Official Politics thread pt. 2

[mugzi]

Boehners plan is pragmatic and a short term bandaid. But it doesnt address the culture of waste in Washington.

Whose going to do that?

The voters have to continue to vote these treasonous bastards out of office and replace them with non politicians who are going to make hard decisions to preserve the republic. And that transcends partisanship.

[seren]

In case anyone want to see the comparison of two plans. the Post has a nice chart here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... aphic.html

In terms of immediate cuts, the House plan only cuts 5 billion for this year whereas the Senate plan cuts 30 billion. Given the economy, the House plan is preferable.

Overall, both plans are posturing. The House plan is just delaying the real issue whereas the Senate plan has many gimmicks in it.

[seren]

Boehners plan is pragmatic and a short term bandaid. But it doesnt address the culture of waste in Washington.

Whose going to do that?

The voters have to continue to vote these treasonous bastards out of office and replace them with non politicians who are going to make hard decisions to preserve the republic. And that transcends partisanship.

You can call it pragmatic. I am calling it a gimmick. The only difference between two plans is the Senate plan does not do much and increases the debt ceiling long enough after election and the house plan does even less and increases the debt ceiling short enough to have another showdown before the election.

Overall, both sides are playing politics with no real effect whatsoever on the spending or budget deficit.

[rsavaj]

Boehners plan is pragmatic and a short term bandaid. But it doesnt address the culture of waste in Washington.

Whose going to do that?

Nobody will do that.

The culture of waste is what makes them rich.

It's depressing for sure.

[Pharmcat]

the Ds need to stand ground, no cuts without increase in taxes...cant do it by just relying on one aspect and ignoring the other

but considering how weak the Ds are, i think they will cave

[funkatron101]

There is not a single issue I agree with liberals on, none. They are an anathema to capitalism and freedom as we know it. Their goal is more power for the government and the elitists who control it. They try to impose nanny state regulations at every turn and handcuff business because to them the only business worth running is the business of government.

And you're wrong. Liberals NEVER want to compromise. They use rhetoric to vilify conservatives, as racist or extreme when its they who race bait on a daily basis, its they who use divide and conquer politics to hoodwink the public. Although any person who pays attention to whats going on and still empathizes with their point of view is willfully ignorant.

Ask yourself as a Christian which if any of these liberal positions you agree with. And if its none and you still relate to their platform, ask yourself whats wrong with that picture.

Abortion- liberals support a "woman's right to chooooose" At any time during the pregnancy- yes that includes partial birth abortions.

Economics- Liberals believe the highest earners and job producers as well as those greedy small business owners should be taxed more and more. Because that will provide money for social welfare programs to help the poor unfortunate welfare mothers with 6 kids, who have more kids to get bigger government checks. Or provide healthcare and financial aid for college to illegal immigrants.

Terrorism- Liberals NEVER speak out against radial Islam. They nary mutter the word Islamic terrorist when an attack happens, yet ever since Norway theyve gone out of their way to identify the shooter as "a right wing Christian extremist" at every chance they get.

Dont you see that the very people you are seemingly defending loathe Christians?

Ask a few liberals how they feel about Christianity or Christians in general and see what kind of answers you get.

You dont consort with the enemy, you get rid of them at the ballot box. And we better do it soon before we are bankrupt and permanently screwed.

I think you would be quick to identify me as a Liberal, as you have done so to others for merely trying to counter-balance your right-winged barrage of opinion based articles, and to classify me as such under your biased assumptions is just flat out wrong. To label an entire group of people and the individuals that make up this group under these false assumptions is wrong.

I think you are more interested in finding enemies than you are in finding solutions. Your method of debate keeps you protected because you rarely if ever stick your neck out in support of something, and you frantically move from one topic to the next so that no one can properly engage in a civil debate.

To refer to a group of PEOPLE as ENEMIES for merely have some differences, is quite frankly, sad. It is an extremist view that will only further divide this country.

[Deeeez Knicks]

The republicans are really failing in this crisis. Boehner’s plan was terrible. It doesn’t even work and would have led to immediate problems and possibly major problems 6 months later.

The tea party has made their point about cutting spending made, but they are not reasonable. They are all just the same recording that repeats over and over and does not listen. There’s a major crisis ahead and they are going to have to compromise in order to avert it. Our spending and the dept is a major problem, but it is not something that can be solved overnight or in 6 months.

Its almost like these guys want to deliberately sabotage this country and in essence the entire world economy and bring us back in time to the 18th century. They are fighting everything at a point where we need to come together and agree on something. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the 2012 elections, but in the process they are just making themslves look bad.

The democrats are no saints and the no budget policies have to stop, but at least they have come up with a plan through Reid that meets some of the republicans demands and avoids catastrophe. No new taxes, cut the dept. Its not enough and there’s fools gold savings, but it’s a start.

Fingers can't be pointed either. The rising dept has been a major problem for years. Responsibility falls on both parties. They both say one thing, do another. They all pass bills that spend 3x as much as they need. Wasted spending. Too many breaks are given to big companies that don't need it. Nothing gets solved, just passed on to the next person in line. Typical politics. Everything is to appease the big companies/campaign contributors, get re-elected and tip toe the line. Nobody wants to make the tough decision if its unpopular, even if it’s the right thing to do. Things are run the same way Isiah’s Knicks were run. Inefficient, sub mediocre. Hundreds of millions got wasted while trillions gets wasted here.

As a country we obviously spend way more then we make. We think we need things we don’t need. From home owners to congress to Eddy Curry. We have to make more (legalize pot, prostitution, internet gambling, close tax loop holes, raise taxes) or spend less. (Not to mention the border problem/immigration which falls into both categories and is a huge issue with financial implications).

We are in such a hole that its got to be a combination of the two. And there seems to be reasonable ways to do both. Even if its a short term solution that starts the process. Unfortunately we are in a time when both parties seem to be bickering more then ever.

If you think the democrats who have failed to present a budget in 811 days are more sensible than the GOP I have a bridge to sell you.

Boehner is a smuck. He is a pink tie weakling whose cowtowed and is just kicking the can down the road.

Reids plan blows just as bad.

There is no sanity to raising taxes during economic malaise, none. The problem is and has always been a spending problem. The govt spends 1.5 more times per year what it takes in. How is that sustainable?


Its not. And thats why the TEA party emerged. People are sick of graft and corruption from Washington. And no one has emerged with a viable plan to restore our fiscal well being. No one.

Yes, a big part of the problem is spending. But its almost impossible to cut our spending that much without spiraling us even further into a recession. Part of the reason for the spending was to stimulate the economy and its important to remember that. There has to be a middle ground and some give the other way. There has to be a way to increase revenue. That is where the tea party fails because they refuse to budge on this stance.

Reid's plan is better because it raises the dept ceiling for 2 years and not 6 months. Having these same discussions in 6 months is far worse. The Dems and Repubs can't agree on anything now. It will only get more hostile when an election is coming up.

And knowing that we will have these discussions in 6 months after the disaster that was these discussions will not help our credit. It could very likely cause a downgrade which will dig a deeper hole even quicker for everyone.

At the end of the day both parties have failed and are just playing dangerous political games. They are both doing horrible jobs in this situation. The dept will not be paid back anytime soon. But the ceiling must be raised. And the point has been made that we need to start heading towards the opposite direction.

[Jmonty580]

There are such things as a compassionate conservative. And if Conservatives are so callous why do most Christians identify as such? You do know that we are by far the most charitable nation on earth right? By far.

But the bible in Thessalonians 3.10 also says he who does not work shall not eat. So lets not go there and make an analogy that Jesus would be handing out welfare checks cause you and I both know thats not true.

Now Im an independent conservative. I will never ever vote for a democrat but I also do not support much of the GOP as it operates today. I havent left the party, I felt the party has left me. But that doesnt mean I wont defend conservative values against liberals who are devoid of them.

