Gay Patriot Header Image

The Orwellian, Deadbeat President

From Newsday:

President Barack Obama demanded Monday that lawmakers raise the nation’s $16.4 trillion federal debt limit quickly, warning that “Social Security benefits and veterans’ checks will be delayed” if they don’t and cautioning Republicans not to insist on cuts to government spending in exchange.

“They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,” he said at the 21st and final news conference of his first term. “The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better decide quickly because time is running short.”

“We are not a deadbeat nation,” he declared…

Orwellian language – speaking as though the opposite of the situation is somehow the situation – is a hallmark of the Obama presidency, and the statement reported above is typical. So many things wrong with it, it’s tough to know where to start.

First, who is holding hostages and demanding ransoms? Obama is.

When the Treasury hits the debt ceiling, the government doesn’t just shut down. Tax revenues continue to pour in (to the tune of $2.2 trillion per year), which the government can keep spending. It’s not enough to cover everything that has been budgeted; that is why we have a deficit, after all. Some spending will have to be slowed, or stopped. But Obama – and Congress, which is at least half Democrat-controlled – have considerable ability to ‘decide what’. They could choose to keep spending on Social Security and veterans’ benefits. Obama’s remark is a signal that he plans not to.

In short, Barack Obama is threatening to hold Social Security and veterans’ benefit checks hostage; while pretending not to. It’s how any good criminal makes threats in public: he mentions something important or valuable, officially professing his virtuous desire to protect it, and unofficially making clear that he has a knife at its throat, if you don’t do what he wants. (To be clear, Obama’s behavior is different from a criminal’s: Obama pretends, and perhaps could believe, that he isn’t holding the knife.)

Second, after years of Obama overspending and so adding trillions to America’s debt (and with trillions more to come), the “full faith and credit” of the United States already isn’t what it used to be. That’s why the price of gold has doubled since Obama took office. Smart investors understand that there is no way the U.S. can ever pay off its Obama-size debts without de-valuing the dollar (printing a lot of new dollars, which cheapens the dollars that you hold, making everything more expensive). Yet Obama makes himself sound innocent of the matter.

Third, the ‘deadbeat’ move here isn’t to refrain from raising the debt ceiling. The ‘deadbeat’ move here is if we do raise the debt ceiling.

Think of the debt ceiling as your personal credit card limit. If you keep hitting your limit, the right thing is for your limit to not be raised any more. That would force you to live within your means. Living within your means would restore your solvency and hence, it would restore real confidence in your prospects and ability to repay. If you keep asking to have your limit raised (as you keep piling on more debt, rather than paying it down), that is when you are a deadbeat.

In effect, Obama is telling the credit card company (Congress) “You need to keep letting me borrow more and more than I can ever repay, because… (drumroll…) I have a policy of not being a deadbeat.” It is either Orwellian, or the behavior of a spoiled teenager. Take your pick. But either way, let’s not kid ourselves: We will raise the debt ceiling, not to avoid being a deadbeat nation, but precisely because we are one.

(NB: Made several edits after initial publication; mostly typos, but also changed an adverb or two, added ‘categories’ and added a new last sentence.)



  1. That’s…

    That’s not what the debt ceiling is.

    Comment by Evan — January 14, 2013 @ 8:13 pm - January 14, 2013

  2. Exactly, ILC.

    If Social Security checks and veteran’s benefits stop coming, it will be because Obama and the Obama administration decided they were less important than Obamaphones, fancy parties for the Obamas, and teaching African men to wash their pee-pees.

    And that is what needs to be hammered home. Obama is cutting off people who paid towards their benefits with their taxes and their service to the country in favor of the Obama base and their strip-club and liquor needs.

    Again. Obama is cutting off those who need the safety net in favor of those who exploit the safety net.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2013 @ 8:17 pm - January 14, 2013

  3. Try harder, Evan. Say more of what you’re responding to, and what you would mean.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2013 @ 8:23 pm - January 14, 2013

  4. With Spring coming on, I believe Obambi should take the baby giraffe and the baby panda and the baby elephant and the baby orangutan from the National Zoo and threaten to shoot each of them one by one for every day that goes by without raising the debt ceiling.

