Archives for posts with tag: debt

The Teapublican Shutdown was about nothing, it turns out. First it was about Obamacare, then it was about the deficit, then it was about the debt, and so on and on and on. In the end, nothing seemed to be behind the shutdown, as the stated reasons kept changing. So, it was about nothing.

And THAT, friends, is also what it accomplished. Nothing.

Remember this when next you cast a ballot.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky


This showed up on a friend’s feed, and the Cranky One just had to post it here. Because with all the Benghazi/IRS/NSA brouhahi, it’s a good bet you haven’t heard about it. In less than four years, Obama has cut the budget deficit he inherited from the Shrub in half. That’s right, a “tax and spend Democrat” is a better money manager than a “conservative Republican”. Don’t believe it? Tough rocks, pal, here are the numbers:

Nor is it the first time. Clinton did the same thing to another Bush deficit, if you’ll bother to remember.

It is time for us to throw away the old labels and advertising slogans, and look at the facts. And the facts say, without equivocation, that modern Democrats spend less and tax less than do modern “Republicans”. Shocking, yes. But true. You want to pay less in taxes? Vote for Dems. Believe it or not.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Mr. Blunt and Cranky has a tendency to throw gauntlets. Part of that is a personality trait, and part of it is designed to promulgate his viewpoint. When one issues a challenge, one must accept that the “challenge-ee” will pick the glove up and whup it right back at the challenger. And so it goes.

In some cases, the replies are piles of neatly arranged facts (real or alleged), with which the combatants duel away. This usually happens with economics and other quantifiable topics. But there are done subjects that are not as easily proven or disproven, and that’s where we can’t always settle on a common view.

For example: last Saturday’s post about Steubenville , in which this writer threw down on the town for their lack of action in the face of a truly horrific rape crime spree.

A lot of responses came back, alleging bias, assumptions, tendentiousness, and so forth. All reasonable thoughts, and worthwhile discussion topics. However, no one came back with any proof to counter the original post: rather, the replies were either themselves based on inference and anecdotal evidence, or were naught but ad hominem attacks.

It is always possible that your humble correspondent is full of s***. If you can prove that 90 % of Steubenvillians are in fact bravely and loudly fighting back against the rape culture that permeates their city, just forward your evidence along and a full retraction will be published.

Bring it. It would be good to be proven wrong on this topic.

Mr. B & C

…you know, like the pundits and media were saying would happen if he got elected. And then the Congress said ever since he got elected. And then the same thing after he got re-elected. Still no destroyed economy. In fact, the economy seems to keep getting better and better.

So…if the economy hasn’t  been destroyed like they said it would…maybe Obama isn’t the stinking Kenyan socialist they said he was?

Naaaaaah. Don’t be ridiculous.

Mr. B & C

Lots of people would have you believe that Obama has created a record-breaking budget deficit, and that he is also, all by his little lonesome,  responsible for the enormous national debt. Neither is true. Part of the reason so many people believe these lies stems from a lack of understanding of what the Hell they are talking about.

The deficit is an annual number based on the budget passed by Congress and signed by the President. The debt is a total number that spans years, perhaps decades of previous Administrations and Congresses. Got it? 

Here are the actual numbers: (This page shows budget defecits. You can click the “Debt” to see that information.)

And the actual numbers show that Obama is CUTTING THE BUDGET DEFICIT, AND SLOWING THE RATE OF INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT. It matters not one bucket of warm spit what crap you have heard from Rush Limbaugh, Fox “News” or your “representatives”, much less the lazy-arsed hacks that pass for “reporters” these days.

The Debt is not the Deficit. The first is going up, and  the second is going down. Both suck, but the Congress and the President are slowly dealing with them both. Now that you know the facts, quitcherbitchin. And tell your friends the truth, because they sure as Hell won’t hear it from the media or Congress.

Mr. B & C


File this one under “Partisan politics has gone lizard-s***  crazy”: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell brought up a bill of his from a while back and asked for it to be voted on. As soon as he found out it WOULD be voted on, he filibustered it. Really. Mr. Blunt and Cranky couldn’t make this stuff up:

This would be funny if it weren’t so sick.

Mr. B & C

Here is an interesting article that points out the lie that is Congressional rhetoric:

In brief: the Congress is telling the Defense Department how to do its job, and spending money that the Pentagon does not want spent. Why, you ask? ‘Tis elementary, my dear Watson:

“We are saying it’s true in pretty much all aspects of politics – but especially the defense industry. It’s almost impossible to separate out the money that is going into elections and the special interests. And what we found was the direct spike in the giving around certain important dates that were tied to votes.” So says Aaron Metha, one of the report’s authors. Put another way: Congress is more interested in lining its pockets than properly funding the operations of our government. And we get stuck with the bill while they become millionaires in the process.

Next time you hear a Senator or Congresscritter rail against deficits, take it with a ton or two of salt. They don’t care about us, or our troops, or the deficit, or the debt: they only care about how much money they can stuff into their billfolds.

Mr. B & C

Mr. Blunt and Cranky loves to write, but knows that sometimes someone else’s article is so well-written that it needs little elaboration.  This being one of those time, he encourages all y’all to click this link and read this article: published by those notorious liberals at Forbes, written by a pundit who is a regular on that  commie network Fox News, and backed up by socialists like the Heritage Foundation:

Be sure to follow the links used by the author, and if you can take the time, the comments thread is actually worth a glance for a change.  The gist: Obama isn’t as big a spender as the lazy-arsed media would have us believe.  Enjoy.

Mr. B & C

P.S.: As an Eisenhower fan, this writer finds the historical comparison a bit of a giggle, given the current level of irrational anti-Obama screeching in the media and around the country.