The Jim of the United States

Democrats: We Don’t Need No Stinkin Sixty, We Have A Few RINO’s We Can Call On

Posted by TheJOTUS on February 7, 2009

Hey, remember when I got my panties all in a bundle over Judd Gregg and his “alleged” Republican replacement?  Yeah…turns out it doesn’t matter so much.

Apparently a deal has been made in the Senate on the gigantic crap sandwich, train wreck, complete rectal damaging “stimulus package.”  Or spending bill as our incompetent President said there was no difference.  At any rate, Senate Republicans-in-name-only Susan Collins and Arlen Spector strolled on over to the other side to help seal the deal.  Olympia Snowe is in the mix as well, but none want to be the 60th vote. 

With a 58-41 democrat edge, the margin here is so close that ol’  Teddy will fly in from Florida off his death bed to cast the needed 60th vote.  How nice.  So, at 37 years of age, Teddy Kennedy did not have the strength to try to rescue Mary Jo Kopechne from her watery grave.  But at 75 years of age, and gravely ill, has the strength to rush back to Washington to vote for Obama’s stimulus bill.  Them are some priorities folks, Kennedy style. 

Barry has had a hard time selling this polished turd.  In just the past couple of weeks, support for it has dropped 17 points, 10 points among democrats.  But he was a persistant little buggar.  With his slogan-filled, fear mongering column in the Washington Post, to his little pep rally speech at the House democrat’s retreat on Thursday that was chocked full of worn out campaign rhetoric:

“We’re not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that, for the last eight years, doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin,” he said. “We can’t embrace the losing formula that says only tax cuts will work for every problem we face, that ignores critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, or the soaring cost of health care, or failing schools and crumbling bridges and roads and levees.

“I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV — if you’re headed for a cliff, you’ve got to change direction.”

… “We’re not moving quickly because we’re trying to jam something down people’s throats,” he said. “We’re moving quickly because if we don’t, the economy’s going to keep getting worse.”

To critics who argue that the government shouldn’t be spending billions with a large and growing deficit, Obama said, “I found this national debt doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

So to clarify Mr. President:  Bush left you with a national debt that was doubled, and your best solution to “change” the country’s direction is to triple or quadruple that debt by cramming an $827 billion spending bill down our throat?  What?  WTF?

What happened to that 95% tax cut he kept yammering about on the campaign trail?  Support for the stimulus plan jumps 13 points — to 71 percent — when tax cuts for individuals and businesses are added to the package.  Obama calls that theory hogwash and shows just what a liar he was on the campaign trail.  But as Obama tells us: “I won.”  Rich Lowery at NR says Obama is reduced to this crude appeal is a symptom of the intellectual collapse of the case for his stimulus bill:

The president should read the transcript of the third presidential debate. He claimed his program represented “a net spending cut.” He called himself “a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” He added, “We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don’t work.”

Now, circumstances change, and no president can adhere to every jot and tittle from his campaign, but the “I won” argument only works if the campaign program matches the governing program. Obama himself seems confused on what exactly “I won” means.

In a meeting with congressional Republicans, he brandished “I won” as a defense of his version of tax relief. But he later used “I won” to push back against an excessive reliance on tax cuts, claiming that it had been repudiated during the campaign even though he talked every day on the trail of cutting taxes for “95 percent of working people” and never once mentioned a commitment to extreme deficit spending.

Mitch McConnell put this porker of a spending bill in a big picture perspective:  “if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion.” 

Dude.  That is a lot of bread.  And no need to check his math, PolitiFact already did it:  2,012 times 365 (yes, we are aware there are leap years..don’t be like that) times $1,000,000. A: $734 billion (give or take a few hundred million).  And that is about $100 billion less than what was passed.

But what if we break it down for the little guy, John and Jane Q. taxpayer?  There are roughly 138 million of us in this country.  That breaks down to about $6,000 per taxpayer.  $12,000 per family.   Now, if you are being nominated for a position in Obama’s administration, that might not matter.  But for those of us that do pay our taxes, that’s a big matzah ball.

Bottom line, we weren’t going to stop this bill.  But this means Obama and the democrats own it and hopefully we won’t let them forget it in 2010.


One Response to “Democrats: We Don’t Need No Stinkin Sixty, We Have A Few RINO’s We Can Call On”

  1. zulubuff said

    I like the chapaquidick comparison.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: