Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Debt To America!

obama, obama jokes, boehner, hope n' change, hope and change, debt ceiling, conservative, tea party, allahu akbar, negotiation

Despite the risk of triggering a national credit default and worldwide financial meltdown, Barack Hussein Obama called House Speaker John Boehner yesterday to announce that he would never, ever, in a million-jillion years negotiate on America's debt ceiling because "that's not the way I'll get virgins in Heaven."

Which, no doubt, will come as a great relief to 72 young boys and/or terrified sheep.

Ha, ha! We're just kidding around, of course, since the president has set the precedent for not taking this whole potential crisis seriously.

If he was taking it seriously, he might heed these words by a Democrat Senator: "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."

That Senator, of course, was Barack Hussein Obama in 2006 - who now says that he was just "making a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country." It's nice to hear him acknowledge that his only political experience before becoming president consisted of not doing what was important for the country.

But now he's a different man, and he's putting the needs of the country first. Unless, of course, the citizens of that country would like to visit a national park, get a job, have a functioning healthcare system, or protect their economy from a suicide bomber.


obama, obama jokes, boehner, hope n' change, hope and change, shutdown, conservative, tea party, carney, media

obama, obama jokes, hope n' change, hope and change, debt ceiling, conservative, tea party, redskins, executive order


Duke Mantee said...

You know, because I'm such a sarcastic bastard, if I did own the Washington Redskins, I probably would rename them the Washington White Oppressors. 1. it would piss Obama off. and 2. Everyone out there would finally see how silly some of this PC crap is. It's not like they're called the Washington Baby Killers or something like that.

TrickyRicky said...

@ Duke Mantee - You are correct, the Washington football team is not called the Baby Killers. That moniker is already claimed by the Democrat Party and their leader "partial birth Barry".

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your ongoing work. I'm hoping (yes, there is still room to use that word) that the appearance of these latest entries is an indicator that your family health issues are in the rear-view mirror.
As to renaming the Redskins; an appropriate name, given the city they represent, could be The Washington Self-Indulgent. Not catchy, but fits.

Pete (Detroit) said...

The Washington Gimmie-crats?

I have to seriously wonder who had to stuff how many pokers up teh Speaker's keyster to allow him to have the semblance of a backbone that he's shown so far!

Like everyone else, I exepect him to fold and crumple like tissue in the bowel, with similar coatings. But wouldn't it be cool if the gov't STAYED (koff)"shutdown"(koff) until next year, and banks don't crash, planes don't fall out of the sky, the sun still rises, and people find out how frikkin' little this monstrous Leviathan actually DOES on a daily basis (and no, I do NOT want the company to 'default', I want the idiots in charge to make sensible choices about spending the utter SFTons of mooula they already get!)

Colby said...

Amazing, isn’t it? That a bunch of schmucks like us Hope’n’Changers can plainly see the complete and utter hypocrisy when comparing the 2006 BO to the lying bastard we currently have, but the media seems to have lost the footage AND their memories. I can think of a shitload of Republicans that would have been roasted over an open fire for flip-flops way smaller that Barry’s whoppers. It still makes my blood boil when I hear that speech where turdboy calls Bush “unpatriotic” for raising the debt a whopping $500 billion per year. Crimony! Mister “Nobel Peace Prize” gave the effing Egyptians more than that, so they could blow Israel up easier.

As far as the whole debt CF, we all know that Boehner will eventually have to cave because BO and Harry have the upper hand, but my hat off to him and the House Republicans for hanging this long. Obviously, we have not been affected much at this point, but BO will make sure we all feel the pain more as time progresses. You watch…. he will start targeting entitlements as much as possible to stir up his main supporters. “Who cares about national parks, but don’t you start messin’ with my food stamps!”

Redskins? A football team’s name should strike fear into the hearts of their opponents. How about The Washington IRS Auditors? Or maybe The Washington Michelle’s.

And what next? The Chiefs and Braves are still out there. And to be quite honest, I’m somewhat offended by:

Cowboys… should be CowPERSONS
Panthers… Hello! Their mascot is black!
Buccaneers and Raiders… My great great great grandad was a pirate
Titans…. Sexist… has “tit” in the name
Patriots… VERY racist; implies Tea Party
Saints… radical Christian’s who martyred themselves for the cause (terrorists)
Eagles, Falcons, Seahawks… endangered raptors
Broncos… an animal subjected to cruelty in rodeos
Bears, Lions, Bengals, Jaguars… more endangered species

Anonymous said...

I vote for Rush Limbaugh's 'Washington Redliners' !

Anonymous said...

Nah. Call 'em the Washington Bureaucrats, and fear their shutdown defense.

Anonymous said...

How about the Washington Freespenders, and the team will be exempt from the NFL salary cap?

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Washington Redtapers.

Glad to see things are looking up in the Jarlsberg household, Stilt.

Kencor said...

One poster's comment about BHO's Nobel Peace prize prompted me to finally research exactly what the hell he was supposed to have done to deserve it. Here's the explanation: Obama was praised by the Norweigan Nobel Committee for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the committee said. “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

The committee also said Obama has “created a new climate in international politics.”
You certainly can't argue with that last statement. He has proven that political climate change is real and only gets more real each time he releases his hot air.

John the Econ said...

@Kencor, the "Nobel Peace Prize" has pretty much been meaningless beyond being an endorsement for the hopey-ness wishes of international leftists for decades now.

The final straw for legitimacy was probably when Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace -- not for actually producing peace but for being part of what was called "the peace process," based on fashionable notions that were common bonds among members of what are called "peace movements."

Meanwhile, nobody has ever suggested awarding a Nobel Prize for peace to Ronald Reagan, just because he brought the nuclear dangers of a decades-long cold war to an end. The problem was that he did it the opposite way from how members of "peace movements" thought it should be done, primarily by crushing communism.

Jimmy Carter got one basically for being an anti-Semite. Of course, Al Gore's and the IPCC's were clearly just the endorsement of a global fraud.

But you are right. "International Climate Change" is real.

NEWS ALERT: Harry Reid is now on TV alerting us that hundreds-of-thousands of people (and babies!) on food stamps are going to get cut off.

Although I don't wish to sound insensitive to people who are honestly in need, I also have to point out that this is the hazard that exists when you are dependent upon others, and especially the government for your well-being. At best, you'll be nothing more to your benefactors than a political prop. At worst, you'll sooner or later be cut-off.

PRY said...

I see Obama as a weasly little kid, wanting his own way constantly and silently throwing a hissy if he didn't get it. I also imagine he did not spend ANY real time around REAL PEOPLE. Just the think-alikes such as his mentors were.

His total disregard for those that think differently than he does is a reflection of that way of growing up. He is such a sham, a ridiculous excuse for an American. As RINO stands for REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY, Obama is AINO...the A stands for AMERICAN!

Every time he quotes holy scripture, I want to puke...GOD IS NOT MOCKED FOREVER! Like Ive said before, his day is coming!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Duke Mantee- Speaking of being PC, I'm told that Obama also wants to ban describing a football as "the pigskin" as it's insensitive to Muslims.

@TrickyRicky- I think you're on to something here. If abortion was turned into a competitive sport, the Left might finally turn against it.

@Anonymous- Thank you for the nice thoughts, and I'm glad to say that things are going better here on the home front.

As far as football names go, it struck me that you could get a near anagram of "Redskins" by rearranging the letters to "Red Inks." And with the one leftover letter, the team owners could tell Barry to stick it up his S.

@Pete(Detroit)- In my eternal naivete, I'm still hoping that Boehner and the GOP will hold their ground for a bit and actually win some (virtually pointless) concessions. Every time they fold, more voters on the Right are going to say "why even bother voting anymore?" and I don't blame them.

@Colby- Whether or not we're schmucks, it's not rocket science (as our HnC rocket scientist, Bruce Bleu, can attest) to see this administration's hypocrisy and failings.

Regarding the shutdown, Barry is doing his best to make life uncomfortable for Americans - and entitlements are very much in his sights. Cutting off benefits, unnecessarily, not only causes pain but will help galvanize much of the public against even considering long term entitlement reform.

As far as your assessment of team names, it's painfully funny!

@Anonymous x 3- How about the "Washington Shutdowns?" Not only do they fail to show up for the game, they send guards to keep fans out of the stadiums.

@Emmentaler- Thank you. And thank you to everyone for your support.

@Kencor- I think the Nobel Peace Prize has gone full circle and returned to its roots: honoring Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite.

The prize is a joke, and not a funny one anymore.

@John the Econ- Great points about the Nobel Prize.

Also you make a great observation that people who are dependent on government are (to paraphrase) dependent on unreliable assholes. The current system is entirely analogous to slavery, with the exception that the plantations now raise voters instead of cotton.

@PRY- Barry is astoundingly arrogant, especially considering how unexceptional he is in every human quality other than hubris.

He does not share, celebrate, or endorse basic American values.

Rufus T Firefly said...

Stilton, very glad to hear that family issues are looking up. You are in so many people's thoughts and will continue to be. I'm not a formally religious kinda guy but you've been in my daily meditations that pass for prayer. What you do here is important work, and you are deeply appreciated.

