HDR 178: Cut, Cap and Balance – A Strike-Out For Obama?

Do you think he hits better than he throws???

ALOHA, ALL!!  The “Cut, Cap and Balance” vote is set for tomorrow (Tuesday.)  While Barry calls this just a political move by the GOP that has no teeth, in reality it sends a strong message:  we’re tired of out-of-control government spending.  We’re also tired of  no leadership from 0bama or the Democrats on how to cut spending and decrease the debt.  Barry thinks we don’t need a balanced budget amendment….of course not!  He wants to keep spending like a kid with his parent’s credit card:    Obama: ‘We Don’t Need a Balanced Budget Amendment’ | CNSnews.com  House Speaker John Boehner said it best:  “We’re in the fourth quarter here. Time and again Republicans have offered serious proposals to cut spending and address these issues, and I think it’s time for the Democrats to get serious as well.”  Here’s a good overview of what Cut Cap and Balance is all about:    Cut, Cap and Balance – By Andrew Stiles – The Corner – National Review Online  Call your Congressional representative and tell him or her to vote “yes” on Cut, Cap and Balance.  It’s easy – just go here:  URGENT: Tell your Congressman to vote YES on the ‘Cut Cap Balance’ Act | FreedomWorks  Meanwhile, Barry, you’re at the bat…unless you’d rather golf again.

It’s all yours, Barry.  Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling Fiasco – Common American Journal  “The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. Mr. Obama’s “untouchable” list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on “green” jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.”

EXCELLENT overview!!!!!  A Brief History of President Obama’s Fiscal Record | Committee On The Budget  “Despite newfound concern with the debt overhang stifling economic growth, President Obama’s record falls far short of his rhetoric. Let’s review the decisions made by President Obama and Congressional Democrats over the past couple of years, and the disappointing results of their policy choices…”

This is one of my favorite political videos…very clever and entertaining.  It’a also very pertinent to what’s happening now – will obama strike out?  

Barry’s cousin is at it again.  WOLF: ‘German Miracle’ Barack Obama doesn’t see – Washington Times  “Mr. Obama cannot see the obvious lessons of the German Miracle: Unleash the free market, unshackle entrepreneurs and workers from big-government controls and we, the free people of the United States, can rescue our economy and create our own 21st century American Miracle.”  Wanna bet this guy doesn’t get invited to Thanksgiving dinner at the White House?????  (Thanks to hubby for the link.)

She’s just SO DARN busy now!!!  Pelosi Says She’s ‘Almost Too Busy’ to Continue Listening to Debt Talks | CNSnews.com  “The only thing I hope he doesn’t ask us to do is go to Camp David. That goes beyond the pale. Driving down the street for these meetings is one thing…”  Aw, poor Nancy Nitwit – how dare anyone ask her to drive into the Maryland woods!

ICYMI:  Court: ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will stay in place – Yahoo! News  “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is back in place for the time being, with one major caveat: the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.”

More good news.  Chavez Imperiled | FrontPage Magazine  “Despite weeks of deception and affectation of good health, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is in Cuba for chemotherapy, heightening speculation about whether he’ll still run for re-election in 2012 and how the regime will survive after him.”

Just who are the special interests?  Watch this and you’ll see.  Hint:  it’s not those nasty corporate jet owners (thanks to Ruth for the link):  

Final Thought:  “It ain’t over til it’s over.”  Yogi Berra



Tags: , , ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

9 responses to “HDR 178: Cut, Cap and Balance – A Strike-Out For Obama?”

  1. giliar says :

    Actually, Lee, we agree on a lot more than we disagree on (in fact, my only disagreement with you is how you characterize the Tea Party folks.) That said, you may not believe me but I did mean it as a compliment. Purists are the ones who prompt us to examine our goals and motives and become better. Without them, this process would probably not occur.

  2. giliar says :

    LOL, Lee!!!! You mistook my remark – it was meant to be a compliment. “A purist is one who desires that an item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences. ” Is this not you?

    • Lee says :

      Uh, sure. Right. And likewise, by “Teabrainer” I am simply complimenting people who seem fully engrossed in the Tea Party mentality.

      In any case, we each have our positions and have expressed them. It is now up to the readers to make their decision. Thank you again for the spirited discussion.

  3. giliar says :

    Great – thanks for the clarification! We both agree that it’s better to have the Tea Party movement around and viable than for them to go back to their own little worlds and be selfish again (how you might view them.) So here’s my take on what happens when conservatives tear down other groups that (mostly) agree with them: we get nowhere. The left has mastered the art of building coalitions and working together on issues where they agree (mostly) in principle (i.e. capitalism = bad, socialism = good.) Unless and until the right learns to form similar coalitions, we don’t stand a chance. Do I agree with everyone in the Tea Party movement on everything? Of course not. But I agree in the basic principles of smaller government, lower taxes and accountability. Reagan once said that if a person agrees with conservative principles 80% of the time, that person is a conservative…in other words someone you would want on your team.

    Lee, you are a purist and I respect that. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a pure world. But I think through this discussion we actually believe the same things….building coalitions of like-minded people is the way to overcome the Marxist in the White House and his ilk. But it’s impossible to build such coalitions if one of the proponents is frequently focusing on the negative aspects of a particular group…a group that includes SOME who disagree with you on a few issues. (Frankly, I disagree with your generalizations of the Tea Party, but we’ve gone over all that – time to move on. As a member of that movement, if I’m as selfish as you seem to think I am then why am I wasting my time here?)

    Peace and love…..

    • Lee says :

      “Purist”? You take that back! Don’t insult me like that!

      The purists are the people who, when their freshly-minted Congressmen don’t get everything turned around in three months, declare the whole thing a failure. The purists are the pro-lifers who won’t vote for a pro-choicer, even if means letting someone supporting mandated abortions into office. And the purists are people like Gun Owners of America (of which I am regrettably still a member, but no longer a contributor), who during the 2008 campaign literally attacked John McCain for not being pro-gun enough, when he had the most pro-gun running mate in the modern history of the country and was the only viable block to the most anti-gun national-ticket candidate ever in our history.

      I am hardly a purist, whether in terms of ideology or tactics. The ONLY place I might be a purist would be on academic facts. I believe there’s nothing wrong with properly spelling big, gimongous words like, “didn’t,” rather than posting a promotional video prominently displaying a banner with it misspelled. I believe there’s nothing wrong with knowing and applying the proper, political-science definition of the Left-Right spectrum, rather than repeating a common errant one based on ignorance and personal obsessions, and condemning people who dare get it right. And I believe there’s nothing wrong with knowing that the “all men are created equal” phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, rather than, as a GOP state legislator, engaging in a fanciful and semi-contrived floor discussion with a fellow conservative rep built around the ignorant assumption that it’s in the Constitution. (Yes, on that sort of thing, I do pursue purity.)

      I am certainly not a purist on selflessness. During this last couple of months of the past election campaign, I actually skipped a few days of volunteering. I didn’t contribute the thousands (plural) of dollars I did in 2008. And I only took a week’s vacation from work the week prior to the election to do full-time volunteering. (Yes, I was very selfish.)

      My attacks on that non-organization called the “Tea Party movement” are based not on its ideology, but on its materialist character, a character REP Franks (left out last name earlier–sorry) sees rearing its head at the expense of our national safety and security. I note the social-cons’ selling of their souls (e.g., pro-lifers going from “I’d never vote for a pro-choicer, cuz I gots to pleeze da Loward” and “praying the gay away” to championing Tammy Bruce) in part to ATTACK purism! I am simply trying to point out the same thing Tammy Bruce did in her edited/censored “Undefeated” line about how setting aside social issues as absolute voting determinants helped get more supporters of their social positions in power, and hope these people will learn this as a standard political strategy, rather than a rationalized act of financial desperation. I have repeatedly discussed how the Left pulls together behind their general cause, while the Right tends to self-defeatingly attack their own. You know this. I am in many ways the ultimate ANTI-purist.

      Gilia, when you try to understand someone, it is important to consider ALL the facts, not just… Actually, aside from the matter of academic facts (which, if you are intelligent, you can understand is different than ideological or policy position–“The ‘all men are created equal’ phrase is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution” is NOT a policy or ideological matter, or an “issue upon which men of reason may differ”; it is a FACT), I have no idea how you could possibly consider me a purist. To be blunt, it is so ridiculous based on recent posts as to be laughable to call me “purist.” (“Extremist,” perhaps, but not “purist.”)

      Maybe by “purist,” you indeed just mean that issue of academics. In that case, please clarify, posting on here that it’s not important to get facts right, just as long as what you say or write helps you feel better about yourself or it “jes’ sounds good”. Post that making your side look like summary rejects from “Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?” is no big deal at all (I still laugh at that mock news story I wrote!). And finally, post that because this is a conservative/Right blog, people cannot take any facts presented here seriously, “’cause gettin’ things rite jes’ don’ matta’. We’s Tee Pardy folks hee-ah. Yee-ha!” (Yes, those shots may be strong, but if you think about it, you know I’m right.)

      Meanwhile, I’ll continue working to get facts correct, so as not to let our common opposition use something I saw to discredit our intellectual credibility, and to focus on issues frankly more important than my portfolio and standard of private living. I’ll focus on my country.

      And finally, no, I don’t believe you are especially selfish. But then, neither was the Muslim soldier I bunked with for nine months on deployment probably a terrorist. Heck, he was a Republican–and a Black Republican at that!. But even as his non-terrorist inclination doesn’t change the danger posed by 95 percent of the co-religionists, your case doesn’t change the general character of your movement. My previous post actually went into that in some detail, explaining issues like group character and dynamics. Thinking about such things is almost anathema to Tea Partiers, but for long-term success, they need to learn to think that way.

      In any case, each person must make his or her own evaluation. And as you said, we’ve gone over that, and it’s time to move on. My point is made.

      Thank you for the quite spirited and thorough discussion.

  4. giliar says :

    Sorry, Lee…..some may be part of the Tea Party coalition but others may not. You like to lump everyone into that one group, which you disdain. Let’s look at it another way: if so many of the Tea Party coalition had NOT been elected in 2010, do you think we’d be having this budget discussion now? I suspect not. Oh yeah – just wondering if you think we’d be better off without the Tea Party movement. I’m getting the impression that you do.

    • Lee says :

      Gilia, Gilia, Gilia.

      First off, I have often praised what the Tea Party did in 2010, though I wonder if that “coalition” will survive an economic recovery.

      Second, as for what you say about me lumping people together, you know better than that. You understand group dynamics and discussion. Your approach here is like pointing out that in 2012 there might be a few dozen out of tens of millions of Blacks who oppose Obama, and then denying the general statement of truth that “Blacks will support Obama.” Similarly, to focus on the fact that many rank-and-file Muslims oppose terrorism does not change the fact that Islam as an ideology and “Islamdom” as a population category support and indulge in it. And finally, despite the actions of people like you and me, it remains true that “the Americans/American people elected Obama as their President.” A few exceptions do not invalidate such statements.

      In some usages, many exceptions–possibly even a majority of a particular population set–do not invalidate such a broad expression, if the dominant part of the group in question does so. We can say, “The Russians invaded Afghanistan,” even though not even the majority of the Soviet military was never there, and a majority of the Russian/Soviet people may or may not have supported the action, and certainly had no real say in the decision. The point was that the population or demographic in their formal entity (Soviet Russia) known as “the Russians” did it. The leading and influential element of that population caused the action to happen and shaped the environment.

      Likewise, for me to speak in such group terms about “the Tea Party coalition” is, I believe, valid, as it represents what an influential and dominant portion of that population and its dominant “spirit” is inclined to do. While some members may not go along, the issue is whether this attitude will dominate and get its way. REP Trent is, in admittedly less categorically critical terms, expressing that very concern.

      This is the weakness in politics of individualism. It ignores group dynamics, and makes dealing with reality far more difficult. Politics is about communities, not individuals. What A person–singular–wants is normally virtually meaningless (unless that one person is a dictator). On the other hand, individuals can and often are swayed by their community’s prevailing thinking. People like Tea Partiers need to practice thinking in these larger terms.

  5. Lee says :

    Notice that national security is not one of Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s sacred cows. That does not bode well for our country, and at least one Congressman agrees with me that Tea Partiers might go along with this: http://youtu.be/3yKoB9zIF0k (“some of the best members of Congress” is code for Teabrainers).

%d bloggers like this: