He's lecturing us?

Since when did even a speck of frugality become unreasonable?

  • Follow Editorials

President Obama wants the federal debt ceiling raised in order to keep on overspending, and without any conditions whatsoever. He won’t negotiate.

And he has the gall to claim Republicans are the ones “holding a gun at the head of the American people” because they want to use the debt ceiling debate to work out a deal to slow the government’s out-of-control spending?

This man is spending America to oblivion, and he has the nerve to try to say it’s irresponsible of House Republicans to try to slow him down?

How dare he.

“They will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the economy,” Obama said – as if the money that Republicans save would go into their own pockets, and not taxpayers’.

Think about that for a minute: He’s appealing to the American people that Republicans may not let him spend even more of our money. Outraged yet?

Can you imagine a family in which one spouse accuses the other of trying to exact a “ransom” by trying to slow the family’s rate of overspending?

This is Mr. Bipartisanship – Mr. “I’ll Listen to Any Good Ideas.”

Nope. No negotiating. Just give me more money.

Mr. President, you may have won re-election and retained the Senate, but Republicans were put in charge of the House to act as a check on the other party’s unfettered power – particularly the power of the purse.

You are not a dictator, Mr. President. We suggest you act like a U.S. president and be open to negotiation with the opposing party. That’s the beauty of the American system of government. One president, but 535 members of Congress. Checks and balances. Give and take. Diffuse power.

And, after four years of now trillion-dollar deficits, when are you going to even consider a little thrift?

How is it unreasonable for Republicans to ask for an atom of a speck of a sliver of a shred of frugality? Every family, every business, every city, every hamlet, every state in this nation has had to find some savings in this economy. The only thing stopping the federal government from that bit of sanity is its loosely limited borrowing power – which has been so abused, at $16 trillion and counting, that the nation’s very economy may someday be in jeopardy because of it.

That’s the real gun to the head of America, Mr. President.

And just whose fingerprints are on it?

We are sorely disappointed, though not all that surprised, at this president’s unnecessarily antagonistic approach to solving this nation’s problems.

As conservative talker Rush Limbaugh noted after the president’s lecture, Mr. Obama “really never talks about plans and proposals to solve problems. What he does is position his political opponents as the enemy.”

Likewise, even liberal columnist Dana Milbank – noting that the president called himself a “pretty friendly guy” at the end of the press conference Monday – wrote, “The claim might have been a touch more plausible if he hadn’t spent the bulk of the previous hour demonstrating just how adversarial he could be.”

Obama, Milbank wrote, “showed unrelenting hostility” toward Republicans in his appearance Monday.

In addition, the president’s outrageous threat that Social Security payments and Armed Forces paychecks will be endangered by a failure to raise the debt ceiling is wholly disingenuous: If money becomes tight due to a lack of borrowing authority, the president himself can decide which bills to pay.

Meanwhile, this president – whose own budgets the past four years have yet to earn the vote of even one member of Congress, Republican or Democrat – has officially notified Congress that he will not produce a budget by Feb. 4 as required by law. In essence, the president is about to break the law.

And he’s lecturing us?

Comments (41) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
bubbasauce
24260
Points
bubbasauce 01/16/13 - 10:41 am
6
1
There you go again Dichotomy

There you go again Dichotomy and Humble Angela, making too much sense and totally confusing the liberals!

Rhetor
1082
Points
Rhetor 01/16/13 - 10:50 am
0
4
getting sillier

Welfare and food stamps, even if eliminated completely, are not big enough programs that cutting them will balance the budget. Reagan and Clinton already chopped welfare to the bone. The traditional welfare program was pretty much eliminated many years ago, not that the Tea Party noticed. Nor has the Tea Party caucus in Congress suggested eliminating any such programs because, quite frankly, they haven't actually proposed any specific lists of cuts whatsoever. Complaining that liberals are unfair to the Tea Party isn't a policy. A policy consists of a list of cuts with dollar amounts, and that is something the Tea Party has not proposed, and will never propose, because they truly have no actual ideas at all. Indeed, the defensive (but vague) posts above, which also propose no actual policies, merely prove my point.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 10:54 am
7
1
Using facts really ticks them
Unpublished

Using facts really ticks them off....and often makes them change the subject.

Rhetor
1082
Points
Rhetor 01/16/13 - 11:09 am
0
3
Where's the policy?

First, welfare and food stamps are not big enough programs that cutting them, or even cancelling them, will balance the budget. Presidents Reagan and Clinton long ago signed legislation that cut welfare to the bone. Nor has the Tea Party caucus suggested any actual cuts in these, or any other, programs because they have, in fact, not listed any actual cuts with actual dollar amounts. If you want to balance the budget by cuts alone, the only programs big enough to do that are defense, Medicare, and Social Security. The Republicans aren't foolish enough to propose cutting Medicare and Social Security, which is why they haven't made any actual proposals at all. Furthermore, the sarcastic and defensive but vague posts above, none of which actually propose a specific policy, merely prove my point, which is that the conservative movement is actually quite out of ideas.

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 02:12 pm
0
2
dichotomy, the welfare slugs

dichotomy, the welfare slugs angle is a far too narrow focus. It is a step in the right direction, but won't even come close to resolving the problem, and here is why:

The Congressional Research Service determined that of all SNAP recipients in 2010, 9.7% are ABAWD (able bodied adults without dependents) -- the "slugs". The remainder are elderly, children, and the disabled.

http://majorityleader.gov/uploads/CRS_Memo_ABAWD.pdf

Numbers for 2011 and 2012 are not available, but budget charts show 2010 as the peak spending year for welfare -- welfare spending dropped in 2011 and 2012. This peak welfare year was huge: of the $1.29 trillion dollar debt, 0.8 trillion was welfare spending. But here's the rub -- take the slugs out, at ~10%, and this drops welfare spending to .72 billion, and the deficit to 1.21 trillion.

The slugs accounted for 6% of gov't spending in 2010. This is a huge amount of money spent on people who can work but choose not to, but it is a drop in the bucket of the spending problem. Characterizing the slugs as the stone around our neck simply ignores the full scope of the problem. Getting all of them off welfare is simply scratching the surface.

Now if we got everyone off welfare, it would be a big dent in the deficit. Let's look at who these people are (again, 2010 numbers): 53% elderly, 20% disabled (non-elderly), 18% working households.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

This is what the President means when talking about putting cutting the deficit on the backs of those who can least afford it. He's not talking about this gimme gimme myth of tons of Americans being slugs. He's talking about the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor. Do you honestly think ANY politician will support kicking 50% elderly recipients, 20% disabled recipients, and 18% working households off welfare? Even if you kick the working poor off with the slugs, you're still talking about 70% of recipients who are simply not in a position to work. Do we throw them in the street? Is that the solution?

And even if we DO decide to throw the elderly and disabled to the curb, we STILL have a deficit! Our debt will STILL grow! Do you begin to understand how income-tax paying Americans might actually see how the obsessive focus on welfare by the far Right is not productive? Do you begin to see how people can be productive citizens and still believe that a fiscal focus on the poorest in America WON'T solve our fiscal problems?

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 11:36 am
0
3
HA, anyone that believes

HA, anyone that believes that only those on the Right understand facts is simply spreading unfounded rhetoric. It's cheap and easy, but the "facts" of who does and does not support their ACES posts with data shows that many posters on the Right also have an uncomfortable relationship with fact.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 11:36 am
4
1
Well....I'm on the "right"
Unpublished

Well....I'm on the "right" and I understand facts. Are you accusing me of something that you can't back up, because that is in violation of the rules.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 11:40 am
4
1
When have I EVER made a
Unpublished

When have I EVER made a statement, been requested to back it up, and failed to do so?

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 11:41 am
0
3
HA, 1) if making potentially

HA, 1) if making potentially unfpunded accusations is a terms violation, then your 10:54 is guilty as charged, and 2) there are innumerate instances where posters on the Right post opinion unsubstantiated by fact. The idea that pointing out this FACT is some type of term-violating, unsubstantiated accusation is ludicrous.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 11:50 am
4
1
Would you like examples of
Unpublished

Would you like examples of people that I have ticked off with facts? I would give names, but anonymity prevents. It's not a term violation unless you can't back it up.....read the terms.

is defamatory, threatening, disparaging, grossly inflammatory, false, misleading, fraudulent, inaccurate, unfair, contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims........

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 11:53 am
0
3
When have I EVER made a

When have I EVER made a statement, been requested to back it up, and failed to do so?
------
HA, you made a broad generalization in your 10:54. I responded that an equally broad generalization could be made factually about the opposite end of the spectrum. I never identified you as the target. It is unclear why you are taking this so personally.

If broad generalizations make you so uncomfortable, then don't use them yourself in regards to others.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 12:05 pm
4
1
Ok.....Geoff, Suzy, and
Unpublished

Ok.....Geoff, Suzy, and Beverly were ticked off by my presentation of facts. Specific enough for you?

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 12:10 pm
0
3
Yes HA, knowing the specific

Yes HA, knowing the specific names of people you ticked off with facts, in a defense of your adherence to the sacrosanct terms of posting of the Chronicle, is certain to be an important and useful addition to my day. Keep up the important work and the wise use of your precious time on this Earth. Good day to you.

justthefacts
25063
Points
justthefacts 01/16/13 - 12:11 pm
4
0
Article and facts

Burn, is this a fact? "Meanwhile, this president – whose own budgets the past four years have yet to earn the vote of even one member of Congress, Republican or Democrat – has officially notified Congress that he will not produce a budget by Feb. 4 as required by law. In essence, the president is about to break the law."

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/16/13 - 12:18 pm
4
1
Careful JTF....I was proving
Unpublished

Careful JTF....I was proving my point with the simplest of facts and seem to have struck a nerve.

burninater
9941
Points
burninater 01/16/13 - 12:43 pm
0
4
Yes JTF, that's totally fact.

Yes JTF, that's totally fact. If he commits a crime, Congress should impeach the guy and quit using him as their excuse for continuing to approve appropriations that spend beyond our revenues. It won't happen. House Republicans continue to approve outrageous levels of spending, and the true believers believe it's their scapegoat. It's a win-win for them.

And HA, if there are nerves sensitive to tedious bickering, you didn't just strike one, you've got them all ablaze.

Darby
29307
Points
Darby 01/16/13 - 12:35 pm
4
1
"I have no idea how a President who has his opposition say....

their number one job was to make him a one term President (not the economy, not jobs, not ending the wars....."

More weak, diluted gibberish. Anyone, including Honey Boo Boo would have done a better job than the turkey we have in the Oval office now. He's destroying the economy, now and into the foreseeable future.

He got us out of Iraq on GW Bush's plan and schedule. When he pulls that last soldier out of Afghanistan, give it twelve months and you will find that things there are worse than when we went in. As a matter of fact, it's already started.

We don't need anymore watered down and forced and slanted "statistics" telling us what a wonderful president and human being Obama is. We're stuck with him for the next four years. All any decent American can do is support the very few good things he does and do our best to obstruct those that are destructive to the nation.

nofanofobama
6993
Points
nofanofobama 01/16/13 - 01:00 pm
5
0
you just cant argue with low

you just cant argue with low information voters about govt shutdown..obama is the messiah..the military is evil..the tea party is racist..the poor in our country are dying of hunger. grams is thrown over the cliff .all these need to be addressed...but i fear the one area that we cannot let be affected by a govt shut down is obamas use of AIR FORCE ONE...what would our commander n chief do then...its simply not fair.

allhans
24886
Points
allhans 01/16/13 - 09:18 pm
2
0
What was it Bortz said...How

What was it Bortz said...How do fight poverty? You don't join them...

dichotomy
37493
Points
dichotomy 01/16/13 - 02:45 pm
3
0
burninator....."in 2010, 9.7%

burninator....."in 2010, 9.7% are ABAWD (able bodied adults without dependents) -- the "slugs"."

See, that is where we part company right off of the bat. Having a baby or three should not put anyone in a different category as any other Abled Body Adult. I consider Able Bodied Adults WITH Dependents perfectly capable of getting a job and supporting themselves and should not be drawing welfare. I feel absolutely NO obligation to take on the full life support of a woman who gets knocked up, pops out a few kids, and decides this never having to work thing is a good deal. If they get a job they get a tax break for day care and probably still qualify for UNearned Income Tax Credit. No sympathy here. Kick them off welfare and let them start feeding their own face.

But no, we automatically slide them into the same category with elderly and disabled and pay them to lay up at home. CUT THEM OFF. We are feeding their kids in school already and sending food home for the weekend. The adult can hit the bricks and feed their own face. As long as we pay people to stay home and make more babies they certainly will. Now add those into your statistics my guess is you will be up to about 75% or more of welfare recipients are Abled Bodied slugs and chains around the neck of the taxpayer. If you EVER want fewer kids dependent on welfare mothers then you have to start taking that option away. As long as it's there as a "free ride" you will have people lining up to get on.

Now take 75%, or even 50%, of the welfare budget and put it back into the Treasury and it DOES make a dent. Especially in ten years when welfare spending will be 25% of our total spending. It might even go a long way toward restoring the economy and changing the culture of the current permanent welfare class. Would some people, even kids, suffer in the process. Probably. But they are suffering now in different, but much more long term damaging ways. But in the long run it would be a great thing for all involved to totally remove the welfare option for ANYONE who is healthy and able bodied...with or without dependents.

