Obama & The Bottomless Piggy Bank

[bigmack]

Dad gives a kid a $50 to go get a pizza. They both know the $50 was for the pizza. Kid comes back with $4 and one large pizza.

Old man: Where's the rest of the loot?
Kid: I spent it on my way back

Dad says:
A: Get to your room
B: Not a problem, do anything you want

RsVkEo_gGZE

[NJ Stinks]

Where was Republican Gregg when GWB was cutting taxes and fighting two wars? Did I miss his indignant soundbites then?

Oh that's right. He was too busy playing John Kerry in dress rehersals.



Nothing like a standup guy who fights wrongs wherever he see's it.

But he is a pretty good actor. I'll give him that. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think you missed the man's objection even if you deem him a hollow hypocrite... he's looking at the statute and looking at the conduct and the two don't jive... this isn't an objection to a program or an administration, but to misappropriation as defined by the statute. I may or may not agree with his agenda, but I certainly can't find a lot of fault with a man attempting to preserve the intent and directives of the law. That's a little different from not objecting to poor policy, so your beef with the guy is a little lost on me.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I would think they have to follow the law as they wrote it, and do the payback as written in the law. If they want to appropriate the money to the small banks, then they need a new law & appropriations to do that. It has to be agreed to again by the legislators. I'm not sure of the pros and cons regarding this, but it has to be agreed upon and passed through the legislature & approved by the president. If that means they need to go to those sources and borrow the money and make a deal at agreeable rate to do it, that's what they'll have to do. The were terms in the law, and I'm sure terms in the loans as to the purpose and how long, one can't normally change those without the consent of the other party (the lenders).

[NJ Stinks]

I think you missed the man's objection even if you deem him a hollow hypocrite... he's looking at the statute and looking at the conduct and the two don't jive... this isn't an objection to a program or an administration, but to misappropriation as defined by the statute. I may or may not agree with his agenda, but I certainly can't find a lot of fault with a man attempting to preserve the intent and directives of the law. That's a little different from not objecting to poor policy, so your beef with the guy is a little lost on me.

Distinction noted. I can't debate the essence of what he said, John.

But his sudden interest in deficit reduction still doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But his sudden interest in deficit reduction still doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

He's a politician... you are keen to lack those sensations under most circumstances.

Occassionally they make sense, on both sides of the aisle, and inadvertantly consider their role as public servants and defenders of the Constitution ... motives be damned ... it's okay to nod in approval at those rare occurrences.

[bigmack]

Distinction noted. I can't debate the essence of what he said, John.
But his sudden interest in deficit reduction still doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.
No point in addressing the agreed upon law. :rolleyes:

They sent this nerd, The President's budget chief, Peter Orszag.

Just another G-Dope fashioned from a garden variety jello mold.

He walks away saying, We'll change the law! :)

Nice.

Feds say, Member that deal we made? ... Neva' mind!

[boxcar]

Distinction noted. I can't debate the essence of what he said, John.

But his sudden interest in deficit reduction still doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

But what would make you feel "warm and fuzzy" is that no one take any interest in deficit reduction? Tell us what would make your day with the current situation what it is.

Boxcar