Posted on 09/14/2011 6:39:07 PM PDT by NoLibZone
It sure is. I’m surprised it is not getting more play. When not a single House rat from a safe district is willing to give his opponent next year a club with which to beat him, Hussein is in real trouble.
No it doesn’t. That’s plain to see. It says he was responsible for the budgets from 2001 to 2008.
Maybe you are drunk
Let's count shall we? You won't even have to take of your shoes for this one:
1) 2001
2) 2002
3) 2003
4) 2004
5) 2005
6) 2006
7) 2007
8) 2008
What'd you get? I got eight.
Who signed the 2001 budget into law, Clinton or Bush?
How come Bush served for eight years but is only responsible for seven budget years?
Regardless of whether the correct years are labeled, there are eight years labeled.
Yeah, I know. I needed you to admit that you were counting 2001 as a Bush year and were not counting 2009.
So who signed the budget for 2001, Bush or Clinton?
Who caused the $650B revenue loss in 2009, Bush or Obama?
Who asked for TARP and signed it into law in 2008, Bush or Obama?
Who signed a continuing resolution (with discretionary spending increases) for the first five months of 2009, Bush or Obama?
So what were these references you were talking about? I gave mine. Fair is fair so you should give yours, right?
I simply jumped in to point out that you were counting wrong.
Foiled by my own inattentiveness!
Congressional Record - 112th Congress - Page S5539 [Sept 13, 2011]
S.1549 - American Jobs Act of 2011
Even Reid didn't personally "sponsor" it. He's named as the sponsor, followed by the notation "(by request)". There are no co-sponsors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.