Oh, I'm sorry - you misunderstood where I was coming from - and, re-reading my comment in situ, I do understand how that happened. My point was actually aimed at the frothing at the mouth buggy eyed head so far up their butts they have to open a stoma to breathe side of 'my' party (since there's really no place in today's GOP for a liberal Republican).

I've about beat a permanent groove in my forehead from headdesking over their decisions and statements.


>>>If the libs don't want to negotiate, then its time to mess with it...
>>
>>It's kind of hard to negotiate with someone who starts with "Do it my way or I'll take my ball and go home"
>
>It's only in Fox News/Tea Party land that people think that having to raise the debt ceiling is "liberal" thing.
>
>Before Bush was appointed president by Scalia and company in 2000, there was a substantial budget surplus and there was a serious chance that the entire national debt would be eradicated within a decade.
>
>Government employment declined under Clinton.
>The debt ceiling could have been reduced.
>GDP was growing steadily.
>The unemployment rate was around 4% and declining.
>
>
>The appointed president and his fellow repubs then slashed taxes on the rich by trillions before starting two wars that would cost trillions and creating more government bureaucracy - Homeland Security and National Intelligence- than has been created by all the dems since Johnson.
>
>When Bush left office after presiding over the largest economic calamity since 1929, a budget surplus had been turned into a massive deficit and the national debt, instead of shrinking, had grown to record levels and was continuing to grow at rapid rates.
>The unemployment rate was over 8% and rising.
>GDP was negative.
>The debt ceiling had been blown thru the roof.
>
>Since Obama took office the budget deficit, Fox news notwithstanding, has actually come down and government employment has declined.
>
>Now, how is having to raise the debt ceiling a "liberal" thing?