Wow, ROFLMABCDEFGFHIKJKLMNOPAO!!!! Not your sis. Though you're probably comfortable calling anyone your sis, don't know why.
It's a term of endearment...
You haven't refuted any of the budget information, all you've done is shown your own prejudice.
I wasn't aware that refutation could not come as the result of a personal prejudice... But if you can show the board how the two concepts are mutually exclusive, my minds open to the possibility.
Good luck with that.
How do impeachment and a reform of the military factor into budget calculations? They don't. Right, because undermining US principles is synonymous with providing healthcare for its citizens.
Impeachment has nothing to do with a budget... but this straw dog begs the question: "Who said it did?" Subverting the readiness of the US Intelligence and Military on the other hand would come into Economic play... as each are not only specific budget items, the cost of such is incalculable and requires exponential spending to re-establish the necessary readiness, in the wake of their failure to resist an attack upon the US. For instance, the attack of 9-11-01, took 3 hours to execute and cost the US economy a trillion dollars.
Feel better?
PubliusInfinitum said:
... refusing to open up lines of communication between US intelligence and US Law Enforcement;
How is this relevant to the budget? It's not, but you will take any opportunity you can to spout your propaganda.
Well, it actually does... the attack of 9-11-01, which took three hours to execute, cost the US economy a trillion dollars. Now when the US Economy loses production, the US treasury loses revenue that would have been produced by taxing that production. The consequence of which inevitably effects the budgeted spending, by forcing the government to spend in deficit, as a result of the lost but otherwise anticipated revenues.
Wow, you have such solid evidence, anecdotal prejudiced opinion, that will turn anybody's heads!
Oh I hear ya Sis... And may I just say what a DELICIOUSLY SWEET Irony you serve...
Have you forgot about the Bush taxcuts for the rich? Don't forget the entirely optional excursion into Iraq, which costs 700$-800$ billion. And you must be talking about the teach-to-the-test wonderful education program which has gotten so much criticism. Anyone can make a prescription medicare drug program, the tricky part is how you're going to pay for it.
So... do you actually feel that this sort of cliche ridden drivel actually serves as a viable alternative to valid reasoning? Or are ya just sufficiently stubborn to set aside any concern for your own credibility.
First, Bush cut income taxes across the board...
Second, all war is optional... but setting that immutable truth aside, Iraq was a consistent and long term proponent of international Islamic terrorism... 9-11 changed the paradigm of acceptable risk and President Hussein's terrorist promoting socialist government didn't make the cut established by the new threshold. That doesn't change the 'option' fact... but it does establish the perfect moral justification for removing the threat.
And yes, I am speaking of the Kennedy Education bill, which GW signed... and the expansion to Medicare. Which is how GW managed to capture records on both ends of the popularity scale during his two terms. And you're right... anyone can steal money and give to those who didin't earn it... and paying for it, well, it's theft... one can't
pay for it. Which AGAIN... is the reason GW became anathema to those who voted for him twice...
four times in my case.
You don't have anything substantive to say because you simply can't refute the facts. Bush doubled the debt, Clinton didn't.
ROFLMNAO... Ain't delusion grand?
Bush inherited the Clinton recession and the ramifications for Clinton intelligence policy which resulted in 9-11, the loss of 1 trillion dollars in economic production, which was immediately followed by the global war on islamic terrorism... that doesn't excuse his expanding social entitlements on scales not seen since the early 60s... but that's always been the flaw in GW... he simply never recognized that Leftists are to be berated and ignored, not encouraged by toleration.
But hey... Progressivism happens and waddayagonnado? Right?
