Long Distance Runaround
Things & Stuff
Neal Boortz - Neal's Nuze
It's All Your Fault
2010-02-12 - 2:22 p.m.
Went to the doctor yesterday.
Why two? Well, one was for H1N1 and the other was the more comprehensive "seasonal", which the nurse said covered the flu, heartworm, ringworm, and fleas.
I'm not sure about some of that. I was busy licking myself and I may have misheard her.
I also picked up the 10-99 forms for Bob and dropped them off. We visited for awhile and then I headed home.
It's been cold at night - like in the high 30s/low 40s. I've been sleeping fully clothed, with my slippers on...and with two portable warming units (the cats).
President Obama is now saying he is "agnostic" about raising taxes on households making less than $250k / yr.
Remember that campaign promise that he would NOT do that? That, if you elected him and you made less than $250k / yr, that "you will not see your taxes increased a single dime"? Forget that.
And why use the word "agnostic", which is usually used in religious terms? I went to dictionary.com and had to scroll down to find this definition: "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something".
So why not just SAY that? "I am doubtful about not raising taxes."
Because there would be backlash...much more so than there would be by using words like "agnostic". But then, raising taxes IS something of a religion to politicians.
But not to worry - Obama knows what's wrong:
Read that one line again: "The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out."
It's NOT spending. It's "a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out".
Mr. President, if I'm spending more than I'm making then the problem is my priorities are screwed up. I've had months where I didn't cut back, and I literally found myself in a bind before the next check. I'm working on being better about it, but it's not a "mismatch" of funds.
Good grief. He can't actually believe his own bullshit, can he?
And over here we have two Democrat senators who want to get rid of the filibuster, or at least weaken it.
The election of Scott Brown really has them upset. It brings a whole new meaning to "bring me my brown pants".
Two things, here. The Democrats have had enough of a majority that they could have pushed through anything they wanted. They failed to do so. Yet the Republicans are being blamed for "blocking". How could that have done that when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority BEFORE Brown was elected?
Secondly - if the filibuster gets weakened or removed and the Republicans get a majority again, the Democrats will complain that they have no way of stopping the Republicans from doing what they want. As soon as the power shifts - and it always does, maybe not this election cycle or the next but it WILL happen - the Democrats will rail about the "unfairness" of it all...despite the fact that THEY did it.
I will bet money on this last one.
Okay. I need to get going.
Have a good weekend.
Be seeing you.
0 comments so far
Previous - Next - Leave A Note - Random