Don't Bother Listening to Anything This Administration Says

Because, to do that, you'd have to focus on their words.



Clueless Joe Biden made the statement that if Republicans didn't sign Obama's massive spending bill, that rapes and murders would increase.

About 1:16 into the "I'm spinning as fast as I can" conference, Carney makes a novel argument:

"Don't focus on the words."

What?? A government official makes a statement, but we're not supposed to "focus on the words"? What should we focus on, then? Joe's frowny face???

Biden said there was a direct correlation between passing Obama's bill, which provides funding for police officers for one year only, with increases in rape and murder. Shall we accuse Obama and Biden of wanting rape, murder and other crimes to increase a year from now? It would make as much sense.

Remember when Bill Clinton promised 100,000 new cops on the streets? A study in 2000 determined that there was a net increase of between 69,000 and 84,600 officers*. That was due in part to the fact that many municipalities did not want to hire officers they could not afford to pay and would have to lay off twelve months later. Putting aside the fact that the responsibility for hiring police and teachers is with local jurisdictions and not the federal government, it would be better to block grant the money to education and law enforcement without so many strings attached. Why would Barry and Joe have so many strings attached? Do they not want policemen to be hired? Do they want rape and murder to increase??? BTW, don't focus on the words here, just focus on the narrative I'm putting forth. Simple facts, don'tcha know?

And where is Obama going to get the federal money to pay for all these cops? Borrow it? Raise taxes, skim some off the top and return it to the people who paid the taxes, so that they end up with fewer cops than they could have afforded had the feds not intervened?

I recently heard what ought to have been a well educated woman say that she thought the government should "pay for more things" than it does already. But the government doesn't have any money of its own to spend. They either take it from someone through taxation, or print it, which makes everyone's money worth less (which is just another way of taking it), or borrow it, which means taking more money from people later to pay the principle with interest (or inflation, paying it back in inflated dollars, or both).

If I may "focus on his words" for a moment, it is despicable demagoguery for Biden to use such inflammatory language for cheap partisan political gains. Back when the Hypocrite-in-Chief was at least making a pretense in calling for more civility, could you have imagined that in just a few short months, his running mate would be accusing people of wanting rape and murder to rise, just because they disagree on how law enforcement might be funded?

Or is it demagoguery for Obama to put a smattering of good things into a terrible spending bill, that he has little desire in passing, that would further cripple the economy if it did pass, simply to have a political club to beat his opponents over the head with, rather than genuinely working to some the plight of the jobless in America?

Just look for the liberal label...




*For a realistic estimate of their effectiveness, divide that number by fifty states and three shifts in a 24 hour day (because crime doesn't sleep). Using the maximum figure, that's an average of 564 cops per state on any given shift. And that makes a difference, sure. But somehow not matching the high sounding rhetoric of "100,000 cops".