He promised to remake the country when the country was vulnerable and over half the country took the bait, Democrat Congress and Senate members thought they were on the gravy train; it only cost them their careers to be the cannon fodder for Obama’s silly dreams of Marxism. The Democrat Party is on the verge of extinction and after two more years of the man child trying to convince us that we are too stupid to accept Socialism, there will be few who will bemoan the passing of the once powerful and vibrant political voice.
It is hard to feel sorry for a political party that put all its faith in an unknown who was raised in a family of Marxists, who was mentored by a Marxist and pervert (Frank Marshall Davis), who sought out Marxist professors at college (by his own admission), who befriended Marxist Terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) and who surrounded himself with Marxist Czars after being elected. Did they think the country would slide into Marxism and they could enjoy the privileges of being Marxist Elite Rulers for the rest of their lives?
Surely some of them did and others thought they better follow the lead of the Marxist and his nitwit leaders Pelosi and Reid, just in case they did make the country into a Marxist cess pool. Now they await the verdict of the public on November 2, like French Nobility awaiting their date with the guillotine.
Some of the indications of Obama’s political demise are more subtle. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is refusing to be used as a prop for the Obama State of the Union Address when the Justices enter the House of Representatives and assume their obvious position in the front row. He maintains that the speech has become awkward and political for the justices, who are expected to sit:
“like the proverbial potted plant.”
Justice Alito, pushed the dignity of the situation at the last State of the Union Address, when the president lied during an unprecedented rebuke of the Supreme Court for their decision in a campaign finance case by shaking his head and mouthing the words:
Not True
It is nice to see a Supreme Court Justice refuse to participate in a political ceremony that has now devolved through the arrogance and Narcissism of the President into a political ploy designed to appear as if the president is lecturing the Supreme Court for decisions that he doesn’t approve of, in front of the nation and the world.
The 60-year-old justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, acknowledged with a smile that his colleagues “who are more disciplined refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.”
Alito, answering questions following a speech Wednesday at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York, also said, “Presidents will fake you out.” The institute provided an online video link to Alito’s talk and question-and-answer session.
The president will begin a sentence with an invocation of the country’s greatness, Alito said. If justices don’t jump up and applaud, “you look very unpatriotic,” he said.
But, Alito continued, then the president may finish the thought by adding “because we’re conducting a surge in Iraq or because we’re enacting health care reform.” Justices aren’t supposed to react to statements about policy or politics.
The better course, Alito said, is to follow the example of more experienced justices like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the recently retired John Paul Stevens. None has attended in several years.
“So I doubt that I will be there in January,” Alito said.
There are a few Democrats that are willing to blame Pelosi for their refusal to listen to their constituencies and vote with Obama on Obama Care and the Stimulus, as if they were robbed of their ‘free will’ and had to follow the dictates of the extremely unpopular Speaker of the House, who maintained that her members would need to pass Obama Care if they wanted to know what was in the bill. Fortunately, there are many citizens who don’t want the country to operate on these Marxist type parliamentary procedures and are more than ready to reject those who supported Pelosi and her dictatorial control of the House. A control that was only real because of the weakness of those who followed the Pelosi/Obama White Rabbit down the outhouse hole.
Call them the anti-Pelosi Democrats who are openly opposing Pelosi for another term as speaker if their party can somehow maintain control of the House. Republicans are widely expected to make big gains in the Nov. 2 elections.
Two Democrats, Reps. Jim Marshall of Georgia and Bobby Bright of Alabama, have even taken out ads saying they won’t support Pelosi in the next Congress.
Marshall told Fox News he’s not running against Pelosi per se; just seeking to neutralize the resonant issue Republicans have created by tying all Democratic candidates to the California Democrat.
Yet Marshall still hedged when asked if he thinks Pelosi has been a “good” speaker.
“It’s a real challenge when somebody comes from a district that is as liberal as Ms. Pelosi’s district to govern from the middle, which is where we need people to be governing,” he said.
Vulnerable first-timer Bobby Bright in Alabama is also pledging to oust Pelosi as speaker as are at least four other House Democrats, from New York to Oregon.
