Obama out" versus fixing the country.

W| 7.21.11 @ 2:54PM

Kindy, you are new here. simple, short answer: with Obama out, the country will be fixed.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 6:38PM

Kindy,

Each year Reagan was in office, he submitted a balanced budget to Congress. Each year Tip O'Neill declared it dead on arrival. In fact, each years budget process begins when the budget plan is submitted by the President to Congress. It is, in fact, a most recent phenomenon to have no budget for over 800 days. Continuing resolutions have been used in the past to get past the statutory deadline for a small time period. Never this long. Recall the first order of business of the new Congress was to get a CR to COMPLETE the current fiscal year - the year without a budget. Ryan's plan was for 2012. At least this bunch is addressing the task it is Constitutionally obligated to do.

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 9:48AM

You get your checkbook out and write the first check to cover the debt, then we can talk about raising taxes on the people who already pay 95% of them.

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:57PM

No

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 1:01PM

Typical liberal - the problem is purpleguy is that you liberals are running out of other people's money. I on the other hand hope your guy Obama gets his way. The result will be there won't be anyone elected with a "D" next to their name for the next century.

Kindy| 7.21.11 @ 2:24PM

You say nothing of substance here except use pat phrases. You don't realize the opportunity the Pres has provided to cut spending. I do agree with one thing... I kinda hope the teapartiers get their way and, following the steep drop in the market, incr in debt, and unemployment, that would end this silly debate.

Fact is, all but the most left wing dems want to cut spending, and the deficit. They just want it to be done fairly. The last 20-30 years have seen the most precipitous shift in wealth a a concentrated few... I'm sure mainly because idiots don't vote their self interest, because they've been hoodwinked by slicksters . I'm for cutting spending, but also for revenue increases. Last time the budget was balanced? Clinton (a "D"). Why? Compromise -- cuts and revenue increase. How much was the revenue increase? Only 4% on the MOST wealthy. Thems the facts. Accept it.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 2:26PM

As soon as you accept the fact that Clinton did well thanks to a Republican congress since they hold the nation's purse strings.

Them's the facts. Accept it.

Kindy| 7.21.11 @ 2:38PM

I don't disagree. But it took both agreeing. That's my point. The idea that some repubs, and all teapartiers don't get is you have to work together. That's what I see Obama trying to do. Yet, at least publicly, many aren't. The country is going to suffer. The constant "Obama is bad" stuff is just childish and idiotic. Even according to the likes of very conservative (yet conversive) people like David Brooks, Obama has offered a gift. Yet many are so anti-Obama, they can get there. Party and idiology first, country second. Sucks.

W| 7.21.11 @ 2:56PM

Kindy, what specific programs will you cut, and how much will that save? What is the tax rate that YOU want to pay, and what do YOU pay now?

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 3:10PM

Clinton had no choice but to play ball if he wanted re-elected. And as for David Brooks being very conservative? Maybe once upon a time, but if you think Media Matters is a conservative organization you are sadle mistaken. I also don't see much evidence of Obama trying to "work together". I do see him pointing his finger and chastisting the Republicans but oddly enough never once chastisting some of his Democrats. not Charles Rangel, Anthony Weiner, nobody.

Bob Grant| 7.21.11 @ 4:35PM

Clown. What TYPE of spending would you be willing to cut. Talk about empty phrases. Give us specifics. Entitlements? ....Housing?...Welfare?.....Farm Subsidies?....Defense?...Foreign Aid?

SPECIFICS!

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 8:33PM

The dems in the senate have not been able to come with a budget for two years. They voted down Barack Hussein Obama's budget. They don't know whether to scratch their watches or wind their butts.

I want to give Obama and the Democrats whatever they want. It will guarantee that nobody with a D next to their name will be elected in the next century!!!! GO Barack Hussein Obama. Go Harry Reid!!! Go Democrats!!!

skip| 7.22.11 @ 9:40PM

Kindy

You already have two quick strikes on you.

Liberty consists of freedom to enjoy social, political, and economic rights.

Both the political and the economic blew right by you. The bat never even left your shoulder either one.

One more and it's a given you are part of the problem.

And I'm being generous because you are new here.

W| 7.21.11 @ 2:27PM

hypocrite

George S| 7.21.11 @ 10:13AM

How many hostage takers do you know of that send a ransom note demanding you accept THEIR money? I think that Americans are smart enough... to at least understand that difference.

Spending cuts? Just exactly what has Obama proposed that would be effective immediately? (Taxes are effective immediately, but spending cuts just never find the opportune time).

What if we raise the ceiling... and there are no lenders to be found? Whose bank account then gets confiscated first?

What did we get for the 1.2 trillion Obama spent that all Americans are so gung-ho over financing?

If we raise the top tax bracket and it turns out not to be enough, how soon before the "rich" are defined down as anyone who gets a paycheck?

Purpleguy| 7.21.11 @ 12:59PM

What you blame on Obama is Congress' doing, not his .. he signs legislation into law- where is it? Do you know how a bill is passed or not?
What did we get from Bush's final 1.4 Trillion dollar budget, hmmmm?
All your arguments are old, stale, and have little to no merit. move on.

George S| 7.21.11 @ 1:49PM

Humor me... what stale spending cuts are proposed to be immediately effective? What little merit did we get from the stimulus that we are so anxious to borrow our children's future away? Bush's final two budgets was the work of Pelosi and Reid -- at least the deficit was only a few hundred billion.

As far as Obama's budget, you are correct. It was the handiwork of Pelosi and Reid. When Republicans tried to inject some sense into it, they were answered with "I won!". Well, the Won now has the effects of his efforts front and center for all to see. We can't pay for it... and you expect the adults to clean up the petulant narcissist's mess. If you think things are going well, you either work for the government, pay zero federal income taxes, or are just plain unobservant.

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:50PM

everthing the oidiot has done will increase the debt and the defict. thatr is a fact idiot.

old white guy| 7.21.11 @ 1:50PM

everthing the oidiot has done will increase the debt and the defict. that is a fact idiot.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 11:38AM

The American people are smarter than we give them credit for? Au contraire, my delusional enemy: Too many are JUST LIKE YOU.

I see you are flush with Democrat talking points. Made the rounds of Huffington Post and Daily Kos, MSNBC and CNN.com, have you?

Nice that you take dictation so faithfully.

But wasn't Reagan a terrible, fiscally irresponsible president, according to you Marxists? If that's the case, why 0n earth do you want us to emulate his raising the debt ceiling? Oh, that's right - you only invoke him when you're stealing money.

Only in Washington can we solve our debt crisis by raising the debt limit. Gee, I thought Social Security was in the black, and all that cold, hard cash was safely ensconced in a lock box. And now the traitor in chief is holding it hostage, saying the checks won't be sent out without an increase in the debt ceiling because the money's not there? And you admire this criminal pathological liar. Well, birds of a feather. . .

This is a macabre joke. Your president is a macabre joke. Your Congress is a macabre joke. In truth, I think the American people got exactly what they deserved in this Lilliputian tyrant. Because moral vanity and greed have so infected the American mind that people like you exist in vast numbers - far too vast for sanity to prevail.

But the joke's on you, too, because this is unsustainable.

I'm sure that you don't want it to be because my trick knee is telling me that you are one of the millions who live the good life sucking off the government teat.

And we all know that good Democrats excel at magical thinking. Wiggle you nose and, look! There's anotehr $3 trillion we can flush through the economy! Ain't life great?

As a good liberal, you take it as an article of faith that all money earned in this country is the government's anyway; any crumbs that the producers get to keep is just proof of government's largesse.

Well, except for YOU, of course. You're one of the GOOD ones, so DESERVE to live like a sultan. God forbid you felons live the way you insist that others live. I mean, it's enough that you're generous with other people's money.

I agree with you about one thing: This is a phony issue. This debt celing nonsense - on both sides - is the PR equivalent of putting a band-aid on someone with terminal cancer.

Because we are already over the cliff regardless of whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. It doesn't matter one iota; the die is cast and this country has already begun to implode. In three years, we'll make Greece look like a walk in the park.

Big Brother is already debauching the currency, genius. That's going to accelerate. QE 3, unthinkable three months ago, is now in the wings.

But hey, you want the band to play on even as the Titanic sinks. Print more money! Death spirals can be fun!

It's all coming to a screeching halt, moron.

And then, Purple guy, you had damned well better not ask for whom the bell tolls, because it will be tolling for thee.

Count on it.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 12:05PM

Grz:
This President is so hostage to his own ideology, his Idee Fixee, that he is incapable of abondoning his failed policy. Either he is making a conscious effort to ruin America or his hubris reaches such levels as to call into question his mental stability. We had better study up on the 25th amendment.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:22PM

Well, Al Adab, I think it will be one of the burning questions when America's obituary is written twenty years hence.

Did Obama destroy America on purpose, or did he believe Marxism works? My theory is that Marxism is ultimately nihilistic; its purpose is to destroy nations and break human beings. It preaches Utopianism but it is actually a form of mass homicide.

I think Obama's like a child who didn't get what he wanted for Christmas - to be a normal kid. He was born damaged goods and his upbringing just emphasized what an alien entity he really is. He will NEVER get what he wanted, and so he's going to trash everybody's presents, the Christmas tree and all the decorations in one long temper tantrum.

So I think he means to ruin this country.

The media will never cease to gaze upon this destruction and rejoice that they are present at the creation of a new world order. They still won't grasp the reality even as they themselves are sucked into nihilism's black hole with the rest of us.

Obama has succeeded: Se have descended to the status of a third-world banana republic. And we've allowed it to happen.

We made our bed. We are about to lie in it.

I really tire of the authors in this site and others proclaiming the death of the mainstream media. If the mainstream media were anywhere near dead, Obama would never have been elected; he would certainly already have been impeached, and the American people wouldn't be STILL, by and large, enamored of him.

look at his approval ratings - they should be 100% disapprove. But it's about half and half.

No, too many Americans want this; we'll never kick him out of office. The mainstream media will sacrifice themselves to ensure his re-election, and demagogues like Reid, Pelosi, the execrable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and others will be sure they destroy whomever the GOP nominee is.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:25PM

Mr. G:

When we have objective reviewers of history about 70 years hence on Obama, they will wonder how we could have voted into office a man who:
1) Hid background details of his education from us;
2) Attended a church run by an Anti-American lunatic,
3) Wrote an autobiography in which he stated he gravitated to Marxist students and professors in what we do know about his college,
4) Appointed self-proclaimed Communists/ and or Mao admirers to major government positions (Anita Dunn, Van Jones),
5) Started his political career in the home of a world famous American terrorist.

But he can be reversed.

Mike D.| 7.21.11 @ 4:01PM

Marxism is the greatest evil ever foisted on the human species. Germany's Nazism are in a distant 2nd place. By some acounts over 100 million died by way of the hammer and sickle directly or indirectly. It amazes me that anybody with a brain could endorse this sytem of human disaster after history has shown it as what it was.

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 5:05PM

Thank our education system for failing to educate... or should I say our anti education system. Social engineering through revisionist history lessons.

CrackerHound| 7.21.11 @ 12:10PM

Great post GRZMLYK....
[[["Because we are already over the cliff regardless of whether we raise the debt ceiling or not. It doesn't matter one iota; the die is cast and this country has already begun to implode"]]]

Whomever fails to see this as true is being willfully blind, not paying attention or in many cases, LYING.

Not only is our current path unsustainable, "recovery" is impossible. No nation has EVER recovered from a financial situation as this. The numbers are just too big. Here is the real nail in the coffin....we have NOTHING to fall back on that could actually spur a recovery. This country has become a shell of her former self. Public employees, financial services and retail/service industry are our bread and butter now. How in the world are we supposed to close an at least 16 trillion dollar gap?

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:30PM

Thank you, CrackerHound.

Yes, and when you look at unfunded madates, we're talking well in excess of a $100 trillion commitment.

There is no way we are going to pay this back. It is mathematically impossible. Which is why China and Japan have stopped investing in our debt. hell, we've exported inflation to China; they have their own problems. Japan's never recovered from its lost decade - when it did exactly what Bernanke and company are doing today.

Our fate will be far more definitive than Japan's moribund stasis.

We are going to inflate away the debt. Every country on earth has resorted to this when they have fallen so far in arrears, and we've been doing this since 2008 (longer, of course, but our conscious effort to debauch the currency stems from then).

And liberals' answer, STILL, is MORE government spending, MORE government employees, MORE taxes on the nation's producers.

When the world ejects the dollar as the de facto reserve currency- I give it about 18 months - we will go the way of Weimar Germany. As I recall, that didn't end too well.

Roy N.| 7.21.11 @ 12:10PM

Go away troll. I think you are looking for commieswine.com and somehow landed here.

megapotamus| 7.21.11 @ 12:36PM

Manufactured crisis? Just what cuts are the Democrats proposing? This is just demented.

Bill S| 7.21.11 @ 12:37PM

Most Americans oppose raising taxes. Obama lied again. It's not an imagined crises. The deficit is 1.6 trillion. Unfunded liabilities are 5.3 trillion. It's only a matter of time before the world loses faith in the dollar and our debt. The problem is that spending is out of control. Taxes are already too high.

Sam Vaughn| 7.21.11 @ 12:38PM

PurpleGuy,,, is your moniker homage to all those years of dropping acid? In what alternative universe have the Democrats ever cut spending? NO most Americans realize we woke up with a socialist who sat in the pews of Reverend Wright because he hates this country and ordinary Americans.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 4:36PM

OK. everybody here knows how silly what you wrote is. Personally, I find interesting the use of the wrod "intransigent", which I first heard as a word used by Ford-Kissinger to bash Israel.

DaPicayunbe| 7.21.11 @ 5:27PM

In searching for our future, we should look to our past - Reaganomics!

To reverse and recover from Carter's malaise and sinking economy, Reagan's negotiated a supply side deal with Tip O'Neil that created the greatest and longest economic expansion in US history, with more than 25 million private sector jobs produced.

Barry/Purpleguy, get a clue, creating jobs does more for "social justice" than bankrupting the US economy to "spread the wealth" can ever do, debt limit or not! Socialist ideology is not a feasible plan and has a history of ruination and death wherever and whenever it has been applied.

If you can't or won't, Mr. Obama, even with your smearing MSM- we will, in 16 months!

Paul| 7.21.11 @ 6:41AM

Raise taxes on people that don't vote for him to give to the parasites that do vote for him, not hard to figure out. Next up will betaking away the mortgage interest deduction, since people that have and pay mortgages don't vote for him either. I think if the mortgage interest deduction goes you will see an energized republican party with many new "independent" voters joining the party. It is a subject that brings anger out of people quickly when you discuss it.

Brian Mc| 7.21.11 @ 6:42AM

The greatest nation in the history of the world brought to its kness by its own president. And now, he wants it to bend over. The lion tamer is about to crack his whip once too often. My rage at this preposterousness has me believing that there is no reversal that can come in time to save the status quo. Business as usual, going on, cannot be sustained much longer...and still, he cracks his whip.

Timothy L. Pennell| 7.21.11 @ 6:54AM

If HE'S willing to let the Country go in to DEAFAULT, because he can't get his TAX INCREASES? Let him.
This is HIS Debt. These are HID Deficits. HE got us here. HE will continue to drive this Country in to the ground. All in the name of "FAIRNESS". Look up what he said about "Would you still raise the Capitol Gains Rate, even if you KNEW that, by raising it, you would be bringing in LESS Revenues, and not more?"
His answer: "I WOULD, out of FAIRNESS."
The House needs to send it's PASSED BILLS to the Senate. And, that's ALL they have to do. The Senate can come up with anything they want. Doesn't matter. ALL SPENDING BILLS originate in the House.
And, President Marxist?
He has NO PLAN, because, as his Official LIAR - Jay Carney - has already informed us - "He doesn't need a Plan. He doesn't have a VOTE on this".
So, he doesn't have a Plan, and he doesn't have a Vote?
Please tell me WHY we're talking to the America Hating. Israel Hating, White Hating POS?

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 11:23AM

Just to clarify you position, you think President Obama is responsible for the entirety of our debt leading up to today? So, every other congress and President who came before him did nothing to contribute to our current fiscal situation? Again, just trying to identify your argument.

Clinton Lovell| 7.21.11 @ 11:45AM

He spent every nickel we took in in terms of revenues and then spent another $4.4 trillion on top of that. Identify that.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:04PM

Hey Non-working "see no liberal evil, hear no liberal evil, speak no liberal evil" Ape:

Our piece of shit in chief increased the size of government by 25% in just two years. He took our year-over-year deficit from $500 billion to $1.4 trillion.

We were absolutely headed toward the cliff when Obama took office. No question about it.

But is he a hero because the minute he gets behind the wheel, he slams on the accelerator?

Just trying to identify your definition of suicide.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:04PM

Hey Non-working "see no liberal evil, hear no liberal evil, speak no liberal evil" Ape:

Our piece of shit in chief increased the size of government by 25% in just two years. He took our year-over-year deficit from $500 billion to $1.4 trillion.

We were absolutely headed toward the cliff when Obama took office. No question about it.

But is he a hero because the minute he gets behind the wheel, he slams on the accelerator?

Just trying to identify your definition of suicide.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:04PM

Hey Non-working "see no liberal evil, hear no liberal evil, speak no liberal evil" Ape:

Our piece of shit in chief increased the size of government by 25% in just two years. He took our year-over-year deficit from $500 billion to $1.4 trillion.

We were absolutely headed toward the cliff when Obama took office. No question about it.

But is he a hero because the minute he gets behind the wheel, he slams on the accelerator?

Just trying to identify your definition of suicide.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:05PM

My apologies for the computer malfunction.

skip| 7.21.11 @ 2:25PM

Knowing the post was repetitively posted, read each in its entirety anyway.

Bush et al drove the car out of the oncoming lane of traffic onto the berm.

Pelosi et al drove the car into the ditch.

Obama et al have turned the ditch into a abyss that makes the Marianas Trench look puny. Which doesn't matter. The carburetor is flooded. With salt water. Which doesn't matter. The car is out of gas. Which doesn't matter. There are no gas stations anymore. Which doesn't matter. There are no oil refineries anymore. Which doesn't matter. There are no oil drilling operations anymore. Which doesn't matter. There is no oil exploration anymore. Which doesn't matter. There is no investment capital available anymore.

Slurpees for everyone. Pea flavored, of course.

skip| 7.21.11 @ 2:27PM

My apologies for not being smart enough to state:

Bush et al drove the care off the berm into oncoming traffic.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 3:05PM

I agree. We are now engaged in an utter fantasy.

Socialism never works, but hope springs eternal for these fools. And opportunity springs eternal for the crooks who exploit the fools.

We have officially run out of other people's money. America has left the building.

I find it amusing that liberals want what used to be a majority of Americans to flegellate ourselves in perpetuity, repenting abjectly the sin of being born white (or affluent or Christian or conservative or well-off), yet they don't ever want to pay the piper for a fiscal profligacy that is unprecedented in human civilization - a profligacy that can be laid squarely at liberalism's door, for it was an effort to assuage liberalism that GOP presidents and Conngresses have gone along to get along.

The shit is about to hit the fan, and if liberals think they're not going to get splattered, they will soon get the surprise of their useless, empty lives.

Joe Six-Pack| 7.21.11 @ 12:24PM

No. We did this over several generations. However, our current President is the culmination of this ideology. The 'stimulus' that was passed back in 2009 was the classic 'spend your way out of recession' concept. What it did do was dig us in to the point that we must face the music soon, or else it will play in a manner that we cannot control.

I have felt for more than 30 years that we are going the way of the Romans. Human nature does not change. I just did not think that I would live to see the end of the Republic. I am distressed to believe now that I will see that day. And it may be sooner than we all think.

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 1:03PM

So you have felt for 30 years we were going the way of the Romans - I'm guessing that includes the Reagan and both Bush administrations? Two of which contributed to our current crisis, with huge additions to the debt and deficit?

Just to be clear - at which point exactly did the hole become to big? The very minute Obama took office? Or was everything fine until the stimulus was passed? If McCain had been elected, would the hole no longer exist? It's all Obama?

George S| 7.21.11 @ 1:55PM

It is not all Obama. It is the effect of having a leftist president, a 70-seat majority House run by a mentally retarded leftist, and a filibuster proof Senate run by, again, a leftist. Unchecked liberalism blew a hole in our economy. And now the media and the White House are playing spin the history in the faint hope that Americans will forget how to add two plus two.

robadude32| 7.21.11 @ 11:32AM

I'm with you Timothy - vote this guy out in Nov. 2012!

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 11:40AM

"Please tell me WHY we're talking to the America Hating. Israel Hating, White Hating POS?"

Just throwing something out there: The reason we're talking to him is because he was elected as President of the United States, legitimately, by a majority of Americans, according to all electoral laws and amendments set forth in the US Constitution. You might not like him, but that doesn't make him any less of your President, assuming you are a U.S. citizen.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:38PM

I'll bet you were JUST as magnanimous when George Bush was president, right, you cretin?

Here's a news flash for you: The country is falling apart. That piece of shit isn't my president.

Got it?

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 12:59PM

Unlike you apparently, I accept the legitimacy of U.S. Presidents, no matter what political party they come from. I believe in the electoral college and right for every citizen to vote. If they elect a President whose policies I disagree with, I still accept him as my President - that is a founding tenant of Democracy.

It seems the only people you accept as President are the ones that agree with everything you believe. You might want to consider a different political system that the one America has, in that event.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 1:35PM

First of all, the word is "tenet," genius. My, you do impress. Excuse me, but your mental deficiency is showing.

No doubt you're a recent product of our liberalism-tainted indoctrination - oops - I mean education system.

Second of all, you people routinely commit fraud at the polls. I don't doubt that Obama was elected in 2008 because fools, crooks, vengeance-seeking vandals and felons like you now predominate in this country.

However, even many among your ranks are disillusioned with this obvious piece of human scum. So, when he is elected the second time, I have no doubt it will be the result of fraud.

In any case, you are a liar (I guess that's redundant because you're a liberal). None of you human sewage for one moment believed Bush was legitimate. So stop lying for one second, please.

Gee, your ersatz devotion to the rule of law is truly touching. Your lip service to respect for the law might be a little more convincing if you took your hand out of someone else's pocket. You are all too transparent.

So you believe in the electoral college? Really? That's in the Constitution. I thought you traitors considered the Constitution unconstitutional - oh, wait - that only applies to the laws you like.

Just like when you invoke Reagan in a dishonest attempt to "catch" Republicans - I thought you disapproved of everything Reagan did. And yet suddenly, his raising the debt limit was fiscally responsible? Huh?

And you are right - government has metastasized ever since the dawn of the progressive era, regardless of the letter that followed the President's name (that means whether they were Republicans or Democrats). Reagan had far too limited success against what was already a juggernaut.

but I don't think you'll find too many people on this site defending George Bush's ass-kissing of people like you when it came to growing government ever larger in his genuflection before the false god of "compassionate conservatism."

I'm glad you asked: Yes, I'd like to consider a different political system than (not "that) the one America has. You know what I'd like to see? A Constitutional, representative republic. Not the third-world, banana-republic, illegitmate kleptocracy we have now, crook.

If we had that, you wouldn't be trolling on this site right now. You'd be sitting in jail where you belong.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:29PM

Yes, if by tenant you mean "mob rule." That's a "tenant" of Democracy in its many forms. If you mean "tenet," yes, I do admit Barack is the POTUS. However, as he is evil, I want him to fail. I want ObamaCare to fail, I want tax hikes to fail, I want his foreign policy of selling America and her allies out to thugs to fail.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:31PM

We are a "Republic, "not a Democracy. This is to allow cooler heads to prevail and avoid mob rule. Our government's power is also divided into parts, with the strongest part being intentionally fractured among by far the greatest number of people.

skip| 7.21.11 @ 5:13PM

You are supposed to be throwing your own feces.

Not eating it.

A President of the United States of America, faced with our economic conditions, when asked, will state, forcefully:

Under no uncertain terms, will any social security recipient not receive their checks at any time after August 2. If it takes no checks to myself, no checks to anyone in my administration, no checks to anyone in the senate, no checks to anyone in the house of representatives, and no checks to any federal judicial employees, so be it. If that isn't enough, we'll figure something else out, but there is no way any social security receipients will not receive their checks on time.

That piece of shit doesn't even pretend to be my president. Fuck him.

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 6:59PM

Amen!

George True| 7.21.11 @ 7:26PM

Hear! Hear! Well and eloquently spoken, sir. An actual president and/or leader would have said exactly that. He or she would have said,"If the debt ceiling is not raised, we will immediately have to pare down government expenditures by as much as 40%. But there is more than enough coming in every month to fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and also to service our debt."

But this demagoguing, lying, fear-mongering, narcissistic, POS instead threatens to kill granny. That he currently inhabits the white house is a travesty of all that is good and holy, and is in direct opposition to all that is proper and helpful towards our salvation as a nation. Where this execrable excuse for a human being should be residing is the Supermax prison in Florence, CO.

megapotamus| 7.21.11 @ 12:41PM

I am. Is he? Obama was adopted by his stepfather, an Indonesian citizen and therefore one himself, not to mention BHO Sr was a British citizen.

Kenny| 7.21.11 @ 6:55AM

The ma -child in the White House is so intransigent on more taxes is becasue the child in him is still steaming that allowed the Bush tax breaks to continue last year.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 10:16AM

We have a winner! Behold the perpetual petulant child!!!

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:07PM

I'm hoping the first fecal president gets do darn mad he'll hold his breath until Purpleguy turns blue.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:13PM

He's already blue, he just like to pretend he is a moderate purple. I'm sure not going to hold my breath until he turns red.

Grzmlyk| 7.21.11 @ 12:41PM

Very good, Drunken Sailor!

Yeah, he's a "moderate" purple like McCain and Lindsey Graham and a million other reach-across-the-aisle Republicans.

