Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: "Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:14:13 -0700
"Tony" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:P0QCl.9295$LA7.7447@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul M. Cook laid this down on his screen :
"Tony" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WvuCl.7564$ua7.1111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul M. Cook was thinking very hard :
"Tony" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_btCl.7121$GU6.2559@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Paul M. Cook was thinking very hard :
"Tony" <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VByBl.47$FF4.21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Miss Elaine Eos explained :
In article <DXmBl.16$TD1.3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Methuselah <Methuselah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Democrats eliminated the deficits, republicans eliminated the
surplus.
Does the fact that Obama is magnifying the deficit to absurd
levels make him a Republican?
No. See, if he magnifies the deficit to absurd levels, then later
reduces that magnification by 10%, that's called "eliminating
deficits."
See how it works?
So if he plans to triple the deficit, then only doubles it, it
counts as halving the deficit, right?
I think I'm getting this Democrat math.
You guys hate the truth. Obama is using real numbers and preparing a
real budget which includes hundreds of billions of off budget
spending Buh engaged in. You think Bush was being honest with his
budgets? He used every accounting trick in the books. Part of your
angst is hearing the truth for a change. Which you can't handle.
Then why doesn't Obama cut every penny of off budget spending that
Bush is responible for? Seems like that would be pretty easy for him
to do.
He can't all at once as it is military spending for Iraq and
Afghanistan. Gates has announced the new budget today. Bush kept 1.6
trillion in spending off the books while he was pResident.
So all of that hundreds of billions of spending is military spending
**trillions to be exact**
(of which is Constitutional)? There's none of that Medicare Part D
stuff, and other assorted cruft that Obama could cut?
Sure it was legal - it was all "emergency appropriations." Nope,
Medicare part D was on the budget. All of Bush's military expeditions
were off budget as emergency appropriations. Which is why the deficit
was never accurately reported. Obama has put all of that into the budget
where it belongs/ I am sure you'll find some fault with that so don't
keep me waiting, ok?
We were talking about cutting the "Bush deficit" weren't we? I was
offering ways that Obama could do it in a heartbeat. Eliminate Homeland
Security, Department of Education and Housing and Urban Development for a
start.
But then he couldn't blame Bush for his own incompetence.
Right, of course. This is all Barry's fault.
He has the power to fix it. Let him stop concentrating on new ways to
abridge our civil liberties and cut the spending to the bone.
I haven't seen him abridge any civil liberties.
No? You obviously haven't been looking very closely. What would you call
seeking broad powers for the Treasury Secretary (unelected bureaucrat) to
determine what criteria constitutes a "failing bank" and swoop in and take
it over?
Banking is a civil liberty? Look what Roosevelt did. Obama isn;t even
considering going that far. You have to accept the fact that those banks
are going to be re-regulated. That is not a civil liberty. Certainly not
in the Constitution.
Not to mention that power to "shut down the internet" thing (even though
the internet was designed to withstand a nuclear attack, so I can't figure
out how Obama plans to do it).
Uh, why were;t you peeing your pants when Bush demanded full control of the
Internet if the declared it necessary? How about all the cyber security
legalization they dreamed up to spy on every last thing you do. Internet is
not in the Constitution either, pal. It says the home and letters - don't
say nothing about no emails.
Well, unless he agrees with all of those Bush spending programs.
A good place to start would be to dismantle the Department of Homeland
Security. Since now that Obama is president, and we no longer have a
"war on terrorism", and there are no more "enemy combatants", there's no
need for Homeland Security, right?
I would agree. I hate the name of that agency. Break it up and restore
it to the way it was before. It is hardly an efficiency as it was
supposed to be, in fact it has 20,000 employees of its own.
This must be a sign of the apocolypse. Paul and I agree on something. :)
Only in principle - the way you'd do it is all wrong. I am not for getting
rid of one agency, just re-ordering them.
Paul
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: btorvik2
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- References:
- OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Methuselah
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Miss Elaine Eos
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Paul M. Cook
- Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- From: Tony
- OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- Prev by Date: Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- Next by Date: Re: Congress shifts more power to the Executive branch
- Previous by thread: Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- Next by thread: Re: OT:G20 summit a supreme success
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|