Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An earlier bill, passed in the House last week but then scuttled in the Senate, would have required Congress to approve an amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
That same bill would have made $6 trillion in spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt limit.
Obama promised to veto that bill even before the House voted on it.
No, sorry, I'm not. The economic bubble was setup throughout the 2000's and the severe global economic problems manifested themselves starting in late 2007. Obama was handed a recession and was largely limited in what he could do with it.
Most of the 'spending' are just from programs that have been in place for a loooong time. If they were so bad, why didn't the Republicans change them back in 2000-2006 when they were able to do what they wanted. I guess reacting to Janet Jackson's breast was more important.
So feel free to LOL again, but how about acting like an adult and putting some content in your post.
Quote:
You admit there is no excuse for ignorance, yet you continue to post...!!
Should you disagree with the content of my post, then it's sort of odd that you're not providing any data or even arguments to disprove anything. It's sort of sad when the best comeback that an adult has is what you wrote above.
Quote:
Obama promised to veto that bill even before the House voted on it.
I'll give you the Cliff notes version since you probably don't read newspapers or anything similar. Boehner was really trying to get a deal done. Democrats were offering 3/1 cuts/tax increases on the rich. Elements of Boehner's party that he couldn't control don't want to compromise. He couldn't get a deal done and so to play politics, they passed a Bill that they knew would be DOA in the Senate. Obama saying he would veto it didn't matter. It would never get past the senate and was purely the house playing politics.
No, sorry, I'm not. The economic bubble was setup throughout the 2000's and the severe global economic problems manifested themselves starting in late 2007. Obama was handed a recession and was largely limited in what he could do with it.
Most of the 'spending' are just from programs that have been in place for a loooong time. If they were so bad, why didn't the Republicans change them back in 2000-2006 when they were able to do what they wanted. I guess reacting to Janet Jackson's breast was more important.
So feel free to LOL again, but how about acting like an adult and putting some content in your post.
Right...Clinton set up Fannie and Freddie, that's part of why I'm LOLing. The Republicans have had the House for 6 months, you can't exactly blame them for any of this. You can't even blame Bush, really. Obama has dug himself a hole and now he's scrambling to get out of it so the non-sheep will vote for him again next year. Gotta cater to those independents. I think they are smart enough not to fall for his crap.
I don't know what "largely limited" means, he's had two years and a Democrat Congress and all they've done is spend spend spend and NOT focus on making the best decisions to get out of this economic crisis.
No, sorry, I'm not. The economic bubble was setup throughout the 2000's and the severe global economic problems manifested themselves starting in late 2007. Obama was handed a recession and was largely limited in what he could do with it.
Most of the 'spending' are just from programs that have been in place for a loooong time. If they were so bad, why didn't the Republicans change them back in 2000-2006 when they were able to do what they wanted. I guess reacting to Janet Jackson's breast was more important.
So feel free to LOL again, but how about acting like an adult and putting some content in your post.
Should you disagree with the content of my post, then it's sort of odd that you're not providing any data or even arguments to disprove anything. It's sort of sad when the best comeback that an adult has is what you wrote above.
I'll give you the Cliff notes version since you probably don't read newspapers or anything similar. Boehner was really trying to get a deal done. Democrats were offering 3/1 cuts/tax increases on the rich. Elements of Boehner's party that he couldn't control don't want to compromise. He couldn't get a deal done and so to play politics, they passed a Bill that they knew would be DOA in the Senate. Obama saying he would veto it didn't matter. It would never get past the senate and was purely the house playing politics.
"Democrats were offering 3/1 cuts/tax increases on the rich."
had to clean out the crisper bin of my refrigerator.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
