When I began watching mixed martial arts matches on the Versus channel, I saw it as the most brutal sport ever invented. It doesn’t seem like there are any rules but there are. In general two guys duke it out with each other in a virtual street brawl. Most of the fighters have a wrestling background and then learn jiu-jitsu or judo or some other Eastern fighting technique. Mix all of them together with boxing, and street fighting and you have a two-man war.
This sport is not for the squeemish, and I don’t recommend it if you are upset by the sight of blood and the infliction of pain. The sport reminds me of the scene in Washington at this time. There are two sides greatly polarized about their goals. One side wants to raise the debt limit, raise taxes, and spend more. The opposite side wants to cut the deficit, limit spending and lower taxes.
In the middle of this is a President who sides with the spend-more side, but keeps talking about reaching a bi-partisan agreement. Sure, the only agreement he will accept is one that contains more taxes, more spending, and no limit on the debt ceiling. What he means by bi-partisan is that members of both parties vote for it.
Anything short of his desire is considered to be a stubborn front by the “party of no.”
He seems to ignore the fact that the “party of no” is now his own. The Democrat Senate flat out rejected the Republican bill to cut spending, put a cap on the debt limit, and to balance the budget. They didn’t even consider the bill.
Who in his right fiscal mind would not see that proposal as one that will bring sensibility back to the country?
Just as an example try this experiment: Max out all of your credit cards, then go to the credit card companies and ask them to raise your debt limit. What do you think they would say? Most likely, they would recommend you pay down your debt, and live within your means.
The President is again asking us to drink the cool-aid. He is telling us about the dire emergency and the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling. “We can not afford to default.” Didn’t we hear that kind of rhetoric before when a state of urgency existed about bailing out banks and car companies that were too big to fail? He got us to buy into the TARP and the Stimulus with that bullshit, but after two years we begin to understand that the urgency didn’t really exist.
All I hear is that if we don’t do what he is asking, Standard and Poor’s will down rate our credit rating. These are the same guys that gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac great reviews just days before the housing bubble collapsed. Who are they comparing us to, Greece? Maybe they are comparing us to China the country we gave our manufacturing wealth to. Perhaps it is Japan, Saudi Arabia, or Russia. Just who are we so afraid of?
As far as raising interest rates, all the President fears is that he will have less money to grow government.
I know, I know, it is Bush’s fault. He spent all that money on the Iraq war. So for that reason the voters punished the country by allowing their candidate to outspend Bush four to one in one eighth of the time. It makes sense doesn’t it?
The only reason Obama wants to rush this debt thing through is so he doesn’t loose the ground he gained in socializing the country.
The Tea Party people know what he is up to. They understand the consequences of debt default, but they also understand the consequences of transforming America into a Totalitarian State of Obamism
The current action in Washington is as brutal as a mixed martial arts match, but didn’t Obama say he wanted to change the way things were done in Washington?
Related articles
- Warning lends new urgency to debt talks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Jonathan Miller: Debt Ceiling for Dummies: Why Compromise Is so Necessary (huffingtonpost.com)
- Debt ceiling: Beware the vote – Jul. 21, 2011 (mbcalyn.wordpress.com)
- The Standard and Poor’s Play – Credit Rater Pushing Congress into Big Deficit Deal (news.firedoglake.com)
- Republicans Back Short-Term Debt-Limit Deal, Risking Obama Veto (businessweek.com)
Filed under: Cartoons, Conservative, economy, Election, politics | 1 Comment »
