When Democrats say “bipartisan,” they mean “we win”:
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.
Yuh-huh.
Via Drudge.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Powered by WordPress.
You got elected, you don’t hold yourselves accountable. We have made a judgment, and you are found wanting.
Go to hell, Pelosi. Just don’t take us all with you.
I'm Geekier (7cce22) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:24 amYou must remember that in the Dems world, bipartisan means Republicans capitulating to Dems.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:25 amUm. Yeah. Right.
When there is single-party rule EVERYTHING is by definition “bipartisan.”
This is the same woman who thinks “San Francisco values” is synonymous with “American values.” It’s all relative to San Fran Nan.
Sean Bannion (67d24b) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:26 amSame with Obama – the world will be healed – with a bipartisan congress ie with no republicans.
Hail to socialism
Joe - Dallas (d7c430) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:27 amBipartisan means the Democrats will work together with Bernie Sanders.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:28 amThe Dems and the media would not know what actual bipartisanship was if it bit them in the ass.
Just so we are clear, I do not think bipartisanship is a good thing, at all.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:43 amCertainly Mr. McCain appears to have more desire to work and get along more with liberals than with his own base. What is Nancy and Harry’s excuse for a do little Congress and such low approval ratings? Not that they seem to give a rat’s ass about what the public wants vis a vis immigration and offshore drilling, etc. Come to think of it, McCain is fine with illegal immigration and algore’s bogus agw.
Yes, I prefer McCain/Palin and dems not controlling Congress or even having enough to filibuster with either, but reality may well be different. Rich Lowry at NRO analyzes gadfly McCain’s campaign and its disloyal workers. Here’s wishing people wake up, but regardless will the mainstream dinosaur media ever pay a real price? It would shock me if Obama betrayed his past acts and beliefs. Where is the incentive for him to work with the right and not reward his fanatics at every level? And what the hell is the rationale to having a civilian brownshirt goon squad that rivals the defense dept, in budget? Will the media even dare report on the likely abuses by that new layer of lackeys beholding to Obamessiah???? Why wouldn’t an Obama be tempted to follow the enlightened path of a monkey like Chavez? He and Congress already want to punish our own big oil, forn example. He has stated that fossil fuels are bad juju and will tax the hell out of them. No Canadian oil sands production allowed to blemish America and so on.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:43 amSure, Nancy. It will be hard-left and soft-left. Bipartisan!
Sort of reminds me of the bar the Blues Brothers played in. “We like both kinds…country AND western!”
rockmom (e42807) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:45 am“Bipartisan” here means “without the filibuster as a weapon, there will be less partisan gridlock in Washington.”
Kevin (0b2493) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:45 amBipartisanship isn’t going to go well for Joe Lieberman.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:49 amWelcome to the Second Coming of Zimbabwe!
PCD (7fe637) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:03 amAnd in other news, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
PatHMV (653160) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:07 amRemember, when only Hillary was at the rally, it was “bipartisan.”
When Gov. Palin went, too, suddenly it was a “partisan” rally.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:07 amI suppose “bi-partisan” will now rank along-side “non-fossile fuel” in the Pelosi lexicon?
She is the perfect pairing with the “Dim-Bulb of Searchlight”.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:14 amVia Drudge.
I thought he packed it in after hyping the Backwards “B” girl story.
As for Nancy, maybe she’s reaching out to the anti-intellectual Republicans with her statement?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:17 amsnuffles–
No, she’s talking to the inattentive center that just wants “this partisan bickering to end” so they can get back to important stuff, like who Madonna will hook up with next.
Kevin (0b2493) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:21 amYeah, bipartisan as in far left judges confirmed by senate, illegals legalized and setting up future voting cushions for dem incumbents, taxes out the wazoo, businesses suitably chastised, plenty of new tariffs that replicate the effects that the same FDR BS used to prolong the Depression. We will get screwed long term and I wonder when enough people will finally get a clue about dems being held responsible for the mess whether it won’t already be way too late….legislating from the bench, union check cards, fairness doctrine, civilian brownshirts, rationed health care and so on.
We’ll see what an Obama cabinet looks like soon enough if he is elected, but like someone else opined, it will be the thousands of lesser appointments that tell the tale. Still, I had a laugh at what GOPUSA thinks an Obama Dream cabinet might look like- a peter/backwards mario/tokyo rose/jerryspringer/ihateamerica and other obama drones’ wet dreams.
Agriculture- far left Tom Harkin with oodles of ag subsidies as a side dish.
Atty. General- his lovely hate america wife, Michelle IF he could pull a JFK thing with his own brother. Otherwise vigilantly protect the rights of criminals with a Pat Leahy appt.
Defense- space cadet Kucinich of course.
Education- obvious choice is prof. Ayers.
Energy- algore. Al could just close down all of our refinineries and they’d have to find some way to blame the GOP when nation grinds to a halt.
Health and Human services- a Kevorkian type would be best to highlight O’s anti-life policies.
Homeland Security- the lovely Bernadine Dohrn, but of course.
Sec. of State that great intellectual and self-loathing Jew Noam Chomsky…perfect for carrying out O’s feeble foreign policy initiatives.
Treasury- George Soros. pay back time
Budget director- Rangel or Frank
Charlie to fill the dem race quota or Barney for the gay quota.
I think some are quite possible…such as algore, harkin, leahy and even Hillary for scotus.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:22 ammaybe she’s reaching out to the anti-intellectual Republicans with her statement?
If we’re discussing “anti – intellectual,” consider yourself her target audience in this regard. The same person who repeatedly exclaims ignorance on topics previously covered ad nauseum here is right up her ladder.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:41 amSHhhhhhhhhh, Dmac. It knows of which it speaks.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:43 amsnuffles sniffed: As for Nancy, maybe she’s reaching out to the anti-intellectual Republicans with her statement?
As a S.F. resident, I have watched Nancy Pelosi from her first day in Congress and can tell you there is NOBODY more “anti-intellectual” than Nancy Pelosi. Remember what she said when she stopped a vote on increases in drilling that would have been a true bipartisan passage: “We’re trying to save the planet.” Sarah Palin has not said anything as stupid as “I don’t know what was so great about the Great Depression, but that’s what they call it.”
And she has the nerve to say “Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there”? Uh, you may wanna take a gander at the scoreboard, Nance: Yours and Harry Reid’s Congress’ approval rating is HALF that of President Bush!
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:57 amOnce upon a time, there was a little red hen who uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’
‘Not I,’ said the cow.
‘Not I,’ said the duck.
‘Not I,’ said the pig.
‘Not I,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
‘Who will help me reap my wheat?’ asked the little red hen.
‘Not I,’ said the duck..
‘Out of my classification,’ said the pig.
‘I’d lose my seniority,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my unemployment compensation,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen.
‘Who will help me bake the bread?’ asked the little red hen.
‘That would be overtime for me,’ said the cow.
‘I’d lose my welfare benefits,’ said the duck.
‘I’m a dropout and never learned how,’ said the pig.
‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,’ said the goose.
‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.
But the little red hen said, ‘No, I shall eat all five loaves.’
‘Excess profits!’ cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
‘Capitalist leech!’ screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
‘I demand equal rights!’ yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, ‘You must not be so greedy.’
‘But I earned the bread,’ said the little red hen.
‘Exactly,’ said Barack the farmer. ‘That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, we must “spread the wealth around.”
The End.
Joe (dcebbd) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:16 amBipartisan means, “We need at least 100 Republican votes so we can blame this on you if it all goes wrong.”
luagha (5cbe06) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:17 amBipartisan to Nancy Pelosi means that every Republican in the House and Senate will bend over and grab their ankles–in front of Barney Frank.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:22 amluagha wrote: Bipartisan means, “We need at least 100 Republican votes so we can blame this on you if it all goes wrong.”
Preeecisely, luagha!
I work alongside a sweet woman who is, nonetheless, a MSNBC moonbat. When I pointed out that the margin of defeat for the first version of the bailout was fewer than the Dems who voted against it, she started repeating Pelosi and Fwank’s squawking point “We will not pass a partisan bill!” Huh? So you’re blaming your failure on Republicans who had the courage of their convictions instead of Dems who were CYAing because they are running for reelection in November?
That’s “leadership?”
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:27 amWell, of course, conservatism is a bias, liberalism is just good common sense. So only Republicans can be partisan. Get rid of the Republicans and you get rid of partisanship.
tim maguire (72f509) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:30 amIf Joe Biden can say Bush let Hezzbalah back into Lebanon then Pelosi can say a more Democratic Congress will be more bi-partisan.
They’re not even trying for plausible anymore.
Bel Aire (2fd7f7) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:51 amThis is much more stupid than anything said in the Gibson or Couric interviews.
h0mi (a21964) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:54 am“Bipartisan” is the English cognate of the Latin word for “one-party rule”.
furious (56af6d) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:14 amDon’t miss it: Campaign insider says that John McCain will win Pennsylvania.
Excerpt:
“On November 4th, the news networks are going to be spinning and sputtering and playing catch up, but everything we see on the ground in PA is what we saw during the primaries: Obama has no shot of winning the Keystone State.”
Official Internet Data Office (7800f2) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:25 am“..More “Bipartisan” means “we lie”.
locomotivebreath1901 (89ba36) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:35 amBipartisanship means keep the Republicans in power ad infinitum. Vote for a third term of Bush and let’s continue to descend into economic and national crisis. Keep the administration that got us into this mess in power. That is true bipartisanship. Democrats are evil socialists and enemies of America. They are responsible for the status quo. You guys got nerve. I gotta hand you that.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:00 pmVote for a third term of Bush and let’s continue to descend into economic and national crisis.…Vote for a second term of Carter and let’s prolong the malaise.
Democrats are evil socialists and enemies of America.…They’re not evil, they’re just wrong, and they’re not enemies, they’re just not people we’d trust with a gavel or a nuclear launch code.
They are responsible for the status quo.…to the extent that Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, et al played enablers to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Countrywide’s ruinous lending policies, you are correct.
furious (56af6d) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:08 pm“Democrats are evil socialists and enemies of America.”
Well, that part is true.
Unless you think things like slavery, mass treason (our civil war), segregation, an endless series of foreign wars, military conscription (more slavery), boundless corruption, two Red Scares, concentration camps for innocent and loyal American citizens, and socialism (yet more slavery…you work for the government, they hand your money to other people, and you don’t benefit one bit…if that ain’t slavery, I don’t know what is) are good for America, then I think you would have to say the Dems are enemies.
As far as I’m concerned the Dems are the worst enemy America ever had. We should have exterminated the lot of them in 1865. America would be a lot better place if we had…roomier too.
Dave Surls (83046d) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:22 pmThe Bobo speaks – but it does not comprehend.
(to the tune of Mandy)
We remember all our lives
Bobo with it’s cold dead eyes
No brain at all
A face without blinking
Someone shrieks in horror
The Bobo’s still spitting
Oh Bobo
Dmac (e30284) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:26 pmWell you drooled and you screeched
Without saying
So we mocked you today
Oh Bobo
Well you cried and you laughed
You’re bi – polar
And you need help right away
Oh Bobo
Comment by Dave Surls — 10/28/2008 @ 12:22 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:30 pmYou just confirm what Republicans are. One party, fascists. You are not a democrat. America is not a one party system. That is how despots talk.
More from the Stepford Voter.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:37 pmSanFranNan remembers the good old days of Tip O’Neill and Bob Michel. That’s the mold for Congress that she has in mind. A nice compliant minority that doesn’t make too many waves, and gets a bone thrown to them now and then for behaving themselves.
I think she mis-remembers to some degree, however, the power wielded by the “Blue Dog” democrat caucus in those “halcyon days of yore.” Her caucus is going to include a significant number of democrat members far to the right of her and Barney and Rahm. I think her real fear is that the House GOP will finally see the error in its ways and jettison the “leadership” of the John Boehner wing of the party. Put a principled conservative like Shadegg or Cantor in the role of Minority Leader, and let him go after the votes of the Heath Shulers of the Dem caucus. Lets see how long they envision themselves keeping their seats if they start voting the party-line agenda of the Berkely-Hyde Park-Cambridge crowd.
Back in the early 90’s about the third or fourth most powerful member in the House was none other than Gary Condit of Central California — the leader of about 40 votes in the Blue Dog Caucus.
I’m curious to see who, if anyone, emerges in the next Dem caucus as that person.
WLS (26b1e5) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:37 pm“You just confirm what Republicans are.”
I’m not a Republican, I just hate Democrats.
The Republicans are a lot more merciful than I am. They only executed one guy after the Civil War, I would have had the guillotines running 24/7.
Dave Surls (83046d) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:49 pmLove, he listed things that Dems supported…
He said that the only way that Dems could be considered “good” is if you support those things/think they are ok.
Was to miss his point.
Scott Jacobs (2899a7) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:54 pmIf anyone believes that “bipartisan” crap, then that poor, tired old bridge is again up for sale.
irongrampa (8332bb) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:02 pmdemocratic power = good, and bipartisan = good, therefore democratic power = bipartisan?
roy (7a7bfb) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:09 pmThe same person who repeatedly exclaims ignorance on topics previously covered ad nauseum here is right up her ladder.
Dmac,
Repeating a lie over and over and over does not make it the truth.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:29 pmI was just watching Ken Burns’ documentary “The War”, which my mom gave me as a birthday present the other day, and it talks quite a bit about how the Democrats treated black people in the south (good enough to get drafted into the army and sent off to die in France…not good enough to ride in the front of the bus) and how the Democrats in the national government treated Japanese-American citizens (off to the concentration camps, loyal or not…except for the ones who we can use as cannon fodder…into the army with them), so I’m in an especially vitriolic anti-Democrat mood today.
What slimy bastards the Democrats have always been. God, how I hate their guts.
Anyway, if you haven’t seen that documentary, get it. It’s the best documentary I’ve ever seen. If all television shows were like that, I’d hook my t.v. back up.
Dave Surls (83046d) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:36 pmRepeating a lie over and over and over does not make it the truth.
Feigning ignorance over the ideology of “socialism” after repeated explanations have been provided (along with strenuously avoiding offering a description yourself) is evidence of untruthful behavior on your part.
Dmac (e30284) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:44 pmDmac,
The Republicans have doubled the size of the Federal debt over the lat 8 years.
And they banged up the size of the Federal government by more than 50% over the same period.
Q: Is the Republican party a Socialist organization?
Yeah, this is a test.
A test of your truthfulness.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 1:50 pmThis is a problem many Republicans have with the current party.
See above.
No, but it’s shifted leftward.
I dunno. You’ve started with a false premise that all Republicans are happy with their leaders. Speaking only for myself, I can say I’m not. That goes for President Bush to Senators Corker and Alexander although I have to say I’m pleased with Congresswoman Blackburn. Largely, Republicans are disappointed with their leaders because they’ve moved too far left.
The other part of your premise I disagree with is your assumption that because “The Republicans have doubled the size of the Federal debt over the lat 8 years”, Obama is going to be better. I’ve read nothing that he’s said, on his website to indicate he’s going to do anything to get it under control. McCain’s plan is ambitious and he thinks he can get it under control within his first term. I don’t really buy that but I _do_ buy that he’s going to try and cut spending. Or, at least, spend less than Obama.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:01 pmCW,
McCain has pledged not to touch the Defense budget, which accounts for over 70% of Federal spending.
Obama, though, is under no such obligation.
Which candidate do you think has a better chance at cutting government spending?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:05 pmI keep forgetting – who’s been in charge of Congress the last two years? ‘Cuz sometimes I think Bush runs everything the way people talk.
steve miller (0fb51f) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:15 pmMcCain has pledged not to touch the Defense budget, which accounts for over 70% of Federal spending.
Seventy percent?
