Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[Faun]

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?

I wouldn't know since I'm not actually a member of your delusions. Those delusions including the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant the U.S.S.C. the final arbitrator of determining the Constitutionality of our laws -- such determination, of course, requiring the ability to interpret the Constitution. Without such ability, would render them incapable of rendering any decision based on the Constitution.

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

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

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

 

[Redfish]

I wouldn't know since I'm not actually a member of your delusions. Those delusions including the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant the U.S.S.C. the final arbitrator of determining the Constitutionality of our laws -- such determination, of course, requiring the ability to interpret the Constitution. Without such ability, would render them incapable of rendering any decision based on the Constitution.

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

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

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

wrong again, their job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to "interpret" the constitution. The language of the constitution is clear, it does not require interpretation.

 

[The Rabbi]

We need to cut defense spending.

Defense serves a purpose and is a Constitutional responsibility. Entitlements are neither. Furthermore, defense is a tiny pittance (19% of the federal budget) compared to the idiot Dumbocrat entitlements (62% - more than triple). Time to cut the socialism chief.

You are way off. Welfare only consists of 10% of our spending. Defense is 22%. Not only that but that 10% covers ALL welfare spending. Food stamps for instance is 1% of that 10.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2014 - Charts

You're looking at welfare in a very narrow sense. If you include all entitlements it is maybe 3 times that, much bigger than defense.
Defense has already been cut. There is no argument there anymore.
The problem is entitlement spending, which has crowded out private savings dollar for dollar, leading to lower GDP growth.
Billy, you cannot distinguish "rate of spending" vs actual spending. In actual spending Obama has spent more than any other man on the planet, $7 trillion.

 

[P@triot]

We need to cut defense spending.

Defense serves a purpose and is a Constitutional responsibility. Entitlements are neither. Furthermore, defense is a tiny pittance (19% of the federal budget) compared to the idiot Dumbocrat entitlements (62% - more than triple). Time to cut the socialism chief.

You are way off. Welfare only consists of 10% of our spending. Defense is 22%. Not only that but that 10% covers ALL welfare spending. Food stamps for instance is 1% of that 10.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2014 - Charts

Hey [MENTION=33739]Billy000[/MENTION] - the fact that you have to lie proves that you are on the wrong side of the debate. First of all, we are talking about entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamarecare, and on and on and on) - that goes well beyond just welfare and you know it. The fact that you have to cherry pick one entitlement out of dozens to make your numbers look better just proves that you have lost the argument.

Second, we spend 19% on defense and 62% on entitlements (more than triple). And as I've already stated, defense is a Constitutional responsibility which serves a purpose. Communist entitlement handouts are neither. Here are two links proving you are a liar. The second link is from post #4 from fellow radical liberal G5000 in this thread HERE. His link (again, from a radical liberal) also supports my link that we spend 19% of our federal budget on defense.

Charts on Federal Entitlement Spending as a Percentage of US Budget

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[P@triot]

I wouldn't know since I'm not actually a member of your delusions. Those delusions including the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant the U.S.S.C. the final arbitrator of determining the Constitutionality of our laws -- such determination, of course, requiring the ability to interpret the Constitution. Without such ability, would render them incapable of rendering any decision based on the Constitution.

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

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

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

No dumb ass - there job is to interpret the whether a law is Constitutional, not to interpret the Constitution itself you ignorant buffoon.

I've asked 3x's now - what section of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution itself? The fact that you can't answer proves that you are wrong. But hell, the educated on USMB already knew that.

 

[Kosh]

Because increasing the debt by $7t is not the same as spending $7t. For example, we could spend $20t and decrease the debt at the same time if we could raise more than that in revenue. While there's a direct correlation between spending and debt, spending is not debt. Debt is revenue minus spending.

Apparently your solution is to raise taxes. Am I right?

That and cutting spending. Both were done this year but more needs to be done.

Cuts were done on future spending based on spending increases and that was only cut by 3%, what needs to be done is cuts in current spending.

