Thursday, January 5, 2012

Bamboozler-in-Chief Strikes Again!

A remarkable piece of video I found over at Weasel Zippers:

Notice about twenty seconds in, he tells us that the military budget will slow, but will continue to grow. Why is it that when he is talking about slowing the rate of the general budget, but allowing it to grow, he speaks in terms of "spending cuts"?

To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law...

Which is it, Mr. President? A spending cut or merely slowing the rate of growth? Let me guess. "Spending cut" sounds better in an election year alongside "general budget" more than it does "military budget"?

Mr. President, you need more time to work on your golf game. I suggest we do something for you along those lines in November.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.


  1. I want to know why it's always the military that gets cut, and never anything else?

    Why not close federal slumlord HUD? Why not collapse the union cockroach infestation known as the department of labor?

  2. Silverfiddle pointed out just a couple places in the budget that could be cut. But but... Obama wants to keep his supporters dependent. That's why he won't reduce HUD. And, the Department of Labor has been filled with his union goons so that can't be cut either.

    Now, we just need to vote the Big Spender-in-Chief out of office in November and return some fiscal sanity to the government.

  3. 'Fiddle: Yeah. Paul and Obama are two peas on reducing the size (and effectiveness ) of our military.

    Teresa: There are tons of places the federal government could be cut, starting with all those extra-Constitutional "czars". The primary purpose of the federal government is defense. Not school lunch programs or performance art of naked people smeared with chocolate, but defense. So, of course, what department do the liberals want to cut first and foremost? Yeah.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.