State Of The Union Tonight

PrintSmith wrote: Some things should never be compromised on NTM, that they were is how we find ourselves twice as deep in debt now as we were 6 short years ago and, really, how we ended up billions and then trillions in debt to fund individual welfare programs.

All of which is the direct responsibility of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I believe have been in the control of republicans for quite some time. The executive branch can only spend what Congress appropriates. And of course the House Republicans have controlled the purse strings of the nation for the last six years.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Some things should never be compromised on NTM, that they were is how we find ourselves twice as deep in debt now as we were 6 short years ago and, really, how we ended up billions and then trillions in debt to fund individual welfare programs.

All of which is the direct responsibility of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I believe have been in the control of republicans for quite some time. The executive branch can only spend what Congress appropriates. And of course the House Republicans have controlled the purse strings of the nation for the last six years.

So, care to go look up how many different budgets the house passed that never saw the light of day in the senate due to the Democrat's blockade of anything they didn't like?

You can try to blame it only on republicans, but everyone with any sense at all knows that both parties are complicit in this mess.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Some things should never be compromised on NTM, that they were is how we find ourselves twice as deep in debt now as we were 6 short years ago and, really, how we ended up billions and then trillions in debt to fund individual welfare programs.

All of which is the direct responsibility of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I believe have been in the control of republicans for quite some time. The executive branch can only spend what Congress appropriates. And of course the House Republicans have controlled the purse strings of the nation for the last six years.

And despite the House Republicans having single digit approval ratings, they increased their members in the House and took over the Senate. Why is the Dem base so reluctant to vote out these losers?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Some things should never be compromised on NTM, that they were is how we find ourselves twice as deep in debt now as we were 6 short years ago and, really, how we ended up billions and then trillions in debt to fund individual welfare programs.

All of which is the direct responsibility of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I believe have been in the control of republicans for quite some time. The executive branch can only spend what Congress appropriates. And of course the House Republicans have controlled the purse strings of the nation for the last six years.

Poppycock. The federal Constitution clearly states all bills for raising revenue (ie tax legislation) must originate in the House, but there is no such requirement for an appropriation bill, a bill which spends the revenue that the taxes raised. Custom may dictate that the appropriations bills also originate in the House, but as Reid and the Democrats clearly demonstrated with the nuclear option, they never felt themselves constrained by custom.

Poppycock? Really? So you really do exist within the realm of the 19th century. So you agree that despite your inferred allegations against the President in his State of the Union, the problems that you rant against are not due to him but the failures of Congress.

What inferred allegations are you referring to Dog? What I said of the president's carnival the other night was that it was nothing more, or less, than his attempt to define the issues in the next presidential election. It would seem that many in the Union agreed with me on that because it was the least viewed so-called State of the Union in the last 20 years. If you take issue with that opinion, feel free to do so, my opinion will remain the same.

How we find ourselves nearly twice as deeply in debt as we were 6 short years ago is the result of individual welfare programs. There is simply no credible argument which can refute that point given that 60% or so of the annual federal budget consists of individual welfare subsidies. It is individual welfare spending that is responsible for the lion's share, and then some, of our total federal debt. Federal spending has hovered around 25% of the Union's GDP for the majority of Obama's occupation of the Oval Office, levels not seen since the end of WWII. In a good year, like the ones seen the last time a lame duck Democrat in the Oval Office had to deal with a Congress where both chambers had Republican majorities, the tax revenues are in the neighborhood of 20% of GDP. In average years it is closer to 18% of GDP. Combine historic levels of spending with lower than average tax revenues and you wind up 6 years older and twice as deep in debt as you were 6 years ago. It's not difficult math to perform.

PrintSmith wrote: What inferred allegations are you referring to Dog? What I said of the president's carnival the other night was that it was nothing more, or less, than his attempt to define the issues in the next presidential election. It would seem that many in the Union agreed with me on that because it was the least viewed so-called State of the Union in the last 20 years. If you take issue with that opinion, feel free to do so, my opinion will remain the same.

How we find ourselves nearly twice as deeply in debt as we were 6 short years ago is the result of individual welfare programs. There is simply no credible argument which can refute that point given that 60% or so of the annual federal budget consists of individual welfare subsidies. It is individual welfare spending that is responsible for the lion's share, and then some, of our total federal debt. Federal spending has hovered around 25% of the Union's GDP for the majority of Obama's occupation of the Oval Office, levels not seen since the end of WWII. In a good year, like the ones seen the last time a lame duck Democrat in the Oval Office had to deal with a Congress where both chambers had Republican majorities, the tax revenues are in the neighborhood of 20% of GDP. In average years it is closer to 18% of GDP. Combine historic levels of spending with lower than average tax revenues and you wind up 6 years older and twice as deep in debt as you were 6 years ago. It's not difficult math to perform.

No, that is not what you said. What you actually said was:

"PrintSmith wrote:
Some things should never be compromised on NTM, that they were is how we find ourselves twice as deep in debt now as we were 6 short years ago and, really, how we ended up billions and then trillions in debt to fund individual welfare programs."

All of your listed grievances are the responsibility of Congress, and in particular the Republican House.

Perhaps you should take these issues up with your elected representatives rather than continue with your ODS.

We were billions of dollars in debt from individual welfare programs long before I was old enough to vote Dog, and in the time I have been able to participate in the process, the time in which we went from billions to trillions, over 20 trillions by the time the current occupant of the Oval Office leaves office, which will make him the second consecutive president to double the national debt during his tenure and the undisputed grand poobah of debt accumulation, the Party of Democrats have held sway in the House just as many times as the Republicans have (including the current Congress), same for the Senate.

Now, it isn't the fault of House Republicans that Reid was running interference for Obama in the Senate and failing to act on the budgets the House sent them, that fault lies with Obama and the Democrats in the Senate. Sure, the Republicans could have shut down the federal government by failing to pass CR after CR after CR while the Democrats looked up the definition of budget in the dictionary, but what does that get them? What good does that do the Union? And so, they compromise, getting some of what they want and having to swallow down much more that they don't. And they compromise again, and again, and again, and again with the Democrats until we find ourselves 6 years older and twice as far in debt as we used to be.

Which brings us back around to my earlier statement, compromise is what has resulted in the Union being first billions and then trillions, probably in excess of 20 trillions by the time the next president gets sworn in, in debt to fund the federal individual welfare programs.

Once again, your rant has nothing to do with the Presidential State of the Union address, and is just another sad example of the Obama Derangement Syndrome at work. Your issues lie with Congress, and the inability of the Senate and House to compromise lies with both chambers, not with the President.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Once again, your rant has nothing to do with the Presidential Statue of the Union address, and is just another sad example of the Obama Derangement Syndrome at work. Your issues lie with Congress, and the inability of the Senate and House to compromise lies with both chambers, not with the President.

What is a Statue of the Union?
This is a family site after all.