The Tea Party Did the Right Thing

[Onceler]

wow...with that kind of explanation i'm like totally like convinced....did you pass 4th grade?

still can't admit you lied when you claimed i admitted i was wrong....poor dishonest onceler

It's interesting that you mention 4th grade. Because, ya know, in 4th grade, they realize that "smooth progression" is not "the opposite" of the majority of spending coming in the last year of an 8 year cycle.

And this reasoning, below? This is insane spin:

"this statement clearly indicates you don't believe the spending greatly increased at the end, in fact, you're saying he spent like a madman EVERY year....while admitting that spending was the highest in the latter years, one can only be left with the impression that bush's ever increasing spending, was a smooth progression becuase you're saying the above to directly counter my claim that it significantly increased at the end..."

You sound like Clinton, or Dixie. There is no way to write a rationale like the above & not realize you stepped in it, in a big way.

It's really funny.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's interesting that you mention 4th grade. Because, ya know, in 4th grade, they realize that "smooth progression" is not "the opposite" of the majority of spending coming in the last year of an 8 year cycle.

And this reasoning, below? This is insane spin:

"this statement clearly indicates you don't believe the spending greatly increased at the end, in fact, you're saying he spent like a madman EVERY year....while admitting that spending was the highest in the latter years, one can only be left with the impression that bush's ever increasing spending, was a smooth progression becuase you're saying the above to directly counter my claim that it significantly increased at the end..."

You sound like Clinton, or Dixie. There is no way to write a rationale like the above & not realize you stepped in it, in a big way.

It's really funny.

it makes perfect sense to rational and intelligent people...you were arguing against my claim that spending dramatically increased at the end...you said i was wrong, you said....he spent like a mad man every year....

i know this hurts you, but that is what your statement indicated...you've now said it was choppy....and i'll ask again....

was the chop dramatic at the end or was it smooth rise from the previous years...?


"forgot" this huh

still can't admit you lied when you claimed i admitted i was wrong....poor dishonest onceler

 

[Onceler]

it makes perfect sense to rational and intelligent people...you were arguing against my claim that spending dramatically increased at the end...you said i was wrong, you said....he spent like a mad man every year....

i know this hurts you, but that is what your statement indicated...you've now said it was choppy....and i'll ask again....

was the chop dramatic at the end or was it smooth rise from the previous years...?


"forgot" this huh

still can't admit you lied when you claimed i admitted i was wrong....poor dishonest onceler

ROFLMAO

You think that's a "gotcha"?

I'll say it again; it was choppy. There were huge spikes in spending along the way - pill bill, energy, transportation, Iraq. No one really disputes this.

So, no "smooth progression," and no "bulk at the end."

Just admit you were wrong. Seriously - it's embarassing. I don't even really feel good about this....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF - I expect the idiocy from Yurt and Damo, but you pretend at times to understand basic things like what "discretionary spending" is. Let's get real.

No matter if you are looking at discretionary spending, entitlement spending or total spending.... ALL three went up dramatically in the last two years of Bush's tenure. (according to that chart)

So if you wish to 'get real' try and do the math with the numbers provided or show me why you think those numbers are not accurate.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

ROFLMAO

You think that's a "gotcha"?

I'll say it again; it was choppy. There were huge spikes in spending along the way - pill bill, energy, transportation, Iraq. No one really disputes this.

So, no "smooth progression," and no "bulk at the end."

Just admit you were wrong. Seriously - it's embarassing. I don't even really feel good about this....

i guess a TRILLION dollars, 25% increase over the previous year, over a 200% increase in deficit is not bulk to you....or a significant increase over the previous years spending

have fun burying your head in your kiddie sand box, leave the economic discussions up to adult...and just for grins and giggles....let's see chart 2 again...

nope, no big growth there, nothign to see here folks....the last two years of bush's budget were approximately 33% of his total spending for 8 years....those two years are a bulk of the spending as compared to the prior years

go ahead and ignore facts onceler, i know its the only way you can get through the day

 

[Taichiliberal]

In expelling the tea party express and Mark Williams. Smart move on their part.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_biden_tea_party

About fucking time. Now if all the rest of the teabagger factions would do the same across the board...and the GOP officials would step up and do the same, then I could almost take them seriously...almost.

 

[Onceler]

nope, no big growth there, nothign to see here folks....the last two years of bush's budget were approximately 33% of his total spending for 8 years....those two years are a bulk of the spending as compared to the prior years

go ahead and ignore facts onceler, i know its the only way you can get through the day

Hold it; 33% in 2 out of 8 years, as opposed to 25% in 2 out of 8 years...you're talking about a difference of 8%, and somehow, from there, you derive "bulk" (or, I love the backtracking qualifier of "or a significant increase over the previous years spending" - nice retreat!)

My work here is done. I think you have dug your hole as deep as it can go.

Next?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Hold it; 33% in 2 out of 8 years, as opposed to 25% in 2 out of 8 years...you're talking about a difference of 8%, and somehow, from there, you derive "bulk" (or, I love the backtracking qualifier of "or a significant increase over the previous years spending" - nice retreat!)

My work here is done. I think you have dug your hole as deep as it can go.

