Chris, I watched the interview and I thought President Obama was thoughtful and gave good answers.
Why do you say he looked like a buffoon?
I'm constantly amazed at your low opinion of President Obama. You may not agree with his policies, but he is smart, eloquent and thoughtful. Compared to President Bush, his answers are music to my ears, even if I don't agree with him on everything. He can actually put together a sentence, compared to Bush, who could never answer any question intelligently.
Bruce Bush has the same IQ and went to a great school like Obama did. Why did you and your ilk think the same way about Bush and much much much worse? His answers are music to your ears because he is a Marxist radical just like you. You,SEIU and Obama are all in this together.
Bruce I do recall on MORE than ONE occassion when Nobamas TELEPROMPTER got Screwed up that he did NOT sound to ELOQUENT and was at a LOSS for WORDS ,NOT his WORDS, but WORDs! You kind of FORGOT about that in YOUR Haste to ONCE again Bash Bush. Once again Bush is GONE but to LIBS evidently NOT forgotten! Move on Bruce,Back into the LIGHT!
I thought it was the same old boring BS that this guy has been spinning for a couple of years now. Did his answers justify him being a war-monger for you Bruce? Did his answer ... whoops ... I mean NON-answer about sending in 30,000 additional troops when there are only 100 Al Qaeda, satisfy you Bruce? Boy, for a Nobel PEACE price winner he sure does do some war escalating. I'm not sure that was how Mother Theresa or Ghandi would have played it, but what do they know?!
Man, at least Bush kept you on your toes when he was talking. This guy puts me to sleep, just like the lousy teacher I imagine that he probably was. ZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz
Finally, something the "progressives" (read: lieberals) and I can agree on (and from the HuffPo of all places!):
Kill The Bill? Some Progressives Say Nothing Is Better Than Senate Health Care Bill http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-bill-some-progre_n_392436.html
The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.
In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.
"Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate," wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.
Darcy Burner, a beloved (but unsuccessful) progressive candidate for Congress in the past two elections and executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, wrote in a blog post:
The first rule of medicine is, "Do no harm." The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate health care bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it.
The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.
The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85% medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it's that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.
At the progressive website Firedoglake, some still hope that the Senate will abandon Lieberman and pass reform with reconciliation. Blogger Gregg Levine wrote that it's time to just fight the legislation:
I say: Kill the bill.
I say this with a heavy heart. Failure to pass health care legislation, even terrible legislation, will be a great loss for the Obama administration and for Democrats in Congress. But passing a bill as bad as the Senate's eventual endpoint could be a bigger defeat for the Democratic majority we really want--one that takes progressive action on behalf of the voters.
Because, as I see it, a bill without the competitive force of a public option, or the opportunity for millions to buy into Medicare, without cheaper pharmaceuticals or meaningful controls on premiums, without bans on benefit caps or loophole-free safeguards against rescission, but with an individual mandate, will do nothing for the 30 million uninsured that advocates of the bill like to talk about helping--but it will do plenty for the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
"Reid got sucker punched. And real reform is down for the count," John Nichols wrote at The Nation.
Quick Poll (I took this poll, and here are the results as of the time that I took it, 1:35 p.m.)
Should Progressives Try To Kill The Senate Health Care Bill? Yes. It's so compromised that it isn't reform anymore. 48.32% No. Something is still much better than nothing. 30.49% I'm not sure. 21.19%
By the way, even better than the above article are the comments that are being posted. These Hypocrats are crying, and are finally realizing (too late, perhaps?) what a boondoggle these Hypocrats are trying to pass.
Just imagine, a MANDATE to buy PRIVATE insurance that has been vilified by the Hypocrats all along?!? I TOLD you idiot Hypocrat lieberals that the Hypocrats were in the pockets of the private insurance companies, but you denied denied denied!!! Now you idiot Hypocrats are going to make them SOOOOO much money!! Stupid idiots Bruce et. al.
Bruce, you had better call Levin, Stabenow and Peters and tell them to KILL THE BILL.
Look at Obummer trying to take credit from Bush!!! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... what a guy this Obummer is, blame Bush for EVERYTHING that fails, and take credit for EVERYTHING that works, including this new SURGE in Afghanistan!!
Once again, that liberal HuffPo leads the way!
The Obama Team is Taking Credit for a Bush Policy in North Korea
March 16, 2006: Senator Obama talks about raising the debt ceiling:
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
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.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.
As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
Dems to Skyrocket National Debt: Obama’s Leadership Failure? Posted by: Mike's America http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/12/dems-to-skyrocket-national-debt-obmas-leadership-failure/
“Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” –Sen. Barack Obama from a speech he delivered on the Senate floor, March 16, 2006
Obama spoke those words in 2006 when Republicans still controlled Congress. One year later, when Democrats were in charge and began the first of their record increases in debt Obama didn’t even show up to vote. He was too busy running for President. In 2008 he did show up to vote FOR increasing the debt under a Democrat plan.
In February 2009 Democrats again raised the debt ceiling $789 billion to pay for the first installment of Obama’s government takeover. Ten months later they are back again, asking for another $1.8 TRILLION increase in the debt limit.
It’s the largest single increase in the debt limit and part of an accelerating pattern of increases since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget during the 12 years Republicans controlled Congress the debt was increased by slightly more than $4 trillion. Under less than three years of Democrat control the debt is set to increase by more nearly $5 trillion.
"I think it’s very credible to oppose increase in the debt ceiling, and you’ll see Republicans vote against it. And we’ll vote against it because of their trillion-dollar stimulus plan that hasn’t worked. We’ll vote against it because of all of this excessive spending that’s in this bill right here, a 12 percent increase with 5,000 earmarks — all of it pushing the debt to record heights. And while I understand the political games that get played around here, it will be an opportunity for us to point out the excessive spending that’s going on in this Congress. (1) … Before taking office, the President said he would go through the budget and these bills ‘line-by-line, page-by-page.’ After Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it, and said, ‘well that was last year’s business.’ Now the President says reducing the deficit is next year’s business – that we need to ‘spend our way’ out of this economic recession we’re in.
Well I think the President ought to go through this bill line-by-line and page-by-page, all 2,500 pages of it. And then maybe he’ll figure out, we don’t need to be spending this money that we don’t have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion. Instead, let’s stop the madness and vote ‘no.’ "(2)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/14/left-wing-nuts-go-on-violent-rampage-at-copenhagen-climate-summit/ John great find my friend. Those liberals riot and are the most dangerous group of radicals. They can't be peaceful like us conservatives/tea party protesters.
A leading global warming skeptic is scoffing at Al Gore's latest dire prediction that the polar ice cap may disappear in five years.
Al Gore has told the U.N. climate conference that new data suggests that the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the summertime as soon as five to seven years from now.
Gore said polar scientists told him Sunday that the latest data "suggest a 75 percent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years."
Marc Morano, executive editor of the website ClimateDepot.com, says Gore typically appeals to authority by using scary predictions when "real world data" fails him.
"This is just following along those lines. Al Gore knows that the Arctic ice has now gained the size of one and a half Texases in the last two years - since the summer of 2007 when it was at its low point - and he knows that's no longer alarming to people, so he's got to ramp up the fear factor," Morano notes. "And the best way to do it is through virtual data - just come up with a scary prediction years down the road and use it as though it's some kind of evidence of a catastrophe."
Scientists whom Al Gore frequently cites claim the shrinking Arctic Ocean sea ice is the result of global warming.
Last night in Washington, close to one hundred leaders of the conservative movement gathered in a townhouse just down from the United States Capitol to hear Senator Jim DeMint and Florida Speaker Marco Rubio at a Senate Conservatives Fund fundraiser for Marco Rubio.
The people in the room for Rubio were the same people who blew up NY-23, helping Doug Hoffman and crushing the chances of a far left Republican, Dede Scozzafava.
Just prior to the start of the fundraiser, a bomb went off in Florida. According to Rasmussen, the Florida Senate primary is now tied between Rubio and Crist.
For perspective, only about six months ago, Rubio was in the single digits with Crist safely over 50%.
Jim DeMint told the crowd that Rubio is one of a handful of “new Republicans” running to take back our country. And the new poll shows it is working.
Charlie Crist is the only candidate the National Republican Senatorial Committee will admit to endorsing. The actually used the word “endorse.” Since their endorsement, Crist has seen a top fundraiser indicted for a ponzi scheme, taken every position possible on the Obama stimulus plan, replaced his campaign team, and gone from over fifty percent in the polling to tied with Marco Rubio.
Rubio will win. The Establishment will be defeated. Conservatives will advance and with them freedom.
Jim DeMint told the crowd that attended if they were there, they were no longer part of the establishment. The leaders of the conservative movement were there and they and their checkbooks are going to throw the GOP establishment under Barack Obama’s bus.
