Obama and the Budget: Liar-in-Chief

See yesterday's article about Obama being PART of the Washington "insiders" who created this economic mess, and then acting and speaking as if he were not there (with the suuport of the political hacks in the mainstream media). To remind you and Obama, Obama was PART of the Democratic majority in Congress that controlled spending from January, 20007 (the last two Bush years) through the first two Obama years. Now look at what the Liar-in-Chief did today in his "press briefing" on the budget, and the possible government "shutdown". What the Liar-in-Chief did was START with the first three months of this year--the year Repubicans assumed control of the House--and assert that THIS Congress had no business failing to pass a budget/spending bills three months ago. That, again, amounts to an Orwellian Big Lie. We are talking here, as Obama said, with LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. That budget was due on OCTOBER 1 (really sooner than that, as that is when the fiscal year started) of LAST YEAR> WHO was PRESIDENT in the summer of 2010, when this was supposed to have been done? Right. PRESIDENT OBAMA was President. What did OBAMA do about getting Congress to pass a timely budget/spending bills when his party controlled both the House and the Senate? Right. NOTHING. Do you begin to see a pattern here? Obama is supposedly "in charge" (as in the Gulf Oil spill), but he acts like he is outside of the process (as he asserted as the entire basis of his 2008 campaign, even though Obama was PART of the MAJORITY n Congress that did nothing to stop our economic collaps). It gets worse. Today, Obama accused Republicans of "playing politics" with the budget. But it is clearly OBAMA, in combination with the DEMOCRATS in Congress, who blatantly "played politics" with the budget for the year Obama said is "half over". Repubicans could NOT stop a budget/spending bill in the summer of 2008. Nope. A filibuster on that kind of legislation is impossible when you are that much in the minority. Can't be done. The DEMOCRATS had essentially total control. So why no budget? Why did the Democrats fund the first months of the government fiscal year (that year beginning on October `1, 2010) with a TEMPORARY extgension of last year's spending? Right. POLITICS. Tis is not even a matter of opinion. EVERYONE agrees that this is so. Democrats, INCLUDING OBAMA (absolutely part of this, since any word from him and it would have been done), made a conscious choice--a political choice--that it was better for them in the 2010 election if they did NOT pass a budget/spending bill for this year (other than a "continuing resolution" to temporarrily keep the government going). Democrats calculatred that they could then pass a bill they REALLY WANTED in the "lame duck" session after the election (without worrrying about the poor voters seeing what Democrats are really like). Remember that Democrats had done this very thing, for political reasons, during the election year of 2008--wehn Democrats only funded the government for 6 months because they wanted MASSIVE SPENDING INCREASES to be added for the six months they expected/hoped would be under the newly elected Obama (who would do nothing to control their out-of-control spending, and did not). It worked then, and Democrats expected it to work again this time (in a slightly different context--this time as political deception rather than a political end run around the President, as with Bush). It didn't work this time. But why not? The Democrats still had that overwhelming control of both houses of Congress. They still had Obama. There was little or no chance of a filibuster working as to merely extending the funding for the entire fiscal year--especially against the argument that Republicans were shutting the government down. But Democrats, specifically including Obama (again, despite his continued assertion that he is NOT THERE), blew it. They did so in several ways. First, Obama and the Democrats tried to USE the lame duck session to DEFEAT the will of the people, and get everything they were not brave enough to get before the election. Thus, OBAMA and the Democrats had failed to enter into a compromise in extending the Bush tax cuts, which they knew they were ging to have to do, and chose a theatrical fight over this, instead of quickly coming to a compromise (to which Republicans should never have agreed). Then Obama, with that "laser beam" focus on jobs, encouraged Congress to push through the GAY ACTIVIST ITEM of ending "don't ask, don't tell). Harry Reid tried to push through the illegal immigration amnesty bill known as the "Dream Act". Then there was that START treaty with Russia. Deocrats did all of this because they had tried to DECEIVE voters prior to the election by holdin goff on all of these things. Amazingly enough, there was still time, because some sort of continuing resolution still had to be passed, or some sort of