In care you were thinking there was any actual balance to Obama’s “balanced approach,” he wants to dispel you of that notion as Obama has said he has no intentions of balancing the budget. Then why does he even want to raise taxes if he doesn’t seem to care how much debt we get? I guess it’s that the more money in people’s pockets, the more freedom they have, and thinking of people having lots of freedom make Obama break out in hives.
Not only is his approach “Balanced,” Frank, apparently it’s also “Fair” and highly “Medicated.”
@1 ~
Obama’s “balanced approach” is the Cloward-Piven approach”.
That is to OVERLOAD the economic system until it breaks. The balancing part come in when he gives BILLIONS to his Muslim friends and BILLIONS to his Solar Energy pals and BILLIONS to make sure Israel faces the Muslim Bruthahood in the coming worldwide nuclear war.
What, me balance the budget? ~ Alfred E. Obama.
Maybe he siad “Baalanced” budget . . . that would make sense . . . .
[From Wikipedia:
“Baal is in 17th Century goetic occult writings one of the seven princes of Hell. The name is drawn from the Canaanite deity Baal mentioned in the Hebrew Bible . . . “]
He is simply being a typical Socialist.
They are dedicated to bringing everyone down to the Lowest Common Denominator. (They all get poorer!)
Capitalism is dedicated to bringing everyone up to the Greatest Common Multiple. (They all get wealthier!)
The main attraction is that Socialism is the opiate of those who envy the more accomplished and do not want to work for it. They would rather bring down success than earn it.
Pingback: IMAO » Blog Archive » Paul Ryan’s Plan Versus Obama’s No Plan
I have my own theory on this. Just as, the more you earn, the bigger a mortgage you can carry, the more government taxes, the more it can borrow (at least without affecting credit rating too negatively).
Their goal is not more tax revenue, and it certainly is not to pay down the debt; to the contrary, their goal is to carry more debt.