Alabama senator Jeff Sessions - "The Tea Party didn't start this fire, they sounded the alarm."
Indeed.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
I love @moronwatch. He's an inspiration. Or, why the debt battle is Dem's fault
My twitter pal, @moronwatch, is prone to cutting and pasting from Liberal sources. In Britain (moronwatch's home), The Guardian serves as a print version of The Daily Kos, and MW has chosen to link this article which claims that the debt crisis is due to Tea Party Intransigence.
Yea, right.
As Marco Rubio so clearly explains, the Debt Crisis is not new. This has been brewing for some time, beginning with TARP and the recession, and compounded by Stimulus and Obamacare, the massive debt crisis was something that an idiot with a calculator could have seen coming, oh, say two years ago.
Coincidentally, it's been that long since a budget has even been proposed in the Senate. Two years, that I and Senator Rubio may remind you, in which that body was controlled by (drumroll, please), Democrats. And, as the Senator reminds, in ONE of those years, a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats. So, why, if we could have seen this crisis coming, did the Dems not present a budget at all in two years? Watch Rubio's floor speech (done sans Teleprompter, by the way), to see his theory on that. Ok, I'll give it away, it's a plan - the Dems don't want to present a budget, because that would mean actually having to address these problems, and to address these problems, there's not enough cash in rich people's pockets to tax them for it, so, they would HAVE to cut spending, or make significant changes in Medicare/Medicaid (twin programs going broke) and even Social Security, and, we all know Dems won't touch those.
So, the premise that this debt crisis is the Tea Party's doing is just downright either an attempt to carry water for Obama and Liberals, or a sign of extreme stupidity. I don't doubt that Moronwatch may fall into the stupid category, but I'm pretty sure the writers at The Guardian are not stupid.
The Guardian wants to make this particular debt ceiling battle all about the Tea Party, and it's sway on Republican legislators (mostly new ones). But, that's not what it's all about.
While many on the Left enjoy caricaturing Tea Party members (and their sympathizers, like me) as racist rubes who just hate the black man in the White House, and take special glee in referring to them by the gay slur "teabaggers" (although, I have said many times, I'd rather be the "teabagger" than the "teabaggee"), they either fail to see what Tea Partiers are really concerned about, or they don't want their readers to know.
This began with TARP, which many people saw as government taking too much of the people's money to prop up a system which could have been saved by the market itself. I don't think that's necessarily true, and I hoped the resolution to the banking crisis would play out differently than TARP, but, that program (Bush's, by the way) largely succeeded in preventing a collapse, and hasn't ultimately cost taxpayers too much. But, there remains the lagging suspicion that government's involvement (and subsequent ignoring of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was too much, picking who's "too big to fail" and owning large chunks of banks (subsequently liquidated those assets). Then, we had bailouts for GM in which the government ushered GM through bankruptcy, and the Obama administration flaunted bankruptcy laws to make sure unsecured UAW creditors got preferential treatment in bankruptcy court; and Chrysler, where a costly deal was made to transfer the company to Fiat, ensuring that we'll have shit cars to drive again in America. Then,we had the continuing crap fest in housing prices, which have hit most Americans hard, with the government working their damndest to keep people in their homes, at a cost to who? Taxpayers.
This was the genesis of the Tea Party movement, when BO and friends decided to further bail out these bad loans, Rick Santelli, CNBC reporter suggested a new Tea Party, and, the frustration over the extent of government intervention (most of which would prove fruitless, cf Stimulus) finally bubbled over. Add to that a year long push for Obamacare (instead of any focus on these looming debt issues), and Americans who throughout this crisis had worked and continued to pay their bills and mortgages finally woke up to the fact that if government wasn't Leviathan during the Bush administration, it had certainly become that in the Obama administration, with no sign of slowing.
From there, we had an historic 2010 election, which ushered any many new politicians. This is what irks me about the Guardian post the most. The Tea Partiers recognized that business as usual in Washington wasn't working. Most conservatives recognize that the Dems version of "compromise" means we do what they want, and have had enough of it. We also recognize that is part of business as usual in Washington, and we're honestly, sick of it.
The Guardian seems to think (and I don't expect the Leftist paper to think otherwise) that we need a return to the old way of doing things. They don't like it any more than Harry Reid does that the balance has shifted, that the old ways are no longer acceptable. As Herman Cain likes to say, "How's that working out for you?"
I'll tell you how it's working out. Like crap. W was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history. As if his debt wasn't enough, though (aided as it was by two wars, in his defense), Obama decided we needed to not double down on it, but quadruple the debt during his first two years, while he should have been enjoying cost savings from the draw-down in Iraq, he instead accelerated our involvement in Afghanistan, and started a 3rd "kinetic military operation" (i.e. "war") in Libya. He massively increased the size and scope of government with Obamacare, and intrusive regulations like Dodd-Frank, did nothing to reign in Freddie/Fannie, and fortunately, failed to enact Cap and Tax. But, he unleashed his EPA to do what he couldn't pass legislatively, and he still refuses to open the Gulf of Mexico, or any other significant oil producing section of the country to development. This week, his increase in CAFE standards will put another fork in the auto industry in the country. So, do Tea Partiers have reason to hate this administration beyond his color. You bet. If Joe Biden were doing this, it would suck as much.
Back to the Guardian and the "old way." They quote Larry Sabato saying people will not compromise in Congress. As if that's what America is all about. I hate to tell some of you dolts out there, but compromise is what gave us slavery and proportional representation. Many of the things that were wrong about this country at it's founding and for years were the result of "compromise." Compromise isn't all that. Please.
It's not just Tea Partiers who won't compromise. It's Democrats, too. Sabato's quote doesn't say that it's the Tea Party, but the Guardian implies that. I say, where's the spirit of compromise when Harry Reid deigns the Boehner debt plan as "DOA" in the Senate and votes it down within an hour of it coming over. This when Boehner's plan and Reid's own aren't that far off, once you remove Reid's gimmick cuts.
Look, it's correct to say that the real sticking point now is the timing on the plans. The Dems want this to take them through the 2012 elections, and the GOP wants to debate this anew in 2012. Now, if this was such a winning issue for Liberals, would they want to avoid another debate? No, they'd relish it, which is what the GOP wants. It's good politics, and it also provides a check against Dems that these cuts occur, and be serious. Otherwise, it gives them an incentive to do nothing, and in 2013, we'll be here again, only in even worse shape.
As for the "default," let's all agree that a technical default is not the issue here. It never has been. The US will not default (we can't Constitutionally, anyway). There is plenty of money to pay creditors, social security, medicare and medicaid, and military operations. I've posted on that ad nauseum. The threat of a "default" is a lie.
What's at stake here is the United States' credit rating, and it's actually a sign that those Tea Partiers are winning the battle in that most of the state run media and even Liberals are now focused on that. BUT, to save that, we need to demonstrate that we're serious about reducing the debt. Raising the debt limit does nothing for that. That's why there must be serious cuts. This scares libs, trust me, because for them, everything government does is sacrosanct. Except for the military (one of those Constitutionally-mandated items), which is fair game for cuts. They can't cut anything, and they fear any meaningful attempt to force them to do so (like a balanced budget amendment, for example).
There's no doubt that Tea Partiers want a smaller, less obtrusive government. Yet, even in the Boehner plan, there's no reduction in the size of government, only in the growth of it. So, you could understand how some new members on the Hill could look at all these shenanigans and declare, "Enough!"
For anyone to say that Tea Partiers "seem intent on risking destroying what American political leaders have constructed in more than two centuries of hard, often painful work," is completely disingenuous and a lie. If we fail to raise the debt limit we are not going to lose the United States. But, if we fail to get our government's spending in line with what we can actually afford, we will. It's precisely because we continue to raise the debt limit that we find ourselves here. Tea Partiers recognize that simple fact. Our government has grown because we've allowed it to. We borrow 43 cents on each dollar because we've created such a monster. Tea Partiers have decided it's time to stop feeding the monster, and either we do it in a serious manner, or we have it done for us.
Actually, after reading this drivel from The Guardian, I'm considering whether I should drop my tepid support of the Boehner plan (which doesn't cut enough, and not soon enough) and say, either we get serious, or we take our chances. At least in the latter case, we'll all be in it together, and maybe then the Left will recognize what a serious situation this is, because, my friend moronwatch, it's the Left who has failed to recognize the debt as an issue for 2 years of the Obama presidency, while since January 2009, the Tea Party has.
Yea, right.
As Marco Rubio so clearly explains, the Debt Crisis is not new. This has been brewing for some time, beginning with TARP and the recession, and compounded by Stimulus and Obamacare, the massive debt crisis was something that an idiot with a calculator could have seen coming, oh, say two years ago.
Coincidentally, it's been that long since a budget has even been proposed in the Senate. Two years, that I and Senator Rubio may remind you, in which that body was controlled by (drumroll, please), Democrats. And, as the Senator reminds, in ONE of those years, a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats. So, why, if we could have seen this crisis coming, did the Dems not present a budget at all in two years? Watch Rubio's floor speech (done sans Teleprompter, by the way), to see his theory on that. Ok, I'll give it away, it's a plan - the Dems don't want to present a budget, because that would mean actually having to address these problems, and to address these problems, there's not enough cash in rich people's pockets to tax them for it, so, they would HAVE to cut spending, or make significant changes in Medicare/Medicaid (twin programs going broke) and even Social Security, and, we all know Dems won't touch those.
So, the premise that this debt crisis is the Tea Party's doing is just downright either an attempt to carry water for Obama and Liberals, or a sign of extreme stupidity. I don't doubt that Moronwatch may fall into the stupid category, but I'm pretty sure the writers at The Guardian are not stupid.
The Guardian wants to make this particular debt ceiling battle all about the Tea Party, and it's sway on Republican legislators (mostly new ones). But, that's not what it's all about.
While many on the Left enjoy caricaturing Tea Party members (and their sympathizers, like me) as racist rubes who just hate the black man in the White House, and take special glee in referring to them by the gay slur "teabaggers" (although, I have said many times, I'd rather be the "teabagger" than the "teabaggee"), they either fail to see what Tea Partiers are really concerned about, or they don't want their readers to know.
This began with TARP, which many people saw as government taking too much of the people's money to prop up a system which could have been saved by the market itself. I don't think that's necessarily true, and I hoped the resolution to the banking crisis would play out differently than TARP, but, that program (Bush's, by the way) largely succeeded in preventing a collapse, and hasn't ultimately cost taxpayers too much. But, there remains the lagging suspicion that government's involvement (and subsequent ignoring of the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) was too much, picking who's "too big to fail" and owning large chunks of banks (subsequently liquidated those assets). Then, we had bailouts for GM in which the government ushered GM through bankruptcy, and the Obama administration flaunted bankruptcy laws to make sure unsecured UAW creditors got preferential treatment in bankruptcy court; and Chrysler, where a costly deal was made to transfer the company to Fiat, ensuring that we'll have shit cars to drive again in America. Then,we had the continuing crap fest in housing prices, which have hit most Americans hard, with the government working their damndest to keep people in their homes, at a cost to who? Taxpayers.
This was the genesis of the Tea Party movement, when BO and friends decided to further bail out these bad loans, Rick Santelli, CNBC reporter suggested a new Tea Party, and, the frustration over the extent of government intervention (most of which would prove fruitless, cf Stimulus) finally bubbled over. Add to that a year long push for Obamacare (instead of any focus on these looming debt issues), and Americans who throughout this crisis had worked and continued to pay their bills and mortgages finally woke up to the fact that if government wasn't Leviathan during the Bush administration, it had certainly become that in the Obama administration, with no sign of slowing.
From there, we had an historic 2010 election, which ushered any many new politicians. This is what irks me about the Guardian post the most. The Tea Partiers recognized that business as usual in Washington wasn't working. Most conservatives recognize that the Dems version of "compromise" means we do what they want, and have had enough of it. We also recognize that is part of business as usual in Washington, and we're honestly, sick of it.
The Guardian seems to think (and I don't expect the Leftist paper to think otherwise) that we need a return to the old way of doing things. They don't like it any more than Harry Reid does that the balance has shifted, that the old ways are no longer acceptable. As Herman Cain likes to say, "How's that working out for you?"
I'll tell you how it's working out. Like crap. W was one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history. As if his debt wasn't enough, though (aided as it was by two wars, in his defense), Obama decided we needed to not double down on it, but quadruple the debt during his first two years, while he should have been enjoying cost savings from the draw-down in Iraq, he instead accelerated our involvement in Afghanistan, and started a 3rd "kinetic military operation" (i.e. "war") in Libya. He massively increased the size and scope of government with Obamacare, and intrusive regulations like Dodd-Frank, did nothing to reign in Freddie/Fannie, and fortunately, failed to enact Cap and Tax. But, he unleashed his EPA to do what he couldn't pass legislatively, and he still refuses to open the Gulf of Mexico, or any other significant oil producing section of the country to development. This week, his increase in CAFE standards will put another fork in the auto industry in the country. So, do Tea Partiers have reason to hate this administration beyond his color. You bet. If Joe Biden were doing this, it would suck as much.
Back to the Guardian and the "old way." They quote Larry Sabato saying people will not compromise in Congress. As if that's what America is all about. I hate to tell some of you dolts out there, but compromise is what gave us slavery and proportional representation. Many of the things that were wrong about this country at it's founding and for years were the result of "compromise." Compromise isn't all that. Please.
It's not just Tea Partiers who won't compromise. It's Democrats, too. Sabato's quote doesn't say that it's the Tea Party, but the Guardian implies that. I say, where's the spirit of compromise when Harry Reid deigns the Boehner debt plan as "DOA" in the Senate and votes it down within an hour of it coming over. This when Boehner's plan and Reid's own aren't that far off, once you remove Reid's gimmick cuts.
Look, it's correct to say that the real sticking point now is the timing on the plans. The Dems want this to take them through the 2012 elections, and the GOP wants to debate this anew in 2012. Now, if this was such a winning issue for Liberals, would they want to avoid another debate? No, they'd relish it, which is what the GOP wants. It's good politics, and it also provides a check against Dems that these cuts occur, and be serious. Otherwise, it gives them an incentive to do nothing, and in 2013, we'll be here again, only in even worse shape.
As for the "default," let's all agree that a technical default is not the issue here. It never has been. The US will not default (we can't Constitutionally, anyway). There is plenty of money to pay creditors, social security, medicare and medicaid, and military operations. I've posted on that ad nauseum. The threat of a "default" is a lie.
What's at stake here is the United States' credit rating, and it's actually a sign that those Tea Partiers are winning the battle in that most of the state run media and even Liberals are now focused on that. BUT, to save that, we need to demonstrate that we're serious about reducing the debt. Raising the debt limit does nothing for that. That's why there must be serious cuts. This scares libs, trust me, because for them, everything government does is sacrosanct. Except for the military (one of those Constitutionally-mandated items), which is fair game for cuts. They can't cut anything, and they fear any meaningful attempt to force them to do so (like a balanced budget amendment, for example).
There's no doubt that Tea Partiers want a smaller, less obtrusive government. Yet, even in the Boehner plan, there's no reduction in the size of government, only in the growth of it. So, you could understand how some new members on the Hill could look at all these shenanigans and declare, "Enough!"
For anyone to say that Tea Partiers "seem intent on risking destroying what American political leaders have constructed in more than two centuries of hard, often painful work," is completely disingenuous and a lie. If we fail to raise the debt limit we are not going to lose the United States. But, if we fail to get our government's spending in line with what we can actually afford, we will. It's precisely because we continue to raise the debt limit that we find ourselves here. Tea Partiers recognize that simple fact. Our government has grown because we've allowed it to. We borrow 43 cents on each dollar because we've created such a monster. Tea Partiers have decided it's time to stop feeding the monster, and either we do it in a serious manner, or we have it done for us.
Actually, after reading this drivel from The Guardian, I'm considering whether I should drop my tepid support of the Boehner plan (which doesn't cut enough, and not soon enough) and say, either we get serious, or we take our chances. At least in the latter case, we'll all be in it together, and maybe then the Left will recognize what a serious situation this is, because, my friend moronwatch, it's the Left who has failed to recognize the debt as an issue for 2 years of the Obama presidency, while since January 2009, the Tea Party has.
This man will be president someday, and the Democrats should know it
Marco Rubio
Has added benefit of schooling John F'ing Kerry
Has added benefit of schooling John F'ing Kerry
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Obama Lies, so Granny doesn't die after all. Or, there will be no default! Obama says so (@moronwatch)
If you follow me on twitter, you know I have been saying to anyone who will listen, that despite Obama's rhetoric, there will be no default.
I explained this here, here and I even brought in Dick Morris explain it, here.
Today, we learned that even the Obama administration agrees there is no default possibility. As my twitter nemesis, Moronwatch, might say, Obama is beholden to his supporters on Wall Street and at the too big to fail investment banks (like Goldman-Sachs) - so, he won't let a default occur.
Know how we know this (besides it would be criminal of Obama to allow it to happen when he could avoid it)? Because this is what the Obama administration is telling their crony-capitalists at these banks.
I explained this here, here and I even brought in Dick Morris explain it, here.
Today, we learned that even the Obama administration agrees there is no default possibility. As my twitter nemesis, Moronwatch, might say, Obama is beholden to his supporters on Wall Street and at the too big to fail investment banks (like Goldman-Sachs) - so, he won't let a default occur.
Know how we know this (besides it would be criminal of Obama to allow it to happen when he could avoid it)? Because this is what the Obama administration is telling their crony-capitalists at these banks.
"In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn't raised by the August 2 deadline."
This doesn't mean it's a good idea to stop paying things like the EPA, but, as I've said before, social security gets paid, Medicare/Medicaid gets paid, debt service is completed, and there's some left over for Michelle Obama to go to Spain or Tahiti, or wherever she needs to go.
Win/Win for all us, n'est ce pas?
Kerry's pal stripped of Silver Star. Kerry still a French-looking loser.
CAPT Wade Sanders introduced the French-looking John "F'ing" Kerry at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where the Swift Boat driving Kerry was nominated as the party's candidate for President.
Many people like to believe that Kerry's campaign was derailed because a small group of veterans, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," mounted a campaign to discredit Kerry's Vietnam War accomplishments. Their evidence was pretty compelling, and, coupled with Kerry's subsequent dovishness, his crazy wife, his propensity for wind surfing, and his overall Liberalism, he was defeated by W, with no second count required.
Still, this guy came perilously close to becoming President and placing adulterer, ambulance-chaser, and campaign cheat John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and you thought a vote for John McCain was dangerous). The left whined that those former comrades of Kerry had a big role in his defeat, and coined the phrase "Swift Boating" to mean shedding the light on prior actions of a Democrat candidate that the American people might not find so swift. You know, like hanging out with bigoted preachers and guys who bomb police stations.
This week we learned that CAPT Sanders, who was a chief attack dog against the Swift Boat veterans, was involved in some, ummm, less than savory acts, like enjoying child pornography, an act for which he is serving 37 months in federal prison. Since he's been in prison, Navy Secretary Ray Malbus has stripped CAPT Sanders of his Silver Star (published in the 7/11 print Navy Times, but text here).
CAPT Pamela Kunze of the Board of Medals said:
Many people like to believe that Kerry's campaign was derailed because a small group of veterans, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," mounted a campaign to discredit Kerry's Vietnam War accomplishments. Their evidence was pretty compelling, and, coupled with Kerry's subsequent dovishness, his crazy wife, his propensity for wind surfing, and his overall Liberalism, he was defeated by W, with no second count required.
Still, this guy came perilously close to becoming President and placing adulterer, ambulance-chaser, and campaign cheat John Edwards a heartbeat away from the Presidency (and you thought a vote for John McCain was dangerous). The left whined that those former comrades of Kerry had a big role in his defeat, and coined the phrase "Swift Boating" to mean shedding the light on prior actions of a Democrat candidate that the American people might not find so swift. You know, like hanging out with bigoted preachers and guys who bomb police stations.
This week we learned that CAPT Sanders, who was a chief attack dog against the Swift Boat veterans, was involved in some, ummm, less than savory acts, like enjoying child pornography, an act for which he is serving 37 months in federal prison. Since he's been in prison, Navy Secretary Ray Malbus has stripped CAPT Sanders of his Silver Star (published in the 7/11 print Navy Times, but text here).
CAPT Pamela Kunze of the Board of Medals said:
"Had the subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself been known to the Secretary of the Navy in 1992, those facts would have prevented the award of the Silver Star."Of course, this doesn't confirm Kerry was a coward and an opportunist (remember, he got himself 3 Purple Hearts so he could get out of Vietnam), but, it doesn't help his case that his chief defender is a convicted kiddie porn user and a liar.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
@jpodhoretz, 7/20/11 10:30 PM
 John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz)7/20/11 10:30 PM Astounding post b @KeithHennessey on Gang of Six proposal. He doesn't say it, so I will: It's bullshit. http://t.co/eODTENB |
Sent from my iPhone
Dick Morris Explains the path forward for GOP
Dick Morris explains what the GOP really needs to do on this debt ceiling issue, and calls Obama out for lying about what lack of an agreement means with respect to default (i.e., nothing).
Jay to @DailyCaller: Put up or shut up on Bachmann Health
I expected better from the Daily Caller than a ridiculous hit piece on Michelle Bachmann and her migraine headaches. I am embarrassed for them for their use of anonymous sources, and because if it is true that they "put her out of commission for a day or more at a time" that should be easily verifiable. A sitting member of Congress has a pretty well publicized public schedule, and the instances the DC cites in their article barely describe "days at a time" of being incapacitated.
Furthermore, the article headline alleges "heavy pill use," yet in the body, we learn that pill use is because “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”
Well, that's true, you could end up with a bunch of pills. Those who suffer very bad migraines need these pills, and would be a fool not to "take these pills wherever she goes."
They describe an incident in May 2010, when Bachmann "flew to Los Angeles for a series of political and fundraising events. In part because of complications with her flight schedule, Bachmann’s mood plunged. During the entire six-hour flight, she was desperately sick from headaches."
Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of this article, since it barely rises TO the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer, and has no place in an online magazine trying to be a serious source of political news. Maybe the DC wants to prove it's not just a right-wing outfit (I don't know why they'd want to abandon that market), or maybe they have a closet woodie for Romney or Perry. I don't know, but this article is a disgusting hit piece.
As someone who has suffered/suffers from migraines, I can attest to the fact that they can be extremely debilitating, but, there are plenty of medications and strategies that can prevent them, and lessen their intensity. In nearly all cases, a doctor's office visit for treatment can eliminate them very, very quickly. Migraine sufferers pretty much lead a normal life, with attention to diet and use of proper medications. This article is stupid and the DC should prove that these incidents are more than what they've shown, or they need to print a retraction and issue an apology to Bachmann and migraine sufferers everywhere.
Update: Read Ed Morrisey's take at HotAir, pretty much mirrors mine.
Furthermore, the article headline alleges "heavy pill use," yet in the body, we learn that pill use is because “The migraines are so bad and so intense, she carries and takes all sorts of pills. Prevention pills. Pills during the migraine. Pills after the migraine, to keep them under control. She has to take these pills wherever she goes.”
Well, that's true, you could end up with a bunch of pills. Those who suffer very bad migraines need these pills, and would be a fool not to "take these pills wherever she goes."
They describe an incident in May 2010, when Bachmann "flew to Los Angeles for a series of political and fundraising events. In part because of complications with her flight schedule, Bachmann’s mood plunged. During the entire six-hour flight, she was desperately sick from headaches."
Hey, people, I don't know if you've ever had a regular headache on a plane, but it ain't fun, and to have a migraine on a plane! Argh, I would make them land it. But, that's why you take your medicine, but, with some migraines, you have to take your medication before the migraine reaches a certain point for it to be most effective, otherwise, you're where it appeared Bachmann was, in a doctor's office, getting a shot in your behind. After that, you're good, though.
Tucker Carlson should be ashamed of this article, since it barely rises TO the journalistic standards of the National Enquirer, and has no place in an online magazine trying to be a serious source of political news. Maybe the DC wants to prove it's not just a right-wing outfit (I don't know why they'd want to abandon that market), or maybe they have a closet woodie for Romney or Perry. I don't know, but this article is a disgusting hit piece.
As someone who has suffered/suffers from migraines, I can attest to the fact that they can be extremely debilitating, but, there are plenty of medications and strategies that can prevent them, and lessen their intensity. In nearly all cases, a doctor's office visit for treatment can eliminate them very, very quickly. Migraine sufferers pretty much lead a normal life, with attention to diet and use of proper medications. This article is stupid and the DC should prove that these incidents are more than what they've shown, or they need to print a retraction and issue an apology to Bachmann and migraine sufferers everywhere.
Update: Read Ed Morrisey's take at HotAir, pretty much mirrors mine.
@moronwatch takes it on the chin from a teabagging moron. Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the debt limit.
Update: Added links and corrected spelling
The lead moron over at moronwatch is at it again, this time trying to explain to his followers why the GOP is leading the US to default. As with most of moronwatch's posts, this is pretty much a cut and paste from liberal news media, and devoid of any original thinking. I'll supply my rebuttal here, and allow my (one) reader to enjoy it. It's THAT good.
This post is typical moronic twaddle.
You say, "Food stamps generate activity in the economy - $1.73 for each $1 spent." Although that's nonsensical on its face, it's not even the right contention. Liberals tried to tout when we were extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks here that "unemployment benefits" were a net positive to the economy, on the order of $1.73 to $1.
Either way, by that logic, we should just have the government give everyone food stamps (or cash), since it's a net positive to the economy. We really should just print money and hand it to people, we'd immediately grow the economy. (Actually, we would, but it would be a false growth). Do you people even THINK about what you're saying?
On one hand, Liberal economists (like those at The Economist) argue that deep spending cuts may have some negative growth effects (and there is an element of truth to that), but then argue that tax increases have a positive effect. So, let's see this logic - we have government priming the economy with spending to increase growth, and removing money from the economy to also increase growth. Huh? Only morons like moronwatch and liberals believe this crap.
Surely, if spending was such a boost to the economy, the $1T spent in stimulus in the last 2 years would have the US economy going gangbusters now and coupled with all the extensions in unemployment benefits, we'd be at unprecedented growth rates, and Obama would have made good on his promise of <8% unemployment. I don't know if you've noticed, but the US economy is slowing and unemployment is increasing. This is the pattern with Keynesian stimuli, they don't work. Not now, not ever.
There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised. There just is no combination of spending cuts and tax increases that can raise enough revenue right away to solve the immediate problem. So, the debt ceiling must be raised. There is no other choice ultimately.
Because, unfortunately, we've fiddled for too long. The president's laughable budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and those same Senators have failed to present a budget (a Constitutional requirement, by the way) for over 2 years. The budget presented and passed in the House addresses these structural deficits, but, it is going nowhere in a Harry Reid, Democrat controlled Senate, and the President, of course, opposes it. You tell ME who is intransigent here????
What is being debated, MW, is the future size of government, and your post either displays your ignorance or
disingenuousness (sort of like our President).
Let's get some things straight here, for your actually thinking readers:
Finally, Obama knows that his pals in the leftist, Obama-slurping media (which includes the former communists at The Economist) will tout his line and serve his mission. And, that's ok. We ALL know this, and accept it as a cost of politics in the United States.
As for me, I like this plan: http://bit.ly/ps847u
The lead moron over at moronwatch is at it again, this time trying to explain to his followers why the GOP is leading the US to default. As with most of moronwatch's posts, this is pretty much a cut and paste from liberal news media, and devoid of any original thinking. I'll supply my rebuttal here, and allow my (one) reader to enjoy it. It's THAT good.
This post is typical moronic twaddle.
You say, "Food stamps generate activity in the economy - $1.73 for each $1 spent." Although that's nonsensical on its face, it's not even the right contention. Liberals tried to tout when we were extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks here that "unemployment benefits" were a net positive to the economy, on the order of $1.73 to $1.
Either way, by that logic, we should just have the government give everyone food stamps (or cash), since it's a net positive to the economy. We really should just print money and hand it to people, we'd immediately grow the economy. (Actually, we would, but it would be a false growth). Do you people even THINK about what you're saying?
On one hand, Liberal economists (like those at The Economist) argue that deep spending cuts may have some negative growth effects (and there is an element of truth to that), but then argue that tax increases have a positive effect. So, let's see this logic - we have government priming the economy with spending to increase growth, and removing money from the economy to also increase growth. Huh? Only morons like moronwatch and liberals believe this crap.
Surely, if spending was such a boost to the economy, the $1T spent in stimulus in the last 2 years would have the US economy going gangbusters now and coupled with all the extensions in unemployment benefits, we'd be at unprecedented growth rates, and Obama would have made good on his promise of <8% unemployment. I don't know if you've noticed, but the US economy is slowing and unemployment is increasing. This is the pattern with Keynesian stimuli, they don't work. Not now, not ever.
There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised. There just is no combination of spending cuts and tax increases that can raise enough revenue right away to solve the immediate problem. So, the debt ceiling must be raised. There is no other choice ultimately.
Because, unfortunately, we've fiddled for too long. The president's laughable budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and those same Senators have failed to present a budget (a Constitutional requirement, by the way) for over 2 years. The budget presented and passed in the House addresses these structural deficits, but, it is going nowhere in a Harry Reid, Democrat controlled Senate, and the President, of course, opposes it. You tell ME who is intransigent here????
What is being debated, MW, is the future size of government, and your post either displays your ignorance or
disingenuousness (sort of like our President).
Let's get some things straight here, for your actually thinking readers:
- Even without a debt ceiling increase, there does not need to be any default. The US govt takes in enough money each month to service the debt and pay social security obligations and medicare and medicaid obligations. Not much else, though. So, clearly, govt services will slow to a crawl, and not even us crazy tea party sympathizers want that.
- The argument that is being made is that the debt ceiling increase needs to be balanced by spending cuts of the same amount over some period of time. Even the GOP is talking 10-12 years. Not in the same year, ok, can we get that straight?
- The same is true of the tax increases that Obama is seeking. Even he isn't stupid enough in this economy to suggest that we raise taxes in 2011 by $2T. He's suggesting the same thing, raise taxes by $2T over ten years, and cut spending by a similar amount (this is his $4T "grand bargain"). This amounts to repealing the Bush tax rates on the highest earners. Those are those millionaire families who make over $250k/year (or single filers making over $200k/year). Funny, you call us morons, but in this world a millionaire makes $200k/year. I guess in the world of 5 year plans, it makes some sense, though.
- This is Obama's game. He so pissed off his base by extending the Bush tax cuts in December, this is his way of getting them back. Oh well, at least us morons recognize political posturing when we see it.
- I realize you're British and maybe you don't know this, but no one can be denied medical care in the United States. It's a question of who PAYS for it. In the present system, we all pay for it via increased insurance premiums for the insured. In Obamacare, we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums for the insured (plus increased taxes on everyone). The selling point for government control is that this is just intended to be spread amongst more of us, so each of us will pay less. I don't know, but 30 million more people being insured means someone is paying more. But, that's an argument for another day.
Finally, Obama knows that his pals in the leftist, Obama-slurping media (which includes the former communists at The Economist) will tout his line and serve his mission. And, that's ok. We ALL know this, and accept it as a cost of politics in the United States.
As for me, I like this plan: http://bit.ly/ps847u
Monday, July 18, 2011
Debt Ceiling: Don't Call His Bluff, or Grandma Eats Dogfood!
If you live under a rock, we're a couple of weeks away from supposedly hitting the limit on the nation's credit cards. Once you get past the stupidity of the debtors debating with each other over how much to raise their own credit limit, we have to face the reality that the limit will probably be increased.
When you're facing a deficit of $2T, it's going to be pretty hard to cut all that out immediately, and we already know that the Dems have promised that if the limit isn't raised, they don't intend to pay anyone and just let the country go into default. That's what Obama meant when he said Granny wouldn't get her social security check. Why would admit he could service the debt and pay social security obligations? That would be truthful, and we already know the truth and Obama are alien. Plus, it would demonstrate real leadership and responsibility. It is what YOU would do, since YOU are responsible. But, that's not in the Dems DNA. No, like any other crisis, why let this one go to waste. There are political points to be made!
The GOP is going to vote this week on a plan they label as "Cut, Cap, and Balance, " or CCB. The plan cuts spending, places a cap on spending as a percentage of GDP, and takes a vote on a balanced budget amendment (BBA).
The cut part is intended to at least offer a dollar for dollar cut in spending for a corresponding increase in the debt limit. That would address the immediate need to keep the US out of default and run the country as usual (or, at least as Obama and the Dems define usual).
The cap part limits spending, as proposed, to 18% of GDP. This is below the historical norm (around 20%) and takes us back many years, so it really does represent a return to a more fiscally sane time. But, except for now, and WW2, we've never spent much more than 21% of GDP (today, it's 24%), so this is close to historical levels.
The balance part is a balanced budget amendment, which does not require the president's signature to send to the states. It is the hardest part of the thing, requiring a 2/3's vote in both chambers.
Dems being huge spenders, none of these, sadly, has a chance of passing the Senate, with it's 51 Dem majority (and Independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). So, yes, CCB is largely political posturing, but, it lays out the GOP's goals and what is acceptable to the GOP, and, I might add, to the people who sent historic numbers of them to Congress in the 2010 election. Taking Obama at his word that elections have consequences, I'd like to point out to the Liberals that the most recent election, and the one that most closely tells you where the country is on this, was in 2010, and "We won."
The GOP leadership seems torn by what to do. Of course, the old GOP guard of RINO's like Mitch McConnell and John McCain remember 1995 and that shutdown, and they know how they got outmaneuvered by Bill Clinton and a "pliant, supine media." They cringe at what this means to them, if Obama and his pals in the mainslurp media succeed in framing a failure to reach an agreement as the GOP's fault. To them, I warn that this is NOT 1995. There was no Fox News and no Internet to speak of in 1995. The state-controlled media was much stronger then, and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, although they share being first black presidents.
I further warn the GOP Old Guard that the Tea Partiers and their sympathizers (me), will not take kindly to more Republican capitulation to those determined to ruin the United States of America. If you're not aware of the McConnell plan, while it seems politically palatable, it is NOT what we sent this crop of people to Washington to do. We sent these people to Washington to save us from the left-wing ideologue in the White House, and we intend for them to do that. At least we want them to hold the line until help arrives. This battle is crucial in framing the debate for 2012, and Barack Obama and the do-nothing, Dem-controlled Senate must be made to pay for their intransigence in this one.
Understanding that the Senate will not pass CCB, and that even if it miraculously passed, BO would veto it, what is the GOP to do? Keep in mind that even if August 2nd comes and there is no debt limit increase, the Feds are still collecting revenue, something like $200B/month. So, there's money coming in.
Dick Morris, a veteran of that 1995 battle (on the winning side), has some advice for Republicans. Dick says, pass CCB, to get your policy goals out there and put it on record, but that's only 1/2 the battle. Knowing that won't pass, pass legislation that gives the administration Congress's priorities in the event there is no debt limit increase. Tell the president what you expect him to do with that $200B. And it should be:
- Service the debt to avoid default. This must be priority one. Codify it so that the rating agencies and creditors know we intend to make good on our debts.
- Direct the president to pay active duty military salaries and fund contingency operations (those are called wars in another administration).
- Direct the president to make social security payments and Medicare and Medicaid payments.
- Authorize the Treasury Secretary to borrow money as necessary beyond the debt limit to make good on any of the above bills, should revenue be insufficient.
- Require Treasury to provide a full accounting of where all revenues are spent.
From most estimates, the money coming in should be enough to cover these obligations. But, even if not, the conditional approval to borrow will ensure they are met.
It shouldn't take legislation to make these things happen. A true leader of the free world would already have assured people that even though the Congress is a bunch of louts and can't increase the debt limit (or, in the case of the Senate, pass a budget), he would ensure all these things would happen, because, you know, he's a leader. Instead, this president decided to be a demagogue and use granny to score political points. Hey, we already knew that about him, though.
Parts of the government will go in to hiatus. Unlike 1995, though, this time, no one will care, especially since the President and his pals have made Social Security and the military the issue already, now they'd have to back off and say, well, we got that covered, but aren't you mad the EPA isn't enforcing environmental regulations, or that Joe Biden can't take the Acela home to Delaware this weekend?
I'll take that argument.
Look, if not now, when? If conservatives lose this debate, then, I agree with Sean Hannity, who today said that means the country has decided we want to be Greece. If that's what the majority of Americans want, then I'll stick around to pick up the pieces. We'll all find out who John Galt is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)