Budget is $3 trillion, defense spending is $600 billion (Wikipedia Link). Roughly 20%.
I assume you mean non-discretionary? Even that, it’s not 70 percent.
SteveMG (6ae01a) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:16 pmI assume you mean non-discretionary?
Correction: Discretionary.
Not “non-discretionary.”
SteveMG (6ae01a) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:19 pmsnuffles, you might want to actually research your talking points before trotting them out.
You can see the breakdown of the federal budget at FederalBudget.com. In fact, we spend more of our budget on Health and Human Services than we do on defense, and we spend almost as much in interest on the federal debt as we do on defense. Total defense spending is nowhere NEAR “70% of Federal spending.”
PatHMV (653160) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:19 pmHey David Surls you may be interested in knowing that the Democrats you are taking about bolted the party in 1964 and joined the Republicans because they opposed the Civil Rights act aimed at correcting the abuses you are so concerned about.
But dont let the facts get in your way of your blind hate.
Maybe you ought to enlighten Colin Powell, and even Barack Obama himself, as to these evil things the Democrats do which I guess they, and most Black folks, just doesn’t realize.
VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:28 pmPerhaps your enlightening them is the white mans burden, no doubt?
You really should have been born and raised in Germany in the 30s and then you could have realized your stated wishes to exterminate people. Bet you would have been happy to fire up those gas chambers, right? You sicken me..as I am sure you sicken all decent people
One more thing Surls as you watch the documentary about the Civil war and get all fired up with hate against democrats, here is a piece of information I a sure you will find hard to swallow.. KEN BURNS HAS ENDORSED OBAMA..
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_brings_out_a_heavy_nh_hi.html
VietnamEraVet (543dfe) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:40 pmI assume you mean discretionary?
That is correct Steve.
Only a fool would try to cut Social Security.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 2:42 pmI’m a big supporter of Barry O. I am here not to throw any bombs, but because I have just written a post on my blog about why, despite the fact that I make a fair amount of money, I support Barack Obama. My friends seem to like it, but they’re mostly more liberal than me. So given the tenor of comments here, I am inviting some true-red conservatives to come over and attempt to rip me apart.
Pelted (a0458a) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:08 pmMendoucheity is a way of life for some of the trolls.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:34 pmPelted – Start practicing by sending a check to Levi once a month, buy health and car insurance for tmj, and pay sniffles rent and utilities every third month.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:38 pmI’m don’t agree with your 70% number; I think it’s much lower than that. McCain has specifically spoken about cutting wasteful military spending.
Military spending is one thing I’m more than happy to pay for.
McCain.
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:50 pmWitless steam rises
Pious Agnostic (b2c3ab) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:53 pmFrom inert piles of leaf-fall:
Trolls still smell like shit.
The mere idea that Dems generally, or Baracky specifically, would ever actually cut the budget is laughable, sniffles.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 3:59 pmMilitary spending is one thing I’m more than happy to pay for.
Pork is just another name for government programs you disagree with, CW?
Your selfish “logic” is the reason America now has the economy of a Banana Republic.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:39 pm“Hey David Surls you may be interested in knowing that the Democrats you are taking about bolted the party in 1964 and joined the Republicans because they opposed the Civil Rights act”
Apparently they jumped to the wrong party, since over 80% of the Republicans voted in favor of the act, while only 65% of the Democrats did so.
Of course, what you’re saying is hogwash. But, then that’s hardly surprising, considering the source. The reason SOME Democrats jumped ship is because they realized that segregation was dead and there was no longer a reason for them to remain in the party of slavery and Jim Crow. IOW, the only reason they were in the Democrat Party was because the Democrats were the party that tolerated institutionalized racism (duh!).
Under the rule of the Democrats, blacks had to go to the back of the bus, they couldn’t drink from white water fountains, etc., not so, now that southerners have come to their senses and switched to voting for the party that has always supported civil rights (more than the Democrats have, anyway).
That would be the Republicans.
“Bet you would have been happy to fire up those gas chambers, right?”
Don’t you listen? I just said I’d use guillotines. I like the satisying thud a Democrat slaveowner/traitor’s head makes when it rolls into the basket.
Dave Surls (83046d) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:45 pmNon-sequitur.
I’m for military spending, I’m against pork. Yes, there’s pork in military spending, McCain has said he wants to cut it.
Non-sequitur. Two in a single answer! That’s pretty good, but it’s not a record.
I’m not sure how my desire to fund the military makes me “selfish.” Although my attempt to answer your questions in good faith might have been “foolish.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:58 pmThe real question is: What are you so afraid of, CW?
Or do you make a living servicing our bloated military?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:02 pmsnuffles, bloated military? That’s pretty funny since the Democrats’ theme for years now has been that our military is overstretched.
Can’t stick to one lie at a time can you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:06 pmFWIW…
Proposed Budget of the Federal Gov’t for FY-2009
Total Expenditures…………$3.107T
Dept of Defense…………… 651B (20.9%)
And, I would remind everyone, that the President proposes;
But it is the Congress that disposes.
The President can only spend those funds provided by the Congress through enabling legislation.
And, since the changes to the Budget Laws enacted after Watergate, impounding of appropriated funds is not allowed. What is appropriated by the Congress, must be spent by the Executive.
So, when assessing blame for the fiscal condition of the United States, please remember the contribution that the two houses of Congress make.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:11 pm“The Republicans have doubled the size of the Federal debt over the lat 8 years.”
Means nothing. What’s important is the debt/gdp ratio not the raw number. We’re not in nearly as much debt (debt 65-70% of GDP) as we were in 1945 (debt 120% of GDP). The debt/gdp ratio has risen just a tad from the high point of the Clinton years. IMO, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not any kind of unresolvable crisis.
“And they banged up the size of the Federal government by more than 50% over the same period.”
Same thing. In truth, the Federal government has spent about 20% of GDP since about 1975 (no real growth in 30 years). It was a different story a long time ago. In 1930 the federal government spent about 5% of GDP, but then Roosevelt and a series of Dem Congresses came along and created our current big government…and that’s hurt this country a lot.
Q: Is the Republican party a Socialist organization?
All governments are socialistic, it’s just a matter of how much and what for. There is no such thing as a government that DOESN’T control means of production and distribution of goods. The Democrats have, historically, been far more socialistic (hence the huge growth in government expenditures from 1933-1975).
And, that’s a bad thing, because socialism (especially socialism combined with the kind of militarism the mighty libby wibbies engaged in from 1933-1968) kills prosperity and destroys liberty. Always.
“Yeah, this is a test.”
People like you ought to be taking tests, not giving them.
Dave Surls (83046d) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:13 pmquestion-which party has controlled every inner city from mayors/school boards/city councilors
pdbuttons (359493) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:45 pmetc.-isn’t it the democrats?-racist bastards!
pimpin the black peeps thru fear-despicable
Or do you make a living servicing our bloated military?
snuffles – I thought you made your living servicing our military, male, female, bloated, skinny, young, old. You don’t discriminate, right?
Just be careful not to catch a social disease again.
K?
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:05 pmI don’t see what the fuss is about. Pelosi is very bipartisan. Look how well she works with Socialist Bernie Sanders.
Ken Hahn (c70f51) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:11 pmZealots.
It’s a government agency which, by default means there’s wasteful spending involved. Dollar for dollar, I’m pretty sure the military is as efficient in killing bad guys and helping the oppressed as entitlement programs are at lifting people out of poverty.
No, I don’t work for the military or government.
I’m a musician.
Do you work for the ACLU, Code Pink or create “art installations” out of pipe cleaners and yak turds?
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:11 amCW – It went to the alphie school of commenting.
JD (5f0e11) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:18 amOh, I know. But it’s like “iron fist” training or in this case, “iron taint.”
CW Desiato (614aa7) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:31 amCW – I really have no desire to hear about sniffles’ taint, thank you.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:23 amI lean left, but that comment by Pelosi so ridiculous it embarrasses me.
i like america (d2f951) — 10/29/2008 @ 4:22 pm