Lars Larson: Lame Duck Democrats making no sense

It sounds to me like the Democrats in congress weren’t listening to the voters on November the 2nd.

It was only just a month ago that American voters sent a message. I heard it loudly. They said, “We are tired of the government spending so much money, spending us into trillions of dollars of debt and crushing the economy. Please stop doing it.”

They sent that message. What did the Democrat’s do? They elected the same leadership for the lame duck session, and then what did they do? The lame duck Democrats decided to pass a tax extension, but only for the so-called middle class. It would include up to the 95th percentile, but not the top 5%.

They put forward the bill even though they know it is going to die in the U.S. Senate. How much sense does that make? Well, I guess if we’re going to get some common sense leadership it is going to have to wait till January.

“For more Lars click here”

  • Founding Fathers

    Funny, Lars was SILENT when George W. Bush was racking up the debt with two unfunded wars. Now that there’s a Democrat in the White House, he’s ALL ABOUT reducing the debt.

    Maybe he should change his name to Fraud Fraudson.

    • “”

      Nominate FF to recognized on Lars’ Daily Grill as email of the bray. Eyeore, Eyeore!

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Good call. No one repeats the party line without thinking about it quite as well as FF.

        • Founding Fathers

          Gee, Rupert, I don’t do it nearly as well as you, since you STILL defend a post that at least Lars had the good sense to take down because it was utterly false.

          And can you show where Lars criticized Bush’s spending during his first term?

          Yes, wars generally result in debt. It’s also true that taxes generally aren’t cut during wars. It’s also true that wars generally result in full employment — not so during Bush wars (G.H.W. Bush had the same problem).

    • Ron Marquez

      You probably don’t listen to his show or you would know he was as tough on Bush’s spending as anybody.

      He is tough on government at all levels and doesn’t care which side of the aisle they sit on.

      • Founding Fathers

        I used to listen to his show, Ron. He only started going after Bush’s spending late in the game. In 2002, 2003, 2004, Fraud Fraudson was silent on Bush’s spending, silent on the spending for the wars, and he attacked people who questioned the wisdom of the wars as being unpatriotic.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >Funny, Lars was SILENT when George W. Bush was racking up the debt with two unfunded wars.

      Obviously you dont know a lot about history. Either that or you simply are repeating the party line without actually thinking about it in mindless drone fashion.

      Historically wars have never been paid for and have generally resulted in debt. Obviously you didn’t know that, now you do.

      Second, you might want to drop this attitude that no one complained about Bush’s spending during his term. The war aside – Bushs’s spending was heavily criticized by Lars, Rush and almost every conservative with a radio show I can think of on virtually a daily basis.

      You trying to be cute in this regard simply makes you look unaware of the facts. Then again – you have quite solidly established a reputation here for making things up.

      • Founding Fathers

        Rupert, Lars was late to the game in criticizing Bush’s spending.

        Can you show evidence of Lars attacking Bush for over-spending in 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Rupert, Lars was late to the game in criticizing Bush’s spending.

          Um excuse me? You are changing your story now?

          You said Lars was silent on Bush spending. Now you are claiming he did criticize Bush spending, but did not do so early enough for you?

          What sort of bilge water are you trying to pump now?

          >Can you show evidence of Lars attacking Bush for over-spending in 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004?

          Ok – So you are admitting you were wrong. Lars was not silent on Bush spending? You just think he didn’t comment on it in 01-04?

          Progress – but its really lame now you are trying this stunt.

          I mean this is really lame. Even if true, how in the world would Lars not commenting on Bush spending in 01-04 make it inconsistent for him to criticize Obama spending now?

          What kind of zany “woops I got caught better make up a lame dodge” kind of excuse is that?

          Anyhooo – cake walk time.

          Bush prescription drug plan. That got passed in 2003. Loudly complained about. There ya go.

          Now – Time for you to show us your shining brilliance.

          Please list for us the wars in history that have been passed as a paid for item in the budget before we ever set foot on the ground.

          No dodging aloud. The mealy mouthed “late in the game nonsense”.

          Illuminate us with your brilliance. Show us how Bush not paying for the war was somehow historically remarkable.

          • Founding Fathers

            I said he was silent when Bush was racking up the debt with two unfunded wars. That is correct, and needs no amendment–when Bush was racking up the debt with the two wars, Lars had nothing to say about that.

            By the way, those of us who opposed the war said that the Bush administration claims that it would be short and inexpensive were a bunch of hooey. Lars attacked us as being unpatriotic. We were proven correct, but Lars has not admitted that he was wrong.

          • Founding Fathers

            So, you can’t provide any evidence to support your claim, so you’re attacking me with a false charge. Nice.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Um, no

            I did support my claim. I asked you twice to support yours.

            You cannot thus I am calling you a liar and historically ignorant.

            You cannot provide any evidence that Bush’s having the war as a deficit item was at all historically remarkable

            So you lied there.

            You said Lars had remained silent on Bush’s spending.

            you lied there – we know this because you then admitted he had criticized Bush spending, just not in the first term.

            Well, you lied there as well, because you forgot about the prescription drug plan, which Bush in recent interviews for his book has lambasted conservatives critics, including Lars, for criticizing.

            So, you are a liar and not a very good one.

            Basically what happened here is you spouted party line nonsense without thinking about it. You got called on it. When you couldn’t back it up you changed your position (the Bush first term nonsense) and when you got called on that you couldn’t back it up.

            This isn’t exactly the big leagues here but maybe you aren’t even ready for this amateur hour stuff?

          • Founding Fathers

            What’s remarkable is having a war off the books.

      • valley p

        “Historically wars have never been paid for and have generally resulted in debt.”

        Historically presidents don’t cut taxes during war time. Prior to Bush, Johnson was the only one to do so and that did not work out so well.

        And since you are ok with war debt, then you don’t begrudge Obama continuing to run debts since we will be in Afghanistan at least 4 more years. Nice to know you support him.

        “Bushs’s spending was heavily criticized by Lars, Rush and almost every conservative with a radio show I can think of on virtually a daily basis.”

        That is a load of BS Rupert. Complaints about Bush were few and far between by right wing radio nuts. And if they are against Medicare Part D, then they should still be saying so. It runs a huge deficit year in and year out. They should be calling for the Tea Party to repeal it. Or did I miss something?

        • Founding Fathers

          VP, the other thing about the right-wing criticisms of Bush and spending is that they all happened late, well after Bush was already racking up large deficits.

          Plus, how many people on the right criticize the MASSIVE deficits of the Reagan administration? Not many. Usually they’ll make the false claim that the Democrats controlled Congress during the Reagan administration.

          The GOP controlled the Senate during the first 6 years of Reagan’s Presidency, including the first 4 years, when we had HUGE deficits, and there were enough Boll Weevil Democrats to give the GOP pretty much what it wanted in the house. Remember that Phil Gramm was a Democrat in Reagan’s first 2 years.

          • valley p

            Republicans and so called conservatives are today fighting tooth and nail for continuation of the Bush tax cuts they they themselves put an expiration date on to mask the effects on the long term deficit. Now they cry about spending and deficits. its beyond ridiculous. Its farce. They want big government without having to pay for it.

          • Anonymous

            “the other thing about the right-wing criticisms of Bush and spending is that they all happened late, well after Bush was already racking up large deficits.”

            I don’t remember ANY right-wingers criticizing him for ANYTHING until the Republicans lost control of Congress in the 2008 elections. Then they suddenly realized that he was starting to be a liability and tried to repudiate him. That process reached its culmination in the 2010 presidential campaign, when Republicans seemed to be trying to pretend Bush had never been president.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Historically presidents don’t cut taxes during war time.

          Oh good Lord, you really do think the Bush tax cuts came after the war don’t you?

          You are completely unaware the two major Bush tax cuts came before the war, not after?

          My God.

          (Hint, one of the two, JGTRRA, was signed after the war started, but that was by a couple of months. Unfortunately for you the GDP jumped virtually on the day it was enacted and since it largely affected capitol gains it can hardly be said to have reduced revenue as cuts in cap gains are historically associated with higher revenue)

          Second – Where is your criticism for BO baby?

          BO cut taxes during war time – you were even on here bragging how you got a tax cut.

          Where is your criticism for him?

          Bush had a tax cut that was signed a couple of months after the war started but lets face it, BO cut taxes while running a deficit that was out of this world, and during war time.

          Interesting how you remained silent on that one.

          And that my friend – is QED – You have just demonstrated the silence of liberals for that which the condemn conservatives.

          Founding Father may be totally impotent when it comes to actually substantiating any of his nutty lies, but your ignorance is really remarkable.

          Did you even think through the tax cuts during wartime thing to see how it would backfire on you?

          I mean seriously, were you just hoping no one would remember BO’s tax cuts?

          Woo hoo, you two are a real pair!

  • valley p

    So the old people who voted for Republicans were sending the message to:

    1) cut our SSI
    2) cut our medicare or make us pay more for it
    3) Bring the troops home
    4) Cut the military
    5) Cut food safety inspections
    6) Cut spending on highways and transportation
    7) Cut farm price supports

    So once Republicans have the gavel over the federal budget, starting in January, they should get busy.

  • John in Oregon

    I gotta say its entertaining watching VP and FF in the echo chamber shouting at each other about who spent the most. Bush spending trumps Reagan or was it the other way round. Couldn’t tell from the Echo cho ho ho ho. Spending ending nding ding ding ding.

    Bush spent nearly a trillion on *”* THE WAR *”* . Obama spent $3 trillion in debt in 18 months. Six of one and 12 of another.

    Hey chillin didn’t your momma tell ya, you don’t justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior?

    The people voted to stop. Just stop. STOP. What part of stop don’t ya-all understand?

    It all reminds me of Johnny and Sally in the back seat.

    “Mommy… Johnny hit me.”
    “Sally hit me first.”
    “Johnny hit me harder.”
    “No I didn’t.”
    “Yes you did”

    In the front seat Mother is seething. Will you two act like adults? But they can’t. They are children. So Mother says stop, don’t make me come back there. But they don’t stop.

    So Mother comes back there. Putting Johnny on one side and Sally on the other with Spot the dog between.

    But Nancy and Harry don’t stop, they start hitting Spot.

    • Founding Fathers


      You don’t understand.

      The issue is that Republicans only see huge deficits as evil when the other side is in charge. They idolize the champion of deficits, and vilify Clinton, the one recent President who has managed to get deficits under control.

      You also ignore the fact that the debt was rising when he took office — it rose by a half trillion in his first month and a half. The debt rose by nearly a trillion dollars in the months of September and October of 2008. Are you going to blame Obama for that, too?

      We were on the verge of total economic collapse. I think a bit of deficit spending to prevent that is a good thing.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        No – The issue is you want to make things up and run away when you get called on them.

        Conservatives roundly criticized Bush for his deficits while he was in office

        Bush has commented on this fairly often in his book tour.

        You don’t know about this because you are a remarkably uninformed individual.

        We know you are uninformed because you spouted off earlier with this nonsense that Bush running the Mideast wars at a deficit was somehow historically remarkable. It wasn’t and in fact was how virtually all wars are conducted.

        Now you are making up this absurd lie that conservatives never criticized Bush for his spending while he was in office.

        Pick up a newspaper, Google Bush’s book tour, I dont care what, but please educate yourself on this.

        Bush is all over the country commenting on how it was unfair for conservatives to have criticized a lot of his spending while he was in office.

        At least learn from your mistakes guy – repeating the same mistake here in two threads is really a little ridiculous and is cementing your place on this blog as the guy who makes things up out of whole cloth.

        Stop making things up – you will have a lot more credibility if you do.

        • Founding Fathers

          Again, Rupert, show me examples of conservatives “roundly criticiz(ing) Bush” in 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004 over his deficits.

          My point is that as long as Bush appeared politically strong, right-wingers were happy to hitch their wagon to Bush, and only started putting distance between themselves and Bush when started looking politically weak after Hurricane Katrina.

          If you have counter examples, let’s see them.

  • Mary’s Opinion

    All of you are prime examples of why nothing is being accomplished in the current lame duck session. And these people are our leaders?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Quote of the Day from Founding Fathers

    “By the way, those of us who opposed the war said that the Bush administration claims that it would be short and inexpensive were a bunch of hooey. ”

    Can you please provide one quote from the Bush administration where it was said the war would be short and inexpensive?

    They better be good, because I have about a million of them where Bush said from day one the war would be protracted and difficult.

    Here is a ditty from the first address after the attacks

    “Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.”

    Pres. Bush Sept. 20th, speech to joint session of congress.

    My guess is this is another of Founding Fathers baseless assertions that has no substance and that he will be as feckless in backing up as he was in his claim that conservatives were silent on Bush spending.

  • John in Oregon

    Yes FF. I do understand.

    It doesn’t matter how much Reagan spent or why. It doesn’t matter how much Clinton didn’t spend or why.

    What does matter is that today the Federal Government is spending more than $1 Trillion in debt a year. If the FED is added to that its more like $2.5 Trillion.

    In the lame duck session the single most important question is the largest tax hike in history. Didn’t you read what Mary said above? It’s not just tax on wages. It’s a huge jump in dividend taxes and cap gains going from 15% to 24%.

    So what did the Dem lame ducks do? They passed a bill to raise the cost of the safest food supply in the world. For gods sake they even passed a bill so the Feds can regulate baked sales by the local high school band that wants to go to the Rose parade

    The message by the people to the political establishment is STOP. The politicians don’t get it and you don’t get it.

    What part of STOP don’t you understand?

    • Mary’s Opinion

      John, you’re the one sane voice of all these comments. The regulation of high school fund raising bake sales is an in your face example of avoidance and procrastination with regard to dealing with the real issues that these people were elected to deal with. Don’t bake sales or any other kind of school special project fund raising fall under the administration of the local school or district?

  • Anonymous

    When the Democrats trounced the Republicans in 2008 and again in 2010, I don’t remember Lars or any other right-wing bloviator interpreting it as a mandate for liberal policies. But now that the Republicans have finally won back control of the House, Lars & Co. are spinning that as an overwhelming mandate for right-wing policies.

    Truth is, none of those elections was a mandate for much of anything. American voters, by and large, are pretty indifferent to ideology. When the economy is doing well they reward the party in power; when the economy is doing badly they punish the party in power. That’s all there is to it.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >When the Democrats trounced the Republicans in 2008 and again in 2010, I don’t remember Lars or any other right-wing bloviator interpreting it as a mandate for liberal policies.

      Um, I’m not sure what election results you are reading but Democrats didn’t trounce anyone in 2010.

      Can you please tell us where this 2010 trouncing occurred?

      I really wish when liberals were making a point here they would either provide an example for why they believe their conclusion, or the logic by which they arrived at it.

      We have Founding Fathers making all sorts of wild claims here, probably the looniest being that Bush promised the Mideast wars would be short and inexpensive. Yet he cannot provide an example of when this was ever stated.

      Now you are claiming Republicans were trounced in 2010, yet you provide no example of where this trouncing occurred.

      What is up with all this wild claims without any evidence or logical reasoning to substantiate them?

      • Founding Fathers


        I think Anonymous was off by an election cycle, and meant 2006 and 2008.

        And the point holds, how many on the right said that because the Dems won big they had a mandate for liberal policies?

  • SolarDog

    It would seem Mr. O got the message.
    Folded like a class note.

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster33()

  • Pingback: DirectTV()

  • Pingback: mp4 mobile porn()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: laane penge nu()

  • Pingback: car parking()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: how to become an electrician in ct()

  • Pingback: bottled alkaline water()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: pay per day loans plan()

  • Pingback: alkaline water()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: