First Obama demands his bluff not be called, next he wants us to ignore Reid’s bluff, and now he blames the Republicans for the circus?
Obama endorsed yesterday Harry Reid’s plan which is so mind-bogglingly absurd, any student handing in such a report would’ve received a big bold F.
Reid basically wants to raise the debt ceiling with 2.5 trillion dollars, to be available for immediate spending. This would last for less than two years since our current yearly debt is about 1.5 trillion.
To balance these two and a half trillion dollars which are on top of our current 14 trillion dollar debt, he proposed a 2.7 trillion dollar spending cut which will occur throughout the next ten years.
Anyone with a calculator or pen and paper can see the ludicrousness of this proposal, but we’ll spell it out anyways.
If we continue spending at the current pace, our federal debt will increase with approximately 15-20 trillion dollars in the next ten years – depending on what the interest rates are. So in other words, Reid proposed that the entire spending cuts of these ten years amount only to a tenth of the amount of increased spending. That will leave us with an additional 13-18 trillion dollars of debt on top of the 14 trillion we currently owe.
What sort of solution is this?
It’s sort of like a kid who has a weekly allowance of twenty bucks and spends most of it on candy. The kid begs his dad for his allowance to be increased to fifty bucks and assures his dad that he’ll put aside every week a dollar so that at the end of the year he can pay his dad back over fifty dollars.
If his father would agree, this deal would amount to an additional thirty bucks a week time 52 weeks equaling $1,560 and the entire amount he’d get back at the end of the year would be fifty two bucks!
Obviously no parent would agree!
Why should our childish president receive any different treatment?
How can our leaders in Washington even propose such a ridiculously unbalanced deal?
How can Reid, Obama, or any individual tell us what policies Congress will pass in the next ten years?
Senators and congressmen are constantly voted out of office and replaced with new people as seen in 2010 causing the decision-making power to constantly shift hands.
Attention Harry and Obama: If you want a raise in the debt ceiling now than you’ve got to be ready to make cuts now. Not in ten years from now when you’ll no longer be in power.
Another thing; has anyone noticed that the entire left, starting with Obama and Reid down to every Democrat senator, congressmen, and spokesperson responds when questioned about budget cuts in affirmative but when pressed for specifics, the reply is along the lines of domestic and defense?
Domestic is not specific.
This leaves them with Defense.
Defending this country is one of the only explicit rights the federal government is granted by the constitution. Despite this fact, defense is what the Democrats wish to cut and put first on their list.
Does the left think we are so naive to believe that this country simply won’t cope without the EPA, the Housing Administration, or The Department of Education and there’s no room for their funding to be slashed, while the military has too much dough lying around?
Why should expenses the first cut on their list be that which should be the federal government’s priority in spending? Especially while we are still smack in middle of two – oops — three wars.
It can only be one of two things: Either our leaders can’t complete simple mathematical equations, or that they couldn’t care less what happens to our country ten years down the road as long as their seat remains safe because they took some sort of action.
And after Obama’s campaign speech press conference last night, it appears to be the latter.
At the press conference last night Obama, as expected, blasted the Republicans for presenting solutions he didn’t like while offering nothing of his own except for a demand for a blank check.
Of course, he began his speech by blaming Bush.
For the last decade, we’ve 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, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.
Here are three issues with his very first paragraph:
- Since when are tax cuts money spent? Did Bush send these people checks? Did it come from other people’s money? Or perhaps Bush simply let people keep money belonging to them and invest it where they saw fit?
- It seems like Obama forgot about the third war the U.S. has entered without the approval of Congress, is not in the interest of the United States, supports unknown groups, and has been added on top of two ongoing wars and a deficit of 14 trillion dollars!
And here’s the surprise of all surprises! The timetable president has no timetable for withdrawal of the troops from Libya!
- This expensive prescription drug program Obama’s blaming for the debt happened to have been drafted by Ted Kennedy, pushed for by the Democrats, and passed with the votes of the left plus several RINO’s.
If Obama is so incensed with this program, why didn’t this man/child/president confront Ted Kennedy while slobbering for Ted’s support for his presidential campaign?
This guy is totally delusional!
A ten page article wouldn’t be long enough to do justice to all the outright lies, discrepancies, and twisted facts Obama presented to the people in this one speech. And neither you nor I have the time and patience for his nonsense, so I’ll stop right here.
Instead here’s a piece of advice to Obama: You seem to have a difficult time handling people who don’t bow to your demands; so here’s my suggestion to you.
When 2012 rolls around, demand a vacation from this stressful job and we’ll surprise you with total bipartisan support to fulfill your request.