It' s the way liberals think.They can't help it.
It's some kind of affliction; either a disease or a learned response.
The liberal is just fine with the thought process that says: We proposed a $100,00.00 increase to such-and-such, settled for an $80,000.00 increase and that represents a $20,000.00 reduction.
Hint: It's not a reduction! It's an increase! Just not as big an increase as originally proposed.
What is wrong with them?
They do the same thing when talking about taxes.
President BO recently said of Republicans: "They proposed $4 trillion of tax cuts..."
That is a deliberate lie. (Either that or a continuation of the above mentioned disease.)
The Republicans stated that they did not want to increase taxes by $4 trillion as the Democrats had proposed.
THAT IS NOT ASKING FOR $4 TRILLION OF TAX CUTS! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Here is the full text that included President BO's convoluted reasoning:
"What I’m seeing out of the Republican leadership over the last several years has been a set of policies that are just irresponsible. And we saw in their ‘Pledge to America’ a similar set of irresponsible policies. They say they want to balance the budget. They proposed $4 trillion of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts, and then they say we are going to somehow magically balance the budget. That’s not a serious approach. So the question for voters over the next five weeks is, who is putting forward policies that have a chance to move our country forward so that our schools have improved, so that we have a world class infrastructure, so that we’re serious about helping small business, we’re serious about getting a handle on our spending and who’s just engaging in rhetoric. And I think that if that debate is taking place over the next 5 weeks, we are going to do just fine."
Republicans have not proposed $4 trillion in tax cuts; they have opposed $4 trillion in tax hikes that will take place absent Congressional action.
Even if you are a liberal, aren't you able to know the difference between cutting something and a suggestion to not implement it to begin with?
Can you really not tell the difference?
Are you that shallow and empty-headed?
What on earth were you doing during math classes at your government school?
I mean...this is really surreal!
22 comments:
Mayday...Mayday
Ginsu: I'm not sure it will help.
This makes me so angry. If you're even somewhat informed you can spot the lies the minute they roll off his tongue. But he knows there are plenty of people out there who aren't bothering to pay attention and believe the crap he spouts. Thank goodness more and more people are starting to listen. The nerve of that man!
This is why Ann Coulter wrote a book, How to Talk to Liberals, If You Must. They speak an entirely different language using the same words we use. Nancy Pelosi's favorite word is the "word". Obama's salvation depends on the collective salvation of others. He's not a socialist or marxist, but he surrounds himself with those who are and who are implementing their evil intentions upon Americans by bypassing the constitution and the Congress of checks and balances of power.
Liberals are a strange breed of birds. Lord help us all. selahV
As I remember, the Cat was smoking a doobie that laced. That was why up was down and down was up...
BetteJo: The ones who aren't bothering bother me but not as much as the ones who bother but can't think their way out of a wet paper sack.
selahV: Their specialty is redefinition, or more accurately, definition in the moment.
Krystal: Yeah. I wonder what these guys are smoking.
selahV said: "They speak an entirely different language using the same words we use."
Not unlike certain cults do.
But, if we’re all honest, it happens on both sides., our side and their side. As a conservative I hold our representatives to a higher standard and it really disturbs me when I see them play the word game too! And, with definitions of what is, is.
We should show no tolerance of such things on either side!
Scotty: Thanks for coming by.
You wrote: "with definitions of what is, is."
So, how do we get this across to our elected officials...even the ones "one our side?"
Joe said: "So, how do we get this across to our elected officials...even the ones "one our side?"
We call their office, we write to them, we e-mail them.
I have no doubt that my representatives are tired of hearing from me but, at least they know I'm watching and listening!
Okay Joe, let's go with what you're saying because I've always been a little maddened by the Washington Speak that calls a reduction in the rate of increase a cut.
Let's look at what President Obama said in the quote you mentioned.
Without parsing words, isn't he just saying that you cannot say you are about balancing the budget and then be for adding 4 trillion to the deficit?
How is this different than a guy telling his wife they need to cut down on expenses so she needs to do her own hair on his way out to the golf course?
He says one thing, but does another.
I think it is just in a politician's blood, no matter the party.
Even Sunday on FOX News, Mr. Boehner said now was not the time to talk about solutions when he was asked about balancing the budget and what cuts would have to be made.
Well, I respectfully would ask, when is a good time?
After the elections?
Look, you guys all know the Dems are about spending. I am not sure there has ever been a program the Dems have wanted to cut, but really, where is the difference?
The GOP wants to be about cutting spending, so just let us know what is going to cut.
My guess is the reluctance is because nothing is going to be cut because it almost politically impossible to do so and political courage at the congressional level is almost non existent.
Sorry, bro, I was only going to ask the top question, but you know what happens sometimes.
Even libs are fed up, but like conservatives before with Bush and their defense of him, we will defend our guy too.
DM: "The GOP wants to be about cutting spending..."
Dave, I wish that were so.
Joe, I am waiting for even the non GOP conservatives to tell me where we should cut...
Even when the Pentagon says they do not need a certain weapons system, it cannot be cut because the design process has been sliced up to make sure it is districts all over the US, thereby insuring it will never get dumped.
It we roll back all spending to pre-Obama levels, as Boehner suggests, that will save us 100 billion.
Where is the rest of the money to balance the budget coming from?
Realistically, what can get cut?
Medicare? Ain't gonna happen. Obama proposed that and the GOP is killing him on it.
Defense? GOP has said that is off limits.
Social Security? GOP tried that with Bush and got creamed by the Dems, so it is off limits.
Which leaves what? Everything else? I know some people will say yes! Cut everything else, but even at that, we will just get even. There will be no tax cuts, tax breaks, or anything.
And it still will not be enough to balance the budget.
Any thoughts on this? Or like me, have you resigned yourself to the idea that we are going to have to live with deficits for a long long time?
Dave said: "Joe, I am waiting for even the non GOP conservatives to tell me where we should cut..."
Me too, Dave, me too!!
I can think of plenty of places to cut.
We have an education department that doesn't educate anyone.
We have an agriculture department that doesn't grow anything.
We have an energy department that doesn't produce a single watt of energy.
We have departments of health and human services and housing and urban development that don't... well, since I don't know what they are supposed to do, I can't tell you what they're not doing.
Take your pick. We can start anywhere.
Yes Lone, those are nice sentiments, but let's live in reality here...
What are the chances of any of that happening?
What Presidential candidate will be getting elected if he or she proposes cutting the ag dept.? Have you forgotten that the first caucus is in Iowa, one of our biggest farm states?
These are the types of real world problems that re faced when people just start suggesting that we cut departments they do not agree with or like.
I understand the anger towards government on stuff like this, besides paper, your right, not much is produced besides rules and regulations.
But solving problems is about more than anger. How do you propose to shut down any of those government departments?
To balance the budget, as the Tea Party are asking, cannot be done without increased revenue.
How is it different for the govt. than it is for a family? If you need more $$$ to pay your bills, you get another job to bring in more money, along with cutting expenditures.
DM: True, it will take more courage and strength of will than any RINO will ever have. But if some of these things are not done, we will all suffer...not just in the immediate, but long term.
Take the Department of Education, for instance. Under their leadership, we have gone from number 1 or 2 in the world to number 19 in math. The same can be said for science and reading, according to the latest figures.
This department was ill conceived to begin with and has only gotten worse. It is a puppet for the teachers' unions and has not improved education in any area.
It needs to go, but who will be brave enough to accomplish that?
The Department of Agriculture is no better. Paying farmers for crops they do not raise is foolhardy, and always has been. If left to their own divices, farmers will plant and harvest what sells, and that will be what the people need and will pay for.
Under DOA, farming has become an impossible proposition for the "small, family farmer." It takes far too much in the way of equipment and supplies to run a small farm with few exceptions.
We need to hope for real, meaningful change.
Joe, it is not just the RINOS like many of the more right leaning conservatives seem to think.
It will take people somehow deciding to act against their own personal interests, and I do not see that happening.
It seems to be part of the human condition.
It will take courage on the part of Tea Partiers, Rinos, Dinos, and politicians of all stripes.
And then a solid majority would have to decide that they really wanted that balanced budget with no deficit spending, after they learned what it would be like.
I seem to remember our President campaigning against earmarks.
Clean bills without all the attachments could be a start.
But of course I’m a dreamer thinking a lawmaker would give up ANY pork to take home to his/her constituents.
I’m just sayin’
DM: Getting a solid majority on something these days is no mean feat. Our education system plays to the left and we are raising a generation of left leaning young people.
Thankfully, some are beginning to realize that not everything they were taught was true.
Scotty: "Clean bills with no attachments" conforms to my years of calling for a congressional rule: one bill, one subject...period.
Not only would that be better for the country, it would keep congress much busier and take much longer for them to hurt the country.
Joe said: “it would keep congress much busier and take much longer for them to hurt the country.”
I was always under the impression that’s what the recesses were for!
They certainly can’t damage anything while they’re all out on vacation……can they?? ;-)
Scotty: I support congressional recesses and gridlock for just that reason.
Post a Comment