However the far left only wants to cut the military budget and nothing else.

 

[Faun]

So faun, the CBO is estimating that Odumas policies will place us 21 trillion in debt by 2016, so based on your style of argument, Oduma HAS run up more national debt than ALL other Presidents combined!!!

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

Are you on drugs? First of all, that NY Times article was speaking of a CBO report. CBO reports ARE government reports, so who one Earth knows what you're talking about when you idiotically claim that "government reports never stated that?"

Table 1 on page 2 of the introduction shows a 10 year projection of a $5.61 surplus.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

Secondly, I have not resorted to a more palatable CBO report. Unlike you, I referenced the most recent report. It's not my problem that you're not happy with their estimates improving.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

Utter nonsense. The biggest expense in that regard that we've incurred was the war in Iraq. Get this through your impenetrable armor of ignorance -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.

Your ignorance aside, problems arise during many presidencies. In Bush's case, there was 9.11 (an attack he did absolutely squat to prevent). Despite Bush's negligence, yes, we were attacked. That attack is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $600-$700 billion.

Now compare that to the Great Recession Bush left for Obama ... that is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 trillion. Hopefully, even someone as demented as you can fathom the difference.[/QUOTE]

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

I'm not spouting "MSM feeds," you Conservative freak. I linked to a NYTimes post which reported on a CBO budget report. Do you get it? Are you capable of understanding? It wasn't the NYTimes' "statistics" or their "numbers." It was the CBO's numbers.

Although, since it was a positive report during Clinton's presidency, you no doubt believe the CBO is just another arm of the Liberul MSM.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

So since Barry and his criminally corrupt group of cronies have come into power and have spent 7 TRILLION dollars that we don't have (soon to be 8 TRILLION), you jump up and down and scream that spending is not going up under Barry? As a matter of fact, you come up with this chart that shows how low spending is under Barry compared to other recent Presidents?

Are we through the looking glass or what? Up is down, in is out, and right is wrong. I've seen some pretty weird stuff here on this forum. I've chuckled through posts from those who are nothing more than water bearers for Barry or some other dirt bag politician. But this takes the cake. You can't paint a lemon red, call it a cherry and make a pie out of it. It will all wash out in the end. Only the low-information voters like Black Label and RDean will buy this crap.

If he gets his way, Barry and his group of cronies will have spent close to 10 TRILLION dollars more than we make by the time he leaves office. 10 TRILLION dollars that someone else is going to have to come up with to pay back. That is the FACT. A word that scares you liberals so much that you stay away from them at all costs.

Take this fantasy on the road to Disneyland...

 

[Faun]

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

You are as wishy washy and deceitful as the clown in chief.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

You are in serious denial.

And you seriously are a moron. Please feel free to try and dispute anything that I stated in that post that is not fact!

What is not fact?

How about your claim that there was never a government report which stated what the NYTimes article I linked claimed?

Wait for it ... here it is ... http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

So that was not factual.

Then we have you claiming the GOP will control the Senate next year. While that may be entirely possible, it is not a fact.

Then we have you claiming once the GOP takes over, then we'll see things turn around. Again, while that may be possible, it is also not a fact.

Then you claimed the deficits were run up to fight "those that attacked us" on 9.11. Only Iraq did not attack us on 9.11. So there's another point which was not factual.

Then you claimed I was spouting "MSM" statistics and numbers. Again, that is not a fact as I was referencing the CBO numbers you falsely claimed didn't exist.

So your post was filled with inaccuracies which you wholeheartedly believed were facts. If nothing else, your denial of posting nonfactual statements while doing exactly that proves beyond any shadow of doubt as to just how delusional you really are; even though you're apparently incapable of seeing that yourself.

 

[Faun]

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

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

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

No dumb ass - there job is to interpret the whether a law is Constitutional, not to interpret the Constitution itself you ignorant buffoon.

I've asked 3x's now - what section of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the Constitution itself? The fact that you can't answer proves that you are wrong. But hell, the educated on USMB already knew that.