Your taking it slightly out of context. They are saying that people have grown idle and have stopped working and that they should stop that and get to work. That they were models and even when they could ask for handouts they didnt, they paid their own way. That others should do the same. Its basically saying that you will suffer to survive if you dont work (hence you wont eat). The very next passage says, be not weary in well doing. So tts not your job to make sure that others suffer for not doing what they should, God will see to that. And when you look at people who try to survive on wellfare and handouts they live misserable lives. If you think they're living it up at our expense your wrong, they suffer becuase of their own doing. And by us continuing to give you dont make those who are down on their luck going through a hard time suffer with those who are just lazy and dont wnat to work. Then it goes on to say basically to disassoaciate yourself from people who arent productive, but also not to rule them out and look at them as enemies, but to encourage them as your brother. Even the lazy we should care about in other words.

And you say there are such things as a compassionate conservative, and I'm sure that there are. I'm just saying as a whole that is not their demenor. Its one of hate and feeling better than, at least thats how they come off, not of caring. As a Christian i cant associate with that. Every man for himself type of attidute is not of Christ, plain and simple.

And this is why I cant pick a side because my faith comes first, and it dictates how i live my life and the choices I make. For both Conservatives and Liberals, the Christian faith is not the driving force behind the sides they chose. The conservatives try more than the liberals to lean on that christian belief system but its a facade that I'm not foolish enough to fall for. Actions speak louder than words and their actions arent ones that I want to assoicate myself with.

[mugzi]

Boehners plan is pragmatic and a short term bandaid. But it doesnt address the culture of waste in Washington.

Whose going to do that?

The voters have to continue to vote these treasonous bastards out of office and replace them with non politicians who are going to make hard decisions to preserve the republic. And that transcends partisanship.

You can call it pragmatic. I am calling it a gimmick. The only difference between two plans is the Senate plan does not do much and increases the debt ceiling long enough after election and the house plan does even less and increases the debt ceiling short enough to have another showdown before the election.

Overall, both sides are playing politics with no real effect whatsoever on the spending or budget deficit.

I should have clarified myself. Its politically pragmatic, just as Reids plan is. Difference being is the GOP wants to force Obamas hand before the election into committing to a budget and fiscal reform where Reid wants to safeguard his crony and postpone it until 2013.

So as someone who knows both plans suck, Id rather see Boehners plan because it forces the president to make a decision. And since I know he has no clue how to foster growth or a spendthrift govt he's going to get enough rope to hang himself if Boehners plan is taken.

Reids plan gives him more time and the ability to skirt by the issue, as well as more time to accrue more debt.

So they both suck yes, but I'll take the lesser of two evils which is as usual the GOP.

And I have no problem saying Id quickly support a conservative 3rd party if one was to emerge as a viable contender. Im so sick of the democrats and the democrat lites.

[mugzi]

There is not a single issue I agree with liberals on, none. They are an anathema to capitalism and freedom as we know it. Their goal is more power for the government and the elitists who control it. They try to impose nanny state regulations at every turn and handcuff business because to them the only business worth running is the business of government.

And you're wrong. Liberals NEVER want to compromise. They use rhetoric to vilify conservatives, as racist or extreme when its they who race bait on a daily basis, its they who use divide and conquer politics to hoodwink the public. Although any person who pays attention to whats going on and still empathizes with their point of view is willfully ignorant.

Ask yourself as a Christian which if any of these liberal positions you agree with. And if its none and you still relate to their platform, ask yourself whats wrong with that picture.

Abortion- liberals support a "woman's right to chooooose" At any time during the pregnancy- yes that includes partial birth abortions.

Economics- Liberals believe the highest earners and job producers as well as those greedy small business owners should be taxed more and more. Because that will provide money for social welfare programs to help the poor unfortunate welfare mothers with 6 kids, who have more kids to get bigger government checks. Or provide healthcare and financial aid for college to illegal immigrants.

Terrorism- Liberals NEVER speak out against radial Islam. They nary mutter the word Islamic terrorist when an attack happens, yet ever since Norway theyve gone out of their way to identify the shooter as "a right wing Christian extremist" at every chance they get.

Dont you see that the very people you are seemingly defending loathe Christians?

Ask a few liberals how they feel about Christianity or Christians in general and see what kind of answers you get.