    That is the true Chicago way. I like my thugs down and dirty, not all cologne and breast cancer ribbons like Obama.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2013 @ 9:12 pm - January 14, 2013

  5. I have no idea what Evan is on about… but I will say that I’ve seen liberals misinterpret what the debt limit is all about around the Internet. Over at NRO we debated several on the issue. What they tried to tell us is that not increasing the debt limit is like not paying your credit card bill. A sort of “we bought the items now you conservatives don’t want to pay for them.”

    I explained that no, the debt limit is more like your overall credit limit on the card, and the debt piled up on the credit card is more analogous to the national debt, and yes we were willing to pay that off. Our/my objection is that we’re not going to keep increasing the limit on someone’s credit card (debt limit) when they keep buying things with the card and won’t pay down the debt on it (national debt total) they’ve been piling up.

    But in general liberals are hysterical over the whole thing. It’s both funny and sad all at the same time.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — January 14, 2013 @ 9:31 pm - January 14, 2013

  6. By the way, folks, what should be known is that “Evan” is actually Evan Hurst, the Obama Party puppet and Wonkette (Obama Party propaganda site) writer who shrieked that any criticism of Obama/Wonkette’s attacks on Trig Palin constituted “homophobia”.

    It should also be noted that Evan Hurst and the organization he represents known as “Truth Wins Out”, led by Wayne Besen, which endorsed and supported Obama and which purports to speak for the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community, claimed that the following statement about Dan Blatt was, quote, “spot-on”, and “everything (he) said is true, and then some”:

    Dan Blatt is a loathsome piece of sh*t who will sell out other gay people in order to curry the favor of straight Republicans who pat him on the head every now but then call him a c*ck-sucking heels-in-the-air fudge-packed girlie-boy behind his back (even though only the girlie-boy part is actually true). Dan says all this stuff because the probability that any gay man would ever give enough of a sh!t about Dan to visit him in a hospital, much less to have a relationship with him, is remote — as remote as the possibility that Dan will ever have sex with anyone other than a blind leper in a darkened truck stop in rural Alabama, and even then the leper will have to down a fifth of Jack Daniel’s before he can bring himself to do it. F*ck you, Dan, you wretched, illiterate prick.

    That should add some perspective.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2013 @ 9:47 pm - January 14, 2013

  7. I explained that no, the debt limit is more like your overall credit limit on the card


    1) You spend borrowed money – that’s your credit card. The government spends borrowed money – that’s the national debt.

    2) You approach the limit on the total amount of outstanding debt that your card will allow you: that’s your credit card limit. The government approaches the limit on the total amount of outstanding debt that Congress will allow it: that is the debt ceiling. (No mistake. That *is* what the debt ceiling is.)

    3) You decide to pay your bills: that means you cut spending, pay more on your card balance each month than you add to it (so the net balance goes down), etc. The government decides to pay its bills: that means it cuts spending, pays more on the national debt each month than it adds to it (so the net balance goes down), etc.

    4) OR… you decide to be a deadbeat: you borrow more than you can pay back, you keep asking the card company to raise your limit so you can borrow even more (always jacking up your total balance), etc. The government decides to be a deadbeat: it borrows more than it can pay back, it keeps asking Congress to raise its limit so it can borrow even more (always jacking up the total national debt), etc.

    Obama has decided that we shall be (4), a deadbeat nation always going for the next debt ceiling increase. To obscure it, he demagogues the issue, pretending we are somehow (3), a nation paying its bills. (But we are not!) Next step: Evan swallows it.

    There is one key difference between your situation and the government’s. Congress controls the debt limit; but, constitutionally, Congress is (along with Obama) also the one doing the spending. It would be as if you could set your own debt limit, and went through elaborate, periodic rituals as you raised your own limit, the elaborateness meant to show people how “responsible” you are. (When really you are just another deadbeat.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2013 @ 10:07 pm - January 14, 2013

  8. (continued) Perhaps the lefties’ argument is something like, Well we promised a bunch of people that we would keep spending a bunch of money. That’s what we mean by ‘responsibly paying our bills’. And that’s why you have to keep raising our limit.

    Which would be like you telling the credit card company, “Well I promised my wife that I would keep buying her presents every month. That is what I mean by ‘responsibly paying my bills’. And that’s why you have to keep raising my card limit.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 14, 2013 @ 10:22 pm - January 14, 2013

  9. Good call on the article. Deadbeat is exactly what I would call what Obama is doing. His party is effectively spending America out of house and home and then he has the audacity to blame other groups for this. The arrogance to suggest easy ways out such as loop holes like a how this proposed trillion dollar coin will provide. You are exactly right….the government is in no danger of stopping…but us employed by the government are at risk of losing our pay. The military has already told it’s members that if a deal is not reached then they may have to freeze a pay check. That’s wrong on so many levels. America is in no danger of being fixed anytime soon under Obama’s rule.

    Comment by PatrioticVoices — January 14, 2013 @ 11:10 pm - January 14, 2013

  10. “In effect, Obama is telling the credit card company (Congress) “You need to keep letting me borrow more and more than I can ever repay, because… (drumroll…) I have a policy of not being a deadbeat.””

    Not really. Congress is the creditor just as much Obama is. They have already decided to spend it. In your scenario, the deadbeat is the American people and the American economy. It is the American people and the American economy who would be hurt the most if the gov defaults. Its more like deciding to build a house, laying the foundation then deciding to cut off spending mid-stream. Who loses? The workers who are waiting for a check, the raw material suppliers who are waiting to be paid for their material and the neighborhood for having a half finished pile of crap next door.

    If congress wants to change the way they build their house they should go to next years budget, write in how they want it and then pass it. Not stop in the middle.

    Furthermore the Prez has a constitutional duty to spend the money congress gives him. Congress has a constitutional duty to honor the debt. So to call it a matter of “Obama’s policy” assumes Obama is some dictator spending any ol’ way he chooses which we all know is inaccurate.

    Comment by mike — January 15, 2013 @ 12:15 am - January 15, 2013

  11. The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in nearly four years. It is the Democrat Party that stamps its feet and opposes all efforts to reign in spending; in fact, the SCOAMF is on record saying that there is no spending problem. It’s supremely disingenuous of him to blame Congress for his own unwillingness to confront the fiscal crisis.

    Comment by V the K — January 15, 2013 @ 6:31 am - January 15, 2013

  12. And since the Obamacrats are under no pressure from any quarter to cut spending, the likeliest path forward is continued massive accumulation of debt until the country collapses under its weight.

    Comment by V the K — January 15, 2013 @ 7:00 am - January 15, 2013

  13. This President has absolutely no intent to cut spending. He doesn’t think he has to. He has the MSM backing up everything he says. Republicans are in disarray and there is no coordinated opposition to what he is doing. Americans are confused and fragmented about the significance of the problem and what can be done about it.

    A significant percentage of Americans think the problem can be solved by raising taxes. They have no clue how hard that is going to come back to bite them. Ignorance won’t be bliss when higher prices and taxes hit them.

    Many people believe that “rich” people and Corporations make too much and pay too little. They think if the rich paid their fair share we wouldn’t have a spending problem.

    Some people think we can raise taxes now, get things under control and maybe lower them later.

    Too many people think this is cyclical and we will come out of it eventually no matter what Government does so they aren’t really paying much attention.

    Many people are seriously concerned but have no clue who to believe or what to do about it.

    The President will continue to use this to his advantage.

    And yesterday, I saw an article in a leading conservative blog about how Republicans need to make family the central focus of the Party.

    Comment by David — January 15, 2013 @ 8:27 am - January 15, 2013

  14. Its more like deciding to build a house, laying the foundation then deciding to cut off spending mid-stream. Who loses? The workers who are waiting for a check, the raw material suppliers who are waiting to be paid for their material and the neighborhood for having a half finished pile of crap next door.

    Not even close.

    That house is a work in progress. If you cut off the funding, it is like cutting the military drastically and bludgeoning the economy that has grown around servicing and supporting the military. That is the case you make in which you leave the neighborhood with an abandoned pile of crap and a tsunami of unemployment.

    However, when you cut entitlements, which are the real piggies sucking on the sow, what is the economic result? Will the people starve and die? Will the crime rate skyrocket? Will the illegal aliens self deport?

    When you open the fossil fuel fields, what is the result? The planet will go black from pollution, people will die of emphysema, we will all have to wear smog masks?

    When we deep-six Obamacare and keep the system we have, what happens? Dead bodies everywhere? The most expensive health care system with the least bang for the buck in the modern world? Millions who can not get health care? Make that case and then make the case that the only solution is Obamacare.

    littlelettermike would like to find a way to blame it on Congress. I am fine with that. The House of Representatives has not failed to do its job of proposing a budget every single year. It is Harry Reid who can not find the time to bring it before the Senate. It is Obama who sends a DOA proposal of a budget that is the whole candy store and then some.

    The game is afoot. The Progressives have emptied the treasury and they want unlimited, uncontrolled spending and their target now is the “silly” and “meaningless” debt ceiling. The Progressives are “quantitative easing” us into the Weimar Republic path to inflation and worthless currency and littlelettermike only sees it as stopping payments on a construction project.

    Wow! That old black magic has you in its spell, that old black magic that you weave so well is nothing more than snake oil. Try peddling the facts and we will be interested in what you have to offer.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 15, 2013 @ 9:50 am - January 15, 2013

  15. One has to deal with the Obama cultists like mike by showing the degree to which they delude themselves.

    And before mike starts screaming and pissing and trying to blame the House, let him be reminder that his Barack Obama spent the entire campaign shrieking that Republicans want to murder the elderly, starve children, and destroy the economy based on the multiple Ryan budgets the House had passed.

    Concern-troll mike is a Nazi at a Nuremberg rally, a Mao minion, one of the numerous faces standing behind Jim Jones with a machine gun. He is beyond reason and rationality; the only thing he can do is scream that his Obamafuehrer is beyo d reproach, the Party is all, and it’s those JewsRepublicans that are stabbing the country in the back.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 15, 2013 @ 10:13 am - January 15, 2013

  16. I looked into the leftie argument demands a bit. They seem to think that, since Congress appropriated money, i.e., said that it wants to spend X amount of money on Y this year, it must now “pay its bills” by spending the full amount no matter how much America can’t afford it.

    Imagine that your grown-up kid, or maybe the neighbor’s, comes to you and reminds you of when you got drunk that November and talked about paying his rent and buying him other goodies. He says that was an oral contract under the law, and demands that you borrow yourself into ruin to pay it. And when you say “Sorry, I just can’t do that, I’d have to ask the credit card company for a limit increase, it’s time for us all to tighten our belts”, he calls you a ‘deadbeat-kidnapper’, a deadbeat who takes hostages and demands to be paid ransoms.

    You know that’s crazy talk, because you are merely a pompous fool who promised what you shouldn’t have; *he* is the one demanding ransoms. But, feeling guilty and intimidated, you say “OK, I’ll pay for your stuff this year, but this is it; we have to talk about my future spending cuts.” He says NO, you must pay for his stuff forever and he won’t even discuss future cuts until you’ve paid his way this year and also said that you’re willing to borrow forever.

    That’s the situation. Except, the young thug is President.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 15, 2013 @ 10:20 am - January 15, 2013

  17. Its more like deciding to build a house, laying the foundation then deciding to cut off spending mid-stream.

    Which happens. Because, sh*t happens. Deal with it.

    Who loses? The workers who are waiting for a check, the raw material suppliers who are waiting to be paid for their material and the neighborhood for having a half finished pile of crap next door.

    They’re grownups who are supposed to fend for themselves. YOU DON’T (or shouldn’t) OWE THEM any future business. You owe them for actual services they’ve rendered up to now; that’s it. You certainly don’t owe them for future non-work, i.e. sitting on their asses while they bleed you.

    Furthermore the Prez has a constitutional duty to spend the money congress gives him.

    Wrong. Just for starters, Congress doesn’t “give him the money”; taxpayers do.

    Congress has a constitutional duty to honor the debt.

