Skip to comments.Obama's Solution: Give Irresponsible Liberal Spending Addicts Higher Taxes So They Can Spend More
Posted on 08/09/2011 9:37:30 AM PDT by xzins
Perhaps Standard and Poor's is in cahoots with the politicians whose Fannie/Freddie scam they gave a Triple A rating to. That would explain some of the supposedly neutral comments by S&P that seem to group politicians who want to cut spending into the same gaggle as the liberal politicians who want both to borrow extra money and then to raise taxes for additonal spending money on top of their borrowed money.
Such faux neutrality doent give me great respect for Standard and Poor's competence. This, by the way, is not shooting the messenger. This is questioning the messenger's grasp of the situation. Some will say that S&P doesn't care how the budget is balanced, whether by reduced spending, higher taxes, or a combination of both. For my part, I can't fathom a sane refereeing body that can't tell the difference between a helpful behavior and a destructive behavior.
If your child is addicted to crack cocaine, you don't call it a balanced discussion when some family members want to dry up the drug supply and others want to bankroll his habit to avoid hurting his feelings.
If your kid in college runs up huge credit card debt, you don't pat him on the back and say that you've decided to get him a few more credit cards, and, oh by the way, you're also sending him a larger cash allowance.
FIRST, you get the problem under control.
The problem with liberals addicted to spending money is that they've spent this nation into the poor house with their spending addiction.
The solution is NOT to give them more credit cards and extra cash through higher taxes.
Haven't they already proven themselves irresponsible? Haven't they proven themselves addicts...inherently incapable of reform?
Cut spending. Cut it to the bone. Freeze the budget at the level that existed prior to bailouts, TARPS, stimuli, ObamaCare, and the third war in Libya. After all, why should those special, emergency and future spending measures have any permanent part in America's ongoing budget?
Here is a very simple concept: America should not spend more than it takes in. That simple concept is sanity for your family, for your business, for your city, for your state, and...yes...also for your nation.
Do not, do not, do not for any reason give irresponsible spending addicts more money to spend. Not extra borrowed money. Not extra tax money.
If you did, that would call your sanity into question, as it has called into question the competence of Standard and Poor's.
This really is the underlying Lib stragegy. Pass historic spending increases and then create a crisis to force the GOP to support historic tax increases. Government increases from 18% of GDP to 24% of GDP permanently. Add in state and local spending and you are around 40%.
absolutely agree with you. especially your last 6 sentences.
but Boehner and McConnell already gave Obama 2.4 trillion more to spend. and they agreed to built-in increase, for the next 10 years, adding another 9 trillion to the debt for our children to pay.
i am more concerned about taking their credit card away, than even my concern about no new taxes.
Bachmann and DeMint were right. We need more like them!
The math is simple. If they start with 14 trillion and end up with more than that, then they’ve just put America further in debt.
If, after spending cuts, you are still further in debt, then your spending cuts were either imaginary or too few.
Scratch the word “liberal” and I think you’re more spot-on.
One of the biggest problem we have on the political side of this issue is that we didn’t ride herd enough on supposed conservatives (or conservative-leaning moderates, at least) about spending when they were in control. Oh, to be sure, there was always talk about the government spending too much, and spending on useless and counter-productive things, but as long as the debt was grown SLOWLY, it all kind of got swept under the rug.
So, to a lot of the folks out there, it’s a “pox on both of your houses” situation, and they’re not wrong, even if there is a difference in degree as to how bad the various sides are.
Any serious reform is going to have to take on herds of sacred cows, and not all on one side of the aisle. I don’t think the current crew in DC is capable of doing that without some changes imposed from the outside.
CINO is as valid as is RINO
If the speak a good game but perform as a liberal, then the duck rule applies. (Look like a duck, walk like a duck....)
CINO is as valid as is RINO
If they speak a good game but perform as a liberal, then the duck rule applies. (Look like a duck, walk like a duck....)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.