I Listened To McConnell On Both Meet The Press And Face The Nation And He Used The Same Talking ....

[global1]

points on both with respect to the upcoming debt ceiling/sequester issues.

1. We have an incredible spending addiction. This administration has driven spending as a percentage of our economy from 21 percent up to almost 25 percent. It's time for the president to pivot and lead us in a discussion about saving this country for our children and our grandchildren.

2. The President needs to be a leader and generate the discussion on his own. Instead he has to sort of be dragged kicking and screaming to the table when we have these big issues like the debt ceiling to get him to talk about it. I wish he'd lead.

I don't have a link to it - but I saw a table that showed spending under the different Presidential Administrations and it quite vividly pointed out that President Obama is not as big a spender as the other Presidents on this table.

NOTE: If anyone has that table can you post it in this thread please.

So what exactly is McConnell referring to when he basically insinuates that PBO is spending excessively? And why don't these interviewers pin down McConnell and show him this table and ask him to explain what he means - because it is contrary to what is happening in reality.

What exactly is the President doing all this spending on Mitch? What about the 2 wars, the Bush tax breaks and the Medicare Drug spending that went on during the BushCo Administration?

Why don't these guys like Gregory and Shieffer pin this weasel down?

Also - the Repugs are asking for a $1 to $1 cut in spending to raised revenue or a $1-$1 cut in spending for the raising of the debt limit.

Why can't the Dems turn it around and ask for a $1 worth of revenue for each $1 this Congress approves for spending? Why does it always have to be on the Repugs terms $1 worth of spending cuts for each $1 the debt limit is raised?

[global1]

1. I Just Found The Table I Was Talking About - Here It Is....

[oldhippydude]

3. President Obama was elected in 08 not 10

although I understand why the graph is made that way.. it's easy for others to insinuate late Bush debt onto President Obama

[mechtech]

4. Obama date ?

Why did you not point out that in the chart all of the other prezes dates start
two years after their election same as Obama ?

[TexasTowelie]

6. The reason why the chart indicate those dates is that the while Obama took office in January 2009,

the first federal budget adopted while he was in office was for fiscal year 2010. The same pattern applies to all of the presidents listed on the chart.

[oldhippydude]

11. duh

[cliffordu]

2. K&R.

[Voice for Peace]

5. good post, kicking it

thanks!

[Cosmocat]

7. It is so e seriously cynical shit

and, this is where Rs absolutely engage in long range thinking.

They absolutely ran this country into the ground with Bush from 2000 to 2006. The tax cuts, wars and general plundering of the federal tax dollars to special interests.

This clown voted for EVERYTHING that got us to this point during the time.

Then, when it all peaks just as, it happens, a democrat comes into office, the put ALL the blame on him.

What makes it worse is the friggen recession slammed BO coming in the door, and he had to deficit spend to stop the bleeding and start digging us out.

Anyone with sense understands this. BUT, the beautiful thing about being a "conservative" is never having to accept responsibility. There is always someone else who you get to be worried about and blame for everything.

He knows this to an extent, but being a republican, they just yell their bullshit so much that they start to believe what they say.

The focus is not REALLY on the debt, it is now is their focus on destroying the safety net.

Funny thing is, asshats like McConnell were running around in 99, when there was a balanced budget, pitching Bush I and his tax cuts by saying "you can't trust a government to have a balanced budget" because they they will only buy up things they are not supposed to buy up.

They will play EVERYTHING both ways, depending on which way the shit is flowing.

[ReRe]

8. Why doesn't the media hold his feet to the fire?

Because they get their money from the same place McConnell gets his...
from THE CORPORATION. Bet you he didn't mention the state he represents either, did he? And neither Gregory & Shiefer asked him how his state is doing, did they?
All I can say is Go Ashley Judd!

[delrem]

9. McConnell is just doing what Reps do best.

He's leading the discussion. The Dems certainly aren't. This is just another point in a continuous right wing project, and as far as I can see the only things Dems contribute are a few weak arguments regarding how far to "cave". What else can they do, since they don't even try to control the language. They don't even bother to put forward a partisan point, so totally committed are they to "bipartisanship". Any potential Dem partisan point isn't even allowed on the table.

Here is just another "cliffhanger" in a continuous string of "cliffhanger" talking points, where the kind of shyte "deals" that Dems end up applauding themselves for don't even make sense except according to a Rep perspective, where Reps determine everything re. what the US is politically aware of.

[Scuba]

10. If you haven't read "The Political Brain" by Drew Weston, give it a try. It explains how ...

... the R's are masters at setting the narrative and the D's are either unwilling or unable to counter. Should be required reading for all Dems.

[Zoeisright]

13. That isn't what repukes do best.

What they do best is fucking LIE. And the complicit media goes along with that shit.

[Blue Owl]

12. McConJob Mitch

Loathesome. Vile. Fork-tongued.