And it might take someone as ruthless as a Cardassian to solve the mess Barack Obama is leaving us!
THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
President Obama’s real problem was that he ran his mouth, and issued an empty threat. Now, actually doing the right thing in Syria looks like weakness, and the President’s word cannot be either trusted or even taken seriously.
Good Stuff
Get your "Don't Blame Me" bumper sticker, via Cafe Press, by William Teach of The Pirate's Cove. Click on the sticker to order, only $3.99 each.
C D Collins
Kentucky native CD Collins follows the story- telling traditions of the South, both as a solo artist and when accom- panied by musicians. As one of originators of the early ‘90s resurgence of spoken-word with live music, her work has been archived in award-winning compact discs.C D is an old friend of mine from Mt Sterling.
Voluntarily Pay More Taxes
Many of our friends on the left believe that we are undertaxed. If you believe that you don't pay enough in taxes, you can use the button above to connect to the United States Treasury Department, and voluntarily pay more in taxes.
National Debt to the penny
To find the National Debt on any given day, click on the icon, and fill in the dates for which the information is desired. At the end of Monday, March 19, 2012, more had been added to the national debt in three years and two months under President Obama than had been added in eight years under President Bush.Shop Amazon.com
Blogroll
- American Power
- Blonde Sagacity
- Bridging the Gap
- bRight & Early
- Caffeinated Thoughts
- Head Noises
- Hot Air
- Laughing Conservative
- Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion
- Midnight Blue
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Pirate's Cove
- Powerline
- Protein Wisdom
- Red State
- Rovin's World
- Sister Toldjah
- The Lonely Conservative
- The Other McCain
- Truth Before Dishonor
- Victory Girls
Publications
Site Meter
Once again, Wagonwheel swallows the partisan line:
Federal spending is lower now tan when President took office only if you attribute all of the FY2009 spending to President Bush, even though it was President Obama who signed most of it into law. The deficit this year will be lower only if you assign to President Bush all of the spending President Obama signed into law for FY2009.
However, it is true that taxes are lower today, primarily due to the reduction in Social Security taxes.
But, how many times has our good friend from Delaware justified the huge deficits and expenditures of the stimulus plan, part of FY2009 and signed into law by President Obama, as necessary to stave off an economic collapse? How odd that he would give the “credit” for what he thinks happened positive to President Obama, but assign the expenses to President Bush.
If you look at FY2008, a budget and appropriations passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by President Bush, neither of the two expense points made by Wagonwheel are true. Spending was lower, and even President Bush’s last deficit, an unprecedented $400 billion, pales in comparison to anything under the previous Administration.
With inflation driving some of the numbers, dollar by dollar comparisons come up somewhat short in my estimation. That’s why I have been using the figures of federal spending as a percentage of GDP, because that gives a more accurate, year-by-year comparison . . . and even in the out-years, where President Obama projects strong economic growth, he plans on spending a far larger percentage of GDP than was spent by President Bush in any year.
But, in a way, Wagonwheel is just a very small cog in the President’s re-election campaign, and he
has tohas chosen to parrot the Administration’s line, even though they are making arguments he would never accept as being even remotely reasonable coming from a Republican.You’re utterly and totally wasting your time, Eric. Passive-Aggressive Perry is 100% locked into his fantasy sycophant world …
Well, I do it only to demonstrate Perry’s duplicity. That, and what a pompous ass he can be.
That makes no sense at all. Ditto the pack of lies from Mr. Nutter that are so laughable no one here believes them for a second.
The name is ‘Nutting’, Eric.
I did not expect Republicans to believe Nutting’s analysis, but tell me, exactly what is your reason for objecting to it. And then you might express that which you would have wanted our President to do, in light of the fact that he was handed the worst depression since the Great Depression. Would you have preferred austerity? Again, look at how well the UK has done under austerity: Their GDP, under the Conservative government, continues to be negative, while ours, under President Obama, hovers around 2% positive growth.
Following up on the negative economic situation in the UK under the Conservative Government’s austerity program in year three since the global recession triggered by our Wall Street, it is worthwhile reading in detail that which is now being reported about it in the British Press, for example theguardian which was referenced in the preceding post:
Note the emboldened parts of the last paragraph: Is this what you Conservatives wish to happen to the US economy? This is exactly what will happen if Mitt Romney is elected and immediately invokes the Ryan Plan of austerity, since Romney has endorsed your Ryan Plan.
