To Win The Debt-Ceiling Debate, We Must Discredit Obama's Debt Dishonesty"President Obama tells the nation that Congress must increase the debt limit because they “should pay the bills that they have already racked up.” Let me translate that into household economics.You find yourself reaching the debt limit on your credit card. But you have become addicted to spending each month two thirds more than you earn. So you got to keep charging on that card.So you write to the credit card company demanding a debt limit increase “so you can pay the bills you have already racked up.” Would that work? Or would the credit card company write back and say you cannot pay the bills you have already racked up by continuing to charge more?President Obama’s argument makes no more sense than that. Reaching the national debt limit now over $16 trillion dollars does not mean that the federal government cannot pay the bills it has already racked up. It just means that it cannot borrow still more."http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/01/11/to-win-t...Exactly.
51% of the population bought Obama's BS during the election cycle. I think close to that percentage still buys it. The media peddles it night and day, and the Repubs can't seem to explain dip to the American people. We're screwed as a people and as a country, at least until everyone in DC is sent packing. Term limits, as in single terms, is the only thing that stands a chance of changing the direction the country is heading in at full speed ahead.
“should pay the bills that they have already racked up.”Notwithstanding your good analogy, the complete dishonesty and deceit typical of 0 with that statement is that it conveys that "he" had nothing to do with the debt racked up. Another example of how he takes NO personal responsibility for his own part in the debt and blames all of it on others [this time Congress, last time Bush]. And the lapdog media doesn't call him on it and 0 knows he can get away with that kind of unscrupulousness. The man doesn't have an ounce of honor in him.
. The man doesn't have an ounce of honor in him. _______________________As much as we can talk about the problems and potential solutions, the inconsistencies, etcAt the core, that is a problem that logic can not overcome. It is a flaw on display worse than it has in any other President. Yes they all had flaws etc. But Obama really is in a class by himself
“should pay the bills that they have already racked up.”Notwithstanding your good analogy, the complete dishonesty and deceit typical of 0 with that statement is that it conveys that "he" had nothing to do with the debt racked up. All financial bills originate in the House of Representatives. No doubt Obama signed them but you cannot absolve Congress of the responsibility.
All financial bills originate in the House of Representatives. No doubt Obama signed them but you cannot absolve Congress of the responsibility.Since you seem to be well versed on this topic, can you tell me what happened to the $5.6 trillion spent while Owebama has been in office? Seriously. How does an administration spend that much money in one term?
All financial bills originate in the House of Representatives.Yeah, and during this administration, responsible bills such as from Paul Ryan for one example, sit on the desk of Harry Reid and never are considered. Meanwhile, the same Harry Reid hasn't put forth a budget in what, three years? And they do the President's bidding with 0care, stimulus, etc. That's on 0 and the dems. They can't even follow the law and do their constitutional duty, they do whatever they please. And 0 sits back and pretends he had nothing to to with it.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar