Oct 26, 2010 Political
Barack Obama is racing to the wire to minimize the losses his party is expected to suffer on election day. He is running around the country spewing his same old crap about Republicans driving the economy in the ditch. He is oblivious to the fact that the economy did not falter until Democrats took over. All appropriations start in Congress (the House) and therefore are the responsibility of Congress. Certainly George Bush should have never signed on to spend the money but the fact remains that Democrats are JUST as responsible for the mess as anyone else.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are two major players in what brought the economy down.
Obama, out on the stump, used a phrase that is a bit disturbing.
He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, “we can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” [emphasis mine]Yahoo News
Once again, it was not Republicans alone who drove the economy into the ditch. They might have driven it to the edge but Democrats drove it in when they took charge.
The disturbing part of this is where Obama said “they gotta sit in the back.”
Imagine how this would have played out if, say, Sarah Palin had said “Republicans are going to win big and take over and Obama will have to sit in the back.”
The comparisons to racism would have been rampant. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and all the other race baiters would be screaming about racism and TEA Party activists wanting to lynch blacks or some such stuff.
The phrasing of Obama’s sentence is deliberate. He is looking to make up for the past injustices and he is using this kind of wording to show who is in charge and that things have changed.
Like his buddies in the New Black Panther Party who intimidated people at the Philadelphia Poll, Barack wants you to know you are being ruled by a black man.
But Obama is confused. Republicans freed the slaves so his allegiance to the left is part of the plantation mentality.
We will never go back to forcing certain groups to sit in the back of the bus no matter how much Obama wants to stoke the fires of racial tension.
Don’t know why he would worry anyway. He is half black and half white.
He can sit in the middle…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 6, 2010 Political
No one in his right mind thinks of sex and soon to be FORMER Senator Harry Reid but Reid introduced sex into the debate on Wall Street reform. The Democrats, who get more money from Wall Street than Republicans, want to impose restrictions on Wall Street to keep another meltdown from happening and to keep the taxpayer from paying for more bailouts. The bill will not do that but that will not stop the Democrats.
Yes, the people who put the rules that caused the meltdown in place are making more rules.
Of course the left likes to paint Republicans as being in the pockets of the Wall Street executives. Sure, there are some but Wall Street is deeper in the pockets of Democrats.
Harry Reid tried to paint the Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street:
Reid charged that Republicans are stalling action on a Wall Street reform bill because “they are having difficulty determining how they’re going to continue making love to Wall Street” by resisting banking regulation. The Hill
Well Harry, you can keep trying to paint Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street by claiming they are making love to that entity.
It might be true and it might not.
But it is absolutely true that your side will screw Wall Street.
And the American public along with it.
Never surrender, never submit.
Feb 28, 2010 Political
The Democrats opposed the Patriot Act when Bush was the president, or at least they pretended to. They went on rants about how horrible it was, what an invasion of privacy it was, blah, blah. They tried to end it and to stop it and to change it because everyone knows Bush was really Hitler and he wanted to listen to granny discuss whole grain cookie recipes to help with constipation.
As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute “robust” checks and balances if elected. PolitiFact
The Democrats wanted some provisions in there to add more oversight to the process but those did not make it in. They voted for it and Obama signed it anyway. In other words, the Democrats and Obama extended the very same Patriot Act that they bashed when Bush was president. They passed that which they claimed to have opposed. Obama signed a bill that contains something he was against when he was running for office. He signed a bill that does not do what he promised he would.
The Democratic Underground is not happy.
Neither is Counter Currents.
I guess this is not the change they were looking for or as one of them put it, the more things change…
Those sneaky Democrats added this to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act . They did not even have the testicular fortitude to do this as a separate piece of legislation. I think it was by design. Now they can claim they had to vote for it (and Obama can claim he had to sign it) because if they did not Medicare would suffer. Republicans have cover as well. They can claim they had to vote for it because it extended the Patriot Act.
My Way News
Jan 21, 2010 Political
Senate Democrats proposed increasing the debt ceiling another 1.9 TRILLION dollars so the government can pay its bills. This is necessary because of the out of control spending taking place in DC. The Democrats are spending us into oblivion and they keep raising the limit so they can keep spending more. Failure to raise the limit will place America in default.
This is the last thing Democrats need after taking a thumping in Massachusetts. This will give Republicans more ammunition for the upcoming elections and this will certainly be fair. The Democrats were certainly not bashful about commenting when the debt ceiling was raised by Republicans:
- Senate Democrats are expected to use the upcoming debate on raising the limit to highlight the Bush administration’s record on deficits. AP (via Puppet Gov) 9-2007
- “Any objective analysis of our country’s fiscal history would have to conclude this administration and this rubberstamping Republican Congress are the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country. In fact, no other president or Congress even comes close.” Harry Reid commenting on the vote to raise debt ceiling March 2006
This does not include the various liberal bloggers who foamed at the mouth like rabid dogs each time the ceiling was raised. These people told us how Bush ruined the economy and spouted that oft told lie about Clinton having a surplus. They all went nuts talking about tax cuts and the war.
I hear none of them talking about Obama and his Democrats raising the ceiling and then spending more and more each time they do. It is like they raise the limit on the national credit card and then go on a spending spree. We have a spending problem, we spend too much.
This exercise is a ritual that plays itself out on occasion and both parties participate and who leads depends on who is in power at the time. This time it is the Democrats and last time it was the Republicans. The minority party usually takes shots at the majority for its fiscal irresponsibility and then once the debt limit is raised they all line up at the trough to spend, spend, spend.
We have this problem because Congress spends too much money. When Republicans were in charge they spent too much and now that Democrats are in charge they spend WAY too much. None of them have any fiscal constraint and they all seem to think money grows on trees.
In the next election we need to remove all incumbents and put some fresh people in there to get the job done. Vote for the challenger in the primaries and put new people in to run against each other rather than allowing incumbents to run unopposed. I will definitely vote for the person on the ticket who is not the incumbent in my state’s Senate race and in my District. This needs to be an anti incumbent year where we get rid of them all.
But until then it will be fun to beat up the Democrats like they did to Republicans. Nothing personal, it just happens to be their turn.
Jan 14, 2010 Political
The Democrats from the House and Senate have been meeting with Barack Obama in a faux reconciliation process designed to usurp the Constitution and get some kind of compromise on the health care debacle. No Republicans are in on these meetings and they have been locked out of the process all along. The promise of bipartisan legislation was only valid so long as Republicans went along with what Democrats wanted. Republican amendments were voted down and those that made it through are being removed in this so called reconciliation.
One group that was part of the reconciliation were the leaders of the unions. They were upset about the tax on “Cadillac” health plans because their members would be impacted. Those who have such plans who are not in a union will still have to pay.
When did union leaders become part of Congress? Why is it that they are part of the process that involves headlines claiming a deal has been reached? This is from the AP:
The White House reached a tentative agreement with union leaders early Thursday to tax high-cost insurance plans, officials said, removing one of the major stumbling blocks in the way of a final compromise on comprehensive health care legislation sought by President Barack Obama.
I have read through my copy of the Constitution and I could not find a section where union leaders were part of Congress. So I would really like someone to explain to me why they are involved in this process. I am particularly interested because Republicans, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, have been excluded.
What does this whole process say about the Democrats? How telling is it that the White House and Democrats from Congress will involve union leaders in the reconciliation process and leave elected members of Congress out of the process?
Officials said the agreement was thrashed out over more than 15 hours of negotiating at the White House, ending after midnight. Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka; Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win, and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers and electricians. Obama’s deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, was the lead White House bargainer, although Vice President Joe Biden also was involved periodically.
Did you see any Republican members of Congress on this list? Do you see anyone on this list that you elected to be in Congress? Don’t point to Biden, he was elected to be the VP.
Listen up Massachusetts, Scott Brown needs to win to stop this insanity. What do you folks have to lose? You have had Democrats for decades and this election is to complete Kennedy’s term. Send Brown to the Senate and see how he does. If you don’t like the work he does you will have no problem putting up a Democrat who can beat him. Brown can add sanity back to the process and force Democrats to negotiate in good faith.
No matter what your political beliefs, no matter what party you belong to, no matter how you feel about the health care bill, this process has to be disturbing to you. If it does not bother you that duly elected members of Congress are bypassing the process of reconciliation by excluding other duly elected members of Congress to keep from engaging in difficult negotiations then there is not much hope for you.
If it does not bother you that the union leaders were included while members of Congress were excluded then there is no hope for the country.