There was a man who worked for the Post Office whose job was to process all > the mail that had illegible addresses. > > One day, a letter came addressed in a shaky handwriting to God with no > actual address. He thought he should open it to see what it was about. The > letter read: > > Dear God, > I am an 83 year old widow, living on a very small pension. > Yesterday someone stole my purse. It had $100 in it, which was all the money > I had until my next pension payment. Next Sunday is Christmas, and I had > invited two of my friends over for dinner. Without that money, I have > nothing to buy food with, have no family to turn to, and you are my only > hope. Can you please help me? > Sincerely, Edna > > The postal worker was touched. He showed the letter to all the other > workers. Each one dug into his or her wallet and came up with a few dollars. > > By the time he made the rounds, he had collected $96, which they put into an > envelope and sent to the woman. The rest of the day, all the workers felt a > warm glow thinking of Edna and the dinner she would be able to share with > her friends. > > Christmas came and went. A few days later, another letter came from the same > old lady to God. All the workers gathered around while the letter was > opened. > > It read: > Dear God, > How can I ever thank you enough for what you did for me? Because of your > gift of love, I was able to fix a glorious dinner for my friends. We had a > very nice day and I told my friends of your wonderful gift. > By the way, there was $4 missing. I think it might have been those bastards > at the post office. > Sincerely, Edna > >
Chris, I watched the interview and I thought President Obama was thoughtful and gave good answers.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say he looked like a buffoon?
I'm constantly amazed at your low opinion of President Obama. You may not agree with his policies, but he is smart, eloquent and thoughtful. Compared to President Bush, his answers are music to my ears, even if I don't agree with him on everything. He can actually put together a sentence, compared to Bush, who could never answer any question intelligently.
Bruce Bush has the same IQ and went to a great school like Obama did. Why did you and your ilk think the same way about Bush and much much much worse? His answers are music to your ears because he is a Marxist radical just like you. You,SEIU and Obama are all in this together.
ReplyDeleteBruce I do recall on MORE than ONE occassion when Nobamas TELEPROMPTER got Screwed up that he did NOT sound to ELOQUENT and was at a LOSS for WORDS ,NOT his WORDS, but WORDs! You kind of FORGOT about that in YOUR Haste to ONCE again Bash Bush. Once again Bush is GONE but to LIBS evidently NOT forgotten! Move on Bruce,Back into the LIGHT!
ReplyDeleteI thought it was the same old boring BS that this guy has been spinning for a couple of years now. Did his answers justify him being a war-monger for you Bruce? Did his answer ... whoops ... I mean NON-answer about sending in 30,000 additional troops when there are only 100 Al Qaeda, satisfy you Bruce? Boy, for a Nobel PEACE price winner he sure does do some war escalating. I'm not sure that was how Mother Theresa or Ghandi would have played it, but what do they know?!
ReplyDeleteMan, at least Bush kept you on your toes when he was talking. This guy puts me to sleep, just like the lousy teacher I imagine that he probably was. ZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz
Finally, something the "progressives" (read: lieberals) and I can agree on (and from the HuffPo of all places!):
ReplyDeleteKill The Bill? Some Progressives Say Nothing Is Better Than Senate Health Care Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/kill-the-bill-some-progre_n_392436.html
The Senate health care bill is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage.
In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.
"Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate," wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.
Darcy Burner, a beloved (but unsuccessful) progressive candidate for Congress in the past two elections and executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, wrote in a blog post:
The first rule of medicine is, "Do no harm." The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate health care bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it.
The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity.
The House bill has two major cost-control mechanisms: the public option and the 85% medical-loss ratio requirement. The Senate bill is on track to have neither, and nothing new to replace them. The Senate bill is a recipe for national disaster. If it's that bill or nothing, I prefer nothing.
At the progressive website Firedoglake, some still hope that the Senate will abandon Lieberman and pass reform with reconciliation. Blogger Gregg Levine wrote that it's time to just fight the legislation:
I say: Kill the bill.
I say this with a heavy heart. Failure to pass health care legislation, even terrible legislation, will be a great loss for the Obama administration and for Democrats in Congress. But passing a bill as bad as the Senate's eventual endpoint could be a bigger defeat for the Democratic majority we really want--one that takes progressive action on behalf of the voters.
