Obama and theDebt Ceiling: Liar-in-Chief

What is the purpose of the debt ceiling? Is it a cynical political farce with nopurpose besides allowing people in Congress to play political games? That is the PRESENT position of President Obama. I know he has not said exactly that, but he can mean nothing else. To remind you, President Obama's present position on the debt ceiling is that "our" credit is too important to play political games with it. In other words, the present Obama position is that the debt ceiling is MEANINGLESS< because we HAVE to increase it every time the government is about to reach the ceiling. Is that not marvelous, and someting that could only be said with a straight face in Washington? What kind of ceiling is it that means NOTHING? The present Repubican position is that the debt ceiling is there for a reason: to WARN us that spending is out of control, and that something has to be done about it. Republicans are treating the debt ceiling as having a purpose exactly like that of a canary in a coal mine: to warn you that you are in major trouble, and that something drastic has to be done. Repubicans do not want to increase the debt ceeiling UNLESS "fiscal discipline" is reestablished. Republicans are, of course, right. Unless the debt ceiling is used for this purpose, hen it has no purpose. It should not exist. The quotted words above--"fiscal discipline--did NOT come from me (in connection with the purpose of the debt ceiling). Those words came PASSIONATELY (as he says everything--no matter how quickly he contradicts himelf) by SENATOR OBAMA some five years ago, as he voted against an increase in the debt ceiling. Yes, SENATOR Obama made the same argument that Republicans are now making: that the debt ceiling should not be increased unless fiscal discipline is imposed. Everyone agrees that the debt ciling must eventually be increased, because we have dug too big a hole to avoid it. But the debt ceiling should be a sisignal to impose fiscal discipline before it is increased, or else it is a useless FRAU:D created by politicians like Obama to play games with. SENATOR Obama, and the present day Republicans, agree totally with that last statement,--with this purpose for the debt ceiling and what consequences that should have. Yes, CNN actually reported that Obama had done a "180" on this: reporting it today (Wednesday), with the actual quote from Obama sounding like a Tea Party Repubican (as he deliberately sounds when he falsely says that the Federal Government must learn to live within is means, "like an ordinary family--something he does not believe and routinely contradicts). Yes, CNN is MONTHS behind this blog in reporting this about face on the part of Obama, but what else is new. You might, nevertheless, think this is progress on the part of CNNN (and it sort of is as to the Tea Party QUOTE from Senator Obama). Not so fast. CNN was not really reporting the flip-flop, which really occurred as soon as Obama became President (like his flip-flp as to ooosing an "individual mandate" that everyone MUST buy health insurance). What CNN was really reporting was the OBAMA STATEMENT explaining that Obama now realized that he had made a mistake five years ago, and that it was too dangerous to use the vote on the debt ceiling as leverage to impose fiscal discipline. Note that this blog has again been PROVEN right as to a Big Lie. You will note that Obama was a WASHINGTON POLITICIAN--part of the "inside Washington" crowd--BEFORE he became President. Obama, despite voting against raising the debt ceiling, voted FOR all of that spending (and wanted more). He was part of the PROBLEM, and is not part of the "solution". Doubt me? Don't. Read my article yesterday on leftist Democrats and Wisconsin. Obama is a leftist Democrat. All he is interested in is POWER. To him, the end justifies the means. He is not interested in consistency, or telling the truth. Thus, it is easy to explain Obamas change of mind. It was just Washington "plitics as usual" (again exposing the Big Lie--from Obama and the mainstream media-that Obama was not part of the Wash;ington establishment before he became President). Voting against the debt ceiling, for Senator Obama, was merely a way of OPPOSING President Bush and the Republicans. It had nothing at al to do with principle, and the Obama statement on "fiscal discipline" was total hogwash. Obama has NOT done a 180 (for anyone with any brains). Obama thought it was to his POLITICAL advantage to oppose raising the debt ceiling 5 years ago, and now he thinks it is to his advantage, both politically and philosophically, to talk about voting against rasing the debt penalty as a major mistake. Thjese (leftist Democrats, including the mainstream media) are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. For them, the end justifies the means. Wait a secon. What about Repubicans? Are not Repubicans more willing to vote against raising the debt ceiling with a Democrat President than with a Republican President? Gee. You are finally getting it. The Republican ESTABLISHMENT is hardly better than the Democratic Party. Even they "admit" (through crocodile tears) that they "lost their way" in the spending of the Bush years. No, I don't believe them either. That is why the Tea Party is such a good thing: "keeping them honest". CONSERVATIVES have remained consistent (non-politcian conservatives), so long as you do not buy the idea that George W. Bush was ever a conseravtive (which I denied, even before I disowned him in 2006). It was when Republicans imposed spending discipline on Bill Clinton that the country did so well, as Repubicans do better in opposition. Let them get power, and they fall in love with it. Yes, Republican politicians tend to be hypocrites. That is why I blame YOU so much when you allow the media, and leftist Democrats, to paint non-establishment Repubicans as "extremists". If you are too nervous to vote for real "change" in Washington--as distinguished from the ersatz "change" of Obama--then you deserve what you get. Yes, we have no chooiice but to give Republicans power again in 2012 (unless they blow it before then, as they might). That is the only way to undo Obama, and the damage leftist Democrats have done under Obama. What we need to do, however, is to elect NON-ESTABLISHMENT candiidates for as many offices as possible. That, at least, has the potential for controlling establishment Repubicans. There appears little chance for a non-establishment nominee for President, although I will certainly vote for one who gains any tractio. Yes, I like Michelle Bockman and Sarah Palin, but neither looks likely to gain traction. This makes it even more important to keep voting for the "new" kind of Republican that (for now) appears to have actual principles (meaning an attempt can almost always be made to label such a person as "extreme", but--again--you deserve what you get if you buy this kind of "demonizing"). P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (eyesight).