"Clown Prince" Blather Opportunity; 07/25/2011

"Clown Prince" Blathers AT The Nation
East Room
barackingham Palace,
District of Corruption
9:01 P.M. EDT
    The "Clown Prince": Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.  For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.  As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.  Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
[What I'm not telling you: At the outset it must be noted that I was unable to find a primary speechwriter to undertake the arduous task of--yet again--lying to the American people; they all 'mysteriously disappeared.'  I was forced to have several federal serfs piece-together quotes from previous blusterings 'n' blatherings!!
    Finally--albeit, sadly--I own this depression!!  The owe-bama Depression--while started during that evil Bush-43 administration--has been greatly exacerbated by my regime's wasteful payoffs of legal and illegal contributors, election workers and supporters as well as 'compensating' the labor union thugs and bailing their pension plans out.  True, I inherited a deficit approaching $1 Trillion.  With my best efforts, I've increased that number by 43%; approaching a whoppin'  One and One-Half Trillion Dollars!!  I'm sure I can get it higher if only those evil republicRATs in the Congress will just raise the debt ceiling!!  '....tax cuts for the middle-class families....' are "federal spending?!?"  Only in the fascist mind!! We've extended the unemployment benefit limit to at least ninety-nine weeks; in some cases, one-hundred, fifty-six weeks!!  Not only do these extensions destroy the desire to succeed, they ensure the recipients' owe-bamacRATic votes for years to come.  Those 'teachers, firefighters and police officers' are 100% union members--and by extension--voting supporters of the fascist dream; they were worthy of bailouts.
    The SJo Regime's growing debt has already cost thousands of private-sector jobs, as previously illustrated by that evil billionaire, Steve Wynn.  (Note to George Soros:  Maybe our goal of a one-world government; a one-world economy, could be softened if we create a few more jobs.  To that end, might we 'draft' Steve Wynn as another "economy czar?!?"  Just a thought!)  One of the true benefits of this owe-bama Depression:  We don't have the money to piss-away on 'investments' in education, infrastructure and those highly touted--but ultimately unsustainable--'green energy' projects.]
    Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.  The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.  This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.  This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.  The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.  So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?  That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.
[What I'm not telling you: That "....both parties have a responsibility to solve it."  The republicRATs through Speaker Boehner have offered up viable solutions, one after another.  I reject them out-of-hand; they have no tax increases built in.  We--of the SJo Regime--are so imbedded in the "spend it before someone can complain" philosophy, we can not function without ever-increasing income to the Treasury for us to piss away!
    I referred to the Eisenhower Administration so let's have a look at his economic numbers, for the year--say--1955:  GDP was $414.8 BILLION; the deficit that year was just $3 BILLION ( just over seven-tenths of one percent {.7%!} of GDP); the unemployment rate-4.4%!!  By comparison, 2010's statistics are:  GDP at $13.487 TRILLION; the deficit is $187.2 BILLION; unemployment at a dismal 9.2% (and on an upward trend)!!  It must be noted that while President Eisenhower was facing an impending recession, the SJo Regime is in a 'full-blown' owe-bama Depression; an owe-bamaGeddon, as it were!!  All my whining, pissing 'n' moaning just buttresses the argument for a flat-tax!!  Everyone's equal; everyone pays the same percentage rate!!  Speaking of those evil 'corporate jet owners'.... I cruise about--willy-nilly--in Air Farce One, the highest priced, with the most expensive operational costs-corporate jet on-the-planet!!  But.... that's OK; it's either regime business, or campaign trips, or golf outings, or our monthly vacations, or those phony 'worst lady' official foreign-and-domestic trips!]
    And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:  “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”  Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.
[What I'm not telling you:  Here's where I don't understand George Soros' thinking: he's a billionaire several times, over--and yet--he wants to soak the very individuals and groups who are actually in positions to create jobs; to create new, potentially thriving businesses.  These evil 'millionaires-and-billionaires' could go far in turning the 'economic ship' around, pointing it toward prosperity; but n-o-o-o-o-o!!  Soros stands firm in his "one-world economy" philosophy!!  I referred to the great "Ronaldus-Magnus," President Ronald Reagan.  That reference--given my socio-fascist policies and programs--is nothing less than a travesty!!!  On practically every point, the Speaker and his republicRAT base are correct:  a line must be drawn in the sand!!  Each time 'a balanced approach' is applied, the ruling class achieves the result necessary to fuel their insane spending rates; completely without regard to those middle-class folks who are forced to 'finance' these on-going travesties!!]
    Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.   Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.  Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.  If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.  For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.  So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.
[What I'm not telling you:  And.... THAT'S THE PROBLEM:  "Raising the debt-ceiling was routine."   The raises in the debt-ceilings were done without even a passing debate on the merits or expense of the action.  That is unconscionable!!    The net result is the country--really, the middle-class--is forced deeper and deeper in debt!  The most imcompetent boob--myself excepted, of course--should realize this is not the path to prosperity!!  
    Here come the blatant lies that I--the 'DICK'--am noted for: Social Security checks won't go out; veteran's disability checks won't go out; military paychecks will be delayed, et al!!  BLATANT LIES, all!!  None of these funds are budgeted; they are not subject to the debt-ceiling!  ....sparking a deep economic crisis.... hell!!  We're already there-soley due to the wasteful spending of the SJo Regime!!  We can not approve a 'half-measure;' a short-term fix to the debt-ceiling problem.  This combined with the regime's internal polling indicates that my opponent--even if it is, as Rush Limbaugh suggests: Mickey Mouse--will win by a landslide;  a landslide comparable to that of "Ronaldus-Magnus!!"  Mr Reagan won 49 of the 57 states I've visited. Having this kerfuffle come up each six-months will do little beyond cement my incompetence in the minds of the voters.]
    First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.  But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.  This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.   Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.  I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.
[What I'm not telling you:  While the debate will continue to come up at the end of each extension, the ruling class must 'bite-the-bullet' eventually, THE SOONER, THE BETTER!!]
    Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?  They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.  The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.  America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”  History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.  That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.
[What I'm not telling you:  The next statement doesn't rise to my usual level of 'BLATANT LIES;' it is a clear obfuscation of the facts.  "....we were each elected by the same Americans for the same reasons...." a clear untruth.  I succeeded with my 'selection-for-election' by never clearly explaining my position on  a whole host of important topics; by garnering hundreds-and-hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal donations; by depending on the inexperienced youth of America to believe all my blather'n'bluster without a whole lot of verification; by exploiting the 'race card' in depending on the negro voting for a negro; et al.   The freshman class in the House were elected by a distinctly different voter: the 'Tea Party' movement members.  The 'Tea Party' voters mandated the elected freshmen reduce the size of government; reduce spending; reduce government control over every aspect of Americans' lives!!  Notice how I quote historic figures when I think it fortifies my case?!?  This time I'm in error:  the meaning of Mr Jefferson's statement goes both ways but my interpretation is that I always get my way but Speaker Boehner rarely gets his way-that's how that works!!]
[Blogger Note:  This guy just blathers on-and-on about his untenable position.  I think his objective is to wear the listener/reader, down until they just give up!!  I know I do most times that I'm inclined to interpret for the "Clown Prince!"]