    Cite, please. If you have Section 4 of the 14th Amendment in mind: you are already wrong. But I’ll wait for you to quote it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 15, 2013 @ 10:46 am - January 15, 2013

  18. Lower case mike the concern troll always brings a bemused smile to my face; as he perfectly recites the Obama Cult talking points while denying he is a liberal, he makes me think of Liberace dressed up in sequins and feather boas, cattily threatening to sue anyone who suggests he’s gay.

    But it really doesn’t matter what Obama’s apologists and enablers say or do. The Republicans will cave and give Obama permission to borrow trillions more. Obama will gleefully spend that money on Government benefits for his cronies and the insatiable appetite of his Free Shit Army.

    And at some point… this house will burn. Because what Obama is doing is unsustainable, and none of his fawning cultists will ever tell him to stop.

    Comment by V the K — January 15, 2013 @ 11:42 am - January 15, 2013

  19. …the President blamed GOP absolutism for the crisis; then, as if missing his own point, offered a list of compromises he absolutely would not consider…


    Comment by V the K — January 15, 2013 @ 4:41 pm - January 15, 2013

  20. This has become a bit of a hobby horse of mine but I’m still waiting for someone to ask BHO what he means by delayed social security payments.

    I find it remarkable that not only has BHO admitted (again) that the SS “lock box” is empty – a fantasy – a there with no there – but I find it more remarkable that no one else seems to find it remarkable.

    We’ve heard pols from both sides prattle on and on about saving-strenghtening-preserving SS (for decades) and, yet, here we are find out that more borrowing is needed to pay benefits despite the trillions allegedly in the lock box.

    The GOP needs to find someone to explain that lock box “assets” are nothing more than claims on government revenue, not casks full of gold coins.

    @mike: the money isn’t there regardless of what’s been “promised”. When FDR , et seq, made promises to pay for old folk’s retirements in the 30s, I wasn’t yet born to give my consent yet I’m obligated to pay for it. Just as you (most likely being younger than I am) are obligated to pay my retirement. Are you OK with that? When did you give your consent?

    Also, mike, when funds are limited, priorities need to be established. If spending money to locate loose nuclear material is important (or whatever it was BHO was babbling) then, at some point, it needs to be decided that it’s more important than, say, Head Start (shown in study after study to be useless) or the Dept of Education or any of the other things gubmint spends borrowed and conjured-up money on.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — January 15, 2013 @ 4:57 pm - January 15, 2013

  21. Sooooo, he’s being a d*ck again. I have many other words in my lexicon, but this is so succinct.

    Comment by Paul — January 15, 2013 @ 5:08 pm - January 15, 2013

  22. SoCalRobert…. but the thing is, in ObamaWorld, hard choices don’t have to be made. Ever. He spends as much as he wants on whatever he wante to spend it on. It’s all other people’s money, so who cares? mikey and the fawning Obama sycophants in the MFM certainly aren’t going to tell him to be more prudent.

    Comment by V the K — January 15, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - January 15, 2013

  23. Meanwhile Obama just couldn’t manage to get his own budget in on time.
    Shame on him!
    As others have said, Obama prioritizes his own subsidy programs which are slightly hidden vote buying schemes.
    Obama loses no sleep at night over the idea of terrorizing older Americans and retired veterans because they are not HIS people.

    Comment by Nan G — January 15, 2013 @ 8:05 pm - January 15, 2013

  24. If only Obama agreed with himself from back in 2006. It’s practically the only thing we agree with.

    Obama when Bush was in office: 2006

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … 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.”

    Comment by James Richardson — January 15, 2013 @ 8:41 pm - January 15, 2013

  25. Obama is a hypocrite. He can’t even explain why raising the debt ceiling when Bush was president was a bad thing (when the debt was tons lower) but is now a good thing-other than the fact that he is president instead of Bush.

    Obama doesn’t understand budgets or math an apparently thinks there are magic money trees that provide all the money he wants to spend.

    Comment by Just Me — January 15, 2013 @ 10:14 pm - January 15, 2013

  26. Your one-paragraph description of the President is one of the best posts ever on this website IMO. Concise, spot-on, and to the point and covers so, so much of what this president is about. How in the hell anyone takes him seriously any more is beyond comprehension.