funding for the fiscal year that had already begun. But what did Democrats do? They STILL tried to follow the playbook, and proposed a MASSIVE SPENDING BILL for the continuation of the government. No real "compromise" with Republicans or recognition of the election results. It was a massive power grab, SUPPORTED BY OBAMA, and it FAILED. Yes, it backfired because the sheer gall of repreating the same Democrat spending games, after an election they LOST, was too mcuh. It backfired. It failed. And there was just not time enough to get a new "compromise" passed for the entire year, with everything else the Democrats were doing. Thus, Democrats and Repubicans ended up agreeing to a short term extension of funding for the government. That is exactly how we got to our present situation. OBAMA CREATED THIS MESS< BY PLAYING POLITICS TO THE VERY END OF THE LAME DUCK SESSION. Yes, ur Liar-in-Chief, as usual condemned HIMSELF out of his own mouth today (as he often does). Look at what would have happened if Obama had shown any real LEADERSHIP in the lame duck session, and had not been so interested in getting so much of what he wanted on "policy riders". In faqct, the "don't ask, don't tell" bill was originally part of the Defense Appropriations Bill, which FAILED largely for that reason. There really should have been only two issues in the "lame duck" Congress: extending the expiring Bush tax cuts and handling the budget for the year already in progress. But OBAMA and the Democrats tried the same old game that has worked for them every recent Christmas, and they ran out of time on the budget they were supposed to have passsed in the summer of 2010. Hoist no his own petard--that is Obamaa, and every Democrat. Of course, as Democrat Schumer was caught saying, Democrats may have WANTED the issue of a government shutdown to continue into this spring. Look at what would have happened if Obama had pushed EARLY in the "lame duck" session for merely extending government funding at the same leve.l. Especially if he had not tried so much else, there is no doubt that he could have gotten it done. If Obama had compromised EARLY on the Bush tax cuts, and concentrated on the budget, we would STILL not be fighting this battle this week--facing a possible government shutdown. Yes, this was 100% certain BEFFORE NOVEMBER, if Democrats had compromised then. But it was 90% certain afterward, in the lame duck period, if the Democrats had not OVERREACHED. Repubicans would have been forced into a real threeat to shut down the government with a filibuster, and it is really doubtful they could have made that stick. After their massive new spending bill failed. Democrats just did not have time to push a bill through for the entire rest of the year. Democrats had egg on their fac on their spending bill, and Repubicans were in position to stop any bill for the entire rest of the year. Just not enough time for Democrats to regroup and get it done. Obama set himself up for this, and I will NEVER forgive Repubicans if they let him get away with asserting otherwise. Yes, Repubicans are in BETTER position now than they would have been if Democrats had passed a budget/spending bill when they were required to do so--when they had massive majorities in both houses of Congress. So what. Republicans were ELECTED in 2010 to REDUCE SPENDING. Democrats deliberately left it up to THIS CONGRESS, with a Republican House, to determine the spending for the rest of this year. Are not Republicans REQUIRFED (under any code you want to reference, including their deal with the votgers) to "vote their conscience" and approve only spending that they feel is in the interest of the country? Of course that is the situation, and the situation Democrats had to KNOW would exist (leading, again, to the idea that Democrats always PLANNED to use the threat of a government shutdown to theri advantage). Q.E.D. Obaqma is Liar-in-Chief, condemned out of his own mouth (when his words are compared with his actions) of playing politics with the budget of this country. By the way, that "lame duck" "deal" on the Bush tax cuts ADDED more to the deficit over the next two years (NOT COUNTING THE BUSH TAX CUT EXTENSION) than Republicans are propsing to cut in this spending bill (pro-rated over that period). You can fault Republicans for that, and I do, but the idea that these Republican "cuts" are some kind of draconian "extremism" is absurd. If we take that position as a country, then we are doomed. Do you realize just how illogical and absurd the Democrat/mainstream media "talking point" is on this? Come on. You know this assertion: the assertion that the amount Republicans are tryig to cut is SO SMALL that it can have no rfeal effect on our deficit problem. That is the ponit, isn't it. If we can't even get these "cuts" done, and keep "cutting" our deficit less than we are adding to it, then how are we ever going to do MORE? P.S. Again, no proofreading or spell checking (eyesight)