Democrats confront Republicans over changing House rules to keep gov't shut down.

[Matt1970]

You thinking that you're always right is what in fact makes you look like an idiot. There is nobody on this planet who is always right.

Ya think?

 

[jackstar7]

Blames the republicans? Presupposing the govt shutting down isn't a good thing. All I hear is about how the GDP is being affected, how the shutdown is causing problems left and right. I wish most of the govt would stay shutdown. Every day the govt is shutdown is a good day for me. Less taxpayer money being spent on things that only benefit special groups. With many americans hands in the cookie jar, no wonder some of you are throwing such a 2 yr old tantrum at the govt being shut down, like they were suddenly punished by their parents (probably taking away their allowance!). All you teet sucklers will get your govt back, calm down.

Wait, we should only fund things that benefit everyone?

Think about that for a little while.

 

[Phokus]

I am always right. That's the reason he can't win a debate.

Hey remember the time you mistook a fake news story for a real one? That's not an isolated incident BTW, you're wrong like that every single time you post here.

 

[Matt1970]

Hey remember the time you mistook a fake news story for a real one? That's not an isolated incident BTW, you're wrong like that every single time you post here.

Remember when you mistook the BS lies from NY Times about Obama agreeing to all those spending cuts and after lie after lie out of you and your flat out refusal to answer even one question the thread had to get closed because of your patheticness? It's up to you if you want to go for more of you looking like a fool.

 

[Phokus]

Remember when you mistook the BS lies from NY Times about Obama agreeing to all those spending cuts and after lie after lie out of you and your flat out refusal to answer even one question the thread had to get closed because of your patheticness? It's up to you if you want to go for more of you looking like a fool.

Actually the 'bs lies' from the NY Times were me smacking you down because you made a false statement and my article made you look stupid, and you went batshit crazy and pulled a tea party tactic of claiming the reverse being true. You and your low iq tea party brethren are an embarrassment to my country.

Next up, Matt researches TheOnion for more dirt on democrats.

 

[Matt1970]

The Blatent lie right on the www.whitehouse.gov

"Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries."

Congress passed the legislation, Obama ans Reid refused to look at it.

 

[jackstar7]

The Blatent lie right on the www.whitehouse.gov

"Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries."

Congress passed the legislation, Obama ans Reid refused to look at it.

You know Congress is two independent bodies, right?

 

[Tom]

The Blatent lie right on the www.whitehouse.gov

"Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries."

Congress passed the legislation, Obama ans Reid refused to look at it.

The Senate is part of Congress, the House passing something isn't "Congress passed".

Its your statement that's wrong not the Whitehouse's.

 

[Phokus]

You know Congress is two independent bodies, right?

Matt is easily gullible and less intelligent than kids who think Santa Claus is still real, why on earth would he understand the 'intricacies' of how our government works.

 

[cubby1223]

The Blatent lie right on the www.whitehouse.gov

"Due to Congress’s failure to pass legislation to fund the government, the information on this web site may not be up to date. Some submissions may not be processed, and we may not be able to respond to your inquiries."

Congress passed the legislation, Obama ans Reid refused to look at it.

But... the Senate is a part of congress. And there was no legislation passed by congress for Obama to sign...

 

[Phokus]

Matt getting owned yet again. Another shame trophy for his trophy case of shame.

 

[Matt1970]

Actually the 'bs lies' from the NY Times were me smacking you down because you made a false statement and my article made you look stupid, and you went batshit crazy and pulled a tea party tactic of claiming the reverse being true. You and your low iq tea party brethren are an embarrassment to my country.

Next up, Matt researches TheOnion for more dirt on democrats.

One more time. Lets see how he dodges the qestion this time. From your NY Times Article that supposedly smacked me down:

President Obama, having accepted many more spending cuts than tax increases since Republicans won the House in 2010

Where are those many more spending cuts?

2009 Budget $3.1 trillion
2010 Budget $3.55 trillion
2011 Budget $3.818 trillion
2012 Budget $3.795 trillion
2013 Budget $3.808 trillion

 

[Juddog]

Ya think?

Do I think you look like an idiot when you state that you are always right? Absolutely I do.

 

[Matt1970]

But... the Senate is a part of congress. And there was no legislation passed by congress for Obama to sign...

This is true, the Senate did fail to pass it.

 

[Juddog]

I type facts and the truth;Not things like "full-retard" and call names.Did Obama offer any help to Kenya when terrorists took over a mall and were killing non-Muslims?No. Did he want to bomb Syria? Yes.

Perhaps you never learned deductive reasoning.

You type half-baked conspiracies straight out of godlikeforums. Saying that Obama wants to help Al-Qaeda because he's a Muslim is flat our ridiculous.

 

[Matt1970]

Do I think you look like an idiot when you state that you are always right? Absolutely I do.

Dude, it was sarcasm. Are you really the dense?

 

[Tom]

T minus three days until Armageddon.

Actually it could be tomorrow. I don't expect the markets to be happy if we aren't close to a deal by Monday night, which luckily is a holiday.

Since this has never happened ever its really not known who has the authority, if anyone, to pick and choose what gets paid. If there is any such authority that person isn't likely to spend the balance down to zero.

I also haven't heard anyone talk about the actual mechanics of the government paying some accounts and not others. Maybe its designed to be possible, maybe it isn't.

Since its never happened before, and since there's no other entity in the history of mankind of the scope of the US government, I'm not so sure what is possible and how long it would take to implement.

 

[Phokus]

One more time. Lets see how he dodges the qestion this time. From your NY Times Article that supposedly smacked me down:



Where are those many more spending cuts?

2009 Budget $3.1 trillion
2010 Budget $3.55 trillion
2011 Budget $3.818 trillion
2012 Budget $3.795 trillion
2013 Budget $3.808 trillion

LMAO, you're such a simpleton, even if the budget goes up, that doesn't make the NYT's statement not true, even the Washington Times lauded Obama for more spending cuts than Bush. Not to mention he also signed a Bush tax cut extension.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/?page=all

Secondly, if you account for inflation, then yes, the government spending actually SHRUNK and Obama is the smallest government spender since forever:

Are you stupid? Yes, very.

Edit: The deficit has gone down under Obama too, you should be cheering an Obama presidency, if a Republican were president, the Deficit would probably triple again like it did under Reagan.

 

[Phokus]

Lets all revel in the fact that Matt doesn't know there are 2 branches to congress.

What.

An.

Idiot.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Obviously many in this forum are wrong when they mention Congress rather than the House of Representatives.

 

[Matt1970]

LMAO, you're such a simpleton, even if the budget goes up, that doesn't make the NYT's statement not true, even the Washington Times lauded Obama for more spending cuts than Bush. Not to mention he also signed a Bush tax cut extension.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/?page=all

Secondly, if you account for inflation, then yes, the government spending actually SHRUNK and Obama is the smallest government spender since forever:

Are you stupid? Yes, very.



Edit: The deficit has gone down under Obama too, you should be cheering an Obama presidency, if a Republican were president, the Deficit would probably triple again like it did under Reagan.

"Obama is the smallest government spender since forever"

Camparing Obama deficits to the one time emergency Bush spending of his last year in office is partisian hackery and you know it. Bush had a $170 Billion deficit for 2007. Reductions in future spending desires is not cutting spending. If I spend $100 this month, and wish to spend $120 next month but only spend $110, I did not cut spending. Inflation you say? $3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012, not $3.795 trillion that our budget was. Your insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight.

 

[Phokus]

"Obama is the smallest government spender since forever"

Camparing Obama deficits to the one time emergency Bush spending of his last year in office is partisian hackery and you know it. Bush had a $170 Billion deficit for 2007. Reductions in future spending desires is not cutting spending. If I spend $100 this month, and wish to spend $120 next month but only spend $110, I did not cut spending. Inflation you say? $3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012, not $3.795 trillion that our budget was. Your insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight.

LMAO, keep your lips puckered to Bush's ass, you moron, you're seriously going to defend him? His spending (especially his wars) are going to go PAST Obama's term. Also, you're so god damned stupid that you don't realize the NYT's article is still right, it never said Obama accepted spending cuts that would shrink the entire government (although the net result was that it DID shrink, accounting for inflation, you moron), it said he accepted more spending cuts (even if, for example, the government expanded by 20% the next year, the statement would still be true). Lets see if you can figure out why that's still true or if your pea brain can't process this.

Why the fuck am i arguing with someone who thinks an onion style satirical article is 'real news' and doesn't even know there are 2 branches to congress anyway? It's obvious you have an IQ of a turnip.

 

[Tom]

"Obama is the smallest government spender since forever" - This is what Phokus decided to edit out of his post. At least we know what even your limit is.

Camparing Obama deficits to the one time emergency Bush spending of his last year in office is partisian hackery and you know it. Bush had a $170 Billion deficit for 2007. Reductions in future spending desires is not cutting spending. If I spend $100 this month, and wish to spend $120 next month but only spend $110, I did not cut spending. Inflation you say? $3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion, not $3.795 trillion that our budget was. Your insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight.

The numerical value of a deficit isn't what matters. Its the size compared to gdp and our ability to carry the debt.

The problem with Bush's policies was first of all an unnecessary tax cut. Which btw, affected Obama's deficits for years too because its almost impossible politically to undo tax cuts. Its not fair to blame Obama for the portion of his deficits which were caused by a policy he was trying to fix.

Secondly, Bush got us into two wars and made no effort to fund them.

Thirdly, Bush's philosophy of letting banks and private enterprise go largely unregulated contributed to a huge financial disaster.

As far as Obama, of course he's not perfect either. I wish Obamacare was implemented faster. I think the stimulus should have been bigger and faster.

But, basically, the stimulus has worked. The direction of the economy was reversed, growth has improved to the point the deficit has started to come down.

Its all worked more or less according to plan, although its taken longer than was originally forecast. Given the complexity I don't think that's surprising.

If the House wasn'r so obsessed with Obamacare, for political gain as far as I'm concerned, I think we could have had some tax reform by now.

 

[Matt1970]

LMAO, keep your lips puckered to Bush's ass, you moron, you're seriously going to defend him? His spending (especially his wars) are going to go PAST Obama's term. Also, you're so god damned stupid that you don't realize the NYT's article is still right, it never said Obama accepted spending cuts that would shrink the entire government (although the net result was that it DID shrink, accounting for inflation, you moron), it said he accepted more spending cuts (even if, for example, the government expanded by 20% the next year, the statement would still be true). Lets see if you can figure out why that's still true or if your pea brain can't process this.

Why the fuck am i arguing with someone who thinks an onion style satirical article is 'real news' and doesn't even know there are 2 branches to congress anyway? It's obvious you have an IQ of a turnip.

Here is an inflation calculator. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

$3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012 adjusted for inflation, not $3.795 trillion which the 2012 budget was. Like I said, your insults insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight. And you are right, it didn't say that it shrink the entire government because that is what an actual spending cut would do. Instead it decided to call reductions in future increases "spending cuts" and you gobbled it up as gospel.

 

[Phokus]

Here is an inflation calculator. http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

$3.31 Trillion budget in in 2009 would be $3.31 Trillion for 2012 adjusted for inflation, not $3.795 trillion which the 2012 budget was. Like I said, your insults insults might have a little merit if you got your facts straight. And you are right, it didn't say that it shrink the entire government because that is what an actual spending cut would do. Instead it decided to call reductions in future increases "spending cuts" and you gobbled it up as gospel.

The only one who doesn't have his facts straight is you, you misread the NYT article because, well, you're you.

As for the bolded point, you're so stupid, now you're making shit up because you're embarrassed yet again. Again, the Washington Times article, hardly the liberal bastion of journalism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/?page=all

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president’s victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.

“This is a very strong beginning for the president’s efforts to shape a budget that invests in programs that work and that ends programs that don’t,” said Tom Gavin, a spokesman for the White House budget office. “The Congress has approved more than 60 percent of the president’s proposals, and that’s a high mark, that’s a strong beginning.”

By comparison, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says Mr. Bush won 40 percent of his spending cuts in fiscal 2006 and won less than 15 percent of his proposed cuts for 2007 and 2008.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ore-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/#ixzz2hiWyFp2g
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

You're so embarrassing, now you're resorting to blatant lies.