    Comment by Eddie Swaim — January 16, 2013 @ 12:50 am - January 16, 2013

  27. He’s an Orwellian, dystopian president. Everything from healthcare, to the debt devaluing our currency, to his language, his race bating, his talk of Executive fiat gun grabbing, his declaration of illegal immigrant amnesty, his wars, NDAA, drone attacks, kill lists, tax raises on all income levels, Marxist class warfare, appeasing the Muslim enemy.

    This doublespeak is all part of the package.

    Comment by Paul — January 16, 2013 @ 1:02 am - January 16, 2013

  28. ILC/Jeff – which do you prefer by the way?
    “Which happens. Because, sh*t happens. Deal with it.”
    I am not sure you understand the idea of a metaphor (actually in this case it might be simile I always screw those two up) In a budget situation, stopping in midstream is not the way to go about it because when you stop in mid-stream the result is disaster. The correct way to go about it is for congress to hold spending cuts through a budgetary process, not a debt limit debate where the losers are the American people and American economy. If cuts are made through the budget – great! We just had an election, Obama hasn’t even started his new term. Let the new congress write a new budget that has strong entitlement cuts, this is the proper channel for these debates.

    “Wrong. Just for starters, Congress doesn’t “give him the money”; taxpayers do.”
    Ok you are playing semantics “allocates” is a better way to say it.

    “If you have Section 4 of the 14th Amendment in mind: you are already wrong.”
    I would be fascinated if you have an argument that says congress does not have constitutional duty to honor the debt.

    SC Robert
    I “consented” to Social Security the moment I was born under the laws of the US government. Its the way it goes when we live in a representative democracy. We can vote the bums out but we are stuck with the decisions they made in the past.

    I fully agree with you it would be better if we could prioritize spending. However, everything I have read says there is noway to do this. Anyone who ever worked in a large organization knows you can’t just waive a wand and a system gets put into place and stuff gets done.. There needs to be a set up system and process to prioritize payments. Currently, this is not feasible. And if I would guess it would cost several million dollars just to set that system up. But if they replace the Dept of Education with block grants to states through a budget, I would be all for it.

    And furthermore, I don’t think I defended Obama in this thread. (Unless of course if pointing out that Obama is not a dictator = defending him) I fully agree that spending cuts need to happen. I only disagree that the debt ceiling is the place to do it because the end game of negotiation is so disastrous. In my opinion its just bad governance to do it that way.

    Comment by mike — January 16, 2013 @ 1:58 am - January 16, 2013

  29. And furthermore, I don’t think I defended Obama in this thread. said Liberace, swatting his critics with his purse.

    Comment by V the K — January 16, 2013 @ 8:10 am - January 16, 2013

  30. I only disagree that the debt ceiling is the place to do it because the end game of negotiation is so disastrous. In my opinion its just bad governance to do it that way.

    OK. That is a point of view statement and worthy of a little debate.

    If the debt ceiling were taken seriously, it would be a “fiscal cliff” warning yelling “Danger, Will Robinson” so that everyone would buckle down and avoid the cliff. But, it has become merely a temporary spot on the speedometer of our runaway fiscal train which is held to the tracks by ever lessening amounts of friction.

    So, on the one hand, it is fitting and proper to ditch the debt ceiling and concentrate on how much faster we can hurl ourselves at the ultimate train wreck. After all, if the “debt ceiling” won’t get our attention, why bother?

    The national debt has ballooned by over 60% since Obama took office. He has “chosen” to ignore that and so has 1/2 of Congress. The Republicans have certainly stumbled around in trying to get a grasp of how to slow this massive problem. They have passed budgets which have gone down a black hole when received by Harry Reid. When Paul Ryan proposed a way to get the deficit under control, he was personally clothes-lined by Obama and then Geithner and ignored by the MSM.

    The MSM is far more interested in guns and contraceptives and Bain Capital and latent racism and whatever than it is in our fiscal crisis. The people don’t see breadlines because they are being fed with food stamps and endless unemployment checks. It ain’t necessarily rosy, but it ain’t all that bad either.

    As Glenn Reynolds pointed out:

    Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can’t go on forever, won’t. The United States can’t go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won’t. The only question is how things will stop — smoothly or catastrophically.

