An Intransigent President

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2008
84,532
16,091
2,180
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's it exactly. The Dems think the only problem is political and the GOP is simply ginning this up for gain. They can't understand why the GOP wont just roll over and increase the debt limit, like every time before. If there is a problem, the Democratic solution is to raise taxes so they can put in even more social programs and wasteful crap.
 
That is what this is all about.
Less government vs. same big government. Dem's will not give this up very easily.
 
What is comical about Liberals love of government is how bad the US government has failed the American people over the last 100 years. Why they have such immense love for something that fails so profoundly and so often is mind-boggling. The federal government allowed itself to get $14 trillion in debt. How can anyone be that irresponsible?!?!? The federal government failed to communicate properly and thus did not stop 9/11. How can you have such dire love for a government that spends us into collapse and fails to protect us? Think of the endless scandals - from Republican scum-bag Richard Nixon to Democratic scum-bags John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Dumbocrats screamed, cried, and wailed like psychotic maniacs for eight years during the Bush Administration. Well Dumbocrats, you're the one's who wanted giant government with unlimited power.

We could literally go on all day citing the immeasurable failures by the US federal government, and still the liberals crave larger federal government with more power. I guess a few freebies from Uncle Sam is worth more to Dumbocrats than freedom, prosperity, and personal responsibility.
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's it exactly. The Dems think the only problem is political and the GOP is simply ginning this up for gain. They can't understand why the GOP wont just roll over and increase the debt limit, like every time before. If there is a problem, the Democratic solution is to raise taxes so they can put in even more social programs and wasteful crap.

What's really funny is how Obama himself was dead set against raising the debt limit in '06 when Bush was President.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, 2006

For once Mr. President, I completley agree with you. The fact that we are here today $14 trillion in debt and you are requesting to raise the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Nobody better represents failure more than you do Barack Hussein.
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

This is par for the course. And since FOX doesn't fully agree, they are a hack channel that want's babies starving if the debt isn't raised.


What I don't get, is the very people that were against raising the debt in '06, and nastily so, are in total support of it now.

Why anyone is a member of either party anymore is beyond me. The inconsistancies should be enough to do most people in.
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

This is par for the course. And since FOX doesn't fully agree, they are a hack channel that want's babies starving if the debt isn't raised.


What I don't get, is the very people that were against raising the debt in '06, and nastily so, are in total support of it now.

Why anyone is a member of either party anymore is beyond me. The inconsistancies should be enough to do most people in.

Becuae TT in many states if one is a registered Independent one cannot vote in the Presidential primaries.
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

Conservatives are opposed to any raise in revenue. This is while they've cut taxes for the last 30 or so years and cut revenue. And they haven't stopped spending. Not in the slightest.

If you want to start wars, create new government departments and grant new entitlements to our seniors and veterans..you have to pay for it. And paying for it doesn't involve cutting taxes. Paying for it involves RAISING taxes.

Simple economics.
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.

Yep.

Defense.

Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?

And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.

In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

First of all, that statement is 100% FALSE. The entire defense budget is $500 billion. We spend $1 trillion on welfare alone. And that is just a small part of the nightmare that is known as Social Security. You should not recklessly post false statements like that. That is irresponsible.

Second, defense is one of the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Their social programs are in fact unconsitutional. Not one of the 18 enumerated powers delegated by the states to the federal government includes social care of the people.

Third, and most important, defense is everything. What difference does it make what our debt is if we don't have a country? If we're over thrown by China or Russia, nothing else matters. We won't be free, we won't have a vote, and we will no longer have a country. So yes, I approve any amount of money required to defend us and keep us free.
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

This is par for the course. And since FOX doesn't fully agree, they are a hack channel that want's babies starving if the debt isn't raised.


What I don't get, is the very people that were against raising the debt in '06, and nastily so, are in total support of it now.

Why anyone is a member of either party anymore is beyond me. The inconsistancies should be enough to do most people in.

Becuae TT in many states if one is a registered Independent one cannot vote in the Presidential primaries.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am a registered democrat in the Big PA. After the next election I'll switch back to republican.

My point was; Why bother with them? No one can honestly claim thier team captains care more about anything other than staying a team captain.
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

Conservatives are opposed to any raise in revenue. This is while they've cut taxes for the last 30 or so years and cut revenue. And they haven't stopped spending. Not in the slightest.

If you want to start wars, create new government departments and grant new entitlements to our seniors and veterans..you have to pay for it. And paying for it doesn't involve cutting taxes. Paying for it involves RAISING taxes.

Simple economics.

Wrong. Simply wrong. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Revenues to the federal government are as high as they've ever been in US history. Additionally, I have one important question for you - when has the federal government ever spent only what they had? No matter how much money we give them, they recklessly and irresponsibly spend more! That's why we are $14 trillion in debt. Of course, Barack Hussein is responsible for $5 trillion of that in only 2.5 years, so he put the spending into hyper-speed to ensure our collapse. Only Andrew Jackson elliminated the national debt, and he served in 1829 my friend. GOP or Dumbocrat, the federal government always spends more than we give them. So raising taxes will do nothing.
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

It's the only thing they ever want to cut, despite the fact that it bites us in the ass everytime.

Aren't you the one that claimed government created jobs by being a huge customer of the publics?

That's a hint. :eusa_whistle:
 
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.

The American Spectator : An Intransigent President

Sure blows to see your Teatard heroes in the House getting the coverage they deserve, huh?
 
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.

That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

It's the only thing they ever want to cut, despite the fact that it bites us in the ass everytime.

Aren't you the one that claimed government created jobs by being a huge customer of the publics?

That's a hint. :eusa_whistle:

That would be a huge comsumer of the private sector.

The government buys hardware from General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, SAIC, KBR, Computer Sciences Corporation, Honeywell, AM Electric - to name a few.

These companies could be building things for the government, that if used, didn't kill people.

That would be money well spent.

Doncha think?

Or we could just cut it. And not spend.

:lol:
 
That's absolutely incorrect.

In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.

The most expensive component to the government.

They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.

Yep.

Defense.

Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?

And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.

In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.

You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.
 
They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.

Yep.

Defense.

Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?

And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.

In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.

You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.

Swallow is wrong in everything he believes and everything he writes The GOP ought to ask him how to solve the debt ceiling and budget issue and then do the opposite.
 

Forum List

Back
Top