Obama Forges a Debt Deal ... With Terrorists?

The derisive use of names is closely related to the use of profanity. Both are a manifestation of a poor vocabulary and an inability or unwillingness to think before or while speaking. They are signs of an uneducated and uncouth person.



Referring to Congressmen (mostly Republicans) who resisted further expanding the nation's excessive debt, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) said:

We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money....They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want...

Not to be outdone, Vice President Joe Biden reportedly added:

They have acted like terrorists.

Other labels used include "The Tea Party Taliban," "Hezbollah faction" of the GOP, "suicide mission," "cannibals," "zombies," and "vampires."

Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson accused the Tea Party of "putting a gun to the president's head" on the debt ceiling. Former White House "green czar" Van Jones likewise said:

When any faction in America that would put a gun to the head of 310 million people and say 'if you don't do it our way we will blow your dreams away, we will blow a hole in the American economy,' that is un-American and that is not how we do business and we refuse to bow down to those kind of bully tactics.

(Hmmm. As I recall, after the January assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (another thirteen people were also injured and six others were killed including a federal judge), Democrats were condemning the harsh rhetoric from the Right.)

Jim Treacher's (AKA Sean Medlock) response to the Democrat claims of terrorism:

So we're terroists for "holding the country hostage"? Okay, then: For what you're doing to future generations, you are pedophiles. Own it.

After watching the above video, see my previous comments on the debt crisis and why I'm disappointed in the surrender of the "terrorists" (Republicans) and the perpetuation of big-government that is the debt-ceiling "compromise."

New York Times:

There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that President Obama signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending. By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today. Indeed, both the government and its debts will continue to grow faster than the American economy, primarily because the new law does not address federal spending on health care.

The debt deal authorizes the federal government to borrow another $2.1 trillion on top of the $14.3 trillion it already owes. It supposedly includes $2.5 trillion in cuts. However, those are cuts from a projected baseline in which the national debt grows by $10 trillion during the next decade! Only a politician can say that over $7 trillion additional debt over the next 10 years is less debt!

Moreover, the vast majority of the "cuts" are not scheduled to take effect for years, raising serious doubts about whether they will happen at all.

Nevertheless, Lieutenant Colonel Alan West, US Representative for Florida gives this perspective on the compromise:

Before conservatives go criticizing this agreement consider what would have happened if Pelosi, Reid and Obama were still in control.

Most Republicans and all Democrats in Congress fail to understand that one cannot compromise with evil (eg big-government advocates). Such compromise always moves in the direction of evil (eg big government) albeit not as quickly as evil (eg big-government advocates) desires. The Republican party consistently shows why it does not deserve to be the majority party. Except for a handful of the TEA-party caucus, Congress betrayed us all. The mainstream "news" media is complicit.

Every voter in the nation needs to look at the list of congressmen who voted for the debt deal. If your representative and/or senator voted for this legislation to perpetuate the growth of federal debt, you owe it to yourself, your posterity, and the nation to vote them out! Especially if you voted for them primarily because of the color of their skin or their party label rather than for their principles!

If, on going into the polling booth in 2008, you knew and agreed with Obama's principles and agenda and those of his allies in Congress and therefore cast an informed ballot, I can accept that. On the other hand, if you voted for the current president to prove you're not racist, in 2012 you need to vote him out to prove you aren't an idiot.



Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.