DescentBB

... r_embedded

Video ID broken, but I'll comment on John of Orange anyway.

He all for nothing. A waste of taxpayer money with his stunt of the reading of the Constitution out loud. And he and most of the other House members didn't even stick around to the end of the thing.

linky fixed



TC dont be such a tard, you OBVIOUSLY missed the poisnt of the reading, a point which I wont even bother to explain to you.


and on a side note

FORMER speaker of the House Pelosi wrote:At her final press conference as House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

heh

ahahahahahaha

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

This delusional Woman leads the 2 least fiscally responsible Congress's in the HISTORY of this nation and she has the gall to say that as she's walking out the door

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years.Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

O
M
G

yeah, i'm sure the massive bailout of wall street and the subprime housing market implosion had nothing to do with the debt...

and after watching him do a read of the constitution i was just sitting there thinking \"what was the point in doing that?\"

all in all, this was business as usual. make a good sounding speech and get it out of the way.

How come they didn't read the whole thing? Why leave out any part of it? Just because some amendments superseded others. Why leave the old ones and the ones that superseded them out? So a true reading of the Constitution has not even been done. They left out Article 1, Section 2 changed by 13th Amendment, Article 1, Section 3 changed with 17th Amendment, Article 1, Section 4 changed with 20th Amendment, Article 2, Section 1 changed with the 12th Amendment, Article 2, Section 1 changed 25th Amendment, part of Article 4,changed with 13th Amendment, and the 18th and 21st Amendments.

So it was all political stunt that needed not to happen if they are going to leave out parts of it.

CUDA wrote:TC dont be such a tard, you OBVIOUSLY missed the poisnt of the reading, a point which I wont even bother to explain to you.

Political grandstanding?

Semifinalist entry for the biggest empty gesture competition?

Sucking up to the tea party types?

Reminding people what their job is?

Reminding people there is a law above theirs?

Well, at least it made \"progressives\" gnash their teeth and let us hear the lamentations of Pelosi.

CUDA wrote:graph

Nothing is that simple. Federal budgets begin and end in October, so the first "Obama" bar is actually Bush's budget. At the beginning of Bush's final budget year, the CBO predicted that his budget deficit would be $600 billion. After Bush's TARP bailout--but before Obama entered office--they already predicted a $1.2 trillion deficit. Obama has made the budget deficit even worse though, especially since TARP has been largely repaid over the years.

Oh if only congress and the federal government in general would actually follow the constitution instead of using it to wipe their asses.

Jeff250 wrote:

CUDA wrote:graph

Nothing is that simple. Federal budgets begin and end in October, so the first "Obama" bar is actually Bush's budget. At the beginning of Bush's final budget year, the CBO predicted that his budget deficit would be $600 billion. After Bush's TARP bailout--but before Obama entered office--they already predicted a $1.2 trillion deficit. Obama has made the budget deficit even worse though, especially since TARP has been largely repaid over the years.

Government 101, the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does. thats why I never mentioned the President. Pelosi and the Dems had control of the purse strings. Pelosi and the Dems are the one's who spent the money. you'll also notice that during the Clinton years there was a budget surplus, guess which party was in control of congress then

CUDA wrote:

linky fixed

TC dont be such a tard, you OBVIOUSLY missed the poisnt of the reading, a point which I wont even bother to explain to you.


and on a side note
1

Oh, THAT video. Saw that one on the tube. You know what impression I got out of it? Boehner was essentially saying to Pelosi; "My d**k is bigger than your......! Oh wait! You don't have one, haa, haa!"

As for the reading of the Constitution, not all of it was read (the superseded parts were omitted) and Mister Boehner, who came up with the idea in the first place, couldn't even stick around for the whole thing because HE had to go to a news conference, which was obviously more important that getting a refresher course. I guess he has the Constitution memorized.

And the Republican cut tax and spend method of deficit reduction they subscribe to, that'll work like a charm, juuuuust like it did during the Bush years. Obama obviously buys into it because I see it's working well for him too.

CUDA wrote:thats why I never mentioned the President.

Your graph--what I quoted--specifically mentions Bush years versus Obama years. When I mention the "Bush" bars versus "Obama" bars on the graph, I'm referring to how the graph specifically labels the bars. In fact, it even contains the phrase "Obama tripled deficit."

CUDA wrote:Government 101, the President doesn't spend the money, Congress does.

Again, nothing is that simple. The President drafts a budget and proposes it to Congress to appropriate.

CUDA wrote:you'll also notice that during the Clinton years there was a budget surplus, guess which party was in control of congress then

But guess which party was also vetoing Republican tax cuts during this time. This is why I like a Republican Congress with a Democrat President.

Let's look at FY 2009, which you place so much emphasis on for tripling the deficit. Bush proposed a $3.1 trillion budget to Congress, which was the same amount that the Democratic congress passed in their budget resolution. I don't completely understand these things, but after doing some research, I don't see any evidence here for a Democrat-controlled Congress making it any worse, although they certainly didn't help.