Tea partiers should be boiling at $1.1 trillion bill
We’re in need of some fresh, hot tea, and not just because it’s been so cold outside.
Senate Democrats — and some Republican accomplices — want to defy the will of the voters and have one last big-government hurrah. If there was ever a moment for tea partiers to prove to everyone that they’re not going away, this is it.
The immediate threat is a $1.1 trillion spending bill, with some 6,500 earmarks in its nearly 2,000 pages, which Senate Democrats suddenly unveiled Tuesday and want to pass ASAP. The bill would essentially freeze the bloated federal budget through the end of this fiscal year.
In every respect, this is the kind of action voters rejected at the ballot box last month. It is a budget-busting, debt-inducing, written-in-the-dark and rammed-through-before-daylight bill.
Democrats didn’t have the courage to pass such a spending bonanza before the election. They knew the public would punish them for it, and they took the unusual step of refusing to pass an appropriations bill (actually, 12 appropriations bills rolled into one “omnibus” spending package). Well, they refused to do so before now, anyway.
That they punted on this most basic of congressional duties before the election, just to avoid voter scrutiny, is bad enough. But it’s even worse that they are carrying on even after voters handed them the broadest, deepest electoral defeat for either of the major parties in decades: 63 lost seats in the U.S. House and more than 675 in state legislatures. The latter reflects a more decisive repudiation of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Democrats than Republicans suffered after Watergate.
It’s as if we caught the thieves in our house red-handed, and they’re trying to stuff a few more pieces of jewelry in their bags before they flee.
To be fair, it’s not just Democrats at fault here. The Dems can’t get this monstrosity through the Senate without at least a few GOP collaborators, and four Republicans reportedly are considering such a betrayal.
Two of them, Ohio’s George Voinovich and Missouri’s Kit Bond, are retiring. A third, Utah’s Bob Bennett, lost this spring in a GOP primary that was largely fought on fiscal issues. The fourth, Maine’s Susan Collins, is no stranger to siding with Senate Democrats rather than conservative principles. Whatever their motivation, they are flouting the will of the voters.
So, too, are a number of Republicans who have inserted earmarks into the bill. One examination of the bill found just eight of the Senate’s 42 current Republicans requested zero earmarks. The Senate’s top two earmarkers in this round of pork appear to be Mississippi Republicans Thad Cochran (230 earmarks) and Roger Wicker (199).
Another 42 earmarks were tied to Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss, with 24 more from our senior senator, Johnny Isakson. It’s small consolation that they and most Republicans say they won’t vote for the bill even though it contains money for their pet pork projects.
Should the bill pass, House Republicans could do much more when they take the reins in January than merely rescinding the earmarks. They also ought to pass a bill ending the practice of holding lame-duck sessions, in which politicians can thumb their collective nose at voters’ demands. And then they should dare the Senate and President Barack Obama not to go along with them.
But if we’re going to get such results, much less keep the Senate from spending another $1.1 trillion in the first place, we need to see and hear a strong protest from tea partiers. Now’s the time to show they wanted to do more than elect some more spendthrift Republicans.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
168 comments Add your comment
e
December 16th, 2010
10:37 am
Let us faceit, no one is in the least interested in how much government spends, it is how much they get of it. There was a scam on town supervisors in NYS to see how many would take a bribe, all but one went for it, and the one dissenter did not because the bribe was not big enough.
Kyle Wingfield
December 16th, 2010
10:49 am
JDW: You’re correct about most of the tax bill “cost” being front-loaded. My mistake.
However, I would note that, for this year, we are still talking about a 4:1 ratio versus the spending bill (which only covers nine months since we are already a quarter of the way into the fiscal year, I also should have pointed out). I would also note that the biggest parts of the “cost” aren’t for tax cuts for “the rich”; they’re for the rest of the income-tax brackets and for the AMT patch.
Now, why do I keep putting scare quotes around “cost”? (There, I just did it again.) Because, further to the General Feeling’s point, reduced revenues are only a “cost” (i.e., produce a deficit) if spending isn’t cut to match them. And I think it’s very, very difficult to argue that the message of this election was something other than: Cut spending to close the deficit.
Which brings me back to the Dems pushing through this bloated spending bill in a lame-duck session.
And yes, it’s bloated even though it’s “just” a 2% increase. That’s because it’s a 2% increase on consecutive years of much bigger increases. As I and some others argued at the time, the Dems are trying to bake those increases into the budget cake. They don’t want them to be the temporary increases they sold them as. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be cutting spending by 10% or more, in real terms, rather than continuing to increase it.
Dr. Pangloss
December 16th, 2010
10:54 am
The Tea Party isn’t worried about government spending. They weren’t out in the streets with their misspelled signs when the national debt quadrupled under Reagan + Bush #1. They weren’t waving their guns around when it doubled under Bush #2.
They’re boiling because the president is (partly) black and (somewhat) liberal.
And some of them are angry because poor people get to vote.
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
10:56 am
Kyle, just to see what your philosophy is, why should we cut spending? Can you make a cogent argument?
Jefferson
December 16th, 2010
11:01 am
Sounds like a revenue problem, how the bills gonna get paid ?
Kyle Wingfield
December 16th, 2010
11:12 am
MarkV: I’ve been writing about cutting spending, size and scope of government, etc. 1-2 times a day for the past year-plus. I don’t think I’m going to set out much more of a personal philosophy in a single comment…
JDW
December 16th, 2010
11:14 am
@Kyle, I agree that the biggest part of the tax cut is not for the rich…problem is that we simply can’t afford any of it right now for anyone. IMO it should have never been done and should be allowed to expire. It has already dug a $3 Trillion plus deficit hole. STOP DIGGING.
On the spending, yep it is, as always, bloated and BOTH parties are squarely to blame. The thing that burns my butt is that some of our representatives are incredibly disingenuous…for example:
“It’s completely inappropriate; I’m vigorously in opposition to it,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who then had to admit the bill included earmarks for projects in his home state of Kentucky. Indeed, the spending levels are specifically designed to meet appropriations targets that McConnell and much of the Republican leadership espoused only months ago.
The Republicans are flat lying to the American public. They helped write the spending bill, stuffed it full of pork, and tossed it over to the Dems so they don’t have to take the heat…business as usual.
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
11:16 am
Kyle, you have been writing either about specific issues, or about vague notions of “getting spending under conrol.”
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
11:19 am
JDW: While I generally agree with you, I would challenge you, just like I have challenged Kyle, to define what is “bloated spending.”
JDW
December 16th, 2010
11:19 am
@Kyle,
” And I think it’s very, very difficult to argue that the message of this election was something other than: Cut spending to close the deficit.”
I must take exception to that comment…
From CBS News
Of all the problems facing the country today which one do you most want the congress to concentrate on first when it begins in January.
Ecomomy and Jobs 56%
Health Care 14%
Deficit 4%
Immigration 2%
Education 2%
Wars 2%
Taxes 2%
Other 9%
Please note taxes and spending combined comprise only 6% of the response…I think that it is very difficult to argue that taxes and spending should be anything more than a side issue at the moment, according to the public.
I think you misread the message.
Not So Casual Observer
December 16th, 2010
11:22 am
Do you just love the racist posts here who claim the opposition to the Democrat Socialists, and Republican Socialists, is because the President may or may not have black heritage?
I believe Obama and Clinton are the only two Presidents in recent history who have refused to release their medical records.
In the case of Clinton the records likely indicate numerous std’s (pure speculation I know) but what is the issue with the current POTUS? Clues to his lineage perhaps? Or just an ugly mole somewhere?
Yes, poor people vote and look at the results. Exit polls indicated they voted for Obama because he had a female running mate (Palin) or his opposition to abortion. Obviously the election is a beauty contest and an opportunity to vote for someone who will keep pouring money into welfare so they will not have to work. You do remember the Dem convention woman who said Obama was going to pay her mortgage, her gasoline and for her food? How is that working out?
The Democrats have promoted class warfare for the last 50+ years and now here we are with entitlement programs sucking the life out of the country, not just in money but more importantly in the incentive to work and succeed.
All 535 Members are back in the vote-buying business if the omnibus bill passes!
Come on Pangloss and Jefferson be honest. All you really care about is the next handout!
Keep voting for these R and D crooks and then see how you like a one-world government with dolts like David Rockefeller making the decisions.
JDW
December 16th, 2010
11:22 am
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
11:19 am
“JDW: While I generally agree with you, I would challenge you, just like I have challenged Kyle, to define what is “bloated spending.””
I don’t think there has ever been a spending bill that did not contain something that could be called bloated. However in most cases it is just ground noise. I think that the recommendations from the recent deficit reduction commission coupled with history from the Clinton years support spending and tax revenue parity at between 20% and 21% of GDP.
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
11:30 am
JDW: But the “spending and tax revenue parity at between 20% and 21% of GDP” are just numbers, without any real basis. Recommendation of the deficit reduction commision surely cannot count as one, and history from the Clinton years is just that, history of what happened at a particular time,.
Not So Casual Observer
December 16th, 2010
11:38 am
JDW,
While somewhat enlightening there are problems with your reference:
First – CBS News – The “We distort and you decide” network, by Dan Rather.
Second – The respondents are most likely TV viewers and thus 70% of the responses are direct “me” issues (jobs and healthcare). The TV crowd is not smart enough to understand the biggest problem affecting all of the others is the deficit and the debt created by the deficit.
Third – The respondents are clearly not educated enough to understand the drain on the economy and jobs created by illegal immigration, not to mention the security issues.
We are not a Democracy, the US is a Constitutional Republic, a land of laws, and the Congress is elected to vote in the best interests of the nation as a whole, not to vote based upon the whimsy of the populace. Unfortunately, the Congress has devolved into voting in their own interest and that of their supporters and friends.
JDW
December 16th, 2010
11:51 am
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
11:30 am
“JDW: But the “spending and tax revenue parity at between 20% and 21% of GDP” are just numbers, without any real basis. Recommendation of the deficit reduction commision surely cannot count as one, and history from the Clinton years is just that, history of what happened at a particular time,.”
Agreed, they are target numbers. Using them as a base you can then work backwards to reduce spending to those levels. If you want to play with the numbers you can visit The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s site. It is the best budget simulation I have seen.
http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/
Yes, the Clinton years are history. They are the only time in recent history that spending and revenue were in parity and looking at how that was achieved allows one to build a model to fix our current problem.
Left wing management
December 16th, 2010
12:07 pm
Not So Casual Observer: “The Democrats have promoted class warfare for the last 50+ years and now here we are with entitlement programs sucking the life out of the country, not just in money but more importantly in the incentive to work and succeed.”
There’s only one real case of “class warfare” going on right now: the class warfare being waged by the crony capitalists and reckless financial speculators, and the cover given them by certain people, especially those who throw around the charge that there are some Americans who pay no income taxes.
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
12:12 pm
JDW: While I find the simulation interesting, it only underscores the main problem: Different people will make different choices, resulting in different outcomes. The main discrepancies are between what people want from the government, what they are willing to pay for, and who should pay how much. It was revealing how Sen. Cornyn answered the question about why he put his earmarks in. He said those project were “defensible.” All the spending is “defensible” is you take individual items and the constituencies that want them. To call spending “bloated” is meaningless unless you define which part YOU think is bloated, and then you have people who have completely different opinion. I think most everybody would agree that the government for the most part should not spend more than the revenue. The disagreement is in what to spend it for..
JDW
December 16th, 2010
12:19 pm
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
12:12 pm
“JDW: While I find the simulation interesting, it only underscores the main problem: Different people will make different choices, resulting in different outcomes. The main discrepancies are between what people want from the government, what they are willing to pay for, and who should pay how much. It was revealing how Sen. Cornyn answered the question about why he put his earmarks in. He said those project were “defensible.” All the spending is “defensible” is you take individual items and the constituencies that want them. To call spending “bloated” is meaningless unless you define which part YOU think is bloated, and then you have people who have completely different opinion. I think most everybody would agree that the government for the most part should not spend more than the revenue. The disagreement is in what to spend it for..”
Fair enough. My approach to the problem is one of a model. If we can bring revenue and spending into parity, then any new spending must be paid for via some revenue source and any tax cuts must be offset by spending cuts.
