Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's a little different though. At the time, Bush was out of control spending money on a war he started in Iraq. Why should we raise the debt ceiling just so we can spend even more money over there?Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.
That's it exactly. The Dems think the only problem is political and the GOP is simply ginning this up for gain. They can't understand why the GOP wont just roll over and increase the debt limit, like every time before. If there is a problem, the Democratic solution is to raise taxes so they can put in even more social programs and wasteful crap.
What's really funny is how Obama himself was dead set against raising the debt limit in '06 when Bush was President.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cant pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governments reckless fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, 2006
For once Mr. President, I completley agree with you. The fact that we are here today $14 trillion in debt and you are requesting to raise the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Nobody better represents failure more than you do Barack Hussein.
Sallow,
Social Security is the most expensive.
General Welfare does not mean socialism. You have been brainwashed by the liberals.
They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.
Yep.
Defense.
Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?
And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.
In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.
You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.
They very thing that government is suppose to be doing. Defense.
Not Social Programs. All of the social programs are the ones that are costing to much.
Yep.
Defense.
Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?
And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.
In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.
You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.
Sallow,
Social Security is the most expensive.
General Welfare does not mean socialism. You have been brainwashed by the liberals.
Yep.
Defense.
Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?
And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.
In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.
You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.
Swallow is wrong in everything he believes and everything he writes The GOP ought to ask him how to solve the debt ceiling and budget issue and then do the opposite.
That's absolutely incorrect.
In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.
The most expensive component to the government.
It's the only thing they ever want to cut, despite the fact that it bites us in the ass everytime.
Aren't you the one that claimed government created jobs by being a huge customer of the publics?
That's a hint.
That would be a huge comsumer of the private sector.
The government buys hardware from General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, SAIC, KBR, Computer Sciences Corporation, Honeywell, AM Electric - to name a few.
These companies could be building things for the government, that if used, didn't kill people.
That would be money well spent.
Doncha think?
Or we could just cut it. And not spend.
That's a little different though. At the time, Bush was out of control spending money on a war he started in Iraq. Why should we raise the debt ceiling just so we can spend even more money over there?That's it exactly. The Dems think the only problem is political and the GOP is simply ginning this up for gain. They can't understand why the GOP wont just roll over and increase the debt limit, like every time before. If there is a problem, the Democratic solution is to raise taxes so they can put in even more social programs and wasteful crap.
What's really funny is how Obama himself was dead set against raising the debt limit in '06 when Bush was President.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cant pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governments reckless fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, 2006
For once Mr. President, I completley agree with you. The fact that we are here today $14 trillion in debt and you are requesting to raise the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Nobody better represents failure more than you do Barack Hussein.
Obama is doing his best to try to get out of those stupid wars which is the real money spender and actually trying to help the people of this country. Besides, we wouldn't even need to raise the debt ceiling if taxes were where they should be.
That's absolutely incorrect.
In fact the republicans are opposing 400 billion in spending cuts to the military.
The most expensive component to the government.
It's the only thing they ever want to cut, despite the fact that it bites us in the ass everytime.
Aren't you the one that claimed government created jobs by being a huge customer of the publics?
That's a hint.
That would be a huge comsumer of the private sector.
The government buys hardware from General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, SAIC, KBR, Computer Sciences Corporation, Honeywell, AM Electric - to name a few.
These companies could be building things for the government, that if used, didn't kill people.
That would be money well spent.
Doncha think?
Or we could just cut it. And not spend.
Dem's don't want to cut back on government period.
That's it exactly. The Dems think the only problem is political and the GOP is simply ginning this up for gain. They can't understand why the GOP wont just roll over and increase the debt limit, like every time before. If there is a problem, the Democratic solution is to raise taxes so they can put in even more social programs and wasteful crap.
Sallow,
Social Security is the most expensive.
General Welfare does not mean socialism. You have been brainwashed by the liberals.
No..the military is by far the most expensive.
Lots of spending is "secret" and if Veteran's entitlements would be added..it would be off the charts. That's why benefits are kept out of the scoring.
That's a little different though. At the time, Bush was out of control spending money on a war he started in Iraq. Why should we raise the debt ceiling just so we can spend even more money over there?What's really funny is how Obama himself was dead set against raising the debt limit in '06 when Bush was President.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cant pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Governments reckless fiscal policies." - Barack Obama, 2006
For once Mr. President, I completley agree with you. The fact that we are here today $14 trillion in debt and you are requesting to raise the debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Nobody better represents failure more than you do Barack Hussein.
Obama is doing his best to try to get out of those stupid wars which is the real money spender and actually trying to help the people of this country. Besides, we wouldn't even need to raise the debt ceiling if taxes were where they should be.
Sorry, spending money on national security makes a lot more sense than spending money on Communism/Socialism like Barack Hussein is doing. And you can't explain away his comments. He clearly stated that asking to raise the debt limit was a sign of the govenrment's inability to spend and budget properly and leadership failure. Those are his own words. He is nothing more than a lowly community organizer and he thinks like a lowly community organizer, which is why this nation is collapsing while he is in the White House.
Sallow,
Social Security is the most expensive.
General Welfare does not mean socialism. You have been brainwashed by the liberals.
No..the military is by far the most expensive.
Lots of spending is "secret" and if Veteran's entitlements would be added..it would be off the charts. That's why benefits are kept out of the scoring.
No, if you add all the social programs they are the most expensive.
You add Pensions,Health Care and Welfare,they are by far the most expensive.
Once again, that is what our constitution says that government is suppose to be doing. Defense and veteran entitlements.
Yep.
Defense.
Explain to me how invading almost every nation in the world is defense? With a few possible exceptions, WWII and Afghanistan come to mind..I can't think of many military actions that this country participated in..as aiding to the Defense of the Homeland. Can you?
And there NOTHING in the constitution that prohibits spending on social programs.
In fact..the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE covers it.
You are completely inaccurate on your constitutional statements. I encourage you to read the document before commenting on it. "General welfare" does not mean providing food, housing, and healthcare to individuals. General welfare means things like the billions the federal government gave to the city of NY to clean up the horrific disaster left by the 9/11 attacks. The city could not afford the clean up and leaving that would have crippled the US (it is the financial hub of the entire nation). You take GENERAL and conveniently interpret that is individual. The 9/11 clean up did not go to individuals, it went to the city to "provide for the general welfare". The Social programs are simply unconstitutional. The federal government has 18 enumerated powers, and that is not one of them. What is sad is that it would be perfectly constitutional if the states did it - but greedy liberals want to get their hands on everyone's money, not just the money of people in their own state.
Social Security is constitutional; it was ruled to be constitutional in the 1930's.
The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama 's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.The politicians most responsible for America's debt crisis are portrayed by the media as "grown-ups" while those least responsible for it are dubbed "intransigent." Veteran profligate spenders have been credited in recent days with a "balanced approach" to the crisis, even as Tea Partiers in Congress with no fingerprints on the debt have been cast as recklessly indifferent to it.
The American Spectator : An Intransigent President
The mainstream media exclusively defines "intransigence" as conservative opposition to non-negotiable liberal demands. Hence, President Obama 's willingness to risk default rather than drop his insistence on tax increases isn't considered intransigent and reckless but principled and mature.The politicians most responsible for America's debt crisis are portrayed by the media as "grown-ups" while those least responsible for it are dubbed "intransigent." Veteran profligate spenders have been credited in recent days with a "balanced approach" to the crisis, even as Tea Partiers in Congress with no fingerprints on the debt have been cast as recklessly indifferent to it.
The American Spectator : An Intransigent President
Are you aware that most Americans get that the Tea Party and R's are at fault in this debacle, and your lot has merrily thrown away 2012 with both hands?
Just because a liberal/communist/socialist appointed court "rules" something is constitutional, doesn't actualy make it constitutional. That's like saying OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are innocent just because a jury didn't find them guilty. They still committed the murders, they just got away with it because they had a jury that wanted them to get away with it. And Social Security is 100% unconstitutional - it just was ruled by communists who wanted the government to get away with it. Obamacare is 100% unconstitutional as well, but a few liberal/communist/socialist idiot judges have ruled it "constitutional" because they want Obama to get away with this.
It's the only thing they ever want to cut, despite the fact that it bites us in the ass everytime.
Aren't you the one that claimed government created jobs by being a huge customer of the publics?
That's a hint.
That would be a huge comsumer of the private sector.
The government buys hardware from General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, SAIC, KBR, Computer Sciences Corporation, Honeywell, AM Electric - to name a few.
These companies could be building things for the government, that if used, didn't kill people.
That would be money well spent.
Doncha think?
Or we could just cut it. And not spend.
Your rationale makes no sense there. The government takes half of the money that General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, United Technologies, SAIC, KBR, Computer Sciences Corporation, Honeywell, AM Electric earns, but then you think the govenrment is doing them a favor by "buying" stuff from them?!?! So, the government takes their money, then gives it back to them in return for their products and services? So essentially, the govenrment gets their products and services for nothing. Because the money they exchanged already belonged to those companies - they just gave it back to them. No wonder the economy is collapsing when liberals think like that.
The government takes money from company A, then uses that money they just took to purchase a product or service from company A. Company A had to spend money to manufacture that product or pay the salary for that service, which means it's a net loss over all. Wow. Just wow.
