Why is Obama taking credit for Republican's cleaning up his mess in many states?
Under the control of Democrats the budget of the United States has grown by a trillion dollars in the last few years.
2007 / $2.7 trillion/ $161 billion / Bush
2008 / $2.9 trillion / $239 billion / Bush*
2009 / $3.1 trillion / $407 billion / Obama*
2010 / $3.55 trillion / $1.17 trillion / Obama*
2011 / $3.7 trillion / $1.6 trillion / Obama*
*- Democrat-controlled Congress
Obama and the Democrats have exploded federal spending. They have a
two pronged effort to ruin this country underway- one is to
irretrievably bury us in debt and the second is simple denial.
There was a time when debt and deficits mattered to Democrats. That would be when a Republican is President.
Democrats are honing an election-year strategy of using
record federal deficits to try and undermine the credibility of
President Bush and Congress’ majority Republicans.
Democrats are attacking President Bush’s budget for
worsening the already bleak deficit picture, even as a new congressional
analysis of his fiscal plans shows no end in sight for huge amounts of
But all that concern magically ended the day Democrats took control of Congress and it hasn’t been seen since.
Few of us were happy with the way George Bush spent but it is
inarguable that Obama and the Democrats have made W look like Ebenezer
What has just been agreed to was the Fiscal 2011 budget. The Fiscal
2011 budget was proposed by Barack Obama in February 2010. The 2011
Fiscal Year runs from October to September. That means that Democrats
have been entirely derelict in their duties and it was left to
Republicans to fix their mess. Democrats had from February 2010 (When
the budget was handed to them) to the end of December to pass a 2011
budget and they controlled all of Congress during that time.
And they failed.
Not only did Democrats fail, they spewed all sorts of garbage during the negotiations.
Biden said Democrats agreed to $73 billion in cuts.
Vice President Joe Biden announced late Wednesday that
House and Senate bipartisan negotiators had agreed to a spending-cut
target of $73 billion in 2011 budget talks aimed at heading off a
government shutdown before next week, when a temporary bill keeping the
government operating runs out.
Obama also claimed Democrats agreed to $73 billion in spending cuts:
President Obama says Democrats have agreed to $73 billion
in spending cuts for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, and that
this is the same target Republicans have set.
Except that they didn’t:
Republican House Speaker John Boehner says the Democrats
are calling for $33 billion in cuts, and that his party hasn’t agreed to
that or any other number.
The actual figure turns out to be $39 billion.
And the national debt increased by $54 billion while they were dickering over $39 billion.
Barack Obama finally decided to “come off the sidelines.”
Once criticized as too aloof, President Obama has
forcefully stepped up his involvement in budget negotiations by
repeatedly calling Capitol Hill’s top Republican and top Democrat to the
Oval Office, underscoring the new power balance in Washington with the
House GOP having earned a seat at the table.
Before you caught up in thinking that that’s impressive, remember
that this budget should been a done deal by October 1 of last year.
Obama again voted present, jumping in once the dust had largely settled.
Still, the most ridiculous aspect of this episode was Obama’s taking credit for any spending reductions.
“Today, Americans of different beliefs came together again,” Obama said.
The president said that negotiators have reached “a budget that
invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in
our history,” adding that he compromised on cuts that he would “not
have made in better circumstances.”
Assinine. Obama never had the slightest intention of cutting
anything. And make no mistake- nothing was actually cut. The agreement
was only a reduction in proposed spending increases. These morons have
increased federal spending by 33% in four years. It’s confounding trying
to understand why it was so easy to add so much and so difficult to
The Obaminated Press predictably awarded Obama a victory:
Rivals in a divided government, President Barack Obama
and the most powerful Republican in Congress split their differences to
stave off a federal shutdown that neither combatant was willing to risk.
“We must get our fiscal house in order. We’ve agreed to an historic level of cuts for this fiscal year.”
Nonsense. This wasn’t a “cut.” It was a reduction in proposed
spending. That’s all. A real cut in spending will see the US federal
budget being lower for Fiscal Year 2012 than for 2011.
Good luck with that.
And a reminder:
President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut
the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first
term, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Look for Obama to claim this as a success. As always, the devil is in the details.
President Barack Obama pledged Monday to cut the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first term.
If, by some miracle, Republicans whittle away at the next budget to
the tune of $600 billion in proposed spending increases Obama will claim
success as that would represent half of the $1.3 trillion deficit from
2009. Then again, he could even claim that a $300 billion reduction in
proposed spending would be a success as well.
Because in that $1.3 trillion was included the $700 billion TARP money, which has largely been paid back.
Which also means Obama did not inherit a $1.3 trillion deficit, but
rather a $600 billion deficit (not that that’s small potatoes).
And one last blast from the past:
“I refuse to leave our children with a debt they
cannot repay,” he said in remarks opening the one-day summit at the
White House. “We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without
end. … We cannot simply spend as we please.”
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Culture of Corruption, Deception and Lies, Economy, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Obamanomics, Politics, WtF? and tagged barack obama, deficits, Economy, Federal budget, harry reid, John Boehner, National Debt, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.
Sunday, April 10th, 2011 at 2:45 pm | 1,004 views
28 Responses to Republicans clean up Democrat mess and Obama takes the credit [Reader Post]
Here’s an interesting exercise I just did.
The national debt is $14.2 trillion.
The annual revenue of the government is $2.57 trillion.
The annual spending of the government is $3.83 trillion.
The spending cut was $38 billion.
What does that really mean in dollar numbers that we can understand?
Let’s assume that your annual salary is $50,000.
Using the same percentages, this would mean that you owe $276,265, and you are spending $74,514 each year.
You realize that this can’t go on forever, so you decide to cut your annual spending by $739.
You congratulate yourself for making such a tough decision.Like or Dislike: 0 0
The photo of the guy with the guy who has
his head in the sand was a fitting choice. By the way Dr J, out of the
current crop of presidential candidates who is your current favorite
replacement for the TOTUS?Like or Dislike: 0 0
Old Trooper 2 says:
The “Cuts” were a drop in the Bucket
while un-sustainable spending goes on unabated. Neither Party is
Fiscally Responsible or Economically Literate at this point. The
duplication of ‘services’ on the part of the Federal Government vs State
Government is irresponsible as well. Time is past due for the
Constitutionally Illiterate to read the 10th Amendment and the
Enumerated Powers and get back to the Intent of the Founding Fathers
before the Republic becomes insolvent.Like or Dislike: 0 0
@Old Trooper 2:
The commerce clause seems to be a passage of the constitution that
allows for anything according to either party. Creative reading?..Like or Dislike: 0 0
Dr. John, you have an asterisk by the years that the Democrats controlled the Congress.
Shouldn’t that include 2007 as the Democrats won control of the House
in the November, 2006 elections, giving them control of the 2007
Congress?Like or Dislike: 0 0
In 2007, the Democrats held 233 out of
435 Congressional seats and 51 out of 100 Senate seats. While it did
not give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority, they still held a
simple majority.Like or Dislike: 0 0
I have been reading the Federalist Papers, concerned with the
founding father’s views on the Constitution and how certain phrases and
sections were meant to be applied. I found this quote, from James
Madison, recently, and it has become a favorite of mine now.
If the federal government should overpass the just bounds
of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people,
whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and
take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the
exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Essay no. 33
We have a serious education problem in this country, and I don’t mean
math or english, although those certainly are problems. No, I’m talking
about American History, and in particular, the Constitution and the
Declaration. Too many of our young people come out of school with little
to no understanding of these documents, instead, listening to the
liberal rhetoric about a “living document” and that most anything that
can be done by congress can be shoehorned into certain sections or
paragraphs of the Constitution. We, as a country, no longer have a
revered view of the Constitution. Instead, we, as a country, see it as a
dated document, no longer relevant to today’s world.
And by doing so, much of America misses the magic of that particular
document. Namely, the fact that it is general enough to encompass
current events, and specific enough to elicit outrage at modern
legislations when warranted. James Madison himself stated that in future
times, he would hope that when questions about the Constitution arise,
that legislators would harken back to the days of the construction of
the document, and to what the authors of the Constitution were thinking
about, of the inclusions of the phrase or section in question.
The commerce clause, for instance, requires much deliberation, as it
is used as authority for all manner of intrusive government legislation
upon the common citizen.
Article I, Section 8;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To understand that phrase, one must understand that at the time of
our country’s birth, the thirteen original states were considered to be
their own sovereign entities, akin to their own sovereign countries. The
Union was meant to be a consolidation of these entities, of which, in
most issues, the people were like-minded, and that a consolidation of
power, mainly for the defense of the States from foreign aggression,
made sense so as to endear a stronger presence in the world. As such,
commerce between the states, and between a state, or states, and a
foreign country, and amongst the states and the Indian tribes(not
considered inclusively with the Union), was to be regulated so that a
state that imported items, through other states, were not subjected to
egregious actions by those pass-through states, to a point where it
could become untenable to import from certain locations, and
advantageous to import from other, certain locations. A leveling of the
playing field, so to speak, as states like VA and NY, in particular,
imported very little that passed through other states, while others very
much used travel through other states to obtain goods.
In the modern world, the commerce clause is applied to legislation,
so as to effect certain regulations on products, or services. The fact
that a product or service is sold between states is of little
consequence to the legislators, as the main thrust is the regulation
itself, becoming ever more intrusive upon the freedoms and liberties of
the individual citizens. It is because of this clause, and the modern
interpretation of it, that Representatives, like Pete Stark, D-CA, claim
that the federal government can “do most anything it wants”. Oh, how
James Madison must be rolling in his grave right now.
This clear usurpation of power by our federal government must become
one of the lightening rods for modern day conservatives. We must educate
the populace, to as great an extent as possible, on the Constitution,
so as to elicit a shared goal of ending these atrocious overreaches by
the federal government into our daily lives.Like or Dislike: 0 0
another vet says:
Perhaps we should go to The Hermitage and
dig up Andrew Jackson since he was the only president to ever pay off
the national debt.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Next year, 2012, if the current form
holds true for the federal debt and the GDP, will be the first year
since the 40′s that our debt will exceed the GDP. We came out of that
mainly due to WWII, and in spite of Roosevelt’s “New Deal”. The
difference this time, is that out of the new spending by the federal
government, much of it is very specific, and not likely to find it’s way
into the general economy.Like or Dislike: 0 0
@retire05: George Bush submitted the proposed FY 2007 budget in February of 2006 as is tradition. Congress passed it in May of 2006.
The federal fiscal year begins October 1 and continues through
September 30. Democrats did not take control until January of 2007.Like or Dislike: 0 0
@johngalt: There is a very big difference between that debt and the current debt, i.e. who holds it.Like or Dislike: 0 0
JG, almost all of what you say is unfortunately true, especially when
you look at the professors our children have to put up wit, sitting in
their Ivory Towers, and pronouncing their liberal screed on everyone-
but if you speak up, as my daughter did, a couple of times, you find
yourself targeted by liberal eco- whackos who believe that freedom of
speech applies only to THEIR speech.
Sadly, they have been lied to by their parents, who told their entitled
brats that they were the smartest people in the room- kinda like Barrie
Obama, huh?Like or Dislike: 0 0
Keep in mind, this 39 billion is not a
“cut”- it is only a reduction in spending. Cuts will be when not only do
we NOT spend, we ELIMINATE whole Departments, like “Education”, EPA,
HHS, defund the IRS and change the tax code to a 5/10/15 solution with
If we can do this, then the banks will loosen their lending, and small
businesses will grow and jobs can be created- not until then.Like or Dislike: 0 0
$200 billion in spending on redundant
programs and useless gvt. employees! Some legitimate estimates that go
as high as 25% in waste and funds that cannot even be accounted for! And
let’s not forget NPR,CPB, Planned Parenthood and any other entity that
if the public wants it, let them support it themselves (and for you
libbies out there, this also means programs supported by the entrenched
Rep. scumbags as well. i am after all an equal opportunity disser when
given the chance)! I could go on and on. The point is a $38 billion cut
for the rest of the fiscal year is just another slap in the American
As we are now seeing our leader, you know, the one who had his ass
against the wall and will be more than happy to abandon his Soviet style
agenda only long enough so as to keep his sorry ass position. Not only
is this clown taking credit for basically nothing, but he’ll use it to
show he “is listening and thus deserves re-election! Any one who is
foolish enough to even remotely believe this clown has changed his
stripes is either stone cold dumb or completely ideologically brain
BTW: @Blake: My daughter went through the exact same thing at USF.
She was given a low “C” on a dissertation that flat out proved her
professor was a liberal elitest asshole period. Mush to her credit, she
fought it. Didn’t get anywhere of course as she was told she had no
right to bring her right wing agenda as they called it to the campus.
Much to my great fatherly pride, my little girl told the entire staff
involved to “Blow it out there asse”s and that they were in fact the
enemies of this country. That was over 12 years ago and it’s only gotten
worse!Like or Dislike: 0 0
Much to my great fatherly pride, my little girl told the
entire staff involved to “Blow it out there asse”s and that they were
in fact the enemies of this country.
I have a little girl of the same cloth.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Old Trooper 2 says:
“You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift
the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor
man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending
more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by
inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative
and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what
they could and should do for themselves.” –Presbyterian clergyman
William Boetcker (1873-1962)
On the Commerce Clause, it has been ‘bastardized’ beyond it’s
original intent to becoming a tool for the Fiscally Irresponsible and an
Umbrella excuse for Political Patronage for Special Interest to serve
Political Gain and not to create opportunity for the Sovereign States to
regulate Commerce within their borders or with other individual States
as intended. It is broken and requires definition by the Judicial Branch
to check the Powers of the Executive and Legislative Branches as is
clearly defined by the Enumeratiive Powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the
US Constitution. A Failure to do so will doom the Republic. The
Constitution is not a Buffet to be eaten in the parts and pieces that
You like. It is the Law of the Land that applies as a Whole.Like or Dislike: 0 0
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
That’s a true statement if I ever heard one. None of the people
running seem to have a plan to get a definition on the commerce cause
that is not self serving.Like or Dislike: 0 0
@joetote: Joe, does she ever call you on your cell and explode about the nitwits?
It’s one of the great pleasures of my life.Like or Dislike: 0 0
A continuation of #7, and the discussion of the powers of congress to spend our money:
Along with the commerce clause, the ‘general welfare’ clause is one
of the most misunderstood, and misrepresented clauses within the
Constitution. It is used as reason and means to enact various
legislation for which it was never intended.
Article I, Section 8;
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Again, we must go back to the time of the construction of the
document. In Federalist Paper no. 41, James Madison writes of an
objection to the phraseology of the above. In it, the detractors argue
that the phrase “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every
power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or
general welfare”. How prescient they were. However, Madison likens the
phraseology of the section to the building of a paragraph, and that the
first phrase, like a first sentence in a paragraph, is only a general
idea of the powers, and that the immediate following phrases within the
section enumerate the powers generally discussed within the first
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of
the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general
expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some
color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for
so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all
If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded,
as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of
the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning;
and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their
full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any
signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of
particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be
included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural
nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and
qualify it by a recital of particulars.
Unfortunately for Madison, the modern liberal has involved, and
included, the phrase within their sphere of powers granted by the
Constitution, and have thus used it to reason away many liberties and
freedoms, and at the same time, legislating the formation of several
entitlement programs for which their powers never extended to.
As is the case in #7 that I cited, with the ‘commerce’ clause, the
lack of education on the Constitution, and specifically, the powers it
vests within the three branches, has enabled the usurpation of power by
the federal government from the state and local administrations. One
could argue that using the ‘general welfare’ clause, for “the common
good”, is used with the best of intentions in mind, to endow the elderly
with retirement income, keep children of the poor fed, provide for
medical services to those who do not possess the means, etc., however,
as with many good intentions, the results become disastrous and in
opposition to the clear mission, enumerated within the Constitution, of
the federal government over the ‘several states’.
What this has enabled, more than anything, is a redistribution of
wealth, and not from those who can to those who cannot, but from those
who will to those who will not. And any attempt at shutting off the
spigot of federal dollars to these programs, or even a lessening of
flow, is met by derision and lies from liberals, with claims of
conservatives killing old people, starving children, taking away medical
care from women, and other, equally outlandish claims, of conservative
destruction upon America.
We have a Congress, along with a President, that just completed the
2011 budget, nearly a year later than commonly done, and over six months
past the start of fiscal 2011, and they want us to be happy about cuts
of $39 Billion for the rest of the year. That amount is paltry,
considering the total estimated spending for the year, and considering
the too numerous to count funding items within the budget, most of which
do not fit within the granted powers to Congress, spelled out within
the Constitution, and discussed at length by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay,
and found in other discussions by founding fathers upon the
I sought to include lists of spending on unconstitutional items, but
the job is quite daunting, to say the least. Credit must be given to
those like Paul Ryan, who can delve into federal spending, however, my
guess is that he is missing much of the unconstitutional spending that
goes on annually. The departments of Education, HHS, Energy, and
Agriculture are just a few of the biggest spending areas for which
Congress has no right, and indeed, has usurped power from state and
local administrations. I will not compile a list, as I do not have the
time necessary to devote to that monumental task.
I will leave with this thought, though: Congress, and the federal
government at large, have turned the producers of this country into
servants for the machine. We no longer work to provide for the
Constitutional authority of the federal government. We work to provide
for an engine geared towards taking wealth from one, to give to another,
based on the ‘need’ of that other. Charity has devolved into theft at
gunpoint, by a government we give power to, and many of us are simply
happy that they take no more than they do. We no longer live for
ourselves, but for the benefit of others. In effect, we have become the
servants, and the government the masters.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Funny story. She is like a miniature (4’9″) version of me except she’s a
she! We speak 3 or 4 times a week. She’s married to a State Policeman
who is every bit as conservative. We do indeed have some amazing calls
and as you say it is a great pleasure. Of my four kids, 2 girls and my
son are conservative. My oldest daughter also went to USF and
unfortunately she chose to let herself be indoctrinated by those same
professors. Makes for some interesting family get togethers for sure.
My biggest laugh with her is she’ll always throw a nice snide comment on my blog basically to one up DAD!
god, I love that!!!Like or Dislike: 0 0
Nan G says:
I hope she is not in CA!
The CA law requires all people 4’9” or under to be placed in a car booster seat!
Sounds like a mini-firecracker of a girl.Like or Dislike: 0 0
A continuation of the discussion of the Constitution, and it’s relation to the authored topic above;
Our Constitution has faults, as does every object ever devised by
Man, however, it also contains ideas of such significant genius, that to
change, or obliterate them, could be considered an egregious error. One
such idea was the original mode of selecting for service, to the
federal government, the offices of senator. The 17th Amendment erased
the brilliance of our founding fathers, and at the same time, placed
handcuffs on the ‘several states’ in their ability to protect their own
Article I, Section 3,
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,)
A discussion within the Federalist Papers;
II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the
appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various
modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the
government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably
the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the
double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the
State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal
government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a
convenient link between the two systems.
-Hamilton, Madison, Federalist Papers no. 62
Representation, on the federal level, was meant to be the people, the
states, and the union, all having voice upon the affairs of the union,
in regards to foreign, states, and individual respects. The people,
represented by the House, of which it’s members were elected within
local districts, to represent their own local portion of the population
of the union as a whole. The Union, represented by the President, with
the deciding signature, or “vote” on legislation, is thoughtful of the
Union entire, and as such, elected by the whole of the Union. The
States, represented by two senators, to place the voice of the ‘several
states’ within discussions on legislation, of which their members were
selected, based on individual state’s preferences, by their own
The process was simplistic, yet genius, as the states had a voice
within the federal Congress, to oppose or support, whatever business was
pertinent to their own well-being, including any encroachment upon
their sovereign entities, or rights which they held. With the 17th
Amendment, the process of choosing senators fell upon the people of the
state, and in so doing, became creatures beholden not to the state, but
the people entire within that state, but also bastardized to include the
union itself. The states lost a weapon to combat federal overreach into
the realm of their own sovereign rights.
One can admit to failings with the original process, however, not due
to the senators themselves, but only to the process by which they were
selected. Deadlocks within individual state legislatures caused many
senators to not be seated when required, and corruption of the process
by political entities within state legislatures. As a result, popular
vote within a state determined it’s senators. The detrimental effects of
such a change is revealed by the fact that the urban populations within
a state tended to choose the senators, and the influence of such
choices is obvious. No longer does the state whole have a say, or
representation within the senate. That is owned by the large urban
areas, often in opposition to rural desires, or in opposition to
protecting the rights of the state itself. And what’s more, these urban
areas often reflect liberal viewpoints, on a national scale, without
regard for the encroachment by federal authority over the rights of the
states, and individual.
If you question that last sentence, look no further than any
senator’s rhetoric upon any legislation of the day. You do not hear any
of them discuss how it is good for their state, or bad for their state.
Their words always reflect a national sense of viewpoint, rather than
single state’s rights. The 17th Amendment, over all other words,
clauses, or phrases, misused and misrepresented within the Constitution,
is responsible for the erosion of the states being their own sovereign
entities, and as such, having their own sovereign rights, freedoms and
liberties. Again, it started with good intentions, being that states
would have their representation, on time, and without corruption, within
the federal Congress, but it has ended in disastrous results to the
original intent of the founding fathers, and their views of a Union,
made up of sovereign states.
How does this apply to the discussion at hand? Simply put,
individuals and states began in earnest to lose their freedom and
liberty upon that amendment. It allowed the furtherance of legislation
to benefit the urban areas, at the expense of the rural. It allowed the
spending of federal monies on unconstitutional grounds, influenced by
urban poverties. No longer were the states represented as an entirety,
to address the problems in relation to a states’ rights, but by popular
voice within urban settings, without regard for the rural voice in
opposition. As such, we now have spending on programs designed to
address the plight of the poverties within high population areas, at the
expense of the individual citizen. The very fact that senators speak
with the influence of the population entire is evidence of this.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Still laughing at that one! My wife and 2 of the three girls are 4’10
or under. the other is 5′. We tease them alot as to the possibility of
booster seats. Also, they can’t drive vintage Corvettes! At least some
cars are drivable for them was they sit on a phone book though. BTW:
She’s in Fl.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Could you please point me to the last
Republican led congress and President who felt balanced budgets were
worthy of top priority. That would be the liberal anti- military
establishment Dwight D. E.. What repugnicans are opposed to is
Democrats spending money. Repugs, love spending money on their
employers, ie, the banks and big oil concerns.Like or Dislike: 0 0
States rights would pour off my lips
should I not have to defend your sorry asses. Those most independent
sovereigns of Alaska, Alabama and Nebraska, suck more from the teat of
the federal government than any others.Like or Dislike: 0 0
Per your comment #25- it is true that the virus known as progressivism
has crept into Republican circles (Just look at Lindsay Graham or John
McCain), but that does not mean that all conservatives are Republican-
most real conservatives want to cut out ALL the spending (Hey- did you
not get the memo? We’re broke)- now, I know it just cuts Libbies to the
bone- they are soooooo good at spending other people’s money, but the
well is dry, until we pay off our debt.
If progressives had ever spent a day balancing a company payroll or even
just working for a living (community organizing doesn’t count), they
would be conservatives.Like or Dislike: 0 0
And, I should hasten to add, your attitude is one that would not go
over real well, especially since it was your rezident that has been
yapping about “civility”, but not curbing your loose lips- same ol’,
same ol’- the Indians had it right regarding Obamma, anyway- the man
does speak with forked tongue, doesn’t he?
And you seem to have no problem with this lying- why is that? No morals,
like most of the rest of your crowd? Or do you just follow along tamely
like a lap dog?Like or Dislike: 0 0
Leave a Reply
blog advertising is good for you
- Pelosi – Obama Should Bypass Congress & Raise The Debt Limit Himself
- ‘They’re Lying and Hiding Something’ – Latest Operation Fast & Furious News
- President’s Spokesperson Forgets Name Of Slain Border Patrol Agent
- Obama knew about Gun Walking in March, 2009
- Obama’s Unconstitutional Acts
- He’s directly involved [Reader Post]
You Want to Save Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Stop Trying to
Save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid [Reader Post]
- Barack Spicoli Obama exposes the fallacy of Affirmative Action [Reader Post]
- Government City Slickers and Those Hick Farmers
- Say What? June 18, 2012 Edition [Reader Post]
- Obama says the previous economic model has failed [Reader Post]
- Women of Substance
- Sunday Funnies
- Heads On A Stake
- Crucial.com is your SSD store! The award winning SSDs are of highest quality- available from the company that knows memory.
you buy from Crucial.com you get a memory advisor tool, free shipping,
pre/post sales, customer support & 3 year warranty.
Go to www.crucial.com/store/ssd.aspx to learn more!
blog advertising is good for you
- Crucial.com is your SSD store! The award winning SSDs are of highest quality- available from the company that knows memory.
See Votes by State
News & Politics