The Tea Party Did the Right Thing

Yurt said:
i already said i don't know how to copy from the pdf...that one graph i have been posting i was able to copy off google images, why don't you post it, it actually further reinforces that i was right about spending increasing greater at the end, hence my comments supra were 100% accurate

why can't you be honest and admit i was right....it grew largely at the end....you claimed that was bullshit, my link and the graph clearly show i am right yet you and your retarded classmate won't admit you're wrong

the graph expressly backs my claim up
Click to expand...


I'd post it if I had the know-how. Basically, Figure 3 shows the growth of discretionary spending over time, using the president's first year as a baseline. It shows a rather steady trend over time of growth in discretionary spending and quite nicely undercuts your bullshit argument that "the bulk" of the increases came at the end.
 
Onceler said:
Figure 3 is a hoot.

Yurt - you're entire argument here is one of the most dishonest I've seen out of you.

All you were doing was apologizing for the TEA party. Admit your partisanship and blindness to the hypocrisy of the right.

Oh, wait - nevermind. You already have.
Click to expand...

what exactly about figure 2 do you not understand?

figure 3 doesn't help you cause, in fact it only bolsters my point

Figure 3 shows the cumulative real discretionary spending increases for recent presidents
who have served two terms (Reagan, Clinton, and Bush), setting the first year in office at
a base of 100. With an identical starting point we can see how much each president added
to the budget during his term.
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
I'd post it if I had the know-how. Basically, Figure 3 shows the growth of discretionary spending over time, using the president's first year as a baseline. It shows a rather steady trend over time of growth in discretionary spending and quite nicely undercuts your bullshit argument that "the bulk" of the increases came at the end.
Click to expand...

bullshit...there is a sharp uptick at the end

and what exactly do you not understand about graph 2? it clearly and unequivocally shows SPENDING increasing greatly at the end

that is what i said, why is it you can't admit you fucked up?
 
Yurt said:
what do you think of figure 2? you keep ignoring it....and somehow claiming you're right and i'm wrong, when in fact it supports what i said 100%
Click to expand...


Figure 2 is irrelevant. Presidents have zero control over non-discretionary spending and a chart that includes non-discretionary spending is not germane to the issue of whether and how much a particular president increased spending.
 
Yurt said:
bullshit...there is a sharp uptick at the end

and what exactly do you not understand about graph 2? it clearly and unequivocally shows SPENDING increasing greatly at the end

that is what i said, why is it you can't admit you fucked up?
Click to expand...


There is no sharp uptick. There's an uptick, but hardly enough to support your "bulk" bullshit.
 
Fig. 3 shows that Bush increased spending while in office (duh), and that Clinton didn't all that much, but that spending increased while Rs were in control of Congress.

It shows that Reagan increased more than Clinton, but then talks about his increase being almost all military (cold war strategy) and that all other spending decreased by 10%...

It does nothing however to prove Yurt's assertion wrong. Bush did increase spending in his last term more than his first, and the fact is the majority of that increase was due to TARP, and most of the increase in spending throughout both terms was due to the "wars" in the ME.

His first year increase was due to that stupid pill bill he and Kennedy came up with, and that unconstitutional foray into education from the Feds.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
okay, I went and looked at Figure 3, it doesn't even show spending from Obama, how is that going to help us solve the issue?.....
Click to expand...


Well, we weren't talking about Obama. We were first trying to deal Yurt's nonsense about the "bulk" of Bush's spending increases coming at the end of his term.
 
and does that chart even include the entitlements created during 2009 under the health care reform bill that will have to be spent in the future....of course not......
 
Damocles said:
Fig. 3 shows that Bush increased spending while in office (duh), and that Clinton didn't all that much, but that spending increased while Rs were in control of Congress.

It shows that Reagan increased more than Clinton, but then talks about his increase being almost all military (cold war strategy) and that all other spending decreased by 10%...

It does nothing however to prove Yurt's assertion wrong. Bush did increase spending in his last term more than his first, and the fact is the majority of that increase was due to TARP, and most of the increase in spending was due to the "wars" in the ME.
Click to expand...


Please, Damo.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, we weren't talking about Obama. We were first trying to deal Yurt's nonsense about the "bulk" of Bush's spending increases coming at the end of his term.
Click to expand...

really?....on this thread about why the Tea Party didn't complain about Bush's spending but does complain about Obama's spending, we weren't "talking about Obama"?...........obviously at issue is whether Bush's spending is worse than Obama's spending........not that Bush's spending didn't suck, but obviously Obama's spending is far greater and thus sucks beyond suck....

and how can you deny the bulk of spending increases came at the end of his term.....isn't that when TARP happened?......
 
Damocles said:
Fig. 3 shows that Bush increased spending while in office (duh), and that Clinton didn't all that much, but that spending increased while Rs were in control of Congress.

It shows that Reagan increased more than Clinton, but then talks about his increase being almost all military (cold war strategy) and that all other spending decreased by 10%...

It does nothing however to prove Yurt's assertion wrong. Bush did increase spending in his last term more than his first, and the fact is the majority of that increase was due to TARP, and most of the increase in spending throughout both terms was due to the "wars" in the ME.

His first year increase was due to that stupid pill bill he and Kennedy came up with, and that unconstitutional foray into education from the Feds.
Click to expand...

Damo, you know full well that Bush hardly vetoed anything, and presided over massive amounts of spending & spending increases throughout his time in office.

Which assertion are you talking about? The one where he said the "bulk" came at the very end? The one where he characterized Obama's stimulus & bailouts as "dwarfing" the kind of spending that Bush approved? The one where he tried to marginalize Bush's spending as only having really been significant near the end, which is why the people who now make up the TEA party were pretty quiet when Cheney was running around talking about how deficit spending doesn't matter, and Bush was signing drug, energy & transportation bills that were weighed down with pork w/ gusto?

You guys really circle the wagons when it comes down to it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Figure 2 is irrelevant. Presidents have zero control over non-discretionary spending and a chart that includes non-discretionary spending is not germane to the issue of whether and how much a particular president increased spending.
Click to expand...

i see why chart 2 bothers you....becuase it is titled "federal budget annual growth"

and it wholly proves my point that bush spent MORE at the end and it clearly shows it to be bulk

chart 3 also shows a sharp spending uptick at the end

this is truly hilarious watching you and onceler desperately trying so very, very hard not to admit you're wrong when all the evidence shows you're both full of meadowmuffins :cof1:
 
Onceler said:
Damo, you know full well that Bush hardly vetoed anything, and presided over massive amounts of spending & spending increases throughout his time in office.

Which assertion are you talking about? The one where he said the "bulk" came at the very end? The one where he characterized Obama's stimulus & bailouts as "dwarfing" the kind of spending that Bush approved? The one where he tried to marginalize Bush's spending as only having really been significant near the end, which is why the people who now make up the TEA party were pretty quiet when Cheney was running around talking about how deficit spending doesn't matter, and Bush was signing drug, energy & transportation bills that were weighed down with pork w/ gusto?

You guys really circle the wagons when it comes down to it.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of those. Tripling the deficit in one bill is quite a bit more of an increase than he previously had. Even figure 3 shows the increase over time. Ignoring the trend doesn't make it go away. Bush increased more at the end of his terms than he did previously, even the chart you wanted him to post showed that.

The only "wagons" were three people piling on Yurt who was still able to prove an assertion that Bush increased spending more in his last years in office than before.

I don't even know why you decided to jump on that assertion like it was going to make your previous assertions "pure"...

Seriously, I explained why TEA Party protests began at the end of Bush's terms. People saw no end to it, unless they made one happen.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, all of those. Tripling the deficit in one bill is quite a bit more of an increase than he previously had. Even figure 3 shows the increase over time. Ignoring the trend doesn't make it go away. Bush increased more at the end of his terms than he did previously, even the chart you wanted him to post showed that.

The only "wagons" were three people piling on Yurt who was able to prove an assertion that Bush increased spending more in his last years in office than befroe.
Click to expand...



Hilarious.
 
DeRugy_GWB_Table1_FederalBudget2002_2009.JPG


nearly a trillion dollars more at the end...but somehow dear ol' yurt is wrong that bush spent more at the end and that the deficit grew at a dramatic rate....thus, causing people to finally have it with government spending....

onceler and nigel would have us believe it was a smooth uptick, not much change over the course of bush's presidency, well.....unfortunately for them, the facts say they are dead wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top