Obama: Largest Monthly Deficit EVER- Larger Than ENTIRE 2007 Yearly Deficit

[Sallow]

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. All else needs justification...and gradual defunding...and that means entitlements.

What?

 

[The T]

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. All else needs justification...and gradual defunding...and that means entitlements.

What?

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

 

[AmericanFirst]

February? When was the Republican House sworn in?

You know, the house that controls the purse strings??

...and when have they been able to pass any spending cuts?

The Dems are threatening to shut down the govmint if they do.

You are naive. The GOP doesn't want to cut spending. They had 6 years to do so under Bush.

They're merely posturing, knowing their bluff won't be called.

Go away idiot, we are tired of hearing lies.

 

[The T]

But somehow Swallow? I doubt you will read...it grates against you and your entitlement mentality.

 

[Trajan]

I'm right. See the post below and feel free to refute it point by point.

I don't refute strawmen.

They're not strawmen just because you say so. What year do you think this is?

Sure it is.

I just re-read the OP. if you wanna challenge the figure, yea, I can see that, I personally don’t think that the one month vs a year number is accurate either, it was way more than 200 and change but at the end of the day, I think the larger point and the quote ala Obama and living within our means....well?
we are sucking wind and blowing money out of a spigot at record rates overall, and of course the debate goes;

deficits under bush= bad.

deficits under Obama= hey wait a minute it aint his fault and its because....because...because...

*shrugs*, it is what it is.

 

[Sallow]

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. All else needs justification...and gradual defunding...and that means entitlements.

What?

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

 

[The T]

What?

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

Don't match wits with me boy...You come here completely unarmed.

 

[Sallow]

But somehow Swallow? I doubt you will read...it grates against you and your entitlement mentality.

Again..you pansy assed drunken quiff.

You ain't getting no swallow because I don't swing that way. I gots me a girl.

So go find a gay boy who will help you gargle cum.

Asswipe.

 

[Sallow]

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

Don't match wits with me boy...You come here completely unarmed.

And "un-beered".

 

[The T]

What?

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

Stupid ass...they ARE the basis for the Constitution and it's ratification making the Constitution LAW of the LAND...

 

[Sallow]

Describes the power of the Congress. Try reading it sometime. You might learn how YOU and your fellow Statist brothers and sisters have been lied to.

See also The Federalist Papers.

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

Stupid ass...they ARE the basis for the Constitution and it's ratification making the Constitution LAW of the LAND...

No there not.

They were "OpEds", you moron.

 

[The T]

I know exactly what it refers to. What you posted makes no sense at all. And the Federalist papers are not where laws are derived from in this country. If anything they were written to get the people of New York to "buy in" to the Constitution. As in..become "Statists".

Stupid ass...they ARE the basis for the Constitution and it's ratification making the Constitution LAW of the LAND...

No there not.

They were "OpEds", you moron.

*IDIOT* They were written to convince the Ratification of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation...and those ideas WON the DAY, making the Constitution LAW of the LAND.

Nothing you can do or say to change it. Not even INSULTING ME.

*NEXT*

 

[Liability]

Reporter: Mr. President, how do you explain the fact that the February deficit was larger than the entire deficit of 2007?

President Obama: February was a short month.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What Me worry ?
You can find higher 2007 numbers but that is not the point is it?

It's no surprise since both Bush and Obama were saddled with the same Congress.

I always said, by far the worst thing Obama inherited was the same Congress. That's partially rectified now.

But anyone who thinks spending can be brought under control without a paygo with teeth, and bringing back a version of Gramm-Rudmann that will pass SCOTUS muster and ditto with line-item veto, are fooling themselves.

Only caveat today is, the current makeup of the court might rule in favor of G-R and line-item veto. Congress should pass these again ASAP if they're really serious about a balanced budget.

He got the Congress he wanted.

that does not make you wrong, just pointing out some facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

February? When was the Republican House sworn in?

You know, the house that controls the purse strings??

Even rdean understands that the budget is supposed to be passed in November of the year before. You could, correctly, point out that they only passed a CR to cover spending for two months, bet that actually gets us up to March 4. You cannot blame this one on the Republicans.

 

[Charles_Main]

February? When was the Republican House sworn in?

You know, the house that controls the purse strings??

Even rdean understands that the budget is supposed to be passed in November of the year before. You could, correctly, point out that they only passed a CR to cover spending for two months, bet that actually gets us up to March 4. You cannot blame this one on the Republicans.

Sure he can, and he will over and over. Because he does not give one rats ass about the truth. Hell he even knows he has the Liberal press on his side. I am sure the Pundits will all be pointing out who controls the purse stings a lot when doing this story. I am sure most of them wont point out that the Current House had absolutely nothing to do with this, or how they are pushing for Cuts, and being fought tooth and nail by Democrats.

Hacks like care will just keep saying it. Well at least when they are not trying to tell us how we are not broke and Debt is really not that big of a deal. Well at least not Democrat Debt.

LOL