I love how the definition of a political moderate in this country is a Republican who bends over to get raped by a liberal and then sends a thank you note to his attacker the next day.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 1:55PM

Political Moderate = whore

Clint| 7.21.11 @ 7:21AM

We are in a Media War against The Liberal Mainstream Media Agendists, who have propped up The Affirmative Action Poster Boy For The Peter Principle.
American Voters will Vote Their Wallets & turn on this Shuck & Jive, Got No Game Chump by The 2012 Elections.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

Americans are seeing

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 7:39AM

This scenario once again points to this: Obama's goal is to destroy our nation. As for polls, I would suggest with regard to the debt ceiling issue--ignore them. Basically however Republcians need to talk to the voters and tell them that Obama wants the default and will not do what is needed that is to cut spending. As I understand it, without cuts in spending even if a deal work agreed to and passed our credit ratings would go down. That is the point. Republicans can be blamed for one major issue now-poor leadership--or no leadership and that would be B and M.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 10:49AM

The best poll results were already registered... last November!

CrackerHound| 7.21.11 @ 12:20PM

Our saving grace in 2012 is that the same people who voted in droves for Obama will not show up at the polls this time around. Sure the dems will bus in some voters and hand carry some to the polls but it won't be the same this time around.

The other half of the equation is just because there is an (R) after the name doesn't mean we will not get an Obama-lite. We had better make sure we have the right guy or gal in the Republican slot

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 7:55AM

With all the above being said, then why should the Union continue to exist in it's current form. For starters this Country no longer has a Representative form of government. There is elections that give the illusion that we matter. The most important of all the politicians have figured out albeit a long time ago, how to legislate fraud and theft.
A near trillion dollar, "Stimulus," is legislated, the experts now agree it didn't do one bit of good, so where did the near trillion dollars go.
We bail out Wall Street and the Banks, and how are the taxpayers thanked? More additional bank fees and bank charges.
We give Pakistan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Organization billions upon billions of dollars and how to they thank us. "Die Infidel." But then we have to cut Medicare and Social Security.
The D.C. politicians, crony-capitalists, special interest groups, lobbyists, Egyptians, Palestinian, and the Pakistani politicians are stuffing the pockets and packing their suitcases with US tax payer dollars, but in 2000 Barrack Obama tells US Veterans that they should pay for their own war injuries with their own private insurance.
See how convoluted this all is? So again why should the Union continue to exist in it's current form?
I get up and go to work Mon-Fri from 6:30-4:00 have to write a check to the government at the end of every year on top of what is taken out by FICA, and Senator Harry Reid says that I have to share more sacrifice. Senators and Congressmen work on average one week out of the month, so tell me who is doing the sacrificing.
I have worked my butt off almost every day since I was a teenager when I started picking strawberries in the fields when I was 10 years old, joined the Marine Corps to get out of hard work, (that part didn't work out so well, it was harder) go out of the Marine Corps went back to work, and people I know there are millions of Americans just like me, but ya know something, we're just plain dog ass tired.
I have to crawl up the wall because my arthritis is kicking my butt, my back feels like a Sumo wrestler tossed me around the room all night, and I sit on the edge of the bed in the morning to summon up the energy to begin my day all over again, and Harry Reid tells me and millions of other Americans just like me to sacrifice more. Meanwhile some Hedge Fund Manager who made gazillions form manipulating crude oil futures to keep the price of gasoline high, forgot he had a 100 million dollars in a long forgotten checking account.
So someone also tell me why in the Hell doesn't the Hedge Fund Manager do a little sacrificing? And please don't give me this crap that the top 1% pay all the taxes, when General Electric didn't pay one single penny of income tax, but I paid almost three thousand. And Harry Reid wants to hand me an Aspirin and tells me and millions of other Americans, "Oh, just suck it up."
I have just simple phrase to tell the Pakistanis, Egyptians, Harry Reid, Crony Capitalists, Palestinians, and General Electrics Jeffrey R. Immelt, Politicians of all stripes, special interest groups, lobbyists, banks, and Wall Streeters.

"Fu#* You, We're tired of sacrificing, we've been doing it for most of our adult lives....We're just plain dog tired and we're going home."

I'm quite sure that I spoke for millions of Americans just like me.

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 8:18AM

Yes you did... I am with you 100% What would the BS politicians, the entitlement suckers and the big mouth godzillionaires do if we all just said piss off? We sat back and did what they do every day (nothing but suck from us) for a month or two? They talk of raising tax's on the rich... they consider anyone with anything left to tax rich... they mean us, not them and they're buddies. I am tiered, the work, the BS and all the lies. God Bless and good night!!

W| 7.21.11 @ 6:52PM

thanks Melvin

PAUL| 7.21.11 @ 9:34AM

Melvin - Thanks for your service.

And, you are not alone.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:05AM

Your welcome buddy. But you know what, we're just getting warmed up.

cowgirl| 7.21.11 @ 1:11PM

Amen Melvin!!!! You are awesome possum....

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:32PM

Melvin,

Thanks, DevilDog. Things WILL get better.

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 7:03PM

Amen!

Carol| 7.21.11 @ 8:00AM

I wrote scathing emails to McConnell and Coburn.

Hannity has finally been sounding fired up about all of this and had Coburn on yesterday.

After Coburn explained what they are doing and Hannity ripped into him for it - Coburn finally asked, "Well what would you do?".

That tells me the RINOs couldn't care less about what we think. They are giving into the Commiecrats because they don't want to be considered outcasts by the Beltway Boys.

We are being led to slaughter and those pulling the rope are the GOP.

And yes, they will be blamed for the mess created by Obama and his fellow Commiecrats.

Excuse me while I go hang myself.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 8:17AM

Carol don't go out and hang yourself, we need to join together and hang politicians and string them from the gallows along the mall.
(Not to worry Homeland Security, this is just an opinion)

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 9:12AM

A revolution is coming.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 9:42AM

Alabama... Recall Hussein's first few months in office when Guns and Ammunition Sales went off the charts?? If he's reelected - we'll all wish we'd bought Stock in Remington, Glock.. etc., etc. Cause Gun and Ammunition sales will be.... Fast and Furious.

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 8:09AM

Why is it the only thing that the Democrats can think to cut is Social Security, Defense, or Medicare?

I propose a different set of cuts!

You really want to save some money and make the trial lawyers happy? Eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education, Labor, Agriculture, HHS, EPA, and HUD.

Worried about all the "protections" those departments give us. Pish posh. Make 'loser pays' the law of the land and the trial lawyers will have the streets, schools, environment so clean and healthy that it'll be no fun at all!

There's a budget plan that'll work!

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 8:22AM

You want to know why Dan? Because the Baby Boomers scare the hell out of the politicians so they are rewriting the retirement rules.
That is why the only thing that is being suggested to being cut is Social Security and Medicare. Isn't this scenario a bit off don't you think?
Obama and the Republicans playing good cop, bad cop.
The Boomers are fixing to retire and Congress and the Senate have stole from Medicare and Social Security for so long, they're broke.
The Senate and the House are rife with corruption. These bodies members are skimming off trillions of dollars off legislation that passes.
Why in the heck a Congressmen or Senator comes to D.C. dirt poor and retires a multi millionaire, with a hundred and some thousand paycheck?
Something stinks.

Brian Mc| 7.21.11 @ 9:12AM

Yes, Melvin...it has me considering their thought process, something akin: "Shut down the police and fire departments...but, I'll be damned if I'll give up one of my assistants to the secretaries!" The monster in D.C. answers to no one. Our supposed votes only foster more of the same.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:08AM

Absolutely brother, we never hear, about government administrators getting laid off, and those with titles we couldn't figure out where in the hell they're supposed to do.
There is staffers for staffers, consultants to consult the consulates. studies to study, interior designers to figure out the color of a toilet.
It is always the poor beat cop or the fireman.

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 9:19AM

People realize how extra-constitutional these corrupt 'departments' are.

The people have been calling on Congress to eliminate these bureaucratic corruptions for years if not decades and they *don't* do it because this is where so much of the *LOBBY $$$$* comes from that lines the pockets of your entrenched corruptocrats . . . er - Congressmen.

People won't take it and it will be a matter of time (the amount needed to grow a pair) before there is an outright revolution against the corruption in this "Representative" Republic. Or is that the "Closed Door Meeting Republic"?

Have you considered| 7.21.11 @ 9:07AM

Dan, your list has the added advantage in that every agency you list, is Unconstitutional, and they should be eliminated by that simple virtue.

There are no Enumerated Powers granted to congress to establish these agencies.

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 9:22AM

When are we going to demand that they do it?

When a citizen sends a letter to his Congressmen only he and the person who reads it knows that.

The demands will have to be public demands. The Constitution provides people with the power to make them. Publicly.

Dan Hirsch| 7.21.11 @ 2:22PM

I JUST DID!

Don't tread on us...

Butch| 7.21.11 @ 2:35PM

All right Dan, you nailed it! A budgetary plan in two paragraphs and three sentences, and one that will work just fine, to boot. Wonder why the geniuses running the country can't figure that out. We'd have lots of unemployment, but they would all be former Federal parasites.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:34PM

Loser pays wouldn't make the lawyers happy, Dan. But it would work.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 8:22AM

With the illegal alien situation continuing to corrode, the London-Wall Street cabals STILL unprosecuted, indeed, running the government,
and that total spectrum, utterly unconstitutional
police state surveillance grid now covering the
land ----we'd say that the Bush/ Clinton/ Bush Jr. ---and Harvard man, former aide to Rockefeller front Kissinger, Barack Obama, 'continuity of agenda' (ie Globalization---TREASON)
---has been impeccably maintained.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 8:43AM

I think the crucial thing now is for the Tea Party types in congress to ignore4 B & M and go public with scathing criticism Obama as well and B & M's notion of government ( lets just do it in the dark ) and make one simple point; WE ARE BROKE !!!!!!!!
AND ALL OF OUR LEADERS DO NOT GIVE A CRAP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 9:26AM

We don't know what is being said in "closed-door" meetings.

This is a huge problem.

These 'representatives' of the people do not want those same people to hear -- maybe because they are all only 'representing' themselves; as in how to stay in power, in office, in DC.

Anthony| 7.21.11 @ 9:04AM

The Muslim Marxist President is on a mission to destroy America. This is deliberate, it's not Ivy League stupidity, it's the real thing!!
It's the only mission he's interested in, now that he has NASA shut down, except for its Global Warming Division.
If we had an honest media, instead of the whores that currently infest the LSM, Obozo would be back in Kenya or running the Human Rights Division at the U.N., until he is able to assume the positon of Potentate of the World.
2012 or fight!!!

Conserdude| 7.21.11 @ 9:12AM

Could not have written it better, Mr. Neumayr. The GOP in Washington needs to read from your piece and put this fiasco at the feet of the president - now.

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 9:22AM

"Understand, there's absolutely NO
reason why ANY country should be borrowing
ANY money from ANYONE ---least of all
a country like America."
-ALAN WATT

--DO -----DO -------DO CHECK OUT:

ALAN WATT's latest 2 part radio interview
w Brian Gerrish on google.

------------------------WOW-------------------------!

Superb and indispensible in this the 11th hour
of our LONG and psychopathically 'engineered'
POST America.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 9:38AM

I say F!it!.. F!Hussein. FdaDemocrats.. Shut it down.. You know paying the seniors unfortuanately isn't just paying seniors anymore?? Now - practically Any dirtbag can get benefits. Fried your brain on Drugs? Get Govt. disablement benefits. Won't or Claim you cannot work? Get a Gov't disability pym't? There are So Many "Americans" sucking at the Trough - we can't distinguish who are the truly deserving and who are the Parasites anymore... I say we need to begin from scratch about who truly belongs and who's a leech but for now.. Pay SSI, Vet benefits and let's start shutting the rest down. Defund EPA! Defund HUD! Defund HEW! Defund PBS/NPR and all the other State Usurping responsible Federal Agencies - go to a Flat Tax and then eliminate the IRS. I'm fed up with same'ole'same'ole BS.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:03AM

Yes to all of the above, but the largest parasites are the politicians themselves. They and they're cronies skim millions if not billions of dollars off legislation that we cannot begin to understand (lawyer speak.)
As of 2007, 58 Senators and 178 Representatives, were lawyers. By political design lawyers in government are natural predators.
Harry Reid, created legislation to use tax payers dollars to improve worthless arid desert into green cold cash for his lawyer sons and crony lawyers who just happened to be investing in worthless desert that isn't worthless any more.

CrackerHound| 7.21.11 @ 1:41PM

Here's something Red...A neighbor's son told us his dad was going to get him SS disabilty due to his ADHD....we laughed until we saw a commercial from a prominent lawyer who is advertising this very thing.

ADHD gets you disability benefits...who knew?

The Bishop| 7.21.11 @ 9:43AM

The national Republican leadership are more responsible for our fiscal crisis than the profligate Dem spending junkies they keep enabling because they talk a good game but never deliver. The only evidence of cajones in that party are women (okay, a slight overstatement, but only slight). Remember that McConnell supported Rand Paul's opponent in the primary. He's a tool!

patroness| 7.21.11 @ 9:43AM

We need the hand of God: God Bless America.

O, St. Paul the Apostle, great convert, preacher of truth and Doctor of the Gentiles, intercede for us to God, who chose you. You are a vessel of election, O St. Paul the Apostle, preacher of truth to the whole world. O God, You have instructed many nations through the preaching of the blessed apostle Paul. Let the power of St. Paul’s intercession bring about the conversion of President Barack Obama to the fullness of Your grace. Help the president to recognize the personhood of all human beings — born and preborn. Help us who venerate St. Paul’s memory this day to continually seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we work to spread Your truth.” Amen.

Ohiolad| 7.21.11 @ 9:45AM

Obama is the quintessential reason why the natural born requirement was put into the Constitution. He is like the Trojan horse who we have stupidly allowed inside the gates whose only purpose is to bring this country down.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 10:46AM

Ohiolad's statement is very powerful. Read all the previous comments posted above and regularly here on TAS.. More and more Americans are coming to believe Das Messiah IS actually trying on PURPOSE to destroy our Nation.. I believe it, my buddies believe - Hell my 75 year Mom suggested last week to me that she believes Hussein is doing this on purpose! Hussein IS the Manchurian Candidate

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:35PM

The manchurian Candidate was hidden. I would mention to my neighbors that Barack BEGAN his career at a SOCIAL EVENT at Bill Ayers' house! How screwed up do you have to be to have Bill Ayers' want to help you out?

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:37PM

Sorry, let me clarify my ravings---The Manchurian Candidate was hidden, with an outward appearance of super-patriotism.

Barack, on the other hand, was an open traitor from Day 1---he started his political career at a meet the candidate meeting in the home of Ayers and Dohrn, two notorious traitors and known terrorists.

winterhawk| 7.21.11 @ 9:46AM

A terribly despicable individual to say the least. I cannot call him a "man."

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 10:05AM

SPEAKING of Globalists

"Understand this bunch worships law.
Law, not any kind of morality, or right,
is what they worship. Understand, this
is a religion ---an old religion ---a psycho-
pathic religion. And so before they destroy,
they make a law sanctioning the destruction
and thereby engineer their compliance.
The religion of power. The psychopath's
religion."
-ALAN WATT
(latest interview on google)

al| 7.21.11 @ 10:07AM

no one's mentioned the obvious: when they finish taxing the "rich" and it still doesn't do the trick, guess who's going to be next?

CrackerHound| 7.21.11 @ 1:46PM

Well all of those 401K's around the country sure hold a lot of money in them...just sayin'

BTW, who thinks 401k's that contain money on paper are safe in today's world? Hell, I might not get SS or my 401k money when the time comes!

George True| 7.21.11 @ 7:46PM

Oh, you'll get your money all right. The problem is that it won't be worth enought for you to live on. The cabal in charge is planning on destroying the US dollar, and so far they are right on schedule. Even if you have a million dollars in your 401K, and pull out 40K a year to live on, that 40K will only be 34K after taxes, and then that 34K will only have maybe 15 or 20K in purchasing power.

Reid/Pelosi/Obama have racked up 4.5 Trillion of debt just in the last 2.5 years. Unless federal spending is reined in by 40% starting now, we will continue to have $1 trillion annual debts every year from now on. At that rate, in just a few years, the dollar will be worth only one half or one third or one quarter of what it is worth now.

Yes, you'll get your money. It just won't buy much when you get it. This is what "social justice" buys. Permanent impoverishment for all but the government apparatchiks and nomenclatura. Welcome to Obama's Amerika, comrades.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:10AM

Rise up my brothers and sister, rise up and shake your fist at the bastards who drive by in their motorcades like royalty, with black out windows so they don't have see the poor miserable masses and how angry they are.

Mimi| 7.21.11 @ 10:11AM

The thing that gets me the most is the LIES and DECEIT. Where is HONOR ? I suppose everyone else feels that way....Behind doors....secret meetings....Their all PATHETIC!

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:17AM

Remember Mimi, there is absolutely no honor whatsoever among thieves at least in the political realm.

Car780101| 7.21.11 @ 10:31AM

I wish that their could be some truth in these comments. Some facts whether you like them or not.
1. This debt is America's debt. It has nothing to do with future spending. The ability to pay our bills for what we've borrowed is what the debt ceiling is about. It is not Obama's debt ceiling but our debt ceiling.
2. A great portion of the debt is from GWB and friends. Remember, GWB came into office with the country in the best financial shape in generations and with tax cuts, two unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare D, he left us in the worst recession since the great depression.
3. When GWB left office, we had been and were losing 700,000 jobs a month. The stock market was tanking, Banks were on verge of going under, etc. He left us in a mess.
4. 2 1/2 years later, which is not a long time to get things turned around, we stabilized the job losses and begun to add them. The market has almost completely recovered. Taxes are lower today than when GWB left.( remember almost 300 billion of the 700+ billion stimulus package was to lower taxes), GM and Chrysler are coming back, we've collected almost all the money spent on TARP, etc.
5. President Obama is not a socialist, communist, nazis, radical lefty, anti-christ, etc. Most of his policies have been right of where the center was years ago. Many of the provisions in the Affordable Health Care Act were Republican ideas, such as the mandate.
6. Ronald Reagan raised taxes at least 5 times and the Debt Ceiling 18 times. GWB raised it 7 times
7. I know there are dead beats on assistance, Medicare, Medicaid,etc. but lets remember that the biggest frauds against these programs have been corporate fraud not individual fraud.
8. So many people have commented about 'pulling yourself up by the boot straps', etc. without thinking that no-one does that. Everyone has benefited from and been supported by government policies. You didn't build your roads, internet, water systems by yourself or had your own police and fire department. Educated yourself, etc. You didn't develop the medical advances that have save millions of people but government support for research has. Each of us has been blessed with the ability to use our talents to the best of our ability because we have so much government support. Stop and think about where all the things you take for granted came from. It is likely that most of them have had or continue to have government support.

And, I could go on but please don't think we can solve all these issues with simplistic solutions such as 'shut it down', eliminate all Federal Departments, etc. this doesn't help.

MM| 7.21.11 @ 11:14AM

You are wrong about that part, Car. "Shut it down" is obviously a cry of frustration, not a plan.

But cutting bureaucratic government corruption, eg. extra-constitutional departments, would help in spectacular fashion.

Fix, no.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 12:57PM

Car78010,

1. Correct. It is our debt ceiling and we don't want it raised.

2. GWB came into office in the best financial shape in several years, not generations. Public debt as a percent of GDP, while lower than the immediately preceding years was still higher than it was at any time since 1960 while we were still paying off WW-II. Debt began rising after the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (congress complained that Nixon was abusive when he refused to spend authorized monies) and deficits went from roughly one-half percent to three percent per year. You may also recall that GWB came in with the recession following the dot-com implosion. No conservative defends his spending - his deal with the devil was you fund my wars and you can spend what you want. Obama has his work cut out for him but, contra Reagan, he chose the Keynesian method of dealing with it.

3. The Democrats took control of the House in 2006. The House is the source of budgets. The economy was in a mess when Obama was elected (Sep 2008 is probably WHY he got elected). Looking at the debt figures, notice that the debt was $56.4B (32.5 %GDP) in 2001 and rose to $64.4B (36.5% GDP) in 2006. Those were the Bush years with a Republican Congress. When Obama took office the debt had already risen to $69.4B (40.3% GDP) in 2008 - that's 60% of the Bush increases over six year in just two years. The 2010 figures are $93.2B (62.2% GDP). One cannot blame that on GWB.

4. The job market has certainly stabilized under Obama. It's over 9% and stuck. There were approx. 7.5M unemployed when it began to rise in early 2008. By the election it had crossed 10 million and was roughly 12 million at the inauguration. It is now, 14 million, a level first set in May 2009. So where are these added jobs? The Bureau of Labour statistics reports that the peak unemployment was in October, 2009 with 15,628,000 unemployed and it is 14,087,000 as of last month. So, in twenty-one months since the peak we have added 1,600,000 new jobs. Unfortunately 300,000 people enter the work force each month. Observe that during the Reagan recession (the last one that was the worst since the Great Depression) unemployment from from about 4.7% to 10.8% and back in 24 months. We are at about 40 months so far and the unemployment picture has hardly begun to improve. Whatever Obama is doing it's not working.

As to taxes being lower. They aren't in my house. I'll be happy for you to educate me.

5. I'll have what you're drinking

6. The President does not raise the debt ceiling, the Congress does. I'm not to terribly concerned about how many times the debt ceiling is raised. It's the amount which is of greater interest to me. In 1980, the debt was $33.3B (26.1% GDP) and in 1988 it was $51.9B (41% GDP). An unconscionable increase from a Congress which declared his budgets dead on arrival each year he submitted them. Recall the Republicans got the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994.

7. Agreed. Get rid of the programs and block grant them to more local oversight.

8. We do not benefit so much from government policies and accreted wealth. Have there been benefits from government spending on infrastructure and research? Absolutely! Most people are not complaining about roads and infrastructure. Fire departments have existed privately and do not need to be government run. Research exists privately (Underwriters Lab, e.g.) and basic research in computer science (when I was in school) came from corporations. Whether or not most programs "have had or continue to have government support" is immaterial. Do they need government support. My conclusion is, generally, not.

As to shutting down these departments: Why not? What do they do that we need? What have they done that they promised they would do? Are we energy independent? Are our children educated? Does transportation go one despite the DoT? These are sinecures for the politically connected. Dump 'em.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 1:10PM

8. should have said:

We do not benefit so much from government policies AS accreted wealth.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:39PM

Than you for every comment, John N. Just beautiful.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 6:00PM

Occam's Tool,

Thank you.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 3:48PM

Car780101,

This just in and it applies to your point 4:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/2.....&hpt=hp_t2

It seems the Treasury just announced that the taxpayers are on the hook for $1.3 billion in the most recent Chrysler bailout. At a little more than $40/capita it's small potatoes compared to the great one's other ambitions. And getting 80 percent back is better than nothing.

We'll see if Chrysler or the U.S. Treasury is around in another thirty years for their third bailout.

Skippy| 7.23.11 @ 6:41PM

I read last week that we (US) spent $45 billion to bail out Chrysler, and you can buy the entire company today for $21 billion.
Buy high; sell low.
Obamanomics 101.

Arch| 7.21.11 @ 10:32AM

If Obama really wants a "revenue" component, he should support anything that creates private sector jobs and oppose anything that destroys them. Last week another 418,000 people "unexpectedly" applied for unemployment. Instead of paying income tax, social security and medicare, they are a burden on government.

Taking away the mortgage interest deduction is a good idea, but not when the housing sector is in free fall.

Cutting defense is also okay, but not when we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya (and other places we can't talk about).

Fanning the fires of class warfare may improve the President's popularity with his base, but when he rails at private jet owners, it kills jobs in the aviation industry.

Were we at less than 4% unemployment and debt free, government controlled health care would still be a bad idea. Why should we borrow $1.5 trillion dollars per year to pay for ObamaCare?

The last election was about government spending too much and intruding into our lives. If the democrats and RINOs think raising taxes is the way forward, they should have future employment plans not including elective office.

Car780101| 7.21.11 @ 10:43AM

The Affordable Heath Care Act was paid for and does not increase our debt in fact, it reduces our debt through the years

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:47AM

Do you think for one moment that we are supposed to believe that crap. Congress and the Senate couldn't even run their own dining facilities at a profit and had to turn it over to private enterprise.

MM| 7.21.11 @ 11:16AM

Car, apparently is one of the uneducated 20%. Or perhaps not uneducated, but one of the ignorant 'masses' as they pols like to think.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 10:53AM

and Car 780101 also believes the phrase... "Hi! I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you!"

Arch| 7.21.11 @ 11:10AM

Wrong. It bends the curve up and robs Medicare. The $2.4 trillion includes $1.5 trillion for ObamaCare.

Clinton Lovell| 7.21.11 @ 11:49AM

Sure it does. We are going to add 30 million people to Medicaid and it is going to cost less as a result. When was the last time a liberal was right about anything? Please. We aren't stupid. Move along.

DaveD| 7.21.11 @ 11:49AM

Gee, can I get some of what you are smoking?

megapotamus| 7.21.11 @ 12:45PM

You are about six months out of date and that is according to the OMB. Anyone with three firing neurons knew Commiecare was a disaster from Day One.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:41PM

See Medicare's cost estimates from 1964, Car. As a former NZ NHS Senior Medical Consultant, I've forgotten more about this stuff than you will ever know.

NHS sucks where it does not blow. Google "NZ DHBs" and read.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 3:47PM

OT,

Isn't it amazing how those that have never been in socialized medicine praise it? Spending three years in Italy and taking our guys/gals to the local Italian hospital (not to mention being treated/rehabbed there for dislocated knee) was all I needed to know that we do NOT want to go down that path.

Car780101| 7.21.11 @ 10:42AM

And one other thing. Don't say 'stop blaming GWB', the Republicans have been blaming Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Truman and FDR (some even go back to Woodrow Wilson) for everything that has gone wrong. I wish Republicans would take on some of the responsibility themselves.

Redstateboy| 7.21.11 @ 10:55AM

Hey Car.... perfectly sound arguments can and have been made laying the current fiscal crisis at the feet of FDR, LBJ and the Slave (Democrat) Party

MM| 7.21.11 @ 11:23AM

Whose 'hero' is GWB? He wasn't anybody's idea of a great Republican so don't try to turn the focus to him.

Many presidents have contributed to the problem we see at hand today; but many congresses have contributed more.

The debt ceiling debate is another convenient crisis, self-inflicted by the non-adults in DC -- both parties are guilty. As hell.

Neither are the 'adults in the room' but the adults (voters) will have to clean up the mess just like parents who have to fix the trouble gotten into by their children who tried to hide it from mom and dad.

megapotamus| 7.21.11 @ 12:47PM

This is true. The debt is only half Obama's and half everyone else from George Washington to George Bush so, yes, culpability is somewhat mitigated. But if you agree that the debt is bad, what then? What now? The Democrats ran against Bush's debt but of course they also ran against his respiration and digestion.

Von Mises Jr.| 7.21.11 @ 10:43AM

The one misnomer is that the millionaires and billionaires are paying the bulk of the taxes. Federal and State income taxes confiscate income, not wealth. It is the small business owners that are paying the taxes.
By relative measures, Warren Buffet has admitted this. He pays, like the Kerry/Heinz dynasty, the Kennedy clan, Pelosi's and other billionaires pay very low tax rates. When John, whom served in Viet Nam, ran for POTUS, their effective federal tax rate was less than 1%.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 10:46AM

Oh come on Car780101. How many times have we paid for the Internet, How many times for our roads to be repaired through various taxes only to somehow have those funds directed into the general fund to balance the budget as former Gov. Mike Easley had done along with his cronies in the NC State Democrat controlled legislator?
How many times have we funded, No Child Left Behind. We have spent billions, trillions on infrastructure, education, health care and it is all for naught. Our roads suck, the Atlanta school District is rife with corruption in a cheating scandal. High School Principals are given bonuses on how many graduate, hence the cheating.
Both Republicans and Democrats are just plain corrupt as I have noted in an earlier post. Congressman Rangel cheats on his taxes and the guy gets elected. Obama is in deep with Tony Rezko who was convicted of corruption.
Congressmen Dodd and Frank are up to their necks in corruption with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Dodd and others received sweetheart loans from Country Wide Mortgage.
For years and years we tried the rocket science approach to our government, and what has it got us. Trillions upon trillions in debt. I think it is time more the more simplistic approach to solving and cleaning up the ooze that is dripping out of Washington D.C., because your way sure as hell hasn't worked very well has it?

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 7:14PM

Couldn't agree more!

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 11:02AM

If Mitch McConnell believes his own remark about Obama --that we cannot get a reasonable deal as long as Obama is in office then it certainly means we cannot negotiate with him on fair or honest terms. Since this IS the case then I would say call his bluff give him a short term deal with spending cuts take it or leave it and PS no Grand Bargain.
However Republicans should then go public make their case the we are broke and Obama and the Socialist are hiding the truth ( little nicer way of calling them liars ) and let the mud fly. It will fly anyway not matter what Republicans do so they might as well go for it.

MM| 7.21.11 @ 11:26AM

When voters get the b@lls to draft people in their own communities to run for office and actually vote them in -- and vote *out* the Washington elite in both parties.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 11:36AM

Your point is well taken, but the current problem is that both parties have made it so difficult for a non-insider to even begin to think about running for office.

MM| 7.21.11 @ 11:48AM

We put in a few non insiders in the 2010.

The way to get serious about that is to draft the candidate and help hi/r by volunteering in the campaigns.

The incumbent can outspend on ads - and that is how they are buying that seat back -- but they cannot change minds made up to vote them out.

It will come down to grassroots. And voters getting some nice, brass, voting gonads.

Who would argue that it would be better with more Alan Wests, Marco Rubios, and Rand Pauls?

This is the way to get them, it is hard work, it was hard for them, but it comes down to the voters.

We have opportunity for our own 'closed-door' meetings right now. Who are the new Congressional candidates for 2012? Hear of any?

The time to draft and have them ready to run; have your community closed door meetings to have the electorate pledge to themselves to DO it

IS NOW!

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 11:33AM

George, your articles are getting better and better. This one is PURE GOLD! Please, please send a copy of same to your fellow TAS writer, Quin Hillyer!!!!!!!!

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 11:36AM

The author's argument makes no sense. The definition of compromise is that two sides start with their full wish list and arrive in the middle. So if Democrats will only accept revenue increases, and Republicans will only accept spending cuts, then a compromise would mean there is one dollar of revenue for one dollar of spending cuts. Instead, what we have is a Republican House who is unwilling to give one cent of revenue in exchange for $2 trillion dollars of spending cuts. In fact, they're unwilling to give Democrats anything they want whatsoever. The deals on the table are all heavily skewed towards spending cuts - which is a Republican wish. And they still won't accept the deal. This, despite the fact that Democrats control both the Senate and the White House - which, as our democratic system insists, means the House MUST compromise to pass a deal. I can only assume Republicans are unhappy with the system of Democracy, and would rather instill a totalitarian regime under which it's only what they want that gets passed into law.

This is why Republicans are getting pegged with the intransigence tag. One side is willing to compromise. The other isn't. Not that hard to understand.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 11:49AM

It is only a compromise if both sides put it. The democrats are only putting in promises of spending cuts in the future for tax increases now. That is the J. Wellington Wimpy school of politics. We the people are tired of that as those "promises" never happen. Since way back when Tip O'Neill was in office and didn't fulfill his promises, the way I see it the Democrats owe a lot more than just a dollar of savings for a dollar of tax increases.

workmonkey| 7.21.11 @ 12:55PM

The Gang of Six is proposing 500 billion dollars of IMMEDIATE spending cuts, spelled out in great detail: mandatory spending cuts, discretionary spending caps, repeal of the CLASS act, among others. So you argument of "promises" of spending cuts is incorrect. They are real - Read the document.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 1:59PM

I will gladly read it. Do you have a link? Because to the best of my knowledge nothing but talking points have been released yet. And seeing how most of those come from sources that, let's say are less than conservative, I don't buy into them wholeheartedly. What you have is talking points.

George S| 7.21.11 @ 2:07PM

That still leaves 300 billion to be paid from the stimulus debt. It didn't do anything -- I want my kid's money back. Cut 800 billion first, repeal the 1.5 trillion it would take to get ObamaCare off the ground... and every registered Democrat should cut a check to the Treasury for $5,000. (After all, you complain you could contribute a little more.) Now we'll have a real starting point.

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 3:30PM

workmonkey: You are incorrect, and the complete opposite of what you ficticiously claim is true. The Democrats are intransient because THEY FAIL TO HEAD THE PUBLIC'S DESIRE AS EXPRESSED IN NOVEMBER OF 2010 FOR LESS/REDUCED GOVERNMENT [SPENDING]. These domestic terrorists [who have controlled our federal government for my entire lifetime] simply refuse to give up THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CREIDT CARD PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS IN THEIR DRUNKEN SAILOR FASHION. Everything that comes forth from their mouth concerns their desire to increase governmental spending. And why is that so? Because that's their political agenda, to provide governmental benefits to their indigent constituents in return for their voting for Democrats, that's why!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rick| 7.21.11 @ 11:42AM

Your a rasist!

KennesawJack| 7.21.11 @ 12:16PM

Take some time to learn to spell and form a correct contraction of two words. You must be an Atlanta public school teacher.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 2:19PM

KJ---I think it's a joke, complete with misspellings. He's done it before.

Oldefarte| 7.21.11 @ 3:34PM

OT: Hold on there, I'll have you know that the public schools' deplorable nature is NO JOKE, and that's a FAXXT!!!!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:43PM

Dear Olde: You are correct on that score---my kids are homeschooled by my Genius Alabaman wife.

But Rick's comment, complete with misspellings, appears to be a joke.

Melvin| 7.21.11 @ 11:45AM

This whole debt ceiling mess could have been avoided if the Democrats would have produced a budget during the last 2-1/2 years which is in direct violation of the Constitution.
All this maneuvering and lying could have been completed in the budgetary process as it was designed to be.
Not producing a budget lies directly at the feet of both Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi former Speaker of the House.
They created this log jam as it was designed. They did not pass multiple budgets so that they could be where they are right now trying to make the Republicans look bad. Not that the Republicans need any help in that department anyway. The Republicans do a grand enough job of that on their own.

USSAlabama| 7.21.11 @ 11:54AM

Melvin, this article by Scott Rasmussen addresses well your thoughts above:

http://www.politico.com/news/s​tories/0711/59552.html

George S| 7.21.11 @ 2:09PM

Then the Democrats would have not had an opportunity to lay the mess at Boehnor's feet. They knew exactly what they were doing... it was their version of getting on a bus and hiding in an out of state motel.

Clinton Lovell| 7.21.11 @ 11:49AM

Good article but a bit whiny.

michael| 7.21.11 @ 11:51AM

The Congressmen and Senators of the GOP are every bit as responsible as Democrats for the fiscal crisis. Nixon made the big changes: http://thenixonblog.wordpress......r-seniors/
George Bush expanded Medicare to include drug benefits. The GOP did nothing to control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and deregulated banking so Wall Street could run amok.
Goerge Bush also involved us in two costly wars in the Middle East, ultimately under the guise of "nation-building", when the only nation we should be building is our own. But while our own infrastructure crumbles, and while we argue about depriving "benefits" to people whose working lives were spent "contributing" to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, we continue to blow money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and on foreign aid to people who wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire.

So let's get real and quit beating up on Obama. Yes, he is a doctrinaire liberal, but no more so than LBJ. He is not a bad guy, he is not "un-American", he is not stupid, and he was the overwhelming choice of the electorate in 2008.

A lot of foks say they had no choice because the alternative was to vote for McCain. McCain ended up as the candidate because Republicans rejected all of the other Republican candidates in the primaries. So, Republicans don't have especially clean hands in this matter.

We need to raise taxes; the alternative is more deficit spending and more borrowing at ever-higher rates. We also need to start making some hard choices about where our money goes. This is a choice for the entire electorate to participate in. Demonizing the sitting President is counterproductive, and nothing more than a ploy to obtain electoral advantage. Until the GOP shows itself to be a constructive participant in solving these problems, rather than causing stalemate, the GOP is going to be out in the electoral weeds.

George S| 7.21.11 @ 2:19PM

You find me where Obama has ever said during the campaign that he wanted to spend 800 billion on a Keynesian stimulus. You find me where he said that he wanted a 1.5 trillion mandated insurance health care law. You find me where he said that he wanted a cap and trade bill. You find me where he said that he wanted to sunset the bush tax cuts.

We do not need to raise taxes because it will not be enough to cover the 10 billion dollars a day that Obama is spending. (That is Exxon Mobil's US annual profit -- 11 billion -- is it not?, one day of government spending).

Even if you confiscate every penny of income over 250k, it will only pay for six months of government. But only once. Then what? You have to go lower and lower and lower until everyone is reduced to the salary of a Chinese textile worker.

michael| 7.21.11 @ 11:51AM

The Congressmen and Senators of the GOP are every bit as responsible as Democrats for the fiscal crisis. Nixon made the big changes: http://thenixonblog.wordpress......r-seniors/
George Bush expanded Medicare to include drug benefits. The GOP did nothing to control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and deregulated banking so Wall Street could run amok.
Goerge Bush also involved us in two costly wars in the Middle East, ultimately under the guise of "nation-building", when the only nation we should be building is our own. But while our own infrastructure crumbles, and while we argue about depriving "benefits" to people whose working lives were spent "contributing" to the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, we continue to blow money in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and on foreign aid to people who wouldn't spit on us if we were on fire.

So let's get real and quit beating up on Obama. Yes, he is a doctrinaire liberal, but no more so than LBJ. He is not a bad guy, he is not "un-American", he is not stupid, and he was the overwhelming choice of the electorate in 2008.

A lot of foks say they had no choice because the alternative was to vote for McCain. McCain ended up as the candidate because Republicans rejected all of the other Republican candidates in the primaries. So, Republicans don't have especially clean hands in this matter.

We need to raise taxes; the alternative is more deficit spending and more borrowing at ever-higher rates. We also need to start making some hard choices about where our money goes. This is a choice for the entire electorate to participate in. Demonizing the sitting President is counterproductive, and nothing more than a ploy to obtain electoral advantage. Until the GOP shows itself to be a constructive participant in solving these problems, rather than causing stalemate, the GOP is going to be out in the electoral weeds.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:18PM

As opposed to the Dems showing themselves to be constructive participants?

Nice try.

This line says a mouthful. "So let's get real and quit beating up on Obama. Yes, he is a doctrinaire liberal, but no more so than LBJ. He is not a bad guy, he is not "un-American", he is not stupid, and he was the overwhelming choice of the electorate in 2008."

Like being like LBJ is a good thing? Not un-american? Hard to prove. Not stupid? Thanks to him hiding his records, again hard to prove. Overwhelming choice? Overwhelming is a tad exaggerated, he won the majority and not by overwhelming numbers. If he is your guy, fine, your entitled to your own opinions but your not entiled to your own reality as the rest of us have to suffer for it.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 12:23PM

And apparently I am not alone in believing this. even a Democratic poll says he is in trouble.

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....ote-today/

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 2:17PM

The beatdown of Obama's logic and record have scarcely begun, Michael.

The Worst Presidents of the USA: 1) James Buchanan. "Après moi, le déluge"---Civil War due to lack of spine. Worst US Military policy of all time. Never married, fortunately for women.

2)Herbert Hoover: Raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn resulted in the Great Depression.

3) James Earl Carter---Misery index still higher than Obama. Also had multiple foreign policy screw ups, and excessive wimpiness. Our first treasonous ex-President. A combination of Hoover on economy and Buchanan on matters military, although not as bad as either one on their areas of extreme suckitude.
4) Barack Obama---horribly bad domestic policy coupled with calamitous foreign policy. If elected out in 2012, it is possible both explosions will come on someone else's watch. The First President to start his political career in a known treasonous terrorist's home.

