Democratic Congress Was Productive

[stumbler]

According to a pair of Congressional experts the perception that Congress did not get anything done in 2007 is not accurate. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said this year's sesson of Congress was definitely not a do nothing congress.

"In terms of new laws enacted, it compares favorably with the 104th Republican Congress which took office in 1994 elections," Mann said. According to him the 1994 congress failed to enact all but one provision of their Contract with America during its first year. By contrast most of the items on the Democratic new direction agaenda found they way into law.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute also gave the 2007 congress a passing record. Congress's record looked worse that it was, he said.

Both experts said that negative perceptions of congress resulted from not being able to end the war in Iraq, which they said was impossible give the democrats narrow margin, as well as the partisan bickering between republicans and president Bush. They also pointed out the accomplishments were made while Republicans and Bush did everything they could to slow down the progress.

Given the perception of the Democratic congress on this forum I found this to be interesting.

[AZRIEL]

[richief]

Why revisit news from 5 years back, how is the present congress doing?

[RandyKnight]

I do not know what they fuck they were doing in 2007 but in 2008 the world caved in around their heads and I bet some of them knew it was coming....

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by richief

Why revisit news from 5 years back, how is the present congress doing?

For two reasons actually.

One: this was a record non-response thread. Old Tool even highlighted that one time. But two, it remains true. The Democratic controlled congress under Nancy Pelosi was statistically more productive than any Republican controlled congress including Newt Gingrich.

Look it up yourself

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

For two reasons actually.

One: this was a record non-response thread. Old Tool even highlighted that one time. But two, it remains true. The Democratic controlled congress under Nancy Pelosi was statistically more productive than any Republican controlled congress including Newt Gingrich.

Look it up yourself

Yeah well they seemed to over look a total financial and banking crash that they still are not doing anything about and the shit is still going on...

JP Morgan may lose 9 billion now?

The new scandal in England with the bankers fixing the Libor rate was going on as far back as 2007...
2 Barclays bank top guys are gone...maybe more...

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

According to a pair of Congressional experts the perception that Congress did not get anything done in 2007 is not accurate. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said this year's sesson of Congress was definitely not a do nothing congress.

"In terms of new laws enacted, it compares favorably with the 104th Republican Congress which took office in 1994 elections," Mann said. According to him the 1994 congress failed to enact all but one provision of their Contract with America during its first year. By contrast most of the items on the Democratic new direction agaenda found they way into law.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute also gave the 2007 congress a passing record. Congress's record looked worse that it was, he said.

Both experts said that negative perceptions of congress resulted from not being able to end the war in Iraq, which they said was impossible give the democrats narrow margin, as well as the partisan bickering between republicans and president Bush. They also pointed out the accomplishments were made while Republicans and Bush did everything they could to slow down the progress.

Given the perception of the Democratic congress on this forum I found this to be interesting.

Originally Posted by stumbler

For two reasons actually.

One: this was a record non-response thread. Old Tool even highlighted that one time. But two, it remains true. The Democratic controlled congress under Nancy Pelosi was statistically more productive than any Republican controlled congress including Newt Gingrich.

Look it up yourself

That's just fabulous,,,,ONE QUESTION;,,how much did the leftist congress do that the people are in favor for,,you know,, when it was all said and done,,and the lies were turned into truths,, and the fine prints were exposed??

[Baddog_WOOF]

Pelosi failed to pass a budget for fiscal 2010 and it had to be done after the Republicans took over Congress in the 2010 elections.
EPIC FAIL!

Why didn't Fearless Leader keep Pelosi and Reid in line after he got into the White House?

Obama is a great candidate, but a lousy leader.
The abject failure of Obama to handle Reid and Pelosi is a hallmark of his tenure.
The clusterfuck the Democrats did after Obama was elected reminds me of Will Rogers, who famously said,

"I am not part of an organized political party. I am a Democrat"

Res ipsa loquitur

[Baddog_WOOF]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

That's just fabulous,,,,ONE QUESTION;,,how much did the leftist congress do that the people are in favor for,,you know,, when it was all said and done,,and the lies were turned into truths,, and the fine prints were exposed??

