Oh my: Angry Obama storms out of debt-ceiling negotiations; Update: “This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this”

posted at 8:25 pm on July 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

Between this and the Moody’s news, tomorrow ought to be fun on Wall Street. Per Slublog, remember during Campaign ’08 when this guy’s big selling point was his “first-class temperament”?

Also, am I right in thinking that the only two times O has walked out on a meeting are today and when he met with Bibi Netanyahu back in March of last year? That’s quite a record of indignation, champ. You really know how to get tough with the enemy.

Cantor said he told the president that the two sides remain so far apart at this point that he doubted they could get to $2.5 trillion in cuts (to match the debt increase requested by the administration, enough to get through the 2012 election) given the time available. President Obama has said he will not sign any increase to the debt ceiling less than that amount, and Cantor had previously insisted that the House would vote no more than one time to increase the debt limit. Cantor said he was willing to abandon his position in order to allow some kind of short-term measure to increase the debt limit and reassure credit markets while negotiations continue, and asked the president if he would be willing to consider this option.

At this point, Cantor explained, the president became “very agitated” and said he had “sat here long enough,” that “Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this” and “something’s got to give.” Obama then told Republicans they either needed to compromise on their insistence on a dollar for dollar ratio of spending cuts to debt increase or agree to a “grand bargain” including massive tax increases. Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

The Democratic spin on what happened is that Cantor “rudely” interrupted The One mid-finger-wag and he got huffy and walked out. As for what he means by “going to the American people,” I don’t want to get my hopes up but we might be in store for another 45-minute lecture tomorrow morning about corporate jets. As an ironic gloss on this drama, read Chuck Todd’s take on how, in principle, Obama and Boehner aren’t all that far apart. If O publicly committed to a truly significant concession, like means-testing for Medicare or raising the eligibility age for Social Security, then maybe the GOP could be persuaded to take another look at letting the Bush tax cuts lapse for the wealthy. But since he won’t, they can’t. Said Boehner to a gaggle of reporters this afternoon, “Dealing with them the last couple months has been like dealing with Jell-o.”

Before he threw his tantrum, Obama also reportedly told Republicans today that Friday’s the deadline for deciding whether both sides should continue to pursue a real deficit-reduction deal or whether they should shift to looking for some sort of fallback plan a la McConnell to avoid default. So, the good news: The first stage of the debt-ceiling drama will kinda sorta be over in the next 48 hours. The bad news: Three more weeks of the next stage to come, guys. Three. More. Weeks.

Update: To steal a line from our Greenroom contributor Karl, here’s more of what the “adult in the room” had to say before he, er, left the room:

“This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington,” the president said. “Everyone is more interested in posturing, political position and protecting their base than in solving problems.”…

“I have shown enormous willingness to compromise and have taken huge heat for it,” he said, “but my responsibility is to the American people and there comes a point when I need to say, ‘Enough.’”

“It cannot all be on us,” the president said, arguing that Republicans need to give on the revenue side of things as Democrats are willing to do so on spending cuts.

Weigel also clarifies the terms of the actual dispute between O and Cantor. Cantor says they can get a deal for $1.5 trillion in cuts through the House. Problem is, the GOP’s vowed not to raise the debt ceiling by more than the amount in total cuts and a $1.5 trillion debt-ceiling hike won’t get us past the election next year. That makes The Perpetual Campaigner unhappy, so either the GOP will have to step back from its vow or O will have to agree to deal with the debt ceiling again — just a few months before election day, when the incentives on both sides to hold out will be even greater than they are now.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

“I’m going to take my ball and go home.”

LEBA on July 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Thought Michelle had already gotten both of them…or was it Jessie Jackson?

coldwarrior on July 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM

AUH2O on July 13, 2011 at 10:37 PM

EXACTLY! Well put.

ORconservative on July 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Cr66….Seriously, for someone who proclaims supreme intelligence, you are an idiot of the first order. Unreal.

Winebabe on July 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 10:30 PM

1) I (and pretty much anyone outside the confines of the Hotair commentariat) don’t agree there have been “zero” gains from TARP and the Stimulus bill. Why’s that? Because there is almost no objective evidence supporting your position, and a wealth of evidence suggesting both of those measures helped the US economy a great deal (especially TARP).

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:19 PM

That’s right Cindy…who could have guessed that Harvard and Stanford are in the “Confines of the Hot Air community”


“Intellectual authorities” coast to coast agree: stimulus flopped

posted at 10:35 am on July 6, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/intellectual-authorities-coast-to-coast-agree-stimulus-flopped/

Breaking with current economic orthodoxy, Robert Barro, Paul M Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, said large spending plans should be undertaken only if they can be justified financially on their own merits.

Turning to the $600bn (£373bn) to $800bn US package, he added it was “mainly a waste of money”. Stimulus programmes, he said, offer little more than “rearranging the timing” of economic growth. “Possibly you could make an argument that it’s worth it. But it’s going to be a negative-sum thing overall, so you have to think it’s a big benefit for boosting the recovery.”

Just a few of many economist and economic experts that agree that the stimulus was a total failure.

2) I don’t think anyone’s arguing we shouldn’t cut any spending.


Cindy..this is what democrats consider “cutting spending”

In the nearly two-hour-long White House meeting Monday afternoon during which leaders reviewed savings found last month by a group led by Vice President Joseph Biden, McConnell asked only one question, according to a Republican source familiar with the talks.

“How much does the Biden plan actually cut from next year’s discretionary spending budget?” the Kentucky Republican asked the room.

Obama’s Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew told him, “$2 billion.”

A second source close to the original Biden group confirmed this number.


Two billion dollars is slightly more than 0.1 percent of next year’s deficit.

This combined with the fact Obama’s ridiculous budget offer was so bad it was struck down 97-0 in the Senate and the democratic party has yet to offer any budget in almost 800 days.
The real problem with spending is entitlements…..economist across the spectrum state this.
Democrats refuse to cut any entitlements and offer no solutions what-so-ever to fix the problem.

This is not the sign of a party that is serious about this countries issues…this is a party that puts politics before country.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

There is no supreme intelligence, only spewing of what she is supposed to say and think.

ORconservative on July 13, 2011 at 10:48 PM

This may bring my presidency down

Has any other US president ever uttered these words, ever? Seriously. No matter what is happening, it’s all, always, about HIM. And again with the melodramatic language. It’s all an epic struggle. Because it’s happening to President Narcissus.

inviolet on July 13, 2011 at 10:49 PM

AUH2O on July 13, 2011 at 10:37 PM

EXACTLY! Well put.

ORconservative on July 13, 2011 at 10:44 PM

What most of these clowns fail to understand is that if we look at “government” as we would an employee (which it is, under the Constitution) and said employee was racking up hundreds of thousands in costs due to losses, ineptitude, malevolence, and just plain stupidity…would any sane rational business owner keep that employee on the payroll…and which employer would actually think it would be a good idea to give the guy a raise and give him access to the totality of company assets?

Cut everything that is not Constitutionally mandated, immediately, and then start trimming the rest until it is of rational size and proportion to the actual needs under the Constitution.

coldwarrior on July 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

I certainly don’t understand the thinking but one thing is for certain, I like the company of my like minded friends.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

You rock!

capejasmine on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

I read this on a prog forum – can anyone clarify this for me? I so badly want to respond but words fail me!

…….”I was struck by the people who seemed to have no idea what the debt ceiling is, what it means if the US defaults (one seemed to think it would be like a govt shutdown), what is behind this whole made-up “crisis”. The media does a terrible job of providing context – as in, how many times the debt limit has been raised in the past, why we have a debt limit in the first place (I can’t explain that, but it was enacted around WWI). People think if it’s raised, there will be more spending, not that it’s to be able to pay for spending that’s already been committed to – hence, the Representative from Georgia (R, of course) who wants to lower the debt limit (sigh).”

marge on July 13, 2011 at 10:40 PM

I think what he is getting at is that Congress, in a sense, talks out of both ends of its mouth.

First, Congress authorizes spending, via appropriations bills, entitlements, continuing resolutions, etc. Congress passes laws that require the expenditure of money.

The executive, through the Treasury, spends tax reciepts on the appropriations passed by Congress.

But what happens if Congress authorizes more money to be spent than there are tax receipts? The Treasury issues bonds (debt), which are sold for cash, and then uses that cash to fill the gaps and make the appropriations authorized by Congress. (Currently, for every dollar the Government spends, .40 cents is made up by Treasury borrowing the money)

So, on the one hand, Congress is telling the Executive to spend X amount of money.

On the other hand, Congress passes a statutory debt limit, which limits the total amount of debt the Treasury can amass through bond sales.

What the prog is getting at, I think, is that Congress has already authorized the spending, but is now is threatening to deprive the Treasury of the means to actually have that money to spend. Congress isn’t raising taxes under this scenario, which would increase monthly federal revenues. And it won’t let Treasury borrow any more. So the executive is in a double bind, where it is in effect ordered by Congress to spend, but then forbidden the means to do so.

Revenant on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

“This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington,” the president said. “Everyone is more interested in posturing, political position and protecting their base than in solving problems.”…

“I have shown enormous willingness to compromise and have taken huge heat for it,” he said, “but my responsibility is to the American people and there comes a point when I need to say, ‘Enough.’”

“It cannot all be on us,” the president said, arguing that Republicans need to give on the revenue side of things as Democrats are willing to do so on spending cuts.

White. Hot. Rage.

Seriously, every time I”m convinced I can’t hate this contemptible little man more, he finds a way to stoke it up another 20%.

The rest of my thoughts cannot be stated here.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Wrong. The majority of macroeconomic evidence suggests that TARP 2 and Porkulus have been materially ineffectual.

Blink,

I’m afraid that you’re wrong (again). There’s a near-consensus among non-HA commenters that TARP saved the US financial system from a catastrophic collapse. And the evidence indicates the Stimulus bill lowered the unemployment rate significantly.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing we shouldn’t cut any spending.

Ha ha. Are you trying to be funny??? Obama and democrats are doing exactly that!

Again blink, that’s factually incorrect. Obama and the Democrats are willing to accept significant spending cuts. But your side is whining and stomping their feet. They say they won’t balance those cuts with any revenue increases.

What your suggesting is dead wrong. If you’re truly concerned about the deficit, then you should agree to keep spending and taxes low so that the GDP can grow and spur more tax revenue.

blink on July 13, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Blink,

Do you think that lower taxes creates more tax revenue? Do you have any hard evidence for that proposition? If not, do you think perhaps you should reexamine your views?

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM

They must to come to agreement by Friday. Absolutely, or Obama may miss his golf for the second weekend in a row. Or did he play last weekend?

finallyhere on July 13, 2011 at 10:53 PM

So much for “rolling up our sleeves”. Wow. Just wow. So much at stake and the president walks out.

P.S. Senate Democrats go 800 days without a budget and Obama never made a fuss!

TN Mom on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

And the evidence indicates the Stimulus bill lowered the unemployment rate significantly.Apologies, the link is here.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

I look forward to your response blink.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

This may bring my presidency down

Has any other US president ever uttered these words, ever? Seriously. No matter what is happening, it’s all, always, about HIM.

inviolet on July 13, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Yes..this has been stated by a President before:


Obama to Dems wavering on health care: “You’re going to destroy my presidency”

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/22/obama-to-dems-wavering-on-health-care-youre-going-to-destroy-my-presidency/

“Let’s just lay everything on the table,” Grassley said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made … and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.’

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM

Do you think that lower taxes creates more tax revenue? Do you have any hard evidence for that proposition?

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Obviously too young to remember the Kennedy tax cuts…record growth and record revenue.

coldwarrior on July 13, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

I certainly don’t understand the thinking but one thing is for certain, I like the company of my like minded friends.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:47 PM

You rock!

capejasmine on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Yes…the company here is the backbone of America.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:58 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Wow, I haven’t read a funnier collection of brain addled leftist twaddle in quite some time. Thanks, I needed a good chuckle. You continue to provide ample evidence for the “Leftists should be institutionalized to protect themselves and others” movement. You don’t operate a moving vehicle or spend any time near sharp objects, do you?

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 10:58 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Yeah, it saved teacher jobs, union jobs. But the private sector is hurting, in case you haven’t been out of the basement in awhile. Get out there and see how bad it is.

Not to mention, more and more are going on the unemployment line each week, some have given up. It’s far worse than you want to believe.

It makes me sick to see the spinning going on, while real people out here are hurting. No jobs. Food going sky high. Gas prices rising again. Is there no end to your ignorance? I can obviously see there’s no end to your butt kissing of Obama.

capejasmine on July 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Heh. Obozo validates George Washington…

How soon we forget history…
Government is not reason.
Government is not eloquence.
It is force.
And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Obozo’s going one better.

He wants to be the dangerous master…no middle ground for him.

CPT. Charles on July 13, 2011 at 10:59 PM

coldwarrior on July 13, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Again exactly. And then would you give that employee a brand new credit card each time he maxed out the one before?
Pure insanity. For some reason these idiots think their job is to raise more money to blow. And idiots like crr6 think it is our job to give it to them.

ORconservative on July 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Obviously too young to remember the Kennedy tax cuts…record growth and record revenue.

coldwarrior on July 13, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Coldwarrior,

Correlation does not equal causation. I’m sure you’d agree, given the results of the Clinton tax rates.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

“This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this”

Christmas comes early!!!

gitarfan on July 13, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Yeah, it saved teacher jobs, union jobs. But the private sector is hurting, in case you haven’t been out of the basement in awhile. Get out there and see how bad it is.

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

Things are undoubtedly still difficult, but perhaps you shouldn’t blame the government for your troubles.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Revenant on July 13, 2011 at 10:51 PM

To add to your excellent answer to marge’s question:

1. A lot of the spending that has brought us to the debt limit was authorized by the Pelosi/Reid Congress in Obama’s first two years and it contains quite an amount of waste.

2. The GOP is proposing that for every dollar of increase in the debt limit, there should be a corresponding dollar of spending cuts spread over X number of years. Even though it is NOT a perfect solution, if the cuts are deep enough, it could lead to an end of the gravy train authorized by Pelosi and co.

3. The Dems, in order to maintain the gravy train, want to raise “revenues” and close “tax loopholes” – all codes for tax increases!

4. The GOP House says “No dice” – hence the stalemate.

TheRightMan on July 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

“but my responsibility is to the American people”

Your responsibility is to all the American people….not just those who make less than $250,000.

xblade on July 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

*pfft*

Want some links that show it made unemployment worse? Want to discuss Obama recently joking that it didn’t work out as well as promised?

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:06 PM

My personal beef with all of them is this type of episode. Honestly realize the people out herewant people to work toward a middle ground that is not embarrassing

whig33 on July 13, 2011 at 11:06 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

With the spending cuts of the Republicans.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 11:06 PM

whig33 on July 13, 2011 at 11:06 PM

I don’t. There is no middle ground. Every time there is a compromise to cut spending and raise taxes, the cuts never materialize. This time they have to prove they are serious, cuts first.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

First, I have never been wrong.

Wrong again.

Hogwash. I happen to be one of the few that know that TARP I did save the financial system. HA commenters rail against me for speaking this truth. The consensus you speak of does not exist. It’s pathetic that you would try to claim it does.

Wait, so you agree TARP saved the financial system? We agree then.

Ha ha. The stimulus didn’t lower unemployment. Unemployment rose after stimulus. Explain that one.

Blink,

It’s not a difficult concept. If the unemployment rate would have been X amount without the stimulus, it was x minus 1.8% as a result of the stimulus.

No, they aren’t. They are only willing to play accounting games that pretend to cut spending by more than $2B. That is quite insignificant.

I don’t think that’s accurate. At any rate, that’s more than Republicans will agree to on the other side of the equation.

Why should spending cuts need to be balanced with tax increases? Spending cuts reduces the deficit. Spending cuts don’t increase the deficit. You really should explain that pathetic comment.

This doesn’t make any sense. Could you try writing in the form of a coherent argument?

Do you think that lower taxes creates more tax revenue?

It absolutely can and has in the past.

Blink,

Like others, I think you’re confusing correlation with causation. Simply because revenues increase after tax cuts doesn’t mean that the tax cuts caused those revenue increases.
S

urely, you don’t argue that robust GDP growth will create more tax revenue, right?

blink on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Hm? Yes, GDP growth will create more tax revenue. You disagree?

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:55 PM

LOL Thank you very much for the link, and the info.

inviolet on July 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

have you ever played poker and looked around the table and tried to figure out who the ‘sucker’ was, and find it difficult. then it dawns on you…. you’re the sucker?

obama had his sucker moment today; hence the walk out.

he’s hosed. he either trades $1.5T in cuts for $1.5T in increased borrowing limit and re-fights the same battle next Summer at the height of the election, or he takes his chances with a federal default and drives his famous rhetorical car off the cliff.

ante up sport.

ps..rick perry has a dang good poker face.

DrW on July 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM

So you bought into the created and saved? Too funny.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Again, I’d just like to reiterate that I love you guys. Seriously.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:43 PM

I can assure you that everyone here thinks you are Special.

Next time a Marxist dolt pisses a trillion dollars down a rat hole I’ll remember to review my checkbook for trillion dollar entries. We certainly wouldn’t want to blame our bloated, bankrupt, union-infected government too hastily.

viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Hook, line and sinkher……it is funny.

ORconservative on July 13, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Smuggled video of Obama during the meeting

faraway on July 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Give me two minutes alone with the President in a locked room and I will significantly change his outlook.

NoDonkey on July 13, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Take-A-Ticket. Eleventy times worse than the DMV in the whole US combined.

ProudPalinFan on July 13, 2011 at 11:15 PM

have you ever played poker and looked around the table and tried to figure out who the ‘sucker’ was, and find it difficult. then it dawns on you…. you’re the sucker?

obama had his sucker moment today; hence the walk out.

Was Bibi on Skype?

ProudPalinFan on July 13, 2011 at 11:16 PM

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Please tell us what company this is, because if this is the measure of how they manage their business, I want to make sure I’m not invested in them.

If your company was on the verge of disaster, a) they probably should’ve been allowed to fail, b) a simple “thank you” to the taxpayers (here and elsewhere) that paid the bill would be better than the nonsense you insist on spewing, and, c) if ‘Obama brought you back from the edge of financial disaster’ (good grief, could you be more of a sycophant?), and then you went on a hiring spree, guess what – you’re going to be on the brink of disaster again soon enough.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Disgusting. I like the fact that Sean Hannity called Obama “President Crybaby”

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/crybaby-president-obama-throws-temper-tantrum-storms-out-of-debt-negotiations

jdawg on July 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Sorry, Obama cannot be allowed to have an increase in the spending limit – especially one that carries until after the election.

Hello, McFly – he’s asking us to foot the bill for a few trillion dollars of payola he wants to shovel to his favorite constituencies to help ensure re-election – nothing more.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

That’s the best spin I’ve heard about McDonalds giving you that special register pilot job, so far.

viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Please tell us what company this is

No thanks. I can tell you that it’s sizable law firm, and that increased deal activity as a result of the economic recovery led to a drastic increase in the hiring. It’s not just my firm, look at any major law firm’s summer classes in 2011 relative to 2010.

If your company was on the verge of disaster, a) they probably should’ve been allowed to fail, b) a simple “thank you” to the taxpayers (here and elsewhere) that paid the bill would be better than the nonsense you insist on spewing, and, c) if ‘Obama brought you back from the edge of financial disaster’ (good grief, could you be more of a sycophant?), and then you went on a hiring spree, guess what – you’re going to be on the brink of disaster again soon enough.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:17 PM

My firm was never on the verge of disaster, probably because we have very strong counter-cycical practices. But (like any other company would) we did increase hiring as the financial markets recovered.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:24 PM

“This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this”

You’re well past that point, champ.

churchill995 on July 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM

I think Levin’s got it right.

The House should formulate and pass a spending bill of their own (note to the Speaker – don’t f@#$ this one up, do it right so the vote – you know – *works* this time). Specify that it does not exceed the limits, and prioritizes on debt service (ample money – there will be no default), SS and Medicare (ample money – there will be no failure of checks to go out), defense (ample money), and more. Specifically exclude some things (cut EPA back down to size – wtf, it’s up 125% in 2 years?), and perhaps leave the rest to O’s discretion to decide where to cut.

Send it to the Senate. If Reid refuses to bring it to vote – whatever the consequences may be are on Reid and Obama. If they do vote on it and send it to Obama and he vetos as threatened – the consequences are entirely on him.

Time to go nuclear, Repubs. Got the stones for it?

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM

No thanks. I can tell you that it’s sizable law firm, and that increased deal activity as a result of the economic recovery led to a drastic increase in the hiring. It’s not just my firm, look at any major law firm’s summer classes in 2011 relative to 2010.

So you’re a DC Law Firm.

I take it your hiring increased dramatically because of all the wonderful laws Obama has inflicted on every other industry.

You said Obama brought you back. Did he give your firm a bailout? If so, I’m not impressed, as he’s obviously picking more losers than winners.

BKennedy on July 13, 2011 at 11:27 PM

My firm was never on the verge of disaster, probably because we have very strong counter-cycical practices. But (like any other company would) we did increase hiring as the financial markets recovered.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Oddly enough, I quoted you as specifically saying that Obama had brought your firm back from the brink of disaster.

My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Thank you for just publicly admitting that you’re a damned liar.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:28 PM

“It cannot all be on us,” the president said, arguing that Republicans need to give on the revenue side of things as Democrats are willing to do so on spending cuts.

I’ve got news for you, champ – it’s all on you.

disa on July 13, 2011 at 11:29 PM

crap6, is the mail room closed tonight? Go home, take a rest.

faraway on July 13, 2011 at 11:30 PM

My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Thank you for just publicly admitting that you’re a damned liar.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:28 PM

haha. No, when I said “brought us back from the brink of disaster” I meant the financial markets in general, not my firm specifically.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Incidentally the reason I say DC is because DC is experiencing an economic boomlet.

While the rest of us suffer, the obese, glutted den of decadence that is Washington DC continues its impressive opulence. Those of us who aren’t directly beneficial of proximity to government’s seat can’t afford to ignore economic reality.

BKennedy on July 13, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Coldwarrior,

Correlation does not equal causation. I’m sure you’d agree, given the results of the Clinton tax rates.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Clinton cut taxes massively on capital gains in 1997.

Take any metric you’d like and tell me which term had the better economy/unemployment/growth/deficit/tax revenues.

Chuck Schick on July 13, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Thank you for just publicly admitting that you’re a damned liar.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Oh, I thought that was already proven many times over already! Shining sunlight on it is always good though!

bluemarlin on July 13, 2011 at 11:34 PM

blink on July 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Blink,

I think I’m going to call it a night with respect to our discussion. In this post you either a) admitted you agree with me, or b) admitted that the logical premises of the positions you took in previous posts were faulty. You have a tendency to cling to minutiae after you’ve been bested on the broader points, and frankly, I’m not in the mood to deal with that right now. Perhaps some other time.

Have a good night.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:34 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Can you cite the last time federal debt was actually paid down in this country, whether there were ‘increased revenues’ (tax increases) or not?

fossten on July 13, 2011 at 11:35 PM

haha. No, when I said “brought us back from the brink of disaster” I meant the financial markets in general, not my firm specifically.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:30 PM

The dollar is down steadily 11.3% YTD against the Swiss Franc and down steadily about 6.4% YTD against the Euro.

You sure are smoking tonight. It’s what you are smoking that has me wondering.

viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

I can tell you that it’s sizable law firm, and that increased deal activity as a result of the economic recovery led to a drastic increase in the hiring. It’s not just my firm, look at any major law firm’s summer classes in 2011 relative to 2010.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Vultures thriving in a field of carcasses. What a surprise!

Shy Guy on July 13, 2011 at 11:41 PM

I think Levin’s got it right.

The House should formulate and pass a spending bill of their own (note to the Speaker – don’t f@#$ this one up, do it right so the vote – you know – *works* this time). Specify that it does not exceed the limits, and prioritizes on debt service (ample money – there will be no default), SS and Medicare (ample money – there will be no failure of checks to go out), defense (ample money), and more. Specifically exclude some things (cut EPA back down to size – wtf, it’s up 125% in 2 years?), and perhaps leave the rest to O’s discretion to decide where to cut.

Send it to the Senate. If Reid refuses to bring it to vote – whatever the consequences may be are on Reid and Obama. If they do vote on it and send it to Obama and he vetos as threatened – the consequences are entirely on him.

Time to go nuclear, Repubs. Got the stones for it?

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:25 PM

It’s not even “nuclear.” It’s rational and in the best interest of poor and “middle class” Americans. Let’s not allow these Leftists to label responsible government as anything other than normal. They’re extreme, not us. Just look at their track record from 2006 to present.

visions on July 13, 2011 at 11:41 PM

Do you think that lower taxes creates more tax revenue? Do you have any hard evidence for that proposition?

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Of course lowering taxes increases the business investment,profitability,and revenues…which not only creates jobs…but brings in tax money to the government.

Obama and his CBO plainly state that higher taxes are bad for the economy…especially an economy as bad as the one Obama presides over:


CBO’s Elmendorf:
“Higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity .”
CBO Elmendorf: Raising tax rates on rich hurts more than raising tax on everyone else.

Obama vs. Obama
Not long ago, Obama warned that raising taxes in a struggling economy is “the last thing you want to do.”

1:21 AM, Jul 11, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

“First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”


In an August 5, 2009, interview on NBC News, Obama said that:

“The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”

……Obama plainly states that raising taxes takes more “demand out of the economy and puts businesses in a hole”

Straight from your heroes mouth crr.

Obama also misrepresents the Bush tax cuts on a regular basis:


Obama Peddles Myths About Taxes And The Rich

By JOHN MERLINE , INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 04/26/2011 05:14 PM ET
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=570191&p=1

This point refers to Obama’s desire to end part of the tax rates backed in 2001 by President Bush, who created a lower toll on all taxpayers. Obama would let the top two tax brackets go to where they were before those rates were set. He’d raise taxes for those making as little as $200,000, not just those worth at least a million dollars, and maintain the rates for everyone else.
However, when it comes to “affordability,” lower rates for the “rich” were the smallest part of the Bush tax cut. Extending those rates would reduce revenues by about $700 billion (not the $1 trillion figure Obama has peddled) over 10 years, according to Treasury data. Letting these rates expire is assumed — and thus not counted — in Obama’s 12-year plan.
But keeping all the other Bush tax rates would “cost” about $3 trillion — making them, by Obama’s logic, four times as “unaffordable” as the cuts on the rich.

It’s also worth noting that the total amount of taxes paid by the top 1% — and even the top 0.1% — climbed during the Bush years. In 2008, the richest 0.1% paid $48 billion more in taxes than they did in 2001, IRS data show.

“In reality,” the National Taxpayers Union’s Pete Sepp noted, “the wealthy carry a much heavier load, and have continued to do so throughout the era of Bush tax cuts.” Indeed, the tax code is highly progressive, taxing the rich far more heavily than everyone else.

This is a comprehensive breakdown of the benefits of Tax Cuts:


Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

Published on January 29, 2007 by Brian Riedl
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

Despite surging economic growth and 5 million new jobs since 2003, critics also charge that the tax cuts have not helped the economy. Finally, despite making the income tax code more progressive, critics charge that the tax cuts have widened inequality.
Nearly all of the conventional wisdom about the Bush tax cuts is wrong. In reality:
The tax cuts have not substantially reduced current tax revenues, which were in fact not far from the 2000 pre-tax cut baseline and over the 2003 pre-tax cut baseline in 2006;
The increased child tax credit, 10 percent tax bracket, and fix of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) reduced tax revenues much more than most of the “tax cuts for the rich”;
Economic growth rates have more than doubled since the 2003 tax cuts; and
The tax cuts shifted even more of the income tax burden toward the rich.


..and in 2006 before the democrats took over…Tax revenues had increased dramatically and reducing the debt:

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?ei=5088&en=ec2d242da8699725&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

The facts show that democrats tax and spend Keynesian policies are a complete bust.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Folks like McConnell keep saying that no debt ceiling deal is a loser for the Rs. But if that’s true, why wouldn’t The One agree to the smaller deal so he can do it all over again next year?

edshepp on July 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Correlation does not equal causation. I’m sure you’d agree, given the results of the Clinton tax rates.

crr6

So says the moron who is basically arguing that correlation DOES equal causation, lol.

xblade on July 13, 2011 at 11:44 PM

The dollar is down steadily 11.3% YTD against the Swiss Franc and down steadily about 6.4% YTD against the Euro.

viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:36 PM

What some do not get is that the cost of this spending and debt is simply being kicked down the road. There are repercussions to this madness and it does not occur in a vacuum. Even SENATOR Obama understood this. Even if some want to believe that Tarp saved us that cost has to be paid.
It will be paid by future generations. The party of fairness does not seem to care. Again Senator Obama understood.

CW on July 13, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM

tl;dr

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Game.

Set.

Match.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Yes…the company here is the backbone of America.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Hear!..Hear!..:)

PS..Excellent posts as always Baxter Greene..:)

Dire Straits on July 13, 2011 at 11:46 PM

tl;dr

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Gee, there’s a surprise. Your eagerness to remain ignorant is duly noted.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Obama has made the economic situation that “he helped create” much,much worse:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama_1/print

WASHINGTON – “That wasn’t me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.


Not only was Obama part of this economic disaster we are in….he along with his democratic allies were the main architects of it:

Fan and Fred: Frauds by Design?
Posted By Tom Blumer On January 8, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Positioning, Money, Politics, US News

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fan-and-fred-frauds-by-design/?print=1

New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.

Leading democrats supported and defended Fannie/Freddie up until the disastrous crash in 2008:


Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has always been ardent in his defense of Fannie and Freddie.
In 2003, he insisted that the two mortgage giants were not “facing any kind of a crisis.’’ In July 2008, just weeks before they collapsed and were taken over by the federal government, he publicly maintained that “Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound — they are not in danger of going under.’’ Frank recently told the Boston Globe’s Donovan Slack that “he missed the warning signs [in 2003] because he was wearing ideological blinders,’’ while in 2008 “he was deliberately trying to reassure the public.’’

…and Obama along with his democratic friends were the No. 1 supporters and defenders of this subprime corruption:


Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related
VIDEO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0

Yea crr…keep waving those pom poms in the delusional liberal bubble you choose to live in.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Vultures thriving in a field of carcasses. What a surprise!

Shy Guy on July 13, 2011 at 11:41 PM

No, it’s the exact opposite. We’re thriving because of increased financial activity.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Obama has made the economic situation that “he helped create” much,much worse:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama_1/print

WASHINGTON – “That wasn’t me,” President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.
It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.


Not only was Obama part of this economic disaster we are in….he along with his democratic allies were the main architects of it:

Fan and Fred: Frauds by Design?
Posted By Tom Blumer On January 8, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Positioning, Money, Politics, US News

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fan-and-fred-frauds-by-design/?print=1

New research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer for Fannie Mae and a housing expert, has found that from the time Fannie and Freddie began buying risky loans as early as 1993, they routinely misrepresented the mortgages they were acquiring, reporting them as prime when they had characteristics that made them clearly subprime or Alt-A.

Leading democrats supported and defended Fannie/Freddie up until the disastrous crash in 2008:


Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has always been ardent in his defense of Fannie and Freddie.
In 2003, he insisted that the two mortgage giants were not “facing any kind of a crisis.’’ In July 2008, just weeks before they collapsed and were taken over by the federal government, he publicly maintained that “Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound — they are not in danger of going under.’’ Frank recently told the Boston Globe’s Donovan Slack that “he missed the warning signs [in 2003] because he was wearing ideological blinders,’’ while in 2008 “he was deliberately trying to reassure the public.’’

…and Obama along with his democratic friends were the No. 1 supporters and defenders of this subprime corruption:


Explosive Video, Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related

Yea crr…keep waving those pom poms in the delusional liberal bubble you choose to live in.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM

I’ve unfortunately been around TWO full blown narcissists in my life.
The best way to get to them is ridicule with laughter when they pull their poor me, and now I’m mad! tantrums.

They then crack and go underground for awhile issuing statements showing how abused they had been by whatever process that took their fantasy away looking for sympathy because it always worked before, and then crawl back.

ALL to be repeated if given the chance again after a pause.

Violent? yes, dangerous, yes, but it WILL take them out in the end.

If you are married to one and have kids I only hope you RUN like your life and mental health depends on it, because it does…

Better to get it over with. Laugh at the obvious.

golfmann on July 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Correlation does not equal causation. I’m sure you’d agree, given the results of the Clinton tax rates.

crr6

So says the moron who is basically arguing that correlation DOES equal causation, lol.

xblade on July 13, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Well correlation can equal causation. Yet crr claims it does not. She often does not sound like an attorney type. Hopefully she is not as sloppy at work.

Again crr who were those righties who named Obama’s agent killing arm the killers program Fast and Furious?

CW on July 13, 2011 at 11:48 PM

tl;dr

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

liberal speak for “I got nothing”…..

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Hon, seriously. Of course the CBO says it reduced unemployment. the CBO was told to assume a multiplier of >1 when making the estimates. they didn’t do independent research, they just made the calculations they were told to make. Look it up.

alwaysfiredup on July 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM

PS..Excellent posts as always Baxter Greene..:)

Dire Straits on July 13, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Hey…great to see you posting again my friend.

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

Things are undoubtedly still difficult, but perhaps you shouldn’t blame the government for your troubles.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

.

You are an inconsequential putz. That August 2010 report was debunked a long time ago. Any jobs that were “saved/created” are now being lost. The census is over and so are many public sector jobs.

If you are employed in the field of law, this is a great time to be hiring people that have no problem with feeding on the misery of others. I’m not saying that the law profession is bad, just that when the economy is suffering, lawyers have more work to do.

Vince on July 13, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Baxter remember there was a poll in which many many people thought the GOP was in charge the last 2 years of BUSHs second term. I suspect Crr was among them. Not a smart bunch.

CW on July 13, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

You’re a 2L. You don’t have a real job yet.

alwaysfiredup on July 13, 2011 at 11:54 PM

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

And the rest of the legal world, including the major law school in my state that is deliberately reducing acceptances because they feel there are too many unemployed lawyers, would tend to disagree that we’ve left the economic brink in any kind of sustainable fashion.

alwaysfiredup on July 13, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:51 PM

Have you seen Canopfor?..:)

Dire Straits on July 13, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Revenant,

But what happens if Congress authorizes more money to be spent than there are tax receipts?

TheRightMan,

A lot of the spending that has brought us to the debt limit was authorized by the Pelosi/Reid Congress in Obama’s first two years and it contains quite an amount of waste.

Thank you both for your explanations. So there is not a mechanism in place to put a ceiling on how much Congress can authorize? Somehow tax revenues and bond issues have to make up any possible shortfall whether they can or not?

Sorry about the questions – I’ve never been interested in politics until the last two years when I’ve seen this country go the way of my home country ~ Holland. :-(

marge on July 13, 2011 at 11:57 PM

No, it’s the exact opposite. We’re thriving because of increased financial activity.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Well, I guess foreclosures, bankruptcies and bank failures count as “increased financial activity” in the realm of Zero’s Economic Recovery. Keep on shoveling.

viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:57 PM

I’m employed in a high-paying private sector job. My firm increased hiring dramatically after Obama brought us bank from the brink of an economic disaster.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:03 PM

$3 per 5,000 HA posts is not even minimum wage.

faraway on July 13, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Well, I guess foreclosures, bankruptcies and bank failures count as “increased financial activity” in the realm of Zero’s Economic Recovery.
viking01 on July 13, 2011 at 11:57 PM

No, I was referring to increased PE and Public M&A deals.

crr6 on July 14, 2011 at 12:00 AM

“This may bring my presidency down”

Let’s hope so. Whatever it takes.

God, this guy is the biggest douchebag who has ever douched, I swear.

NoLeftTurn on July 14, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Baxter Greene on July 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Game.

Set.

Match.

Midas on July 13, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Crr is clueless…..

We’re thriving because of increased financial activity.

crr6 on July 13, 2011 at 11:47 PM

The IRS….people responsible for handling foreclosures….and bankruptcy lawyers are thriving also.

The fact crr’s little bubble “may” be thriving has zero to do with whether the country is thriving or whether Obama’s policies have worked…
….this is not “thriving”:

In January 2007 before the Democrats took over Congress, unemployment was 4.6 percent; now it’s over 9% percent.
America has lost 1.9 million jobs since Obama signed the stimulus.


Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression

In January 2007 there were 7.1 million unemployed people in America; now there are over 14 million.

US house price fall ‘beats Great Depression slide’


* In January 2007 the median home price was $210,600; today it’s $179,300.
* The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent; now it’s over 14% percent
2007 Deficit: 162 billion …………..2011 Deficit: 1.6 Trillion
2007 Debt: 9 trillion…………………..2011 Debt: over 14 trillion

2000-2007 strongest productivity growth (2.5) in 4 decades
Robust GDP growth (2-3%) after the devastation of 9/11
In the 13 Quarters since the recession,Obama has only produced .8% GDP growth

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the Democratic 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses.


3.66 billion dollars a day

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years.

Obama Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined, Says Gov’t Data

More People On Food Stamps Than Ever Before

Since November of 2008, when there were 30,885,000 on Food Stamps, the figure has risen almost 39.87% in two years—22% in 2008–‘09, and “only” 14% in 2009-‘10


This is complete and absolute failure by the Obama administration.

But keep the pom poms going crr…maybe Opra will put you on her new show and you can jump up and down on her couch while yelling “Obama’s AWESOME!!!!”

Baxter Greene on July 14, 2011 at 12:01 AM

1) I (and pretty much anyone outside the confines of the Hotair commentariat) don’t agree there have been “zero” gains from TARP and the Stimulus bill. Why’s that? Because there is almost no objective evidence supporting your position, and a wealth of evidence suggesting both of those measures helped the US economy a great deal (especially TARP).

Psst…you do know TARP was a Bush program, right?

xblade on July 14, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Have you seen Canopfor?..:)

Dire Straits on July 13, 2011 at 11:56 PM

No…hoping he is on vacation and will be back soon.

Baxter Greene on July 14, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Psst…you do know TARP was a Bush program, right?

xblade on July 14, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Quisling McDonnell big-government “we must do something!!!” Republican….yes, yes it was.

alwaysfiredup on July 14, 2011 at 12:03 AM

And for the record, despite your nonsense, it’s pretty well recognized that the stimulus was an utter and complete failure.

xblade on July 14, 2011 at 12:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7