You dont consort with the enemy, you get rid of them at the ballot box. And we better do it soon before we are bankrupt and permanently screwed.

I think you would be quick to identify me as a Liberal, as you have done so to others for merely trying to counter-balance your right-winged barrage of opinion based articles, and to classify me as such under your biased assumptions is just flat out wrong. To label an entire group of people and the individuals that make up this group under these false assumptions is wrong.

I think you are more interested in finding enemies than you are in finding solutions. Your method of debate keeps you protected because you rarely if ever stick your neck out in support of something, and you frantically move from one topic to the next so that no one can properly engage in a civil debate.

To refer to a group of PEOPLE as ENEMIES for merely have some differences, is quite frankly, sad. It is an extremist view that will only further divide this country.

Oh so you're a centrist?

What does that mean to you exactly?

You can't be a little pregnant, you either are or you aren't. Its either left or right.

I think your doing the same thing your accusing me of, making accusations without knowing the history or depth of my positions and the debates we've had here. Some have been civil others haven't. And I've taken plenty of insults and subterfuge from tolerant liberals and Ive given my fair share of retaliation. I make no apologies for that.

There's no compromise with a left wing ideologue. You are all so indoctrinated with your dogma and dont even tolerate any dissent within your own ranks, how and why should a conservative reach across the aisle to "compromise" when we don't believe in any of your platform?

And yes that means politically you all are enemies and you dont cooperate with enemies. You defeat them wholeheartedly.

60 seats in the house, more to come next years and the presidency, and dont be surprised if the senate goes to the right also.

Its going to be lovely, and I cant wait.

[seren]

Boehners plan is pragmatic and a short term bandaid. But it doesnt address the culture of waste in Washington.

Whose going to do that?

The voters have to continue to vote these treasonous bastards out of office and replace them with non politicians who are going to make hard decisions to preserve the republic. And that transcends partisanship.

You can call it pragmatic. I am calling it a gimmick. The only difference between two plans is the Senate plan does not do much and increases the debt ceiling long enough after election and the house plan does even less and increases the debt ceiling short enough to have another showdown before the election.

Overall, both sides are playing politics with no real effect whatsoever on the spending or budget deficit.

I should have clarified myself. Its politically pragmatic, just as Reids plan is. Difference being is the GOP wants to force Obamas hand before the election into committing to a budget and fiscal reform where Reid wants to safeguard his crony and postpone it until 2013.

So as someone who knows both plans suck, Id rather see Boehners plan because it forces the president to make a decision. And since I know he has no clue how to foster growth or a spendthrift govt he's going to get enough rope to hang himself if Boehners plan is taken.

Reids plan gives him more time and the ability to skirt by the issue, as well as more time to accrue more debt.

So they both suck yes, but I'll take the lesser of two evils which is as usual the GOP.

And I have no problem saying Id quickly support a conservative 3rd party if one was to emerge as a viable contender. Im so sick of the democrats and the democrat lites.

You are overly optimistic about GOP. The way I see it is a political theater. I don't think they are doing this move for what you say they are doing. I simply do not believe in the sincerity of GOP on the budget deficit issue.

If you look at Boehner's plan, the immediate cuts for this fiscal year is only 5 billion dollars as opposed to 30 billion that Reid's plan call for and real cuts don't come until 2014. Why is it so low? Because Boehner as well knows that cutting spending is idiotic during a recession and it will simply increase unemployment even more. He knows Congress will be blamed if they ask for more and actually get it and the economy tanks deeper.

Make no mistake. All these deficit talks will end the moment Obama leaves the office. As the almighty Cheney says: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

[funkatron101]

I think you would be quick to identify me as a Liberal, as you have done so to others for merely trying to counter-balance your right-winged barrage of opinion based articles, and to classify me as such under your biased assumptions is just flat out wrong. To label an entire group of people and the individuals that make up this group under these false assumptions is wrong.

I think you are more interested in finding enemies than you are in finding solutions. Your method of debate keeps you protected because you rarely if ever stick your neck out in support of something, and you frantically move from one topic to the next so that no one can properly engage in a civil debate.