Some may squeak by to hang on to a seat for another go around, condemned to be a lame duck that no one will take seriously during the rest of their term. It is highly possible that the TEA Party may rise to challenge the Republicans in 2012, for Obama is taking the Democrat Party with him to inglorious defeat and humiliation in 2012, if he decides to run.
You can’t help but pity those few states and local politicians who insist on maintaining their Democrat identity, even if it means having almost no representation in Washington, except for a president who appears to be less and less in touch with reality as his failures become more obvious and based on Marxist ideology. Like the cowards who elect to go down with the ship rather than risk jumping to a life boat.
States like Connecticut are involved in hotly contested races and are on the verge of major political upsets with Senate Candidate McMahon, Congressional Candidate Janet Peckinpaugh, Decorated Veteran State Assembly Candidate Chris Coutu and Ct Governor candidate Tom Foley.
In typical Obama style leadership reflecting a Totalitarian Marxist mindset, the same that has condemned him and his policies, the new Norwich Assessor, Donna Ralston, has taken it upon herself to make sure that all businesses honor the letter of the law by reporting the sum total of their equipment. Now we the public are left wondering if these efforts are a method of control by politicians lost in the lust of power and control that was the hay day of the Obama Administration or is this another wise method of increasing the tax base so that local governments can survive in this, The Obama Recession.
Following the Obama template for increasing the public payroll, increasing tax revenue, and attacking businesses, Ralston has added 400 members to her staff and is now going after taxes for all the equipment owned by businesses.
In this profile we have Mr Harold Mecteau, who maintains these collection efforts are counter productive and doing more harm than good. He is a one man home remodeling business doing less than $14,000/year out of his home, he is now being required to pay taxes on his hand tools: the same ones he’s had for years, the circular saw he bought used for $68, the 20 foot ladder that is 30 years old, and his electric drill. The county under Ralston plans to get every tax dime possible no matter how ridiculous the effort seems, for at the core of every Obama Socialist beats the heart of a pure Maoist dictator.
Just this month, Mr Mecteau received a notice from Ralston’s Assessor’s office requiring him to declare his personal property including the tools of his trade. Ralston maintains that she has sent out 400 notices this month asking for people to list their personal property.
“They are supposed to file,” she said. “So if they don’t find me, I find them.”
She said she did in Norwich what she did everywhere else she has worked. She checked the Consumer Protection Agency for business licenses, the secretary of the state’s office for limited liability corporations and incorporated groups and the city clerk for registered businesses. She also looked in the phone book.
“If they’re a home business, they probably don’t have a lot to declare,” she said. “However, fair is fair. If a big business is declaring (personal property), a little business should be declaring, too. We’re not trying to drive them out. We’re just trying to be fair.”
Harold thinks the totalitarian attitude of the local Progressive Socialist Assessor isn’t fair, he is turning 64 in February and admits to slowing down and since the small business man doesn’t get the breaks like the big businesses (GM, Chrysler, and our Banks) it puts an undue pressure on him in this tough economy.
He and his wife live in a three bedroom home that they now share with a grown son that was laid off recently when a relative’s business failed. He has been drawing his Social Security since July and is limited to $1,400 a month income, the Mecteaus pay $5,000 a year in property taxes
The state will reap a tidy sum of $5.12 (that’s right five dollars and twelve cents) after hiring 400 employees for the tax assessor’s office, tracking down Harold, and figuring the depreciation on the equipment. The Democrats feel the control and power is worth the effort despite the diminishing returns on the efforts of the state. In other words they want control over your life. If you buy a pencil and tablet for three dollars, the state needs to know and tax you accordingly; it may also indicate the possibility that you intend on taking on a much larger portion of the economy than you are entitled.
People of Connecticut, you have an opportunity to turn around this hypocrisy and insanity; you have excellent candidates, Senate Candidate McMahon, Congressional Candidate Janet Peckinpaugh, Decorated Veteran State Assembly Candidate Chris Coutu and Ct Governor candidate Tom Foley, who are determined to purge your state of this Obama Totalitarian Government. There is a movement sweeping across America, a reactionary wave to rid ourselves of Obamanism and government intrusion in our lives. The rest of the country is asking you to open your checkbooks and remember to vote for the Conservative candidates. We Americans and Harold Mecteau are counting on you.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
johngalt —
The CBO says you are wrong . . . Bush’s CBO. I leave it at that.
Still don’t understand you cons’ aversion to cutting spending.
Er, actually, yes I do.
Cons never have actually opposed deficit spending, which is why they did it when they had the WH, did it when they controlled the Congress, and are promising to do it again if they get the House and/or Senate now. All the balance budget talk is rhetoric that GOPers neither mean nor intend to adopt.
Have I woken up in an alternative universe, where getting a lecture from a lib/prog/O’faithful mouthpiece about spending is supposed to have some modicum of credibility? Or that the American revolt against both major parties that is taking place, driven by extreme dissatisfaction by the size and spending of government, is somehow not happening??
…. scratching head
I vaguely recall when cuts were proposed to the RATE of INCREASE in a federal program under George W. Bush, the Dems screamed: ”they’re CUTTING essential programs!!!!!”
All that was being cut was the rate of growth!
The program was still there.
It was being funded higher than the last budget.
But NOT by as big an increase as Dems wanted.
So, how do you think the media spun those stories?
Yeah, those MEAN Republicans!
Every time.
But of course. That’s historically been the rallying cry. When they propose a 15% increase for an existing program, and the GOP opposes saying only 8% increase, they blanket the airwaves with the spin, “GOP cuts x program 7%!” when the reality is all of Congress is increasing that budget by 8%. And, of course, it’s usually a “for the children or old people” type program.
Predictable hype. Always falls into the “ho hum” category for me. But of late, every percent increase needs to be scrutizined, programs and agencies need to be triaged in import, and audited/slashed for waste. I’m a cut taxes AND spending kind of person. Most especially in programs that are not part of the federal govt’s Constitutional powers.
@ B-Rob, to quote a Former President, “It’s the Economy Stupid!”
I know that you are as Economically Illiterate as a five year old that has 5 cents in their pocket and wants to spend a C-Note at the candy shop. During economic good times Dad will hand you a dollar and shut you up but Dad will just take you by the hand, no candy, and tell you how Money works as Aye, JR and Mata have jumped through their backsides to educate you here and I reckon that you are not 5 years old but just too stupid to learn.
You are tolerated here out of Curt’s generosity and patience but seem to be about as perceptive as a bag of doorknobs. Stupid = Someone who doesn’t get it despite information presented ad finitum and in detail. Your ideology and stupidity makes me wonder how you ever got through school and how well you fare in Court if you actually are engaged in the Legal Profession.
Sorry Pardner but You just Don’t Get It. It’s the Economy Stupid and there is no more Free Candy here.
Technically, Trooper, I believe that phrase is attributed to James Carville on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. But close enough for rock’n’roll. Don’t think he (Carville) ever thought he’d live to see the day when his coined phrase would be such a powerful indictment of his own party. But I’m sure wife, very conservative Mary Matalin, is happy to remind him of it daily. Can you imagine a dinner party at that house? heh
Heh heh.
I can only imagine everything in teeny tiny bites as Mary M’s TMJ doesn’t seem to allow her to open her mouth.
LOL!
I had TMJ myself after a broken jaw once.
Lasted ~ 8 years.
Now I guess I’m healed so long as I don’t chew gum, eat jerky or tough stuff.
Good enough for me that the headaches are gone.
I remember the hullabaloo with AIDS funding during the mean old Reagan years. Congress attached AIDS funding in every department’s budget and Reagan signed the final budget but, he still was the evil doer.
During the Bush years, because of no super majority, lots of deals had to be made and every department’s budget tree had all kinds of ornaments hanging on it, but because he signed it, he was the evil doer and all the spending was all his fault.
They really went wild with the Defense budget, if I’m remembering correctly, didn’t they attach a big chunk of money for fighting fires in California to the first Iraq war funding?
@ MataHarley…
That thought is staggering. Like a Date with my Former Spouse or listening to My Daughter at age 10 yelling over the phone to her that she would rather eat a Thanksgiving Dinner at an Army Mess Hall or an MRE in the backyard than go to Her House or a Restaurant in Carmel, CA and deal with Her …UGH! Jana graced me on my arm, and at a table at the 1/508 PIR Mess Hall at Ft. Bragg and behaved like a Lady.
James Carville is the missing link and a National Treasure. He should be in a Museum behind glass.
Mary Matalin is a Saint but I refuse to comment on her personal choices. Both Mary and America deserve better.
@ B-Rob, the CBO keeps books based upon projections like the advisor to a Bookie on Super Bowl Weekend or like Al Capone’s bookkeeper. It is Fictional at best.
@Old Trooper 2:
That spunky little gal will be soon flying some fast stuff. I watched that video this morning wondering how that pilot seat would fit her, then when that thing went straight up in the air, whew! she’d be pretty much glued to the back of the seat.
From BRob:
This, of course, is the same governmental office that stated Obamacare will increase revenue, even though every other study done of the entire plan states exactly the opposite.
As for tax cuts and revenue, it is readily apparent that you didn’t read the articles I linked. When economists state that EVERY TIME TAX CUTS ARE ENACTED THEY INCREASE REVENUE, I guess it doesn’t matter to a liberal/progressive if the economist isn’t on some pre-approved list.
As well, the simplified economic principles I posted showing what happens when tax cuts are enacted doesn’t register either. Was Economics 101 not offered at the school you went to?
I posted much info, yet your comeback is “The CBO says you are wrong……Bush’s CBO”
What can you say to such witty remarks such as that?
BRob?
You need to stand down fool. Your getting your ass kicked and mine is hurting. I agree with the ones who are kicking yours.
@ So What —
Let me get this straight . . . I advocate for spending cuts because, if you cut revenues by cutting tax rates,, but don’t cut spending an equal amount, you will need to borrow the difference. There is not an economist in America who would disagrees with that. As Milton Friedman once said, “To spend is to tax.” In response, johngalt, Old Trooper and others resurrect the long-repudiated claims that the Magic Tax Cut Fairie will deliver more revenues to government if you cross your fingers and hope really hard and click your heels three times. This magical thinking is why the Bush administration signed off on deficits of $200, 300, 400, then $1,300 billion each year after FY 2002. Now the cons on this board are advocating MORE of the same excessive deficits? Are you people already celebrating California passing Prop. 19?
You cons are a riot! Ronald Reagan cut taxes, then ran then-unprecedented deficits (yes, he signed off on every one of them). Bush II cit taxes and also ran then-unprecedented deficits, culminating in $1.3 trillion in deficits his last year. It took Reagan, Bush I and Clinton raising taxes in ’86, ’91, and ’93, respectively, to get the budget back in balance — not tax cuts (which would be the solution if tax cuts actually increased revenues — but tax increases. But here you cons are, once again, trying to sell the supply side economics’ “Yes, we can have a free lunch.” This is just silly, fifth grade understanding of economics stuff.
I don’t get it . . . why the opposition here to cutting spending? Since when is it “conservative” to oppose cutting spending? When did you cons get together and decide to abandon EVERY last principle of conservatism? This is simply bizzaro to me.
@ johngalt — please show me some evidence that a tax cut actually DECREASED the deficit. Because if you are right and tax cuts increase tax revenues (and of course you are not), then tax cuts should be followed by SHRINKING deficits, shouldn’t they? In fact, the exact opposite happens — tax cuts decrease revenues. THAT is why the CBO study (Bush’s CBO, not Obama’s) said that IF you cut taxes, then you MUST cuts spending in order to get a boost in GDP. If you cut taxes but DON’T cut spending, the exact opposite will happen. Why? Because borrowing today has to be paid back with even higher taxes tomorrow. You are robbing Peter to pay Paul, eating your seed corn, if you cut taxes and increase borrowing at the same time. It’s like taking a lower paying job the same month you refi your house with a mortgage $1,000 per month higher than before. You are digging a huge hole that wil eventually sink you, economically speaking.
Like I said — if GOPers cede to the Dems the mantle of fiscal responsibility by opposing spending cuts to accompany tax cuts, then Mrs. Obama might as well start working on Phase II of the long-neglected White House redecoration program.
Braindead rob, several here have repeatedly shown you the proof. Not only on this thread, but others. Just because you weren’t smart enough or sane enough to understand it, why should we bother YET AGAIN? You deliberately dismiss and ignore anything that proves you wrong. Your accusations about “our” aversion to spending cuts is merely projection on your part.
BRob stated:
Then show us, BRob.
You mistakenly relate taxcuts and federal revenue to increasing deficits. Deficits have nothing to do with the federal revenue from taxes, and everything to do with how little restraint the government has on spending.
I can sit here and quote article after article on tax cuts increasing federal revenue, as seen during the Bush cuts and the Reagan cuts, but you are still going to talk about deficits. While we share one idea in common, spending cuts, the differing viewpoint on how to get there is the major sticking point. You believe, like liberals do, that higher taxes gets us higher revenue, yet you discount the factor lower taxes have on the economy, or vice versa. When people have more to spend, from lower taxes, more wealth is put into the economy to work, meaning more jobs, higher GDP, and…………………..greater revenues due to taxes. Government cannot artificially substitute their spending for the spending of individuals to spur the economy. Keynes theory on economics does not work. People need to have more to themselves, to spend more. Otherwise, they worry about the massive spending the feds do and the resultant calls for higher taxes to battle the deficit, and they reduce their spending habits. Why do you think the economy hasn’t boomed yet? This is all Economics 101.
As for the deficits, conservatives agree on cutting spending, the question is where to do it. Until someone with guts takes it on(Ryan from Wisc.), it won’t happen. It certainly won’t happen with a liberal leaning congress that believes the government can spend it’s way to prosperity.
What has the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis wrought?
At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2007, Pelosi’s first day as speaker, the national debt was $8,670,596,242,973.04 (8.67 trillion), according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.
At the close of business on Oct. 22, it stood at $13,667,983,325,978.31 (13.67 trillion), an increase of 4,997,387,083,005.27 (or approximately $5 trillion).
The 2010 deficit was equal to 8.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, down from 10.0 percent in 2009 (based on the most current estimate of GDP), the Congressional Budget Office said in its October Monthly Budget Review.
Waiting until AFTER the Nov 2nd elections are lame duck ideas like:
ending tax deductions on mortgage interest,
ending child tax credits,
ending the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars.
All of these are rises in your taxes, whether you realize it or not.
If they don’t all hit you directly they do so obliquely.
The federal gov’t took in $2.1 trillion in tax revenues in 2009 alone.
Too bad Obama/Pelosi/Reid spent so much MORE than that…..nearly $3.52 trillion!
@ johngalt —
I gave you a link to the Bush administration’s OMB in 2004 indicating that “tax relief” increased the deficits in FY 2002 and 2003. If you believe that the issue is spending and not revenue, you need to take it up with them. Because math does not lie: if you reduce revenues (and that is what a tax cut does) you have to reduce spending or you will run deficits. That is what happened in the 80s with Reagan and it happened again in the 00s with Bush II.
If you were right and tax cuts increased revenues, then the deficits would have disappeared on their own after the tax cuts. But that did not happen, did it?
When did we start to get deficits under control? When we raised taxes in the ’86 time frame (Reagan), in ’91 (Bush I) and in ’93 under Clinton. There is nothing magic about the Bush CBO’s conclusion that tax cuts MUST follow with spending cuts, not debt, or it will undermine the economy in later years. It is simple math: if you borrow today, you will need that much more tax revenue tomorrow, which has to come from the tax payers. But if you cut spending AS YOU CUT TAXES, you will not need that future tax increase, now will you?
As I said before (which you have never responded to): if tax cuts increased revenues, then states and localities would cut taxes to balance their budgets, now wouldn’t they? But they don’t do they? No, they don’t. Because it makes no sense and does not work.
Your point about “revenues increase after tax cuts” likewise (a) does not clarify the question nor (b) explain why spending cuts are not needed. See, as to (b), that is what Douglas Holz-Eakins’ report was about, i.e., to what extent do tax cuts “pay for themselves” by increasing revenue. His conclusion: they don’t.
As to (a), the natural expansion of the economy GDP (due to productivity and population increases) would explain more revenue from a lower tax rate. But it does not prove that you would have gotten as much revenue at the lower rate as you would have at the higher rate — and that is the REAL question: what do you gain from a tax cut and what do you lose. The Bush CBO report said that what you DON’T gain is a dollar for dollar revenue advantage from a tax cut. And THAT is why you need to pair tax cuts with spending cuts.
Back in the Clinton era, the “pay as you go” rule was in place. Everyone agreed that tax cuts had to be offset with spending cuts (dollar for dollar), and spending increases had to be offset with spending cuts. Lowered revenues through tax cuts were treated the same as spending increases — both needed to be offset by spending cuts. And what happened? Deficits disappeared. As soon as the GOP eliminated the rule in 2001 (because they wanted to increase spending AND decrease taxes) deficits reappeared. This is no coincidence, as the Bush OMB explained in that 2004 report I quoted previously.
You also wrote —
But that is just it — you have said NOTHING about spending cuts. I have! We need to cut defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security or we are sunk. You have totally dodged the subject by arguing that the Magic Tax Cut Fairie will solve all the problems. Yep, as if the Magic Tax Cut Fairie is going to shower us with more tax dollars if only we cut tax rates. THAT is what loses me.
We got to a balanced budget in the 1990s by offsetting tax cuts with spending cuts; it worked. But what the GOP is doing now is promising a budget approach that will decrease revenues without any attention to spending cuts.
Finally, I say it again — you cons are being set up for disaster if you get the House. You will push through that $157 billion tax cut, which represents about 10% of this year’s deficit. This is the deficit you called “outrageous,” remember? But if that tax cut goes through, under the CBOs budget approach, you will be $157 billion in the hole on next years budget! Where is that money going to come from? If you don’t cut $157 billion, we will be at $1.6 billion on a GOP spending plan. Why in the hell would Obama sign off on that? Trust me, after getting that deficit reduction report, he won’t.
Oh, I know what you folks will do . . . lard it up with enough goodies for libs that they will vote for it. And you’ll add back the useless “abstinence only” sex education monies that have teen pregnancy rates SO LOW in Red States. And plenty of bucks for defense, spread to each and ever one of the 435 congressional districts — especially that second fighter jet engine that the Pentagon does not want. But Obama will have no incentive whatsoever to sign off, now will he? And I hope he doesn’t. I hope he holds a press conference attended by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowels and explains that “Deficit reduction begins today. And that is why I will be vetoing Congress’ bloated spending bill, because signing it will only add to the deficit and make our present problems even worse.”
@ Nan G —
FY 2009 was Bush’s last budget. You would have to ask him why he signed off on all that Bush/Pelosi/Reid spending.
In fact, Bush NEVER vetoed a single spending bill proposed by anyone. He signed off on the Bush/Pelosi/Reid deficits the same way he signed off on the Bush/Hastert/Frist deficits and the Bush/Hastert/Dashle deficits before that. In fact. Bush never sent a balanced budget to Congress, either . . . not a one.
It is quite curious to me that cons had no problem running deficits in FY 2007 (before Pelosi and Reid took over) but all of a sudden got religion in FY 2008. But that is politics, not principle, guiding your opposition.
My REAL beef with Bush and the GOP Congress is that they chose to run undisciplined deficits during years when the economy was relatively strong. This was all about the free lunch of cheap Chinese money outstripping any actual principled opposition to debt. And, no, you cannot blame the Dems either since they had nothing to do with the House spending decisions (Hastert froze them out) and did not control the Senate, either, after November 2002. There was an utter lack of spending discipline shown by the GOP and that was continued through the Pelosi years.
In sum, whether you are talking about the $1.3 trillion deficit Bush signed off on in FY 2009 or Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010, there is plenty blame to go around. But the question of the day is how the cons will handle 2011 spending if they get control. Since they have only campaigned on cutting taxes and INCREASING spending on Medicare, and n ot allowing any cuts to defense spending, I have to believe that they are promising more of the same deficit spending and accumulation of debt.
This says it as well as I could: you are either in favor of fiscal responsibility on all spending, or you are not. You can’t be a little pregnant and you can’t be a true fiscal conservative if you support borrowing from the Chinese to pay for your military.
@B-Rob:
Ah, the country functioned on continuing resolutions and special funding for most of the 110th Congress aka, Pelosi/Reid Congress, for the 111th Pelosi/Reid Congress, samething but that porkulus was eventually signed 6 months late……by Obama.
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/095.html
Obama signed FY 2009 aka, “the $1.3 trillion deficit” into law March 11, 2009 covering the six months remaining in FY 2009 it included an 8% across the board increase and enough pork to feed all of China.
True three years ago and still true now: 12 Myths About Taxing the Rich
You nailed it, kitt.