Well, I’m back to blogging after a long hiatus. Let’s get back to the fun.
Recently, an appeals court overturned the gay marriage ban in California. Proposition 8 had been voted into law with 52% of the vote in the state. A lower court judge had ruled it unconstitutional, but proponents of Prop 8 appealed (one reason was the lower court judge was gay). The appeals court upheld that ruling 2-1, saying there was no compelling reason for the law. Proponents have vowed to appeal again, and take it to the SCOTUS if they have to.
As I mentioned the other day on my Facebook page, I don’t think that people understand there is civil marriage and there is church marriage. Proponents of gay marriage bans tend to feel they must “protect the sanctity of marriage” by not letting gays get married. Prop 8 proponents said that the government “shouldn’t be allowed to redefine” marriage. If they want to maintain the status quo regarding marriage, so be it. Do it at the CHURCH level. But leave civil marriage alone. Not everyone in religious. And I have yet to hear exactly what threat allowing a subset of a group of people who represent about 3% of the population get married, civil unionized, or whatever, would have on heterosexual people getting married. If gay marriage is such a threat, why is it that all the gay marriages that have occurred in states where it’s legal haven’t caused the world to come to an end? More importantly, how can people who want to be called “conservative” and advocate for individual rights, then want the government to enforce a law simply in order to keep from being offended? It doesn’t make sense.
Fairness. A word that is getting used way too much. More often it’s used lately in reference to the rich and how much they pay in taxes. Mind you, there has been no definition given, but it creates a good soundbite. Funny enough, a write wrote what I consider to be a humorous article in the Wall Street Journal, A Fairness Quiz for the President. Of course there is no chance there would be answers forthcoming from President Obama concerning the article. But asking questions such as “is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax” and “Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized” can only leave us wondering what kind of answers the President would give if pressed. And of course, the comments section below the article is quite entertaining.
And finally, there is the attempt in Wisconsin to recall Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans in office. The main complain is that he took away public workers’ right to collective bargain. Further, he dared do this having not said before he was elected that this was something he would do. I didn’t realize a candidate has to spell out every single thing they hope to accomplish beforehand. also, there is a corruption probe going on that seems to have nabbed someone close to him. Its plain there is an effort afoot to get rid of him. My problem is, how do you justify recalling someone whose ideas are actually working? There are school systems where collective bargaining didn’t take place that saved money and made no layoffs. In other areas where the unions were able to force collective bargaining before the new law took effect, school districts are having to fire teachers to avoid budget gaps. It will be interesting to see how the recall election plays out.
There are many legitimate aspects of the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal. But we all know its the more salacious, suggestive, and often crazy things that are made up about the situation that will sell more papers, get more internet clicks, or get more viewers.
Today, we look at Toure, a contributor on MSNBC. Nevermind that he has already described Cain as a minstrel character. Ignore that he follows the liberal mindset regarding Cain, that he isn’t a serious candidate. And let’s look past the fact that he only goes on shows where he can say such foolishness and not have someone from the other side to call him on how stupid he sounds.
During a recent appearance on “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell (another very-far-left-leaner who says the most outlandish things and never gets called on it by the left), Toure had this to say:
The instinctual fear in America of black men being sexually inappropriate or aggressive or dominating with white women is very, very deep. And when is this going to start to come out?
People start to feel this on a deep level. ‘This is wrong. He keeps going after our women. We don’t like this.’
Say WHAT?!
We already know that there is a part of the left that have to make things racial all the time. The Tea Party is racist. The GOP is racist. The right is racist! No surprise there. But sometimes, when you hear statements like those, you wonder if the person saying them even takes themselves seriously. I have no doubt that this Toure does, since he has many TV appearances and many chances to give his opinion on things. But seeing or hearing statements like that makes me wonder: isn’t HE the one that is coming across as minstrel-like? “Oh, sure! Put me on TV so I can talk more about the racist right and the clueless black politicians that support them!”
I say people like this make us look worse than a Herman Cain does. Problem is, most folks don’t even realize it.
The website Politico has done an investigation and found that while GOP frontrunner Herman Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association, there were two female employees who accused him of sexual harrassment. The two were asked to leave the NRA in return for receiving cash settlements and promising to keep what happened under wraps.
You can read the article to get the details of the situation, but what comes to mind for me is simply this: how will this play out? The criticism from the Left is already flying fast and furious. He’s been called an Uncle Tom. He’s being used by the Tea Party to cover up their racist leanings. And so on. Now, this gives detractors new ammunition.
But I wonder if many of the most vocal detractors will be people who were willing to give former president Bill Clinton a pass. People who still talk about Anita Hill’s accusations of harrassment of Clarence Thomas while they were at the EEOC say nothing of how accusations of Clinton’s dalliances were floating around well before he ran for and won the presidency. Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Clinton in 1994 and was treated like a pariah–until “the dress” appeared and Clinton had to settle and also deal with getting impeached for perjury.
My point is, regardless of which side it happens to, its always interesting to see the reaction from the other side, whose supporters are usually quick to forget that they were fine with what happened when their person did it. It’s only bad when the other side does it, right?
Having said that, is this something that, if true, should DQ Cain from the race? Will this pass over, or will this become a stone around his neck? Stay tuned.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I remember not too long ago that there were calls to tone down the political rhetoric in the wake of the Gabby Jeffords shooting. Anyone else remember this?
Obviously the message was lost. Recently, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi implied abortion funding legislation passed by Republicans would result in women dying on hospital floors with doctors not allowed to save them–because somehow, the legislation in question would prevent them from doing so. Common sense tells us that that assertion is wrong and way over the top. But lets move on.
Lately, Vice President Joe Biden has been out pushing for passage of President Obama’s jobs bill. Evidently, it was not enough for him to simply say the bill is needed to create jobs. Instead, the VP decided to take a different tack. He decided the best method is to pull out one of the things that terrifies women most–rape. His assertion? That without passage of the bill, the number of police on America’s streets will decrease, and rapes and murders will increase. He first stated this at a rally in Flint, Michigan and even cited statistics. He then said it again a week later at a fireman’s rally in DC.
But there is a minor problem. As I like to say, don’t let facts get in the way of a good argument.
In general, there are statistics out that show that in many places, even with fewer officers on the beat, crime rates have still gone down. Specifically, the Fact Checker at the Washington Post obtained numbers for crime in Flint, where Biden first made his assertion, and showed that Biden overstated the number of rapes by a lot. On top of that, the Chief of Police in Flint has previously stated there was no real correlation to the size of the force and the amount of crime:
As the Flint Journal reported in May: “Officials said the fact that 46 police officers were laid off last year had little to do with the escalating crime. Most of the crimes were between people that knew each other. ‘No matter how many officers we have, we can’t stop disputes between two people in their own homes,’ Lock said.”
Lock made a similar assertion in September, 2010, when FBI statistics were released showing violent crime in Flint had decreased in 2009. The Flint Journal reported: “A smaller police force doesn’t automatically mean more crime, said Flint police chief Alven Lock. ‘There’s been years when we had 300 officers and we still had more homicides,’ he said, referring to 1986, when he was in the homicide division and homicides hit an all-time high of 61.”
I’m willing to bet that many other members of law enforcement say the same thing. Of course, that doesn’t make for a good political soundbite when one is trying to paint a picture of the opposing party as being ok with an increase in crime.
We all remember the speech. “Pass this jobs bill right away!” We all heard that phrase many times during the President’s prime time speech on jobs. Yet, after a month, there had been no bill brought to the floor of either chamber of Congress.
When I wrote about how Dems weren’t even trying to place the bill in the House, I recall someone saying that there was no point, because Republicans wouldn’t vote for it and it would lose. My view was (and is) that you at least have to try.
According to President Obama, Republicans are blocking his bill in the house, so he took the time to call out Eric Cantor during a stop in Texas:
President Barack Obama got tough on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday, calling him out by name for saying he will block a vote on the president’s $447 billion plan to create jobs and boost the economy.
“Yesterday, the Republican majority leader in Congress, Eric Cantor, said that right now, he won’t even let the jobs bill have a vote in the House of Representatives. That’s what he said,” Obama told a crowd in Mesquite, Texas. “Won’t even let it be debated. … Do they not have the time? They just had a week off. Is it inconvenient?”
Now, if thats true, then the President is right for calling him out. But, Cantor retorted with a good point about support, or lack of, for the bill from the President’s own party:
Cantor said Monday that the president’s jobs bill is dead on arrival in the House and won’t be brought to a vote. “This all-or-nothing approach is unreasonable,” he said. “I would say from a practical side … he’s got problems on his own side of the aisle with provisions in the bill that Democratic members disagree with. There are many issues that I’ve listed here that we can work together on. So instead of continuing to maintain this sort of campaign posture, let’s do something to work together.”
Somehow, the President conveniently left out that many in his own party don’t support his bill as written. But pointing that out wouldn’t score political points, now would it?
Then, the Obama campaign sends out an email pointing out that Cantor and Co. were blocking the bill. Because of course, the best way to raise money is to call out the other guys, right?
There was only one problem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who happens to be a Democrat, went “nuclear” in order to block a vote on the very jobs bill that President Obama yelled at Republicans for blocking. In other words, to prevent a vote, Reid changed the rules of the Senate:
Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.
The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.
For those who forgot, the last time there was discussion of the “nuclear option,” it was because Democrats were stalling to block Bush judicial nominees, and Republicans were threatening to do what Reid did yesterday. Of course, back then, Dems were howling that it wouldn’t be right for Republicans to change how things had been done in the Senate for many many years just to get their way, and in the end there was a bipartisan compromise to get past the gridlock. Yet, Reid jumped in yesterday and opened Pandora’s Box.
Reid claims his move was to prevent the Republicans from offering endless amendments to the bill up for vote, and that Republicans were just trying to “embarrass the President” since they know the bill wouldn’t pass as written–due to lack of support from Senate Democrats.
So, the question is, will the President call out his own party? Will his campaign send out an email talking about how Reid and friends are blocking the jobs bill and should explain themselves?
As expected, Texas Governor Rick Perry entered the crowded GOP presidential field over the weekend. Him tossing his hat in the ring was a non-event, as people had been expecting him to enter for a while now. No offense to Michelle Bachmann, but most bets right now are figuring this to be a two-horse race between Perry and former governor Mitt Romney. (Sidenote: is becoming president worth running multiple times and spending millions of your own money??)
Almost immediately, the attacks on Perry started coming.
It’s no secret that the Left loves attacking their political opponents via cracks at their intelligence. Folks on the left will wax poetically on about how intelligent Obama is and how stupid George W. Bush is, or how stupid Michelle Bachmann is. I can’t recall anyone on the Left referring to Al Gore being stupid even though his grades were actually worse than Bush’s. And even when such an observation was made, it was done in a way to still make Gore–the Lefty–not look so bad:
His generally middling college grades at Harvard in fact bear a close resemblance to the corresponding Yale marks of his presidential opponent, George W. Bush, whose studiousness and brainpower have been more open to question during this campaign.
Gore arrived at Harvard with an impressive 1355 SAT score, 625 verbal and 730 math, compared with Bush’s 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 math. In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore’s grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush’s transcript from Yale. That was the year Gore’s classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana. His grades temporarily reflected his mildly experimental mood, and alarmed his parents. He received one D, one C-minus, two C’s, two C-pluses and one B-minus, an effort that placed him in the lower fifth of the class for the second year in a row.
But I digress.
Recently, The Huffington Post jumped into the fray by announcing they had obtained a copy of Rick Perry’s college transcript. As is usually the case, the intended implication is that maybe Perry ain’t so bright:
One reason that might explain his hostility toward the system: He didn’t do very well in it. A source in Texas passed The Huffington Post Perry’s transcripts from his years at Texas A&M University. The future politician did not distinguish himself much in the classroom. While he later became a student leader, he had to get out of academic probation to do so. He rarely earned anything above a C in his courses — earning a C in U.S. History, a D in Shakespeare, and a D in the principles of economics. Perry got a C in gym.
Nevermind that the debate should center on what he has done since then, or maybe even focus on his term as governor, or even that release of a transcript without permission of the student may be illegal. No. Let’s go back to college so we can legitimately say (say it along with me now) “Rick Perry is stupid!!”
Now, the other preferred method of attack is to find a way of labeling the GOP as “racist.” Nevermind that the word has been misused so much that most people don’t even know the real definition, or don’t realize that “bigot” or “prejudiced” would probably be better if the argument actually applied.
MSNBC talking head Ed Schultz decided to prove Perry is a racist. Now, mind you, the Left is always on the case when it comes to calling out statements they don’t like, especially when they are made by Limbaugh, Hannity, and other Conservative talking heads. Somehow, they never mind when people like Schultz pull absurd statements out of their sphincter void and toss them out like gospel.
Rick Perry gave a speech where he referred to America’s debt as a “black cloud hanging over us.” So what did Schultz do? He had his people do some selective editing:
Yep. Let’s leave out a key phrase–“that debt”–and make a case out of it, going so far as to invite guests on who you know will agree with you. Schultz did apologize. “On this particular statement, we should not have included it in our coverage of his overheated rhetoric,” he said in a statement. “That’s our mistake. The full context of all of these other statements show who he is and what he stands for.”
In other words, “sorry we faked THAT one, but he’s still a racist!”
Next, we’ll start hearing about how GOP candidates are ugly and dress funny.
With the recent downgrade of the country’s credit rating by Standard & Poor’s, the White House had to blame someone for what happened. So they complained loudly about how S&P had made a mistake with the downgrade, even pointing out an accounting error that S&P made that made things look worse than they really are. Then, they came out and blamed the Tea Party for causing the downgrade. I’m confused. If S&P made a mistake, it would have nothing to do with the Tea Party, right? Then again, everything is the Tea Party’s fault, from what I hear.
The other day, President Obama did a press conference to address the credit downgrade. While he was giving his speech, the stock market dropped 200 points. Ouch.
Speaking of Standard & Poor’s, how do you go forward with a downgrade even after you’re told you made an accounting error? Simple. Just blame the politicians! Say it’s because Congress can’t work together. Come up with a worthy excuse. But just don’t own up to it. By the way, they didn’t downgrade Lehman Brothers until AFTER they imploded…
Former Vice President and current Global Warming–uh, Climate Change– crusader Al Gore was giving a speech recently and ran off the rails. Seems he was calling BS on those who don’t agree with him, and called the scientists who put out anti-warming info fake. I could’ve sworn that the main basis for the argument is whether or not the changes occurring are man made or natural. But I digress.
It’s recall season in Wisconsin. Democrats, angry that the Republican-led Legislature changed collective bargaining law, were able to collect signatures to force a recall election for 6 Republican state senators. In order to have a chance at taking control of the state Senate, they needed to win 3 of the seats up for recall. Unfortunately for them, they only won 2. There are more elections coming but they will have no chance at winning control until the next election. If the Dems had succeeded, I think it would’ve sent shockwaves nationwide. Having said that, pay attention to the redistricting fights going on in the states. Redistricting happens every 10 years and the party in power at the time in a particular state usually tries to stack things in their favor. Look and see how strange some districts end up looking just to accomplish either keeping a rep in office or getting the opposition OUT of office.
This article was brought to my attention by a friend of mine (shoutout to Kovarik Glasco, fellow Georgia Tech grad and fellow fan of the “Song of Ice and Fire” series).
There is a narrative that President Obama and many on the left engage in when discussing the economy. Even two-plus years into the new presidency, the “blame Bush” technique is still used. In this narrative, the picture painted shows runaway spending and runaway deficits during the Bush years. And the main point he uses is that the year he entered office he inherited a deficit of nearly $1 trillion.
But in an article found on the Huffington Post, Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, shows how this narrative just isn’t true:
This is simply not true. In its budget projections from January 2008, the last set before the impact of the collapse of the housing bubble was clear, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected a deficit of just $198 billion for 2009. This is less than one-fifth of the “on track to top $1 trillion” figure that President Obama gave in his speech. This is a serious error. One trillion is a much bigger number than $198 billion.
This difference is central to the budget debate. People can argue that the $198 billion deficit projected for 2008 was too large. But it would be absurd to claim it was out of control or represented any remotely serious threat to the nation’s solvency. In fact, over the five years 2003-2007 the country’s debt to GDP ratio was virtually unchanged, meaning that the country could run deficits of the same size (relative to the economy) literally forever.
This changed with the recession caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. It was the recession, and the response to it, that pushed the deficit in 2009 from the $198 billion projected by CBO to the over $1 trillion noted by President Obama in his speech.
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started, on Oct. 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
One important note that both writers mentioned: the important thing being missed is JOBS. Job creation will create income earners, which will boost the economy and help revenues. This is what the debate in Washington should be all about.
Yesterday amongst my online pals, I was lamenting a new law that pushes for light bulbs to be more efficient, but in effect ends up pushing the masses to use more efficient but also more expensive and more hazardous CFC bulbs. The focus of my complain was a statement from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who said: “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Yes, we the masses would be lost if we didn’t have the government guiding our way.
Now, we have President Obama, who is currently trying to get a deal done to raise the debt limit. During a press conference, he stated:
I don’t want a deal in which I am able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I don’t need, while a parent struggling to send her kid to college finds they have a couple thousand dollars less in grants and student loans.
For now, let’s move past the second part of the statement, where he invokes the time honored tradition of scare tactics. Let’s talk about the “need.”
On the surface, Mr. Obama is talking about himself not needing a tax break, and not needing money he considers to be extra money. It’s quite humorous that he states this, since as President, he has everything taken care of. But let’s go below the surface. Obviously, his statement implicitly implies that the higher income earners should be happy to pay more in taxes because they don’t “need” the extra money they have in the bank. Once again, here is the government to our rescue, to guide us!
Hey! You’ve earned enough money! It doesn’t matter what your plans are for you money, we the government have decided FOR you that you have more than you need! Ignore that we are notorious for overspending! Its your patriotic duty to pay up anytime we feel we need more money!
Oh, and let’s do revisit the second part of the statement, regarding grants and loans. We are in a dire financial situation. Isn’t it a natural assumption that folks are going to feel the pain? And even if taxes go up, wouldn’t that money go to pay down the debt? Evidently, even in a situation where cuts should be the priority, and paying down deficit and debt right behind that, the administration will find ways to either increase spending somewhere or attempt to keep things status quo. Hello! McFly! Is that what Joe Public does when he needs to cut spending in his own household?
For years now, Democrats have been lobbying to have the current tax rates pushed back up to where they were before Bush II cut the rates. The top marginal rate, now 35%, would go up to 39.6% for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. Claims such as the rich need to pay their “fair share” (a term that is an undefined value, but effective in getting folks riled up), or that the rich have benefitted for long enough and need to pay up, are always used to try and bolster the argument. I support the idea of raising the marginal rates for EVERYONE to where they were before the Bush tax rate cuts, and have said so many times. But I discovered that, under further review, Democrats are attempting to go even further in their quest to turn high income earners into bigger cash cows for the government.
What most people don’t realize–and Dems aren’t going to hip folks to it–is that once the healthcare reform plan (“Obamacare”) goes into full effect, the tax rates for $200k/$250k earners will be more than they were pre-Bush. How? I’m glad you asked.
Baked into Obamacare are a number of tax rate increases designed to raise revenue to pay for the bill. The number of taxes built in varies depending on which source you use, but there were two that jumped out at me.
First, there is a new 3.8% surtax on investment income for the over $200k/$250k crowd. Currently, the tax rate on capital gains (profit made from an investment) and dividends (cash received for owning stock in a company) is at 15%. The new surtax will push that rate up to 18.3%. When the argument is made to go back up to the pre-Bush rate, which was 20%, there is no mention of the surtax. If Democrats have their way, the rate for capital gains and dividends would be at least 23.5%.
Next, there is the 0.9% Medicare surtax, also for the $200k/$250k people. Currently, 1.45% of everyone’s income is deducted to pay for Medicare. Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on taxable income, so everything the person makes in income is taxed at the 1.45% rate. However, with the new surtax, income over the $200k/$250k threshold will see a 0.9% tax increase, making the new tax rate 2.35%. Instead of raising the top rate 4.6% to get it back to pre-Bush levels, the increase would actually be 5.5%.
A different discussion for another day is the laundry list of other taxes built in, such as the tanning tax, the medical device tax, the health insurers tax, ect. The bottom line is, these taxes make the “we just want to go back to pre-Bush rates” argument nothing more than political foolery. And, as usual, most of the masses fall for it.
Oil companies, aka “Big Oil,” have been a constant target of the Left for as long as I can remember. Oil companies don’t control the price of oil, and only make a couple of pennies off the sale of gas, but one would never know that from listening to the constant berating they receive. Since most of us drive to get from A to B, we have to buy gas. When oil prices go up, so do gas prices. When this happens, SOMEBODY has to be the boogeyman. Why not those mean, nasty Big Oil companies? Any report of high profits must be attacked–in spite of the fact that the profit margins of the same oil companies tend to stay the same. Not only that, but they don’t even rank in the top 10 in terms of profit margins, yet companies with far greater margins don’t get nearly the attention. Its as though cheap gas is some type of right, not just a commodity.
Recent world events have sent the price of oil to major highs. Subsequently, some of the larger oil companies had record profits to report. Right on time, members of the Left were quick to start yelling about record profits, as well as government subsidies that oil companies receive.
Just to be clear (thank you, Pres. Obama. I love that phrase!), in a time of high deficits, I’m in favor of major cuts in corporate subsidies. We shouldn’t be borrowing money to fund ethanol (proven to be a waste of time), fund farms, ect. If there is an argument to be made, argue for getting rid of all of them.
But that is not the argument being made. Democrats in Congress are rallying to end corporate subsidies for the major oil companies. They basically say the companies don’t need it, and the money can be used to lower the deficit. I want to say amen but I find myself laughing at this. Why? Because just like with the budget negotiations, we have politicians making a huge deal over a relatively small amount of money. The projected savings from ending just those subsidies is $21 billion over 10 years. Yes, my fellow Americans, with trillion dollar deficits projected over that same time period, Democrats are yelling about what amounts to an average of $2.1 billion per year.
Is it a lot of money? To us, yes. As part of a multi-trillion dollar budget? No. This is nothing but a political ploy. A game. An attempt to lash out at those mean nasty oil companies. Someone let me know when the games end and folks get serious.
“When a woman got raped, blame her because she was wearing a skirt too short, she looked the wrong way or she wasn’t home in time to make the dinner,” Biden said.
“We’ve gotten by that,” he said. “But it’s amazing how these Republicans, the right wing of this party – whose philosophy threw us into this God-awful hole we’re in, gave us the tremendous deficit we’ve inherited – that they’re now using, now attempting to use, the very economic condition they have created to blame the victim – whether it’s organized labor or ordinary middle-class working men and women.”
The countdown clock has started to see how long before the women’s groups yell about this. It’s so off the wall, I won’t even go into how crazy he sounds still talking about an “inherited deficit” when we are going into year 3 of the Obama administration, especially with the amount of money that has been spent in the last 2 years alone.
Front and Center 