2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight

There will be some kind of resolution for the current debt-ceiling debate well before November 2012 — my gut tells me there will be an agreement in principle by this time next week, but that’s just a hunch — but however and whenever it ends, this debate will have a huge impact on next year’s election.

The debate, regardless of how it’s being portrayed, isn’t really about who’s responsible and who isn’t. Like almost every other policy debate since the 2009 stimulus, it’s about two competing visions for the federal government going forward. Liberals want to find a way to pay for bigger government. Conservatives want to find a way to make government smaller.

The debt ceiling has gotten caught in this because conservatives feel there are few chances remaining to make sure this remains a debate rather than a foregone conclusion — that conservatives do not merely become, in Steven Hayward’s excellent phrase, the actuaries of liberalism. Republicans, still outnumbered in the Senate and out of the White House for at least 18 months, have only so many opportunities to put the fiscal brakes on. With Senate Democrats still seemingly content to continue not passing full-year budgets, the debt ceiling became one of those precious few opportunities.

The direction of the negotiations lately suggests, to me anyway, not that a deal won’t be reached but that both sides are coming to realize exactly how much they can milk the issue for. Whatever that deal ends up being — certainly not the “clean bill” President Obama requested at the start, certainly not the $9 trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about which I’ll have more to say later) — it will set the tone for next year’s GOP primaries and the general election.

For instance: If the House and Senate for now can only agree on a short-term measure to get by for a few more months (and I find Obama’s veto threat of a short-term measure is no more believable than the notion that House Republicans might not pass any kind of debt-ceiling bill), then the issue will remain in the headlines. Obama will be forced to defend his borrowing requests again, and maybe again. The GOP primaries would probably feature a lot of grandstanding that could box in the eventual nominee during the general election — a reminder that the president isn’t the only one who stands to lose politically if this issue drags on for several more months.

I actually think a longer-term debt deal (and remember, by “long term” we’re talking 18-24 months of borrowing authority, max) could be even riskier for Obama. He will make much of whatever spending cuts are included — but, as with the deal to finalize the fiscal 2011 budget, there will be a long time to scrutinize those cuts and determine whether they’re real. And, if recent and not-so-recent history is our guide, the cuts won’t be very real. Congressional Republicans would also be taking that risk, and they would have to answer for the results of the deal in their own races. But the eventual GOP nominee would be free to take a different stance without having to answer for what needs to be done in the meantime, as he/she would with a shorter-term deal.

For now, the Republican candidates have been on message trying to stiffen congressional Republicans’ spines. We’ll see if, and how, that changes once a deal is struck.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

55 comments Add your comment


July 19th, 2011
12:12 pm

“Conservatives want to find a way to make government smaller.” Unfortunately Kyle, we’re dealing with Republicans, not conservatives. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a politician to voluntarily reduce his own power. I think the last one to do it was George Washington.

In my opinion, Obama is screwing this up beyond belief. He should be in front of any and all cameras assuring people (and by people I mean anyone who is an investor of any amount of money), that no matter what, the US government will not default on its debt. Even if that means not paying Social Security, the Pentagon, Medicare, whatever. I don’t see any kind of reassurances from him in an effort to keep investors calm. The arguing back and forth has created a level of uncertainty that has probably irreparably hurt our economy already.

He needs to take a page from the Kennedy/Reagan/Clinton playbook and reassure those that have considered US T-Bills the standard of safe investment for the last 75 years, they they will remain that way no matter the cost. Let the idiots in Congress have their own battle.


July 19th, 2011
12:15 pm

“Conservatives want to find a way to make government smaller.”*

*Not intended to be a factual statement


July 19th, 2011
12:26 pm

“*Not intended to be a factual statement”

Not intended to be relevant logic

The truth

July 19th, 2011
12:42 pm


“Even if that means not paying Social Security, the Pentagon, Medicare, whatever.”

White people have lost their minds!


July 19th, 2011
12:44 pm

“Balanced Budget” is a term Democrats began using in 1966-1972 to express the concept of increasing taxes enough to produce and to accumulate excess revenue to replace borrowing as a means to pay for excess expenditures in later periods. The idea proposes to close tax loopholes and encourage prudent spending with the result of achieving a massive surplus able to replace taxes and loans with income through lending.

While a massive surplus may benefit taxpayers, those who need government services and borrowers a massive surplus is competition for private lenders.

Under a massive deficit the circumstance is reversed such that foreign governments, like China, and others who benefit from not paying taxes also benefit from interest they receive from loans they have made that are paid for by taxes.

Under massive deficit budget lenders enjoy interest while taxpayers are saddled with paying for services and debt. By preventing a massive surplus through insufficient taxes lenders can force the government to borrow even more to keep up with payments.

If “Balanced Budget” meant the same for Republicans as it does for Democrats then Republicans would have agreed to pay higher taxes to maintain a massive surplus instead of demanding lower taxes insufficient to pay for either services or debt or to achieve a massive surplus.

Both higher taxes and prudent spending remain the goals of a Democratic Balanced Budget.

The Snark

July 19th, 2011
1:24 pm

“Conservatives want to find a way to make government smaller”? Sorry, Kyle, that hasn’t been true since 1964.

The truth is that today’s conservative want to TALK about making government smaller, without actually doing anything about it, and they want to cut taxes — because this “have your cake and eat it too” approach means they don’t have to do anything that would make them unpopular with the voters. It has been the governing style of your beloved Republican Party since 1980, even during times when they controlled the White House and the Congress.


July 19th, 2011
1:39 pm

My favorite election sign seen so far..” If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you weren’t a racist, you’ll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you’re not an idiot”

Bart Abel

July 19th, 2011
1:47 pm

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with Kyle, President Obama, or anybody else that this debt ceiling vote is an “opportunity”.

The job security and financial well-being of the American people are essentially being held hostage, a metaphor used by the Wall Street Journal, to get the American people to accept budgets that we will not have time to consider and debate. To the extent that the majority of us do accept any such deal, it will be because we were coerced to do so by this threat of not raising the debt ceiling.

In the event that an “historic” agreement is reached, the message to the American people is clear: accept this agreement, the details and ramifications of which you’re not familiar with, or we’ll throw the country into a recession or perhaps a depression.

Naomi Wolf wrote a book called “The Shock Doctrine.” In it, she demonstrates that many government policies have been marketed and executed in response to disasters or upheavals, sometimes man-made disasters or upheavals. Policies that would otherwise have been unsellable. The disaster that would arise out of Congress’ failure to raise the debt-ceiling would, of course, be entirely man-made.

No politician or American should ever be forced to accept any agreement under duress. A clean debt-ceiling increase should be passed, as has been done dozens of times before over the course of many decades. Better yet, as Moody’s recommended, the artificial debt-limit (which is nothing to do lender’s willingness to lend or our our ability to pay) should be eliminated entirely and permanently.


July 19th, 2011
1:50 pm

Conservative + Republican = Dumb a$$ vs Democrat + Liberal = Dumb a$$

Dumb a$$ + Dumb a$$ = Congress


July 19th, 2011
1:51 pm

When the GOP caves, you will see ZERO credibility 1st hand.

Rafe Hollister

July 19th, 2011
1:58 pm

Our Title Max President has no interest in reducing spending. The Republicans should be shouting that from every housetop or stepping aside and let Marco Rubio do their talking. The GOP are the most inept people in politics, when it comes to getting the message out. I know the MSM constantly ignores what they are saying, but when they get a chance in front of the microphone they need to do a better job of laying out their positions. Rubio was excellent on Face the Nation Sunday, in laying out the incompetence, dishonesty, and failed logic of the Spender in Chief and his partners in crime (MSM).


July 19th, 2011
2:16 pm

the repubs were handed a surplus and pissed it away on tax cuts for the rich, a war of choice(lies), and med d to buy the votes of old farts.


July 19th, 2011
2:16 pm

Bart@1:47, “…accept this agreement, the details and ramifications of which you’re not familiar with, or we’ll throw the country into a recession or perhaps a depression.”

Reminds me of Pelosi’s famous statement about the healthcare bill, “…but we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it…”



July 19th, 2011
2:24 pm

No matter what, Dems will all pile on top of their soapbox, screaming in front of every tv camera around about how cutting will cause Grandma to go without her medicine, or how the kids won’t have school lunches, yada yada yada. Bunch o’ crap that is…they should be ashamed of themselves…but then again, threatening those who may not be able to make it on their own without gov’t help is the only way Dems have to stay in power. I just hope enough of them realize there is a better way, than never ending entitlement spending. See the light people…


July 19th, 2011
2:26 pm

Let’s see, conservatives are for smaller government. How about the chart on page one of the ATL Constitution (Jul 17) tracking the debt ceiling from 2001 – the present. From 2001 to Nov 2008 the debt ceiling was raised 9 times. I can’t remember, who was president during that period? Couldn’t have been a real Republican now could it? All you conservatives can “blah, blah, blah” all you want, but the conservatives have not been for smaller government since Reagan. So, I ask, where was the Tea Party, Grover Norquist, and all the “conservatives” from 2001 to Nov. 2008 when the debt ceiling was raised $5.4 Trillion, and the great Dick Cheney was espousing, “deficits don’t matter”? (And, please please don’t use the cop-out that the Dems were in control of Congress — that’s just a lame excuse to blame the other guy for your own mistakes.)


July 19th, 2011
2:31 pm

The word liberal is liberally used by the conservative gender What you have done is park yourselves in the far right and everything left of you is liberal. To act like you have a strategy is almost too rich to digest. As long as you have the radical element of the Tea Party you have no steering wheel, it is like the groupies in Bye Bye Birdie. There is no way to plan, more less milk anything for the Republican Party. You are like the Democrats in the late 60s with the convention going on inside and the riots going on outside, I bet most of your party is holding their breath waiting for the next bomb to go off, like the rest of us.


July 19th, 2011
2:44 pm

@dds- Yes, the debt was raised much more than it should be in 2001-2008, but that point does zero nada nothing to fix the problem, so stop finger pointing. Our current leader is doing zero nada nothing to fix our spending problem…he’s doing the opposite…making it much worse. So the issue of the day needs to be who are the ones who are putting forth cuts and who are the ones who are opening up the checkbook to spend, spend, spend. So enough blaming…yes the Bush admin was horrible in many ways, but our current admin is proving to be much worse by making things much worse…unempoyment 9+, black unemployment 16+, 3 trillion in spending, gas prices rising, and on and on and on. I hoped Obama would do great things, but the only thing he’s great at is spending your money and mine. Time for a change and as much as you hate to admit it, the GOP has the better way by cutting spending once and for all, because the Dems just won’t do it.


July 19th, 2011
2:48 pm

sam@2:16, The natl. debt rose every year Clinton was in office.
Tax cuts to the job creators led to increased tax revenues & lower unemployment rates.
Congress had the opportunity & responsibility to review the evidence to go to war in Iraq. 82 Democrats in the House & 29 in the Senate voted in favor. At least they had an opportunity to vote on it. Congress heard about Obama’s third war in Libya from TV.
The Democrats decided not to “fix” Medicare Part D in the healthcare bill.

Bart Abel

July 19th, 2011
2:54 pm

RE: Linda @2:16 “Reminds me of Pelosi’s famous statement about the healthcare bill, ‘…but we have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it…’”

This comparison does not apply.

The outlines and details of the health care bill were debated during the Democratic primary and the general election. They were debated ad nausea in committee in both houses of Congress (remember Max Caucus’s “Gang of Six” that held the entire thing up in the Senate for weeks), and on the floor of both houses of Congress. The health care legislation essentially went through the same process that all major legislation goes through before it is finally voted on. This law was also debated in town hall meetings, on television, on the radio, in the editorial pages, and in kitchens and living rooms for months on end before it was voted on and signed.

In addition, the health care law wasn’t passed in response to any specific short-term disaster with a specific or general date-certain. As with most laws that are passed, those of us who advocated for the passage of the health care law, did not do so under duress and did not do so without ample opportunity to familiarize ourselves with its details (remember the cries, “Read the bill!”).

If and when a debt ceiling agreement is reached, the American people will not have weeks or months to debate the agreement before it is passed. Maybe not even days. Nor are the majority of the American people likely to conclude that, no matter how bad an agreement might be, that it would be worse than the economic and personal consequences that would arise out of failing to raise the debt ceiling.

As I said, there’s really no comparison. You don’t like the health care bill. I get that. But it did not arise out of any form of Shock Doctrine. If an agreement is passed to raise the debt ceiling, the very definition of Shock Doctrine will have been applied.


July 19th, 2011
3:04 pm


Do you really believe a debate on the budget would have even been allowed on the Senate floor? I’m no Harry Reid fan but come on….threats of filibusters on every piece of legislation or judicial nominees…you are right…the game is fundamentally alter government and this is the Republican weapon of choice at the moment


July 19th, 2011
3:05 pm

Kyle, you are either right on or you get it bass-ackwards. Your analysis is the latter this time. Except I agree with your implied conclusion that this is 1 of the topics that should be decided in a vigorous debate of the issues in the 2012 election. However, there are several other topics as well which you may not want to address such as David Brooks’ suggestion that the Republican Party should be rejected because it is no longer able to participate as a responsible political party in the governance of this nation until it purges itself of its radical fringe.


July 19th, 2011
3:09 pm

I love my BIG GOVERNMENT…I love Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, and Affordable Health Care, and I don’t care to pay higher taxes to enjoy it…Admittedly, there is some room for reform in these as well as Welfare and Medicaid…If you’re in a business that needs to criticize government or ship jobs overseas in order to make money, perhaps you should work harder or change businesses..If you are a T-bag that wants smaller government in 2012, you should move to Nicaragua..I think they have like 5 guys running the whole country….


July 19th, 2011
3:10 pm

Doesn’t anyone realize that just because you present a balanced budget it doesn’t mean you end up there at the end of the fiscal year? A budget is an expectation of what normally occurs as everyone should know with their own budgets.


July 19th, 2011
3:15 pm

“Yes, the debt was raised much more than it should be in 2001-2008, but that point does zero nada nothing to fix the problem”

Yes, and trusting the SAME people to suddenly reverse course and fix the problem they caused = gullible idiocy. It’s not about finger-pointing, dude. It’s about showing more judgement than people who wire money to Nigerian e-mail scammers.


July 19th, 2011
4:02 pm

When I heard the idiots talk about smaller government then I have to ask why are they running for office? This is not the 1800’s people. The population is over 330 million people and there are some who want to continue to have children in which they know 1. They can barely afford, 2. And continue to add to the population. So common sense should prevail this nonsense of smaller government. Smaller government will not happen since people are continuing to add to the population and there are no manufacturing jobs that can sustain the present workforce in order for people to pay taxes or purchase goods. People in this country are so divided that many are too damn dumb to see the divide is how these politrickans can continue to regurgitate the crap day in and day out.

Who in the hell is going to pay the debt that the US owes to other countries? Who is going to pay the workers for I know you would not work for free? Those Treasury Bonds were not just monopoly money. And don’t fall for the BS about the balance budget being like your checking account that is just total Bullsch..ytt that these idiots like to make that asinine comparison which is wrong. Maybe you will all like it when CHINA and the REST start calling in those Bonds!! Those interest payments have to be paid or else DEFAULT!! Now what!!


July 19th, 2011
4:05 pm

Just wait and see, the Republicans will be treated as liberators! Liberators of debt. Throngs of people will gather and destroy all the Obama statues. People will celebrate! It will be crazy.

Now time to interrupt Republican fantasy number 192,393,883 with some reality.

Seems like the public isn’t buying the Republican liberator hero routine. In a new Gallup poll released today only 24% of the American people think Republicans in Congress are putting country over Party. Almost double that amount think Obama is putting country over Party.

That 2010 victory has already turned into bad ratings for Congressional Republicans, only 24% approve of their job performance. Maybe they should have stuck with jobs, jobs, jobs performance.


July 19th, 2011
4:18 pm

Richard at 12:12
“Conservatives want to find a way to make government smaller.” Unfortunately Kyle, we’re dealing with Republicans, not conservatives.”

Well said my friend, well said.

This is the problem. Republicans have had opportunities for decades to rein in the size of government. And have not done so. The people and institutions that fund the Republicans Party and individual Republicans do not want a smaller government. They want more government services.

We cannot have government services on the scale we now have and do it with “smaller” government.

That is why every Republican president since Hoover has signed onto larger and larger governments.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

July 19th, 2011
4:26 pm

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, one of the six Democratic and Republican senators who have been working since December on a deficit-reduction plan, said the proposed $3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues.

Why are the dummycrats afraid to say the word “taxes?”


July 19th, 2011
4:31 pm

retiredds@2:26, It doesn’t matter how many times you go to the store. It matters what you spend. The debt ceiling was raised from $5.95 T to $11.31 T, a total of $5.365 T under Bush’s 8 yrs. It has already been raised from $11.3 T to $14.3 T, a total of $2.5 T within a 13 month period during Obama & he wants another $2.5 T, which will be a total of $5 T in his 2 yrs. & 7 mts. He predicts the debt ceiling will need to be lifted again at the end of next year.


The Tea Party did not exist until after Obama & the Democrats passed the massive trillion dollar stimulus bill in 2/09. That is when the American people knew that we were doomed for massive spending & taxation.

What do you think matters the most: a budget deficit passed prior to the beginning of the fiscal year or the actual debt added to the national debt at the end of the fiscal year (or monthly, for that matter)? Do you think the budget deficit that Obama proposed in his budget was the reason the Democratically-controlled Senate defeated it by 0 to 97?


July 19th, 2011
4:40 pm

Bart@2:54, Sure it applies.
We were promised C-Span & what we got was the LA Purchase & the Corn Husker Kickback, passed in the middle of the night, behind closed doors.
Healthcare was passed DESPITE a specific disaster: unemployment. The American people were screaming, “It’s the economy, Stupid,” & what we heard was, “It’s a govt. takeover of your lives, your freedom, & your privacy, from cradle to grave, peons!”


July 19th, 2011
5:05 pm

Let see, Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times, the Rep God Reagan raised it 17 times: Where was the concern about our country then? what a bunch of hypocrites on the right””’


July 19th, 2011
5:13 pm

gm@5:05, I guess it doesn’t matter that Bush raised it once for $350 B & that Obama wants to raise it $2.5 T, the most in history, surpassing Obama’s other record increase 2/10, when he raised it $1.4 T. Do you know the difference between billions & trillions?


July 19th, 2011
5:26 pm

The tea party does not exist as far as accomplishment, so they “really” don’t exist, just mad R’s.


July 19th, 2011
5:33 pm

Republicans, still outnumbered in the Senate and out of the White House for at least 18 months, have only so many opportunities to put the fiscal brakes on. With Senate Democrats still seemingly content to continue not passing full-year budgets, the debt ceiling became one of those precious few opportunities.

Thank you. Finally. I wrote nearly the exact same thing as a comment two weeks ago when Mitch decided to punt the debt ceiling to the president. What an ass. I hope his constituent vote him out of office.

The problem: There is NO guarantee that either the Senate or the White House will be Republican after 2012. Period. That means that THIS crisis may very well be the ONLY chance that Republicans have to stop this debt freight train. If they don’t stop it now, I don’t see an end until China stops buying our debt. I don’t like higher taxes. But I would rather have higher taxes with some huge and meaningful budget cuts than to do a lesser deal or to kick this can to the president via the Mitch McConnell plan. In fact, it would be better to go ahead and default now at $14 Trillion than to wait 4 or 8 more years till a $20-$30 Trillion default.

Sorry to all of you hard core tea party folk, but politics is about compromise. Saxby Chambliss is right on this one. We can go back to the punch bowl for more budget cuts later when/if we get more political clout in Washington. But the time is now for a big spending cut deal, even if it means some tax increases.


July 19th, 2011
5:35 pm

When the “Gang of Six” are done, the federal government will have so much of what I make, I will never be able to retire. I will lose the bulk of my 401K deduction, the mortgage interest and taxes on our retirement home, which is our current “second home”, and the charitable deductions we personally sacrifice to make. But, hey, at least, the top 1% of income earners will have their taxes “flattened” by six percent. So glad I could help them!


July 19th, 2011
5:55 pm

Perhaps we should declare the dollar to be a dead currency? http://13radicalchanges.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/reboot-hit-reboot/

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 19th, 2011
6:05 pm

The trillions that your Idiot Messiah claims to want to cut would get off to a slow start. He only plans to cut 2 billion in the first year.

Your Idiot Messiah is a liar, and his followers are receptacles.


July 19th, 2011
6:09 pm

Brent@5:55, It’s almost a dead currency. Why do you think gold hit $1600 per ounce yesterday? Bernake should be hog-tied & forced to fill up a car with gas & shop for groceries at Kroger. Printing money out of thin air to pay for the national debt has been like an non-legislated tax on every person in the US.


July 19th, 2011
6:14 pm

The trillions our government wastes is simple to clean up. Any moron (well, 7-10% of current US population) could do this. 20% cut to Defense. Severely means test for SSI/Medicare. Got the dough, so sorry, you’re paying. Get rid of SNAP/WIC/TANFF and all welfare programs. Tell the mongrels to get a job, or sell the kids or move to another country. No $$ for food? Steal it or commit a crime (which you’ll do anyhow) and get the 3 hots & a cot at the jail. Raise taxes on the wealthy (400K+/more per year) to 50%.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 19th, 2011
6:22 pm

Your Idiot Messiah was so busy passing his Nazi health care scam that he took his eye off the economy.

9% unemployment. The new normal.

Heckuva job, Obozo.


July 19th, 2011
6:25 pm

Idiot Lil’ Barry Bailout back to his usual stupidities.


July 19th, 2011
6:54 pm

Its@6:14, I agree with some of your ideas, however, even Obama said that raising taxes on ANYONE during a recession would “just suck up, take more demand out of the economy & put businesses in a further hole.”
The Civil War has already been fought. We don’t want to retreat to servitude, let alone slavery. Why do you think anyone should be required to work for the govt. 60% of the year? Anyone who pays 50% to the fed. govt. & another 10% to their state govt. would work 7.2 mts. of the year for the govt. With sales & other taxes, they might just give it up. Why punish people to work &/or succeed?
Some of those high earners are professional athletes who are able to earn those “unfair” salaries for an average of 15 yrs. to tide them over for the rest of their lives, sometimes with permanent injuries. Why should they be servants of reckless spenders in DC?

hatorade drinkers

July 19th, 2011
6:58 pm

Next Kyle will tell us how to prove Fermat’s last theorem, no doubt.

Michael H. Smith

July 19th, 2011
7:29 pm

We’ll see… Are your best words written Kyle. In November of 2012, they’ll see, our last word. Something for “They the Congress” to think about.

Rafe Hollister

July 19th, 2011
8:03 pm

2006, every Democrat Senator, including I got my Title Back, Barry, voted against raising the debt ceiling. Barry said it was irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling, when what we need was “leadership”. So where is the leadership now that Dubyah has been replaced by the chosen one? The man never met a spending bill that he didn’t like.

Regarding Dubyah running up the deficet, you libs continually fail to mention that the Porkulus Bill crafted by Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and the folks at Aaron Rents cost more than Bush’s two wars combined.

And as Linda pointed out earlier, you guys conveniently get so involved in your class warfare and hatred for the rich, that you lose sight of how few rich there are left. When you double or triple their tax rates, you dont raise enough to pay for one of Michelle’s trips to see the Queen or a couple of her lunch tabs.

When Obama talks of taxing the rich, he is actually talking about taxing you, the uniformed saps, who believe him when he talks about millionaires and billionaires, but actually means any one that has two nickels they can rub together. I’m done and feel better now.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 19th, 2011
9:15 pm

The parasites think anyone with a job is “rich”. They hate the employed for the same reason that impoverished countries hate the US–the aid/welfare they’re addicted to remind them of their own failure and sloth.


July 19th, 2011
9:44 pm

Well Rafe, why dont you and the rest of your idealogues keep giving companies like Delta 30 million tax breaks as well as oil companies while the middle class carries the burden. We have broad shoulders, climb aboard.


July 19th, 2011
9:44 pm

My thoughts. “Uncle Obama” is going to need some help. My thoughts are better expressed visually in a digital piece of art I did.


Lil' Barry Bailout

July 19th, 2011
9:49 pm

Karen, the federal government spends more than $10,000 per person every year. Did you pay your “fair share” of the burden?

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 19th, 2011
9:56 pm

“My thoughts are better expressed visually in a digital piece of art I did”

Smear it with feces and you’d have something.