Pelosi is a zionist in sheep's clothing she should be removed from our gov asap by any means necessary
On Dec 11, 11:30 am, JSM <[email protected]> wrote: > Next week Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is expected to attach a provision to > the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would increase our > national debt limit by $1.925 > trillion<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698919:5406810171:m:1:1...>. > This debt limit raise would authorize the U.S. Treasury to borrow as much as > $14 trillion, which is 30% higher than the $10.8 > trillion<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698920:5406810171:m:1:1...>limit > that was in place when President Barack Obama took office. > > Defending the unprecedented size of the debt limit, Majority Leader Steny > Hoyer (D-MD) told The > Examiner<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698920:5406810171:m:1:1...>: > “There is no doubt the debt ceiling will have to be at that level in order > to meet our financial obligations at this time next year. This is not > creating new debt.” Not creating new debt? Hoyer speaks as though he and his > Speaker are completely powerless to control all the federal spending that is > driving up “our financial obligations.” In fact, Hoyer’s statement comes on > the same day that he and Speaker Pelosi forced through a $447 billion > “minibus” spending bill that every single Republican and 28 Democrats voted > against<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698926:5406810171:m:1:1...>. > > Filled with 5,224 > earmarks<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698927:5406810171:m:1:1...>, > this merged appropriations bill provides an 8% hike in discretionary > spending for the third consecutive year since Pelosi took over Congress in > 2007<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698928:5406810171:m:1:1...>. > Altogether, discretionary spending has jumped 25% since Speaker Pelosi took > the gavel, and Congressional Democrats have spent $561 billion more in > discretionary spending than if they had limited federal spending growth to > the baseline inflation rate. Despite a $1.4 trillion deficit, appropriations > bills passed this year have included: > > - A 67% increase for the Environmental Protection Agency’s State and > Tribal Assistance Grants; > - A 30% increase for the Corporation for National and Community Service; > - A 9% increase for Amtrak; > - An 8.4% increase for Lawmakers’ Office Allowances; and > - An 8.1% increase for the National Endowment for the Arts. > > This is not the budgeting of a Congress even minimally serious about the > budget > deficit<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698929:5406810171:m:1:1...>. > And each large annual discretionary spending increase becomes part of the > permanent discretionary spending baseline. In fact, the steep increases over > the past three years have added $1.7 trillion to the 2011-2020 discretionary > spending baseline – nearly $1,500 per household annually. In the past year, > Pelosi’s House has passed a $700 billion financial > bailout<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698930:5406810171:m:1:1...>and > a trillion > dollar > stimulus<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698931:5406810171:m:1:1...>, > a $1.5 trillion health care > expansion<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698932:5406810171:m:1:1...>, > a $200 billion Medicare “doc > fix,”<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698933:5406810171:m:1:1...>and > an $800 > billion cap-and-trade > bill<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698934:5406810171:m:1:1...>. > There is no increase to domestic federal spending that Speaker Pelosi can > say “no” to. > > It is far past time for responsible leaders in Congress to rein in Pelosi’s > profligacy. At a bare > minimum<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698935:5406810171:m:1:1...>, > lawmakers should demand that any debt-limit increase also statutorily cap > discretionary spending growth at the inflation rate (approximately 2.5 > percent annually) for the next decade. Even better, a return to federal > spending levels of just a decade ago could go a long way towards solving our > debt problem. Heritage’s Brian Riedl > explains<http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3698936:5406810171:m:1:1...>: > > In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household > (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the > budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the > $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent > before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without > any tax hikes. > > -- > $6.4 Billion Stimulus Goes to Phantom > Districtshttp://watchdog.org/2009/11/17/6-4-billion-stimulus-goes-to-phantom-d... > So, where is that money now? -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
