Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why did we elect Obama, again???

Volpone

Volpone

Zombie Hunter
I hope it wasn't because Bush is "spending our children's future" or somesuch. Because the 2008 Federal deficit, running somewhere around $425 billion, while shameful, doesn't remotely compare to the "trillion dollar deficits" our boy Barack is predicting "for years to come."
Obama Predicts 'Trillion-Dollar Deficits for Years to Come'
The Democratic-dominated Congress meets Tuesday to confront the economic crisis and President-elect's Barack Obama's ambitious agenda.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, January 06, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama predicted Tuesday that the nation could see "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come," but said the country needs to continue spending taxpayer dollars to get the economy back on track.

Obama, speaking to reporters at his Washington transition office, said he didn't want to get into specific budget numbers because his proposal is still being worked out with lawmakers and has yet to be submitted for debate. But he expects a trillion-dollar deficit before the next fiscal-year budget is even proposed.

"We're already looking at a trillion-dollar budget deficit or close to a trillion-dollar budget deficit, and that potentially we've got trillion-dollar deficits for years to come, even with the economic recovery that we are working on at this point," Obama said.

The president-elect was lobbying Capitol Hill as the 111th Congress convenes, attempting to pitch an economy recovery package estimated to hit about $775 billion.

Asked about concerns of increased deficit spending, Obama said: "We know that we're going to have to spend money to jump-start the economy."

But he also pledged his stimulus plan will not include pork-barrel projects.

The package will set a "new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review," Obama said. "We're not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period."

Obama said he is planning to establish an oversight board to meet publicly and issue reports to Congress on how the money is being spent.

Democrats are promising swift action on the recovery program that is the first order of business for the Obama administration.

"We will hit the ground running ... to address the pain being felt by the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., promised Monday as she welcomed Obama to her office.

For the first time in 16 years, Democrats control both houses of Congress and welcome one of their own to the White House. That foreshadows a productive session, particularly if Obama can muster Republican support for his initiatives, as he is seeking.

Pelosi had earlier promised to try to get the economic recovery bill ready for Obama's signature by Inauguration Day, an optimistic timeline that has now slipped by several weeks.

With their numbers bolstered by last fall's elections, congressional Democrats are well-positioned to dominate the session.

In the House, Pelosi finds her own position strengthened by a gain of more than 20 seats. Her status as the top Democrat in Washington, however, has been supplanted by Obama.

The Democratic majority will be 256 to 178 with one vacancy when the new House is sworn in, compared to 235-198 with two vacancies at the end of the previous Congress.

Democrats will use their bolstered majority to push through several changes to House rules, including a repeal of the six-year term limit for committee chairmen. That rule was imposed when Republicans seized control of Congress in 1995, after decades in which autocratic chairmen dominated the House. That era is mostly over, however, with power concentrated in Pelosi's office.

For Republicans, the next two years promise to be difficult. They vow to work with Obama but at the same time have installed a more conservative leadership team in the House that's eager to draw distinctions with Democrats.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click to expand...
I went ahead and bolded the bits that give me the biggest heebie-jeebies. Commentary follows:

The phrase "greater transparency" always gives me the creeping horrors and that they are establishing an "oversight board, to report to Congress" means they'll just be adding another layer of bureacracy (and cost and inefficiency) and we'll still have the foxes watching the henhouse (no pun intended).

And our sweet, sweet Nancy is going to address the "pain felt by the American people" by increasing their taxes and causing employers to ship more jobs overseas. How touching.

And speaking of foxes watching the henhouse, the idea of the Democrats controlling 2.499 of the 3 branches of government makes me think it is time to stock up on ammo and load more canned goods into that cave in the hills. :(
 
Hell, I stocked up on the canned goods when Bush got elected for a second term.

Good thing I'm not a conservative or I might have waited to long.
 
I think we elected him because we knew he'd nominate a guy for Surgeon General was voted one of the sexiest men of 2003 by People magazine.

At least it wasn't that Sanjaya guy from American Idol.
 
A quick question: Which is the larger number: 425 or 1,000? I know it is kind of tricky. But take your time. Use your toes and/or a piece of paper if it helps.
 
'twas the Palin factor. That's what did it for me. I am supremely happy at what we didn't get. (That being said, it isn't Jan 20 and anything can happen.)
 
I would have been more impressed with Palin if she did all her public appearances topless. We would have gotten a glimpse of her true assets and not some bullshit conjured up by the right.
 
I think any republican who wants to go hide in a hole for a few years is a win for me. :) I fully support the idea. In fact, the government should subsidize it. Besides, it makes it easier for the government to give me the money you've saved if you are in an underground bunker ignoring the world.
 
Because the thought of Palin ever getting the nuclear launch codes was to disturbing for any sane electorate to allow.
 
Sarek said:
Volpone said:
A quick question: Which is the larger number: 425 or 1,000? I know it is kind of tricky. But take your time. Use your toes and/or a piece of paper if it helps.
Click to expand...
That's easy.

$ 1 0 , 6 4 0 , 3 4 8 , 6 3 5 , 8 7 5 . 9 5

^The Bush legacy.
Click to expand...


Yep. As I expected. knowing if 425 is or isn't a larger number than 1,000 is beyond your intellect. Don't worry. Maybe you can find work that doesn't involve counting. Like mopping up the video stalls in a porn shop. :phpup:
 
Volpone said:
Yep. As I expected. knowing if 425 is or isn't a larger number than 1,000 is beyond your intellect. Don't worry. Maybe you can find work that doesn't involve counting. Like mopping up the video stalls in a porn shop. :phpup:
Click to expand...

Wow. What a vicious troll you are.

425 is less than 1,000. But, 1 0 , 6 4 0 , 3 4 8 , 6 3 5 , 8 7 5 . 9 5 is much, MUCH bigger than either number and represents the truer dollar value of the damage that a conservative administration has caused.

Thanks for the basic math lesson, but in true conservative fashion, you deny the validity of the bigger picture. It's no wonder you guys lost the election.
 
Ancalagon said:
I'm sorry Zoomie, I couldn't make that out past the donuts clogging your gullet.
Click to expand...

Really?

It was a written comment. A donut clogging someones gullet would affect speech and should have no impact on your ability to understand the written word.

Unless you can't read? Were there to many words over 2 letters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top