Because, as I see it, a bill without the competitive force of a public option, or the opportunity for millions to buy into Medicare, without cheaper pharmaceuticals or meaningful controls on premiums, without bans on benefit caps or loophole-free safeguards against rescission, but with an individual mandate, will do nothing for the 30 million uninsured that advocates of the bill like to talk about helping--but it will do plenty for the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
"Reid got sucker punched. And real reform is down for the count," John Nichols wrote at The Nation.
Quick Poll (I took this poll, and here are the results as of the time that I took it, 1:35 p.m.)
Should Progressives Try To Kill The Senate Health Care Bill?
Yes. It's so compromised that it isn't reform anymore. 48.32%
No. Something is still much better than nothing. 30.49%
I'm not sure. 21.19%
By the way, even better than the above article are the comments that are being posted. These Hypocrats are crying, and are finally realizing (too late, perhaps?) what a boondoggle these Hypocrats are trying to pass.
ReplyDeleteJust imagine, a MANDATE to buy PRIVATE insurance that has been vilified by the Hypocrats all along?!? I TOLD you idiot Hypocrat lieberals that the Hypocrats were in the pockets of the private insurance companies, but you denied denied denied!!! Now you idiot Hypocrats are going to make them SOOOOO much money!! Stupid idiots Bruce et. al.
Bruce, you had better call Levin, Stabenow and Peters and tell them to KILL THE BILL.
John you were right all along about the Democrats selling out to the insurance companies.
ReplyDeleteLook at Obummer trying to take credit from Bush!!! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... what a guy this Obummer is, blame Bush for EVERYTHING that fails, and take credit for EVERYTHING that works, including this new SURGE in Afghanistan!!
ReplyDeleteOnce again, that liberal HuffPo leads the way!
The Obama Team is Taking Credit for a Bush Policy in North Korea
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/the-obama-team-is-taking_b_392853.html
Just for a little hilarity, check out this blog, titled "There I Fixed It". Pretty funny.
ReplyDeletehttp://thereifixedit.com
March 16, 2006: Senator Obama talks about raising the debt ceiling:
ReplyDeleteSen. Barack Obama [D-IL]: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.
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.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators CONRAD and FEINGOLD, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.
Part 2/2:
ReplyDeleteAs a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.
Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.
Dems to Skyrocket National Debt: Obama’s Leadership Failure?
ReplyDeletePosted by: Mike's America
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/12/dems-to-skyrocket-national-debt-obmas-leadership-failure/
“Raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”
–Sen. Barack Obama from a speech he delivered on the Senate floor, March 16, 2006
Obama spoke those words in 2006 when Republicans still controlled Congress. One year later, when Democrats were in charge and began the first of their record increases in debt Obama didn’t even show up to vote. He was too busy running for President. In 2008 he did show up to vote FOR increasing the debt under a Democrat plan.
In February 2009 Democrats again raised the debt ceiling $789 billion to pay for the first installment of Obama’s government takeover. Ten months later they are back again, asking for another $1.8 TRILLION increase in the debt limit.
It’s the largest single increase in the debt limit and part of an accelerating pattern of increases since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. According to the White House Office of Management and Budget during the 12 years Republicans controlled Congress the debt was increased by slightly more than $4 trillion. Under less than three years of Democrat control the debt is set to increase by more nearly $5 trillion.
From the same article posted above:
ReplyDelete"I think it’s very credible to oppose increase in the debt ceiling, and you’ll see Republicans vote against it. And we’ll vote against it because of their trillion-dollar stimulus plan that hasn’t worked. We’ll vote against it because of all of this excessive spending that’s in this bill right here, a 12 percent increase with 5,000 earmarks — all of it pushing the debt to record heights. And while I understand the political games that get played around here, it will be an opportunity for us to point out the excessive spending that’s going on in this Congress. (1)
…
Before taking office, the President said he would go through the budget and these bills ‘line-by-line, page-by-page.’ After Congress passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with more than 9,000 earmarks, the President signed it, and said, ‘well that was last year’s business.’ Now the President says reducing the deficit is next year’s business – that we need to ‘spend our way’ out of this economic recession we’re in.
Well I think the President ought to go through this bill line-by-line and page-by-page, all 2,500 pages of it. And then maybe he’ll figure out, we don’t need to be spending this money that we don’t have and piling more and more debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. Instead, our bond rating, our AAA bond rating is in jeopardy and our Democrat friends want to raise the debt limit next week by $1.8 trillion. Instead, let’s stop the madness and vote ‘no.’ "(2)
–House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
Did you see this one Chris. Look out for the Moonbat lieberal Hypocrats, they're as nutty and dangerous as they come!
ReplyDeleteLeft Wing Nuts Go On Violent Rampage at Copenhagen Climate Summit
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/14/left-wing-nuts-go-on-violent-rampage-at-copenhagen-climate-summit/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/14/left-wing-nuts-go-on-violent-rampage-at-copenhagen-climate-summit/
ReplyDeleteJohn great find my friend. Those liberals riot and are the most dangerous group of radicals. They can't be peaceful like us conservatives/tea party protesters.
A leading global warming skeptic is scoffing at Al Gore's latest dire prediction that the polar ice cap may disappear in five years.
ReplyDeleteAl Gore has told the U.N. climate conference that new data suggests that the Arctic polar ice cap may disappear in the summertime as soon as five to seven years from now.
Gore said polar scientists told him Sunday that the latest data "suggest a 75 percent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years."
Marc Morano, executive editor of the website ClimateDepot.com, says Gore typically appeals to authority by using scary predictions when "real world data" fails him.
"This is just following along those lines. Al Gore knows that the Arctic ice has now gained the size of one and a half Texases in the last two years - since the summer of 2007 when it was at its low point - and he knows that's no longer alarming to people, so he's got to ramp up the fear factor," Morano notes. "And the best way to do it is through virtual data - just come up with a scary prediction years down the road and use it as though it's some kind of evidence of a catastrophe."
Scientists whom Al Gore frequently cites claim the shrinking Arctic Ocean sea ice is the result of global warming.
Last night in Washington, close to one hundred leaders of the conservative movement gathered in a townhouse just down from the United States Capitol to hear Senator Jim DeMint and Florida Speaker Marco Rubio at a Senate Conservatives Fund fundraiser for Marco Rubio.
ReplyDeleteThe people in the room for Rubio were the same people who blew up NY-23, helping Doug Hoffman and crushing the chances of a far left Republican, Dede Scozzafava.
Just prior to the start of the fundraiser, a bomb went off in Florida. According to Rasmussen, the Florida Senate primary is now tied between Rubio and Crist.
For perspective, only about six months ago, Rubio was in the single digits with Crist safely over 50%.
Jim DeMint told the crowd that Rubio is one of a handful of “new Republicans” running to take back our country. And the new poll shows it is working.
Charlie Crist is the only candidate the National Republican Senatorial Committee will admit to endorsing. The actually used the word “endorse.” Since their endorsement, Crist has seen a top fundraiser indicted for a ponzi scheme, taken every position possible on the Obama stimulus plan, replaced his campaign team, and gone from over fifty percent in the polling to tied with Marco Rubio.
Rubio will win. The Establishment will be defeated. Conservatives will advance and with them freedom.
Jim DeMint told the crowd that attended if they were there, they were no longer part of the establishment. The leaders of the conservative movement were there and they and their checkbooks are going to throw the GOP establishment under Barack Obama’s bus.
There was a man who worked for the Post Office whose job was to process all
ReplyDelete> the mail that had illegible addresses.
>
> One day, a letter came addressed in a shaky handwriting to God with no
> actual address. He thought he should open it to see what it was about. The
> letter read:
>
> Dear God,
> I am an 83 year old widow, living on a very small pension.
> Yesterday someone stole my purse. It had $100 in it, which was all the money
> I had until my next pension payment. Next Sunday is Christmas, and I had
> invited two of my friends over for dinner. Without that money, I have
> nothing to buy food with, have no family to turn to, and you are my only
> hope. Can you please help me?
> Sincerely, Edna
>
> The postal worker was touched. He showed the letter to all the other
> workers. Each one dug into his or her wallet and came up with a few dollars.
>
> By the time he made the rounds, he had collected $96, which they put into an
> envelope and sent to the woman. The rest of the day, all the workers felt a
> warm glow thinking of Edna and the dinner she would be able to share with
> her friends.
>
> Christmas came and went. A few days later, another letter came from the same
> old lady to God. All the workers gathered around while the letter was
> opened.
>
> It read:
> Dear God,
> How can I ever thank you enough for what you did for me? Because of your
> gift of love, I was able to fix a glorious dinner for my friends. We had a
> very nice day and I told my friends of your wonderful gift.
> By the way, there was $4 missing. I think it might have been those bastards
> at the post office.
> Sincerely, Edna
>
>