From The Idiots At Newsweek

You know, when President Barry announced his "newfound" position on the gay marriage, I thought that I was one step closer to having a dream of mine realized.  That dream being that I might never have to hear about this subject ever again.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  Now, all of my news feeds are inundated with the glowing media reporting of his "announcement".  And since it would seem that no one else is going to do it, I guess I'm going to have to be the one to report this accurately.  I certainly can't leave any sort of unbiased reporting up to Newsweek.  Look at their cover!  Look at it! 

Are you freaking kidding me, Newsweek?  A gay halo?  A gaylo, if you will.  This isn't news!  And even if it was news, you're reporting it wrong!  Ahem...allow me...

See, before President Barry was against gay marriage, he was for it.  That's right.  When he ran for the Illinois Senate for the first time in 1996, he was all for the gays getting all married and stuff.  But then when he ran for re-election in 1998, he wasn't quite sure about it.   And then when it came to run for the U.S.Senate in 2004 and for President in 2008, that's when he decided that he should be against it.   I should also mention that he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would have made it so that marriage would have been defined as being between one man and one woman.  So he was against that.  But in 2008, that's when he said that he personally felt that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he isn't in favor of gay marriage.  And now here we are in 2012 and he's all for it again.  Good grief.  And now we're supposed to be all excited about his "announcement"?  No one else but me sees it as a transparent political move that just works for him right about now?  OK, then. 

You know, there's one part of his sudden "enlightenment" that I think has been under-reported.  And that's probably for the same reason that other key issues about this story have been under-reported as well.  It just doesn't fit the narrative that the sucky, sucky media wants so badly to portray.   It's the part where he said, "I think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, uh, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. A bunch of them are friends of mine."

EXACTLY!  Just because people aren't exactly for gay marriage, doesn't mean that those people are hateful bigots.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Some of them absolutely are.  Those sorts of people are commonly known as a-holes.  But the folks who have a strong religious component to their opinions or those who just aren't quite very comfortable with redefining something that has been the same since the beginning of time, those folks don't deserve the wrath that is sometimes placed upon them.  That's a component to this issue that I have always found fascinating.  Those who want to be treated equally even though they're different lashing out at those who don't agree with them.  Uhhh, didn't you just say that it's OK that you're different?  So, it's OK for you to be different than them, but it isn't OK for them to be different than YOU? 

Let's also make sure that we don't overlook the caption.  "The First Gay President".  Holy crap!  Did he come out?!  I always thought that he looked a little TOO lovingly at Biden, if you know what I mean!  Jesus, Newsweek.  Just because someone comes out in favor of something, that doesn't mean that they ARE that thing.  President Barry has drones bombing the crap out of terrorists in foreign lands.  Is your next cover going to be of him with the caption "The First Homicidal President"?  "The First Murdering President"?  Of course not! You know why?  Because it would be not only incorrect, but completely freaking asinine as well!  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  (OK, I don't know for sure if Newsweek was ever 'mighty'.  But that cover is definitely crap.) 
 

Sphere: Related Content

But He Could Pay It Back

How did student loans end up being a big topic of discussion for President Barry?  How did they end up being a big topic of discussion for a bunch of people, really?  I mean, we're talking about student loans here.  No one was forced to take out these loans.  Nor was anyone forced to take out an exorbitant amount of money with whatever interest rate came along with that money.  So why are some people acting like because they can't afford to pay for a decision that they made on their own, that their loans should be forgiven or something like that because they can't afford to pay them back?  That's the confusing part for me.

Now President Barry is in on it.  And what he has to say about it, I find to be absolutely ridiculous.  According to the Huffington Post, President Barry was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill giving a speech to students who I imagine just as eager as can be to lap up what he was saying.  And what he was saying was something along the lines of "We didn't come from wealthy families. So when we graduated from college and grad school, we had a mountain of debt. When we got married, we got poorer together."  He didn't appear to mention that he did receive a scholarship to Occidental College.  And those will help!  But left out that part.  It's hard to make people feel responsible for themselves when you want to make sure that they feel as if everything is stacked against them. But here's the part that I found astonishing.  He apparently mentioned that "they only finished paying off their student loans about eight years ago." 

Let's take a look at that.  He finished paying off his loans in 2004.  Now, he attended Harvard Law School, so I'm pretty sure that someone as smart as he is didn't go into it thinking that it would be cheap.  I did some calculations and with the aid of an inflation calculator I figured out that three years at Harvard Law from 1989-1991 when he graduated would have been about $131,678.09 at the time.  (Adjusted in 2010 dollars, tuition is $47,600 per year plus $25,000 for "room, board, books, travel and personal".  I don't know about you, but when I went to college, I didn't have any travel expenses.  Then again, I didn't go to Harvard.)  I have no idea what sort of loan he took out, so I don't know what sort of interest he paid.  Again, he didn't mention that stuff. 

So he graduated in 1991 and it took him 13 years to pay off his student loans.  That comes out to a payment of around $1,149.63 per month.  Now that's just for himself.  He did say "we had a mountain of debt".  Michelle went to Princeton on a scholarship, but she also went to Harvard Law School, so let's assume that she had the same amount of debt and owed a payment of around $1,149.63 per month.  That's  $2,299.26 per month.  Again, this is without interest.  Add on about 5% interest makes another $57.48 per month per loan or $114.96 per month for both.  That would make their total monthly payment around $2,414.22.  For thirteen years. 

So, let me get this straight.  He and his wife went to Harvard freaking Law School and racked up loans for (by my estimation) somewhere around $263356.18.  For those of you unfamiliar with numbers, that's over a quarter of a million dollars.  Is he really complaining about making enough money with a Harvard law degree that he was about to pay back over a quarter of a million dollars in only thirteen years?  You have to be kidding me. 

See, it needs to be pointed out here that he went to a prestigious university that cost an incredibly insane amount of money, but earned a degree that was actually at least worth what he paid for it.  He didn't go to Harvard and pay that sort of money just to end up with an art history degree which he would then use as a qualification to make my caramel macchiato at Starbucks.  What did he think was going to happen when he went to Harvard?  Probably exactly what actually happened.  He accumulated a debt that he would be able to pay off.  (After all, he graduated in 1991 and was first elected as a US Senator in 1996.  Senators make $165,200 now which is the equivalent of $120,129 in 1996.  So only 5 years out of college and he was definitely making over $100,000 per year.  And that's not to say that he wasn't making at least that much before then.  That's just a definite figure for a definite year.  Michelle was making at least that much as well.  Actually, from what I can figure out, she was probably making more than him for a while.) 

The point here is that he took on debt that he could afford.  That's not a problem.  These people that take on massive amount of debt when they're not going to Harvard and then they don't make a ton of money because they got a degree that doesn't exactly print money (theater and fashion majors, I'm looking at you) are the ones that are the problem.  It's not the same.  And I don't see why taxpayer dollars (Translation: my money) should be going to pay off loans for people who took them out when they couldn't afford them.  I'm not saying that the system is perfect.  But I am saying that there are a lot of people complaining about things that are totally their own doing.  And I'm getting a little tired of fixing other people's problems.


I can't believe that he stood up there and acted like only paying off his student loans eight years ago was some sort of a big deal when he and Michelle likely had over $260,000 in debt to pay back. And it only took him thirteen years!  That seems like awfully quick for the amount of money that was involved.  But those students at UNC Chapel Hill just lapped it all up.  Since when did disillusioning the young in this manner become a fashionable thing to do?  Getting a college education is SO important.  Getting it at the expense of your future financial stability is not a good idea.  Can't we push that message a little bit more?  Just a little?  Please? 

Sphere: Related Content

The South Will Not Rise Again

We have a problem. Actually, we have two problems. They are, in no particular order, Mississippi and Alabama. Let the jokes about people in the South begin! Oh, what? You don't like that? Too "stereotypical" for you? Let me take this opportunity to point out (once again) that all stereotypes come from somewhere and the South isn't doing much to make sure that doesn't happen. And really, it's embarrassing. The rest of the country weeps for you, Mississippi and Alabama. Jesus...

According to the Huffington Post, there is a group called Public Policy Polling (PPP for short. Catchy, no?). They have released information based upon a poll that they did of "likely GOP primary voters". They surveyed 600 such folks in Alabama and 656 such folks in Mississippi. (Now, in all fairness, I don't know if that is an adequate enough survey sample to make these results statistically valid. I do know that it's a fair number of people polled. If it had been only one hundred or two hundred, I wouldn't even bother with the results. But at least six hundred seems to be a fair number.) Among the questions these rubes folks were asked was "Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?" The results are not encouraging.

In Alabama, 45% of the people who could figure out how to press the buttons on their phone said that President Barry was a Muslim. 45%! And another 41% were "not sure". So, over there in Alabama, 86% of the folks surveyed either think he's a Muslim or just don't know! And eighty-six percent is getting really close to the number where you can say things like "Dang near everyone thinks this." Eighty-six percent. Now, I will also point out that when asked "Do you believe in evolution?", sixty percent answered that they did not believe in evolution. (And after reading some of these poll results, I'm actually questioning how far along the evolutionary process has actually gotten in Alabama.) 13% were "not sure" of evolution. So more people either believe President Barry is or could be a Muslim than they do believe in evolution. I think I'm going to cry.

Things aren't much better over yonder in Mississippi, either. When they were asked if President Barry was a Muslim, 52% of those mouth breathers said that they believed he was. And 36% said that they were "not sure". That's eighty-eight percent for those of you keeping track. Eighty-eight percent either think he's a secret Muslim or don't know if he is or not. Eighty-eight. As you can imagine, evolution isn't faring too well in that part of the country either. Sixty-six percent of Mississippians (Mississippites?) don't believe in evolution. Two-thirds. Didn't happen. Eleven percent were "not sure". Seventy-seven percent don't believe in or are not sure of evolution, but eighty-eight percent are leaning toward a secret Muslim in the White House. Oh, how I wish that I could prove a direct correlation between the two schools of thought. (Don't get me wrong. I think we both know the correlation is there. I was just saying that I wished we could prove it.)

This is not good. This is not good at all. And I'm not actually sure which one appalls me more, the secret Muslim part or the evolution part. It doesn't seem to be something that correlates with race, as 54% of the softheads in Mississippi and 67% of the ones in Alabama think that interracial marriage is OK. (Barely over half, Mississippi? You should be ashamed of yourself. What are you afraid of? It's 2012!) I guess the only correlation is the deep south. Well, that and that most of the people that answered these questions said that they were somewhat to very conservative. That's really giving conservative folk a bad name! I'm going to say this again and I know it won't be the last time that I need to say it. President Barry is not a secret Muslim. He's a socialist. I repeat, a socialist. Now if only the southern states can pull their heads out of their collective arses long enough to hear and understand that message, then things can start getting back to normal around here. (And by the way, evolution happened. It did. If you need proof, it's called science. Now knock it off and start answering poll questions that are based in fact correctly.)

Sphere: Related Content

African Americans Only

I don't know if I'm just paying attention (as I rarely do) or if there really is a recent influx in the news lately, but I keep reading about things that seem to have a double standard attached to them. And I keep trying to figure out why some things are OK and other similar things are just so NOT OK. I've come up with no answers. Only examples. And today's example comes straight from our very own President Barry's re-election campaign. Or something like that

Over yonder at barackobama.com, there is a short blurb by a one organizing fellow Adrenis Hook. (I wonder what an organizing fellow does. Would it be the same as an organizing chap? Would it be the same as an organizing gentleman? Hmmm. Adrenis appears to be a chick, so I guess that last one is out. But I still have no idea what that means.) The purpose of the blurb seems to be to tell us how President Barry has kept some of his promises and that we should continue to support him. Oh, wait. Unless you're white. Or anything besides black. I can only make that assumption since since she's asking for people to sign up to be volunteers over there at African Americans for Obama.

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me? How are we all supposed to be united and get along when people keep separating themselves off into groups? Seriously. Why does it have to be African Americans for Obama? Why can't it just be Americans for Obama? What's wrong with whitey? Never mind all of that. Let's look at it from a different perspective. What if I started "Only Whites For Obama"? Oh, I can practically hear the uproar and the cries of "Racism!" But it's just fine the other way around? What gives, President Barry? What gives, Adrenis?

Look, if folks want to rally 'round and take up President Barry as their cause, I'm all for that. What I am not all for is dividing people out by race. Because quite frankly, I don't give a fat rat's ass what race you are. It isn't a factor in how I determine which decisions I am going to make in every situation where I have a choice. NEVER. It's never factor. But for some people (I'm guessing like African Americans for Obama) it seems to always be an issue!

I don't understand this and I'm not going to pretend that I do. But I'd like it to stop. Or at the very least, I'd like some sort of explanation as to why African Americans for Obama is even "necessary" when you could just as easily go with Americans for Obama and not be all inclusionary and what not. If I was actually a little bit more for Obama, I might actually make "Whites For Obama". Just to see what would happen (even though I'm not sure I want to know).

Sphere: Related Content

Is He Supposed To Look Like That?

I watched President Barry's jobs speech yesterday. The whole thing would have been over in about ten minutes if Congress had just kept their collective asses in their seats instead of jumping up like a bunch of Jack-in-the-boxes after every other sentence. (And the jumping up is always accompanied with the oddly-obligatory applause as if President Barry had just won a washer/dryer on The Price Is Right.) And his whole speech sounded a lot like he was trying to say that he wants to enact another stimulus program. (The first rule of the stimulus program is apparently to not call it a stimulus program. I think because we just tried one of those rather recently and it didn't seem to do very much good. I can't imagine why another one would help.) But I was having a hard time paying attention because I kept getting distracted by something. Behold!

Is the Speaker of the House blacker than President Barry? I'm pretty sure that he is.

Sphere: Related Content

A Dead Terrorist Meets Photoshop

Ah, Photoshop. Is there nothing you can't do? With your abilities and the creative wit and talent of the Internets, it really adds an extra element after the assassination of the most hunted man in the world. Let's review.

I'm sure that a bunch of lefties think that this picture is just great and that it's a smack in W's face. Me, I'm just glad that ol' Weird Beard is dead. I don't care who did it. But that doesn't mean that I don't find the image below a bit amusing. Because I do. A bit.

The question now is whether or not people will continue to mix up their names?

You knew that there'd be something referencing that buffoon, Donald Trump. Could he look like any more of a jackass at this point? (Only if he continues to press stupid, stupid issues about Obama's qualifications. Or just open his mouth to speak in general.)

What I didn't expect was a Michael Scott reference.

And you know that this is going to be remembered in North Korea just a little bit differently than in the rest of the world.

And even though every news anchor was thinking the thought below, some of them still couldn't get it right.

And while this started out about Photoshopped images, I must sadly mention a couple of fairly amusing but NON-Photoshopped instances that occurred on Sunday. Whoever was responsible for changing the headlines at Fox News should be fired. Who the hell is Usama Bin Landen and what in the hell is 'Confrims'?

And after someone is done firing that idiot, can they fire the announcer below who reported: "President Obama speaking from the East Room of the White House, telling the nation and the world President Obama is in fact dead." Seriously? I'm pretty sure in fact that President Barry is NOT dead. I can understand the Obama/Osama slip up. But the words "President Obama" sounds absolutely nothing like "Osama Bin Laden". Not even close. How do you make that mistake?

And with so much excitement this past weekend, I shall remember all of it with a single image.

Sphere: Related Content

Goin' Coconuts For President Barry

With the number of seats in the House turned over to Republicans, one might be under the impression that there is lot a lot of love for President Barry these days. Of course, one would have to be rather dense or watch a lot of cable news (I know, it's kind of redundant) to believe that, but that's the impression that the media is spewing out there right now. But if you're following the preparations that are being made for his upcoming trip to India (and who isn't?!), you'd know that not only is there still a fondness for the man out there, but it's still in that silly stage in a lot of parts.

According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, they are taking some rather extreme measures over there in India. Sure, there's the regular security measures that are being tended to. Tons of Secret Service, even though they're not very secret because everyone can tell who they are. Bolted down manhole covers or whatever they use to cover their holes for men over there. Removing all of the coconuts from the trees. Wait. What.

Correct. The article tells us that they are "...removing all natural threats to the president as well". Apparently, 'natural threats' include "All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum" which is one of President Barry's stops, and they "...are being taken down." Really? The coconuts? Are they that big of a threat that it warrants taking a bunch of them down?

According to the executive secretary (whose name is completely unpronounceable) at one of the places where President Barry is staying, "We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Is there a reason why they can't just steer him clear of the trees with the coconuts in them? I'm serious about this. Why is that not the optimal solution? Are they everywhere? Why can't he just wear a helmet? Now that would be something!

Sphere: Related Content

Is Obama A Keynesian?

While the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear was, in general, a seeming success, it was even more successful in my eyes after I saw the video below. In it, one of the chaps at the rally has a sign which reads: "OBAMA = KEYNESIAN?" As you may or may not be aware, Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic theory developed by a one John Keynes (hence, the name). However, what with all of the birth certificate hooplah still in full swing, some people (if we're lucky) might mistake Keynesian for Kenyan. And if we're really lucky, someone might video those sort of encounters at the Jon Stewart rally. And if you're super lucky, I just might post such a video of such an encounter below. You're welcome.

Sphere: Related Content

Guess The Halloween Costume

Yesterday, I rambled on about the whorish Halloween costumes that have been so popular lately. And while I don't really condone them, I will give them credit for at least putting a little bit of thought into the costume. While the Cookie Monster costume doesn't look a thing like Cookie Monster, if you gave me a minute, I could probably noodle it through and figure it out. Granted, that weird little beret hat that it comes with would still be confusing in the end, but I still think that I could put it all together. I'm not so sure that I can say the same about this next costume. Tell me what you think this is:

See, now, I went with the Creepy Urban Rapper Costume. Strangely enough, that wasn't quite right. What did you guess? Never mind. I'm guessing that you didn't surmise that it was really this:

That's right. It's a President Barry mask. Well, technically, it's a "mr. president set". Do all presidential masks come with a Mr. Microphone or whatever that is supposed to be? If anything, shouldn't it come with a teleprompter? It's not like he's giving all of his speeches (and there have been many of them because he seems to really like the sound of his own voice) as some sort of "man on the street" Commander in Chief. Why the microphone? Shouldn't it come with a birth certificate? Kidding! I'm kidding! I kid! Geez...tough crowd.

Sphere: Related Content

Illegal Immigrant Thinks We Owe Her

The twisted logic that people use when it comes to illegal immigration always amazes me. And I mean always. It also really confuses me as to how "illegal immigration" seems to be so easily confused with "immigration" when the folks who seem to favor illegal immigration try and paint people who don't favor it as simply "anti-immigration". But I think that might be simply because some folks seem to not define "illegal" in the traditional sense. You know. That of it actually being not legal.

Let's look at an instance of that. Let's look at the instance of a one Zeituni Onyango. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) I should probably point out that why you're hearing what she thinks of the whole illegal immigration issue is twofold. Fold one: She is in this country illegally. Fold two: She is the aunt of President Barry. Frankly, it's the first point that is more important than the second one. The second one is kind of a little trivia nugget more than anything. But I'm sure you still want to know what she has to say...or something like that.

Ms. Onyango came here in 2000 from Kenya and, according to AOL News, "...fell ill and was hospitalized." Aww. Well, these things happen. But then, "Upon her release...she was out of money. So rather than return to her homeland, she continued to live in the country in violation of immigration laws." Umm, OK. Yeah, those things happen, too. But they shouldn't. But what was she going to do? She was out of money, for cryin' out loud! Does Kenya give people money when they don't have any? I don't know if they do, but I could think of several reasons why they wouldn't or why they don't.

Now, in a sane society, one would think that if you're out of money, that's going to be a problem, especially if you're from another land. But not here in the good ol' US of A! Nope. Not a problem at all! See, "After stints in a Boston homeless shelter, Onyango was eventually put in public housing and began receiving disability payments." Hmm. Disability payments. Don't those come out of Social Security? Hmm. Aren't most folks expected to pay into that before they draw on it? Technically, yes. Actually, theoretically, yes. And people wonder why it's going broke. Duh.

Her story continues with us learning that "In 2004, an immigration judge ordered her to leave the country, but Onyango remained. However, she noted that her story was less about intentionally flouting federal immigration policy and more about its ineffectiveness. "I didn't take advantage of the system...The system took advantage of me." Uh, wait. What now? The system took advantage of HER?! How in the hell did the system take advantage of HER?! The system told her to leave! That's not taking advantage of her! That's booting her out! She stayed! How is it not her taking advantage of the system? HOW?! Of course, she doesn't elaborate on that.

But what she did elaborate on sent me over the proverbial edge. She said that "...she's done nothing wrong by illegally living in the United States for years and is therefore deserving of amnesty. "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." What the what now?

So, in her book, "illegal" doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means "the system is taking advantage of you"? Where in the hell does she come up with that logic? And since when is any country obligated to a citizen from another country for anything?! I'm pretty sure there isn't any obligation here (other than on her part to get out). And finally, you delusional woman, you didn't come as an immigrant. You were living here illegally. You weren't an immigrant. You were an illegal resident! There's a difference! Why does everyone keep overlooking the difference between "an immigrant" and "an illegal immigrant"?! They're different, for cryin' out loud!

Wow. This is what it's come to? Really? People that don't have any legal right to be here thinking that they are owed something by this country simply because they are here? Really? Wow. I suppose that I should end this by mentioning that Ms. Unpronounceable was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge that denied her asylum in 2004. (Gee. I wonder why that was? Hmm.) I should probably also mention that she still lives in public housing and still collects $700 per month in disability. She's never paid into the system and she's totally getting her entire lifestyle paid for out of the system. Sure, that seems reasonable. No, I can't see why that would be a problem in the long run. Or in any run. Good Lord, people....

Sphere: Related Content

The Condescending President

You know what I can't stand? Wait. Let me narrow that down a little bit, lest we be here all the live long day. You know what I can't stand about politicians? Wait. Hmm. There's no way of phrasing this without generating an incredibly long list of possibilities. I'll just cut to the chase. I can't stand a condescending politician. And I really can't stand a condescending President. I'm talking to you, President Barry.

The huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post tell us that President Barry was at some town hall meeting that CNBC broadcast live on Monday. And I guess that the question or the issue was simple enough. Apparently, an audience member pressed President Barry to chime in on what it is that makes the Tea Party movement do its thing. For some reason, President Barry seems to think that there are no specific goals that these folks have. I'm not sure why he thinks that. But whatever the reason is, he came across sounding like a condescending jackass.

Here's part of what he replied (and it's the part that really ticked me off): "So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?....It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

There are two basic goals of the Tea Party movement. The second one can be almost automatic if the first goal is met. It's all about smaller government. Yes, it's also about lower taxes, but it's largely about smaller government. The government is huge and bloated. You don't think that there could be some cut backs in government there, President Barry? Really? Because you seem to think that we're all a bunch of idiots who would believe you that the only things that could be cut would be services that are essential.

This is what politicians do. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls it at least once a year in California when they can't agree on a budget for this fiscally doomed state. They tell folks that, in order to stay within a budget, they're going to have to cut services like firefighters and policemen and school teachers. You don't want that, do you? No, of course not! That's when they justify raising taxes. But hold on a minute! Aren't there things within the governmental bureaucracy that could be cut other than firefighters, policemen and teachers? I'm 100% positive that there are.

President Barry, are you trying to tell me that every single government agency and department and job is absolutely, completely necessary? I don't think that it is. Are you going to tell me that every single government pension plan isn't overly generous? I don't think that you can tell me that and not have your nose grow at least six inches. You're trying to tell me that none of these governmental departments overlap and do the same work that other agencies do? And I'm supposed to believe you? Really?

How about, before you go suggesting cuts to Medicare and to veteran's benefits, you cut all services to those who are in this country illegally. How much money would that save? And that's just one area where money could be saved and where government could be shrunk. Don't go around threatening us by minimizing our obligation to our soldiers by suggesting that we should cut their services. How dare you. Seriously.

Smaller government. Lower taxes. Reduce the size of the government and spending will go down some. Reduce the size of the government to what it really needs to be reduced by and watch spending go down a great deal. Watch spending go down and watch the need to taxes to raise diminish. Remember, over fifty percent of Americans want fewer services and smaller government according to two different polls, one done in April of this year and the other conducted in September of this year. Over fifty percent want smaller government. Is that specific enough for you, President Barry? How else do we need to spell it out for you?

Sphere: Related Content