Yes Boehner will cave, but every day the phoney shutdown continues is another day for the low-info voters to slowly realize just how little the Federal government actually does FOR them (rather than TO them). And the more vindictive and petty and malicious Obama's closures become (and if this drags on there are whole new levels of vindictiveness just waiting to be uncorked), the more he risks awakening the hypnotized masses.

The longer the True Believers are confronted with a government that can't even manage a simple enrollment website-- (which can't even manage a tenth of the traffic and business that Amazon handles on a slow day)-- the longer they have to ponder just what it would be like to have that same government in charge of Single Payer.

John the Econ said...

More shutdown silliness: As I said yesterday, the longer this phony "shutdown" goes on, the sillier all the more petty the Federal government seems to get. It's almost as thought they want to seem vindictive and out-of-control. Even die-hard liberals can't deny the silliness, and the Gestapo-like behavior of the Federal bureaucracy. It really doesn't matter whether the orders came from the White House or not. Personally, like with the IRS scandal, I think it's a better narrative if they didn't. It all undeniably demonstrates what the Tea Party has been arguing all along; that the Federal government has utter contempt for the free citizens of America, and is completely out-of-control.

'Gestapo' tactics meet senior citizens at Yellowstone

Allegedly Closed National Park Service Sends Agents to Remove Water Spigots

Obama OKs illegals’ march on Mall, still blocks Americans

As I've argued here before, Democrats refuse to present an honest budget, because doing so would put in writing what their priorities really are.

But actions like this are the 2nd-best thing. Veterans? You're so last-century; there are too few of you left and you don't vote properly anyway. But illegals? The Democrats need them! So they can do as they wish.

By playing these games, the Obama Administration and the bureaucracy are again demonstrating who counts and who they don't care about. Get that middle-America? You're on the "don't care about" end of the list.

Keep it up Feds! The Tea Party can't buy this kind of validation!

Remember that the next time you consider letting the government take responsibility for your heath care, or well-being in general.

John the Econ said...

Had fun watching Mother Jones try to defend the meltdown:

"Obamacare's website issues are obviously serious, but at the same time: give me a break, folks. I'm pretty sure the First Read team is well aware that Obama wasn't allowed to just call up his favorite web guru and tell him to get the old campaign team together and set up the Obamacare site. It had to go through the usual government procurement and bidding process, and was designed and created by whichever outside consultants won the job."

EXACTLY! So is this the way we can expect that our entire health care system will be run? After all, eventually it will all have to go through the usual government procurement and bidding process, and be designed and created by whichever outside consultants won the job. Or worse, (and likely) some crony.

Thanks Mother Jones. The harder liberals try to defend this insanity, they more they validate the Tea Party argument.

Meanwhile, in the IT world, some are beginning to suspect that is, in fact, a fraud:

Is only an empty shell MOCKUP of a working Obamacare exchange?

"As the days of glitches, snafus, down-time and critical errors mount up, evidence is mounting that the Obamacare exchange is not actually a fully-formed online application. More and more, it appears to be a mockup of a health care exchange enrollment system."

After all, does anybody know anyone who's actually been able to do anything more than leave an e-mail address at the site, much less actually purchase a health care plan?

To date, there exists no evidence whatsoever that anyone has successfully enrolled through The one person the Obama administration touted as being the first successful enrollee turned out to be a P.R. fraud.

Seriously: Has anybody considered the possibility that is just a front-end mockup of an online exchange and not actually a functioning application?

Interesting theory. Normally, I dismiss such grand conspiracies. But lately, nothing in Washington seems to be beyond the possibility of being too absurd to be real.

Rufus T Firefly said...

Sort of like Obama's Presidency.

A front-end mockup only.
Not actually functioning.

Bruce Bleu said...

I think the new name idea is STELLAR! Maybe we can reduce the violence and intimidation factor and make the NFL “safe”, politically correct and honor the present “representation” we have in Washington D.C. and the homosexuals that current “leadership” thinks is so necessary.
Here are some suggestions…
Baltimore Ravens Baltimore African-American Birds
Cincinnati Bengals Cincinnati Kitties
Cleveland Browns Cleveland Hispanics
Pittsburgh Steelers Pittsburgh Stealers
Chicago Bears Chicago Teddy-bears
Detroit Lions Detroit Liars
Green Bay Packers Green Gay Fudge-Packers
Minnesota Vikings Minnesota Norwegian Boaters
Houston Texans Hooptie Texans
Indianapolis Colts Indianapolis Ponies
Jacksonville Jaguars Jacksonville British Cars
Tennessee Titans Tennessee Tall-guys With Poor Self Images
Atlanta Falcons Atlanta Old Cheap Fords
Carolina Panthers Carolina African-American Cats
New Orleans Saints New Orleans Catholic Guys
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Tampa Bay Butt-pluggers
Buffalo Bills Bison William’s
Miami Dolphins Miami Waterborne Mammals
New England Patriots New England Targets Of The IRS
New York Jets New York Airplanes
Dallas Cowboys Dallas Caballeros
New York Giants New York Taller Than Average Guys
Philadelphia Eagles Philadelphia Titmice
Washington Redskins Washington Peace-loving Earth-lovers Who Never Did Anything Wrong Who Were Screwed By The White Man
Denver Broncos Denver Horse Lovers
Kansas City Chiefs Kansas City Indigenous American Leaders
Oakland Raiders Oakland Unexpected Explorers
San Diego Chargers San Diego Mid-sized Dodges
Arizona Cardinals Arizona Altar-boys Turned Into Men
San Francisco 49ers San Francisco Gold-seeking Greedy Bastards
Seattle Seahawks Seattle Ospreys
St. Louis Rams St. Louis Butt-rammers