To refer to a group of PEOPLE as ENEMIES for merely have some differences, is quite frankly, sad. It is an extremist view that will only further divide this country.

Oh so you're a centrist?

What does that mean to you exactly?

You can't be a little pregnant, you either are or you aren't. Its either left or right.

I think your doing the same thing your accusing me of, making accusations without knowing the history or depth of my positions and the debates we've had here. Some have been civil others haven't. And I've taken plenty of insults and subterfuge from tolerant liberals and Ive given my fair share of retaliation. I make no apologies for that.

There's no compromise with a left wing ideologue. You are all so indoctrinated with your dogma and dont even tolerate any dissent within your own ranks, how and why should a conservative reach across the aisle to "compromise" when we don't believe in any of your platform?

And yes that means politically you all are enemies and you dont cooperate with enemies. You defeat them wholeheartedly.

60 seats in the house, more to come next years and the presidency, and dont be surprised if the senate goes to the right also.

Its going to be lovely, and I cant wait.

Why is it so funny that I can't whole heatedly agree with one side or another? I don't need others to think for me, I think for myself. Just because we have a predominantly two party system, doesn't mean we all have to fall in line.

I could make the exact same "pregnant" argument for Christianity, but you certainly made it well known that you follow your own path.

You speak in absolutes, are quick to label others your enemy. You just did so now. You just lumped me as a liberal with what I underlined above. Therefore, in your eyes, I am your enemy. I assure you, I am not.

Your "All or none" stance just doesn't apply. Sorry. Not with the complexities of our society.

and to be honest, the manner in which you speak is cause for concern. When your approach is to post a barrage of partisan articles and pleading for someone, anyone to engage you, as if to say "FIGHT ME! FIGHT ME!" then label anyone else who doesn't fall in line with your views as an enemy. Dude, that's scary. It sounds like you are trying to feed some sort of compulsion. Tell me, what is your goal here? To convert everyone to your ideals, or to just try and prove others wrong, no matter what?

This isn't new behavior. I've been lurking on here for quite some time.

[Jmonty580]

Why is it so funny that I can't whole heatedly agree with one side or another? I don't need others to think for me, I think for myself. Just because we have a predominantly two party system, doesn't mean we all have to fall in line.

I could make the exact same "pregnant" argument for Christianity, but you certainly made it well known that you follow your own path.

You speak in absolutes, are quick to label others your enemy. You just did so now. You just lumped me as a liberal with what I underlined above. Therefore, in your eyes, I am your enemy. I assure you, I am not.

Your "All or none" stance just doesn't apply. Sorry. Not with the complexities of our society.

and to be honest, the manner in which you speak is cause for concern. When your approach is to post a barrage of partisan articles and pleading for someone, anyone to engage you, as if to say "FIGHT ME! FIGHT ME!" then label anyone else who doesn't fall in line with your views as an enemy. Dude, that's scary. It sounds like you are trying to feed some sort of compulsion. Tell me, what is your goal here? To convert everyone to your ideals, or to just try and prove others wrong, no matter what?
This isn't new behavior. I've been lurking on here for quite some time.

This is the part that I dont like. The tone is really one of negativity and just looking for a dispute of some sort. Whats the point. If you have veiws that are meaningful wouldnt you want to help others see your view with constructive critisicm? Have people questioning what they believe? Thats what reasonable debates are about, its how we advance. But the way he's talking is exactly how things are going in washington. Its like how do move forward when your talking with someone that jsut wants to fight? Just because someone has a difference in opinion doesnt make them the enemy. You could be on the same team working towards the same goal and you just dont know it because you look at things in a different way. Get to the fundamentals of what you want to achieve and what you believe in and then explain how your ideas get us there, and how others dont, and not a demeaning insulting manor. If you come at people like that, most people are going to respond in a similar manor.

