Obama Threatens to Crash Global Economy Unless He Gets Everything He Wants

This is the most petulant, most arrogant president in American history and now he is threatening to purposefully crash the global economy unless the Republicans bend over backwards, betray their voters, and give Obama every political policy he wants.

Obama keeps claiming that he and his Eurocratic Democrat Party cohorts won’t “pay a ransom” over the current budget impasse in Washington DC. But with his sudden insistence that the GOP abandon the sequester cuts–the only real cuts the GOP has managed to put into place–then he’ll crash the US and global economies. So, essentially Obama is demanding a $1.1 trillion dollar ransom!

$1.1 trillion, as it happens, is what the sequester was going to save. Granted the sequester wasn’t really made up of anything other than cuts in the growth of federal spending, but still it was $1.1 trillion in spending that wasn’t going to happen.

But, now Obama is threatening to force the USA into default unless the GOP abandons even that tiny cut in spending.

You may recall that Obama was saying last week that it would be horrible if a Democrat Congress was threatening US default just to force a president to do their bidding; something he is (falsely) claiming that the GOP is doing. But here is Obama doing essentially the same thing; holding the country and the global economy hostage and now demanding a ransom of $1.1 trillion in higher spending (of money we don’t have) unless Congress bows to his every wish.

Obama has also continuously lied saying he’s willing to “talk” to anyone about any issue. Well, let me rephrase that. He’s certainly told the truth that he’s willing to merely “talk,” But he is a lair to lead Americans to believe that he will listen to a single word told to him and compromise his policy ideas based on such conversations. Barack Obama has never made a political compromise in his life. Not when he was in state government, not in Washington. He sees no reason to start now.

And he’s willing to destroy not only America’s economy to get his way, but he’s ready to destroy the world economy.

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 15, 2013.
Filed under Asshats, Barack Obama, Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Economics, Liberals.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Hank_M

    Why would he compromise?

    He has Reid in the Senate who even turned down the compromise offered by Susan Collins. And her proposal was to raise the debt ceiling and fund the govt at sequester levels for 6 months. In return she asked for a delay on the medical device tax and, horrors, income verification for Obamacare.

    He has the media, all in lockstep referring to the “republican shutdown”, and never calling out the dems on their childish tactics and behavior.

    And Obama has the republicans, who are still busy trying to gather a circular firing squad. Republicans too worried about [bogus] polls and being called racists.

    Again, why compromise?
    Besides, compromising might show a shred of leadership. And Obama is ill equiped to demonstrate that.

  • alanstorm

    “Obama Threatens to Crash Global Economy Unless He Gets Everything He Wants”

    But remember, it’s all the Tea-partyin’ Republicans fault. Somehow.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Sharron Angle wouldn’t grasp the irony. That aside, but on a related topic, exactly how naive is the conservative blogosphere? Obviously Obama has no intention of doing anything other than acting out like a corrupt and ruthless Chicago politician. Which is who and what is is. Why would he do anything else? Politics has consequences. Obama’s been reelected. He’ll be president until Jan. 2017. His people control a substantial majority in the U.S. Senate. When Idiocracy conservatives and faux conservative poseurs stay home and don’t vote to ‘send mesages’ and ‘prove points’ they elect Democrats. Politics is about power, it’s not about coffee klatches, Sunday school or sewing circles. Obama also controls nearly the entire mass media. No matter what happens the low information voter will blame the GOP. Welcome to reality. It’s not the country club.

    • Retired military

      It is bad when someone puts down Obama on this site and yet receives as many down votes as you do. Take a hint and either talk like us regular folk or go away.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Sorry, can’t go there. Mr. Westlake is, at best, tiresome. But I won’t banish somebody because they don’t “talk like us” [down ding him because he says the same thing over and over, yes - banish, no].

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          I didn’t read that as a call for banishment.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Well, I don’t mean to pick a fight over this, but what does: “Take a hint and either talk like us regular folk or go away” mean? Isn’t RM [I agree with him probably 95% of the time] saying “If you don’t talk like us, go away?”
            Doesn’t banish mean: “To drive away?” [it does in my dictionary].
            I could be dead wrong – won’t be the first time – but the comment just rubbed me the wrong way.

          • Brucehenry

            What bothers me about it, and forgive me, RM, is the idea that someone who uses big words and fancy phrases ought to dumb down his comments to the level of “us regular folk.”

            I don’t put on airs, I don’t think, at least not much, but there are times I feel the need to use a word that may be obscure or not used much. I don’t feel that makes me NOT “regular folk.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            While you may not put on airs, you do fancy yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            Who said that? My eyes aren’t what they used to be.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Must be the viagra.

          • Brucehenry

            Or something

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I read it more as engage or leave us be, which sentiment I agree with 100%.

        • jim_m

          I agree there is no need to banish him. But I don’t think that was what RM was saying. He was just suggesting that LW engage rather than wasting his time. (he could also learn how to write in paragraphs)

          • Walter_Cronanty

            He could also learn to post something with an original thought. That stuff about people who don’t vote [which I largely agree with], even if it were a cat with nine lives, he has beaten it to death.

          • jim_m

            I gave up on reading his screeds quite some time ago. They are repetitious and dull. He refuses to organize his thinking in any coherent manner so his enormous blocks of texts are nearly unreadable.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I don’t think that LW is a person, I suspect that he is a poorly written chat-bot.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          I’d be happy if he just made more than one LONG paragraph. It’s hard to tease out the ideas he’s got from a wall’o’text.

          • Jwb10001

            His ideas are “don’t go all Glenn Beck” and “who’s crack pipe are you smoking from” sometimes it’s “are you smoking from Glenn Beck’s crack pipe” that’s really about it.

  • Sky__Captain

    Unfortunately for President StompyFeet, the Constitution requires the Treasury to pay the debt obligations first. Since more than enough tax revenues come in to pay those obligations along with items such as Social Sercurity, adefault is not technically possible.
    However, as our 5-year-old man/child of a president has shown with the National Mall, he will break the law to punish the American people to get his way.

    • jim_m

      A default is not a legal option, but it is a political option that the dems are willing to take. They would be glad to destroy this nation.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Since when does 0bama observe and enforce the laws as written?

        • jim_m

          Never. That was the point.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        They figure they’ll make out all right. After all, look at the Hunger Games. They figure they’ll do well in Capitol City…

  • stan25

    It is not only Barry acting like a two year old child, it is also the DemocRAT leadership in the Congress. Dingy Harry, Schmucky Schumer, Dick Turban, and Nancy Puglosi are just as culpable. Not one state controlled media outlet is reporting that fact. Why, one may ask? They want the Republicans to lose in the House. That is their game plan from the very beginning.

  • jim_m

    The democrats will destroy this nation rather than give an inch. They would rather see everyone impoverished than to yield on even one minor item. I say let them do it and then we can render justice outside of the failed legal system that they will have destroyed with the nation.

    • Brucehenry

      LOL you’re gonna get out from behind your keyboard and personally “render justice outside the failed legal system?”

      That’ll be the day.

      Nice that Warner finally admits that a default actually WOULD crash the economy, something he doesn’t seem worried about when it is the GOP threatening it. I don’t know what funhouse mirror he’s looking into to see Obama making the threat that was the Republican’s threat all along. He doesn’t include any links.

      EDIT: The Wall Street Journal implies that if the sequester cuts are abandoned it will be the fault of Ted Cruz and the Lunatics, hottest anarcho-punk band in DC.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579121901546205672.html

      • jim_m

        Nothing wrong with a jacquerie.

        Nobody has contested that a default would wreck the economy. It has been stated that obama has threatened default as a way to punish the nation for not mindlessly going along with his destructive policies.

        The GOP never threatened to force a default. Everyone with a brain knows that revenue is still coming in. Have you not noticed that your withholding is still being taken from your paycheck? Or are you just another lying ideologue that makes shit up?

        Since revenue is coming in there is no need for default and a government shutdown necessitates default no more than it necessitates closing open air monuments. It’s just more petty bullshit from the Whiner in Chief and his dumbass boot lickers like you.

        • Brucehenry

          OK Jim everybody is chicken little apparently the Oct 17 deadline is no big deal.

          So which is it? Let me guess. If Obama causes a default it will be catastrophic armagedddon but if the GOP causes it it’s no biggie.

          You klll me. “The GOP never threatened to force a default.” What planet do you live on. They did it in 2011, causing a credit downgrade, and they’ve been doing it again for the last two weeks.

          Oooops, correction, they were gonna shut down the government to stop Boogedymonster Obamacare and when that failed they’ve been threatening to not raise the debt ceiling, which WOULD CAUSE DEFAULT you moron.

          Because no matter what the consequences must be, they MUST fuck with Obama, just for the sake of fucking with Obama. Everybody sees it except the 27% who are deranged Obamahaters like yourself.

          • jim_m

            The GOP cannot cause it because they have o control over whether or not it gets paid. Simple as that.

            Only obama can cause it. Only obama could stop the treasury from making the debt payment.

            So to answer your question, it is only a problem if obama causes the default because only he can cause it. However, if the GOP could do anything to control it and if they actually chose to default then it would still be a problem.

            Only dishonest ideologues like you are saying that it isn’t a problem depending on who causes it.

          • Brucehenry

            God almighty we’re truly down the rabbit hole with you lunatics. Black is white, up is down, but one thing’s for sure everything is Obama’s fault.

          • jim_m

            OK genius. Then enlighten us as to how it is that the GOP has suspended revenues and will be able to force the executive branch of government, which they do not control but obama does, to default on the debt payment.

            Come on… You tell us it is the GOP’s fault. Pony up the reasoning.

            [edit] btw, raising the debt ceiling is not required to pay the debt coming due. Plus the GOP has passed several appropriations bills and the Dems have killed them all, so explain again just how it is that the GOP has forced a government shutdown and how they are controlling the dems into defaulting on the debt?

          • Brucehenry

            What do you think the “debt ceiling” is, Genius? Obama is bound by it.

            The government can’t simply pay interest on the debt and nothing else. Only an ignoramus would suggest it’s possible.

            Obligations are paid out as they come due. Accounting systems and computers are not programmed to pay only the interest, because no one ever envisioned that a band of 50 or 60 trolls would take over the Republican party and hence the House and create the need to pay only the interest without paying other obligations.

            EDIT: No one in the executive branch including Obama has the legal authority to pay only the interest and ignore other obligations. That would take an act of Congress, Einstein.

          • jim_m

            Umm. Read the article. It explains that in the short term there is no need to default but that long term unless the government seriously restructured its spending and made significant cuts there would be a likely default.

            There is apparently enough money available to pay the current debt payment without borrowing to do so. This is a crisis created by obama to force the GOP to give him everything he wants. That is why he has refused to negotiate.

            If there was an inevitability that the nation would default do you want to back a leader who says that he would rather default than to negotiate even one cent in compromise with the GOP? That is what you are backing. You are backing a fascist takeover of the government. You are backing the equivalent of Robert Mugabe in the US.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            The point is that we have the money to pay the debt payment but not to pay the debt payment AND spend everything that obama wants to spend. The answer is that we do not have to default because we can pay the payment and then work out a compromise on spending and increasing the debt limit.

            But obama doesn’t want any compromise. He is a rigid ideologue and refuses to negotiate on this issue just like he refused to negotiate on obamacare. This is a recurring problem with him.

            obama is on record that he would rather default on the debt and try to use it as a political weapon against the GOP than he would to negotiate any compromise.

          • Brucehenry

            The government can’t restructure it’s vast payment systems overnight. And again, the executive does not have the legal authority to NOT pay for programs approved by the legislature.

            So not only is it a practical impossibility to do as you suggest, it’s not legally possible either.

            AND, this whole article is another attempt to enter Bizarro Dimension where the consequences of a crisis wholly caused by Tea Party nutjobs becomes the sole fault of President Obama. It’s transparent and would be funny if I didn’t know all you loonies have made yourselves sincerely believe it.

          • jim_m

            OK so the Constitution says that the executive must pay the debts of the nation but it does not say that it must spend every penny appropriated. Also, it is under no obligation to spend money if it has none, except for the constitutional mandate to pay the nation’s debts.

            Your either a transparent liar or an idiot. It’s really hard to tell which.

          • Brucehenry

            Congress has authorized every single penny of whatever payments go out. The executive carries out laws passed by Congress. Have you forgotten Schoolhouse Rock?

