GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Doug S.]

That's a LOT of $$$$ to "not spend" out of a budget that congress created...which causes me to wonder, does our congress establish a budget that is higher than what it expects will be needed just in order to prepare for unforeseen expenses? If it does not...how does a President NOT spend the budget that congress approved? Would congress not expect that the budget they approved would get spent?

So sorry to seem so confused...but I really AM. Here at my job I get a small annual budget to spend and if I don't use it all it's just returned to the organizations "fund" balance...but nobody cares if I spend it all or not. I would expect congress to "care"!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Rod]

Flynn accepts a plea deal today, admitting lying to the FBI, and now it's being reported that Kushner directed Flynn to contact the Russians. Getting closer to Mr. Incompetent.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

You mean Messrs incompetent. One of the reasons for all the volatility in this administration's appointments is the utter incompetence of the man making those appointments in the first place. One would think a person mildly successful in business would want to hire people that know something about the business they are being hired for. But the norm for this administration is the exact opposite.

This President reminds me of what should be "Opposite George" on Seinfeld. Every decision/statement made by Trump is instinctively (without conscious thought) correct in his distorted mind, but in practicality, flawed. He needs to become "Opposite Trump".

I only wish this whole presidency was nearly as entertaining as I seem to make it.

 

[Terry Oxandale]

That's a LOT of $$$$ to "not spend" out of a budget that congress created...which causes me to wonder, does our congress establish a budget that is higher than what it expects will be needed just in order to prepare for unforeseen expenses? If it does not...how does a President NOT spend the budget that congress approved? Would congress not expect that the budget they approved would get spent?

So sorry to seem so confused...but I really AM. Here at my job I get a small annual budget to spend and if I don't use it all it's just returned to the organizations "fund" balance...but nobody cares if I spend it all or not. I would expect congress to "care"!

Cheers!

Doug

In Larry's immortal words:

You're nitpicking, Doug.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Geez...imagine that! A liberal Democrat who didn't spend all of his budget. That sounds surprisingly "Conservative" to me!

I'm not familiar with that '95 congressional action, Al...help me out here. Did the act remove that $268B from Clinton's budget, or did he just not spend it? Sorry to seem so confused, but if it happened in 1995 it's long enough ago that I'm certainly not remembering it (memory is not my long suit!).

Cheers!

Doug

Clinton was a lame duck in his last term. The balanced budget act (not spending more than you take in) was voted in by a republican controlled congress. Clinton got credit, but wasn't responsible for it. Look it up. The Clinton budget was $268 billion more than was taken in in taxes so there was a "budget surplus" that some propaganda (which was money on paper not spent that wasn't there) minded liberal passed on to the "believe anything flock". There was no saving, no money, just a thought on paper. But it worked and Clinton is still praised for it. The national debt during the Clinton 2 terms was $1.396 trillion. Low, mostly because of the budget act in his second term. So, if the is a $1.396 trillion debt, there couldn't be a surplus of actual money.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

That's a LOT of $$$$ to "not spend" out of a budget that congress created...which causes me to wonder, does our congress establish a budget that is higher than what it expects will be needed just in order to prepare for unforeseen expenses? If it does not...how does a President NOT spend the budget that congress approved? Would congress not expect that the budget they approved would get spent?

So sorry to seem so confused...but I really AM. Here at my job I get a small annual budget to spend and if I don't use it all it's just returned to the organizations "fund" balance...but nobody cares if I spend it all or not. I would expect congress to "care"!

Cheers!

Doug[/QUOTE

It was a Clinton budget, congress did not approve it. The amount they approved was $268 billion less, so there was a budget surplus. Pretty slick, people still think Clinton saved $268 billion. It's good to have a flock of sheep.

 

[Rod]

You mean Messrs incompetent. One of the reasons for all the volatility in this administration's appointments is the utter incompetence of the man making those appointments in the first place. One would think a person mildly successful in business would want to hire people that know something about the business they are being hired for. But the norm for this administration is the exact opposite.

This President reminds me of what should be "Opposite George" on Seinfeld. Every decision/statement made by Trump is instinctively (without conscious thought) correct in his distorted mind, but in practicality, flawed. He needs to become "Opposite Trump".

I only wish this whole presidency was nearly as entertaining as I seem to make it.

The irony here is that Flynn was leading the anti-Clinton chant to "Lock Her Up" at the Republican National Convention. And he could go to jail for up to 5 years, for lying to the FBI, unless "F'ing Moron" (according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) gives him a pardon.

You know Kushner is next, but I'm sure "F'ing Moron" will definitely give him a pardon. Grandpa can't let his Son-In-Law go to jail.

This time period in the US Presidency will go down as one of the darkest periods in history. And one of the darkest periods in US-UK relations since the American Revolution. He should just resign and get it over with. There's going to be a mass exodus within his administration, right around January, so he could just quit along with the rest of his staff and appointments.

 

[DaveM]

You're right Rod. Trump pissing off our greatest ally, the U.K., while always praising Putin and trying to remove the sanctions? Where is the patriotism? Most of us lived thru the Cold War. Now suddenly Russia is OK? Putin may not technically be a communist, but he's a gangster that assassinates his opponents. This is treason.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

So if Prince Harry's squeeze doesn't renounce her US citizenship, her children will be American citizens. And of course in line for the British throne. So it is possible a future king/queen of England could run for President of the United States! This is the plan to "Make America Great Britain Again!"

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

You're right Rod. Trump pissing off our greatest ally, the U.K., while always praising Putin and trying to remove the sanctions? Where is the patriotism? Most of us lived thru the Cold War. Now suddenly Russia is OK? Putin may not technically be a communist, but he's a gangster that assassinates his opponents. This is treason.

We are also best buds with Saudi Arabia, 17 of the 19 9/11 trerrorist were Saudi's. We get in bed with assholes all the time.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I guess Obama bowing to the Saudi King is guilty of treason by your way of thinking. Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world.

 

[Larry L.]

...So if Price Harry's squeeze doesn't renounce her US citizenship, her children will be American citizens.

Uuuuuuuh...'not sure about that.

My memory ain't what it used to be, but, I seem to recall that only applies to kids born to parents serving in the military or in other 'official' gov't service who are engaged in duties outside the U.S.? :shrug:


(Edit: The Mrs. is a Canadian...'never applied for U.S. citizenship. I DO seem to recall that our own kids [both born in the U.S.] could therefore claim duel citizenship 'back in the day'...but, I'm NOT sure if that was just on the part of CANADA...or if the U.S. also recognized their "Canadian" 'duel-citizenship'.)

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Uuuuuuuh...'not sure about that.

Birth Abroad in Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen and an Alien
A person born abroad in wedlock to a U.S. citizen and an alien acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person’s birth for the period required by the statute in effect when the person was born (INA 301(g), formerly INA 301(a)(7).) For birth on or after November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years prior to the person’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for 10 years prior to the person’s birth, at least five of which were after the age of 14 for the person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

 

[Larry L.]

Birth Abroad in Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen and an Alien
A person born abroad in wedlock to a U.S. citizen and an alien acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if the U.S. citizen parent has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person’s birth for the period required by the statute in effect when the person was born (INA 301(g), formerly INA 301(a)(7).) For birth on or after November 14, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years prior to the person’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for 10 years prior to the person’s birth, at least five of which were after the age of 14 for the person to acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

And yet "anchor babies" are D-E-E-M-E-D "citizens" at birth... (SMH)

 

[Doug S.]

...anyone born on US soil or territory is automatically a US citizen...AFAIK!

Gee, Larry...a quick Q here...is this something for which you can “thank” those Founding Fathers of whom you seem so proud?

Just curious.

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

...and now the GOP has fully endorsed the candidacy of a depraved candidate with a history of pursuing teenage girls. How much more depravity will we as a nation tolerate from this administration before we say “enough”.

Disgusting!

No cheers for the GOP, that’s for sure!!!

Doug

 

[Walter Williams]

Doug,

innocent till proven guilty... Bill clinton is guilty and they tolerate that... Based on that they can tolerate a lot

 

[Rod]

Doug,

innocent till proven guilty... Bill clinton is guilty and they tolerate that... Based on that they can tolerate a lot

"Innocent till proven guilty" is a legal standard in a court of law. Moore issn't being tried in a court. There's plenty of women on record, plus another couple dozen other people (40 people in all, I believe, from the WaPo article) and a yearbook to corroborate the story that Moore was trolling for teenaged girls at the mall when he was around 32-34 years old as a district attorney.

Shame on the Republicans. And shame on Alabama voters who will elect this schmuck.

BTW, Bill Clinton was impeached by a Republican House, but wasn't convicted. And it was 25-30 years ago. And you don't think some of those House members weren't also harassing their staffs and others 25-30 years ago. Why are Bill Clinton's screwups 30 years ago relevant to Moore?

 

[Rod]

No wonder Trump is a tub of lard.

In a new book, "Let Trump Be Trump, a typical dinner order for Trump consisted of “two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted” shake. Keep in mind the daily recommended calories for a sedentary, 71-year-old man like Trump is around 2,000 calories.

Trump’s dinner alone comes out to a minimum of 2,672 calories, and that’s only if he orders a small shake. How does "F'ing Moron" stay upright?

 

[Walter Williams]

Rod,

it is so nice to see you take interest in our presidents diet..how's your diet?
Seems like you dems have been eating a lot of crow lately.