Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[HelenaHandbag]

Are you republicans really going to run on no freeways, no public schools, no ssi and no birth control again?

You will be defeated!

When did they run on that to begin with?

*ahem*

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

while I agree with you on the schools, roads, bridges to a degree and to even a lesser extent on the science. I do believe that the government has no responsibility for the elderly or the poor and there is no wording in the constitution that can be interpreted as such. That is for the individual family to see to. I personally would like to see a large portion of the SS system done away with. The only part of the SS program that I feel is a good thing is the care it provides for orphans and kids. I think the individual would do better in preparing themselves for retirement/old age if they built their own nest eggs through investments. This of course requires that individual exhibit some personal discipline to put away that money for the future. IF a majority of the individuals in the U.S. did this, you would see the stock markets soar, interest rates would stay very low and tax revenues would increase. There would be arguments that there would be those unscrupulous amongst us, like the Madoffs and such. But a fool and his money are soon parted, and the individual has to take some responsibility for his own lot in life.

 

[Freewill]

Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors

 

[ScienceRocks]

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

So you're a socialist and wish to take power away from families and their personal affairs. No shit you do. Government was NEVER meant to do these things...the founders thought we'd take responsibility for ourselves...evidently? YOU want no part of personal responsibility..YOU are a Nanny-Stater STATIST.

Sounds like the farm you live on. You don't run a first world nation like this as someone has to pave the roads, fund the schools and regulate the private sector from screwing over people.

Shit you're not even talking about 1791 but of a country that doesn't have any government....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yep, Obama's a Big Spender...Just Like His Predecessors

Name a first world country that doesn't? I am only concern that most of the money isn't going to science, education or infrastructure. We maybe getting screwed.

 

[The T]

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

So you're a socialist and wish to take power away from families and their personal affairs. No shit you do. Government was NEVER meant to do these things...the founders thought we'd take responsibility for ourselves...evidently? YOU want no part of personal responsibility..YOU are a Nanny-Stater STATIST.

Sounds like the farm you live on. You don't run a first world nation like this as someone has to pave the roads, fund the schools and regulate the private sector from screwing over people.

Shit you're not even talking about 1791 but of a country that doesn't have any government....

Wrong answer dumbass. YOU know nothing of the Founders or even true liberty, rugged individualism, are YOU your own sovereign, or a puppet that does what government dictates?

YOU are a failure as a REAL American.

 

[P@triot]

My Constitution allows for the government to provide for the general welfare of the nation. Education and roads being inclusive of general welfare.

And therein lies the problem. Maybe your Constitution allows for that, but the U.S. Constitution does not.

First of all, "general welfare" is not one of the specific, 18 enumerated powers of the federal government. "General welfare" is simply mentioned as a reason why the federal government is being granted 18 specific, enumerated powers. But it is not a power itself

Second, when you take from 52% and use it to reward a specific group, that is not the "general welfare". That is punishing a larger group for the welfare of a smaller group. General means ALL or MOST (see definition below). And since 48% of the people (the parasite class) pay no federal taxes, you are punishing 52% to reward 48%. Those numbers are a far cry from ALL or MOST.

Now that I have educated you on the Constitution (no need to thank me, it has been my pleasure) and illustrates how even your misinterpretation of the Constitution doesn't hold up, would you like to try again?

gen·er·al (ˈjenərəl/)
adjective
1. affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Watching you have a melt down because I own you like your party owned slaves in the 1800's is priceless.

Please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution it states that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution?

Oops! Can't do it [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

That's because that power does not exist and never has. The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret laws as they apply to the Constitution (ie their Constitutionality) - not the Constitution itself.

Tell me, what does it feel like being my personal bitch on USMB?

 

[P@triot]

As usual, you prove to be stupid beyond words. No, Obama has not added more debt than all other presidents combined. Stop listening to your delusions -- they betray you.

Obama: $6.6t
All other presidents combined: $10.6t

not even in you bizarro backwards Conservative world is 6.6 greater than 10.6.

A bit of a reading comprehension problem [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

See, I was responding to your post (which can still be seen above in this post right here) in which you cited Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan (highlighted and bolded above since you have a reading comprehension problem).

As anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading would have known, those three presidents you cited were the "all" I was referring to. I was not referring to all presidents in U.S. history (although Obama has surpassed them if you take first terms only - yep, that's right, Obama added more to the U.S. debt in his first term than all other presidents in U.S. history combined did).

Feel stupid now Fauny? You should...

Why on Earth would I feel stupid because an imbecile thinks he's clever? After all, at the end of the day, you're still nothing but an imbecile who thinks he's clever. But let's look at your exact words before you altered them ...

'And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined.

well, no, he hasn't.

Last 3 Republicans: 8.1t
Obama: 6.6t

And while I noticed even you realize your bullshit was bullshit, leading you to amend your initial statement by limiting it to their first term only, You are now mired in your sickness by comparing insignificant nominal figures as well as attempting to conceal the fact that Bush's first term was aided by the low deficit he inherited while Obama was drowned in the massive deficit and broken economy he inherited.

Carry on with your delusions ... they're all you have.

Aww [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - needed a new narrative since I had to explain how ignorant you were misinterpreting what was clearly written and which everyone else understood?

Obama is over $7 trillion now chief. He did that in his first term. All presidents in U.S. history combined did not even come close to that.

Furthermore, your ignorant ass is trying to compare 20 years of GOP presidency (8 Reagan, 4 Bush Sr., 8 Bush Jr.) to a mere 4 years of Obama. How sad is that?

 

[Meister]

Oh, so all the 1 Trillion + deficits don't count because Obama was President....


This is getting fucking retarded.

Again, the FED-R 1 trillion + spent a year (that has never in the history of the fucking plant earth occurred before) does not even count.... unless you count the tax revenues and the markets looking up because Obama is dumping cash on the 1% to loan to the 99% at far higher rates.


Thanks Obama, and the left...

"Growth" in spending and "spending" are two different things. It's amazing how you don't understand that. Obama took TARP and a stimulus, pretends it's all Bush's spending, and then from there claims to only grow spending by baby steps.... lol, oooooook.

Their stooge has spent 7 trillion and they're denying it. Lol.

Great. Yet another right wing imbecile who doesn't understand the difference between debt and spending.

That is your argument?
It's not the debt created by your messiah?

 

[P@triot]

So you don't believe in the freeways, public schools and ssi?

Government does a lot of good. Regulating the private sector is also needed....

[MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] - like all liberals, you don't comprehend the difference between the federal government and state & local government. It's scary that you people actually believe that the federal government is the only "government". What do you think a mayor is - someone paid to cut ribbons?

Freeways and public schools are powers reserved to the states, cupcake. This has been "Constitution 101" with your professor, Rottweiler.

 

[Faun]

You understand what the word "estimate" means, right?
In any case, why was the debt higher after this? If there's a surplus the debt should be lower, right?

Honestly you're getting your tuchas handed to you right and left here. Just like Billy, who has wisely gone elsewhere to spread his ignorance and stupidity. Do thou likewise.

Funny how you're so demented, you think you're winning an argument here.

For example, you point out how that $6 trillion surplus figure was only an estimate ... Moron .... I said it was a projected figure in my post. But g'head, keep lying to yourself. All that really matters to you is that you believe your own lies anyway.

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

 

[P@triot]

Are you republicans really going to run on no freeways, no public schools, no ssi and no birth control again?

You will be defeated!

Are you Dumbocrats really going to run on collapsing the nation again?

Like your policies did in the former U.S.S.R.? Like your policies did in Greece? Like your policies did in Spain? Like your policies did in France? Like your policies did in Cambodia? Like your policies did in Cuba? Like your policies did in Ethiopia?

 

[P@triot]

My, my, you're fucking ignorant. First of all, my Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items, so sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court ... the body deemed responsible for interpreting the Constitution so that even buffoons like you can understand it. Secondly, everyone in the country (the 52% and the 48%) benefits from roads and education.

Cite?
If that's the case why does the Constitution enumerate powers at all?

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

Seriously [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION], you exposing your astounding ignorance here

Defense is the responsibility of the federal government. Stating that they must spell out exactly which form that defense takes is absolutely as absurd and asinine as trying to make the claim that the 2nd Amendment must spell out which guns exactly are "legal"... :esua_doh:

But hey, if shutting down the Air Force is what it takes to make an asshat like you actually obey the Constitution, I'm on board chief!

 

[P@triot]

Because some (but not all) of the Founding Fathers believed general welfare should be limited to the enumerated items. Of course, I've yet to come across a Conservative who says the government should not provide for an air force since that is not among the enumerated items.

You friggin' DITZ...How could they have known, and the USAF used to be part of the United States ARMY...it was known as the USAAF. Became the USAF in 1947. The NAVY didn't have aircraft either...nor did the Marines, the US Coast Guard...Regardless? YOU have shown your distain for the military that protects even dumbasses as you, and Rabbi is correct...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8.

Deal with it.

IDIOT.

That constitution also gave our government the ability to be a first world power.
-Schools
-roads
-bridges
-first rate science
and a system that doesn't throw the elders and poor on the street.

That's the funny part - we wouldn't have to "throw the elders and poor on the street" anyway if we could only get greedy, selfish assholes like you to actually help someone other than yourselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

Funny how you're so demented, you think you're winning an argument here.

For example, you point out how that $6 trillion surplus figure was only an estimate ... Moron .... I said it was a projected figure in my post. But g'head, keep lying to yourself. All that really matters to you is that you believe your own lies anyway.

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

Of course it's a lie. Who cares what the CBO estimated? We had the actual figures. And they were nowhere near the estimate.
The fact is that Obama has added more to the debt than Bush at this time. Obama is the biggest spender in the history of the US. In the history of the world.

 

[P@triot]

Funny how you're so demented, you think you're winning an argument here.

For example, you point out how that $6 trillion surplus figure was only an estimate ... Moron .... I said it was a projected figure in my post. But g'head, keep lying to yourself. All that really matters to you is that you believe your own lies anyway.

Why would you use a projected figure for something that happened over a decade ago? It isnt like the final number isn't known.
But looky here.
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 we owed over $5.7T.
On Sep 30 of the same year whcih is the end of the federal fiscal year, we owed $5.8T.
So if there was a 6 Trillion dollar surplus it should have wiped off the debt, right? At least it should have made a dent in the debt, right?
But it didnt.
And by the next year teh debt was 6.2T.

So your post is a lie. You keep getting your ass handed to you. You really need to quit while you're in the deep hole.

My post is not a lie, you flaming imbecile. Whether you like it or not, the CBO calculated that we would experience a surplus of $6 trillion over the ten year period between 2001 and 2010.

And hysterically enough, what you call, "getting my ass handed to [me]," is actually me taking the word of the CBO over your feeble attempt at calculating a ten year projection.



Carry on with your idiocy -- it's very entertaining.

Funny, since everyone here is crushing you with facts from every side and your standing all alone, I'd say it's pretty obvious your the only imbecile...

 

[Faun]

Which part of "your" constituton provides that?

Article I, section 8.

Wrong.
As pointed out, that does not give license to Congress to do whatever "promotes the general welfare."

Moron, a) I said, "provide," not, "promote;" and b) yes, the Congress can decide on anything they deem as "general welfare." If they vote on it and pass it, it's law. And if such a law becomes contested all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds of Constitutionality, then those 9 justices decide if it meets their definition of general welfare. If they rule that it does, than it's general welfare provided by the Congress as Constitutionally granted. Best part is ... it does not have to be one of the enumerated provisions.

Wow, you show yourself more and more clueless with every post.

Hisses the imbecile who doesn't even understand how our government functions.

 

[francoHFW]

A bit of a reading comprehension problem [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION]?

See, I was responding to your post (which can still be seen above in this post right here) in which you cited Bush, Bush Sr., and Reagan (highlighted and bolded above since you have a reading comprehension problem).

As anyone who can read and comprehend what they are reading would have known, those three presidents you cited were the "all" I was referring to. I was not referring to all presidents in U.S. history (although Obama has surpassed them if you take first terms only - yep, that's right, Obama added more to the U.S. debt in his first term than all other presidents in U.S. history combined did).

Feel stupid now Fauny? You should...

Why on Earth would I feel stupid because an imbecile thinks he's clever? After all, at the end of the day, you're still nothing but an imbecile who thinks he's clever. But let's look at your exact words before you altered them ...

'And now Obama has surpassed all of them combined.

well, no, he hasn't.

Last 3 Republicans: 8.1t
Obama: 6.6t

And while I noticed even you realize your bullshit was bullshit, leading you to amend your initial statement by limiting it to their first term only, You are now mired in your sickness by comparing insignificant nominal figures as well as attempting to conceal the fact that Bush's first term was aided by the low deficit he inherited while Obama was drowned in the massive deficit and broken economy he inherited.

Carry on with your delusions ... they're all you have.

Aww [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] - needed a new narrative since I had to explain how ignorant you were misinterpreting what was clearly written and which everyone else understood?

Obama is over $7 trillion now chief. He did that in his first term. All presidents in U.S. history combined did not even come close to that.

Furthermore, your ignorant ass is trying to compare 20 years of GOP presidency (8 Reagan, 4 Bush Sr., 8 Bush Jr.) to a mere 4 years of Obama. How sad is that?

Reagan's 3 trillion in 1980's dollars is more than Obama all by himself, nitwit....lol

 

[Kosh]

Obama and the far left have not passed a fiscal year budget.

If they do then they feel they will have to own their spending, until they do (in their minds) it is still Bush's fault.

 

[francoHFW]

And Reagan tripled the debt IN GOOD TIMES....Reaganism is a bad joke, on hater dupes especially...so gd dumb.