If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Say Anything) Sad The most do nothing Congress since 1947 did manage to do one thing. They increased federal spending by 10%   (sayanythingblog.com) divider line 43
More: Sad  
•       •       •

822 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jan 2012 at 11:14 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
TofuTheAlmighty
2012-01-18 11:15:40 AM
Sweet! Another right-wing primer on how to lie with numbers.
 
CPennypacker
2012-01-18 11:16:10 AM
Quick blame the black guy!
 
bdMurray
2012-01-18 11:19:53 AM
At least they didn't raise revenues. That would make them TAX AND spend, and not just SPEND.
 
Geotpf
2012-01-18 11:20:44 AM
Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.
 
squeez cheez
2012-01-18 11:26:03 AM
Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.
 
MisterRonbo [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 11:26:09 AM
Deregulate, let the SEC surf porn instead of watching Wall Street, pump up a housing bubble while that in turn inflates a derivatives bubble ten times larger.

Then when the whole thing crashes, requiring big spending on unemployment, food stamps, and other things that keep people from being homeless and starving, blame the current bunch in the capitol.

Its like lighting your house on fire, and when you survey the smoking ruins, blaming the firemen 'cause now they're the ones in charge of the scene.
 
Im_Gumby
2012-01-18 11:27:20 AM
Winterwhile posts stupid cartoon
 
EyeballKid
2012-01-18 11:27:48 AM
Funny, none of those deficit hawks (as of January 2009) who voted in the Tea-per Tantrum are voicing outrage over this increase in federal spending. Oh, I get it, he's...
 
bulldg4life
2012-01-18 11:31:26 AM
squeez cheez: And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

Harry Reid should definitely force debate on bills that originate in the House of Representatives!
 
max_pooper
2012-01-18 11:33:07 AM
squeez cheez: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

You don't compare a household budget with the federal budget, unless you're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.
 
Lost Thought 00
2012-01-18 11:37:12 AM
squeez cheez: You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor..

If you are unemployed, do you sell the only car you have left?
 
Petey4335
2012-01-18 11:37:13 AM
Im_Gumby: Winterwhile posts stupid cartoon

Winterwhile is ignored.
 
Wendy's Chili
2012-01-18 11:37:30 AM
max_pooper: squeez cheez: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

You don't compare a household budget with the federal budget, unless you're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.

Shut up. Ordering appetizers at Sizzler is exactly the same as building roads and hiring teachers.
 
Wicked Chinchilla
2012-01-18 11:39:51 AM
squeez cheez: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

Comparing home finances to a national budget is akin to comparing a lit cigarette with a blast furnace. One is NOT the other.
 
Im_Gumby
2012-01-18 11:43:56 AM
Petey4335: Im_Gumby: Winterwhile posts stupid cartoon

Winterwhile is ignored.

Just beating him to the punch.

/kinda miss the Bevetsbot
 
Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher
2012-01-18 12:13:10 PM
squeez cheez: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

I swear, I keep thinking I've cleaned out the ignorant mouth breathers and another one is always waiting around for the perfect chance say something stupid. Ah well, I'll throw another one on the heap.
 
lilbjorn
2012-01-18 12:19:28 PM
Im_Gumby: /kinda miss the Bevetsbot

He's been kinda busy playing for Denver.
 
BojanglesPaladin
2012-01-18 12:20:52 PM
How much of that increase was due to new legislation in the last year and a half, and how much is due to scheduled increases from the 2006-2010 Pelosi crew?
 
LouDobbsAwaaaay [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 12:22:06 PM
Reagan proved deficits don't matter.
 
BojanglesPaladin
2012-01-18 12:25:55 PM
BojanglesPaladin: How much of that increase was due to new legislation in the last year and a half, and how much is due to scheduled increases from the 2006-2010 Pelosi crew?

Found the answer from the article:

Relative to the previous year-over-year increase in federal spending (over 17% in 2009), I guess it's slower growth in spending, ...
A big reason for it is that so much of our spending (entitlement spending, specifically) is on autopilot. The spending goes up every year even if Congress does nothing.

So this article is just misrepresentative troll-bait. Suprise.
 
Lumpmoose [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 12:26:56 PM
Lower the deficit! Less government! Lower taxes! More government gridlock! Spend less! Improve the economy! Simplistic contradictory viewpoints!
 
JohnRanger
2012-01-18 12:41:02 PM
Good.
 
GameSprocket
2012-01-18 12:46:23 PM
Wicked Chinchilla: Comparing home finances to a national budget is akin to comparing a lit cigarette with a blast furnace. One is NOT the other.

Oh, come on. Who hasn't demanded lower pay so as to increase their total income? It must work, there is a whole graph thingy!
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-18 12:51:45 PM
unpossible.
remember just last week the farkers were crowing that the number of federal employees is going down.

(of course, they didn't look at the number of contractors and the overall spending, so they were dishonest then too).
 
CanonicalNerd
2012-01-18 12:52:12 PM
Fun Fact:

Food stamp participation has rose about 44% during the Obama administration. The DJIA rose about 48% during the same period.
 
Surool
2012-01-18 12:52:25 PM
It isn't the same when the money goes to line the pockets of Republican financial backers. That's called "necessary spending"
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 12:53:52 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: unpossible.
remember just last week the farkers were crowing that the number of federal employees is going down.

(of course, they didn't look at the number of contractors and the overall spending, so they were dishonest then too).

Uh.

I'm sorry, but what does the number of federal employees have to do with overall federal spending?

Talk about grasping at straws, here. Are you saying that the number of federal employees cannot have gone down if spending went up?
 
cryinoutloud
2012-01-18 12:55:15 PM
wow, that's a fascinating article, how dare those idiots--wait, what's this?

A big reason for it is that so much of our spending (entitlement spending, specifically) is on autopilot. The spending goes up every year even if Congress does nothing.

Maybe they should have put that sentence at the beginning of the article, and then proceeded with the outrage.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-18 12:55:58 PM
Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

Got it. So you keep spending money you don't have so your incumbent President doesn't lose.

You sir, are a loser.
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 12:58:21 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

Got it. So you keep spending money you don't have so your incumbent President doesn't lose.

You sir, are a loser.

I don't know what your fascination is with namecalling everyone who disagrees with you. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. Did you have a bad night?
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-18 12:58:25 PM
cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: unpossible.
remember just last week the farkers were crowing that the number of federal employees is going down.

(of course, they didn't look at the number of contractors and the overall spending, so they were dishonest then too).

Uh.

I'm sorry, but what does the number of federal employees have to do with overall federal spending?

Talk about grasping at straws, here. Are you saying that the number of federal employees cannot have gone down if spending went up?

No what I am saying (poorly, at that) was that people claimed that the decrease of employees showed that the 0bama administration is not about big government. 10% increase of overall spending when we got no money is about as big government as one can be.
 
cameroncrazy1984 [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 12:59:26 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: No what I am saying (poorly, at that) was that people claimed that the decrease of employees showed that the 0bama administration is not about big government. 10% increase of overall spending when we got no money is about as big government as one can be.

So, Congress does nothing about spending and it's Obama's fault?

That makes total sense.
 
JohnRanger
2012-01-18 01:08:26 PM
cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: No what I am saying (poorly, at that) was that people claimed that the decrease of employees showed that the 0bama administration is not about big government. 10% increase of overall spending when we got no money is about as big government as one can be.

So, Congress does nothing about spending and it's Obama's fault?

That makes total sense.

Not Obama's fault -- 0bama's. The secret un-Man, the shadowy Nega-President who exists perpendicular to our dimension, pulling the dark strings that manipulate a great beast of low taxes and high spending from his residence in a deep cavern beneath the White House.
 
BojanglesPaladin
2012-01-18 01:10:41 PM
cameroncrazy1984: So, Congress does nothing about spending and it's Obama's fault?

That depends on whether the increases in spending are tied to programs Obama and the Democrats pushed for.

Were they?

That the freshmen congressmen tried but failed to stop automatic spending increases passed by the previous Democrat controlled congress and signed by Obama before they took office certainly does not make the spending increases the fault of the people trying to curb them.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-18 01:10:59 PM
cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

Got it. So you keep spending money you don't have so your incumbent President doesn't lose.

You sir, are a loser.

I don't know what your fascination is with namecalling everyone who disagrees with you. Maybe it's some kind of inferiority complex. Did you have a bad night?

I had a great night, thanks.

If you don't think a person who wants to keep spending money we don't have just to keep Obama in office is a loser, what do you think they are? A winner?

People whine and name call when someone says they will do anything to get 0bama out of office, and here is the opposite - it is just as bad.
 
tenpoundsofcheese
2012-01-18 01:14:05 PM
cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: No what I am saying (poorly, at that) was that people claimed that the decrease of employees showed that the 0bama administration is not about big government. 10% increase of overall spending when we got no money is about as big government as one can be.

So, Congress does nothing about spending and it's Obama's fault?

That makes total sense.

Depends on your viewpoint.
If you think 0bama is a useless leader who can't pull his party together and lead the country and needs to focus his time and energy on his re-election, then nothing is his fault.

So yes, he killed 0sama and he has taught Bo to sit. He can run on that. But nothing bad that has happened is his fault.
 
stewmadness
2012-01-18 02:20:04 PM
We don't even have a budget, your argument is invalid.
 
ricewater_stool [TotalFark]
2012-01-18 02:23:54 PM
tenpoundsofcheese: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

Got it. So you keep spending money you don't have so your incumbent President doesn't lose.

You sir, are a loser.


Our country has been spending money it does not have for over 150 years. What a disaster it's been!
 
squeez cheez
2012-01-18 03:09:34 PM
Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: squeez cheez: Geotpf: Which is a good thing. You don't cut government spending (IE, fire people) when unemployment is still high, unless you want unemployment to stay high so you can have the incumbent president lose.

You don't cut going out to dinner and buying new cars when you're underemployed, unless you want to stay underemployed and poor.

And Harry Reid, who refuses to even allow debate on dozens and dozens of important bills, including a little something called a budget.

I swear, I keep thinking I've cleaned out the ignorant mouth breathers and another one is always waiting around for the perfect chance say something stupid. Ah well, I'll throw another one on the heap.

You're wrong. I do yoga daily, and breathe through my nose.

/Always say those who oppose you are stupid, ignorant, etc. That way you don't have to prove anything - you're automatically right!!!
 
randomjsa
2012-01-18 04:22:14 PM
CPennypacker: Quick blame the black guy!

No, blame the president, because everything was the presidents fault right up until January 2009. It didn't matter if the Democrats controlled the house and the senate, it was the presidents fault.

Now all of a sudden, nothing what so ever is the presidents fault and certainly not the fault of the party he belongs to now matter what they control... I can only "Hope" that one day I will figure out what "Changed"
 
Surool
2012-01-18 05:38:19 PM
randomjsa: No, blame the president, because everything was the presidents fault right up until January 2009. It didn't matter if the Democrats controlled the house and the senate, it was the presidents fault.

Now all of a sudden, nothing what so ever is the presidents fault and certainly not the fault of the party he belongs to now matter what they control... I can only "Hope" that one day I will figure out what "Changed"

You forgot the part where Republicans took back the house and haven't done jack sh*t since.
 
johnnyrocket
2012-01-18 07:15:06 PM
Tea Party heads asploding yet?
 
BojanglesPaladin
2012-01-18 07:34:14 PM
johnnyrocket: Tea Party heads asploding yet?

Doubtful. Especially since as the article later points out most of the increases are automatic and originate from before the TeaParty class was elected in.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »