Sen. Orrin Hatch: Obama Fiscal Proposal ‘Classic Bait and Switch’

Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah) delivered the GOP weekly address and it was a damn good one.

He pulled no punches and laid it out straight that Obama lied when he ran for re-election and perpetrated a “classic bait and switch” maneuver. What ever you think of Mr. Hatch or the GOP, he spoke truth in this one.


“Hi. I’m Senator Orrin Hatch from the great state of Utah.

“The holiday season is upon us: a time when families come together to celebrate and reflect on another year gone by—and another one set to begin.

“But this holiday season is different: as the clock ticks down towards the New Year, nearly every single American is facing the real prospect of what’s called the Fiscal Cliff.

“If we don’t act by the end of the year, 28 million more families and individuals will be forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax, 21 times as many farmers and ranchers will be hit with the death tax, and the average middle-class family would see their taxes go up by at least $2,000.

“Economic leaders have told us that if we don’t act, our nation will fall into another painful recession—pushing unemployment back up over 9 percent, threatening our children’s ability to get a good paying job, and putting seniors’ retirements at risk.

“The President has said he wants a so-called balanced approach to solve this crisis. But what he proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese. Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress.

“Fresh off his reelection, the President has an obligation to first steer us away from the fiscal cliff, and second, to tackle our $16-plus trillion debt, that is driven by our runaway entitlement programs, so our country doesn’t reach this dangerous crossroads ever again.

“But we’ve seen an utter lack of leadership from President Obama, and his allies on the left have shown little—very little—to no willingness to tackle real, structural entitlement reform. There is no manner of tax hike that can save Medicare or Medicaid—these programs can only be fixed with real reforms that go to the heart of how they work.

“Some on the left say that tinkering around the edges of Medicare and Medicaid with cuts to hospital and doctor payments would be enough—or that the President’s deeply flawed health law is entitlement reform. They argue that we don’t need to examine the structural problems that plague both of these programs.
“Make no mistake about it—shoring up Medicare and Medicaid will not be easy. But the situation has become so severe that it is the only responsible course to take.

“Consider the Medicare program. In just over a decade, it will be bankrupt. On average, Medicare beneficiaries receive $3 in benefits for every $1 they paid into the system. And that’s while 10,000 more Americans join this program every day, the number of workers supporting it has declined by almost 18 percent over the last decade. How bad is it? The average family could give up its salary for an entire year and sell their house and still not have enough to pay their share to secure Medicare. This is unsustainable.

“Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle are advocating a disastrous Thelma and Louise strategy that would take us over the cliff, putting millions of middle-class families, small businesses, and our already weak economy in further jeopardy.

“They want more and more of the American people’s tax dollars to spend without putting in place any meaningful and responsible reforms to the biggest government programs on the books. That just doesn’t make sense. Especially when you consider that if the President has his way by raising the top two marginal tax rates—nearly a million businesses and 700,000 jobs would be at risk. He would be willing to put 700,000 jobs at risk in return for getting enough money to fund our government for 7 days.

“This is a strange turn of events, considering that in 2010, the President and 40 Senate Democrats supported extending these very tax rates, citing our sluggish economy, which was even stronger then than it is today.

“We should not raise these taxes, but we should enact comprehensive tax reform that will generate more revenue, create jobs, and increase our GDP by as much as 3.5 percent. We should find a solution to ensure the survival of the Medicare program. And the President should work with Republicans to bring down our country’s unsustainable debt.

“But we’ll never get there with the unserious plan the President proposed this week. The longer the White House waits to get serious is a day closer to going over the fiscal cliff, and the harder it will be to find a solution.

“Americans want Washington to work together to get our country back on track, and to ensure we leave it in a better place than we found it for future generations. This is our chance. Let’s make the hard decisions. Let’s make those decisions we know must be made.

“Thank you for listening. May God bless America and all of you.”

Kansas City Chief Jovan Belcher Kills Girlfriend Then Commits Suicide At Stadium
AP Quits Use of Islamophobia/Homophobia in Reporting
  • Sky__Captain

    On a related note, 0bama wants himself some more stimulus $$$.

    “The argument in favor of such stimulus? The tax measures, at least, could minimize the drag on the economy from Mr. Obama’s proposed tax increases on the wealthy.”

    Apparently, it is beyond the pay grade of the “genius” to realize the best way to minimize the effect of the tax increases is to not raise taxes in the first place.
    Not to mention that this “stimulus” would spend even more money. And here I thought the point of raising taxes on “the wealthy” was to reduce the deficit. Obviously it was not.

    • Vagabond661

      And the first two stimuli were such a rip roaring success.

      • jim_m

        The election was a mandate to give away millions to his kleptocrat buddies.

        • Someone got rich, that’s for sure. The people that matter…

          The rest of us vast unwashed? WE don’t matter. There’s 2 years before our opinion matters again, and in the mean time trillions can be siphoned off. As the next election approaches, figure the promises and character assassinations are going to be ramped up, to the point where to someone who doesn’t remember 2 years ago will go “Oh, what they’re promising sounds pretty damn good!”

          Democrats promise. But there’s no reason for them to ever deliver.

  • Brucehenry

    Here’s part of a comment at OTB on this subject, from someone named LaMont, that I find germane:

    “Negotiation 101: Person X presents Proposal A. Person Y counters Proposal A with Proposal B. Not cry about how ridiculous Proposal A appears to be. How could anything be accomplished using that tack? This is pure politics on the right. Republicans did not go along with the grand bargain agreement which favored their policies last year. And now they’re upset that Obama, coming off another election win, will not lay down? Seriously?”

    It’s hardly “unserious” to open a negotiation with a proposal that asks for more than you expect to get. It’s what Obama SHOULD have been doing the FIRST four years, in my opinion.

    • jim_m

      How was ramming everything you wanted in healthcare down the nation’s throat different from what you think he should have been doing?

      obama comes to the table without any negotiating position. HE demands and has no fall back. It’s either raise all the taxes he wants and take his word that at some unspecified date there will be a reduction in spending, or he will tell you to F off. Promises for future spending cuts have never been realized. To even make this his negotiating stance is an offense to any reasonable person. Only an ass thinks that the promise is genuine.

      If he really meant to cut spending he’d make an offer now. The gambit to ask for a delay means that he has not ever thought about cutting spending.

      This s why he is not serious. He has not thought at all about spending cuts. He comes to the table with no plan for making any cuts. He refuses to discuss cutting spending and makes an empty promise about the future that he has no credibility with and no one believes he has any intention to fulfill.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Boehner learned the last time – even if you make a deal with Obama, he will just ask for more concessions after the fact.

        You cant negotiate with a liar.

        • jim_m

          That’s how fascists negotiate. It’s been done before.

          • Saw it in the 80s – Reagan agreed to raise taxes on the promise of future cuts. It didn’t happen then, I don’t think it’ll happen now.

            Any promise of cuts is worthless.

          • jim_m

            The problem is that the memory impaired, like Bruce, actually think that the dems really will come back and offer spending cuts.

            For the rest of us we look at Harry Reid demanding that he get credit for cuts made in the past and see that they aren’t serious.

            I’ll bet Bruce is still surprised every time he sees Lucy pull the football away too.

          • Vagabond661

            Spending cuts Obama-style.

          • 914

            Ha ha love it! Gotta share..

          • Turn it around.

            Pass the cuts and then we’ll consider the tax increases. Get back to us with your list of cuts, or not at all.

        • retired.military

          I dont think that Boehner and the heads of the republican party learned anything but that to get invited to the DC cocktail parties and look good in the MSM that you have to give in to liberals.

          • Carl

            They’ve got to make real changes if they want to stay at the table. The GOP is in danger of demagoging themselves right out of relevancy.

            Americans KNOW the GOP is going to have to give in and conceede on raising taxes on the rich. Why the heck are they pretending they won’t? Oh yeah, honesty is a difficult thing for the GOP leadership. Some clowns on the right think they can lie their way to victory.

            How did that work out for “We don’t care about facts” Mitt Romney team?

          • retired.military


            Honesy is
            a. Obama wants higher taxes to help lower the deficit
            b. Obama wants stimulus money to offset the damage done to the economy by higher taxes
            c. Stimulus money comes from borrowing money (and increasing the deficit) which is used to help offset the damage done to the economy by higher taxes which will be used to lower the deficit.

            Liberal thinking. You have to love it.

          • Carl

            The economy is not in the crapper because of the deficit. The deficit didn’t cause the economy to tank, or cause the housing market to falter and fail.

            Conservative logic – you gotta love it – cause its so damn rare…

          • There has been no recovery because of the deficit and the regulatory uncertainty.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes, I can still taste that Medicare-For-All, err, umm, Single Payer healthcare plan, er, umm, I mean that Public Option thingie, that got rammed down my throat. Ouch!

        • jim_m

          Walmart will no longer be offering health insurance to new employees as it is more cost effective to let the government take care of them. obama said that would never happen. He lied.

          Typical leftist. It’s nice how everyone on the left enjoys laughing at the misfortunes of others.

          • Sky__Captain

            That would be a feature of 0bamacare, not a bug.

          • Brucehenry

            What difference does that make? Walmart doesn’t pay enough for its employees to buy even subsidized health insurance. Their employees have been on food stamps and Medicaid for years. It’s long been part of their business plan for their employees to participate in these programs. That way they can pay them less, and the 6 members of the Walton family whose net worth is greater than that of the bottom 40% of the population of the US can get more.

            But THEY’RE not freeloaders, the employees who must rely on this aid are, right?

            I’m pretty sure Obama never vouched for Walmart offering health coverage to employees, by the way.

          • retired.military

            If folks dont like working at Walmart they can always go elsewhere. The military is always looking for motivated individuals. However, if you dont have the motivation to go elsewhere than chances are if you had to do so you would only do so much at that job as well.

            Walmart is hardly a job which people aspire to work at the rest of their life.

            I recall your words about the takers of society and feel that a lot of what you said also apply to those who dont want to work that hard to improve their lot in life.

          • jim_m

            obama said that you could keep you employer plan. He implied that obamacare would not negatively effect employer sponsored plans.

            So you think that wee should seize all of the Walton’s wealth and redistribute it? Perhaps we should arrest the Waltons and send them to prison for creating all those jobs where they exploit those workers. Better all those workers should have stayed in poverty.

            Too bad for the 70% of Walmart managers who worked their way up from hourly jobs. Screw em. We should force them to unionize so the company can’t grow and ends up like Sears or Kmart. Once everyone is on government aid everything will be paradise. You’re a commie fool

          • Brucehenry

            I never said any of those things, Sir James the Strawman Slayer.

            You don’t mind Walmart having a business plan in which their employees’ healthcare and grocery bills are subsidized by taxpayers so that the Walton family can get ever richer?

            EDIT: I read somewhere that each Walmart store costs the Federal government (taxpayers) $460,000 a year in Medicaid and food stamps. Don’t know if it’s true or not. But I do know that Walmart employees are given training in how to apply for government benefits.

            If it wasn’t for Medicaid and food stamps, Walmart couldn’t pay their employees such low wages. Therefore, they couldn’t price their merchandise quite so low, and if their prices weren’t so much lower than, say, your local Ace Hardware store, maybe that store would still be in business, paying THEIR employees a living wage.

          • jim_m

            I believe that Walmart should pay the prevailing wage for the work being provided. You believe that they should be forced by threat of government intervention (I suppose imprisonment) to pay higher that what the market demands for that works.

            What you are advocating is that Walmart should have to pay more than the market value for labor and ultimately, unless you force Walmart to continue to pay for that amount of labor, Walmart will fond alternative ways of getting te work done, which will mean a reduction in the number of employees.

            Obviously, you have never tried to meet a payroll or dealt with the burn rate of a company. WHen labor gets too expensive you reduce it.

            I suppose you are against people having to work for a living because that is the effect of your policy.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I’m not advocating anything here, I’m pointing out that Walmart, as part of its strategy to increase its market share, hires employees at low wages and then encourages them to apply for government benefits.

            This amounts to taxpayers subsidizing Walmart. You seem to be fine with this.

            I find it objectionable, but despite your attempts to put words in my mouth, I don’t advocate imprisoning anyone over it.

            Oh, and of the two of us, Jim, which one has owned his own small business — twice? Which one was responsible for 9 restaurant payrolls? Hint: it was me.

          • jim_m

            Then you should know that you don’t pay more than you need to for labor

          • Brucehenry

            Sure I do, and I didn’t. But I was real conflicted about it! LOL. I dig why Walmart does it.

            I just find it amusing that conservatives who love to defend Walmart and point to it as a story of a scrappy small-businessman building an empire, always fail to note that without the government subsidizing its payroll it wouldn’t be so successful.

            Just as they fail to note, as you have, that Walmart employees making $8.81 an hour can’t afford to have ANY money taken out of their checks for health insurance. Hell, most are kept at below 30 hours a week so they don’t qualify anyway. That’s why so many are on Medicaid, and why 80% are on food stamps.

            And they fail to note that Costco (which is far from perfect) gives its employees benefits and better wages yet still manages to keep prices low. Know how? THEIR top people aren’t quite as obscenely rich as the 6 Walton heirs, that’s how.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because there should be no incentive to getting yourself more skills or working hard to advance. The world needs entry level jobs too. Most people work themselves up and out of those kinds of jobs. I’ll bet that both you and I did so. That entry level job didn’t look that bad back then. Then again, had I been able to pull down over 100k for busing tables I would still be doing it.

            There are ways around getting to pay benefits. You can do what other companies do and just make them all part time. The American Red Cross does that. Funny how I don’t see the unions picketing their blood centers.

          • Brucehenry

            Haven’t you ever BEEN to a Walmart? Did you see high school kids working there?

            No, you saw grown men and women, who might have, once upon a time, worked at Ace Hardware or Food Lion, a cotton mill or a furniture factory (NC examples).

            Face it, Walmart sucks. Using them as an example of how responsible corporations SHOULD act is crazy.

        • Vagabond661

          Has that doubled or tripled in cost now? and it’s not even fully implemented.

      • TomInCali

        It’s either raise all the taxes he wants and take his word that at some unspecified date there will be a reduction in spending, or he will tell you to F off. Promises for future spending cuts have never been realized… If he really meant to cut spending he’d make an offer now…. This s why he is not serious. He has not thought at all about spending cuts. He comes to the table with no plan for making any cuts. He refuses to discuss cutting spending and makes an empty promise about the future that he has no credibility with and no one believes he has any intention to fulfill.

        Jim, I’m sorry to hear about your head injury. To overcome your amnesia, you’ll need to go research the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts that Obama accepted as part of the 2011 agreement over the debt ceiling. That was the deal that Boehner called “all spending cuts”.

        This may help you:

        • jim_m

          I see that you too believe that past spending cuts should could as the spending cuts we need to make today.

          I see you also seem to have forgotten that obama has failed to produce a budget that his own party will vote in favor of for the last 3 years.

          Furthermore I see that you have forgotten that obama has produced a larger deficit than Bush every year for the last 4 years.

          I’m not talking about the past and what he was forced to do. I’m talking about the present. Also those “Spending cuts” were not cuts they were reductions in future spending. That is total BS no matter which party is pushing it. Since future spending is theoretically infinite you can cut infinite amounts of spending and not alter real spending by a single penny.

          We need cuts in real spending right now. Not future spending. Not cuts in the rate of increase in spending.

          The problem is that the left is full of geniuses like you that think that cuts in future spending, cuts in the rate of increase in spending are all real. The dems play you for fools constantly. You’re a moron,

          • jim_m

            So you understand little tommy: Cuts in future spending are BS. The proposal is that they will actually cut current spending but they will only do so at some unspecified date in the future.

            Both are BS. We are spending over a trillion dollars more each year than the government steals from the taxpayers. We need to cut real spending right now. obama isn’t going to do that. Harry Reid isn’t going to do that.

          • TomInCali

            Ah, good. You resorted to ad hominems much faster than usual, indicating that you’re out of rational arguments. I can call it a night, then.

          • 914

            ?? Makes no sense at all.

          • jim_m

            There was not a single ad hom attack in the comment you responded to.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, “little tommy” is a perfectly respectful way to address someone in a civil discussion. And “you’re a moron” in the previous comment is in no way an ad hominem.

          • jim_m

            An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person

            I supplied reasoning about spending cuts. disparaging him with his name does not amount to rejecting his argument based on an attack on his character.

            But then, I suppose that since you call the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act akin to 9/11 that an ad hom now becomes presenting an argument while twisting the other person’s online ID.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, please link to where I called the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act akin to 9/11.

            Moron.. Liar. Hint: those are ad hominems, Little Jimmy.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and I didn’t use them in the comment in question.

            The other is called hyperbole. Get used to it

          • Brucehenry

            There were two comments in question, made in rapid succession.

          • jim_m

            My response was specific to the one.

          • Brucehenry

            Your response was an attempt to weasel out of blame for doing what anyone can clearly see you did.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and I am sorry that it distracts you from having to reply to my comment about your BS abut obama being the smallest spender in history.

          • r.a.

            “Yes, please link to where I called the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act akin to 9/11.”

            Ya, he tried that one on me the other day about 3-4 times in that thread. When I asked him to point out where I said that, he never answered. Surprise.

          • jim_m

            Ryan, you actually were arguing that the Tea Party was terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism. There are only levels of atrocity.

            [edit] On reflection saying “akin” was incorrect. You clearly did not mean the two acts were akin other than they were both reasonably called terrorism.

          • r.a.

            No jim, I was not. If you seriously think that is true then I suggest you take some courses in reading comprehension. Please point out exactly where I argued that the Boston Tea Party was terrorism. I am looking forward to this and eagerly await your response. I challenge you.

            If you give up, as you should, I will go ahead and save you some time by pointing out where I actually expressed my opinion about calling the BTP “terrorism”:

            “Personally, I’d say that calling the BTP and OWS “terrorism” is a bit of a stretch. Just a wee bit. I tend to think of terrorism as attacks against civilians and such, rather than protests or even destruction of property. But that was the whole point of the exercise if I am not mistaken–to discuss these sorts of questions.”

            So feel free to admit that you are totally full of shit with this claim at any time.

          • 914

            Well, OWS did destroy and vandalize civilians personal property so they fit a wee bit by your own definition.

          • r.a.

            Reading comprehension is fun. Try it. Here is what I wrote:

            “I tend to think of terrorism as attacks against civilians and such, RATHER THAN PROTESTS OR EVEN DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.”