Next?

now you fall back on your usual dishonest....i am not talking about the "bulk of spending"....rather i quite clearly stated in response to you that the bulk of his spending increases came at the end

go back and read our exchange, because this is fucking embarrassing for you, either that, or you are outright lying because you know you've lost....

it is undisputed that the bulk of his spending increases came at the end....like i said, a TRILLION dollars more than 2008...the first 6 years were pretty much steady or smooth progressions, then in 2008 and 2009 we see a significant increase in spending

Have you checked the annual increases up until that point?

here is my response to your question about spending increases

you obviously haven't and you obviously still refuse to read my link

how embarrassing for you

like i said, the bulk was done towards the end....my link proves that, nothing you've linked to disproves any of that, but i know you are incapable of admitting you're wrong, so spin away little dancing elf

 

[Onceler]

pssssssssssssst....the bulk of the spending came at the end of his term and he was no longer running for office....most members of the tea party call out BOTH repubs and dems for spending....

pretty simple stuff, but nigel as usual is talking out his ass

Seems pretty clear to me.

But then, I'm not insane.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Seems pretty clear to me.

But then, I'm not insane.

i meant increases, as i later clearly stated and if you look at my entire argument, the bulk portion is about the increases

then again, i'm honest

but if you really want to stick with the bulk of spending at the end, i'll play that too....the main portion of his spending did come at the end, hence, the bulk

don't worry, i don't expect any honesty from you regarding this discussion

ta da

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

btw...i'm still laughing at nigel's utter stupidity regarding discretionary and mandatory spending....why he is so focused on discretionary is truly humorous because TARP falls under the mandatory category, but its clear nigel doesn't believe that

 

[Bonestorm]

No matter if you are looking at discretionary spending, entitlement spending or total spending.... ALL three went up dramatically in the last two years of Bush's tenure. (according to that chart)

So if you wish to 'get real' try and do the math with the numbers provided or show me why you think those numbers are not accurate.

Discretionary spending FY01: 649 billion

Discretionary spending FY07: 1,041 biilion

Discretionary spending FY09: 1,237


As with Yurt, if you want to pretend 1/3 is the "bulk" feel free, but understand that your definition of "bulk" is different from everyone else.

 

[Bonestorm]

btw...i'm still laughing at nigel's utter stupidity regarding discretionary and mandatory spending....why he is so focused on discretionary is truly humorous because TARP falls under the mandatory category, but its clear nigel doesn't believe that

Even if you include the FY09 outlays for TARP ($151 billion) spending increases in 2009 still don't even come close to constituting "the bulk" of Bush spending increases.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Even if you include the FY09 outlays for TARP ($151 billion) spending increases in 2009 still don't even come close to constituting "the bulk" of Bush spending increases.

yes. they. do.

in fact, the spending increased a TRILLION dollars in the last year over the previous year, that is largest increase in spending under any bush budget...the first 6 years were modest (each year about a hundred billion, a smooth progression of spending increase) increases as compared to the last two years and especially the last year

that is just a fact nigel....why is it you were so focused on discretionary spending if you didn't think tarp was included in it

ooops...busted....and again, chart 3 which you so desperately hung your hat on clearly shows a sharp uptick in the last two years

 

[Bonestorm]

yes. they. do.

in fact, the spending increased a TRILLION dollars in the last year over the previous year, that is largest increase in spending under any bush budget...the first 6 years were modest (each year about a hundred billion, a smooth progression of spending increase) increases as compared to the last two years and especially the last year

that is just a fact nigel....why is it you were so focused on discretionary spending if you didn't think tarp was included in it

ooops...busted....and again, chart 3 which you so desperately hung your hat on clearly shows a sharp uptick in the last two years

Even including TARP in discretionary spending you're way off the mark with your "bulk" nonsense. You can keep repeating yourself over and over and over again, but it doesn't make it so.

And, frankly, the idea that the guy that posted a deficit chart to show spending levels lecturing me on this stuff is hilarious.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Even including TARP in discretionary spending you're way off the mark with your "bulk" nonsense. You can keep repeating yourself over and over and over again, but it doesn't make it so.

And, frankly, the idea that the guy that posted a deficit chart to show spending levels lecturing me on this stuff is hilarious.

good lord, you are clueless about discretionary vs mandatory spending...

tarp was included in the mandatory spending....thus, it makes zero fucking sense for you to keep harping on discretionary spending unless you believed tarp was included in discretionary...you tried to make it out that since discretionary didn't rise as much as mandatory, that spending "really" didn't increase that much which is total horseshit as tarp is/was put under the mandatory category

you screwed up nigel, admit it and move on

and for the millionth time, i was simply posting my initial research results regarding spending, if you don't think deficit SPENDING had anything to do with pissing people off you're more retarded that i ever imagined...while you and onceler were stroking each other with glee, i was actually trying to find you partisan hacks a link that you wouldn't spazz over....and then i found it and posted it

don't worry, i know you won't be honest and apologize

 

[Onceler]

good lord, you are clueless about discretionary vs mandatory spending...

tarp was included in the mandatory spending....thus, it makes zero fucking sense for you to keep harping on discretionary spending unless you believed tarp was included in discretionary...you tried to make it out that since discretionary didn't rise as much as mandatory, that spending "really" didn't increase that much which is total horseshit as tarp is/was put under the mandatory category

you screwed up nigel, admit it and move on

and for the millionth time, i was simply posting my initial research results regarding spending, if you don't think deficit SPENDING had anything to do with pissing people off you're more retarded that i ever imagined...while you and onceler were stroking each other with glee, i was actually trying to find you partisan hacks a link that you wouldn't spazz over....and then i found it and posted it

don't worry, i know you won't be honest and apologize

That's batty.

You wrote a lot, but you completely ignored what he said, and repeated yourself yet again.

Do you realize that you do that? It's really pretty bananas.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

 

[Onceler]

Even battier - repeating the same chart again.

We're really heading into some unstable territory here.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

do you have anything more to add, other than just your lies and insults? they are rather boring me this evening and i will just ignore you for the rest of the night if so....

let me know, thanks!