http://cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/conflict-between-us-irreconcilable From the article: "...Consider the bile dumped upon Tea Party Republicans by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and their camp followers in the national press. What did the Tea Party do to deserve this? Answer: These extremists shut down the U.S. government, they're holding America hostage, and they're inflicting terrible suffering on innocent people. But is this true?... ..."And how does the Tea Party imperil the country? First, they risk taking America over the cliff into default. But that raises a question: Since the Tea Party folks are newcomers to town, who brought America to the edge of this cliff? What radical added $6 trillion to our national debt in five years? Or did the Tea Party do that? Almost all now agree that the entitlement programs â Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid â threaten to consume the budget. Is the Tea Party responsible for this gathering disaster? Was the Tea Party beating the drums for those trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the Tea Party responsible for our being committed to fighting other countries' wars and paying other countries' bills, in perpetuity, through foreign aid? When the Tea Party says the Fed's QE3 amounts to printing money and inflating the currency, that it is creating stock market and real estate bubbles certain to burst, and that the dollar's future as the world's reserve currency is imperiled, do they not have a point? These same views are today being echoed by economists and writers, few of whom are ever likely to show up wearing side arms at God and Country Rallies. And just where did our community-organizer president learn his economics. From Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals"? From his senate days in Springfield, capital of the state that is the odds-on favorite to be first in the nation to default on its debts? The Tea Party is feared and detested in Washington because these folks threaten the ideology, the vested interests, and most critical of all, the rice bowls in this city that voted 15-1 for Obama."
Buchanan also wrote... But does not Congress have the power of the purse to fund or defund any program it chooses? Is that not in the Constitution? And have not the last three years exposed glaring flaws in Obamacare? Have not severely adverse consequences turned up in widespread layoffs and a reversion to part-time help? Did not the Cleveland Clinic say it will have to let 3,000 people go? Why then is the House's exercise of its constitutional authority to defund Obamacare, which polls show a majority of Americans favor, such a moral outrage? This brings us to the underlying conflict. The Obamacare battle is part of a larger struggle between a party of government and a conservative party that fears America is heading down a road traveled by Greece, Italy and Spain. more... - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/patri...etween-us-irreconcilable#sthash.KcyZ5lKw.dpuf
"We're living in the end times." <img src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/red/blue_pics/2011/08/11/bachmannnewsweek_460x276.jpg">
lmao media telling us twenty four seven armageadon is upon us and they make fun of bachmann for saying we're living in the end times. can't make up what kind of fools we're dealing with
There is no money printing with QE. Why can't the republican mind understand this? I'm disappointed it was a Hitlerfree column.
digital cash is printing money. making a notation on a balance sheet is the same as printing money. paying far to much money for the assets is inflationary. why do leftists try to hide behind lies and misdirection. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp Definition of 'Quantitative Easing' A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital, in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity. Investopedia Says Investopedia explains 'Quantitative Easing' Central banks tend to use quantitative easing when interest rates have already been lowered to near 0% levels and have failed to produce the desired effect. The major risk of quantitative easing is that, although more money is floating around, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale. This will eventually lead to higher prices or inflation.