HURT: Welcome to Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
It has taken three decades, but Americans are finally living through Jimmy Carter’s second term.
Now we’ve got Jimmy Jr. barking at us from the White House about eating our peas and ripping off our Band-Aid. He might not even let us have our Social Security checks.
These are just the latest in a long line of nagging lectures. Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours.
What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?
Is this what he meant by a new kind of politics? If so, no thanks. Oh, and it is not new. Jimmy already dragged us through all this once and we just barely survived it.
One of the most unpleasant things about Mr. Carter was the condescending disdain he could barely disguise for struggling Americans and their irritating malaise.
Increasingly, Jimmy Jr. is having difficulty concealing that very same disdain for us as the political winds around him turn hostile and all of his bright ideas lie fallow as nothing more than socialist hocus-pocus.
But even Mr. Carter never laid bare so baldly and plainly as Mr. Obama did earlier this week his deep-seated contempt for this whole annoying process we call “democracy.”
The problem with reaching a deal to raise the debt ceiling, he explained in a long sermon, is that there is this huge wave of Republicans who won control of the House in the last election by promising not to raise any more taxes and to cut the absurd overspending that has driven this town for decades.
He bemoaned - in public - that these Republicans are more concerned about the “next election” rather than doing “what’s right for the country.” In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow.
As if the whole problem of Washington spending us into oblivion is the fault of stingy taxpayers and stupid voters. And what we really need is Jimmy Jr., who knows what is best for us despite what we may think.
Continuing his lecture, Mr. Obama then complained about America’s “political process, where folks are rewarded for saying irresponsible things to win elections.”
How did this man get past sixth-grade social studies, much less Iowa?
When Mr. Obama finished his sermon about the contemptible Republicans keeping faith with their voters like a bunch of chumps, he then turned to his own intentions - and revealed even more of his contempt for us.
All this talk about “raising revenue” - the deceitful line he uses to describe raising taxes - has been most unhelpful, he said. “I want to be crystal clear,” he said. “Nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increasing taxes next year.”
So when would these tax hikes that he is demanding take effect?
In 2013, well after Mr. Obama must face voters for re-election.
Lucky for us, it appears more and more unlikely every day that we will have to suffer through a third term of Jimmy Carter‘s.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
11 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most Democrat voters would respond with "who's Jimmy Carter" or "You mean the guy who built all the houses"
ReplyDelete"Already, we have been taught how we should sneeze into the crook of our arm. We need to drive less. And we need to caulk up those drafty houses of ours."
ReplyDeleteThese are bad things?
"What ever happened to the soaring rhetoric and big bold ideas President Obama promised us in that historic election of his?"
Can't help it if the writer turns off the TV when the president delivered the state of the union address and regularly speaks to the country.
"In other words, he is saying the honorable thing would be for these Republicans to ignore the expressed wishes of voters, break their campaign promises and raise taxes. Wow."
No, really the honorable thing would be for the president and the Democrats to ignore the expressed wishes of THEIR voters and cut programs the public really wants because Republicans don't know how to govern.
"How did this man get past sixth-grade social studies, much less Iowa?"
Um, sixth grade, Harvard Law Review, Iowa, the Electoral College.
"So when would these tax hikes that he is demanding take effect?"
After the economy gets back on track which Republicans SWEAR will happen if we "don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession."
"Lucky for us, it appears more and more unlikely every day that we will have to suffer through a third term of Jimmy Carter‘s."
Really? Michele Bachmann?
"These are bad things?"
ReplyDeleteNot bad, per se, just commonsense, as in, 'we already know this, so why are you focusing on the little stuff when the country is falling down around us?' Al Gore merely lectured us as though we were all third graders. Barack Obama has steped up to school-yard bully; not a whit better than AG, if you ask me.
"state of the union... "
Can't help but agree with you here; that's all there is in any of Obama's speeches... soaring rhetoric, no substance, lofty ideals, no details. That anyone is swayed by his speeches is a testament to the lack of critical thinking available to much of America. And you have government controlled and propagandized education to thank for it. We have ceased to teach students how to question; they know only how to accept with blind faith what they are fed. And I thought there was supposed to be a separation of church and state! What happens when the state and the church are one and the same? See my last paragraph.
"No, really the honorable thing..."
You say this as though Obama's electorate and the electorate of every other elected democrat isn't one and the same; like Obama's electorate outstrips/overshadows the Conservative's electorate who, I'll remind you, beat the snot out of Obama's electorate last November? Seriously? More than 60% of Americans want Obamacare repealed? Should we listen to them? NO? How conveniently you pick and choose whom to hear and who to ignore.
"After the economy gets back on track..."
What you and Obama REALLY mean is after the next election so the hikes can't be used against him in the court of public opinion. Just like his proposed cuts to the deficit, after a period of ten years or so, which does nothing for the problem today. It merely, in typical politico fashion, kicks the can, yet again, down the proverbial road. You guys are so smart. And so gutless.
"Really> Michelle Bachmann?"
Really? Michelle Bachmann? Like, only a liberal/democrat woman can be an asset to politics in this country? Bachmann, Palin, and every other conservative FEMALE politician is a detriment to our society, and should be maligned and destroyed at all costs? Even at the cost of your political and physical souls? Just like with blacks, right? Only a black DEMOCRAT is a worthy addition to the political discourse, otherwise [s]he's a dangerous ideologue, who's not 'down with the struggle.' You democrats routinely choose who to advance and who to lynch among black politicians. You Democrats love to castigate conservative black leaders, but you can't see the dangerous flaws in your democratic caucus of black politicians. You folks are dangerously myopic toward your own fellows, all the while verbally and digitally lynching every conservative black who dares speak out against the anointed one, or liberal sacred cows.
I have lost all respect for your opinion. You've given me no reason to respect it. You and your fellow democrat lickspittles are willfully ignorant of the truth, and dutiful complicitors in, and perpetuators of the lies and general evil meanness of the democrat party specifically, and of liberals in general.
"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 US Government can not 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.
ReplyDeleteIncreasing 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."
The US government since the last administration has been running on a continuation of the previous budget. Congress in fact approved this continuing resolution. Now suddenly even though they said keep spending at current levels, Republicans say, no more charges to the debt. Well you can't have both!
ReplyDeleteOn August 2nd the Treasury's funds run out. After that we'll need to cut government by 44%. So what should it be?
If we keep paying defense, medicare, and social security it means we close the FBI, FDA, EPA, Dept Homeland Security, Federal Prisons, ICE, Federal Student Loans, NIH and everything else. So is that what conservatives want?
BANG! Government collapse and a Global Financial Panic.
Or perhaps pass the damn debt ceiling increase and debate budget issues in the actual budget process!
It's amazing how the buck has to stop now there's a democrat in the white house and the senate is controlled by democrats. Unlike the previous administration which financed two wars, an expansion to medicare, and big tax breaks all on the federal credit card.
"...debate budget issues in the actual budget process!"
ReplyDeleteYou mean like during the process that led the democrat controlled house and senate to (not) pass a 2011 budget?
BTW, the above quote is from P-BO in March of 2006.
"On August 2nd the Treasury's funds run out"
ReplyDeleteNot true, actually. The gloomy picture painted by the left, that the US will have no choice but to default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, is misleading... hell, it's an outright lie; a scare tactic that seeks to force an outcome the Left desires: no cuts anywhere, and an increase in taxes. The truth is, there is plenty of money coming in on a monthly basis to pay what HAS to be paid. Here's an excerpt from a study by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
"...The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. "It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending" if Congress hits the debt limit, [BPC's Jay] Powell said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there’s enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).
That leaves you with about $39 billion to fund (or not fund) the following:
--Defense vendors ($31.7 billion)
--IRS refunds ($3.9 billion)
--Food stamps and welfare ($9.3 billion)
--Unemployment insurance benefits ($12.8 billion)
--Department of Education ($20.2 billion)
--Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion)
Other spending, such as Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, EPA, HHS ($73.6 billion)
The decision to prioritize payments would fall on the Treasury department, and Powell points out it would be chaotic picking and choosing who gets paid (in full or partially) and who doesn’t..."
Ben is right in quoting that not raising the debt limit will force a monthly 44% cut in spending. But it is a lie to suggest that Social Security checks, military checks, Medicare payments-- to say nothing of the interest on our debt --can't be serviced.
Ben may think Capitalists are evil. But I honestly can't think of anything more evil... except Satan himself... than a political party that would insist on continuing to spend money this country doesn't have simply to continue paying for things it can't afford. There's evil enough in that alone, but the Left wants to raise taxes on an already cash-strapped populace. Our politicians are getting richer in (spite of the economy), the people they serve are getting fleeced, and the American economy is getting sodomized. Ironically, while the political left demonizes the 'evil rich' for not paying its 'fair share' (whatever THAT is), it is increasing its OWN wealth on the backs and miseries of the American people.
As for shared sacrifice, I can't think of a better way to engage in such an idea than to force our leaders to live within their means; pay what HAS to be paid first, and cut everything else in descending order according to need. Will it hurt? You bet. We'll ALL share in the sacrifice. And politicians, it's to be hoped, will finally descend from Mount Olympus, having come to the realization that what they've wrought, cannot be sustained, and genuine reform must then either take place on their watch, or the American people will replace them with gods and generals who will.
Eric leaves out quite a few other federal departments.
ReplyDelete1. FBI
2. CIA
3. Immigration
4. DHS
5. TSA
6. FAA
7. FDA
8. EPA
9. State Dept.
10. National Parks
11. Army Corp of Engineers
12. NIH
I don't know about Eric but I think those are pretty vital parts of our federal government. But hey, at least Exxon and BP keep their tax subsidies. And corporate Lear owners can depreciate their jets faster. And millionaires can take the mortgage deduction for their South Beach vacation home. Those are national priorities.
And then of course in Tea Party fantasy land the US can never go to war ever again, I mean how could we afford it? And don't forget this rose austerity scenario doesn't pay down the federal debt. It just defaults on this year's federal deficit.
Pardon me if I want to avoid a global financial collapse by returning to the tax rates under Bill Clinton. I know it was a time of Dickensian social poverty, but at least the world didn't go up in flames.
I agree. Fantasy land. But it's not merely a "tea party" fantasy land. It's every bit as much a liberal fantasy land, and more-- in a word? or rather, two? Blind Intractability. Democrats want Republicans to compromise on the debt ceiling, but Democrats refuse to compromise on reforms. Cuts alone won't solve the problem long term. Democrats are going to have to decide, at some point in time, that America has enough entitlements... that every poor individual in this country cannot, by the power of America's purse strings, lifted out of mediocrity. It will never happen. But for Obama to say social security checks could be paid? He's a liar. they could be paid. As could the interest on our debt.
ReplyDeleteFor all of Ben's-- and the Left's --histrionics on our approaching fiscal "Armageddon", we can't continue to spend like we have in the past. Reforms to entitlements have to be made. People have to be given the option to "opt out" of entitlements and invest their earnings elsewhere. The path we are on is unsustainable.
Say we raise the debt ceiling another 2 and a half trillion like Obama wants? Is he going to cut spending? No. He's not. Will he and the democrats agree to reform and semi-privatize entitlements? No. They won't. In point of fact, I'd bet everything I'll make next year that neither the Obama administration, nor liberals in the Senate will agree to sit down and cut entitlements. They will bore full steam ahead, expanding current entitlements and implementing new ones like that evil as shit Obamacare. Then, when republicans lose the house because they failed to do what they were elected to do (cut spending), Democrats will continue raising the debt ceiling, adding more and more burdensome taxes, regulations, and mandates onto the already struggling American people, and this country will default under the weight of it's own debt.
That's not fantasy land. That's what will happen if we do not do something soon. Do we want to have to implement 'austerity measures' here in the U.S.? This is the place to which Obama's and the left's spendthrift philosophy is driving us. Not to the edge, but over it. And it's a long drop to the bottom.
Intractability may look good when playing up to the base, and come election time. But intractability is what drives proverbial vehicles of state over very real cliffs.
Does anyone honestly believe that if Republicans lose the house next year because they didn't stop Obama's continued profligate spending, or that any deal democrats make today to raise the debt ceiling won't immediately be overturned when Obama sails to another win? If you think democrats will, in such a position, honor the deal they made, then you are a bigger fool than I think you are.
Shorter Eric: "We have to crash the economy now to save it from Democrats crashing it."
ReplyDelete"We have to cut half of government to save us from Democrats doubling government in the future."
"We have to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy, to keep Democrats from balancing the budget."
It's a weird sort of madness to say that killing something will save it.
It's also pretty crazy to say that Democrats will drive the country into bankruptcy when the current Republican leadership voted to add $5-Trillion dollars to the federal debt during the previous administration.
Republicans are very happy to close all those loop holes you Dems are fidgeting over... all of which, when combined, won't amount to enough to offset the continued spending Dems want to preserve. Furthermore, Dems aren't trying to balance anything, let alone the budget. And no one wants to crash the economy... not even Obama. What he does want to do however is threaten a crash to trick/scare Republicans into giving him what he wants without having to cut any meaningful amount of spending. Just like last December. Billions were promised in cuts, but as it turned out those cuts only amounted to millions. Republicans were snookered. Obama is trying to run the same play again, thinking if we fell for it once we'll fall for it again.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty crazy of you to sling out all these ridiculous charges without acknowledging Dems and Obama's complicity in the crisis we're now in.
It is a lie that democrats want to balance the budget. What they want is to keep everything they now have plus more and more tax increases to pay for it all. Well, it's not going to work anymore. If Obama was serious about any of this he'd come right out and tell the American people what he IS willing to cut. But he isn't serious; he has neither laid out a plan, or published a serious list of cuts he's willing to make.
Reiterating. It is a lie that Democrats want to balance the budget. Furthermore, it is a lie that, according to Obama this very day, that 80% of Americans want tax increases as "part of a deal."
The man is a liar.