Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

It's a Tempting Thing...caving...yeah right...

Dear America,

happy tuesday...day after monday and the most contrived, disingenuous, pitiful, pathetic, attempt to force We the People into tempting fate...that's what last night's address was all about.

like he said to LaRaza just yesterday...

"bu bu but but but, 
believe me 
the idea of doing this on my own 
[referring to The Dream Act]
...or just raising the g-d-ceiling already...
or doing just about anything 
if something stands in the way of progress
is very tempting." 

so because he couldn't really say something like THIS to the masses -- you know, 'cuz this was directed at a targeted audience --  he came at America from a different angle ['cuz it a was a different targeted audience]...

"For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts [pompously admitting he considers that the people's money belongs to the government first], while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program [just more of blame Bush, Bush, Bush mantra...which, by the way, that drug program came was enacted under a Democratic Majority Congress; and in regards to the war (s), we were 'for it' as a nation, before we were 'against it'] were simply added to our nation's credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office.[this is a lie]

To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more - on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit." 

[never mind a trillion dollar stimulus, a trillion dollar Affordable Care Act, adding 22% to federal bureaucracy not to mention additional pay raises, bailouts to banks, bailouts to private companies (GM, GE), bailouts to Unions, and innumerable, intangible real costs to businesses (large and small) through massive regulations (like the EPA...need I say more?) that directly or indirectly break the backs of average Americans....as well as  the "millionaires and billionaires" who create the opportunities -- but hey, let's continue]

But there he goes again, "tax cuts" being equated to government spending -- what a mischaracterization of reality; only a socialist/marxist would define tax cuts as such.

  "Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable."

and then, from here on out and through the next five paragraphs we get a campaign speech.  Every single pitch was made directly to the people on the cheap -- he didn't have to dig into his campaign coffers (which is set to come to a collection of a billion dollars this time around!) -- he didn't have to spend a dime.  And that, as Martha would say, is a good thing [just in case you need a little help, not M. Washington, but M. Stewart].

"But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can't balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money - the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won't have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that's what we've been trying to do. I won't bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let's live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let's cut domestic spending to the lowest level it's been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let's cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare - and at the same time, let's make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let's ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren't happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said "Yes, I'm willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem." And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks."

like I said...
...talking points...
...tempting the people to tempt fate.

This is how dictatorships begin...appearing balanced, harmless, modest, logical...next thing you know, the internet switch gets tapped.

This balanced approach, much like his health care legislation appeal, is long on generalities and short on specifics...and we all know where that got us (57% of Americans still call for it to be repealed).

Just what can we glean from the line, "the cuts [...around $4 trillion...ah huh...] wouldn't happen so abruptly that they'd drag on our economy..." ?   Well, they wouldn't happen so "abruptly" because they wouldn't happen at all.  Typical leftist response; just say that we will, tempting people with empty promises and then of course, actually DO something else in the cover of darkness.

Do you really think the president wants to adjust Social Security or Medicare or take any kind of entitlement away from anyone?  Just how could he ever get re-elected if he says something like that?

But hey, HE is balanced; the rest of us are not.

"The only reason this balanced approach isn't on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach [dig against the Tea Party]- an approach that doesn't ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales [okay right, that 'nothing is asked of them'...is that the same top 10% who basically covers for the rest of us?], such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about - cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn't about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don't understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don't get [how do you explain your Affordable Care Act stealing 500 Billion from Medicare to pay for it? this sort of trumps whatever unfunded prescription drug program, no?]. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers [like King George Soros...who has just decided to close out his fund to the public because of scary new regulations...hmmm] to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?

That's not right. It's not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means [do we?], but there are still things we need to pay for as a country - things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research" [so, what are you saying, you want more stimulus?]

it is just so tempting to believe you.

Is that medical research including letting monkeys smoke pot to test their reflexes on fetching bananas to the tune of a gazillion dollars?  Count me in, that sounds like money well spent.

"There ARE still things we need to pay for as a country -- things like roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research" -- just who, from your team, wrote this?

The more I read it, the more annoyed I get...the odd relationships between the various things is one thing, but what are you saying?  Is there not waste and fraud even within Veteran's Affairs?  And how about those government contracts, building roads and bridges to somewhere or nowhere, extending to all sorts of general infrastructure projects at home and abroad -- Mr. President, did you happen to read your own intel on  funding billions in trucking contracts to the Taliban?

In a nutshell, here's how the president lays it out:
"Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer."
well, when you put it like that.  count me in.
of course, this question was posed with a purpose, and was immediately followed up with a well rehearsed 'gotcha' moment of the evening, by telling us it was spoken by Ronald Reagan.


If I said it was different back then, would you laugh?

And I think I know your answer...

...in any event, here is some context:  "in order to get to 280 billion in reduced outlays over the next three years, we had to agree to the added revenues of 99 billion..."

99 billion.  that's funny.  that's like the entire Department of Education.

But there he is, invoking Reagan when America is running 1.65 Trillion dollars in deficits for this year alone; there he is, tooting a real conservative -- an icon, I might add -- to defend reprehensible eleventh hour debt ceiling shenanigans.

yes, it is tempting.
keep talking Mr. President...

"Understand - raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money."

wow. what a relief.

hold up while I finish rolling on the floor.

If that were true, then what is the big f&%^%g deal?

If you have admitted to the nation that we have a problem -- that we spend more money than we take in; and two, that we must address such problem -- and live within our means; then what is the problem?  Call me stupid, but if it is not about spending more on the company credit card, then why do you need it?

Clearly, as we have covered ad nauseum here on G thing...we bring in enough revenues [200 B's a month] to pay our interest on debt, to pay our Social Security, Medicare and Veterans, while tending to the one thing we MUST do as a nation, which is pay for our defense; we can even pay for that wasteland, popularly called the Department of Education -- and just maybe, one day, if we throw more money at it, get a solid rise in graduation rates (vs. the ongoing declines over the last twenty years).

The reality is, we can prioritize all of these payments and get along just fine.

Sure, I am rambling now; and it is tempting to stop, on a dime, right here and right now and call it a day.

it is tempting.

Moody's -- and the S& P --  want to see us respond with 4 Trillion Dollars in real deficit reduction; they want us to show an earnest commitment of returning to a balanced budget.  How can they give us a decent rating without it?

...and talk about something household budgets happen to know an awful lot about...can you say freecreditreport.com?

And to be perfectly clear, this isn't just G taking cues from a president and simply making things up as we go along -- this is real -- read this!

Did you read that?
stunning, isn't it?

Moody's and Standards & Poor's do not really care about the debt ceiling -- they CARE about the debt!  Specifically, the explicit accumulation thereof and our inability to pay it back!  They CARE about whether or not we actually live within our means; they CARE about whether or not we spend more than we take in.  Thus making the debt ceiling debate entirely meaningless to date. That is what they care about.

It is tempting to finish dicing and slicing the president's remarks last night;  truth is, there is simply too much remaining for one day.  If you find yourself tempted to hearing more of what he had to say, you can go here.

I want to leave you with something else.

A cartoon was being circulated on my Smart Girl Politics that was pretty funny and says it all...
picture a couple of newscasters side by side...the guy says, "today, both republicans and democrats moved towards raising the debt ceiling to remedy America's financial predicament"...as his co-anchor pipes up adding her two cents: "in other words, blood alcohol levels will be raised to solve drunk driving."

Make it a Good Day, G

NOT ONE PLAN has been suggested by the president.  

No comments:

Post a Comment