He ranks 4 NOW. He is a comer, though, and could easily propel himself into the top 2.

Note than neither Harding nor Grant make my list. Personally, they may have been schmucks, but neither did the country permanent harm.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 2:33PM

Would the fact that we, the taxpayer took it in the shorts for 1.3 billion for bailing out a auto manufacturer, then they turned around and sold the goverments remaining shares at a loss (that $1.3 Billion) and the Treasury calls it a major accomplishment?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/2.....&hpt=hp_t2

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 2:34PM

Guess I should finish the question. Does the above link help move him up the list any?

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:50PM

Not yet, DS. Maybe above Carter, but those years really sucked and Carter is a definite scumbag. The other two: The Great Depression was worse than what we have, and Hoover's foreign policy accomplishments set us up for being underarmed for the start of WWII (FDR helped).

As for Buchanan: it would take a WMD exploding on US soil to be worse than James.

Mind you, to be as crappy as Obama is impressive. Stuart, back me up on what I'm about to say---the percentage of impressive US Presidents may be less proportionally than the percentage of impressive Byzantine or Roman emperors. We've had 43 Presidents (Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms). The number of greats/near greats is as follows: Washington, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, TR (1st term),FDR, Truman, Reagan. (Maybe Ike---he's underrated). 7 or 8. Under 20%.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 3:50PM

Not yet, DS. Maybe above Carter, but those years really sucked and Carter is a definite scumbag. The other two: The Great Depression was worse than what we have, and Hoover's foreign policy accomplishments set us up for being underarmed for the start of WWII (FDR helped).

As for Buchanan: it would take a WMD exploding on US soil to be worse than James.

Mind you, to be as crappy as Obama is impressive. Stuart, back me up on what I'm about to say---the percentage of impressive US Presidents may be less proportionally than the percentage of impressive Byzantine or Roman emperors. We've had 43 Presidents (Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms). The number of greats/near greats is as follows: Washington, Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, TR (1st term),FDR, Truman, Reagan. (Maybe Ike---he's underrated). 7 or 8. Under 20%.

RCV| 7.21.11 @ 5:00PM

Ocaam - You may be pleased and not surprised to know that your list of the greats/near greats is exactly the same as mine, except that I would add Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase, muscular foreign policy, firm opposition to and repeal of the Alien & Sedition Acts).

Retardo Confession of the Vile| 7.22.11 @ 10:44AM

Session 666 (continued):

Ocaam: Respond with the first thing that pops into your head. 53 million abortions.

Retardo: Real Christian Love. And Compassion.

Ocamc: That's two things.

Occma: Barack Hussein Obama.

Retardo: Sixty four times smarter than me. Plus he's honest.

Ocacm: That's two things.

Omcca: Osama Bin Laden.

Retardo: Strangled personally by Obama. With his bare hands. Hand, really. The other one simultaneously wiped out both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Osama's mistake was shooting two uzis at him as he was rushed. Fatal mistake. Just made Obama mad. Plus, he eats his peas. Same effect as spinach. If you know what I mean. He was using both feets at the time to establish World Peas. Peace! I mean World Peace. That took both foots. That reminds me of the time Obama won the Nobel Peas Prize. Peace! Nobel Peace Prize. It was long overdue, really. Why, I-

Omacc: ...Let's just continue.

Ocacm: Redistribution of wealth.

Retardo: Not allowing the half of people who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren't paying their fair share. And equality under the law.

Ocmac: That's two things.

Oaccm: The Constitition.

Retardo: Democracy. Strategy skills. Foresight. Don't forget Justice.

Omcac: That's four things.

Ocmac: Thomas Jefferson.

Retardo: My life's passion. To study his words. For sixty four and three quarter years. I started in my mother's womb. That counts.

Oaccm: Please keep it to the first two things that pop in your mind.

Retardo: Mind?

Ocmca: ...Let's just continue.

Retardo: Okie Dokie. Wait, is that more than two things?

Omcac: ...The Tree Of Liberty.

Retardo: That's just dumb.

Retardo: Camoc?

Retardo: Comac?

O

RCV| 7.22.11 @ 11:45PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

KennesawJack| 7.21.11 @ 8:23PM

As a native Pennsylvanian, home state to James Buchanan (the only President from PA), I am deeply indebted to "The One". After 150 years the mantle of Worst President Ever has finally been lifted from Mr. Buchanan!

George True| 7.21.11 @ 8:04PM

Michael: Welcome, leftist troll! You must be new here at TAS. As such, you may not be aware of our standing policy that we don't try to fix stupid here.

Nothing in your litany of boilerplate leftist talking points is actually true. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the known facts would know this. F-A-C-T-S. You know, things that are actually, empirically true. You wouldn't know one if it hit you in the face. You are just phoning it in. So lame. Go back to Kos or PuffHo.

Carner York| 7.21.11 @ 11:51AM

I will venture a guess and say that maybe 10% of the electorate understands and follows the debt ceiling debate. That makes the MSM incredibly powerful in their ability to influence the views of the electorate and I hold them in contempt for their blatant partisanship. My Mother-in-law is my barometer. She's a reasonable woman who isn't particularly interested in politics but she's also a regular ABC News viewer. They had her convinced that Obama is the only adult in the debate until I proved otherwise. One person at a time is the best we conservatives can do I suppose.

crookedwren| 7.21.11 @ 11:53AM

Obama wants to raise taxes. They firmly believe in never letting a crisis go to waste (Rahm's Razor). So. Debt Ceiling Crisis is created. Obama sits tight, spouting how the Republicans hate Grandma (while overtly threatening to withhold Grandma's SocSec check -- and how is THAT the Repubs. fault? Doesn't make sense, but then our children have been tragically undereducated and underserved by our public school system -- so logic doesn't matter much).

All he has to do is sit tight. The media and academia will do the work for him, spinning the spin that too many Americans, especially our youth, will parrot -- when they take a break from streaming a movie from NetFlix.

All he has to do is sit tight. Anything and everything the Republicans do that does not fit in with the Soros-mandates that furthers Agenda 21 and Communist/Statist objectives will be demonized, ridiculed, punished, etc.

All he has to do is sit tight.

Taxes will be raised. And the Republicans will do it -- or participate in it -- for which they will be vilified, ridiculed, demonized, what-you-will.

Alinsky tactics taken from his heroes: Lucifer and Stalin.

Chrisiv| 7.21.11 @ 12:02PM

"Obama engages in juvenile and idle class warfare but does not acknowledge his own complicity in the debt crisis. He had two and a half years to fix the problem and he made it worse."
The above slightly edited quote says it all.
Obama has no experience, no accomplishments, no originality or creativity, no sense of urgency, responsibility. All he has is stupid, cheap psychology and illogic statements that the MSM use to prop this fool up. It's the Mob-mentality that Ann Coulter talks about in Demonic. What's more is that the MSM think that they are as clever with the obama prop-up as he is with his irresponsibility. Normal Americans see the idiocy. No wonder only a few idiots watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and CNN. and the MSM believe they are sophisticated.

KennesawJack| 7.21.11 @ 12:03PM

How to eliminate the debt (or at least put a huge dent in it, in one fell swoop) while flushing out the leftist elites and exposing them for what they are. As a one time tax, sieze all assets over $50 million from every individual,trust, foundation, privately held corporation and endowment. You just know Hollywood will love that.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 12:09PM

Captain Smith on the bridge of Titanic had the ice warning messages in his hand. He continued his course and speed. We know the result.

Our Captain has seen the results of his policies and still pursues them with a vengence. Either he is intentionally seeking the iceberg or his hubris has reached a stage to call into question his mental stability.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 12:25PM

You know the idea of a compromise is very interesting. But here is the problem as I see it. We have two parties I will call A and B out of lazyness.
Party A seems to want to push our economy over the cliff thru excessive spending. Party B wants to prevent that--and in fact wants our economy to expand and grow. Lets see how do you "compromise" ? OK brilliant idea we form a "gang" and agree that we will promise to cut-not
x amount of money while promise to tax-not y amount of money the net result zero change. and raise the Debt ceiling just enough for a one year period. Problem, our credit rating will go down because we have not cut spending enough and we are skrewed a net win for Party A.

John II| 7.21.11 @ 12:30PM

It is perfectly clear that this website is biased against the greatest president America has ever had, but I was shocked, SHOCKED when the New York Times, which ordinarily has no bias whatever, recently acknowledged that, in the course of politicking for enlightened socialized medicine, our Leader told a big fib about his mother's mistreatment by the evil insurance companies when she was dying of cancer.

Shame on the New York Times. Our Leader loves us, and always tells stories that are in our best interest, the most recent being his story of the intransigence of certain (but not all, let it be said) Republicans, which is there for all to see.

As Purp has generously reminded us, time and again, the Professor has saved us from Osama bin Laden as well as the gun lobby and dangerous right-wing notions about the Constitution and morals and personal responsibility. Indeed, still moved by the recollection of his heroic exploits in his lengthy military service to his country, the Professor had to be physically restrained from personally leading the Navy Seals in their assault on Emeritus Professor Bin Laden's vacation compound.

Yea, Professor Obama's exploits are legendary, his knowledge vast, his devotion to his subjects unparalleled in the history not just of the American presidency but in the long history of the world's greatest leaders.

He draws us all into the embrace of his tender and loving bosom.

And now back to the bosom--er, I mean the heart of the enlightened lefty worldview as articulated so long ago in the great wartime Warner production of "Mission to Moscow" (1943), which the contemporary film critic James Agee called "a mishmash of Stalinism with New Dealism with Hollywoodism with opportunism with shaky experimentalism with mesmerism with onanism"--thus anticipating the bold and progressive character of the Obamanation.

Pecos Pete| 7.21.11 @ 1:56PM

John II: Thanks for the humor, black humor that is. OOPs, was that a racist comment? Oh well, thanks for the chuckle.

KennesawJack| 7.21.11 @ 2:07PM

I bow humbly before your superior satirical wit. Not as humbly (nor as deeply ) as the Great One before a Saudi king but, humbly nonetheless. Brilliant post!

Bill S| 7.21.11 @ 12:35PM

Who says Obama wants to avoid default? It wouldn't surprise me if that's his goal. He's against any spending cuts necessary to get spending out of control. He certainly seems determined to destroy the economy. Most likely as a way to bring America into a one-world government.

martin j smith| 7.21.11 @ 12:41PM

BILL you betchya --I can argue as I have said above their goal is to push us over the cliff and that is why a "compromise " is not possible. It is also the reason why the MSM push the idea of have a "fair and balanced" approach as Obama has said. Problem is he is neither fair nor balanced and I will re-iterate FOX NEWS HAS PUSHED THIS LINE AS WELL WITH MANY OF ITS NEWS PEOPLE. The truth is --we have diametrically opposed goals and a compromise is not possible. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry| 7.21.11 @ 12:43PM

Outstanding summary. Effectively explains what every conservative knows but can't quite put into words. My thanks for the ammunition needed to battle my progressive friends.

GT| 7.21.11 @ 1:08PM

Canada in the early 90s had the second-highest debt in the G7.
How we solved it: we slashed government spending AND ramped up taxes. Shortly after that, we were running surpluses, and now have one of the lowest debt ratios in the developed world.
Just wondering why you ideological knuckle-draggers can't set your petty arguments aside, and put your backs into it - for the sake of YOUR country! Stop whining - it's time to pay the piper!

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 1:15PM

GT,

Have you looked at "Eat the Rich"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

When spending has jumped from its historical 18% GDP to 26%, it's not taxes which are the problem. No one is suggesting eliminating taxes, or even reducing them in aggregate. At the moment, the argument is to raise taxes to validate unconscionable levels of spending.

The piper will be paid. We just can't get the piper to quit piping.

Delores Smith| 7.21.11 @ 1:22PM

GEORGE NEUMAYR - Excellent Article - Thanks-
This is what I would do concerning the request for an increase in the debt ceiling. (1) Obama and Geithner must provide a list of those debts, dates
due and SUPPORTING DATA that would bring us into default by August 2nd. This is not the Honor System. Obama has already proved that he is not honorable in that he has sidestepped Congress by inviting Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech, and they attended. It is MB with the support of Obama that are overthowing leaders of sovereign nations. Obama needs to be reminded that the U.S . is a Republic, not a Dictatorship. (2) I would audit the Treasury, particularly the Retiree Trust Funds to determine if acts of treason have been committed by Geithner, Obama and George Soros. Geithner is the Managing Trustee of the Funds, and his reports have indicated that the Trust Accounts are solvent. Trustees cannot tamper with Trust Accounts. They are for the benefit of the beneficiaries only. (3) Obama has been deliberately collapsng our economy. His eagerness for a debt ceiling increase is to have funds to collapse the economy before the election. Obama once said that he may need only one term.
He and Soros are speeding up their agenda to destroy our nation. (4) Obama should not get one dime more than what is necessary to prevent credible and justified default until one week after the election. Congress should set up a Default Fund to control the expenditures by Obama and Geithner. Any increase in the debt ceiling should be balanced by the same amount of spending cuts.
Therefore, the debt ceiling will not reflect an increase.
Delores Smith
Delores109@cox.net

1ConservativeUSA| 7.21.11 @ 1:30PM

Absolutely correct.

I no longer recognize this country when compared to our founding principles. Therefore, I am willing to allow it to default. I will not enable a profligate spending and freedom stealing government.

Then, perhaps even freedom challenged liberals will understand the pure beauty of limited government, private property rights and self-reliance.

Far too many people have fought and died for this nation, to allow a Marxist to become president and for him to impose tyranny in the short span of two and a half years.

Boomerbabe| 7.21.11 @ 7:18PM

And for Mitch McConnell to even think, much less actually propose, allowing Obama "temporary" power to raise the debt ceiling himself -- McConnell should be frog-marched right out of the Senate Minority Leader's office and Kentucky should recall him. Does he not grasp the evil intent of this man and his minions?

Erin| 7.21.11 @ 1:53PM

Well said!!!

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 2:06PM

When POTUS was a candidate, he said he would raise taxes even if it hurt the economy. I heard him, and so did millions of Americans. It's kind of fun to consider how badly his policies have hurt his constituencies.

George True| 7.21.11 @ 8:26PM

I remember that interview. (Was it Matt Lauer?) Obama said he wanted to raise capital gains tax from 15% to 28%, because there were 50 hedge fund managers who did not pay their "fair share". Lauer pointed out that such a tax increase would harm over 100 million Americans, and would also cause a net DECREASE in revenue, not an increase. Candidate Obama replied, in so many words, that those things did not matter because it was a question of "fairness".

It sent a shiver down my spine when I heard this. If the Republicans had any brains at all, they would play this clip non-stop from now till November 2012. The tag line just writes itself: "Obama thinks it is just fine to double taxes on every American who saves or invests, as long as it also punishes the rich".

Since the GOP is also the Stupid Party, they will not do it. What a pity.

Leslie Schwartz| 7.21.11 @ 2:34PM

First of all, the GOP created this financial disaster by conducting two unpaid for wars, creating an unfunded Medicare drug benefit and for lowering taxes on the ultra wealthy which has produced ZERO American jobs, but has added 30% of the federal budget deficit ongoing.

Obama did not create this economic disaster, but he had to spend to respond to it or the problem would be worse than it is today.

Next, Obama has been willing to compromise to reach a deal on the deficit extension, the GOP have not.

Taxes on the ultra wealthy, on Hedge Fund Managers, on oil companies should be raised, and there is nothing but the genuine intransigence of the "Tea Party" and the Republicans prevents it.

If there is a default, then effectively "taxes" or costs will be forced on everyone, far greater than the revenues being sought by Obama to reach a deficit extension agreement.

And it will be clear to everyone, it is the intransigence of the GOP who made that bad outcome a reality.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 2:42PM

Ah yes, you are correct republicans often disappoint Conservatives and let our nation down. The Left has done so much better perhaps?

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 3:16PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (Wipes eyes), thanks for the laugh. Those evil Republicans that only control half of one third of the goverment sure must be smart to stop the other 2/3rds from driving off that cliff. Wait until Nov 12 when we take back another 1/3 - 2/3rds of the goverement and we might even get back on the road.

Butch| 7.21.11 @ 3:30PM

Congratulations, Leslie. You just broke the record here for gratuitous assertions. (Look the term up; I'm sure your math-dodging "education" did not examine it, because you obviously have been instructed by nothing else.)

tsd| 7.21.11 @ 5:20PM

Leslie, your spin of the facts makes for wonderful humor, thanks for the laughs as you are so wrong it is hilarious. To live in the land of make-pretend must be a pure joy.

Nick | 7.21.11 @ 6:07PM

There's no use, they're going to "argue" with you no matter how much of the truth you reveal. the conservative propaganda has them by the throats, and they don't even know it. John Stuart Mills nailed it when he was quoted saying: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative."

Kerry| 7.21.11 @ 8:33PM

Nick

U mad, Bro?

George True| 7.21.11 @ 8:44PM

Nick: Conservative propaganda? Get real. How about leftist boilerplate talking points. There is not a shred of actual truth in anything Leslie said, on in anything you just said. COnservatives live in the real world, not the Bizarro World that liberals inhabit.

Ronald Reagan said, "It isn't that our liberal friends are uninformed. It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

George True| 7.21.11 @ 8:39PM

Welcome, leftist troll! Since you are new here, you were no doubt not aware of our policy that we do not fix stupid here.

Everything you said is complete BS. Anybody who has ever spent ten seconds looking at a graph of Iraq/Afghanistan war expenditures from 2003 to present compared to overall government spending would immediately see that it was a very minor part of the overall spending. What got into this pickle is the three back-to-back ONE AND A HALF TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The idea that the Bush tax cuts were a "tax break for the rich" was always an outrageous lie. Also, Leslie dear, 85% of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class. And these same tax cuts produced a NET INCREASE in revenue. Also, the top 5% of income earners currently pay 95% of all taxes. The bottom 50% pay NOTHING. These are the IRS's own figures. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Again, we can't fix stupid here. Go away, dear.

Strudwick Wickerwire| 7.21.11 @ 2:51PM

None of the issues presently front and center would be happening, if not for the MSM!!!* Without a complicit, sycophantic media, one that should be as enthusiastic for the nation, as it is for that social experiment, now residing in the WH, there might be some real social justice (enhanced opportunity)!!!

If Obonehead is allowed to succeed, America is finished!!! Just what does the MSM hope to achieve by greasing the skids for Obuckethead??? Will their blind support ensure a prosperous, vibrant media, albeit one that would have to thrive in a socialist system??? Would a socialist system provide an economy that would create full employment in a journalist's career, as opposed to capitalism -- really???

*Omugabe wasn't vetted!!!

Wayne | 7.21.11 @ 2:59PM

Tea Party candidates were elected to do just as they are doing, yet O'Reilly and Hume a ranting against them for not "negotiating". They are showing their own true colors as part of the MSM.

George True| 7.21.11 @ 8:48PM

Agreed. When one party is trying to steer us over the cliff, how do you "compromise" with that? We either go over the cliff or we don't. Just letting up on the accelerator a bit while still headed in that direction is still going to take us over the cliff.

Pat| 7.21.11 @ 3:01PM

If People magazine reported on American politics, the feature stories would highlight love affairs, pregnancies, strapless dresses worn at state functions and what former politicians are currently doing to remain in the public eye. And the funny thing is People magazine, US magazine and the check-out stand tabloid approach is exactly how Americans conceptualize politics. Take impeachment for example – a stained blue dress and secret tapes of the Watergate era once aroused citizens to a fighting frenzy while today’s record high unemployment, massive interest payments on debt, disguised taxpayer transfers to the UAW and incredibly expensive "stimulus" scams has America’s voters merely yawning with polite interest.

A White House intern flipping up her skirt to display her new thong or a pair of incompetent burglars will drive voters to demand punishment. A debt load of unimaginable proportions hanging over our heads warrants only endless bickering and discussion of Obama’s chances for re-election. We’re content to patiently wait until after the next election because then we will put things right - maybe. Why wait? Millions of Americans are affected daily by an incompetent chief executive who remains a community organizer at heart with the simplistic goals of financially rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies. Joe Mainstreet wasn’t injured by what Monica did with Bill, Bob the Plumber’s life was completely untouched by whether Nixon kept an enemy’s list.

Obama is politically savvy, he lives his private life with sobriety and the fierce rectitude of a small town Baptist minister and he carefully avoids “dirty tricks” during daily battles with the Republicans. He is unimpeachable for those reasons. But he should be impeachable for everything else. If People magazine featured what thousands of fashionably dressed job seekers wear while standing in long lines at the unemployment office, we might witness a groundswell of voter anger leading to impeachment – and then again maybe not.

rpm| 7.21.11 @ 3:04PM

There are 435 House members; 100 Senators, 9 Supremes and the POTUS. I will throw in the VP, since he has a tie breaking vote in the Senate. total of 546 people. These people make, enforce or interpret every law in the US. All treaties.

If we are at war, it is because they want us to be at war. If we are at peace, it is because they wanted it so. If we are in debt, they wanted it that way. If we are overrun by illegals, they wanted it that way.

The GOP/Democrat, Black/White, Conservative/Liberal divides are all side shows to divert us from the group that is truly responsible.

There are something over 300M of us--maybe 330M. You can put 546 people in a good sized movie theater.

think about it.

Bill Barnes| 7.21.11 @ 3:38PM

I guess I fail to understand why the Republicans don't agree that there needs to be a revenue enhancing component and that by an increase in business activity, employment will go up thereby increasing revenue. Regan did it that way, why can't the current collection of Republican lawmakers gravitate to that concept?

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 4:04PM

Bill Barnes,

Because spending has never been at such high levels both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP. Tax rates are not the problem. Short term deficits while problematic and not the problem. Spending at 26% of GDP is the problem. Raising taxes to permit continued spending at this level is the problem.

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 4:20PM

Home Run! We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. They answer is not tax people more but tax more people through more jobs. More jobs=more taxpayers, lower unemployemt cost, lower food stamp cost, lower welfare= Thriving economy. I simplified it for our liberal trolls reading enjoyment.

George True| 7.21.11 @ 9:00PM

"...and that by an increase in business activity, employment will go up thereby increasing revenue."

Exactly. So why has Obama/Pelosi/Reid done the exact opposite of what would increase business activity? They have enacted job-killing and business activity-killing regulations, Obamacare, Cap and Trade (by executive fiat through the EPA), union card check (by executive fiat through the NRLB). and the business stifling new financial regulation bill.

At the same time, they have refused to lower corporate tax rates (currently the highest in the world), they have made it difficult and in some cases impossible for the energy industries to operate, they have sucked trillions of dollars out of the private sector, and used the (non) stimulus to enrich unions and the rest of their political supporters. They also use the (in)justice department and other government agencies to punish any business entities that disagree with them.

Why, indeed. Your question answers itself.

Dominic| 7.21.11 @ 3:41PM

How many so-called conservatives are going to sit-out the election this time huh?

They are just as much at fault for this mess as Obama and his voters.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 4:14PM

Dominic,

Do you mean those conservative who have opposed the debt for thirty years when it was dismissed as a debt we owe ourselves? Those guys who screamed about Bush's spending and that he never vetoed a thing in his first term? The ones who railed against steel tariffs, expansion of the drug benefit, No Child Left Behind? The one's who criticized the Republicans for supporting Spector over Toomey for craven political reaons? The one's who argued that an orderly bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler would yield greater returns to the secured creditors? Those conservatives who argued that giving Hank Paulson a blank check for a made-up number was a recipe for great mischief?

Are those the guys you refer to?

Drunken Sailor| 7.21.11 @ 4:22PM

If not them at least the ones that rather than hold their nose and vote for McCain and a slower death march, preferred to sit at home and watch our country sprint to the gallows.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 4:49PM

Drunken Sailor,

I confess to wearing a binder clip on my nose (the clothes pin wasn't strong enough) and voting for McCain. I fault no man who chose not to.

My wife said, at the time, that Obama would be the best thing for conservatives and that part of her wanted him to win. Our marriage survives because I could see the spark of truth and glimmer of hope in her observation. I sure hope she turns out to have been right.

Brian| 7.21.11 @ 4:15PM

Corporations and Government Unions get $4 Trillion in tax breaks a year courtesy of the GOP, but not all corporations, just their friends. Try competing against a corporation like GE that gets billions of dollars from the Government.

mgk| 7.21.11 @ 4:33PM

Riiiiiiight!
The man is signalling $3 of cuts for every $1 of revenue...intransigent? Really? As in business and in government compromise is part of getting things done...Khrushev tried this tact years ago with Kennedy....the Soviet does not exist anymore because it was so top-down..no commitment...therefore no success...also, although the right points to the left's treatment of Bush---the viciousness and the virulence of the attacks on Obama are race related---they have been since he took office and I expect it to be the same until the end of his presidency...this is not just about the deficit...if it was we would not be where we are right now. Example: see Buck Ofama--the hate is obvious....

Buck Ofama| 7.21.11 @ 5:27PM

I made no reference to O'Icarus' race. The fool is an icompetent, bumbling, lying snakeoil salesman, and fools like you swallowed his pride, LOL.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 5:33PM

mgk,

Riiiiiiight!

First off, what cuts? I've heard of none? Vague suggestions of cuts.. 6 trillion.. no 4.. no 1.4.. no 136 billion in increases. What is it? Where is the commitment? Any room for skepticism here?

Obama is despicable to me for what he is doing to our country. Sheila Jackson-Lee is a buffoon. Maxine Waters is odious and Charlie Rangel should have been impeached. Why do I feel this way?

I respect Ward Connerly for his efforts to be color-blind. My respect for Thomas Sowell and Walter William borders on adulation.

What could be the difference?

Your playing the race card puts you right there with Sheila Jackson-Lee in my book. I don't expect you care much what I think.

By the way, I no longer see the Buck Ofama post. Perhaps there are others who found it offensive.

John Navratil| 7.21.11 @ 5:35PM

mgk,

Oh, there is 'Buck Ofama' again at 5:28. We'll see if it stays.

Buck Ofama| 7.21.11 @ 5:43PM

Agree: "My respect for Thomas Sowell and Walter William borders on adulation."

Now let someone call that racist, too, LOL.