Ace, did the Federal government get smaller under Reagan's two terms?
Did the Federal government get smaller under George H.W. Bush?
The Federal Government sure as hell didn't get any smaller under W.
Since 1980, there has been a Republican President for 2/3 of the time, but the Federal government never got smaller and has grown exponentially!

Only mongoloids expect the Republicans to create a smaller Federal government.
Sure, Republicans babble about it all the fucking time, but it never happens.

The last President who passed a balanced budget was Bill Clinton.
The last Republican President who passed a balanced budget was Eisenhower.

Do the math, Ace.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

Ace, did the Federal government get smaller under Reagan's two terms?
Did the Federal government get smaller under George H.W. Bush?
The Federal Government sure as hell didn't get any smaller under W.
Since 1980, there has been a Republican President for 2/3 of the time, but the Federal government never got smaller and has grown exponentially!

Only mongoloids expect the Republicans to create a smaller Federal government.
Sure, Republicans babble about it all the fucking time, but it never happens.

The last President who passed a balanced budget was Bill Clinton.
The last Republican President who passed a balanced budget was Eisenhower.

Do the math, Ace.

The federal government will do nothing but grow,,to believe otherwise, you are only lying to yourself.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

The federal government will do nothing but grow,,to believe otherwise, you are only lying to yourself.

No that would be you telling the lies Ace. Nearly all governments have been reduced and especially the federal govenment under President Obama and all you on the right can do is lie about that.

[stumbler]

What all of you are missing is this congress ended their session in 2007 with President Bush still in the White House and just before the GOP caused Great Recession.

But if anything what this thread really represents is the huge gap between reality and people's political perceptions.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No that would be you telling the lies Ace. Nearly all governments have been reduced and especially the federal govenment under President Obama and all you on the right can do is lie about that.

The Governments were reduced because of a lack of money...what happened to the money....we spent it bailing out the Banksters and Fraudsters

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

The Governments were reduced because of a lack of money...what happened to the money....we spent it bailing out the Banksters and Fraudsters

And paying the costs of Bush's pointless wars.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

For two reasons actually.

One: this was a record non-response thread. Old Tool even highlighted that one time. But two, it remains true. The Democratic controlled congress under Nancy Pelosi was statistically more productive than any Republican controlled congress including Newt Gingrich.

Look it up yourself

Liberals like stumbler cry about the evil capitalists making lots of money. But totally overlook the fact that Nancy Pelosi used insider trading to make millions and millions of dollars all while she was Speaker of The House.

If you or I used insider trading we would be convicted of a felony and sent to prison for a very long time. As well as forfeiting all of our assets. Congress decided that insider trading would be legal for them only while SHE was in charge.

She is as crooked as they all are, Democrats and Republicans. But somehow the liberals conveniently overlook this fact and only see one side as the problem. Go figure?

Look it up yourself

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

And paying the costs of Bush's pointless wars.

Yes, this is true. How about all those Americans that lost their lives for no reason? You just can't put a price on that....

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

And paying the costs of Bush's pointless wars.

And you would have had him what?
Not go after Osama?
Let terrorists have their sanctuary in the Mid east?
Shrug and say it's only a couple of buildings in New York, what the hell?

You may disagree with how he did it, but to even suggest that going after the terrorists in their lair after 9/11 was pointless is the cowards mantra.

That was what Clinton did; he let the terrorists blow up our embassies, attack our marine barracks, and try to sink our ships, and the most he came up with was to lob a few tomahawks into the dessert.

And I said it in 1993 when we left Somalia after Mogadishu; we'll just have to go back in there and clean up that shit pool.

Say what you will about Bush; Clinton did more to advance the cause of terrorism against the US than any other president. If he had done the right thing then, I believe we'd never have had to live through 9/11.

See, he missed the history lesson from WWII; never, ever back down from a bully. And you only negotiate with him once you have a boot firmly planted on his neck.

Pointless war? Fuck that.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

No that would be you telling the lies Ace. Nearly all governments have been reduced and especially the federal govenment under President Obama and all you on the right can do is lie about that.

YEAH,YEAH,YEAH,,,,,,,,,,blah,blah,blah,,,,,,,,the mother fucking federal budget has not been reduced,SOOOOOO,,the Federal government has grown and will always grow.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Yes, this is true. How about all those Americans that lost their lives for no reason? You just can't put a price on that....

wrong again....Your Govt puts a price on death...

. A lump sum gratuitous payment made by the Air Force to eligible beneficiaries of a member who dies on AD, ADT, or IDT, or full-time National Guard duty. Its purpose is to help the survivors in their readjustment and to aid them in meeting immediate expenses incurred.

The death gratuity payment is $12,420, and is non-taxable.

For those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty, the payment is $100,000. The death gratuity payment is made to survivors of the deceased in this order:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/casualty/blgratuity.htm

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

YEAH,YEAH,YEAH,,,,,,,,,,blah,blah,blah,,,,,,,,the mother fucking federal budget has not been reduced,SOOOOOO,,the Federal government has grown and will always grow.

See I told you you were just bullshitting yourself Ace because all you could do is change your story. Change your claim because its nothing more than false propaganda to begin with.

[richief]

Originally Posted by shootersa

And you would have had him what?
Not go after Osama?
Let terrorists have their sanctuary in the Mid east?
Shrug and say it's only a couple of buildings in New York, what the hell?

You may disagree with how he did it, but to even suggest that going after the terrorists in their lair after 9/11 was pointless is the cowards mantra.

That was what Clinton did; he let the terrorists blow up our embassies, attack our marine barracks, and try to sink our ships, and the most he came up with was to lob a few tomahawks into the dessert.

And I said it in 1993 when we left Somalia after Mogadishu; we'll just have to go back in there and clean up that shit pool.

Say what you will about Bush; Clinton did more to advance the cause of terrorism against the US than any other president. If he had done the right thing then, I believe we'd never have had to live through 9/11.

See, he missed the history lesson from WWII; never, ever back down from a bully. And you only negotiate with him once you have a boot firmly planted on his neck.

Pointless war? Fuck that.

The war into Afghan is pointless, once Bora Bora was cleaned out the terrorists were gone, a swift diaspora across the sub continent and the mid east. The incursion into Iraq was just pointless, no records of terrorists there before, but plenty after.

You cannot say that 9/11 would not have happened if Clinton had done the right thing, there was plenty evidence that the planning was not done by Bin Laden, he apparently just provided financial support.

You do not take out terrorism by invasion but by surgical strikes, that would have saved a few Brit and American lives.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

See I told you you were just bullshitting yourself Ace because all you could do is change your story. Change your claim because its nothing more than false propaganda to begin with.

I changed no story,,you just want to come up with some bullshit to protect your boy...The federal government is growing daily,,the federal government is becoming more and more in control of the people's lives,,whether it is with additional personnel or more funding,,you lose.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I changed no story,,you just want to come up with some bullshit to protect your boy...The federal government is growing daily,,the federal government is becoming more and more in control of the people's lives,,whether it is with additional personnel or more funding,,you lose.

Wrong as usual. Federal employment is far below what it was during the Reagan Administration.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Historica...tSince1962.asp

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by shootersa

And you would have had him what?
Not go after Osama?
Let terrorists have their sanctuary in the Mid east?
Shrug and say it's only a couple of buildings in New York, what the hell?

You may disagree with how he did it, but to even suggest that going after the terrorists in their lair after 9/11 was pointless is the cowards mantra.

That was what Clinton did; he let the terrorists blow up our embassies, attack our marine barracks, and try to sink our ships, and the most he came up with was to lob a few tomahawks into the dessert.

And I said it in 1993 when we left Somalia after Mogadishu; we'll just have to go back in there and clean up that shit pool.

Say what you will about Bush; Clinton did more to advance the cause of terrorism against the US than any other president. If he had done the right thing then, I believe we'd never have had to live through 9/11.

See, he missed the history lesson from WWII; never, ever back down from a bully. And you only negotiate with him once you have a boot firmly planted on his neck.

Pointless war? Fuck that.

So I get it now. You are the invincible hero in your own little fantasy world, where they are all bad guys and you're the only good guy that gets all the girls. Well I guess this is the best place for that.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I changed no story,,you just want to come up with some bullshit to protect your boy...The federal government is growing daily,,the federal government is becoming more and more in control of the people's lives,,whether it is with additional personnel or more funding,,you lose.

Sure you did Ace and your exact words appear right below this:

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

The federal government will do nothing but grow,,to believe otherwise, you are only lying to yourself.

The Federal government, state governments, county governments, and local governments have all cut back not expanded Ace and just because the cost of doing business increases the cost of government which has to buy stuff goes up.

But don't try to deny you changed your story ace because its right in front of you.

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

The Governments were reduced because of a lack of money...what happened to the money....we spent it bailing out the Banksters and Fraudsters

This is also why so many pension funds are nearly broke. Because they trusted the private sector and allowed their funds to be invested in the biggest stock scam in history.

But that's what happens when it costs (nobody really knows for sure) somewhere between $13 and $30 Trillion to bail out the financial industry You know; welfare for the rich which Ace, that grand conservative, hardly ever bitches about

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Wrong as usual. Federal employment is far below what it was during the Reagan Administration.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Historica...tSince1962.asp

You leftists are the densest creatures that exist,,FUNDING,,,FEDERAL FUNDING is not below the levels of the Reagan years,,

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GROWING AND WILL ALWAYS GROW

Can you see it know.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by stumbler

The Federal government, state governments, county governments, and local governments have all cut back not expanded Ace and just because the cost of doing business increases the cost of government which has to buy stuff goes up.

But don't try to deny you changed your story ace because its right in front of you.

State and local government are required to balance their budgets,,when people are not working they are not paying taxes,, forcing that state and local governments to cut back,,the federal government is required by law to submit and pass an annual budget ,, which they have failed to do so for 3 consecutive years,, but the national debt continues to climb feverishly,, with NO end of the spending in site,, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GROWING.......And cost of doing business has not gone up by a $ trillion and a half annually.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You leftists are the densest creatures that exist,,FUNDING,,,FEDERAL FUNDING is not below the levels of the Reagan years,,

Can you see it know.

I can see that you conveniently forgot that you also said "federal personnel". Really, Ace, have you no shame?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I can see that you conveniently forgot that you also said "federal personnel". Really, Ace, have you no shame?

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

I changed no story,,you just want to come up with some bullshit to protect your boy...The federal government is growing daily,,the federal government is becoming more and more in control of the people's lives,,whether it is with additional personnel or more funding,,you lose.

See the terms now??

[steve_vme]

Originally Posted by stumbler

According to a pair of Congressional experts the perception that Congress did not get anything done in 2007 is not accurate. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said this year's sesson of Congress was definitely not a do nothing congress.

"In terms of new laws enacted, it compares favorably with the 104th Republican Congress which took office in 1994 elections," Mann said. According to him the 1994 congress failed to enact all but one provision of their Contract with America during its first year. By contrast most of the items on the Democratic new direction agaenda found they way into law.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute also gave the 2007 congress a passing record. Congress's record looked worse that it was, he said.

Both experts said that negative perceptions of congress resulted from not being able to end the war in Iraq, which they said was impossible give the democrats narrow margin, as well as the partisan bickering between republicans and president Bush. They also pointed out the accomplishments were made while Republicans and Bush did everything they could to slow down the progress.

Given the perception of the Democratic congress on this forum I found this to be interesting.

Congress has never met its Constitutional obligations

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by steve_vme

Congress has never met its Constitutional obligations

You sure you want to open that can of worms?

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

See the terms now??

Then why did you even say "federal personnel"?

Face it...you were wrong, and now you're desperately trying to change the subject.

[steve_vme]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

You sure you want to open that can of worms?

Yep, I am writing it up now and sending it to congress.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

State and local government are required to balance their budgets,,when people are not working they are not paying taxes,, forcing that state and local governments to cut back,,the federal government is required by law to submit and pass an annual budget ,, which they have failed to do so for 3 consecutive years,, but the national debt continues to climb feverishly,, with NO end of the spending in site,, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GROWING.......And cost of doing business has not gone up by a $ trillion and a half annually.

Hey Ace show me where the federal government is required by law to submit and pass an annual budget would you? I'm not finding or seeing that anywhere.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

You leftists are the densest creatures that exist,,FUNDING,,,FEDERAL FUNDING is not below the levels of the Reagan years,,

Can you see it know.

Nope I can't see that bullshit at all Ace. Let's try looking at the facts for a change.

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.
As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”
Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.
But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.
Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.
Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:
• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.
• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.
Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.
There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.
Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.



What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.



The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.



Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Nope I can't see that bullshit at all Ace. Let's try looking at the facts for a change.

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s




http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

Thank you, Stumbler...I was hoping to get to that part of it after I got Ace to admit he was wrong about the other part. Fat chance.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Thank you, Stumbler...I was hoping to get to that part of it after I got Ace to admit he was wrong about the other part. Fat chance.

It amazes me that he can just keep going in circles about this stuff. But that's what happens when you allow yourself to be brainwashed by people who are willing to tell you what you want to hear instead of what's actually happening.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

It amazes me that he can just keep going in circles about this stuff. But that's what happens when you allow yourself to be brainwashed by people who are willing to tell you what you want to hear instead of what's actually happening.

I just don't get it......when the 1% has drained 50% of the net worth from the middle class and shifted that wealth to their own pockets why is it so bad to tax the 1% a few extra million to help ensure the safety net for this country.

There is no FREE Market anymore...it is all rigged and manipulated and set by those with the money.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Nope I can't see that bullshit at all Ace. Let's try looking at the facts for a change.

Obama spending binge never happened

Commentary: Government outlays rising at slowest pace since 1950s




http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Thank you, Stumbler...I was hoping to get to that part of it after I got Ace to admit he was wrong about the other part. Fat chance.

MarketWatch Says Obama's Spending Binge Never Happened, Keeps Straight Face

Just when you thought media bias couldn't possibly be more blatant, along comes this article from MarketWatch, a purportedly trusted source of Wall Street news. (Never mind that MarketWatch is operated by CBS, who should change their acronym to Cooing Barack Supporters ... but I digress).
This article so blatantly misrepresents the facts that it's difficult to know where to start:

But the second argument is even more powerful. The Bush budgets - you remember, back in the day, when we actually passed budgets - never exceeded $2.5 Trillion, and deficit spending never exceeded $500 Billion. DEFICIT SPENDING HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. Overall spending has increased by upwards of 50% since 2006, when the Democrats took control in Congress and the Senate. This chart is from the White House website:

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lt1...ge-never-happe

Try again.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

I just don't get it......when the 1% has drained 50% of the net worth from the middle class and shifted that wealth to their own pockets why is it so bad to tax the 1% a few extra million to help ensure the safety net for this country.

There is no FREE Market anymore...it is all rigged and manipulated and set by those with the money.

Its not and the Bush Tax Cuts are only one of the arteries where the bleeding needs to stop. Here's another one that's really easy.

We hear them screaming Social Security is insolvent. Its going broke. Its breaking the government and the nation. All lies but let's say that its true in 2036 or something like that the program will be paying our more than its taking in.

Fine, lift the cap on contributions that favor again that !% and we make social security solvent for the next 70 years.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lt1...ge-never-happe

Try again.

No I don't have to try again because you and your phony running around in circles and pretending you're saying something is getting too old tonight.

I point out again neither you nor your source could dispute the actual numbers and research. All you could do is fall back on your old favorite ad homenim logical fallacy. Which is your only choice when the facts prove you wrong.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/lt1...ge-never-happe

Try again.

And allow me to offer an even more special non-fuck you and freedom works Ace because you, them, and your fucking hero conservatives were fighting two fucking wars that aren't on those budget figures you total non-fucking frauds.

Once again what was the national debt when Bush took office?

What was the budget deficit? (Hint there wasn't one and you know it Ace)?

How much did President Bush increase the National Debt?

How much of President Obama first year budget is actually the budget Deficit Bush left him?

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And allow me to offer an even more special non-fuck you and freedom works Ace because you, them, and your fucking hero conservatives were fighting two fucking wars that aren't on those budget figures you total non-fucking frauds.

Once again what was the national debt when Bush took office?

What was the budget deficit? (Hint there wasn't one and you know it Ace)?

How much did President Bush increase the National Debt?

How much of President Obama first year budget is actually the budget Deficit Bush left him?

The story is the price of Gold....

Bush walks into to office and it was 235 bucks an oz
Bush leaves office it is 1250 bucks an oz

That is how much he fucked up the USA printing and destroying the currency of this country.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And allow me to offer an even more special non-fuck you and freedom works Ace because you, them, and your fucking hero conservatives were fighting two fucking wars that aren't on those budget figures you total non-fucking frauds.

Once again what was the national debt when Bush took office?

What was the budget deficit? (Hint there wasn't one and you know it Ace)?

How much did President Bush increase the National Debt?

How much of President Obama first year budget is actually the budget Deficit Bush left him?

Bush has some significant blame for what Bush has done during his 2 terms, and I can accept it,,Bush was a RINO,,and I wont protect Bush,,like you are protecting Obama.

Bush's terms are over,,hind site is 100%,,Obama is at the wheel todayand nothing is getting better for the future of our kids and grandkids,,just more debt to be paid off.

You leftist can play the race card and the blame Bush card all you want,,that is serious telling signs of how Obama is doing.

[Earthboundhero]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Bush has some significant blame for what Bush has done during his 2 terms, and I can accept it,,Bush was a RINO,,and I wont protect Bush,,like you are protecting Obama.

Bush's terms are over,,hind site is 100%,,Obama is at the wheel todayand nothing is getting better for the future of our kids and grandkids,,just more debt to be paid off.

You leftist can play the race card and the blame Bush card all you want,,that is serious telling signs of how Obama is doing.

The thing is it's not as simple as his presidency being over, the things he did are still effecting the shape of current events. You can't just dismiss everything that came Obama and say "Look how bad he's made everything."

Also, you really need to stop putting two commas when there's only a need to use one. It's an eyesore for anyone with an elementary school education.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Earthboundhero

The thing is it's not as simple as his presidency being over, the things he did are still effecting the shape of current events. You can't just dismiss everything that came Obama and say "Look how bad he's made everything."

Listen,, you,, are,, preaching,, to,, the,, choir,, here,, politicians,, are,, all,, the,, same,, Obama,, is,, not,, the,, 'ALL',, that,, some,, are,, portraying,, him,, as..........

Originally Posted by Earthboundhero

Also, you really need to stop putting two commas when there's only a need to use one. It's an eyesore for anyone with an elementary school education.

AWWWWW,,I'm sorry.

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by Earthboundhero

The thing is it's not as simple as his presidency being over, the things he did are still effecting the shape of current events. You can't just dismiss everything that came Obama and say "Look how bad he's made everything."

Also, you really need to stop putting two commas when there's only a need to use one. It's an eyesore for anyone with an elementary school education.

So far it looks like the best thing Bush did was appoint John Roberts to the SC....

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by RandyKnight

The story is the price of Gold....

Bush walks into to office and it was 235 bucks an oz
Bush leaves office it is 1250 bucks an oz

That is how much he fucked up the USA printing and destroying the currency of this country.

Whoa there pardner. That's one of those things I'd never personally thought of but when I just read it the truth jumped out at me unmistakably and just rang.

And if you listened to Glenn Beck and Goldline it should be $2,000 by now.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Bush has some significant blame for what Bush has done during his 2 terms, and I can accept it,,Bush was a RINO,,and I wont protect Bush,,like you are protecting Obama.

Bush's terms are over,,hind site is 100%,,Obama is at the wheel todayand nothing is getting better for the future of our kids and grandkids,,just more debt to be paid off.

You leftist can play the race card and the blame Bush card all you want,,that is serious telling signs of how Obama is doing.

Then stop with the bullshit lies that its President Obama increasing the size of government when the facts are the opposite.

But every time you start talking about that deficit you better acknowledge Bush's part first and then I won't have to,.

Originally Posted by Earthboundhero

The thing is it's not as simple as his presidency being over, the things he did are still effecting the shape of current events. You can't just dismiss everything that came Obama and say "Look how bad he's made everything."

Also, you really need to stop putting two commas when there's only a need to use one. It's an eyesore for anyone with an elementary school education.

And I say again what I'm not willing to stand for are the absolute lies that President Obama is spending money out of control, government is growing, nothing is being done to cut the deficit, and conservatives can be trusted with money.

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Listen,, you,, are,, preaching,, to,, the,, choir,, here,, politicians,, are,, all,, the,, same,, Obama,, is,, not,, the,, 'ALL',, that,, some,, are,, portraying,, him,, as..........
AWWWWW,,I'm sorry.

No you listen Ace. You're trying to dodge behind the preacher. You don't get to pull this Ron Hubbard bullshit of saying anti government, absolute lies, brainwashed propaganda and then all of a sudden join the fucking choir..

[RandyKnight]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Whoa there pardner. That's one of those things I'd never personally thought of but when I just read it the truth jumped out at me unmistakably and just rang.

And if you listened to Glenn Beck and Goldline it should be $2,000 by now.

It is trading now between 1550 and 1700 on fear of total banking collapse which is still in the cards no mater what anyone says....

The biggest banks just turned in a report to the FDIC explaining how to break them up when/if they go under....

NOW this is what pisses me off with Obama....about two Hundred of those banking fuckers should be heading to prison right now but his justice dept has not even indicted anyone.

These bankers are still pulling all this shit.....they have no fear at all to stay in line. They own our fucking govt.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Then stop with the bullshit lies that its President Obama increasing the size of government when the facts are the opposite.

The facts are not opposite,,I just showed you the cherry picking that marketwatch,,(that is owned by CBS),,ANOTHER LEFTIST MEDIA OUTLET,,that is in the bag for Obama and his administration and all the misrepresentations from;

Obama spending binge never happened

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

Originally Posted by stumbler

But every time you start talking about that deficit you better acknowledge Bush's part first and then I won't have to,.

Where is the Obama ''I'LL CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF'' bullshit at,,,Bush never made that promise,, as Obama did,,Obama's spending is not even a submitted and approved budget,,as it is required by law,,,,,,,,,so dont give me that song and dance bullshit.

Originally Posted by stumbler

And I say again what I'm not willing to stand for are the absolute lies that President Obama is spending money out of control, government is growing, nothing is being done to cut the deficit, and conservatives can be trusted with money.

OBAMA;,,''I'LL CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF'',,
GULLIBLE VOTERS;.. O.K.

Originally Posted by stumbler

No you listen Ace. You're trying to dodge behind the preacher. You don't get to pull this Ron Hubbard bullshit of saying anti government, absolute lies, brainwashed propaganda and then all of a sudden join the fucking choir..

Yes I can,Yes I will.

I am a fiscally conservative republican,,and I will bitch about any politician that does not follow those principles, with their conversation and their voting records.