[Pharmcat]

Make no mistake. All these deficit talks will end the moment Obama leaves the office. As the almighty Cheney says: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

exactly, where was the outrage when the previous admin was racking up the debt? with oversees operations, tax cuts, and a pres. drug plan, all put on the credit card


its all politics

[Capn'O]

Funky, you hit the nail on the head with Lucy Gooosey over there. S/He has created a unified "liberal" strawman character that s/he applies to everybody that doesn't take a hardline Tea Party stance. Lucy Gooosey is not interested in educated debate or advancing his or her own viewpoints but rather to agitate and draw attention to his/herself and viewpoints - which themselves are an ever shifting target.

I was told the other day by Lucy Gooosey that the UN was fabricating international murder rate statistics (obtained from national law enforcement agencies). I would wonder then, why we have heard nothing about such fabrication. Surely the countries themselves would have a stake in getting the data right. Is the UN suppressing these stories? B-b-b-but I thought Lucy Gooosey told me that the UN was a useless, ineffectual bunch of doo nothing LIBRULZZZ. With what rainbow power would they suppress an individual or group or NATION that debunked their methods?! Lucy Gooosey, I confused!

The only thing consistent about Lucy Gooosey is his/her desire to stir up drama. It is the essence of trolling.

[duetta]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... ore-126115

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

[rsavaj]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/#more-126115

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

The NYT doesn't count as a legitimate source.

[richardhutnik]

There is not a single issue I agree with liberals on, none. They are an anathema to capitalism and freedom as we know it. Their goal is more power for the government and the elitists who control it. They try to impose nanny state regulations at every turn and handcuff business because to them the only business worth running is the business of government.

And you're wrong. Liberals NEVER want to compromise. They use rhetoric to vilify conservatives, as racist or extreme when its they who race bait on a daily basis, its they who use divide and conquer politics to hoodwink the public. Although any person who pays attention to whats going on and still empathizes with their point of view is willfully ignorant.

Ask yourself as a Christian which if any of these liberal positions you agree with. And if its none and you still relate to their platform, ask yourself whats wrong with that picture.

Abortion- liberals support a "woman's right to chooooose" At any time during the pregnancy- yes that includes partial birth abortions.

Economics- Liberals believe the highest earners and job producers as well as those greedy small business owners should be taxed more and more. Because that will provide money for social welfare programs to help the poor unfortunate welfare mothers with 6 kids, who have more kids to get bigger government checks. Or provide healthcare and financial aid for college to illegal immigrants.

Terrorism- Liberals NEVER speak out against radial Islam. They nary mutter the word Islamic terrorist when an attack happens, yet ever since Norway theyve gone out of their way to identify the shooter as "a right wing Christian extremist" at every chance they get.

Dont you see that the very people you are seemingly defending loathe Christians?

Ask a few liberals how they feel about Christianity or Christians in general and see what kind of answers you get.

You dont consort with the enemy, you get rid of them at the ballot box. And we better do it soon before we are bankrupt and permanently screwed.

I think you would be quick to identify me as a Liberal, as you have done so to others for merely trying to counter-balance your right-winged barrage of opinion based articles, and to classify me as such under your biased assumptions is just flat out wrong. To label an entire group of people and the individuals that make up this group under these false assumptions is wrong.

I think you are more interested in finding enemies than you are in finding solutions. Your method of debate keeps you protected because you rarely if ever stick your neck out in support of something, and you frantically move from one topic to the next so that no one can properly engage in a civil debate.

To refer to a group of PEOPLE as ENEMIES for merely have some differences, is quite frankly, sad. It is an extremist view that will only further divide this country.

Don't mind Mugzi. He confused Jesus Christ with Ronald Reagan, and Christianity with some sort of political ideology (one he agrees with of course), rather than something that transcends everything and will cause everyone to bow their knee and wonder why the are off. That is typical in this political climate. Others confuse Obama for Superman or Mohammed or a monkey to, but that is neither here nor there.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/#more-126115

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Fixed.

[HarthorneWingo]

This guy Joe Walsh (freshman Rep-Ill. and not the rock and roll great) is perhaps the most arrogant/ignorant T-bagger out there. He made his big splash with this heated interview with Chris Matthews.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SrVB2-iTdw[/youtube]

... and then THIS came out. Shocking.

http://www.suntimes.com/mobile/6720892- ... ld-support

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter/apallasch@suntimes.com

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.