Jesus! This pelosi is just plain clueless.....she makes a reference to the Biblical Job and president nobama completely out of perspective. Guffaw!

She said, "nobama has the patience of Job". If the queen bee of confusion ("Unemployment creates jobs", "We have to pass this bill to see what's in it.") had any clue abut what Job was all about she sure as hell didn't reveal it to anyone with that statement.

Job was about integrity and faith.....maybe she should have read the Old Testament before quoting it....Guffaw!

wow, you've never heard that expression...and you are calling pelosi clueless?  what a dumbfuck you must be- guffaw. 
 
The Patience Of Job
Where did the term “patience of Job” come from?
Q. Where did the term “patience of Job” come from?
A. It refers to Job’s refusal to condemn God when Satan was allowed to destroy his family and his livestock, essentially turning him from a rich man into a childless pauper overnight. Instead he entered into a series of dialogs that culminated in a fascinating conversation with God Himself. In the end Job saw the error in his ways, sought forgiveness, and everything was restored.
The main idea running through the Book of Job is that when we justify ourselves, by saying that we don’t deserve to experience catastrophic loss, we condemn God, in effect accusing Him of being unjust.
Had Job not been a sinner, God could not have authorized Satan to torment him, and through his patient attempts to understand this, we learn valuable lessons. “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” (Romans 15:4)

An incorrect allusion.........again...perhaps if someone read the Book of Job they'd have a clue!

have someone who can read and use a computer go to google and type patience of job.  then see how many hits you get..it is a very common phrase.  i guess you don't get out much...from under that rock....

Obama has plenty of patience as long as he gets his way, like a three year old.
 
 

If, as the White House insists, hitting the debt ceiling would be the economic equivalent of an asteroid hitting the Earth, and if the only way to avoid that (i.e. the only way to get something through the House) is with a scaled-down bill that would raise the ceiling only until mid-2012, why isn’t he okay with that? Granted, it would mean he’d have to face another asteroid next year in the middle of the campaign, but so what? How is that a reason to let this asteroid hit right now?
 
To put it another way, is there any policy reason why Obama won’t agree to a short-term deal or is this really as horribly cynical as it looks — that he simply refuses to do anything that might complicate his reelection campaign, even if that means a default by the United States?
 
 
How many points would Obama need to see markets drop before he decided a deal was more important than his own political convenience (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/14/if-default-would-be-a-catastrophe-why-is-obama-opposed-to-a-short-term-deal-that-would-avert-it/)?

Hooty....I'm not argueing that there are plenty of wrong allusions to Job....I'm merely stating that Job was all about Faith...not "Patience" as many have ascribed. I can see where someone might read the story and remark..."Geezzz, that guy had a lot of patience with God, but that is NOT what was to be gleaned from the story.....whatever..........

fuck the repubs.  how does that work for ya?  they only own the house, we own the other two...fuck them and their stupid shit demands.  we are the majority, not them.  they need to give more than they take...if not, just keep spending as if the debt ceiling was raised...there is a law on the books that says the treasury must spend all the money allocated by the congress....using that law, we have no choice but to keep spending the money already allocated by congress...

Hooty....if you're talking about the "Taxing and Spending Clause"....you might want to go read it.

The General Welfare Clause states........... "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"...unfortunately, many dems take this clause literally....guffaw!

Pelosi personifies dumb Democrat women that should stick to cleaining house and having kids instead of politics.

The House and the Constitution:

The Budget Committee’s chief responsibility is to draft a concurrent resolution that reconciles spending details with the overall comprehensive budget package. The committee is required to draft a budget resolution, agreed to by April 15 of each year, which establishes total targets in five budget areas: authority; outlays; revenues; surplus or deficit; and public debt.

Derives from the constitutional mandate that fixes control of the nation’s purse in the U.S. House of Representatives.





The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress can limit executive power.

Congress used the power of the purse to choose whether to appropriate funding to any area which the executive might desire. If the executive wanted to spend money, Congress would have to write a bill, pass that bill into law, and appropriate the funds for it. This was the check of the legislative upon the executive authority in domestic as well as foreign affairs.


So F' Barry...

congress has already appropriated this year's spending...dufus.  can you read at all?  the debt ceiling is so we can pay past and current obligations, not future....what part of that don't you understand?

you know why it is taken literally? BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION...are you saying the words mean something else?  written in some sort of code?  why shouldn't it be taken literally, clown?

Hooty....I was talking about the term "Welfare"....get it....literally "Welfare"....as in 45 MM members of the democratic party who receive food stamps and WELFARE......

Now do you get it?

well, when poor people have kids, then giving them welfare makes sense, in a general welfare kind of way...

Congress controls the debt ceiling, specifically the House. 

"General welfare" in the Constitution refers to the States not individuals.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

The preamble of the constitution establishes no powers or rights. It merely states the purpose of the constitution. No further development of what "general welfare" means can be made based on the mention of it in the preamble.

where is the word "state" in that sentence, goon?  you are inventing words that aren't there...i thought only liberals and judicial activists did that....and no, the senate has to pass any debt ceiling laws...what makes you think it is just the House?  why are you so fucking wrong about everything?

read Article I, Section 8....written so clearly even you might understand it....
 
 (http://<A)The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;
 
don't see the word "state" in there anywhere do you?  and who makes up each state, little feller?  people.  how can you aid a state without aiding individual people?  what are you even talking about? if a state is given disaster relief funds, does everyone in the state get the same share?  or is it only given to those in the state ACTUALLY AFFECTED?  why would you think it is some kind of commie program where everybody has to get exactly the same amount?

general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States.
 
 
In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.


 
 

The heading statement of Article 1, Section 8 confers on congress powers to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. It then states the purpose of this in broad terms, to be expressed in detail in the list of 16 powers that follows. This purpose is that the funding placed at congress' disposition is to be used for federal and state debts due to the revolutionary war and for future defense and for the "general welfare of the United States." It concludes with limiting the duties, imposts and excises to amounts that would be uniform among the states.
 
It is wrong to read more than a basic power to tax and spend into this, to see any other power being granted here. All other details, as to what, specifically, the tax revenue may be spent on follows in the list of 16 specific powers.
 
The welfare concerned the wholesomeness of the Union, the federal level, the matter of binding the states together for mutual benefit, the health of the arrangement of the separated powers, the federalist structure, not the well-being of groups or individuals, whether travelers, farmers, manufacturers, shop-keepers, freight-haulers or consumers, etc.
 
The strongest reading would be that the benefit of this "general welfare" had to be a benefit for all rather than some people, without it being a direct benefit to every individual. It had to be limited to "public use" in the sense of the Fifth Amendment. 
 
Until some amendments can be made, we are stuck with the confusion and the financial burden of the welfare state. Let us hope it does not end with national financial collapse.
 
 

of course it is, dickstain..why do you even think that?  all states are made up of people.  if you gave a state "welfare" it has to be passed on to actual people....what the fuck are you talking about?  here is a hint- a state is not alive.   

james madison, the "father of the constitution", as president signed a law creating a national bank of the united states...he admitted there was no such specific right granted by the Constitution, which he mostly wrote, that authorized a national bank, but because of the general welfare clause, he argued, Congress had the right to pass any law that provided for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...get it?  general welfare is unspecific, that is why IT USES THE FUCKING WORD GENERAL IN IT...do you know what general means?  it means unspecific.  and yet this dickheaded bozo you quoted says general only means one thing....if it only means one thing- THEN IT IS SPECIFIC, NOT GENERAL.....general basically means whatever congress decides it means, just like common defense could mean NASA because it helps our technology concerning guided missiles.  get it?  or the building of the interstate highway system, because it might be used to shuttle tanks and military supplies from one state to another faster in times of war or emergency....get it?  the Founding Fathers CONSCIOUSLY left a lot of wiggle room.  they knew future generations would face problems and questions that would be vastly different than their own...

general welfare of the United States...get it?
 
We get it do you?
 
 
The welfare concerned the wholesomeness of the Union, the federal level, the matter of binding the states together for mutual benefit, the health of the arrangement of the separated powers, the federalist structure, not the well-being of groups or individuals, whether travelers, farmers, manufacturers, shop-keepers, freight-haulers or consumers, etc.

 In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.