Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Good Morning, Suckers

by Peter Ferrara - February 16th, 2011 - The American Spectator

President Obama's budget released on Monday proposes to spend $3.73 trillion for 2012. He can't say Bush made him do that. That proposed spending is an undeniable fact that reveals who he is, which he successfully hid from 53% of voters in 2008.

Campaigning in 2008 he promised voters that his plan involved a "net spending cut." That net spending cut translated into $836 billion in increased spending this year from 2008, according to President Obama's own budget documents. That is a federal spending increase of nearly 30% since 2008. Either President Obama does not know what "net spending cut" means in English, or he bamboozled a lot of people in 2008.

Almost makes you want to take to the streets to demand resignations and honest elections. But that couldn't happen here. For one thing, you need a free and independent press to have true democratic elections.

It is hard to find new ways to say that Obama is a liar and a con-man. It is interesting that one of Obama's top supporters in 2008, gay rights advocate Andrew Sullivan, seems to have lost the faith. It is reported in this article that Sullivan wrote in the Atlantic, "To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: He just screwed you over. He thinks you are fools."

Whether you say supporters are "fools" or "suckers" makes little difference. The 2011 budget just introduced by Obama (8 months after it was supposed to be passed) makes pitiful cuts to a budget that he has already inflated by over a $1 Trillion in the last two years. Just undoing the incredibly wasteful increases of the last two years would give 50 times more savings than Obama proposes. Of course even the Republicans are leaving nearly 90% of the increases of the last two years in place. It makes you wonder if either party seriously understands the disaster we are facing.


At 2:32 PM, Blogger Adam said...

Neither of the parties really want to cut.

I've got an idea I've been floating around.

How about for every dollar of domestic spending we cut, we cut an equal dollar from military spending?

That way when the poor people down the street lose their heating assistance we can at least be sure we're not buying that unneeded piece of military equipment at the same time. Given that the military budget has grown 80% since 2000 there must be a bunch of waste in there somewhere.

At 8:35 PM, Blogger Dean Stephens said...

In 1992, when the military budget had already been cut repeatedly by the first Bush, from $428 billion down to $379 billion, Clinton preceded to gut our military over the next 8 years down to $312 billion in 2000. It was back up to $494 billion at the beginning of 2010. That does not even make up for inflation since 1988, nor prepare us to fight the war for our existence in which we find ourselves.

It appears you hate mongering anti-American progressives want to make sure that we lose this war. I also know that if you really cared about those poor you are always pretending to care about, their being forced to convert to Islam would not be something that you are so arrogantly indifferent to.

Cutting $1 from the 80% of the budget that is non military matched with $1 cut from the 20% of the budget that is military comes across to me as predictably ignorant. As a result, I will treat your comments with the contempt they deserve.

At 9:20 PM, Blogger Dean Stephens said...

I will not bother to post his Alinsky smears, however I did think it humorous to point out the obvious attack point in "Adam's" latest hate filled rant. Adam says I am opposed to spending more money that our nation does not have because -- I AM A RACIST!

Adam did have one other accusation that did not vary all that much. I am opposed to allowing Muslims in Pakistan, Iran and Egypt to get nuclear weapons since I am afraid of "a rag-tag group of poorly funded radicals" and again a racist.

So I am a racist and a racist. If you doubt this just ask Adam.



Post a Comment

<< Home