CobaltGeorge
175920
Points
CobaltGeorge 01/16/13 - 03:07 pm
2
1
Careful bubbasauce

"We have four more years to put up with this President."

The power he has placed in an "Executive Order" could very well change that in a heart beat.

carcraft
28487
Points
carcraft 01/16/13 - 03:46 pm
1
0
Rhetor- Cutting food stamps

Rhetor- Cutting food stamps etc won't balance the budget! No but we spent over $ 1 trillion on welfare last year so it would be a good start!

ultrarnr
944
Points
ultrarnr 01/16/13 - 03:55 pm
0
0
Entertainment
Unpublished

This factually incorrect editorial-Congress appropriates money not the President, Treasury does not have the ability to determine priority of payments-is just another example of why the AC is a fringe pubilcation and should be read for entertainment only, not any thoughtful dialogue on national issues.

Bizkit
35575
Points
Bizkit 01/16/13 - 05:12 pm
1
0
Welfare is a great idea but

Welfare is a great idea but generational welfare isn't. But just like maintaining our borders there is no interest in trying to address the the abuse of welfare- and greater societal implications-all for political reasons. Making people wards of the state permanentaly isn't a solution, just ain't livin' and you might as well be an ant, and long term has a huge societal impact. For the amount we spend on welfare we could likely educate and find a niche for them productively-having a "handicap" is really misleading nowadays. I've worked with numerous "handicapped" individuals who could do anything I could do. I have to admit I initially saw them as different but soon realized the only person with the handicap was me. It's amazing with technology and motivation. People need to get with the times-there a few handicaps that would preclude you from working. When need to motivate and educate and get as many people working as we can but have a safety net with a welfare system that really helps people short term and long term. It's idiotic not to invest in getting people outta welfare.

KSL
143905
Points
KSL 01/16/13 - 05:16 pm
5
1
Carcraft

You beat me to it. Just because it's not the total amount needed, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Dichotomy is right. We are getting sorry, irresponsible behavior because we the taxpayers are paying for it.

Who hasn't known at least one person who lost a job, can not find one, until miraculously after the unemployment insurance runs out.

Darby
29307
Points
Darby 01/16/13 - 05:33 pm
4
0
Rhetor says, "the conservative movement is actually

quite out of ideas." Of course he knows full well that his statement is hogwash. The greatest ideas are all destined to fail unless and until the Democrats run out of freeloaders.

And Carcraft, cutting food stamps won't, by itself solve the problem, however I'd venture to say that removing the deadbeats from the roles would do more than any other single action to get us on track to a stable economy.

I remember when there was a stigma to taking charity. Growing up, my family was poor, very poor (we're not rich now) but Mom and Dad always found a way to put food in our mouths and clothes on our backs. I didn't even wear shoes except to school and church. Today, the "poorest of the poor" can afford $200 shoes, cell phones and concert tickets.

The very name "Food Stamps" carried a social stigma. Not anymore. Food Stamps were replaced by the EBT card, with which the holder, as demonstrated recently can buy booze, lottery tickets and even a lap dance if desired.

Bring back the stigma (issue food stamps) and only the most degenerate will enjoy being on the public dole, having others pay for his food and shelter. I'm not trying to embarrass anyone, but I am suggesting that we could help them by providing an incentive to be come self-sufficient.

It wouldn't need to happen overnight. We could lock in EBT payments at the current rate and NEVER raise them. In ten years or less, the welfare roles would probably be cut in half as folks find part time and full time jobs to supplement their welfare. And in the process, they'd get their dignity back.

Of course, if that happened, the Democrats would lose their core voter base. Brings to mind the old expression, "When Hell freezes over."

anniedillardlover
5
Points
anniedillardlover 01/20/13 - 07:22 am
0
0
Quoting his highness "Rush"

Quoting his highness "Rush" caused me to disregard any credibility of opinion you may have had in this article. Sorry. Have better sources next time, and maybe I'll read the whole thing.

In addition, Obama's not the only one in this game playing the bully. The Republican pact not to raise taxes, signed by several senators/congresspeople, is unrealistic and ridiculous, and was also ineffective--I mean, I saw my taxes go up this year, and I'm not in a high bracket so it largely, failed, and did not address the true problem! Also, George Bush's popular move of cutting taxes for all while at the same time engaging in several *very expensive* international conflicts was ludicrous, and is part of the problem now. Note I did not say the whole thing. I am not defending either Bush or Obama here. It's just simple math. Not raising taxes is simply not sustainable, and neither is an entire government shutdown. We really need to get sensible here instead of bullying each other (metaphorically speaking), Dems. Vs. Republicans. It's getting out of control in Washington.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs