More of that good, old “new tone”. From Politico:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday that House Republicans are trying to impose “dictatorship” through their tactics in the debt-ceiling negotiations. She said the GOP rhetoric could “spark panic and chaos,” which she called “potentially devastating” to the economy…
‘Cause Obamunism has been so good for the economy, I guess…and, about that dictatorship thing:
After being squeezed out of the debt talks, Barack Obama told Latinos today, “I’d Like to Bypass Congress and Change the Rules on My Own.”
I bet you would like that, Barry – could really have a “living Constitution” then, couldn’t we? Deep in the heart of every liberal, there is a tyrant struggling to break out.
Blogs For Victory 
wasserman-shitz
FUBO and YOU!!
stick with schoooomer and weiner, more your type.
(loud mouthed NY ers)
So DWS, I guess when the liberals were saying and practicing “we won, you lost get over it” during their big spending bill push, it was using tactics similar to a dictatorship?
When obAMATEUR administration said that it will keep a “boot to the throat” of BP, that was not using tactics in a dictatorship?
Or, strong-arming House and Senate members to get obamacare passed?
DWS is a disgrace and a liar. She has demonstrated this time and again.
Seriously, what kind of constituency elects a woman like DWS? One apparently with no shame and incapable of being embarrassed.
Better question – what kind of constituency elects someone like Allen West? Or Michelle Bachmann? Or Lewis Gohmert? Talk about an idiot! Or David Vitter, the man addicted to prostitutes? So before you start asking questions about who the Democrats elect you maybe need to check your own closet. I think Debbie Wasserman-Shultz does a very good job at representing her constituents and apparently they do as well.
Sunny, are you still playing Tabloid Politics, where you make an emotional decision about who you “like” and dislike (or, more likely, who you are told you like and dislike) and then make sweeping statements about them based on nothing more significant than this? Or do you have actual policy differences with Bachmann, and West?
What is it about them that has you so wound up? Surely it is not just some silly superficial thing, but something of real substance.
While Vitter is clearly a man of little character, it is pretty stupid to claim he is “addicted to prostitutes”. Duh. Many men find real women too threatening or complicated and seek nothing more involved that simple sexual release, for which they pay. I don’t admire this, but find it marginally less disgusting than affairs with interns, acquaintances, etc. At least it is openly a financial transaction.
But what about Vitter’s POLITICS do you find disgusting? You claim that Dingbat Debbie “does a very good job at representing her constituents” so we should overlook her public meltdowns and shrill rantings and ravings, so why shouldn’t we overlook Vitter’s private transgressions if his policies appeal to his constituents?
(I am not defending Vitter’s creepiness, just pointing out an inconsistency in Sunny’s commentary.)
You know, Sunny, this IS a political blog. Don’t you think it is about time you started discussing politics here, instead of personalities?
“what kind of constituency elects someone like Allen West? Or Michelle Bachmann? Or Lewis Gohmert? ”
Or Joe Walsh?
..or a drunken adulterer who cravenly swam away and left a girl to drown, thinking he could cover up the accident and save his political career? (Just think—if he had only had a better understanding of the Massachusetts voting public, he might have decided to save her.)
Or a man who lied under oath to Congress, slandering the United States Military, and was named as a Hero of North Viet Nam?
Or a man who was (finally) elected to his state legislature only by having a powerful and corrupt political machine get every one of his opponents removed from the ballot, so he could run unopposed? Who then managed to get elected to the Senate only by having that same powerful and corrupt political machine get into sealed court records of his opponent and then release embarrassing testimony about his PRIVATE married sex life with his wife?
Or, for that matter, what kind of a constituency would elect a man who had refused to provide proof of his eligibility for the position he was running for?
You just can’t resist the siren song of birtherism, can you, Amazona? Such a pity.
DWS is the best thing that ever happened to conservatism. She is the gift that keeps on giving because she just can’t control her ignorant hatred. I say giver her a microphone and a podium everyday and let her go.
Question though, I just don’t recall hearing the word compromise very much when the stimulus bill was being drafted and voted on, or when Obamacare was being written and voted on, does anyone else remember that?
Also it is a compromise when the Cap * Trade bill is defeated and then the regime sends it over to the EPA to move forward on it?
when i was little my parents used to tell me that when you point a finger you have 3 pointing back at you. this is the liberal mantra. they try to call us racist, they try to call us nazis, they try to call us hate mongers…and every time they have the 3 fingers pointing back at them.
“Question though, I just don’t recall hearing the word compromise very much when the stimulus bill was being drafted and voted on, or when Obamacare was being written and voted on, does anyone else remember that?”
i also don’t recall when every dem senator (including zerobama) voted no on raising the debt ceiling back in 2006, touting that payments won’t be made to the military, SS recipients, medicaid and medicare recipients. they were doing it for the good of the country. bush was the big bad spender and needed to be stopped! now zerobama’s spending has made bush’s look like pocket change, WE MUST raise the debt ceiling!!!!!!
http://www.salon.com/news/global_post/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/07/27/obama_debt_ceiling_blame
“It was President George W. Bush who ran up America’s debt, by cutting taxes and dramatically growing the size of the government. Obama hasn’t solved the problem he inherited. On the contrary, he’s added to it, but at a much slower pace than Bush did.
Let’s recall that when Bush came to office in 2001, the government’s budget was in the black. Washington was actually paying down the national debt. Back then, the Congressional Budget Office projected that America would have amassed a war chest of more than $2 trillion by this year — money that could be used to strengthen the country or provide for baby boomers’ retirement. But the Bush administration, and Karl Rove chief among them, wanted to return that projected surplus back to the people, and especially to the wealthy.
Bush’s tax cuts — along with a rapid increase in defense spending, a prescription drug plan for the elderly and other big-government policies — saddled the country with some $8 trillion in publicly-held debt by 2009 (the current figure has risen to $10.4 trillion, according to the Washington Post, not including several trillion dollars the government effectively owes itself). A separate analysis by the NY Times tallies Bush’s contribution to the debt at $5.07 trillion, and Obama’s (including projections through 2017) at $1.44 trillion.
Incidentally, estimates of the stimulus’ contribution run between $711 billion (the NY Times) and $830 billion (Congressional Budget Office). While not a small number, it’s a fraction of the debt problem, and about half of what the US has spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, tarring Obama for spending a fortune to restore the economy conveniently ignores the fact that the Great Recession was hatched on Bush’s watch, not Obama’s. Likewise, no one bothers to mention that the financial meltdown has forced the government to shell out about $400 billion in unemployment benefits over the past few years — a problem that Obama clearly inherited.
Of all the policies that have added to America’s debt, the Bush tax cuts are the single largest contributor, according to the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. Looked at from another angle, unless lawmakers raise taxes on the wealthy, there’s no choice but to borrow more (which is clearly not popular) or to cut entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Many economists (Feldstein included) agree that to get the US economy moving again, people and businesses need to spend more money. The question is, who’s more likely to do that, a senior citizen who needs every dollar in her paycheck to make ends meet, or a family that already earns more than $250,000 a year?”
You need to put blame where it deserves to be. When you fail to fund two wars, a medicare program, NCLB and tax cuts blame the person in charge at that time, not the person who is trying to clean up the mess.
Sunny, please tell us the amount of the U.S. deficit when President Bush left office.
Tell us the amount of TARP.
Now subtract the second sum from the first, as the TARP legislation demanded that the TARP repayments “SHALL” be applied to the deficit, to determine the deficit left by President Bush.
Compare this to the deficit created by Obama in two and a half years.
Take the monies spend under Obama and explain to us how these expenditures comply with the Constitutional restrictions on federal size and scope.
In other words, try to engage in an actual political conversation for a change.
Politics is not about personalities or even events. It is about making a choice of what structure you think will provide the best form of government for the country.
What you clearly do not get, because you are running everything through your Personality Filter, is that when we object to Obama’s handling of the role of the presidency, it has nothing to do with his personality or race or even his party affiliation,but is solely about his choice of the system he wants to use to run the country.
There is nothing to be gained by going back and snarling “Well, HE did such-and-such”—–unless you can apply that action to the political blueprint for governance you have chosen as your preference for how the country should be run.
If your choice is Big Government, Big Spending, Big Debt, Big Deficit, as support for Obama would indicate, then you are quite inconsistent when you complain about the spending under Bush. If you are going to be consistent, you should find Bush an excellent precursor to Obama, whose only problem was that he didn’t go far enough.
So why don’t you go back a little, study the actual systems in play here, learn about their origins and their applications throughout history and their successes and failures, turn off the Lefty Talking Heads who want to tell you what you think and do some thinking for yourself, and figure out which of the two systems you truly believe is the best one for the nation.
Those who have done so and chosen the Constitutional model, instead of the Leftist model, are not happy with either American political party right now. Anyone who claims the TEA Party/Constitutional movement is gung-ho Republican is simply not paying attention.
But the GOP is, marginally, closer to the Constitutional model, and many of the GOP members of the House and Senate are pretty solid in that area, so it is the only choice (so far) when compared to the increasingly and stridently radical Leftism that is taking over the Democratic Party.
“You need to put blame where it deserves to be. You need to put blame where it deserves to be. When you fail to fund two wars, a medicare program, NCLB and tax cuts blame the person in charge at that time, not the person who is trying to clean up the mess.”
And how productive, exactly, is it to keep looking back and blaming anyone? Bush was not a fiscal conservative. Everyone understands that, and conservatives were NEVER happy about it.
And how, exactly, are the actions of Obama “cleaning up the mess”? Getting out of debt by borrowing more? Trying to decrease the deficit by spending more?
Sunny, you need to get yourself distanced a little from the Obama Fan Club and look at what he is doing. What has happened since the radical Left took over the government is precisely what the radical Left political model is. It is expansion of government size and scope and power, it is expansion of entitlements to get more and more people dependent on the government, it is a “fundamental transformation” of the very way our country is governed.
Do you understand and agree with the Leftist model of government? Is this the way you think is better than the Constitutional model? Do you want to discard or replace our Constitution with a Leftist manifesto?
Please be more clear than just hollering about Bush.
“Many economists (Feldstein included) agree that to get the US economy moving again, people and businesses need to spend more money. The question is, who’s more likely to do that, a senior citizen who needs every dollar in her paycheck to make ends meet, or a family that already earns more than $250,000 a year?”
Allow me to slightly rephrase your question: “Who is more likely to spend more money—a person who has money or a person who does not?”
Did that clear it up for you?
You are also unclear about something else. You say “….to get the US economy moving again, people and businesses need to spend more money…” And I agree with this.
What is unclear is why you state this, and include a tacit admission that “more money” will be spent by people who have it, but include these two concepts in a post defending GOVERNMENT spending.
The position of the Right is that yes, people need to spend more money, because this leads to economic prosperity—-increased sales tax revenue, increased employment as people are hired to make the good being purchased and the services being bought.
But it is also that these PEOPLE need to be spending THEIR OWN MONEY the way THEY want to spend it, not that the government should be taking their money away from them and deciding how it should be spent. Or to whom it should be ‘redistributed’.
Yes, we were in a recession when Obama assumed the presidency. Just as we were in a recession when Bush assumed the presidency. Recessions are part of the economic cycle. But twice now the nation has had a recession made so much worse by government intervention, by political maneuvering in efforts to use the financial problem to further political agendas, that the recession has plummeted into a depression.
The real issue is not whether Obama INHERITED a recession, but, first, what caused it in the first place, and second, what he did that made it so much worse.
I see “Sunny” tucked her tail between her chubby cheeks and scooted off, refusing, as always, to answer any questions which would show the idiocy of her posts.
sunny: “Of all the policies that have added to America’s debt, the Bush tax cuts are the single largest contributor” – TOTAL CRAP.
The debt is purely due to excessive spending, period. The tax cuts for the first three years brought in 95%-99% of expected revenues (ooooooo, hardly a budget-buster). the following years they brought in increasing revenues and THIS IS FROM THE IRS. This info has been posted on here so many times I am not about to do it again for it to be ignored again by these drones. If revenues increase while the debt increases, what other component must increase as well?
Well for you slow-witted drones – spending must increase also to stay above increased reveneues.
Sunny, you are a drone. Go away if you cannot bring a logical argument to the conversation. Your talking points have been refuted time and again. These were brought before by some other drone who could not succeed in refuting logical arguments against your tired old talking points.
the NEW DNC mantra led by liars, cheats, racists…..
All States Rights Are Slavery: ‘Tell The Tea Party’…‘Allow The Negro to Fight’ – Jessie Jackson Jr. Lays Out Left’s Twisted Arguments for Big Spending, Big Gov & D.C. Representation in Congress