Had you read the link I offered to the U.S.S.C. on their role in "The Court and Constitutional Interpretation," you would have found I had answered your question. Interpreting the Constitution is an inherent function of their job in being granted the power over "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution," since that job would be impossible without the ability to intrepret the Constitution.

Your question is again answered. My question remains unanswered ...

when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

For example, if a case about the presidential qualification of "natural born citizen" ever makes it to the U.S.S.C. ... who do you think gets to interpret what the Constitution means by "natural born citizen?"

 

[RKMBrown]

I was right: Under Obama, spending has been flat - Rex Nutting - MarketWatch

In May 2012, I wrote a column that concluded that there had been no massive binge in federal spending under Obama, as commonly believed. The column went viral after the president, his press secretary and his re-election campaign mentioned it favorably. Conservative pundits flogged me mercilessly, saying that I had manipulated the data and made overly generous assumptions about the likely path of spending in the last two years of Obama’s first term.

It turns out my assumptions weren’t generous enough. Last week, the Treasury Department announced that federal spending fell 2.3% to $3.45 trillion in fiscal 2013 after dropping 1.8% in 2012. It was the largest annual decline in federal spending since 1955, and the first time spending had fallen two years in a row since 1954-55, at the end of the Korean War...

In the four years since 2009, the final budget year under President George W. Bush, federal spending has fallen by $63 billion, or 0.45%. It’s the first decline in federal spending over a four-year presidential term since Harry Truman sat in the Oval Office just after World War II.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

To really judge how much spending has increased under Obama, that additional FY2009 spending must be apportioned to Obama. In a further adjustment suggested by many of my critics, we’ll exclude the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were approved in late 2008, when Bush was a lame duck. These one-time programs raised the 2009 baseline to which we’re comparing Obama’s spending, and they lowered net outlays in recent years as they were paid back. Including them makes Obama’s spending look slower than it really was.

In real terms, spending rose 0.8% per year during Obama’s four years, the lowest since the 0.6% growth in Bill Clinton’s first term and the second lowest since inflation-adjusted spending fell 1.1% in Eisenhower’s first term.

The U.S. population grew at a 0.8% annual rate during Obama’s four years, which means that real federal spending per person was flat under his watch.

...And our government didn’t lift a finger. We had some brief stimulus, but it faded and was soon replaced with spending cuts....

No matter how you measure it, FEDERAL SPENDING hasn’t increased much, if at all, under Obama

Get it through your heads, cons. It's amazing one has to explain that Obama did not spend 7 trillion dollars.

BULL HONKY

Obama increased spending by 30% + an automatic annual 8% increase pretty much on day one. Then he spent trillions on stimulous plans for "shovel" ready crap. Then he got Obuma Care jammed down our throats, the single biggest increase in health care costs in the history of MANKIND. Then the republicans took over the house in 2010 and put a halt to the increases.

Now you have the balls to take credit for the republican intransigence to even more increases?

ROFL libtards... take credit for the increase in spending even though it's really just borrowing, take credit for Obuma Care even though it's the law from hell, take credit for the republicans forcing them to reign in spending even though they simultaneously scream about the same damn thing. ROFL libtards are hilarious.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

So faun, the CBO is estimating that Odumas policies will place us 21 trillion in debt by 2016, so based on your style of argument, Oduma HAS run up more national debt than ALL other Presidents combined!!!

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

ROFL oh my... so funny. You libs are hilarious with the blatant lies.

 

[LTCArmyRet]

Perhaps at some point in the past, it was projected to be $21t by 2016, but the latest forecast ...

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

... projects a shortfall of $1.4t over the next 3 years. If that holds true, that would put the debt somewhere around $18.2t by 2016.

So it would appear that Obama has shaved off some 3 trillion dollars off of the CBO estimate. As opposed to Bush, who turned a $6t surplus into an $8t deficit. Go GOP!

And if that holds true, not only would he not have added more debt than all other presidents combined; but he would have increased the debt by 72%. Compared to 86% by Bush, 50% by GHW Bush (in four years), and 180% by Reagan.

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

Are you on drugs? First of all, that NY Times article was speaking of a CBO report. CBO reports ARE government reports, so who one Earth knows what you're talking about when you idiotically claim that "government reports never stated that?"

Table 1 on page 2 of the introduction shows a 10 year projection of a $5.61 surplus.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

Secondly, I have not resorted to a more palatable CBO report. Unlike you, I referenced the most recent report. It's not my problem that you're not happy with their estimates improving.

When the dems lose the senate next year and don't gain any ground in the house, we'll see things turn around. One simple fact you dumbocrats like to omit when blaming Bush. Yes we as a nation were on a path to surpluses in 2001 and beyond. NO ONE could have predicted what happened that year, 9/11!!! They attacked the World Trade Center, arguably the heart of our stock markets. Those that attacked us achieved, to a degree their intent of affecting our economic system. And, the deficits that Bush ran up are in direct correlation to the increase in defense spending to wage battle with those that attacked us. How and against who that was waged is an entirely different argument and neither your nor I can say we would have done anything differently than Bush at the time. If you do, your are lying to yourself.

Utter nonsense. The biggest expense in that regard that we've incurred was the war in Iraq. Get this through your impenetrable armor of ignorance -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.

Your ignorance aside, problems arise during many presidencies. In Bush's case, there was 9.11 (an attack he did absolutely squat to prevent). Despite Bush's negligence, yes, we were attacked. That attack is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $600-$700 billion.

Now compare that to the Great Recession Bush left for Obama ... that is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 trillion. Hopefully, even someone as demented as you can fathom the difference.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

I'm not spouting "MSM feeds," you Conservative freak. I linked to a NYTimes post which reported on a CBO budget report. Do you get it? Are you capable of understanding? It wasn't the NYTimes' "statistics" or their "numbers." It was the CBO's numbers.

Although, since it was a positive report during Clinton's presidency, you no doubt believe the CBO is just another arm of the Liberul MSM.

[/QUOTE]

You keep spouting off the NYT article cited a CBO report, show the report! Quit referencing the article!! Otherwise, accept the article citing a CBO report that Oduma will spend our way to a 21 Trillion debt.

 

[Faun]

Once again we see [MENTION=33829]Faun[/MENTION] lying and creating a new narrative after I humiliated him. I never said the Supreme Court doesn't decide the Constitutionality of our laws. In fact, I explicitly stated that they do - as seen bolded in blue above.

However, you being the ignorant liberal that you are stated that the Supreme Court "sayeth" that the "Constitution does not limit general welfare to the enumerated items" (as seen bolded in red above). Well, the Supreme Court does not get to "decide", "interpret", or otherwise "rule" on the U.S. Constitution itself. But since you've never read the Constitution - choosing to live willfully ignorant - you don't know that. So I ask again fauny - what section of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitution itself (and thus arbitrarily altering said Constitution)?

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

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

wrong again, their job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to "interpret" the constitution. The language of the constitution is clear, it does not require interpretation.

More insane mutterings from the insane right. The language of the Constitution is clear, is it?

The Constitution grants the Congress the power to provide for the nation's "general welfare."

Define "general welfare?"

 

[mudwhistle]

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

wrong again, their job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to "interpret" the constitution. The language of the constitution is clear, it does not require interpretation.

More insane mutterings from the insane right. The language of the Constitution is clear, is it?

The Constitution grants the Congress the power to provide for the nation's "general welfare."

Define "general welfare?"

It doesn't mean free stuff.

 

[Faun]

You really like changing your references to what ever supports your twisted arguments. First you reference a NYT article that projected a 6 trillion surplus, and ignore government reports that never stated that. Then using your methodology to project a bad image on your boy, you revert back to government reports that still portray a bleak picture, but are more palatable.

Are you on drugs? First of all, that NY Times article was speaking of a CBO report. CBO reports ARE government reports, so who one Earth knows what you're talking about when you idiotically claim that "government reports never stated that?"

Table 1 on page 2 of the introduction shows a 10 year projection of a $5.61 surplus.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

Secondly, I have not resorted to a more palatable CBO report. Unlike you, I referenced the most recent report. It's not my problem that you're not happy with their estimates improving.


Utter nonsense. The biggest expense in that regard that we've incurred was the war in Iraq. Get this through your impenetrable armor of ignorance -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11.

Your ignorance aside, problems arise during many presidencies. In Bush's case, there was 9.11 (an attack he did absolutely squat to prevent). Despite Bush's negligence, yes, we were attacked. That attack is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $600-$700 billion.

Now compare that to the Great Recession Bush left for Obama ... that is estimated to have cost our economy somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 trillion. Hopefully, even someone as demented as you can fathom the difference.

You can keep spouting what the MSM feeds you with their statistics, numbers that can be easily manipulated to look better or worse than what is actually occurring. But you can't ignore nor minimalize the simple fact that Oduma has increased our national debt by 7 Trillion and shows no intent on reducing that spending rate. He will come close and may even surpass doubling our national debt in 8 years! NO PRESIDENT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE WILLFUL IRRESPONSIBLE SPENDING THAT THIS ONE HAS.

I'm not spouting "MSM feeds," you Conservative freak. I linked to a NYTimes post which reported on a CBO budget report. Do you get it? Are you capable of understanding? It wasn't the NYTimes' "statistics" or their "numbers." It was the CBO's numbers.

Although, since it was a positive report during Clinton's presidency, you no doubt believe the CBO is just another arm of the Liberul MSM.

You keep spouting off the NYT article cited a CBO report, show the report! Quit referencing the article!! Otherwise, accept the article citing a CBO report that Oduma will spend our way to a 21 Trillion debt.

I took the liberty to highlight the part which exhibits just how insane you are as here is the third time I am providing a link to that CBO report. No need to thank me.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

Perhaps this would be a good time for you to buzz the nurse and inform her it's past your meds' schedule?

Just sayin'.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are insanely stoopid. The Supreme Court would be unable to render a decision in any case without the ability to interpret the Constitution.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

And just out of curiosity, when there is ambiguity over meaning in the Constitution in a case -- who do you think gets to interpret it to render a decision if not the U.S.S.C.?

wrong again, their job is to determine the constitutionality of laws, not to "interpret" the constitution. The language of the constitution is clear, it does not require interpretation.

More insane mutterings from the insane right. The language of the Constitution is clear, is it?

The Constitution grants the Congress the power to provide for the nation's "general welfare."

Define "general welfare?"

It is. Those are the specific areas that are given later in that paragraph. Otherwise there is no such thing as limited federal government because everything could be construed as "general welfare."
Why don't you define general welfare in a way that preserves the notion of limited enumerated powers?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not spouting "MSM feeds," you Conservative freak. I linked to a NYTimes post which reported on a CBO budget report. Do you get it? Are you capable of understanding? It wasn't the NYTimes' "statistics" or their "numbers." It was the CBO's numbers.

Although, since it was a positive report during Clinton's presidency, you no doubt believe the CBO is just another arm of the Liberul MSM.

You keep spouting off the NYT article cited a CBO report, show the report! Quit referencing the article!! Otherwise, accept the article citing a CBO report that Oduma will spend our way to a 21 Trillion debt.

I took the liberty to highlight the part which exhibits just how insane you are as here is the third time I am providing a link to that CBO report. No need to thank me.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2731/entire-report.pdf

Perhaps this would be a good time for you to buzz the nurse and inform her it's past your meds' schedule?

Just sayin'.

You understand what a "projection" is, right?

 

[BlackSand]

Perhaps this would be a good time for you to buzz the nurse and inform her it's past your meds' schedule?

That only works if you weren't kicked off your healthcare plan ... Thanks Anyway.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think anyone who is being objective realizes that the Whitehouse is big on promises but short on delivery.

Just making false statements that liberals want to hear won't fly anymore. Not after "if you like your insurance........"