TO THE ABSURD!

Isn’t it mind-boggling, absurd, how out of control the spin is on who is to blame for the downgrading of America’s credit? On July 14 S&P, who downgraded us, made it perfectly plain that the downgrade was coming if there wasn’t at least $4 trillion in enforceable cuts in deficit spending. Everyone knew that. But, the question is this: why wasn’t the recent debt ceiling debate revolving around those numbers?

Republicans put forth a proposal for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which cut 5.8 trillion over 10 years that would have satisfied S&P’s requirements. What did the Democrats do in return? They table the bill in the Senate, which means: it’s still there waiting to be debated, on the Senate floor.

The debt ceiling deal that was recently signed into law, to save us from default, which it did, was on a dollar for dollar bases. In other words: the debt ceiling would be raised by some $2.4 trillion, while spending cuts would be introduced at $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. See, mom, how’s that for balance? The Democrats cried foul and said that the Tea Party was holding America hostage! The Republicans weren’t too happy either because the deal was nothing more than an abrupt halt to the spending of money we didn’t have. We raised the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion, but we cut spending by $2.4 trillion. Nothing gained and nothing lost. But, those numbers are outside of what is already owed, $14.something trillion. Nothing was done about that number. Again, remember, that all the while; Washington knew about the S&P requirement of a $4 trillion cut in deficit spending.

This is politics in the 21st century: who can lie the best? Who can deceive the American public the best? Clearly, if in the voter’s mind, there is still any doubt about who is to blame for this downgrading of America’s credit rating…Well, I would say that the Democrats are the best liars.

One more thing about the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act; over at Wikipedia it states, concerning the bill, the following:

Cuts in spending

The bill proposed to reduce total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012. The savings were divided as follows:

Reduce non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels, which saves $76 billion.

$35 billion cut to non-veterans, non-Medicare, non-Social Security mandatory spending.

Defense budget at President's level.

The point being this: for next year, 2012, the election year, the cuts in spending would not touch Social Security, Medicare, or veterans pensions. Discretionary spending is everything else. Remember: this is a Conservative proposal that the Tea Party went along with. But, President Obama; wasn’t his message, about the Republican’s policies, always about wanting to cut into Social Security? And wasn’t he always scaring the elderly about the Social Security being not sent? Aren’t his speeches always about wanting to raise taxes because he doesn’t want the poor, the elderly, and the middle-class to carry the burden of America’s economic woes? He wants the rich to pay their “fair share.”

He says the rich should be taxed. But, he defines rich at those who make 200,000 dollars per year. I mean, isn’t 200,000 a year, in this day and age, considered to be middle-class?

I mean, 200,000 a year, I don’t think that’s rich. That’s small business, isn’t it?

So, the elderly won’t have their Social Security touched by Republican policies, the middle-class; President Obama wants to tax, and the poor, well, the poor are the poor. They don’t pay anything.

Isn’t it clear who is spinning the truth?

There’s a reason why the liberals are called liberals. There’s a reason why they’re considered to be “inclusive” of all kinds. That’s because they are!

Including, the father of all lies: the Devil.

mike t.

p.s. On a personal level; I can't stand liberals because they ignore any type of truth in their conversation or pretend they don't know what the truth is.