WaPo is not Republican. WaPo is an undeclared Democrat propaganda arm. And even WaPo declared the nutter to be lying.
AP is not Republican. AP is an undeclared Democrat propaganda arm. And even AP declared the nutter to be lying.
When you cannot get even Democrat shills like WaPo and AP to shill for your lies, you know you have gone a bridge too far.
Germane to this discussion, I think it is worthwhile for today’s Republicans to contemplate the words of a Republican of yesteryear, a former Senator who continues to promote solutions to our ills, specifically, our economic ills.
“But, how many times has our good friend from Delaware justified the huge deficits and expenditures of the stimulus plan, part of FY2009 and signed into law by President Obama, as necessary to stave off an economic collapse? How odd that he would give the “credit” for what he thinks happened positive to President Obama, but assign the expenses to President Bush.”
Mr Editor, again, Rex Nutting has assigned the stimulus to President Obama. Other than that, I still contend that it is correct to assign the continuing f/y 2009 expenditures to Bush who initiated them, even though President Obama signed off on some of them. These expenditures were as a direct result of failed policy under Bush. Now if you want to talk about f/y 2011, 2012, and 2013, that’s a different story. If Romney happens to be elected, the f/y 2013 expenditures will be on Obama, so you can blame them on him with no objection from me.
Mr Hitchcock, a disagreement with me does not constitute a “lie”, it constitutes a “disagreement”.
WW wrote:
If all of the FY2013 expenditures are passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama, then it will be appropriate to assign the responsibility to the Republicans who control the House, the Democrats who control the Senate, and President Obama. But if there is no FY2013 budget — and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already said that the Senate would not pass one before the election — and the government is funded via continuing resolutions until the next President takes office, and the final appropriations are passed by a completely Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President Romney, then FY2013 will be the Republicans’ responsibility, not the Senate Democrats and not President Obama.
WW wrote:
But does it constitute a reasonable disagreement?
The point in question here are the responsibility for the FY2009 expenditures. You are assigning the responsibility for all of them to President Bush. However, with the exception of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans’ Affairs, none of the cabinet departments was funded by the 110th Congress for FY2009, except on the basis of continuing resolutions, extending the FY2008 appropriations levels. President Bush did sign those continuing resolutions into law.
After the eleventy-first Congress was seated, they still didn’t take action on the FY2009 appropriations, not until February, after President Bush was retired and President Obama had replaced him. At that point, the Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, to finish appropriations for the fiscal year. By what reasoning can you assign the FY2009 expenditure levels to President Bush, other than the ones for the three cabinet departments fully appropriated under his signature? Since the law he had signed simply continued appropriations at the FY2008 levels, why wouldn’t he be responsible only for spending at the FY2008 levels?
Perry, quit being so narcissistic. We all know you lie with regularity. Delaware Libertarian, more than one Liberal in the Delaware area, multiple Conservative sites have all proven your long history of lying for the radical Leftist cause. But do examine what I said. When has WaPo or AP called you out for your lies? Never? Then, obviously, my statement had nothing to do with you, but rather with the nutter whose lies you choose to further. Again, Perry, quit with your narcissism. It ain’t all about you, after all.
The following excerpt is from David Lauter’s article in the Politics Now section of the LA Times, 5/27/12. (bold added)
It includes a statement from the DNC chairwoman which is specific to the Wisconsin Recall Election, but is eerily similar to the acute psychological departure from reality that Nutting’s crazy claims exhibit and which invariably seem to contaminate the malfunctioning minds of hyper-partisan Democrats when their chickens come home to roost.
[Comment edited to add hyperlink, and make a small formatting change; no changes made to text. -- Editor]
Note Wasserman Shultz’s bogus assertion of honesty immediately prior to the whopper. It’s a typical Freudian slip characteristic of bald-faced liars, and a dead give-away.
Has it ever occurred to you, Perry, that austerity in the short run is greatly preferable to disaster in the long run (Spain, Greece?)