Queso Grande said...

Professor Jarlsberg, I too join the chorus of hope for a more stable home life- thanks again for keeping us laughing in the face of this unfunny time.
I have also put some thought into the subject of what ot rename the Skins when the inevitable tumult tips the scale...ya' gots yer' Dolphins, Seahawks, Lions we know we can use animals.....and most seem to be geographically correct; dolphins off the coast, seahawks off the cliffs....I think that a veryyyyyy appropriate animal is.....

The Washington Lamprey.

"We feed off the host!!"

mjloehrer said...

Allahu Akbar is a classic. Dan Snyder had a greqaqt piece in WaPo saying he'd never change the name of the Skins.

Duke Mantee said...

Obama... You're just a sad little man.

Colby said...

@Duke Mantee,
The worst part is, he is a sad little man who also happens to be one of the most powerful people in the world, and he knows it. Put him alone in a boxing ring with Steven Hawking, and he'd be cowering in the corner in under 10 seconds.

What kind of U.S president is too chicken to stand up to despots like Morsi, Kim Jong Un, or Assad, but has absolutely NO problem inflicting pain on United States citizens for personal gain? Impeachment is too good for him; I'm thinking indictment for murder, extortion, perjury.... And Reid too! Scumbags, both... What happened ot Democrats like Truman? Or even Kennedy?

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

If this isn't enough to make you toss your cookies....
Taxpayers Shelled Out $634,320,919 To Build Obamacare Website…

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

@Colby: The problem is that after Kennedy/Johnson, the Dem party began to shift to the leftist liberal progressive ideology, mainly because of the younger voters entering the political arena after being properly indoctrinated in the education camps our schools have become. The Democratic Party of our fathers no longer exists, and I think the only reason it retains the name is because of the yellow-dog democratic voter - wouldn't vote if it said the "Progressive" party.

One of my friends was one of the 'Yellow-Dogs", would vote for anyone/anything as long as it was on the Dem ticket. After the first few months of Obama, he publicly apologized for voting for him and is one of the most severe critics of Obama/Reid/Pelosi.

It's No Gouda said...

Colby, I'm here to propsose a "third" term for Obamao....20 to life in the Federal Supermax seems about right.
Reid, Pelosi, should join him there. They'd feel right at home with Ted K.(the Unabomber),the '93 WTC bomb plotter etc. Although given the rules at the SuperMax their opportunities for "conversation" would be pretty limited.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Grumpy Curmudgeon: I disagree. I'll offer that the democratic party of our fathers hasn't existed since the 19th century. Woodrow Wilson was a leftist. "New Deal" FDR was clearly a leftist. Both were long before Kennedy/Johnson - and, further, I'm pretty sure the L in "Great Society" LBJ's initials is for Leftist....

@It's No Gouda: Drop the "20 years" and I'm on board.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- Excellent comments above! I'm reading everything but don't have time to add anything myself at the moment (all is fine here, just crazy busy). And now, back to the fray!

Colby said...

@It's No Gouda and Emmantaler,

Yeah! Life with no parole, and no conjugal visits from Reggie Love. I can just see numbnuts in the shop making license plates... and trying to fit the number 17,000,000,000,000 on them. Ya know, he might actually enjoy prison. He could smoke cigarettes and eat cheeseburgers and Mooch couldn't do a damn thing about it.

It's No Gouda said...

Duke Mantee: Has it occured to you that the argument about the Redskins' name is small potatoes?

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

Do you think the Redskin's name is another 'Look, A Squirrel' distraction from the disasters of the NPS Gestapo, the Veterans, and Obamacrash?

It's No Gouda said...

Hmmm, maybe I should have used quotation marks around "small potatoes" to make the attempt at hunor more obvious.
Washington could change their logo to a small red tuber and retain their team name.

Anonymous said...

They should be renamed the Washington Native Americans.

SC said...

@ Bruce Bleu: Hilarious !!

George said...

@Anonymous...or...the Washington 'Mostly black guys with dreads and tats'. Kinda keeps it more specific. The should do what the University of North Dakota did. Dropped the 'Fighting Sioux' nickname in 2012, but aren't giving the University a new nickname until 2015! I guess they need to 'think' about it for nearly 3 years. This country is the best..........and the worst. Cheers to all.

Ted Brist said...

Please, enlighten me, what have the Republicans put on the table to negotiate about, in exchange for giving up the 100% constitutional, twice elected, completely legal Affordable Care Act? I'm all ears.

Have they promised a seizure of all the Koch Brothers money? Quadrupling of the minimum wage? A reinvestment of 90 billion on infrastructure spending? They're asking the President to defund health care for millions, so of course they're going to offer something huge in return, right?

Because of course, if they were negotiating, of course they would put something on the table for the democrats that would be just as appetizing. That's how a negotiation works. If they didn't, what they would be doing is causing the shutdown and demanding something in return for ending it, which would make it a hostage negotiation, which would make the Republicans dictionary definition terrorists.

Yeah, seems like you got the dialogue mixed up there.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Ted Brist- Since you're keeping it civil, you'll get a civil answer (from me, anyway).

For starters, the Republicans don't need to "put anything on the table" if they're opposing the (Un)Affordable Care Act on moral grounds. Which is, in fact, what they're doing: it hurts business, it hurts individuals, it hurts the economy, and it hurts the practice of medicine. Isn't that reason enough to try to stop it?

Next, they're not asking the president to "defund health care for millions," they're pointing out that all entitlement programs, including this one, aren't funded and will collapse unless the reins are pulled back on insane spending and no budgets.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans have passed myriad spending bills to protect Americans - and every one of them has been rejected by Barry and Harry. Although today, the House passed a bill to fund death benefits for military families, the Senate approved it - and Barry killed it personally.

And regarding the debt ceiling (as opposed to the CR) the GOP have put something very tempting on the table to encourage negotiation: they're offering to raise the debt ceiling in return for Barry just agreeing to sit down to responsible budget negotiations in the future.

So it would seem that I'm not the one who's mixed up here.

Ted Brist said...

@Stilton: If that were what they were doing, then they'd need to actually make that into a compelling case that sways Democrats. They haven't ever done that, because they can't, because there is no factual basis that it hurts individuals, small businesses, or anyone, with all data being manufactured by right wing shills and, upon any closer examination, being untrue.

So, in a Democracy, they do one of two things - convince other people with well reasoned arguments (again, they can't because they don't have any good reasons), or they shut up, sit down, and try to make their case to the American people to give them more power so they can do that.

Oh, if only there had been an Election, possibly in 2012, where the population of America could listen to both parties arguments and decide for themselves. Where, if they thought what Republicans said was truthful, they could elect another person to be President. Oh wait, they did, and Obama was voted President again. Showing that the Republicans arguments didn't way anyone, because everyone could see they were lies.

As for it being unsustainable - well, at that point, the Republicans would take the moral high ground, and admit that that means cutting taxes harms revenue. They would of course agree to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1% in order to pay for these entitlements that were democratically voted on and approved. Oh, they didn't do that? Their response was "We don't like entitlements, so despite the fact that they are the will of the people, get rid of them"? Which is the whiny baby response?

Yes, I can see that the Democrats are resisting the Republicans efforts to try and only fund the things they like, instead of funding the entire government, as is the will of the people. And I still see absolutely no reason why, if they acknowledge that the shutdown is hurting America, the Republicans can't just end their shutdown now.

As for the debt ceiling, what you're saying is that, while no other raising of the debt ceiling in American history has ever had strings attached to it, the Republicans are demanding that they be given preferential treatment in budget negotiations in future in return for it?

John the Econ said...

@Ted Brist, clearly you don't realize that we are not a "democracy". We are a "representative republic".

And I think the Obama Administration has made more than enough of a "compelling case" on its own: The phony "shutdown", where the Federal government is actually spending money to go out of its way and annoy people.

Are these really the people you want running your health care?

Also consider that we have not had a Federal budget in over 5 years now, because Obama and Harry Reid refuse to present a reconciled one. Why is that?

Because doing so would expose ObamaCare for the complete fiscal fraud that it is. Even these two can't afford that kind of stain.

Bruce Bleu said...

Ted Bris,
I give you a modicum of respect by capitalizing your name. You're all ears?... well, I guess we know why you support lamont!
Exactly WHY do you say anything about seizing the Koch brothers money? Do you not see ANYTHING sketchy about that concept? Why not "seize" Barbruh Strizand's, Algore's, Tom Hank's, Bill Clintorus's, Chris (thrill up his middle leg) Matthew's, Michael Blumturd's, or George Soros' money? Do you NOT see that as stealing? Has your liberal mind been so twisted that UNCONSTITUTIONAL ILLEGAL activity has no impact on you?
And, why not make the minimum wage $100.00, or $1,000.00 per hour? Haven't the poor been poor long enough? Where is your HEART, you niggardly liberal, ONLY quadruple?
Why not "re-invest" 90 TRILLION in infrastructure? I would take the 4 hour test to get an "A" contractors license for THAT kind of money!
Looks like it's a lost cause to ask you to consider reality when it comes to the signature legislation of your god. If someone making $174,000 has to have a 75% subsidy to be able to AFFORD the "affordable care act", does that say ANYTHING to your fiscal sensibilities. How about John the Econ weighing in on this... would you consider his counsel on the subject?
The ACA has as much to do with "health care" as NAMBLA has to do with protecting kids from sexual abuse! It's about CONTROL!
Ted, you can go to a used book store and BUY a dictionary for about a buck so you can look up what "negotiation" means, because it is NOT "be ready to talk about what I want but don't expect to get any concessions from me".
"Hostage", Republican "terrorists", how does it feel to be such a tool for people who value YOU the same as a WART on the end of their "schlort"?

Grumpy Curmudgeon said...

@Bruce Bleu: WART on the end of their "schlort"? OK! No mas - coffee all over the keyboard, again...

I've been to the Obamacare Facebook page and have read all the drooling sycophants postings....I really have to wonder if any of these understand the concept of 'deductible' and 'co-pay'? Ergo, you have a $5K deductible and a 30% co-pay, from what I've heard/seen, that's pretty common. So. Jan 1 you go in for the 'free' $100K operation you've been waiting for, you get to pay cash $33,500 ($5,000 deductible & $28,500 co-pay) + your premium.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Ted- You're just about as wrong as a human being can be, but as long as you're keeping the language clean we can continue this discussion.

Other commenters have already addressed many of your points, so I'll just cherry-pick a few favorites.

Yes, Obamacare HAS harmed all of the institutions I named. There's no need for "manufactured" news - I know too many people who have seen their health insurance costs skyrocket since the passage of Obamacare. The prezzie promised an average cut of $2500 year - and the price went UP an average of $2500 a year. I know that to be true from personal experience, and the direct statements of many friends. So there's a $5000 difference to ordinary working folks - AND to folks who may have voted for Obama based on what were either his deliberate lies or stupendously stupid assumptions.

And that's a really key point: in two elections now, people haven't voted for what Barry does, they vote for what he promises. Does that make the majority of voters stupid, ill-informed, naive, or greedy? Why yes it does - and thank you for asking!

Meanwhile, it's well documented that tens of thousands of people have seen their work hours cut back to spare their employers from the more draconian effects of Obamacare. Just because you haven't heard Rachel Maddow report it doesn't mean it's not happening - and widely.

What other nuggets did you toss out... ah yes, "cutting taxes decreases revenue." On that, I'll simply hit this large bell with a hammer and let the neon "WRONG!" sign flash. Do your own homework.

Then you say that Republicans don't like entitlements so won't fund them. Whether they actually like them or not, the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones in Washington actually trying to ensure that the entitlement programs will still exist in a handful of years rather than going belly up entirely.

Doesn't it strike you as a little bit incongruous when Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claim that Social Security is fully funded for the next 50 years, but King Barry says that unless he can borrow some money within the next 7 days, Social Security payments will stop?

Finally, when you say that there's no precedent for there being "strings attached" to the raising of the debt ceiling, I again whack the big bell, the neon sign flashes, and balloons and confetti fall from above as you are declared "Wrongest Guy Ever."

Of the many examples I could cite, let's just go way, way back to 2011. In order to have the debt ceiling raised, Barack Obama offered up a little something called "sequestration" which would only happen if he (and the Dems) failed to make spending cuts. They never even tried - and we've been living with the Obama Sequester ever since.

And that's the real reason Barry won't negotiate, as so many presidents have done before. Because after the sequester, he knows that the GOP isn't bluffing - and Barry doesn't want to lose again.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Correction- I previously said that Barry turned down the House/Senate bill to fund death benefits for military families, based on Jay Carney's assertion to the press that the president didn't feel it was "necessary" if private funds were being made available, and that the funding bill was a GOP "gimmick." However, the president subsequently did sign the bill - which, for once, was the right thing to do.

Ted Brist said...

@John the Econ: Okay, so we're a representative Republic. Meaning we vote for politicians who we feel will represent our interests. Which still means that a majority of people elected Obama, so the will of the American people isbehind him, and behind Obamacare.

And on a side note, yes, I do support the people who are smart enough to protect our national monuments from graffiti, litter, or, god forbid, terrorists, while the Republicans are making sure that there is not enough money to make sure it is staffed enough so that it we have enough to also safely watch over everyone inside.

Oh and, Obama refuses to present a budget? Oh look, here's one up right now on the white house site.

Its not passing because Republicans are sore losers and still want to pass the Ryan budget that Americans despise.

@Bruce Blieu: Because taking everything from the Koch Brothers is exactly as justifiable as taking Obamacare away from the nation. No, actually, I'm wrong - the Koch brothers didn't do a goddamn thing to earn a single dollar of their money, inheriting everything they own and abusing the system. They have never worked a day in their life, and are fat parasites. They've also proven time and again they are not responsible with that money, constantly throwing their money into politics again and again, bankrolling idiotic tea partiers, corrupting the system.

Quadrupling the minimum wage would just keep it in line with inflation, which it has not for the past, oh, 30 years. You're restating a logical idea to an absurd degree, mainly because, since you're incapable of using logic, you think anything that you don't understand is illogical.

As for John the Econ, no, I won't consider what he says, because he's an idiot.

"because it is NOT "be ready to talk about what I want but don't expect to get any concessions from me". "

So, you're admitting that the republicans are in fact not trying to negotiate (since they are doing exactly what you described), but are being terrorists?

Ted Brist said...

@Stilton: That's quite a story. And if you live in Texas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Alabama, Georgia, or Virginia, then its no doubt true, and you know who's to blame for that - the state government who rejected the money to actually help people, and have actively sabotaged Obamacare, causing citizens to suffer so that they can not be proven wrong. And of course, you're smart enough to blame the idiotic Republicans who are actively sabotaging America, her laws and her people, right?

As for employee hours being cut, I have no doubt that a bunch of slimy unscrupulous inhuman parasites have decided that they are soulless enough to slash worker hours instead of giving them the basic health care they need to live. I also don't think that a single solitary one of them HAD to do it, but in fact did it because they were greedy and sociopathic, a fact that's backed up by all of them doing this BEFORE they had to do it, again indicating that they are slimy weasels. We really should hold the people who allowed this provision to be entered into the bill while it was in committee accountable. Who was it? Oh right - that was one of the many wonderful contributions by the Republicans while Obamacare was actually being negotiated, when it was supposed to be negotiated.

Cutting taxes cuts revenue. Okay, lets do a little case study. Here's two presidents, lets call them Bill C and George W. Bill C entered his presidency with a deficit, raised taxes, and ended with a budget surplus. George W entered his presidency with a surplus, slashed taxes, and when he left, the country was in a pit of debt. Hmm, whats about homework? Maybe you should do just a bit.

No, I don't find the idea that money for social security is paid in the meantime out of debt, considering I'm not the kind of moron who thinks that social security just involves piling all of our money in a big room, and then giving it back when people retire.

You are correct, this isn't the first time that any party have been disingenuous, slimy and downright evil enough to make demands of raising the debt ceiling - the Tea Party has done it twice. So, the Tea Party are the only group who have actively taken the country hostage and threatened to default if they don't get their way. They're the only people who have hated the President enough to threaten to destroy America.

As for the sequester, as I recall, Obama proposed a deal to cut $2.50 in social programs in exchange for $1 raised in taxes. How was he not negotiating then? See, now, he knows the Tea Party are greedy, vile and hateful enough that they will keep doing this if they don't get their way, so he will treat them like any baby throwing a tantrum - he will ignore them until they act like adults, and do their fucking jobs.

Bruce Bleu said...

Wow, I guess I've underestimated the mental prowess of Ted Bris. He must adhere to the wisdom of liberalism that follows the dictates of Pee wee Herman, "I know you are, (splort, splat, goosh), but what am I?"

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Ted Brist- You conflate reelecting Obama with public approval and support of Obamacare, yet poll after poll shows that this simply isn't the case. And I daresay that any lingering love affair with Obamacare is likely to sputter out after 95% of the people logging onto the site couldn't even create an account. (Which reminds me, Ted, have you created an account? How much money did you save?)

Regarding the Koch brothers, I note that you're starting to foam at the mouth again and get a tic in your eye. This is worrisome. And all the more so because you then cheerily suggest that the government should just steal everything from private citizens who they don't like. Would you mind pointing out the Constitutional support for your position, or are you just declaring your love for some sort of neo-fascist Marxism? (Oh wait, you've already done that by voting for Obama at least twice).

Quadrupling the minimum wage is actually a good idea, because it would put so many people out of work and raise prices on so many items that nitwits like you would have to finally shut up on the subject.

Next, you demonstrate a very binary mindset by declaring that people are either negotiators or terrorists. It must be very relaxing to live in such a simplistic state of delusion. But to prove I can be fair, I'll accept your definition to the extent that Barry has declared that he won't negotiate and is, per your definition, a terrorist.

Next, you attack the states which aren't falling for Barry's Medicaid trap. Interesting side note: the reason the states DON'T have to change their Medicaid policies to align with Obamacare...? It's because the Supreme Court declared that portion of the law to be unconstitutional. And the governors of those states knew that after spending borrowed federal dollars for 3 years, they'd be left with unsustainable bills - and Washington controlling state business and coffers. That's a no go.

(Continues below)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Then you attack employers for being terrible human beings. Way to wear your anti-capitalism on your sleeve. And by the way, there's a great piece in the WSJ today pointing out that the employers didn't start cutting hours "until they had to." And then - they had to.

Regarding taxes and revenue, you can't oversimplify the equation and expect anyone to believe you. Bill Clinton enjoyed presiding over (and having nothing to do with) the Internet boom which generated a buttload of tax revenue. George W Bush presided over (and, whether YOU believe it or not, had nothing to do with) America during the 9-11 terror attacks, and the subsequent expenses thereof. He also spent a lot of time with Democrats controlling the budgets and running up huge bills, though W certainly wasn't shy about spending.

You then start sputtering about the Tea Party wanting to destroy America by not raising the debt ceiling. Did you not even READ my commentary at the top of this page, in which Senator Obama refuses to vote to raise the debt ceiling, thereby - in your words - showing his desire to destroy America? Or is it okay when He (hallowed be his many names) does it?

Finally, you miss a key point in your sequester summation: Obama said he'd make cuts to social programs tomorrow in return for a raise in taxes today. But "tomorrow" never comes with these clowns, and never has. Ask George Bush Sr what happened when he went back on his "read my lips" promise not to raise taxes when he believed Democrat promises to cut spending in the future. It cost him the Presidency.

And finally, after using a lot of really nasty rhetoric and more or less getting away with it, you just had to stick "fucking" into the end of your rant. Which is why you're back on the "nuke everything from this asshole" list.

As is your mother.

Ted Brist said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ted Brist said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bruce Bleu said...

Ted Bris,
(note, still affording you the respect of capitalization)
You don't seem to understand the logic of "profit equals 'the business stays open'". Exactly what is the benefit to an employee if the managers, (who deserve your attack), keep them engaged in "health care", but the entire business goes in the crapper because they did NOT maintain an appropriate level of profit? Now your precious "worker" has NO DAMNED JOB, AND no health care, (because COBRA will cost them $1000 a month on NO income, you "pile of steaming scat who lacks the ability to talk", (I'll just SAY it because I'm convinced you lack the deductive skills to understand I'm calling you a "dumb-shit").
What the hell do you liberals think makes the world work? Dammed "Profit Fairies" sprinkling pixie dust on situations to make them operate? In your world does Unicorn piss generate enough steam to operate electrical generators?
You and lamont are very adept at providing "straw men" to try and validate your points. What credibility do you have to assert the definition of a sociopath? If you and lamont were responsible for casting the movie Wizard of Oz the whole MOVIE would be nothing but Scarecrows! The ONLY positive thing about where you keep your head is you will NEVER have to worry about getting "basil cell carcinoma" on your noggin because the Sun doesn't shine there!

Ted Brist said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
John the Econ said...

Yes, Ted. I know about Obama's budget. It's the one that got ZERO votes from anybody, including the Democrats who can't possibly put their name on such a document.

You see, they have to face their voters too. That's the "democracy" you were speaking of. They clearly don't have the balls to go in front of their own voters and say "this is what we believe".

And you're right. The GOP doesn't have to negotiate. It's the position the Democrats put themselves in when they decided to forego a budget for half-a-decade and counting.

David in SoCal said...

Sweet Jesus!
Is Ted(ignorance is)Brist, a pseudonym for Sally Kohn?
As Forrest Gump once quoted; "Stupid is as stupid does", and Teddy, I must honour you with: "Nobody does it quite, as stupid as you".....Ta-ta me ol' duck!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- True to my word, I let Ted stay with the grown-ups until he started using profanity, at which point I said I'd nuke any subsequent posts. Which I have (blissfully unread!)...and which I'll continue to do in the future.

John the Econ said...

Not a surprise, @Stilton. It's a pretty common train amongst liberals to drift into obscenity when the level of their intellect is surpassed and they can no longer support an argument otherwise. I can only imagine how frustrating that must be. At that point, all they have left is their hate to do their thinking for them.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- Amen, sir. And with that, I'm going to cut off further comments on this particular thread.