I agree, I have never heard (seen, read?) you use that word! ;)

Thank you and my dink is a wee bit bigger than a 9 yr old. Even in cold water :tro:;)

Well, I figured that part would be more than OBVIOUS! ;)

night night

good god:wf

Muslim like father I had. ;)

Go away. Me and my buddy Dell are having a "moment". You know, in honor of Rahm becoming mayor and Oprah retiring. Right Dell? :D

Oh my gawd .... :wf

Rahm is OK so far as mayor IMO. Wants to privatize streets and san and you remember streets and san. Oprah let the Heat have an extra day of rest in Michael's house. But as long as he's cool so am I.

2009 & 2010: Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...g-cuts-pledge/
Obama Administration Makes Good on Spending Cuts Pledge
It may be a drop in the $2 trillion deficit bucket, but the federal government has made good on President Barack Obama’s promise to find $100 million in spending cuts this year.

Like pissing into the wind. He just gave Egypt a billion in aid and forgave another billion. He continues to be wildly and carelessly out of control considering the country's financial situation. The ONLY option is to limit his credit and send him to the local cash for gold store.

What contributes to our debt

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what...rojected-debt/

again stop with the Michael Moore like charts. Obama continued the Bush cuts so now they are his. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lybia is his as well. Giving billions out like quarters is Obama. Unemployment for infinity, fannie, freddie, stimulus after stimulus all Obama. Your group neglects to include any of that. Wonder why?

some spending info:

the executive:


In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

legislative:


During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.



The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.

During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.



..i've always thought that the best way to handle the fed govt is to have one party in charge in congress, and the other in the white house. they tend to keep each other, and our dollars, more in check that way.

:zz: No. Wrong. That's all right there.

This analysis doesn't pretend, like some do, that our financial woes suddenly and magically were caused by occurences during the past 18 months, and that the past 8 years of administration didn't harm this country in multiple, major ways.

What I am hoping is to hear you unequivocally and absolutely support expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as that would obviously be a major contributor to our long-term financial soundness and welfare as a country.

I used to agree with that, historically. That's the way we, as a country, seem to vote, too.

But now, when one party has stated their only goal is to ensure this President is not re-elected, and that is how they have indeed acted, I don't think it applies any longer.

when you look at the stuff i posted above on spending, it seems to work best with no one party in complete control.

Riot, they do want to give it up. They like a 2-class situation. Each day they show this. It's not some misunderstanding. They want this.

18? Obama has been president for a lot longer than 18 months... 2 1/2 years not 1 1/2 years.

If the Dems could agree to cut spending by the same and dedicate ALL money brought in by letting the tax cuts expire to paying down the debt you got my support.

Letting the Bush-Obama extended tax cuts to expire in the current situation would simply result in more wasting of money and giving it all away to Eqypt, Tunisia, Brazil etc etc etc. Perhaps Obama should get some professional treatment for his spending addiction?

Yes, I'm aware of that :D I was just referencing the concept of "recent", versus the last years of Bush first year of Obama (stimulus and TARP)