funjumper101 15 #1 April 20, 2011 This is a fact check. Do you really know the facts? Does this have anything to do with the current budget deficits? Why or why not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #2 April 20, 2011 Can any of the RWCs comment on the results of ShrubCo's budget lies and how that has affected the current administration's budgets? 30 views and four votes. I guess the RWCs are hard at work, trying to find a site somewhere that doesn't tell the truth about the ShrubCo's lies. And the results of those lies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #3 April 26, 2011 Who was the fact challenged idiot that voted that ShrubCo had items on budget? Google is your friend. Try doing a search for the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 April 26, 2011 so to followup, is Afghanistan on budget? will Libya be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #5 April 26, 2011 Here is a fact for you. Everything that has happened after TARP belongs to Obama. That includes the unprecedented take off of the national deficit. Bush hasn't been in office for over 2 years now. Get over it."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #6 April 26, 2011 How is TARP adding to the budget deficit? It's projected to only cost ~25 billion to taxpayers. That's what, 1 day of military expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan? http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/news/economy/GAO_TARP_report/I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 April 26, 2011 QuoteHow is TARP adding to the budget deficit? It's projected to only cost ~25 billion to taxpayers. That's what, 1 day of military expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan? http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/news/economy/GAO_TARP_report/ TARP is just a mark in time. The Stimulus and everything after that was all a part of Obama's grand plan. Trillions of dollars in deficit. The economy has passed into Obama's care a long time ago. Bush has been out of office for over 2 years. Time to move on from Bush."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 April 27, 2011 QuoteHow is TARP adding to the budget deficit? It's projected to only cost ~25 billion to taxpayers. That's what, 1 day of military expenses for Iraq and Afghanistan? actually, it seems like the outlays of TARP were tagged to the 2008 budget (and Bush), but when monies were returned, it was found money that like social security, masked deficit spending. The Democrats very openly proposed using repaid TARP money for job programs on multiple occasions. Even those it wasn't really found money at all. More like found debt. It's great that TARP ended up being rather cheap compared to what it looked like. But there was a lot of shit shoveled in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #9 April 28, 2011 QuoteHere is a fact for you. Everything that has happened after TARP belongs to Obama. That includes the unprecedented take off of the national deficit. Bush hasn't been in office for over 2 years now. Get over it. Have you ever heard of Medicare Part D? Passed by ShrubCo and the Rescumlicans by taking a 15 minute vote in the middle of the night, and extending the voting period to several HOURS so that the sensible republicans who voted against it could be pressured into voting for it. This would be the TRILLION dollar giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. You know, the one that makes ILLEGAL negotiating bulk prices for drugs purchased by the Federal Government. The party of Big Business implements what clearly is against all normal business practices (negotiating prices based on bulk purchases), thus CAUSING a good part of the huge budget deficits that are now of such GREAT concern to folks like you. You didn't give a rat's ass about the budget deficits while ShrubCo was running the country. Now all of a sudden you do. Can you spell hypocrite? Do you know what the definition is? Google is your friend. Here is Wikipedia's criticism of the GIVEAWAY program implemented by your heroes. - By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.[25] For example, Medicare pays $785 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin), while the VA pays $520. I am sure that you are really proud that we, the people, had such a GREAT law implmented on our behalf. Me, and anyone with a remote clue, does not think that this was a good idea. It takes an extreme moron to believe that previous administrations have nothing to do with a current administration's budgeting issues. When 3 trillion dollars of WAR expenses are kept off budget, and the shit for brains RWCs stand by and let it happen, you lose all rights to bitch about the deficits. When massive giveaways of federal dollars were created, you folks were silent. Have you no shame? HAVE YOU NO SHAME??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #10 April 29, 2011 QuoteIt takes an extreme moron to believe that previous administrations have nothing to do with a current administration's budgeting issues. And only someone with their head in the sand wouldn't be able to see that Democrats had control of the house and the senate for the last 4 1/2 years and had a super majority over everything for the last 2 1/2 years. Anything that they felt was completely wrong, they could have fixed in that time. Don't blame the republicans for the democrats fucking up their wet dream."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 April 29, 2011 Quote And only someone with their head in the sand wouldn't be able to see that Democrats had control of the house and the senate for the last 4 1/2 years and had a super majority over everything for the last 2 1/2 years. Anything that they felt was completely wrong, they could have fixed in that time. They never had a super-majority. And there's no question that the GOP used the fillibuster, or the threat thereof, quite effectively during that time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #12 April 29, 2011 QuoteQuote And only someone with their head in the sand wouldn't be able to see that Democrats had control of the house and the senate for the last 4 1/2 years and had a super majority over everything for the last 2 1/2 years. Anything that they felt was completely wrong, they could have fixed in that time. They never had a super-majority. And there's no question that the GOP used the fillibuster, or the threat thereof, quite effectively during that time. So you are saying that Democrats didn't hold 60 seats in the senate and 255 seats in the house while Obama was president? Those are filibuster proof numbers by most peoples calculations (and congresses calculations also). If they could have gotten their act together, they could have passed anything they wanted."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 April 29, 2011 Quote So you are saying that Democrats didn't hold 60 seats in the senate and 255 seats in the house while Obama was president? Those are filibuster proof numbers by most peoples calculations (and congresses calculations also). If they could have gotten their act together, they could have passed anything they wanted. The Democrats peaked at 58. Which for the math challenged, is 2 less than 60. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #14 April 29, 2011 QuoteQuote So you are saying that Democrats didn't hold 60 seats in the senate and 255 seats in the house while Obama was president? Those are filibuster proof numbers by most peoples calculations (and congresses calculations also). If they could have gotten their act together, they could have passed anything they wanted. The Democrats peaked at 58. Which for the math challenged, is 2 less than 60. Rescumlicans totally abused the filibuster process and deliberately fucked up the current administration's agenda. In a sleazy and unethical way. Not that they and their supporters actually give a shit about ethics or morality. Then they used the lack of progess and change (prevented by their sleazy and unethical tactics) to convince the low information voters that somehow the lack of progess was the Democrats fault. This caused the sheeple to vote in nutters from the Tea Party that don't understand the Constitution, or even basic civicis. They voted in a majority in the House, by spewing total bullshit that was reported as fact by the corporate media. The corporate media makes an idiot like Ryan out to be a hero with his "budget" that is a load of bullshit, with numbers pulled directly from Heritage Foundation spew. Numbers that have zero basis in reality. The dumb fucks in the House passed the Ryan crap as though there was some actual value to it. The worthless fucks passed the bill without reading it, or analyzing the numbers in any way. Every single Rescumlican voted for it. It was and is a worthless plan, as the numbers are easily proven to be fictitious. Not that truth and honesty have any value to those kind of people. All it does is give MORE tax breaks to the extremely wealthy, paid for by the poor and elderly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites