Democrats To Raise Debt Ceiling Again
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.
Related:
US Debt
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: debt ceiling, Democrats, Harry Reid, majority, Republicans
When Did Unions Become Part Of Congress?
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.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, faux, lies, Obama, reconciliation, Republicans, union leaders
Is Martha Coakley A Liar?
Jan 13, 2010 Political
While Scott Brown was in his home state connecting with voters Martha Coakley was in DC getting cozy with lobbyists and taking their money. Coakley indicated that the event in DC was a unity event that was planned in December after the primary. There is no dispute that it was planned then but what exactly was planned? The website Legal Insurrection reports that the event was organized by a professional fund raising group.
But in fact the event was organized by 4C Partners, a professional fundraising and campaign consulting organization. One of Coakley’s own fundraisers, Julia Hoffman, joined 4C Partners in mid-December 2009. Hoffman is the contact person on the fundraiser announcement.
So was this a unity event or a fund raiser? Do they really need a professional group to organize a unity event? Since when does a unity event involve lobbyists, many of whom are from companies with a big stake in health care? Since those very lobbyists ponied up large sums of money and they did it at an event that was organized by a professional fund raising group, we can only conclude that it was, in fact, a fund raiser.
Martha Coakley left Massachusetts and went to DC to raise money from lobbyists while Scott Brown stayed at home with the people he will represent once elected.
Coakley also witnessed an event that involved one of her people and a reporter. The reporter, John McCormack, claims that Michael Meehan, an Obama nominee who was dispatched to help Coakley, pushed him down as he tried to ask Coakley a question. I have no way of knowing what happened because I was not there. He could have tripped or he could have fallen over something but he claims he was pushed. All of this is moot because Coakley was right there even though she stated she was not “privy” to the event.
A video of the event (it does not show how McCormack fell) shows Coakley was right there looking at McCormack as he lay on the ground. A still photo makes it clear that Coakley was there and looking at him. Perhaps she did not see what happened and turned when she heard the commotion but since he was attempting to ask her a question it is likely that she was looking at him. It appears to me that she saw what happened. If he fell then she would have said she saw him fall or trip or whatever. Since she denied being privy, it is not out of the realm that she witnessed an assault and ignored it. Is this the kind of person Massachusetts wants representing the state? She is an officer of the court, of law enforcement, and it is quite possible she ignored a crime.
Coakley also told a blatant lie about Scott Brown with regard to a bill that he voted on. She claims he voted to withhold care for victims of rape. This is a lie. Brown required the bill to have language that allowed health care providers to not give the morning after pill if they had a religious or other moral objection to the procedure. The provider was required to already have his objections on file at the treatment facility and the victim was to be offered the service from someone who had no objection to giving it and at no additional cost.
In Coakley’s mind this is withholding care for rape victims and it is an absolute lie. In fact, the health care bill before Congress, the bill Coakley will vote for if elected, has nearly identical language in it regarding treatment of victims of rape.
Does this mean Coakley is in favor of withholding treatment from rape victims?
Brown’s daughters were out with him and defended their dad. Jammie Wearing Fool has the money quote at the end of the post about Brown and his daughters:
Behold the irony of castigating Brown on his stance with women to the fact Coakley is trotting out Bill Clinton for an appearance this week.
That, my friends, is pure irony.
Martha Coakley is a liar. She lied about the DC event and what it really was. She was less than honest about the incident involving the alleged assault of a reporter and she lied about Brown’s stance on treatment of rape victims.
Take a look at the photo of Coakley staring at the man on the ground and then look at this photo of Scott Brown. Which one is the true defender of the people and which one feels it is OK to run roughshod over those with whom they disagree?
The thoughts and prayers of the Big Dog family go out to the people of Haiti who have been devastated by a terrible earthquake. Americans will rally to help them but as you do please be careful to whom you send your money. The worst events bring out the worst people and there will be many scam artists out to make money off the human suffering. The Anchoress has a list of organizations to whom you can safely donate as does America’s North Shore Journal.
Big Dog Salute to Michelle Malkin and Don Surber
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: assault, Democrats, fund raisers, lies, lobbyists, martha coakley, Massachusetts, scott brown
In Haste To Slam Brown Coakley Makes A Big Mistake
Jan 13, 2010 Political
After the debate last night in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley very soundly, Coakley rushed an attack ad out to stem the tide that is now going against her. In her haste, she made a big mistake. The wording at the bottom of the add misspells the name of the state.
Jammie Wearing Fool has a screen shot of the ad and the state is spelled “Massachusettes.”
One would expect a person to be able to spell the name of her state especially if that one is running for the US Senate. But Martha was in such a rush to get this out that she approved this message, misspelled state and all.
This is the kind of attention to detail one expects from a person who will march in lockstep with her party regardless of the details and who is now in panic mode.
The add was pulled for a bit of time and when it went back up the state name was spelled correctly. I guess she took a lot of heat over the error.
Brown said he was not going to go negative and that he did not want big name Republicans coming to the state on his behalf (not that he could stop them). He is busy running around the state campaigning after he received around 1.3 million dollars in 24 hours after an internet money bomb. His donations are small ones from every day people.
Coakley is in DC at a fundraiser that has 22 registered lobbyists, 17 of whom are directly involved in health care.
This should tell the people of Massachusetts where her priorities are.
Scott Brown might just pull this off. A lot will depend on the weather, voter enthusiasm after a three day weekend and what groups actually turn out.
If he wins this will be the second shot heard round the world. He will make a number of vulnerable Democrats very uneasy.
If a Republican can win in Massachusetts then a Republican can win anywhere.
And the Democrats know that which is why SEIU is kicking in a lot of money and some heavy hitters are making their way to Massachusetts.
Ace has a video of a union steel worker who is carrying a Coakley sign. The guy says they paid him $50 to stand there holding the sign but he is voting for Brown.
Priceless…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: brown, coakley, Democrats, massachusettes, Massachusetts, Obama
In Obama’s World He Might Actually Be Not Guilty
Jan 10, 2010 Political
The young man the Lame Stream Media calls an “alleged” bomber has pleaded “not guilty” to the charges against him. How he can be “alleged” is beyond me when people saw him try to detonate the underwear bomb and he ended up with his chestnuts roasting on an open fire on Christmas Day.
He might actually be not guilty in the world of Obama. After all, when Obama was making one of his pathetic addresses aimed at deflecting blame away from him (the buck “ultimately” stops at him but not until it hits a lot of others along the way) he said:
“We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaeda, and that this group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.” ABC
This was said as if poverty had anything to do with this and to partially justify the behavior. The “alleged” bomber came from a wealthy family. Poverty had nothing to do with his motivation, a motivation we might never know because his act is being treated like a crime rather than an act of war.
In Obama’s world view through the community organizer lens this guy just needed to be taken care of and nurtured. It would do us well to remember that the terrorists who recruited the Fruit of the Boom bomber are organizing a community as well.
Keep in mind that the Obama minded people believe that Gitmo is the reason behind these kinds of attacks and that closing the facility will reduce terrorism recruitment. None of these intellectual midgets seems to be able to explain how all the terrorists were recruited before we ever held anyone at Gitmo.
Interestingly, the terrorists held at Gitmo would rather stay there because they are being held under the rules of the Geneva Convention. They know that if they are moved to a federal prison they will be under near lock down conditions. According to one of the attornys; “As far as our clients are concerned, it’s probably preferable for them to remain at Guantánamo,” he [Falkoff] says.
Mark Hemingway of the Washington Examiner also notes:
“The strident left-wing critiques of the Guantanamo facility have all centered around the fact that detainees there are horribly mistreated and conditions unbearable. But when push comes to shove, it would seem concerns about Guantanamo are overblown, and the prisoners there know that being held under the Geneva conventions outside the U.S. is much preferable to a maximum security prison in the U.S.”
So the kid from the wealthy family “allegedly” tried to set of a bomb aboard a US airliner because of poverty and Gitmo, the prison Obama said he would shut down in a year (won’t happen), is the place where the terrorists would rather stay if they can’t go home.
Interesting. I wonder if they can sue Obama for torture because he forced them to leave the warm, tropical place where they have some freedom to move about for a freezing cold prison where they will not have so much mobility…
All of this is coming at a time when Obama is overwhelmed by failures. The terrorist got on a plane, CIA agents get blown up by an “alleged” informant, his administration gives conflicting information, and the administration pushes the idea that intelligence people allowed the bomber to get on the plane because they do not like Obama.
Sounds bad. It is but not as bad as Obama having to put in place the things Bush already had in place and that were working. These are the things Obama weakened when he took office:
In a revealing admission, President Barack Obama said today he was directing U.S. intelligence agencies to begin to do something many had assumed they were already doing: “[A]ssigning specific responsibility for investigating all leads on high priority threats so that these leads are pursued and acted upon aggressively.”
“That is a shock because we had such a follow-up system when I was there,” said Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism director in the Clinton and Bush administrations. Clarke, who worked on the Obama transition team, is now an ABC News consultant. Ace of Spades
I have been told by the liberals that it will take Obama a while to clean up the mess left by George Bush. That is all well and good because the mess is defined by one’s politics and, quite frankly, Bush left some messes. However, it is important to note that the office of the president is a continuous one and no person who holds that office ties everything up neatly before leaving. It is supposed to carry over with a smooth transition.
I also doubt Obama will clean up any messes by discarding policies simply because they were ones Bush instituted. Ace points out nicely how Obama pulled back from what we were doing only to see his actions nearly result in the death of hundreds of people, in the air and on the ground. Instead of keeping things that worked in place Obama removed them. He allowed his ego and liberal belief that open fists mean people play nice to get in the way.
In his zeal to show he is on top of things Obama released a declassified report showing how the Fruit of the Boom bomber was able to board the airplane. Basically, Obama told us he was on top of things and that we would stop this from happening again by publishing the instruction manual on doing it. [Big Dog Salute: Just One Minute]
Heck of a job Barry.
At least Barry told us this in a clear, concise manner. He didn’t go speaking negro on us.
Big Dog Salute to Don Surber
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: airlines, Bush, Democrats, Obama, Republicans, terror, underwear bomber