            And yes, genius, the executive must spend every dollar appropriated by Congress for the purpose which Congress appropriated it. Nixon tried that crap in the 70s and even he wasn’t brazen enough to get away with it.

          • jim_m

            Oh, so suddenly obama is all about enforcing the laws he has selectively been enforcing for five years. How freaking convenient. It never seemed to bother you when he was selectively enforcing the election laws or the tax laws.

            It’s really hard to plead that we have to follow the law when obama has spent 5 years saying that he doesn’t have to.

            The ONLY thing the government is obligated to pay under the constitution is the debt. Show me where there is a law that supersedes the constitution.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Good lord, there you go again relying on that tired, old, irrelevant document authored by a bunch of dead [edit]white guys. Next you’ll be saying that that First Amendment thingy means you can legally criticize Obama.

          • jim_m

            that was great!

          • Brucehenry

            Does the Constitution not say that the executive shall carry out laws passed by the legislature?

          • jim_m

            The constitution does say that the executive is to carry out the laws, but it only mentions payment of debt specifically among those laws. Given that it doesn’t mention spending money on swine odor research we can safely conclude that there may be some prioritization here.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Hard to pass laws when Reid won’t allow anything out of the House.

          • Brucehenry

            If Congress passes a law that says “The US shall spend X dollars on bridges,” and that law is not vetoed, then the executive must spend X dollars on bridges. He doesn’t get to decide we’ll only pay the interest on the debt we’ve accumulated so far building bridges.

            This concept, I’m pretty sure, is there in the Constitution somewhere.

          • jim_m

            Then we await your delivering it to us.

            however, little is as clear and specific as the 14th amendment section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
            questioned.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m missing the part where it says we only have to pay interest. If we’re only paying interest on the debt, that validity umm, might be questioned.

            The rest of the Constitution DOES mention, however, something about the executive faithfully carrying out the wishes of the people as expressed by Congress. If Congress says spend money, the executive must spend it.

          • jim_m

            Interest is part of the debt. You really are dumb and really reaching for arguments. Face it, obama is willing to destroy this nation in order to get his way and you are willing to cover and apologize for him even after he has done so.

            Only debt is mention specifically as anything the government has to pay. You just cannot accept that fact can you?

          • Brucehenry

            I accept that it is the only thing mentioned specifically. That doesn’t make my point invalid however. As a matter of fact the specificity of this mention is irrelevant.

          • jim_m

            Ah yes, the old, the constitution is irrelevant tactic. Please, try not to be totally pathetic.

          • Brucehenry

            Never said the Constitution is irrelevant. I’m saying that the specificity of the mention of debt in the Constitution is irrelevant to this argument.

          • jim_m

            Not at all. If there is to be any understanding of what debts have priority then specific mention of the one debt that must be honored is relevant.

            You just don’t want to admit that fact because it guts your argument completely.

          • Brucehenry

            No. This clause in the 14th Amendment, passed in 1865, does not amend the part of the Constitution that deals with the executive faithfully carrying out laws passed by Congress.

          • jim_m

            No it amends the whole of the constitution including that part which you have still failed to produce. It is simple principle that if one thing is specifically mentioned and another is not that the issue mentioned takes precedent over the one not mentioned. Paying our debts takes priority as they are the only spending specifically mentioned as being of the type that the government must pay.

          • Retired military

            The House has said spend money. The Senate is the one that isn’t calling bills up for a vote.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            That’s not an exclusive or.

          • Retired military

            So why cant the senate pass the bills that the House has already passed to fund certain parts of the govt? Oh wait. It is just better to default and blame republicans.

          • Retired military

            I wouldn’t wipe my ass with the dailybeast.

          • Brucehenry

            Well there’s lots of publications you wouldn’t wipe your ass with. What do you have to say in response to the message now that you’ve killed the messenger?

          • Retired military

            Boehner is holding a royal flush in this poker game. He should call a press conference and say the following
            “once the senate and President have signed one of the 4 plans we originally sent forward the House is in recess. When I hear that the President and Senate have signed one of the 4 original bills than I will call the house back in session.

            That is my response to the message.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s not really a response to the linked Daily Beast article now is it?

            The article says these “default deniers” are wrong.

            So does, by the way economists and bankers around the world.

            http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15wps2_nbc-meet-the-press-imf-s-lagarde-discusses-debt-crisis-female-leadership_news

          • jim_m

            I’ll just point out that others have linked to real newspapers while you link to highly partisan opinion outlets and NBC that happens to be arguably the furthest left of any MSM outlet. Care to find something even remotely objective to support your argument?

          • Retired military

            Well Bruce
            As we have done so many times we will have to agree to disagree.
            Personally I think Obama will default no matter what just to blame the republicans. IMO that is part of his goal in an effort to destroy the republican party.

          • jim_m

            Personally I think Obama will default no matter what

            You’ve hit the nail on the head here. He will do it not just because he wants to blame the GOP but because he really does want a total collapse of society. If the dems were suggesting to suspend the 2012 elections because we were in a recession, just imagine what they will demand in 2016 when inflation is in 7 digits.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL loonie

          • jim_m

            obama defaults and Wiemar is probably the best case scenario.

            And don’t go denying that dems did suggest suspending elections because it won’t be hard to find a link to Governor Perdue making that suggestion.

            [edit] But then I am sure you will claim that she was making a joke, just like obama joked about using the IRS to investigate his political opponents and we all know that never happened. Oh wait….

          • Sky__Captain

            Scanning through your posts so far, I would opine that you are projecting quite a bit there, Bruce.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            The projection has always been strong with that one.

          • Retired military

            Actually Bruce the US has “defaulted” a few times in the past. The most recent was in 1979.

            http://mises.org/daily/5463/

            As has been stated numerous times. Obama prioritizes the obligations.

            http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/10/204977/lew-frowns-on-prioritizing-payments.html

            Testifying before the Senate Finance Committee during an unusual 8 a.m. hearing, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew all but ruled out the chances that the Obama administration would try to prioritize who gets paid in the event that next week’s debt ceiling deadline passes.
            Gee since he ALL BUT RULED IT OUT means that he can do it but he is just choosing not to.
            As I said. I think Obama is taking the view either the republicans completely capitulate or he crashes the economy. I think Obama is happy with either scenario.

            Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/10/204977/lew-frowns-on-prioritizing-payments.html#storylink=cpy

          • Retired military

            Bruce

            Since you seem to refuse to acknowledge what we are saying maybe this will help.

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2461186/Armageddon-comes-Thursday-warns-banking-chief-House-GOP-Senate-Democrats-spar.html

            Will the U.S. really reach economic Armageddon on Thursday of a deal isn’t reached?

            The U.S. has actually been spending past it’s official debt limit since mid-May 2013, and few in Washington believe that the sky will fall on Oct. 17 unless Congress finds a solution. Tax revenues are $240 billion every month, compared to just $18 billion in interest on the national debt. So the government will have what the Treasury Department needs to satisfy America’s creditors for several weeks. only the president can order the Treasury to skip those interest payments.
            So if the US defaults it will be Obama’s doing and not the republicans.

          • jim_m

            FYI, the government takes in 18% of GDP in revenue. It spends 2% of GDP to service the debt. We can pay the debt without raising the debt ceiling. We cannot pay the debt and continue spending the way your fascist messiah demands that we spend it, filling the pockets of his cronies.

            I know that math is hard for lefties but we take in far more than the debt and we can pay it if the left would only stop spending money. But then Pelosi is already on record saying that government over spending is not a problem and is a fantasy made up by the GOP.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            As stated only Obama can cause a default. That is because he is the only one that can say not to pay the interest on the debt.
            I actually think Obama is trying to cause either complete capitulation by the republicans (which is a compromise according to the dems) or else crash the system on purpose.

          • Jeff Nash

            A negative rating of 7. You must be saying someting right.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Only in a contrarian pig’s eye.

    • Commander_Chico
  • arevr18

    I would like to see an accurate story on just what the hell Obama spends his time doing these days… making baloney sandwiches, enjoying intimate time with Larry Sinclair, watching sports while drinking beer? He doesn’t seem too concerned about doing anything to end the shutdown.

    • Retired military

      What is Obama doing?
      Opining on how the Redskings should change their name.

  • Retired military

    If this were a poker game Boehner is holding a royal flush and the dems want him to fold and he is thinking about it.
    Boehner should hold a press conference and state that the House is in recess until the Senate has passed 1 of the 4 original bills and Obama has signed it. Then he should state once he hears about it on CNN then he will call the House back in session.

  • GarandFan

    Let him crash it. Everything he’s done has been “historic”. Why not the failure of the global economy?

  • Retired military

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” – Barrack Obama
    Man you have to give it to him. The one time that Obama is right he hits the nail right on the head.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Hmmm, what would history remember? Will 0bama go down in history as the grand architect of 0bamacare? Or would it be as the first american president to let the country go into default?

    Cant wait to find out.

    • jim_m

      Or would it be as the first American president to let make the country go into default?

      FIFY

  • 914

    Go ahead dumbass, make my day!

  • Retired military

    I bet Buffet will be making billions come the 17th with no deal. That inside information sure helps with investments.

  • Retired military

    Shall we look at the program that Obama will “default the US’ for
    Obama said it would cost X and it is turning out to cost at least 3X
    Obama said that it would insure everyone. Turns out the same number of folks will be uninsured as before.
    Obama said if you like your doctor you can keep it. What a joke that turned out to be.
    Obama said it would bend the cost curve down. it hasn’t
    Obama said that everyone would see their insurance costs go down. Most of the people are getting anywhere from 50-100% increase in costs.
    Obama has given out waivers to political cronies.
    Obama has delayed the business portion without going through congress.
    Obama has spent $600+ million on a website that doesn’t work, and wont work by most estimates for at least 2 months (if it is lucky) and is currently a haven for identify thieves. Security measures are inadequate. People cant find out if they get help from the govt in paying their increased insurance costs. No firm estimate can even be given (at least that is what they say) on how many have signed up. Congress gets taxpayer funds to help them pay theirs when they were explicitly not allowed to under the bill signed into law.
    I would be willing to guess that libs cant name one thing that has gone according to what Obama, Reid or Pelosi have said in public about Obamacare.
    and this is what Obama is going to drag the US and the rest of the world into recession for.
    What a deal.’
    .

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    Looks like Snowden is right about a lot of things, a hero for sure. Obama is not that big, there is someone always ready to shed light on this evil Regime. We all know what BHO is up to – no good. As Snowden said in Democracy Now the NSA doesn’t make us more safe it makes us less safe. Better think about that, and Hussein Obama better quit making threats. Regimes come and Regimes go, looks like this BHO must go, he’s getting too smart for his lying pants on fire.

  • jim_m

    The house voted 11 times to reopen the government but obama and Reid said no.

    Of course that truth doesn’t stop ideologues like Bruce saying that it is the GOP that is trying to destroy this country.

  • Vagabond661

    Do they really want the First Black President to claim he can’t pay his bills?

  • http://www.traveLightgame.com/ ljcarolyne

    What a brat. Obama needs to see a doctor for anger management, but probably wouldn’t work for a reprobate mind. Just got a call beggin’ as usual for more money to do something about this friggin’ Obama. Well, well, sorry about that, it should have already been done IMO! I don’t care what they all do, just so they get’er done, but not on my nickel this time. I’m done! GRRRRRRR
    How about the military, where have they all gone? Just where have all the
    flowers gone . . .long time passing?

  • Tom Higgens

    he should of made demands instead of just asking congress to do it’s job and fund the economy. Should have said unless taxes are raised on the rich and unless birth control is promised for all and unless gun control hapens right now, thay he would shut the goverment down. that is what the GOP did.

    • jim_m

      Actually that is exactly what obama did. He demanded to get everything he was asking for and refused to negotiate an inch. The GOP passed 11 funding bills, not all of which defunded or postponed obamacare and he said he would veto every last one of them.

      • Tom Higgens

        All he asked for was funding for Laws that Congress had already passed (and therefore agreed to fund) You didn’t have the votes to stop passage of the AFHC or its components so you can’t say that was a new negotiation. All of that was agreed upon (like it or not) when it was passed. A ransom demand from the presdient would have asked for changes. Like saying congress must add single payer to the AFHCA. He didn’t that was the House.

        • jim_m

          Actually, if it were up for a vote today we would have the votes to stop its passage. And regardless of that obama has totally screwed up the implementation. Even the most ignorant of fools would have predicted that obamacare would get more response online than the prescription plan for Medicare, yet obama planned for fewer unique visters than Bush did. What an ass.

          This is not a ransom demand. The proposal to delay implementation stems from a rational and reasoned view that obamacare is not ready. Even most on the left have been honest enough to admit that it needs to be delayed. Only fascist idiots are still denying that.

          Also, there were bills passed that did not delay or defund obamacare but were passed to fund things like the DC city government. Obama said he would veto that and Reid killed it, so obama is holding the people of DC hostage to his own megalomaniacal demands for slave like obedience.

          • Tom Higgens

            Whether you have the votes today doesn’t matter. You didn’t then and the law was passed. So it is a law. If you want to change it the correct way to do so is with enough votes in the house, Senate and a president who will sign the law (or who you can override with enough votes) The president made no policy demands. At all. That was the right.

          • jim_m

            There are a number of ways to deal with a law that you don’t like and they are all legal. You can repeal it directly. You can refuse to pass subsidiary legislation that implements that law. You can postpone the effective date of the law. You can deny funding for the parts of government that need to implement the law.

            You are such a big man telling everyone to suck it up because obamacare is law. Well suck it up little man, the appropriations process is the law too and if you don’t like it too bad. Elections have consequences when people that you don’t like win and not just when your side wins.

            If obama was making no policy demands then why did he say that he was going to veto every bill coming out of the House? Oh yeah, because he was making policy demands.

            Grow up and stop your whining.

          • Tom Higgens

            “little man” Actually I’m 6’2” and would likely knock you on your ass. But, anyway I digress. you want to suck up something suck up that victory the tea nuts led you too. Oh Wait HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

          • Vagabond661

            You mean like the current immigration law is the law. The one Arizona tried to enforce and got shutdown by the DOJ.

    • Hawk_TX

      You actually believe that Congress funds the economy! And not the other way around?

      Please explain how congress funds the economy. Be sure to include where congress gets its money.

      • jim_m

        All money belongs to the government. Government funds the economy by what they do not keep in taxes. Taxation is merely the mechanism whereby government claws back money that you have received that you do not deserve.

        People don’t earn anything .

        People do not make anything.

        Government creates all jobs, provides all earnings, makes and builds every building, every road and every item on every store shelf.

        Everything proceeds from government and nothing happens unless government allows it to happen. You have no rights except what government tells you that you have.

        That is what he meant.

      • Tom Higgens

        No I believe congress funds laws that are implemented and bills accrued as a result of those laws. So for instance congress funds the military. . Please re read what I wrote. You seem to think I said something else.

        • Hawk_TX

          You wrote ” congress to do it’s job and fund the economy.”. Which is exactly what I thought you wrote, because you did. Now you are denying it instead of defending your incredibly stupid beliefs.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      The government only has those monies which it takes from the economy via taxation. All government spending is of monies taken out of the economy.

      • Tom Higgens

        You act as though it is out of the economy forever. It is not. If A tax is used to say by an f15, that is money that goes to boeing, which pays boeing employees who go spend it on a burger at mickey Ds. Taxes only remain out of the economy if they are not used.

        • jim_m

          Much of what taxes pay for is non-productive. It is not being used to produce goods or services for the marketplace. What is recycled is therefore at a very steep premium.

          Also, government tends to spend money on things that never produce anything such as grants for the arts and humanities. Even scientific grants do precious little in terms of recycling money into the economy.

          And finally, every dollar spent has tremendous overhead associated with it. It is much more efficient to spend those dollars directly through the tax payer without filtering it through a parasitic government. Also, the government is very good at making bad choices for investments. One need only look at the billions obama has misspent a green energy companies to see how worthless the spending has been.

          Government spending is by definition less effective that private spending for the simple fact that instead of producing something it pays all that overhead first.

          • Tom Higgens

            Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know that is what you believe except when you don’t and say you are the champions of keeping the government open (which you hate) but whatever. Keep following those tea nuts. you and Charlie Sheen WINNING!!!!

  • Constitution First

    What part of “The Cloward – Piven Strategy” aren’t you people getting?
    Barry is clearly a Sockpuppet with Valerie Jarrett’s hand up his backside.
    If you were wondering why Dear Leader spent $1.25M (he can’t account for) to hide his college papers, think about how insightful Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley College senior thesis paean to Saul Alinski was to understanding her M.O.