    So, either the President and Harry Reid are the two most economics challenged leaders in the country, or they have no interest in the economic future of the country.

    Obama and the Progressive spin machine have decided to lay full blame for the deficit spending on Congress, since it has “control” of the spending powers. This is the same logic that permits an addict to claim victimhood because his supplier is to blame.

    If Obama were screaming for the line item veto so that he could wrestle the profligate Congress to the mat on runaway spending, he might have a tad of credibility. If Obama had listened in any meaningful way to the Simpson-Bowles Commission, he might have a tad of credibility. If Obama crammed debt reduction through Congress the way he jammed Obamacare on us, he might have a tad of credibility.

    Back in days when Flip Wilson was a starring TV comedian, he had a Character named Geraldine. It was Wilson in drag. Geraldine was always “succumbing” to temptation and her preacher at The Church of Whats Happenin’ Now would call her out. We all waited for the same, exact punchline as Geraldine proclaimed: “The Devil made me do it.”

    So, we have a dysfunctional President and a dysfunctional Senate Majority leader and a dysfunctional MSM that just doesn’t get it that is all there is to it. Right?

    Really? You buy that? The Congress makes him do that?

    Obama gets a “stimulus” from the world around him (deficit complaints) and he filters it through his personal desires, core beliefs, emotions and he takes “action” which may well be no action. Results occur. Then he blames the source of the original stimulus for the problem. He shucks off all unintended consequences of what he did or didn’t do, he denies responsibility, he becomes entirely judgmental by blaming others. If you want more information of this, just google narcissistic personality disorder.”

    Obama is playing an entirely illogical game and winning by pure force of compulsive character neurosis. He must win. That is his game.

    I had a student once who shot and killed a 4 year old girl. He pointed the gun at her and he pulled the trigger. By his “logic” he did not kill her; the bullet killed her. He had control of the gun and the trigger. But once he launched the bullet, it was out of his hands and control and the “guilty party” became the bullet.

    Chew on that.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 16, 2013 @ 9:44 am - January 16, 2013

  31. Actually, there already was a debate where mike had a chance to decide whether he was serious about fiscal prudence, or whether he was going to side with a president who had zero intention of reducing spending and no plan for reducing the deficit. That debate ended on November 6, 2012, and mike took the side of the irresponsible, profligate, wasteful big-spender; as he always will.

    Comment by V the K — January 16, 2013 @ 10:22 am - January 16, 2013

  32. ROFGATOR: The Obamaphone lady is less of a cultist than mike or Levi.

    Michelle Dowery, better known as the Obamaphone Lady, paid a visit to conspiracy-monger Alex Jones yesterday for a little confab. Just last September, Michelle was extolling the virtues of Barack Obama for all the things he’d given her. Now, though, she’s wised up to his ways — and she’s not nearly so enamored of him

    Comment by V the K — January 16, 2013 @ 10:57 am - January 16, 2013

  33. No question that mike is a useful idiot who carries the water for the home team. That makes him a useful idiot water boy.

    Nonetheless, it is interesting to watch the party line people attempt to do “logic.” They must certainly feel like they are on to something or they would be way too ashamed to posit it.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 16, 2013 @ 10:59 am - January 16, 2013

  34. mike you do realize that there is currently no budgetary process because Harry Reid refuses to pass on in the senate?

    There hasn’t been a budget passed since 2009, even though the house has passed one every year since, the democrat led senate hasn’t passed one (and before you start crying about filubusters-you can’t filibuster a budget and a simple majority passes it).

    Obama’s budget is due on the 4th and he has already said he isn’t going to be giving one on time.

    So I might go for your “spending cuts should be worked out through the budgetary process” argument if the democrats were actually diligent about actually passing a budget. Since they aren’t, then your argument is nothing more than hot airl.

    Comment by Just Me — January 16, 2013 @ 11:08 am - January 16, 2013

  35. Actually, Just Me, Senile Pederast Harry Reid is acting as a one-man filibuster in the senate, preventing any budgets or jobs bills passed by the Republican House to be voted on in his senate; without a peep of criticism from Democrats like lower case mike.

    Comment by V the K — January 16, 2013 @ 11:25 am - January 16, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.