            Did you see the word “rather” in there? Read carefully 914. It helps.

          • jim_m

            As I recall he argument it was that you were accepting the proposition that there was a valid perspective from which the BTP could be considered terrorism. That was the point of the exercise and you defended the exercise.

            While you might not personally hold that the BTP was terrorism accepting the idea that one an validly call it so is not much different.

            Hence why I spent so much time arguing about the definitions of words. When the definitions can be twisted so broadly it becomes difficult to have a conversation.

            For example: if I follow your willingness to twist definitions then you really did say the BTP was akin to 9/11.

          • jim_m

            Typical. I explain myself and Ryan leaves.,

          • r.a.

            Sorry. Had to eat some breakfast. It happens.

          • r.a.

            “As I recall he argument it was that you were accepting the proposition that there was a valid perspective from which the BTP could be considered terrorism. That was the point of the exercise and you defended the exercise.”

            Sure. From the perspective of the Brit ruling authority it could have easily been called “terrorism” in order to dismiss and discredit the actions of the protesters. Absolutely. That would not surprise me at all. We see this happening all the time when one side in some conflict dismisses its opponents’ actions as terrorism, sometimes with good cause of course, but in some cases it’s pure propaganda. If that event happened today, I could definitely see the Brits trying to denounce the actions of the “Sons of Liberty” as terrorism. But that doesn’t mean I agree that it’s an accurate or correct use of the term. The term “terrorism” is used as propaganda and for political purposes all the time. This means that it’s often used in a warped way to serve the interests of some state, government, or group. Not really a shocker. The whole point of the exercise was to discuss precisely that: the politics of the word “terrorism” and the politics of media.

            “While you might not personally hold that the BTP was terrorism accepting the idea that one an validly call it so is not much different.”

            I never argued that I thought it was valid, jim. And this is where you start to miss the point. Pointing out that something is happening, or plausible, is not the same as arguing that such practices are right, correct, or valid. It is VERY DIFFERENT to say “Yes, I think that it is plausible that the Brits would have tried to call the BTP terrorism for political purposes” versus arguing “I think the BTP was terrorism.” Get it?

            “Hence why I spent so much time arguing about the definitions of words. When the definitions can be twisted so broadly it becomes difficult to have a conversation.”

            And this is where I agreed with you. I am not saying that it’s a GOOD THING that the term terrorism gets used in all kinds of ways for political and propaganda purposes…but it does happen all the time and should not be some big surprise. The problem is this: despite the nice dictionary definitions, there is actually not a legally binding, internationally accepted definition of the term. So we end up with all kinds of people calling all kinds of acts terrorism. And that’s part of the problem with the politics of the term, and the media often plays into it.

            “For example: if I follow your willingness to twist definitions then you really did say the BTP was akin to 9/11.”

            Again, it’s not that I have some “willingness” to twist definitions, jim. I am pointing out that this is what happens all the time. It’s an empirical reality. This doesn’t mean that I think it’s a good thing, or that I agree. People use language all the time for their own purposes–it just happens. Lots of people, groups, nations, etc use the term “terrorism” in a variety of ways to serve their own interests. That’s just a reality. And all of these uses conflate meanings.

            But that’s the whole issue: we have this really powerful, emotionally and politically charged term, and people are using it in an incredibly wide variety of ways to denounce their enemies or opponents. Sometimes these uses are legit and accurate. But often they are not, and it’s just a bunch of propaganda. And that’s why I liked the basic point of the exercise, which was to discuss these kinds of questions and problems. But, instead we have The Blaze and Warner conflating things even further and completely misrepresenting the whole lesson by saying schools are teaching kids that the BTP was an act of terrorism. It was a stupid, reactionary explanation of what they were doing. But I am not surprised. You, however, are smart enough to see past some of that.

          • jim_m

            Ugh! too long to read the whole thing.

            I believe that I pointed out the Oxford History of the Americas which explains the BTP and the revolution in terms that most Americans understand. The Brits, while offended by the actions were not terrorized. The person to whom the BTP was aimed, Lord North, was not in the least intimidated.

            There is evidence that this was not considered to have been a terrorist act at that time. Revising history to make it so is wrong.

            I get your point that it could be a good thought exercise but my point is that the likelihood of that is so small as to be irrelevant.

          • r.a.

            “Ugh! too long to read the whole thing.”

            That is the dumbest response I have ever seen. Are you serious? You make repeated bullshit claims, conflate my argument to a ridiculous extent, make totally false accusations, resort to ad hominem attacks and weak straw man arguments…and then you say that a 565 word comment is too long to read??? What a joke. You have just proven that it is completely, absolutely pointless to reply to anything you write. You are basically arguing against your own assumptions and misunderstandings, and I can’t help you. If you don’t actually read what I write, and it’s clear that you don’t, then trying to have a discussion with you is totally pointless. Good luck.

          • Brucehenry

            Absolutely correct. Jim is another ignoramus, just an articulate one who spells well.

          • jim_m

            Actually, my spelling stinks. The point is that he presented a long comment that refers to a discussion held several days ago. He interspersed quotes without delineating them with formatting and otherwise made a long post that was tedious to read.

            A reader needs to be engaged by making the content easy to read. He failed to do that.

            Otherwise his comments are little more than a regurgitation of what filled several dozen comments between the two of us. We had concluded that discussion with what I thought was disagreement, but understanding.

          • r.a.

            ” He interspersed quotes without delineating them with formatting and otherwise made a long post that was tedious to read.”

            Bullshit. Are you telling me that you can’t figure out that those quotes are YOUR WORDS from the comment above, and that my responses to those quotes are below? I have been posting using that format on this site since about 2005, and you have never complained about this before. You are totally full of it.

            “A reader needs to be engaged by making the content easy to read. He failed to do that.”

            And the joke continues. A reader needs to have the ability to read more than 5 word bullshit comments on some blog, that’s what a reader needs. If you can’t stand reading through a 166 word paragraph (which is less than an abstract), then I can’t help you.

            “We had concluded that discussion with what I thought was disagreement, but understanding.”

            Right. Until you came on here and started making more bullshit arguments about what I was saying. Remember that? My responses here were YET ANOTHER attempt to clarify what I am actually saying. But now that I know you don’t actually read and you are just responding to your own warped assumptions about what *you think* I’m saying, I see that responding to you is an exercise in folly. It’s a waste of time. This is a watershed moment here on the old W-Bang folks.

            IMPORTANT NOTE: Just in case the above paragraph was too long, or the formatting is too tedious to read, jim, let me sum it up for you: You are full of shit. Good luck with your BS.

          • jim_m

            Sorry that your writing looks tedious even if the content may not be.

          • r.a.

            This whole “your writing looks tedious” argument is one of the stupidest and most childish you have ever come up with. Please do yourself a favor and just quit. How on earth did you manage to read Hatch’s speech in the original post, which is 858 words? How did you do it jim, since it’s SO MANY WORDS? Oh, you probably didn’t read that either. There you go.

          • jim_m


            The point is that when you put up a screed that exceeds the height of my screen it is not appealing to read. I have been guilty of the same thing. I try to avoid it and will split up comments to focus on separate arguments.

            Writing is more than getting your thoughts down, it is presenting them in a way that will be received. People have an aversion to large blocks of text. Formatting helps too.

          • Brucehenry

            Got that, Ryan? Professor Jim M, chair of the English Department at Wingnut University, wants you to know that writing is more than just getting your thoughts down.

          • jim_m

            Follow the link. If you want to communicate effectively it is about the whole of the presentation.

            It’s really useful information. The technique is used by many large organizations. If you want to present something technical it is an excellent method to get the information out and keep the reader engaged.

          • r.a.

            Thanks prof jim m for this amazing help. Wow. I will try to work really hard so I can learn to write in short, reactionary, not-necessarily-logical-or-factual bursts of bullshit so that I can be “received” better on this site. Man, this shit is rich. Sometimes I wonder why I don’t comment here very often anymore. This is why.

          • r.a.

            “The point is that when you put up a screed that exceeds the height of my screen it is not appealing to read.”

            The point is that you only have bullshit arguments, you are a severe reactionary, and you are too lazy to read. Don’t give me this stupid nonsense about the height of your screen. You claim to have read the Oxford History of the Americas? And you are complaining about reading a 500 plus word comment in a blog? Really? This is the lamest cop out I have ever seen from you. And that’s saying something. But it explains why your responses are always so conflated and twisted on this site. Now it all makes sense–and I always wondered. You don’t actually take the time to read. Well, there you have it.

            “People have an aversion to large blocks of text. Formatting helps too.”

            This is sad. Ya, because a 166 word paragraph with 10 whole sentences is a really massive block of text (my first paragraph in that comment). Hopefully you never have to read any books other than Cliffs Notes, jim. Jeez, just go ahead and stop, this is ridiculous. Again, good luck with your bullshit.

          • jim_m

            , because a 166 word paragraph with 10 whole sentences is a really massive block of text (my first paragraph in that comment).

            Actually, cognitive studies demonstrate that 7 +/- 2 is the max number of bits of information that can easily be remembered, hence the link I provided.

            You’re asking me to revisit a very lengthy discussion we had several days ago. It’s over. We agreed to disagree back then. I really didn’t have any interest in re-agruing the whole thing again.

          • r.a.

            More unfiltered pure bullshit from you. Cognitive studies? Really? Wow, THANKS for that jim. Who knew that people can only handle 7 bits of information? Thank goodness for vague references to “cognitive studies”!!! We better tell folks like Thomas Pynchon to cut things down to size. And while we’re at it, we should edit down the goddamn Declaration of Independence! The second paragraph is a monstrous 269 words! The horror!! If only the authors of that tedious document had access to these cognitive studies back in those days.*

            ” I really didn’t have any interest in re-agruing the whole thing again.”

            And the stream of bullshit keeps flowing. Right jim, you didn’t want to re-argue the whole thing, until you started making BS claims about what Bruce was saying and, when I called you on that, started making more bullshit claims about my arguments. As they say in Mexico: Bullshit.

            *FYI: The preceding paragraph may contain sarcasm.

          • 914

            However, I consider them in the ‘anarchists’ category.

          • Carl

            He’s a weak piece of crap. Too bad the other conservatives won’t stand up to him and tell him to knock off the lies.

          • r.a.

            Actually, jim makes some pretty good arguments sometimes. I will give him that. But, for some reason at times he chooses to go down the false accusation/ad hominem/name-calling path and this does not bode well for his arguments. It also derails the discussion, and I don’t see the purpose. It would be more interesting if he just stuck to the arguments.

          • Carl

            He often uses lies in his arguments, and when called it on he never admits he’s lied.

            And if you fact- check him you’ll find he uses lies a lot. And at other times he’s just plain misinformed. In either instance he refuses to back down and instead just dumps a blizzard of nonsense in multiple replies – drowning out the other conservatives who have valid points and reasoned arguments.

          • r.a.

            Yes, I have seen all the various sides of his arguments here, trust me. I have had a few good debates/conversations with him now and then, but that’s when he drops all the BS and just sticks to arguments. He can actually make good points when he is not in reactionary and over the top mode. But that’s not happening here. After a while I lose patience and interest.

          • 914

            When there is zero moral equivalency yet it is presented in an ‘exercise’ where students are to ponder it as hypothetically possible then the linkage has already been established from point A.

            It is then not critical thinking or debate, rather slight of hand indoctrination. Otherwise no need to deceive the Parents. For which is an automatic termination in My book.

          • jim_m

            The left is perfectly comfortable with indoctrination instead of teaching.

          • r.a.

            But part of the point is this: There are in fact cases in which actions are denounced as terrorism in news media, or by governments, and those charges are pure propaganda. This happens all the time, actually. Like when the Mexican government used to try to call the Zapatistas “terrorists” to discredit them. This kind of thing is very common. And this is why I liked the lesson as a critical thinking exercise–it actually treats the event in a very superficial way like many media or news reports (which are often heavily influenced by politics, governments, etc). The lesson was not indoctrination, IMO, because of the open questions at the end that start breaking things down. It’s meant for debate to discuss some complex but important issues, about media, politics, and the use of these kinds of politically-charged words. But again, this isn’t something for 4th or 5th graders obviously.

          • jim_m

            There are in fact cases in which actions are denounced as terrorism in news media, or by governments, and those charges are pure propaganda.

            Usually these are the acts of the IDF defending against terrorism or common Israelis defending their own lives. Or when the US pisses off some lefties.

          • TomInCali

            You characterized it as “It’s either raise all the taxes he wants and take his word that at some unspecified date there will be a reduction in spending, or he will tell you to F off.” That’s demonstrably untrue, and the exact opposite happened last time. Then it was $1.5 trillion in cuts, $0 in tax increases. If Obama told anyone to “F off”, that wouldn’t have happened.

            And bullshit to not talk about the past, just talk about the present. Do you think that with each negotiation each party is supposed to just forget about the concessions they previously made, and just start over?

            Sorry if you’re not clear on what spending cuts matter. Boehner seems to disagree with you.

          • jim_m

            Hello? Cuts in future spending. Not cuts in real spending. and 1.5T is only 150-B per year. We need to cut 1T per year just to get back to the level that Bush was spending.

          • Brucehenry

            $1.5 trillion is $150 billion a year. Over 10 years, that is.

          • jim_m

            typo. That is what I intended.

          • retired.military

            Yes Bruce. THis is about 10% of the deficit for this year. Actually higher taxes will raise about $40B which is essentially using a soup can to bail water out of ship which has a hole in the size of a wrecking ball.

          • retired.military


            “hen it was $1.5 trillion in cuts, $0 in tax increases.”

            Which resulted in massive influx of money into the treasury. The main thing which screwed up things was the housing bubble which according to Barney Frank things were just fine and there wasnt a problem, which is why he helped protect Fannie and Freddie.

    • LiberalNightmare

      It is fundamentally un-serious to open negotiations by insulting the other party.

      • Of course it’s a serious ploy… if you’re intending to (a) not negotiate in good faith, and (b) blame the other side for the outcome of the negotiations.

        The fools are too busy trying to score points and ignoring doing anything constructive – because actually fixing the problem won’t score them any points.

    • retired.military

      I honestly dont think Obama will take any deal offered by anyone. He will be glad to go over the cliff as it raises taxes (which is what he wants) and he will blame the republicans (with the help of his MSM allies)

      • Carl

        you forgot a word — “and he will blame the republicans successfully“.

        You gotta admit, Obama has the upper hand on this one (for a change).

        • 914

          Nonsense as usual.

        • retired.military

          Oh yes. Obama does have the upper hand. Especially with the lamestream media holding his arms up.

    • herddog505

      Yes, because making it clear to the other party that their offer is so outrageous as to threaten continued negotiations is NEVER a valid strategy, is it? It’s MUCH better to let the other side continue to make unacceptable demands because they have no idea that the demands ARE unacceptable. This makes for speedy, open, stress-free negotiations.

      Further, the specific issue of the budget and the “fiscal cliff” is one of dispassionate logical analysis that is unaffected by politics or public sentiment.

      Finally, a demand to increase taxes now with a promise (pinky swearz!) to cut spending later is a TOTALLY reasonable position that should be unobjectionable to anybody who isn’t a RAAAAACIST.

      • Brucehenry

        Obama spent the first four years walking into conference rooms resigned to giving up half, and negotiating away most of the other half, to the GOP. I for one am glad that he’s not starting the second term doing the same.

        Oh, and also, too:

        • jim_m

          That Forbes article was debunked when it was revealed that Unger lumped the first 6 months of 2009 spending and blamed it on Bush:

          Treating the inflated 2009 federal budget as the benchmark for whether Obama is overspending is ridiculous. It contained billions of dollars in extraordinary spending on bailouts and expenses related to the 2008 financial crisis. Yet, as Reason’s Peter Suderman notes, “what Obama did in subsequent budgets was stick to that newly inflated level of spending. Outlays in 2010 were just a hair short of $3.5 trillion. In 2011, they rose further, approaching $3.6 trillion.”

          But it surprises no one that a rube like yourself would fall for this ahistorical and incorrect bs from the self described token lefty at Forbes.

          Also the line about obama having to “Give away” his entire position is disproven by his own attitude in negotiating: “I Won.”

          Tell me exactly how having the majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate meant that he had to compromise away his entire position? Oh, that’s right because he didn’t.

          Just because you are capable of ignoring historical fact and making contra-factual claims does ot make those claims true. The rest of us recall that obamacare was passed without a single GOP vote. Your claim that he gave everything away is BS.

          • Brucehenry

            Obama had a “filibuster-proof” majority in the Senate (if you count Nebraska’s Ben Nelson and the chronically butthurt Joe Lieberman) for only a few months, after seating Al Franken and before seating Scott Brown. I mean, speaking of memory impairment and ignoring historical fact.

            I think the fact that we have neither a single-payer healthcare policy nor a Public Option (indeed, these things were never proposed by Obama) is evidence that Obama negotiated poorly in his first term.

            But you have a point about the Forbes article. Just posted it to point out to Herd that there are other viewpoints than the Wizbang one.

          • jim_m

            I know the majority didn;t last forever, but when he said “I won” he had it. That comment was in response to GOP demands for compromise on the stimulus.

            The reason we don’t have single payer is because the dems wouldn’t vote or it not because of GOP intransigence. that is the truth. WHy should a bill hat the GOP cast no votes for need compromise to get no votes?

            As for spending budgets cannot be filibustered. Not that such a detail matters. obama has never been able to present a budget that even his dem majority could muster a single vote for.

          • Brucehenry

            Many Democrats would have voted for a public option. We might have even had one, had Obama proposed it and pushed for it. Instead, he declared unilaterally he would not propose it before negotiations had fairly begun. That’s what I mean by being glad he’s not giving away the store before the “Open” sign comes on in this term.

          • jim_m

            Bruce, if they would have accepted it then why was it not proposed if he wanted it? He had the votes!

            Your argument makes sense only if there were sufficient dems opposing it or if obama didn’t want it.

          • Brucehenry

            Because, despite wingnut insistence that Obama is an inflexible ideologue, he has a history of preemptively giving up his own negotiating positions before negotiations really begin. Ask any of the “professional left.”

            I don’t think Obama “had the votes” for a public option, but he may well have obtained them if he had adopted that position and pushed for it, early consistently, and insistently.

          • jim_m


            Bruce. If obama could pass what he wanted without compromising with he GP then why are you claiming that he compromised with them? Unless you are actually claiming that he did not compromise with the GOP but with his own party which was not as radically far left as his own policy.

            Diluting your radical policy so radical leftists like Pelosi will pass it is not compromise. Nor is it evidence that he can do so with ideologically opposed politicians from the GOP.

          • Brucehenry

            See, Jim, I DON’T KNOW why Obama gives up negotiating positions proactively, but what I have been saying is that I’m glad he’s apparently learned not to do so, FINALLY.

          • jim_m

            From this perspective it just looks like he has either learned to steam roll his own party or he no longer has to deal with moderates in his own party.

            51% of the nation agrees with him enough to vote for him. Those are the people you are complaining that he compromised with. The other 49% he has not compromised with ever. Your complaint is that he compromised his far left ideology with people who agree with him on most other things.

            He has never compromised with people who see things substantially different. Your pleased with the idea that not only will he continue to not compromise with those who disagree, but now that he will not compromise with those who agree with him.

          • retired.military


            You forget the ever present RINO Collins and Snowe.

        • herddog505

          My heart bleeds – BLEEDS – for poor ol’ Barry. Imagine: for the first two years of his first term, with his party in control of the House and Senate, he actually had to negotiate with Republicans. How icky! And he sometimes didn’t get all he wanted! Why, he even had to give up some things. Unconscionable! Oh, I weep to think how much he’s suffered…

          Look, most people understand the need to play hardball in negotiations even if they don’t like it. I suggest that it’s pretty hypocritical to decry the GOP playing hardball and then turn right ’round and preen about Barry AT LAST doing it.

          As for the linked article, this is a case of lies, damned lies and statistics. The cold fact is that Barry has run budget deficits north of $1T / year – FAR greater than any of his predecssors – for most if not all of his term (with nary a budget to be seen). To suggest that he’s a moderate spender – nay, a veritable tightwad – because the rate of increase is lower than his predecessors is risible.

          • Brucehenry

            “Look, most people understand the need to play hardball in negotiations even if they don’t like it.”

            Tell that to Warner, Jim, and the rest of Butthurt Wingnuttia.

          • jim_m

            There is a difference between “hardball” and “ideologue” . obama is the latter. obama refused meaningful compromise on the stimulus, he refused meaningful compromise on healthcare. obama has never shown ability to compromise on his ideology.

            You cited the lack of single payer in obamacare as a sign of compromise. I would point to Jan Schakowsky’s comments that obamacare heralds the demise of private insurance and is intended to produce that result.

            As I have stated many times before the typical obama compromise is his stand n the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He bottled it up in committee even thought NARAL and NOW both said that it was not a threat to abortion rights. Once he left Illinois it sailed through both dem controled houses and was signed by the dem governor.

            obama does not believe in compromise when he knows his ideology is correct. obama has never compromised accept to install a plan that, while deferring his aim, guarantees it (like obamacare).

          • Brucehenry
      • Carl

        The demands aren’t unacceptable – that’s just part of the Theater.

        Obama clearly understands now what he didn’t seem to understand in his first term. That the GOP will ALWAYS say the offer is unacceptable, and not matter what Obama concedes in negotiations the GOP will ALWAYS say it’s not enough.

        It’s sad these negotiations have to be handled this way, but I can tell you – Democrats are relieved that Obama is no longer “the giver who never gets anything back” in these negotiations. And he seems to have a much better handle on how to deal with the GOP demagoguery. Sure, it’s DEM demagoguery in return, but at a much more effective level then it was 2008-2012.

        Some conservatives say the 2012-2016 Obama is going to govern vastly differently than the 2008-2012 version. I think that’s true – but not to the extent the wingnuts think.

        The wingnuts whined that Obama was going to take away their guns once he got into the WH back in ’08 — which was a boon for gun sellers and gun makers, but all it did was take money out of the pockets of the conservative paranoids and gullible. And the “he’s a socialist” scare is pretty much being ignored these days as well. Heck, even Sarah Palin is being universally ignored by all sides of the electorate.

        And with the 2012 elections the GOP has learned that, even with bottomless billions handed to them, when it comes down to the votes – the GOP can’t even buy enough votes to beat back liberalism in today’s America. They know they have to negotiate and give back with Obama’s recent electoral mandate. They just don’t seem to want to be too quick to come to the table – and instead seem willing to force the centrist Republicans to move across the aisle without party backing. It’s odd, them giving up their own that way.

        Mitch O’Connell thinks it’s a laugh riot, Well, from the security of his old Kentucky home-district he’s pretty safe all right and probably gets extra votes for laughing at the President. Other Republicans — not so much.

        When we see Texas headed to being a blue state in another 15 years, realists see the writing on the wall and know change in the GOP is needed. And as realist Republicans move towards the center its going to make the far right fringers even more ridiculous and extreme.

        It’s like a big ol’ snowball rolling down the hill. The landscape won’t be the same after its done.

    • Wild_Willie

      The old I’ll give you a dollar. “But I’m asking for 2 billion.”
      You are correct in the negotiation but the proposals have to be somewhat realistic to start with. But go ahead and explain away Obama’s failed leadership. His favorite color is plaid by the way. ww

  • EricSteel

    Blah Blah Blah, same old same old big talk. Yet when the time comes to walk the walk, we see why he was Ted Kennedy’s best friend.

  • 914

    The gift of the Marxi.. More new taxes..

  • Not ‘Bait and Switch.’ ‘Cloward and Piven.’

  • jim_m

    For all the lefties here who are in denial about this being a bait and switch I would simply ask that if obama is serious about cutting spending, what is stopping him from outlining those cuts right now?

    Also, why is he asking for another stimulus package?

    And finally, why has he not passed a budget? Why has he failed to offer a budget that will garner a single vote in the Senate?

    These are not characteristics of a person serious about cutting spending. These are evidence of someone who has no intention of cutting spending at all but who intends to increase it.

  • Commander_Chico

    As long as they can pay my Navy reserve pension in a few years with something worth something, I’m cool with whatever happens.

    I predict a last minute deal and muddling through.

    • UOG

      I agree, Chico… but it won’t be a “deal”.

      Obama is keeping himself out of direct involvement as he’s done in the past so that negotiations between Republicans and his proxies can grind away and ultimately go nowhere. Essentially he’s running out the clock. In the last few days of the calendar year he will step forward with his proposal (tax increases now, cuts to be made at some time in the future) when the Congress has maybe 1 day left to come into session and either accept his plan or go over the cliff. It’ll pass despite “brave” posturing and much wailing.

      • Commander_Chico


      • Carl

        If it’s a fiscal cliff you’ve got to have a clifthanger of a show, right?

        It’s Washington Kabuki Theater at the highest level.

    • jim_m

      Wow. “Fuck the rest of the nation, as long as I get what I want I don’t give a damn.” Somehow I don’t think that is the Navy motto. You can cease any pretense that you are a patriot for serving your country. You didn’t do it for your country if that is your attitude.

      • Brucehenry

        And you didn’t do it at all.

        • jim_m

          Nope. I was raised by leftists who despised the military. By the time I came around to respecting it, it seemed a little late to join up.

          • Brucehenry

            You really should, as Ryan says, stick to the facts, Jim. (Ryan definitely has you pegged.)

            When you resort to personal attacks, as you usually do, you reveal yourself as a real schmuck.

            “Obviously you’ve never had to meet a payroll.” Well, actually, I have, but YOU haven’t.

            “You can cease any pretense that you are a patriot for serving your country.” Says the schmuck who didn’t serve. But it wasn’t his fault! It was his parents’ fault!


          • jim_m

            Screw you. I have helped run a company and dealt with the burn rate and made decisions on how we spent our money and who we let go. It’s a little different in a corporate setting but the essentials are the same. Maybe it’s you who should stfu.

            I respect those who served. Not those who spit on our country afterwards and wrap themselves in the flag and call themselves patriots because they served with the expectation of “getting theirs”.

          • Brucehenry

            And right back at ya, buddy.

            When you make comments like “Obviously you’ve never had to meet a payroll” to a guy who HAS, and “You can cease any pretense you are a patriot for serving your country” when YOU HAVEN’T SERVED, you should expect to get called on it.

            Sorry if it hurts your precious feelings, Mary. Maybe you’ll think twice before blurting out such nonsense in the future if the consequences upset you so much.

          • Where’s your DD-214?

          • jim_m

            No,it was not my parents fault. But it was a circumstance. It is not a dishonor to not serve. Chico actually does think that and has on numerous occasions expressed ho w he believes that those who have not served have no right to opine on military and national security matters.

          • jim_m

            Actually, more to the point when I graduated college I was 6′ tall and 135 pounds. I was not what most think of as he military type. I was probably 20 pounds lighter when I was a freshman.

          • Brucehenry

            It doesn’t matter why you didn’t serve. I didn’t serve either. But unlike you, I’m not casting aspersions on the motives of a guy who DID.

          • Well, per chicka, if you didn’t serve you have no right to opine on the matter.

            Where’s your DD-214?

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently “Moderator” Rodney has forgotten a.) how to read, and b.) that he has forbidden me to reply directly to Hisself.

            Doesn’t prevent him from, coward-style, replying to ME, you understand.

          • Where’s your DD-214?

      • Commander_Chico

        I earned that pension, God damn it.

        While you were relaxing in some cubicle in Boston or wherever, I was relaxing in my rack on a ship in the Mediterranean.

        While you were sitting at home watching a game on Sunday afternoon, I was filling out enlisted evaluations and training schedules at a Naval Reserve Center.

        • jim_m

          Hey, you earned that retirement and you earned the other benefits that come from having served.

          However, the attitude of “as long as they pay my pension, I”m cool with whatever happens to everyone else” is seriously uncool. People will eventually have to deal with a reduction in entitlement benefits. As far as I am concerned everything ought to be on the table. I would hope that benefits for veterans would not have to be cut.

          I think the attitude that anyone should expect that their interests are sacrosanct is foolish. That is the attitude that guarantees failure to solve the problem. Our unfunded liabilities are many times the $16T debt when you consider the interest that will have to be paid on it. Selfish attitudes like yours will guarantee that not only are military pensions not paid, but that everyone who needs Social Security, Medicare etc lose all of their benefits.

        • You didn’t build that…

  • 914

    At this point in time I think we as Americans and as employer’s of these political mouthpieces ignore what they say and focus on what they actually do. I do not take any of them seriously.

  • Digg34

    I say give it him. Let Obama and Reid have every thing they are asking for on every count. I am sick of this long drawn out painful death they are causing. Let them burn it all down fast. Then we can rebuild it.

  • Pingback: Sen. Orrin Hatch: Obama Fiscal Proposal ‘Classic Bait and Switch’ [Video] |

  • Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens
    the Greediest Generation as he compared “Social Security ” to
    a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
    Here’s a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana …
    I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it
    “Hey Alan, let’s get a few things straight!!!!!
    1.As a career politician, you have been on the public dole
    (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.
    2.I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since
    I was 15 years old. I am now 63).
    3.My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other
    Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing
    account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid
    the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in
    return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning
    Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie
    Madoff proud.
    4.Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and “your ilk”
    pulled the proverbial football away
    from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved
    the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW,
    you and your “shill commission” are proposing to move the
    goalposts YET AGAIN.
    5.I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into
    Medicare from Day One, and now “you morons” propose to change the
    rules of the game. Why? Because “you idiots” mismanaged other
    parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our
    money from Medicare to pay the bills.
    6.I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income
    taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes
    yet again. Why? Because you “incompetent bastards” spent our
    money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after
    you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and
    say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
    To add insult to injury, you label us “greedy” for calling
    “bullshit” to your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a
    few questions for YOU:
    1.How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers
    during your pathetic 50-year political career?
    2.At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career,
    and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from
    the American taxpayers?
    3.How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?
    4.What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you
    proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as
    usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?
    It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators
    called Congress who are the “greedy” ones. It is you and your
    fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the
    American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.
    And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our
    expense, you lunk-headed, leech.
    That’s right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the
    sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You
    know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.
    And you can take that to the bank, you miserable son of a bitch.
    NO, I did not stutter.
    If you like the way things are in America delete this.
    If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says,
    please PASS IT ON!!!!
    P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits “entitlements”.
    I have been paying in to the SS system for 45 years â?oIt’s my
    moneyâ?-give it back to me the way the system was designed and
    stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by
    doling out these