I think that is where the actual line item battle would occur. As to what I would specifically cut the results of the deficit commission are a good start though I would move faster than they suggest.
retiredds
December 16th, 2010
1:03 pm
Yes, Kyle and other conservatives, the Republicans are on the band wagon as well …. and have been for at least the last 20 years. Kyle, there are no innocent bystanders but it is so cool of you to lay most of the blame at the foot of Democrats. So, I am taking the liberty of revising your lead to: “Tea Partiers should be boiling at Democrats and Republicans at $1.1 trillion bill. Let’s us not forget that Bush’s (and he was a Republican last I checked) last budget was for a deficit of $1.3 trillion … and I can hear you now, why go back to Bush … just to make a point). As I said when it comes to politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, they can’t keep their hands out of the till. And I can remember when earmarks were called pork. And that’s what the R’s and D’s are doing, loading up the pork.
Jefferson
December 16th, 2010
1:04 pm
Let em’ boil…boiled t, add some sugar and lemon and charge $2.25 a glass.
Intown
December 16th, 2010
1:05 pm
I am the opposite of a tea partier. So I say now is the perfect time to RAM IT THROUGH and keep the government functioning through at least the end of the fiscal year.
Not So Casual Observer
December 16th, 2010
1:20 pm
Left wing,
So you propose to ignore the constant carping from the Left of “raise the taxes on the rich”?
That would be the rich, say the upper 5% of income earners who pay more than 55% of the personal income tax?
The “crony capitalists and reckless financial speculators” (your term) are being given cover by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the Obama White House, and by the W Bush, Clinton and HW Bush administrations and Congresses before them.
You also choose to throw into doubt the very real FACT that almost 50% of the people pay no federal income tax. Actually, that group not only does not pay but a significant number of them actually receive “refunds” greater than their payments into withholding.
The EIC is simply more welfare disguised as tax policy. This is policy driven by Democrats to create a “dependent class” to rely on more Democrat largesse to survive – thus my comment on sucking the incentive to work and succeed out of the people.
Not So Casual Observer
December 16th, 2010
1:33 pm
Stop the omnibus bill and let the government actually shut down for a month or two.
Tax collections cease, entitlements are disontinued and the slackers will have to develop a means to survival. Best of all, federal government employees will catch a glimpse of the real world and the mess created by the Congress and Administration, present and past.
Chaos would ensue but then that is what 20-30% of the population faces on a daily basis as homes are foreclosed, jobs are lost forever and all so the crooks in Washington can continue to take care of themselves and their buddies like David Rockefeller and George Soros.
“Tea partiers should be boiling at $1.1 trillion bill” « Tea Party NM
December 16th, 2010
1:38 pm
[...] In every respect, this is the kind of action voters rejected at the ballot box last month. It is a budget-busting, debt-inducing, written-in-the-dark and rammed-through-before-daylight bill….more [...]
HDB
December 16th, 2010
1:41 pm
Not So Casual Observer
December 16th, 2010
1:20 pm
“The EIC is simply more welfare disguised as tax policy. This is policy driven by Democrats to create a “dependent class” to rely on more Democrat largesse to survive…..”
Actually the EITC was a REPUBLICAN idea…..enacted under the Ford Administration!
…from wikipedia: Enacted in 1975, the initially modest EIC has been expanded by tax legislation on a number of occasions, including the widely-publicized Reagan Tax Reform Act of 1986, and was further expanded in 1990, 1993, and 2001, regardless of whether the act in general raised taxes (1990, 1993), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986).[6] Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that most income measures, including the poverty rate, do not account for the credit).
John
December 16th, 2010
2:17 pm
“They also ought to pass a bill ending the practice of holding lame-duck sessions, in which politicians can thumb their collective nose at voters’ demands.”
If Republicans would stop fillibustering every piece of legislation and allow bills to be debated and voted on, perhaps they could get work done throughout the year and would therefore not need to do any work in hte lame-duck sessions.
Linda
December 16th, 2010
2:33 pm
John @ 2:17, A filibuster can only be used in the Senate & can’t be used by the minority party if the majority party has 60 votes, which the Dems. had until Kennedy died in 8/09. There are now 41 Reps. in the Senate but several of them frequently vote with the Dems.
The tax cuts, passed in ‘01 & ‘03, were scheduled to expire 12/10. EVERYONE knew this. The Dems. failed to even introduce a bill to be debated until this week.
Your statement has no merit at all.
Linda
December 16th, 2010
2:41 pm
Does anyone else find it strange that the tax bill includes both tax cuts (which encourages people to work & earn more money) & an extension of unemployment benefits from 99 wks. to 112 wks. (which discourages people not to work & earn money)?
retiredds
December 16th, 2010
2:59 pm
Question, has the party out of power always ranted about lame duck sessions? If it’s evenly divided then do away with them. If it is lopsided one way or the other then keep them. To the victors belong the spoils (even if you or I don’t like it). Sort of like the mortgage mess, let the buyer beware (and don’t look for a handout when you bet the farm the wrong way).
Ed Kubeck
December 16th, 2010
3:24 pm
Thank you Kyle for make some kind of voice on this matter. I know that the Tea Party is certainly outraged by what congress is doing while the nation and media is asleep. This is proof why we need Tea Party Candidates who stand for Americans, who stand for freedom through a smaller government, who stand for good over evil. We need to get the message out that America cannot and should not trust the two party system. They have sold us out to the Banks and the lobbyist. A top of this the democrats have control of the media who say nothing about it or act like it did not happen. We need to vote tea party and we need it to be the third party choice to save America from big government and lack of national defense. I wish Kyle would also speak out on the Star Treaty that will hurt America’s National Defense.
Toby
December 16th, 2010
3:32 pm
Linda, it’s not 112 weeks, not 99 weeks. where in the world do you get your facts?
Jefferson
December 16th, 2010
3:51 pm
The t-reps were too chicken crap to run on their own two feet as an independent, so they ride the “R” coattails and will soon be in line with the rest of the uncreditable liars. More of the same, greed and fear.
MarkV
December 16th, 2010
4:25 pm
There is no point to discuss things with people like Linda, who thinks that extension of unemployment benefits “discourages people not to work & earn money.” (What does that mean, anyway?)
Linda
December 16th, 2010
4:48 pm
Toby @ 3:32, S. 3706 was introduced in Aug. by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the Tier 5 employment benefits extension bill, to provide 20 wks. of additional unemployment to the 99ers, about 2.5 million Americans who had already received 99 wks. of unemployment benefits. This bill would have extended them in states with an unemployment rate of 7.5% or higher, which included GA.
I assumed, incorrectly, that the unemployment extension of 13 wks. in the tax bill passed by the Senate, included the 99ers.
The General Feeling
December 16th, 2010
5:00 pm
@ Kyle “Now, why do I keep putting scare quotes around “cost”? (There, I just did it again.) Because, further to the General Feeling’s point, reduced revenues are only a “cost” (i.e., produce a deficit) if spending isn’t cut to match them. ”
You would get laughed out of Econ 101 for that line of thinking. See, you, like many others in journalism, have allowed the MSM to cloud your thinking.
And, tax cuts don’t always reduce tax revenues, do they?
Linda
December 16th, 2010
5:03 pm
MarkV @ 4:25, Do you think that people who live in an area with an unemployment rate of less than 8% could possibly or likely find a full-time job or 2 part-time jobs in less than 2 yrs.? Do you think that paying them for 2 yrs. increases or decreases their motivation &/or urgency? Are there people telling hirers that they want to work only a couple of days per week or to be paid under the table, so as to keep their benefits?
Left wing management
December 16th, 2010
5:05 pm
Not So Casual Observer: “So you propose to ignore the constant carping from the Left of “raise the taxes on the rich”?”
I assume you’re talking about the current debates concerning extension of the so-called Bush tax
cuts. The actual rates are of course somewhat secondary. More important is the demagogic battle over whether their lapse would represent an actual increase or not – which of course they do not.
“The “crony capitalists and reckless financial speculators” (your term) are being given cover by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the Obama White House, and by the W Bush, Clinton and HW Bush administrations and Congresses before them.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. The current president is succeeding in his desire to be Bush II, only better.
CJ
December 16th, 2010
5:14 pm
“…an omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year is still pending in the Senate, and will run into fierce Republican opposition when it’s brought to the floor, probably on Saturday. The main GOP complaint: the laundry list of earmarks, many of which they personally put in the bill.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027126.php
It is what it isn't, that is, it's not what it is.
December 16th, 2010
5:20 pm
There is no correlation between debt and growth. There is a correlation between ancestry and mongoliodism as proven every day on this comment board. Ignorance is elastic, because most of the comments here come from waistbanded.
Peter
December 16th, 2010
5:29 pm
Hey Kyle are Republican’s going to get the job market going in Georgia ?
James Woods
December 16th, 2010
5:58 pm
We should of been boiling while Bush was growing government.
The republicans laid the foundation for all of this mess.
CJ
December 16th, 2010
6:06 pm
Kyle wrote, “I think it’s very, very difficult to argue that the message of this election was something other than: Cut spending to close the deficit.”
Actually, despite this media meme, it’s quite easy to argue that the message this election was something other than: Cut spending to close the deficit.
The exit polls and other polls since have demonstrated that the majority of Americans prioritize jobs/economy first. Dealing with the deficit is typically lower in the priority list and in the single digits.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/11/politics/main7045964.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144512/Jobs-Climb-Higher-Americans-Top-Problems-List.aspx
Michael H. Smith
December 16th, 2010
6:30 pm
I call for the yeas and nays, Kyle. How many people who made a comment against earmarks on this blog wrote Georgia’s two Senator’s asking them to remove their earmarks?
I yield my yea in advance.
Dem-mentia
December 16th, 2010
6:43 pm
This speaks volumes on the Dem arrogance and blatant disregard for the American people who gave them the middle finger salute on November 3. Biden tells DeMint and others opposing the ratification of the START treaty: “Get out of the way. There’s too much at stake.” That’s the exact elitist mentality that Americans voted them out for. Arrogant Dems don’t learn much after elections, do they?
So anyway, grocery prices have grown by more than 1 1/2 times the overall rate of inflation this year. When Obama took office in January 2009, gas prices were at $1.70/gallon. Today they are $2.85. What I’d like to know is where the hell the main stream (lib) media is on all this news. Because as God as my witness they sure had conniption fits (as did the Dems) every time gas and food prices ticked up when Bush was president.
Oh silly me. These are the same people who say things like “things could be worse” and even spin unemployment figures into good news like saying it cuts down on smog and allows families to spend more time together. Follow the libs and their dancing flutes right off the cliff, right?
Linda
December 16th, 2010
7:09 pm
CJ @ 5:14, Kyle wrote that the “tea partiers should be boiling…”
It doesn’t matter who included earmarks, Dems. or Reps. The tea partiers should be fuming. I am.
The difference is that Reps. (& a few Dems.) got the message in Nov. that earmarks are no longer acceptable. Some of the Rep. earmarks are reported to have been included in the massive spending bill before the Nov. elections.
Regardless, right now, what matters to the Tea Party members is who votes for or against this bill.
It is what it isn't, that is, it's not what it is.
December 16th, 2010
7:14 pm
The gas prices are rising because China is buying more and more. Then a half hour later they buy more. They’re Chinese, okay? I’ll tell you what’s coming, man, is 2000 dollar Camry-quality cars from the chinese. I’ve always said that if America only built Camrys, and no other car, then Camrys would cost a couple of grand and everyone could have a damn Camry, but no, the capitalist pigs wizards on madison avenue had to teach us that everyone should be different and get a personalized car and now our highways are littered with pos’s. Imagine how cool it would look if everyone drove a white camry.
Linda
December 16th, 2010
7:26 pm
CJ @ 8:06, You & the Dems/progressives/socialists still don’t get the message from the American people, especially the Tea Party members, as a result of the mid-term elections.
It’s impossible to separate the priority of jobs & the economy from cutting spending & closing the deficit. They all affect each other. What you are trying to do is push the progressive Keynesian economics principle which has not worked.
Linda
December 16th, 2010
7:31 pm
It is @ 7:14, What did the socialists give you when you joined their party? Since you are against the Constitution, what rights are you willing to concede?
Left wing management
December 16th, 2010
7:53 pm
CJ: “Actually, despite this media meme, it’s quite easy to argue that the message this election was something other than: Cut spending to close the deficit.”
Exactly right.
Sabastian Curry
December 16th, 2010
8:38 pm
Obama and his men are a bunch of second-hander looting criminals that have never had a real job, never produced a service or product that anyone wanted, but now RULE over you. They have working evil little brains, but are partially mentally ill. Yes, the Republicans are a bunch of criminals as well, but they dont want to kill the golden egg. They are smarter than that.
This system is collapsing, we are being looted and destroyed.
Obama belongs in jail.
Sabastian Curry