George True| 7.21.11 @ 9:11PM

MGK: Most self-identified conservatives would vote enthusiastically for Allen West, who is all black, not half-black like Obama. We would not just vote for him, we would follow him into the gates of Hell itself if he asked us to. So where's the racism, MGK, Huh?!?! WHERE'S THE RACISM???

There is none on this side of the divide. But I will tell you where racism is alive and well, and that is in your own heart. You hear me? YOU are the racist, and everyone like you. You who pull the race card ARE the racists. All you see is race.

We don't even think about it. We see only what is in someone's heart, and the content of their character. It is YOU GUYS who always make it a race thing. YOU ARE THE RACISTS. In every case, without exception, he who pulls the race card IS the racist.

Brian| 7.21.11 @ 4:42PM

ABC/NBC/CBS are the spokesmen not for the left but for establishment republicans. Follow the money! Or maybe you think Repubs give them Billions in tax breaks because the American ppl are begging for yet another gay themed sit com?

George True| 7.21.11 @ 9:17PM

You are delusional. The alphabet media are propaganda mouthpieces for the left in general and for Obama in particular. Anybody who is rational and informed can see that quite plainly.

Sorry, we can't fix stupid here.

Brian| 7.21.11 @ 10:17PM

And that explains why Repubs fight for tax breaks for these vile leftist media giants? Tax breaks that stifle any competition against them?

George True| 7.21.11 @ 10:56PM

Brian, you don't have a clue. The top 5% of taxpayers already pay 95%of all taxes. These figures come straight from www.irs.gov. Ninety-five percent, Brian. How much of the tax burden should "the rich" pay? Ninety eight [percent? Ninety nine? One hundred? Theft is theft, no matter who is being stolen from.

I don;t recall ANY Republican campaigning on tax breaks for media companies. They have the same playing field as companies in any other industry.

Brian| 7.22.11 @ 9:35AM

I say cut taxes to all, including the rich! What I oppose is special tax breaks for friends of politicians. Try competing against a corporation that gets a billions dollars from the Gov.

Buck Ofama| 7.21.11 @ 5:28PM

Time to kick this lying stinking pile of failure, Ovomit, out of the white house.

Buck Ofama| 7.21.11 @ 5:45PM

"I like great beeg men like you, 'cuz when they fall, they make a BEEG noise!" - Tuco, "Good, Bad & Ugly)

What's that plummeting toward a well-deserved crash landing against Earth's soily crust? Why, look! It's the man-god, O'Icarus!

Gene| 7.21.11 @ 6:23PM

This is incisive, accurate, immensely strong, and gives even more light on the real duplicity of the left wing media, who are also culpable by way of diverting public attention away from the truth. This president is guilty of multiple breaches of his constitutional authority, even to a level worthy of impeachment.

Mike| 7.21.11 @ 7:43PM

The president is intransigent? Neumayr, you clown, Google Cantor if you want to see intransigent. As for leadership, Boehner could lead Cantor and the TEA Party idiots in the house out the front door during a fire drill. I notice there are still several batshit crazy people who think Obama is a Muslim. Still no sanity at this site

George True| 7.21.11 @ 9:14PM

You have come to the wrong shop for your cure. We can't fix stupid here. Sorry.

carnot| 7.21.11 @ 10:42PM

since Obama has dissembled so much...how would you know?

Carl| 7.21.11 @ 9:50PM

I apologize that I haven't been following this as closely as I probably should have, but I was hoping someone on here could help me understand all of this. This article really helped and I think I get most of it, there's just one thing that's bothering me. My understanding (although I might be completely wrong here, correct me if I am) was that Obama and the Democrats wanted to raise the debt ceiling unconditionally, while the Republicans were only going to conditionally raise it. At the time I thought this was great, but now I guess it sounds like not raising the ceiling will be bad. What I don't get then is where the line "Obama's willingness to risk default" comes from if he wants to unconditionally raise it. By the way, I have no clue where I got that previous information from, so it might be some gross exaggeration of the real situation, it sounds like the mainstream media's doing their typical spin job on this one too. Thanks in advance for the help!

carnot| 7.21.11 @ 10:45PM

Obama essentially wants to continue spending....he has never submitted any budget that entails any budget cuts. the trajectory is unsustainable....whether the immediate deficit impasse is settled or not is irrelevant...the long-term problem isn't being responsibly addressed by Obama.

Tony| 7.21.11 @ 11:40PM

Actually, it looks like he proposed a plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion, 3/4 of which is from budget reductions: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blo.....8-665.html

skip| 7.25.11 @ 3:37PM

Actually, Tony, that proposed plan you cited was Obama's April budget proposal, voted down in Reid's democrat controlled senate 0 - 97 , which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated could not be scored, as there were no details other than that the proposed budget contained a $1.645 trillion dollar deficit, for the one year deficit. The head of the CBO actually said they can't score a speech. Nevermind no democrat senators voted for it.

Thanks for showing Carl what happens when democrats run the show. And that liberals are liars. But that's a tautology. And redundant. But I repeat myself.

Neil F. Dignon, Esquire| 7.21.11 @ 11:07PM

My first reaction to the central points of this comment, all be they salient, is "so what else is new?" However, there is one point regarding raising taxes on corporate profits that conservative commentators consistently seem to overlook. That is, who ultimately foots the bill for corporate tax hikes? We do, the consumers. Using Exxon-Mobile as a for instance, despite its large reported profits (which curiously always seem to be reported only as a dollar figure, never as a percentage over costs), if the federal government decides to force the company to "do a little more" by paying higher corporate taxes, the corporation simply passes the cost of those higher taxes on to us, the consumers, in the form of higher prices. What is particularly galling about this is that it we consumers are ultimately being played against ourselves. Since higher corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers, we are being taxed twice on the same income. Specifically, our income is taxed directly when we earn it in the form of income tax. Then the income we were allowed to keep is taxed again when we pay the corporate taxes in the form of higher prices. All the while we are played for fools by our representatives who market this sham to us as a means of reducing our personal tax obligations by comandeering "obscene corporate profits." When will a conservative representative or journalist challenge the left on this point with the simple question "who ultimately foots the bill for higher corporate taxes?" As an aside, I have to wonder out loud what the founders would think of high ranking officials of the national governement characterizing profit, the fruit of enterprise, as "obscene."

POST American| 7.21.11 @ 11:39PM

--ABOUT half of these posts are looking
computer generated.

Sad if true. Sadder still if it isn't.

AGAIN

---the Bush Sr, Clinton-Rockefeller front.
Bush Jr, and now Rockefeller-Kissinger former aide Obama
maintain absolute 'continuity of sellout' agenda.

AND STILL in this 'conservative' journal no mention of the
Torah and scripture abomination of USURY, just as there's
NO mention of the US taxpayer created RED
Chinese 'miracle' that we're MASSIVELY
indebted to
---OR the 1.5 quadrilion in their FAKE derivatives
debt ---OR the culture, economy
and nation destroying character of the
ultra-rich, TAX FREE
'benny violent' Freemasonic foundations which
exercise an absolute stranglehold in this land
and across the world.

Everything you're writing about is chicken
feed, not even side issues, to the psychopathic
human phenomenon that is fractional reserve,
intergenerational monopoly control and debt serfdom.

Toss in their core agenda, EUGENICS
(ie population control and extermination)
---and you are, in fact, beholding the mystical
body of AntiChrist himself.

Think we're exaggerating?

Well, just keep a goin' and SEE for yourselves
what's in store---------------------------------------

That's right, just keep a goin'

spoofproof| 7.22.11 @ 10:14AM

You cain't spend what you ain't got. Since the end of WW2 the two political parties have FAILED to manage the budget and the personnel of Our government. No matter which party is in power, the budget and the bureaucracy have always grown. The bureaucracy (city, county, state, federal) has never been downsized. The budget to pay for the ever-increasing number of bureaucrats is now out of control.

A precious few elected representatives are beginning to get a clue but I have not yet heard any talk about laying off a few million bureaucrats. Unless and until elected politicians across the U.S.A. start talking loud, hard, and straight about firing a few million bureaucrats, all jive-ass budget talk is useless. The bureaucrats are sucking us dry.

The Bureaucratic System is in debt is because We The People are paying too many people to do things for us that We could be and should be doing for ourselves.

80% of Civil Service work today is "make work" that hinders We The People with too many rules and too much regulation. Enforcing rules & regulations is how bureaucrats justify their existence. We don't need to keep paying for it. We need to get rid of it. Politicians should be seriously talking about laying off bureaucrats and selling a lot of government real estate back into the private sector.

Things will change fast when the Elected Leaders do what they are elected to do: manage the personnel and the budget of Our government.

Jim from Virginia| 7.22.11 @ 2:15PM

By definition, intransigent indicates a countervailing force. And if Obama is considered intransigent, what does one call Rep. Cantor and his lemming followers? Please recall that democracy is not perfect; some strange fellows get elected: Hitler did well in an election. Just because a majority of the people on one occasion vote for someone or for an ideology does not mean that the elected or his/her ideology is correct. Step back, reflect, study our history (e.g., Reagan raised taxes when it was best for our country), put the country first, and not individual interests.

Richard Baker| 7.22.11 @ 9:24PM

He's a Communist, what do you expect? I was taught that you are known by the company you keep. Let's see, Ayers, Marxist professors, and Marxist student groups. We're suprised that he advocates the policies of Marx and Engels? He doesn't seem to understand the Constitution but I'll be bet understands Das Kapital.

Richard Baker| 7.22.11 @ 9:26PM

error:
I'll bet he understands Das Kapital.

Nice| 7.22.11 @ 10:40PM

At the time I thought this was great, but now I guess it sounds like not raising the ceiling will be bad.
http://www.summer-products.com

Sotto Voce| 7.23.11 @ 2:46PM

This is the best and most concise article I've read about the financial mess we're in. It calls out the President for his pathetic and dishonest dealings with Congress and the American people and the MSM's duplicitous coverage of the whole sorry mess. The American people are being blatantly lied to and woe to us for swallowing the lies.

Geneva| 7.23.11 @ 8:51PM

All of these comments make me wonder what has happened to this country. Some of them are so irrational...There is a very simplistic way for people to understand who this man really is..All they have to do is read some of his writings...and carefully listen to what he says. He seems to be a very angry young man who has a score to settle with the capitalist country of which he is now president. His father's blood runs through his veins, his mother...we won't go there--- and it is obvious where his loyalty lies...I will never believe it is with the United States of America. I feel that I can say he will never feel the same pride and love of country the way most of do. We love it, unconditionally, it has been a refuge and a blessing to us all. We had fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, mothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces who have died to protect it..In my opinion he is destroying something I love...I will never understand for sure why or how he attained his power for sure. I can make a good guess; but that would be irresponsible..I think the American people who are informed about this man know where his backing came from, who helped, supported him financially, shoved Hillary to the side, and pushed him to the top. "They" had an agenda, he was to carry it out, and he has been following "his agenda marching orders" from the very first day he was recruited....It is now coming apart on him; and he knows it. You can see that the liberal Socialist progressive gleam in his eye has become dark, stabbing and angry.. He is a loser...You can't try to dismember America from the Oval Office and expect admiration for it. We are all tired, to put it politely, of his lies, bullying, and threats. He will not succeed. There are too many Americans who love this country just the way it is...we didn't want to change it; and he is trying to mold it, change it, and bring it down to a third world level of poverty. He has almost accomplished his mission...But there is something that can stop him, and that is the House of Representatives of this Congress. If Speaker Boehner, and his colleagues, do not listen to the American conservatives trying to save this country from total collapse and they do give in to this imposter of a president.... All is lost. It is more than just a debt ceiling issue now. It is what this country stands for. Personal freedom, capitalism, the rights to liberty, justice, (not social justice) and the right to live without class warfare. You earn it, you have the right to keep it.. The government has no right to take it away and give it to those who didn't work for it. Speaker of the House, Representatives of the people, listen, carefully, there may be no going back to how it was if he gets his way on raising the debt ceiling with no balanced budget amendment.

nike shoes UK| 8.8.11 @ 4:26AM

is good

Cartier Men's Watches| 8.9.11 @ 9:31PM

Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how could we communicate?

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Articles by George Neumayr

More Articles From The Obama Watch

The Irish Sue the Feds

May 22, 2012 | G. Tracy Mehan, III

You Say You Want An Evolution?

May 21, 2012 | J.T. Young

Barack Zelig-Gump

May 17, 2012 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama’s Contempt for the Voters

May 15, 2012 | David Catron

Obama Comes Full Circle

May 11, 2012 | Janice Shaw Crouse

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/21/an-intransigent-president

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker|51 comments

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer|70 comments

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi|110 comments

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch|36 comments

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley|142 comments

Terrorism à la Carte

George H. Wittman|25 comments

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick|108 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day

Aaron Goldstein | 5.26.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Regarding America's 21st-Century Population Edge

Reid Smith | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

WND's Aaron Klein: Obama Spoke at Socialist Conference

Jeffrey Lord | 5.25.12

Bradley Prize Winner Meese's Originalism Should Figure in 2012 Race

Kevin Mooney | 5.25.12

My op-ed on Ravi/Clementi

Ross Kaminsky | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

Empowering Individuals or Bureaucrats?

Rep. Paul Ryan

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

The Millennial Perspective

David N. Bass

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

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 2012, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.