“Get border agents killed, get ambassadors killed, oversee disastrous healthcare rollout — those people get to keep their jobs. But calling Valerie Jarrett a “vacuous cipher?” That’s a firing offense.”
The current political posturing in D.C. is not over the federal budget. It’s over a ‘continuing resolution’ to fund the government for three months.
That is because the United States of America is entering its fifth fiscal year without an actual federal budget. An actual federal budget has not passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President since George W. Bush was President.
The President is required by law to submit a budget to Congress every year. The person currently occupying the White House during his golf tour has done so. Those budgets have been received in a truly amazing display of bipartisanship and have failed to received a single vote from any member of congress of either party, and that includes the socialist who caucuses with the democrats. I think the best one of his budgets did was 0-97 in the Senate.
The House has submitted at least one budget, with bipartisan support every year, which Harry Reid has refused to bring to the floor for a vote. The Senate has produced one budget, within the last year, on a strict party line vote.
It is important to note that when the democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, they failed in their primary duty of producing a federal budget. It is not because they tried and failed, they just didn’t even try.
So it is clear that having a federal budget, that receives a close examination, and is open to debate and review by the public is not something that the democrats want. Which raises the question of why they don’t want the transparency that an actual federal budget would bring.
Kudos to CSPAN and YouTube, which brings us the words of Senate democrat “leader” Harry Reid from 2006.
Yup, Harry Reid is calling raising the federal limit to $ 9 trillion is the last thing we should do, because it will weaken the country, and hurt the economy.
Was Harry Reid telling the truth or engaging in hyper-partisan political demagoguery because there was a Republican in the White House at the time. Given his record, if Harry Reid was telling the truth, it was purely by accident.
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
To be fair, that was what he said back in 2006, when he was a Senator from a fly over state with less than one year on the job. Perhaps he was just dangerously incompetent. On the other hand, there was a Republican in the White House back then, so perhaps he was just being the hyper-partisan political demagogue that he has proved himself to be time and time again. On the gripping hand, it probably is both.
The Washington Post had an article that brought up this quote in the context of the current debt limit debate. It said that Obama’s rhetoric then would be considered “a bit Tea Partyish” today. Spin the standard media bias out of that statement, and it is more than a “a bit.” The article also gives Obama an upside down Pinocchio for his current stance. In their rating scale, that is “A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.”
A friend of mine recently asked me about the “Republican’s political suicide.” I’m betting he heard that from his moonbat ex-wife.
A quick Google search of “republican political suicide” shows all the buzz is coming from the extreme wacko left. Mother Jones News, Andrew Sullivan and far left wing extremists columnists in the Washington Post.
Sounds more like wishful thinking than thoughtful political analysis.
Those left wing extremists are fear mongering because they are so scared they are soiling their linens.
What is happening with the minority party standing up to the Imperial Obama Presidency, is that they are firing up their base. Something they have been really, really bad at for the past few elections. Obama won on low Republican/Conservative base voter turnout, while he was firing up his base hotter than the Devil’s Wedding Tackle.
The democrats have a real problem in 2016, and that is Obama. He has turned the Presidency into his personal brand, not the brand of the democrat party.
Biden is an idiot, Hillary is seen as damaged goods, and is already being attacked by democrats and news organizations run for the advancement of the democrat party.
So who are they going to run?
Add to the left’s fear multiple conservative members of Congress who are extremely popular with their base. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. Don’t forget former Rep and Ret. Lt. Colonel Allan West. A conservative that the left singled out for attack based on the democrats’ racist policies.
First off, there hasn’t been a federal budget passed since George W. Bush was President. Second, she’s an idiot. Let’s start a short list of stuff and can be easily cut and will benefit the American taxpayer.
The $2.2 billion Obamaphone program
Supplying arms and funding to known terrorist groups in Syria
The Department of Education
Obamacare
Fraud and Waste in the federal food stamps program
A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday reveals that the typical American family now earns less than it did in 1989. In 1989, median household income was $51,681 (in current dollars). In 2012, median household income was $51,017.
Poverty levels in 2012 also climbed to 46.5 million Americans–15% of the country–from 46.2 million in 2011. As Washington Post economics writer Neil Irwin put it, “This isn’t a lost decade for economic gains for Americans. It is a lost generation.”
That’s right. This is the direction our Dear Leader is taking us. He has prosperity stuck in reverse and is determined to stay the course.
The last Recession ended in mid-2009, but we are still waiting for the recovery that typically follows the end of a recession.