Search results

The bank bailout was announced and signed by Bush on October 3, 2008. The withdrawal of all combat troops was proposed by Obama as soon as he gained office, was opposed by the Republicans, and is complete.

I like the fact that Obama reduced earmarks and restricted lobbyists even though he didn't do it perfectly, and you have an uphill battle to convince me that I should vote for the party that promised none of this and opposed all of it.

Except that the entire first year of his budgeting was actually done under Bush. Maverick wants to pretend that congress sits down and writes budgets rather than amendments, but even pretending that he's right, which he isn't, it was up to Bush to sign it or not sign it. Would you like me to...

Clearly you have your GED in constitutional law.

Sorry, no, so your post didn't make too much sense to me. There's a budget request. There's a budget resolution. One is big, the other one is small. The big, detailed one is written and submitted by the president. It is reconciled by the Senate budget committee, but in bulk it mostly...

Great. They should do it then.

House members do not have anything to do with the budget, except to vote on a 17 or 19 page bill. The Senate budget committee is, perhaps, what you're thinking of, and no, they do not "write" the budget, although they do reconcile it. The budget is, in bulk, the to the president's credit or...

Not quite. The OMB, which is part of the executive branch, creates the budget request which is often around 1500 pages. It goes to the Senate Budget Committee. Congress votes on the budget resolution, which is normally about 17 or 19 pages. The OMB budget request is presented by the...

Except Jan 20, 2009 all the way to October was the 2009 budget year, proposed by the Bush administration in February of 2008. Plus the Bush administration budget didn't include "off-budget" emergency expenditures which Obama (more honestly, in my opinion) merged into the budget thus showing...

Nothing you've written indicates otherwise. Not that it would matter for this discussion, as it is about the deficit, and removing several hundred thousand troops takes an enormous amount of money.

The DISCLOSE act didn't limit any contributions, only required disclosure in ads of who the ad was paid by. The Republicans opposed even that.

If that's what you need to believe.

Well that's true -- education only guarantees a sheet of paper at the end of it, and many uneducated people are intelligent. However, to graduate at the top of a class at the most prestigious school in the country requires intelligence.

Combat medics aren't combat troops unless they're in combat, and your friend/relative/Internet persona came back on schedule. Or why this would reduce costs of moving troops who have clearly left?

Huh. We know that he graduated at the top of his class. At Harvard. And his Columbia grades were good enough to get him admitted. To Harvard. What do you think he's hiding? :)

Okay, just a little pronoun trouble then. You meant that your friend had all his records sealed (are your records public?) and nobody remembers him attending class so, as you wrote, you don't know if he graduated at the top of the class or not. That's pretty funny too, actually. Do you...

Partial? The last combat troops left Iraq weeks ago, back in August. As for the Republicans not being in power, the Democrats cannot do pretty much anything they want. The Senate Republicans, just as one of many examples, successfully filibustered the DISCLOSE act which required foreign...

That is factually incorrect. Here's an easy to understand graph. http://probonostats.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/u-s-troop-levels-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-2001-2010/ Moving troops costs a lot of money.

No, because the Republicans themselves have publicly stated that they oppose restrictions on foreign funding because it is a limitation of freedom of speech. Additionally Republicans in the Senate UNANIMOUSLY opposed the DISCLOSE Act. (Two didn't vote at all.)

As I reviewed with you before, the chart is not only a bit dated, but also makes very severe assumptions regarding existing tax structures. In addition, the CBO creates "long term" projections to 2080, which I put zero stock in (they assume a 3% interest rate between 2020 and 2084, for...