quade 4 #26 August 31, 2010 The 2011 budget is right there man. Lemme put it this way, if the CBO doesn't have the budget . . . who do YOU think has it?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #27 August 31, 2010 QuoteThe 2011 budget is right there man. Lemme put it this way, if the CBO doesn't have the budget . . . who do YOU think has it? Nice evasion - it's a bullshit evasion, but it was probably the best you could do, after your comments upthread. You see, there's these little things called "appropriations bills" - perhaps you've heard of them? You know, the things that Congress uses to allocate money for spending - budgets and such. I'm certain that someone with the political expertise to KNOW that those increases were 'one time' deals would SURELY be able to find the bills that reduce those programs back to pre-stimulus levels. So, by all means - find the bills. We'll wait.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #28 August 31, 2010 QuoteI'm guessing you didn't notice I changed it about 2 seconds later. Far faster than the four minutes it took you to respond. So sorry for having a life, career, and a multitude of obligations more important to me than hovering over this board.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 August 31, 2010 This will be another one of those threads where everyone can spin their own bullshit. I'm fascinated by the notion that the interest on the Iraqi war counts, but doesn't seem to on the stimupork bill. Otoh, you failed to note the most obvious difference - 700B now is cheaper than 700B over the past decade. But Rush and others can try to assert in a few years when T bills rates shoot up that Obama's incredible deficit spending is to blame and that his debt costs much more than the Iraqi debt. On the plus side, it seems like Clinton's name can't really get dragged into this conversation, so it will just be Bush v Obama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 August 31, 2010 By the way, we had a dozen lame, highly repetitive threads offshooting from Mosque near Ground Zero. What can we make that you nixed a duplicate thread of this topic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #31 August 31, 2010 QuoteBy the way, we had a dozen lame, highly repetitive threads offshooting from Mosque near Ground Zero. What can we make that you nixed a duplicate thread of this topic? 1) Timeliness. I had caught Rush's thread quickly and it hadn't had any substantial contributions yet. I'm less inclined to cut off a duplicate thread if it's been going on for several worthwhile posts, but Rush's certainly hadn't crossed that threshold. 2) Selfishness pure and simple. I had researched and written what I believed to be a reasonable rebuttal to JR's original post and I didn't want to have to copy and paste it for the benefit of Rush when it already existed here. It's a bit of prerogative plus pure happenstance that I was on-line at the moment. Doesn't happen often. If you want to read something into it, go ahead, but I doubt you'll be able to substantiate any sort of claim I do it on a regular and biased basis.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #33 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Your ability to read-laughable. Discount the source-attack the poster, with a mild PA tossed in. Cool Oh well, get over it, the mods did nothing when your neo-con brother called me goat fuck stupid. I realize you expecct coddling, but just get over it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 August 31, 2010 QuoteThis will be another one of those threads where everyone can spin their own bullshit. QuoteI'm fascinated by the notion that the interest on the Iraqi war counts, but doesn't seem to on the stimupork bill. I'm fascinated that anyone would think the war was necessary while the stimulus, created in part by needless war spending, was not needed. Are we so uneducated that we cannot learn from your darling Hoover and his, "it'll fix itself?" Is anyone dumb enough to think that tax cuts will do anything but increase teh spiral? No, but they can't show me where tax cuts have fixed anything. All they can show me is where tax increases have fixed things but..... they will be different thsi time, right??? Riiiight. WHat's that about insanity and expecting different results? And look at the perpetrators of these tax cits, my friends: OLD SENILE GARBAGE LIKE REAGAN AND MCSAME. Whouda thunk it, a bunch of senile turds doing insane things. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #35 August 31, 2010 Quote I'm fascinated that anyone would think the war was necessary while the stimulus, created in part by needless war spending, was not needed. That's because you're unable to stay on subject, which is the question about which one cost more. Not was it necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #37 August 31, 2010 QuoteQuote I'm fascinated that anyone would think the war was necessary while the stimulus, created in part by needless war spending, was not needed. That's because you're unable to stay on subject, which is the question about which one cost more. Not was it necessary. You want to claim there is needless spending on the stimulus, I am talking about what precipitated the (as you call it) needless spending; you try to keep up. The mess we're in is due to: - Needless war spending - Tax cuts - A housing/mortgage mess that went unstopped. Therefore the stimulus was made to be necessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #38 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #39 August 31, 2010 QuoteQuote Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. So the 12M people haven't died yet due to the Bush recession? Will it happen by the time of the 2012 election? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #40 September 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Info came from that partisan source site, CBO.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #41 September 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. So the 12M people haven't died yet due to the Bush recession? Will it happen by the time of the 2012 election? Who predicted 12M people dying with the Bush Recession? It appears you're owned in that you cannot address the substance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #42 September 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Info came from that partisan source site, CBO. You posted a neo-con site; The Heritage Foundation that actually rejected your opinion. Then I posted addtional evidence in the form of the need for the stimulus that made the point more clear. You don't want to address it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #43 September 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteInfo came from that partisan source site, CBO. You posted a neo-con site; The Heritage Foundation that actually rejected your opinion. Rejected my opinion? Yeah, whatever you say, Lucky. QuoteThen I posted addtional evidence in the form of the need for the stimulus that made the point more clear. You don't want to address it. That's because we're comparing the cost of the two, not the justifications. Once again, you open mouth and play your one-note tune.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #35 August 31, 2010 Quote I'm fascinated that anyone would think the war was necessary while the stimulus, created in part by needless war spending, was not needed. That's because you're unable to stay on subject, which is the question about which one cost more. Not was it necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #37 August 31, 2010 QuoteQuote I'm fascinated that anyone would think the war was necessary while the stimulus, created in part by needless war spending, was not needed. That's because you're unable to stay on subject, which is the question about which one cost more. Not was it necessary. You want to claim there is needless spending on the stimulus, I am talking about what precipitated the (as you call it) needless spending; you try to keep up. The mess we're in is due to: - Needless war spending - Tax cuts - A housing/mortgage mess that went unstopped. Therefore the stimulus was made to be necessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 August 31, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 August 31, 2010 QuoteQuote Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. So the 12M people haven't died yet due to the Bush recession? Will it happen by the time of the 2012 election? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 September 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Info came from that partisan source site, CBO.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 September 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. So the 12M people haven't died yet due to the Bush recession? Will it happen by the time of the 2012 election? Who predicted 12M people dying with the Bush Recession? It appears you're owned in that you cannot address the substance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #42 September 1, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote A wiki source You go Quade Prove it wrong. Done. True Cost of Stimulus: $3.27 Trillion Nice, Heritage; coulda taken it from Limbaugh's mouth. Hypothetically, even if it does cost X amount, the war was unnecessary, the stimulus was completely necessary unless you think like Hoover and it will fix itself. Before or after killing 12 million? So no address to the Heritage Foundation and you using it as a repiable opinion source? To cite data that is correct, ok, but to rely on and expect us to follow partisan logic is lame. I see you are unable to remark on that. Info came from that partisan source site, CBO. You posted a neo-con site; The Heritage Foundation that actually rejected your opinion. Then I posted addtional evidence in the form of the need for the stimulus that made the point more clear. You don't want to address it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 September 1, 2010 QuoteQuoteInfo came from that partisan source site, CBO. You posted a neo-con site; The Heritage Foundation that actually rejected your opinion. Rejected my opinion? Yeah, whatever you say, Lucky. QuoteThen I posted addtional evidence in the form of the need for the stimulus that made the point more clear. You don't want to address it. That's because we're comparing the cost of the two, not the justifications. Once again, you open mouth and play your one-note tune.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
