Maybe its because I write professionally that words actually mean something to me and I pay attention to what's said or written. And that's also why something I saw on the Fox website this morning makes me think maybe I've lost my mind or no longer comprehend English.
There's this guy, David Plouffe, a senior adviser who managed the president's 2008 campaign. He said the Tea Party's controlling the debate in Congress, even as it comes close to a government shutdown over how to pay for disaster relief as part of a continuing resolution to keep government operating. And, according to him, Republican leaders are putting the demands of 30 Tea Party members over 300 million Americans. So he's insisting that Congress pass a resolution to "keep government functioning and approve President Obama's jobs plan." Here's what he said:
"We're not going to make progress on the deficit, on things we can do right now for jobs, on tax cuts, unless those 30 or 40 Tea Party members of the Republican House stop being the focal point of our discussion."
Now, here's where I get confused. Because as I understand it, the Tea Party members are simply saying that if the administration wants to spend more for things like disaster relief, they've got to offset those amounts with spending cuts somewhere else. They were elected to insure that government finally stays within its budget. But, apparently this guy, Plouffe, thinks they should simply back off and shut up because they're in his way.
He also mentioned the jobs bill as being important, however, it hasn't even been submitted to Congress because the president knows it hasn't a prayer of passage. The legislation's a political ploy put ahead of the dire need for jobs because to the president, politics are far more important than whether folks can sustain themselves or not. He's even more self-centered than that other loser -Trump.
Then there's Plouffe's mention of tax cuts. But I don't recall where they are in the proposed legislation. Because all I heard mentioned was the Buffet supported increase in taxes on the "rich," which endorsement they bought from him with a sweetheart deal at B of A.
Then lastly, there's his reference to "progress on the deficit," being held up by the Tea Party. And I must admit he's chosen his words quite well, because all he said was "deficit," but didn't mention it's going up or down. And that's obviously why he thinks Tea Party members should stifle themselves like Edith Bunker. Because if they do, another half trillion in debt or so will be heaped on taxpayer's shoulders but he doesn't think anyone should be concerned about that. Because, quite obviously, he's not.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment