Ho hum. Another election cycle, another gaping money pit in WA-08 for the NRCC:
The National Republican Congressional Committee is launching a revamped incumbent retention program designed to help vulnerable House Republicans raise cash for their reelection campaigns — and warning members that the committee will not bail out those who are insufficiently prepared for competitive races.
The NRCC plans to unveil the first 10 incumbents who qualify for their Patriot Program at a Tuesday briefing to political action committees. … Among those on the list are Reps. Dan Lungren, Ken Calvert and Brian Bilbray of California, Judy Biggert of Illinois, Anh “Joseph” Cao of Louisiana, Thad McCotter of Michigan, Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, Leonard Lance of New Jersey, Christopher Lee of New York and Dave Reichert of Washington.
No doubt I’ve been disappointed and indeed depressed by Darcy Burner’s failure to close the deal these past two elections against the profoundly mediocre Rep. Reichert, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t make a huge contribution toward the Democrats achieving their House majority. Every dime Darcy forced the NRCC to spend propping up the financially floppy Reichert is a dime they couldn’t spend in another district. That’s how the 50 state strategy works.
In Jennifer Dunn’s hands WA-08 was a cash cow for the Republican Party, exporting dollars into competitive races nationwide, but even after three terms, the ever vulnerable Reichert is still sucking at the party teat. And while that may not sound like much of a victory, it still provides some genuine consolation for those of us who understand the bigger picture.
Wow Goldy, interesting anal-ogy…
Let’s see the forest past the fake Goldy trees…
Yesterday deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep blew (pun intended) state California just rejected the Obama tax and spend plan copied by Ahhhhhhnold. Even in Pelosi’s favrit town San Franfreako, it only got to 47% pass. So if Americans are getting fed up with the tax and spend plans of Donkocraptic controlled CA Legislature in a deeeeeeeeeeeeep blew state, what do you think will happen in an amost deeeeeeeeeep blew state in WA?
Goldy, you again assume people are stupid. Well most HA swineflu weasels are very stupid. We all know CA has the 18th largest economy in the world. Puddy suggests taxing the HollyWeird crowd at 75%. Shucks, they support morons like Fidel and Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, so if communism/socialism are their causes, then have them pony it up. Or watch and see since CA voted big time for Obama, and the Nancy Pelosi wing of the Dummocraptic Party cums from SF and LA, watch and see if Obama doesn’t make some type of overture to Ahhhhhhhhnold to help him out of the CA mess.
Now how does one tie this back to Reichert? Easy, the WA state Dummocraptics had to make severe cuts to it’s budget shortfall of $9 Billion or so? Why did this happen? Profligate spending in WA and CA state by Dummocraptic legislatures. Well all Reichert needs to show is the federal House & Senate are again implementing profligate spending and even Obama said at Arizona State – headless’ alma mater, that “We can’t keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”
That’s what Reichert needs to run on…Obama/Pelosi/Reid national debt!
Hey, Puddy,
Any chance you could petition the RNC to rename the Democratic Party the “Dummocraptic” Party? I think your petition would be well-received and would help unify and motivate your tired political party. Plus, you might get some well-deserved plaudits. I would love to see you get more attention and respect from your party’s leaders.
Howdy Proud Leftist.
No those are isms for this blog. Any interesting cases over in Kitsap today?
Well the idiots who voted for Big Hair (did I tell u I used to be Sheriff) Dave deserve his ineffective representation. I agree, the money the RNC spent to hold his seat was in no way proportionate to the payoff they got. This time around, we need some new blood to take him on. It should be easier than ever now that Puffybutt’s party only represents about 20% of the country – how’s it feel to be part of the permanent minority – oh, and I don’t mean pretending to be black – you fucking oreo cunt!
The mission now is to elect better Democrats. The Republican party is dead.
Let’s hope that they continue to raise such apologists for billionaires as Rush Limbaugh as their standard bearers.
There is just no way around the fact that giving tax breaks to the rich has not helped the average voter.
The first thing that Republicans must do to survive as a party is to admit that they have been wrong all along — and frankly, I don’t see that as even a remote possibility.
Anyone care for a slice of government cheese? I hear that Halliburton has been entrusted with it’s distribution, so they’ve thrown the cheese away to ensure higher ‘profits’. Ain’t the free market great?
Oh, c’mon, Puddy,
You must be proud of your creative output. Don’t you think your work deserves a wider audience? Don’t you think you owe it to endangered Rs like DimDavey to offer him the assistance of being able to call his opponent a member of the Dummocraptic Party? You’re being selfish, man.
What, Michelle Bachmann isn’t on the “Patriot Program” list? Why not? Isn’t she patriotic enough to suit them? Or maybe she’s so crazy they don’t want to be associated with her?
Darcy forced the GOPers to spend millions to hang onto an ineffectual nonentity who has yet to hug a rabbit. That was a pretty good investment, I would say.
Does anyone know how Reichert voted on the credit card bill?
Puddy @ 1:
COME–ON, MAN! GET REAL!!
Dude, you are in serious, serious need of an intervention.
No problem so far until the inaccurate diatribe in the middle, but your closer . . .
You’re only fooling yourself, Puddy, if you believe the American public thinks the national debt is President Obama’s fault.
The time has come for Republicans to give meanings to their words and bumper sticker slogans they’ve been tossing around for years.
Let me start with one of my favorites:
“Personal accountability”
It’s time for you to take personal accountability for the $30+ TRILLION dollars Republicans have cost this country in the last 8 years.
Let me break it down for you:
$11 TRILLION dollar national debt. “Squander, Baby, Squander!”
President Clinton enacted the Pay-As-You-Go system of governing. Plus, he started paying down the national debt at the rate of $500 million per year. In 2000, with a national debt or around $4 trillion dollars we’d be a DEBT FREE NATION today if we stayed with the plan the Democratic adults created.
In fact, Allen Greenspan warned president-elect Bush not to “pay down the national debt too fast, or it would trigger runaway inflation.”
But, nooooooooo, Bush and the Republican congress foolishly squandered that $500 million per year, for the last 8 years, PLUS they borrowed an additional $7 TRILLION.
And, you teabaggers get all ginned up because the Democrats had to pump $787 billion into the economy to keep from repeating the mistake of the Republicans back in the 30’s and we Liberals prevented another Republican created DEPRESSION??
Add in the stock market crash from a high of just of 14,000 points down to 6,500 before the Dow hit the Bush Bottom this spring.
That translated to another $10 TRILLION dollars in real wealth evaporated.
Another Trillion or so thrown at the banks via the Federal Reserve, with much thanks to Paulson and the rest of the “OH MY GOD, THE MARKET IS GOING TO CRASH TODAY” crowd.
Because of the deregulation philosophy of Ronald Reagan and his disciples, the real estate market lost another $8 TRILLION dollars of real wealth and you got over 30 TRILLION reasons why you’re line of thinking that the public is going to buy the “Obama/Pelosi/Reid national debt!” is, well, kind of a dumb argument.
One I’d expect from Mr. “I hate the TROOPS” Cynical, but not you.
The other one is:
Country First.
Look back over the last 8 years; you cannot believe that the Republicans put “Country First” while drowning our nation in debt.
You cannot believe Republicans put “Country First” while ignoring the al Qeada threat, even when a PDB states al Qeada is determined to attack in the US using commercial airplanes!! C’mon man, how hard is it to figure out you need added security at airports and in airplanes with that kind of threat assessment?
You cannot believe Republican put “Country First” while committing War Crimes by torturing people to create false evidence of an Iraq/al Qeada connection to justify an illegal war. Even torturing innocent people snatched of the streets of America and sent to black prison sites.
You cannot believe Republicans put “Country First” by ignoring the real threat in Afghanistan and allowing Pakistan to negotiate a “peace deal” with the Taliban and al Qeada. What ever happened to “you’re either with us or against us.”?
You cannot believe Republicans put “Country First” while Republican members of congress routinely voted against supporting our troops, veterans, wounded warriors and military families.
When are your deeds going to match your words?
As I’ve said before, there’s something wrong with bankers who can’t make a profit by paying savers 1% on their savings and lending the money at 28% to credit card customers … that’s a spread of 27% for cryin’ out loud!
Now, the banking industry is crying that because they can’t rip off debtors anymore, they’ll have to charge freeloaders like me who pay off our balances every month annual fees and stop giving us reward points!
Cripes, if they can’t make money on a 27-percent spread, how do they think that’ll help? After all, I’m only getting $300 to $500 a year of free services, airline tickets, and merchandise. That’s a piss in the bucket! Next thing you know, the bankers will slap fees on my free checking account, my free checks, and my free online billpay, too!
Have bankers no conscience?
I found out where the trolls come from. I found this site through a right wing site Jesus General. It claims John Lennon and ABBA sold themselves to satan. Instead of listing like minded sites they list left leaning sites including this one. They title it probably French. Which confuses me. The French elected Sarcosy who is pro choice, but is a Bush lap dog on every other issue. I don’t see a word of French on this site.
GBS, hello my debt fickle friend. Bush added Apparently you haven’t looked at the CBO debt projections for the next decade dude. It’s $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That’s your party dude!
Let’s talk facts GBS.
2001 – Debt was $5.7 Trillion
2009 – Debt was 10.6 Trillion including Bush $407 Billion for FY09 budget.
CBO for FY09 is NOW $1.85 Trillion
Puddy showed last week Obama added $1.44 Trillion in two bills. $407 Billion was Bush final 2009 budget. Obama added the rest.
See ya. Come on back when you’ve researched the topic.
One other thing GBS which you seem to forget is the US Constitution. Congress writes and passes the budget. Soooooooooooooo, Puddy will agree with the Budget figgers on Bush from 2001-2006. Once Nancy and Harry got their fingers on the till things gots ugly under the most “ethical congress ever” – Nancy Pelosi.
Maybe it was her “ethics” which caused her to get her lying notes mixed up on the CIA rant last week.
GBS spitted:
Hmmm… GBS, Puddy placed the last September 24th 2008 (give or take a day) words of John Effin Kerry who said Obama agreed with the terms of the TARP bailout and personally modified points in the plan. This was national news last fall GBS. Please don’t tell me you are now suffering from 24 hour libtard memory lapses?
BTW didn’t Geithner cum out and say not all the TARP funds have been let yet? Wasn’t it Congressional Donkey and other libtards like yourself who were for the auto bailout? Puddy is on record against it. Puddy predicted what would happen to GM and Chrysler and now the Obama Motors Corporation is doing exactly what Puddy predicted.
And you HA swineflu weasels complain that Puddy never brings it to this blog. Why bring it when you are soooooooooooo wrong so often?
Don’t believe me? Check the HA swineflu weasel archives. Check and see if Puddy didn’t say it. Puddy not gonna resubmit cuz this TARP argument is so facetious!
GBS have you been paying attention to the “Pakistan – Taliban” peace deal? Here let Puddy educate ya!
See ya lata!
“Another election cycle, another gaping money pit in WA-08 for the NRCC:”
Alas, you forget that this is but a small dimple in the sand compared to the bottomless Democrat money pit that is the state of Washington itself.
OH, MY GAWD, Puddybud where do I start with the beatings??? (Note well: I said beatingS, plural, not beating, singular.)
Was my starting figure on the debt off by a trillion dollars. Sure. BUT, the important fact remains, Liberals were paying down the national debt under President Clinton and Bush and the Republicans squandered all of it. ALL OF IT.
**Rocky sticks a sharp job right in Apollo Creed’s eye**
FACT: The shady accounting practices deployed by George W. Bush would have gotten him arrested if he were the head of a publicly traded company. What kind of a moron would start a war and then year after year after year after year after YEAR require an “Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill” to keep funding the war?
Answer: It would take a moron who is a LIAR!!
C’mon, man, please, please do better than the folly that Bush’s FY09 deficit was only $407 billion!! All the “off book accounting” practices done by Bush were ridiculous. Take all his deficit spending on the “books” and see if they total all the money you Republicans borrowed! You’ll come up short, Puddy.
President Obama has the honesty and integrity to deal straight with the American public and put it all on the table for public review.
**Rocky blocks Apollo’s weak left hook and counters with a solid one-two combination to the head of Apollo. It knocked him back a step or two**
BAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA
That’s the dumbest and most inaccurate thing I’ve ever seen you write on this blog.
Holy Sheep Shit, I’m not sure what your Shi’ria law says, but in the United States of AMERICA the president writes the budget request and sends it to the HOUSE for legislative action.
**Rocky lands a MONSTER uppercut to the jaw of Apollo Creed, his mouth piece goes flying out of the ring and blood is flowing from the mouth of Apollo**
So now you’ll agree with their inflated numbers?!?!? Yeah you will!!
words of John Effin Kerry who said Obama agreed with the terms of the TARP bailout and personally modified points in the plan.
Who said anything about the TARP??? Just in case you don’t know, which you obviously DON’T!!
The Federal Reserve shoveled plenty o’ money out the backdoor for the Wall Street fat cats to feast on. The TARP fund was the money that went out the front.
Yep, we didn’t squander all of the TARP funds, you’re right about that. And the auto bailout???
Here’ you GO!
“President Barack Obama is trying to shove U.S. automakers toward the future, a high-stakes wager that could help revive the industry in the long run, experts say.
By issuing rules aimed at sharply boosting vehicle gasoline mileage and slashing greenhouse gas emissions, experts say the Obama plan is just what carmakers need given the prospect of higher gas prices and worries about global warming.
**UH-OH, ROCKY IS THROWING A FURIOUS BARRAGE OF PUNCHES THAT ARE LANDING AT WILL ON APOLLO’S HEAD, FACE, AND BODY. BLOW AFTER BLOW . . .
DOWN GOES APOLLO!!! DOWN GOES APOLLO!!!! HE COULDN’T TAKE ANY MORE.
The referee doesn’t even count him out and calls for the EMT’s to attend to Apollo. This looks bad, folks. The challenger isn’t moving, his eyes are swollen shut and blood is flowing out of his ears, nose and mouth. It looks like a rib is sticking out of his right side. This doesn’t look good!!**
See, this is why conservatives cannot govern. You role, is to be the loyal opposition party. The party of “JUST SAY NO, NO, NO, NO!!”
Let the adults run the country, you little fellers stand behind your mommy’s apron where it’s safe.
Puddybud actually wrote this:
Yeah, AFTER President Obama called BULLSHIT on them letting terrorists in their nation.
You are either unwilling or unable to dispense the truth that on George W. Bush’s watch Pakistan made a peace deal with the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
And, President Obama, with his spine of steel, forced Pakistan to take serious military action against the terrorists!! Spine of STEEL!! As Joe Biden said that those who would test Obama would find out. Ask the dead Somali pirates and ask the dead Taliban who are getting their asses kicked in Pakistan after our Commander-in-Chief persuaded them to get off their fat asses. CHUMP!
Don’t you wish you voted for the man with a Spine of Steel instead of McSHAME??
Boooooo-yaaaaaaaaa, bring your A game.
[Deleted]
Puddy @ 20:
I just love it when you admit defeat so quickly.
Even if it is an imposter, it’s still funny all the same.
In fact, funnier.
This Bud’s for you Mr. Screen Name Imposter Man!!
@18 BUT, the important fact remains
————
That you ignored the immense deficits projected by CBO through 2019 noted @13. By 2019 the net interest on this debt will be gobbling up big chunks of incoming revenue. See:
http://manyeyes.alphaworks.ibm.....inistratio
By 2019 people won’t be blaming George Bush.
Because I just can’t let it go!!!
Puddybud here’s what your leader said regarding the collapse of the economy on HIS watch and the auto bailout!!
Link provided for your learning enjoyment.
“George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from “collapse.”
“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision “to make sure the economy doesn’t collapse.”
Bush’s comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis.
“I am sorry we’re having to do it,” Bush said.
But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country’s economy.
“I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we’re in a crisis now. I mean, this is — we’re in a huge recession, but I don’t want to make it even worse.”
At a G20 summit last month in Washington, Bush resisted some proposals for global financial regulation and argued free market principles still held true despite the global economic downturn.
And administration officials have also referred to the primacy of the free market when discussing a possible government bailout for the troubled US auto industry.
In the interview, Bush said that a “disorganized bankruptcy” of the carmakers could create “enormous” economic difficulties.”
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
**Now Rocky is hammering away on Apollo Creed in the ER of Virginia Mason hospital. WHAT an Animal Rocky is, he just won’t stop beating sense into Apollo Creed.**
NOTE WELL, Puddybud, Bush abandoned his principles to save the economy from “collapse.” And, “disorganized bankruptcy” of the carmakers would create “ENORMOUS” economic difficulties. According to the failed president George W. Bush.
EPIC FAILURE!! I might add.
Now, contrast that with the article I posted about President Obama’s plans that the EXPERTS said would revive the auto industry.
Bush = collapsed economy and bankrupted auto industry.
Obama = stabilized economy and auto industry experts agree with him.
Let me make it even easier for you:
Bush/Republicans = BAD
Obama/Democrats = PROSPERITY FOR AMERICA. Oops, I said I’d make it easy for you.
Obama/Democrats = GOOD.
By 2019 the economy will be rolling again thanks to President Obama’s vision to create a robuts green economy.
By 2019 people won’t be blaming George W. Bush because he’ll be a forgotten footnote in history and the answer to the trivia question; “Who was the last person to be President of the now defunct Republcian Party?”
Booooooooo-yaaaaaaa like I said, bring your A game or stay at home.
Bush and Cheney released terrorist from GITMO that have rejoined the fight.
Did that make us safer? No.
Why didn’t they just convict them when they had the chance, or give them POW status, which, under the Genevea Convention they could have legally ‘detained until them until the end of hostilities.’
Ahhhhhh, yes, but that would have exposed Bush/Cheney to war crime charges.
Instead of doing the right thing, they released the worst of the worst terrorist so they could kill Americans again.
If that’s their idea of keeping America safe I say “Thanks, but no thanks!”
link to news story for post 25:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30853290
23 Gee whiz….did Smirk perhaps put on Flip Wilson’s old drag outfit before saying “The Devil made me do it”?
What a load of dreck. One of Obama’s biggest mistakes may have been to appoint Uncle Hank’s old pal from Goldman Sachs, Timothy Geitner, to take over Treasury. So here Timmy’s running things just about the same way Paulsen did. Big surprise!!!!! They’re all still working under the bogus assumption that “saving the banks” is going to do diddly for the banks’ victims–er, customers….yanno, people like you and me. Even like you, Pudwax.
Golly GBS, where does Puddy start. Holy COW Batman, this man is punch drunk.
Butt first Puddy has to answer FartyArt… Um FartyArt, Hank Paulson was recommended to Bush by Robert Rubin dude. Same pedigree.
Do you PAY ATTENTION to historical perspectives FartyArt?
First GBS the terraist as clueless wonder writes…
The ACLU was a clamoring, clamoring CLAMORING to get all 250+ terraists released. So with all that Donkey pressure from your bud in the American Criminal Lovers Union, Bush and Cheney mistakenly listened to the Donkey cries and let some go. Puddy does think these pinheads return to their past is one of the reasons the Senate Donkey have told “the messiah” they ain’t giving money to “the messiah” until “the messiah’s” administration had a plan for the baddies.
Now for the rest of the story.
What the CIA lie?
Remember yellowcake?
Remember WMD?
Oh yeah and then there’s this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....06090.html
@10 In 2000, with a national debt or around $4 trillion dollars we’d be a DEBT FREE NATION today if we stayed with the plan the Democratic adults created.
———–
If you’re going to join their ranks you’re going to have to develop better sources. On January 1, 2000, the total public debt was $5.8 trillion. But thanks for all the great analysis!
Puffybutt – in his task to become the biggest OREO in the nation – is quoting the BULLSHIT-infested Heritage Foundation as a source? REALLY? Come on REALLY? That the best you got dude? Man oh man. How far down the pike Puffybutt the cowardly traitor has fallen.
Now for more of the story.
Ding Ding…Ding Ding…Ding Ding…
The President submits a budget. From 2001-2006 the Republicans in congress went mostly along with it with Ted Stevens and
Puddy found $471 Billion off budget for the Iraq/Afghan wars through 2006. Puddy saw some estimates at $750 Billion. Puddy don’t know. Okay, I’ll use that value, so then that makes the deficit 4.9 Trillion and .75 trillion so 5.65 Trillion. Ya happy now GBS? Round Puddy
Regarding the auto bailouts… Puddy called it last fall. Y’all ridiculed Puddy. Puddy said it would eventually cause the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler. Puddy told you the high cost of the union labor would sink the deal. Well now they going bankrupt, dealers are losing their life savings, investments in their dealerships and lives are a changing… Puddy called it y’all blew it. Round Puddy
So SJ, this is why Puddy stays in ridicule mode. When Puddy writes prescient commentary you leftists scream bloody murder becuz you only see the immediate, Puddy looking at the future event. Puddy usually right! Round Puddy
Puddy was against letting Gitmo Hotel residents leave. Puddy placed the 70+ detainees who since released have gone back to their original life of crime. Again, the HA swineflu weasels pooh-poohed Puddy. The American Criminal Lovers Union been screaming to let them all go becuz they “nice people”. Round Puddy.
Let me help you again GBS – The Taliban in Buner were using civilians as human shields. Yep, that’s BULLSHIT bud – NOT!
Let me help you again GBS – Bazars are completely closed. There is no activity. Children are weeping for water and food. All (people) are in a state of insecurity. Yep, that’s BULLSHIT bud – NOT!
Let me help you again GBS – Two weeks ago in Washington, preznit Obama has held meetings with his counterparts from Afghanistan and Pakistan and the breakdown of government control in Pakistan’s border areas has been on the agenda. Yep, that’s BULLSHIT bud – NOT!
Looks like three more rounds for Puddy Ding ding Rocky is on one knee grabbing the lower ropes.
Estimates for the new CAFE standards will cost ~$1300 per car. That’s why Puddy went to leftist Salon. How dat gonna help the poor peeps GBS? Also the cost to a car company is $50 X number of cars X number of miles off the goal. So let’s say GM missed it by 4 miles per gallon. They sold 3.8 Million cars last year GBS. That’s over 750 Million to the government. Looks like another “tax” to Puddy. Round Puddy
GBS, you forgot already you said:
Hmmm…? That’s the TARP comment dude. I guess bringing up Effin Kerry and Obama approvals stung. Also everyone knows the Fed money to the Wall Street bankers was Geithner’s idea. Obama liked him so much he forgave his tax cheatin ways. Round Puddy.
Man this is a beeeeeeeeeeeeat down GBS. Rocky getting a CONCUSSION from Apollo!
What WMD stillbentover? 13 countries including Putin’s Russia freely said they thought Saddam had WMD fool.
Hell of an effort for the minipenis!
Puddy will take the Heritage Foundation over the HuffPo every day Puddy is alive and kicking fool!
GBS, you are exhibiting HA swineflu weasel disease.
Puddy never liked John McCain. You know this so why do you insinuate anything else. You been drinking Steve’s Stupid Solution?
GBS the moron@20 was stillbentover with something up his butt!
Ah Jeez, not this crap again. GBS get back on yer bipolar meds please.
All of your posts fall in the category: TLDR
Too long, didn’t read.
@35: Except that our own intelligence (suppressed by Bush and Cheney) said otherwise….that Sadaam had no weapons and it was all bluff (they had interviews with Sadaam chief weapons officer).
Yup, the same intelligence agencies they blamed for giving the wrong intelligence, Bush and Cheney ignored so they could lie their way into an unnecessary war. Then they tried to torture (over 6 waterboardings a day) to get prisoners to confess to an Iraq-al qaida link that never existed, they also lied about the Irq -al qaida link after they lied about how we did not torture (while torturing prisoners to get this fabricated link).
These were the lying Republicans Puddy is proud of.
[Deleted]
NutRight, what are you spouting dude? 13 different countries. You can google them all.
Nuts and not right!
Man stillbentover is at it again@41.
Puddy holds it as a badge of honor someone needs to sock puppet them becuz they have lousy skillz.
Puddy says: “So SJ, this is why Puddy stays in ridicule mode. When Puddy writes prescient commentary you leftists scream bloody murder becuz you only see the immediate, Puddy looking at the future event. Puddy usually right! Round Puddy”
Wow, PudMan, you just got a whole lot of therapists a whole lot of material. Yikes.
Proud Leftist, go back and look at the HA swineflu weasel archives. Puddy called the auto bankruptcies and was against the bailouts. You and your swineflu weasel friends attacked Puddy as a hating anti-unionist, wanting to put people out of their jobs. Well looks like it gonna happen anyway after spending all that $$$Billions. I called bankruptcy for late March or April. So they are now happening in May. Big hooey!
Weren’t you one of them calling for the bailouts? Puddy right HA swineflu weasels dead wrong! Puddy against Bush and Obama on this one!
Pud,
Actually, I’d like you to look at my quote of you. That quote has nothing to do with bailouts; it has to do with your proclaiming victory over some foe no one else knew was in the game. Looks like we’re going to have to resurrect the Golden Goat.
The people of WA-05 deserve Ditzy Dave 401. Screw ’em.
Apparently proud leftist you can’t follow a thread too well. Try looking at GBS’s reply @18. Puddy understands you have thread issues. How did you become a lawyer with your reading and comprehension problems?
Oh, and the deficit for 2008 was $1 trillion. FYI.
#49: Puddy’ll use the CBO values. So when did ATJ start using GAAP? You must have missed the last year of Clinton’s reign with his claim of a surplus but GAAP showed a -$18 Billion deficit for FY2000 and a -$133 Billion deficit for FY2001 (Clinton’s last budget) Hmmm…?
Well Puddy has to dive deeper into the GAAP analysis so…
FY 1998 -$113 Billion
FY 1999 -$130 Billion… so much for the truth from Clinton
Clinton told King: “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”
in 1998 everyone knew he had WMDs, especially those that were on the house intelligence committee.
As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein’s activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.
john edwards was on the senate intelligence committee and saw the intel…
“As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today.
And lets not forget the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998” that was signed into law.
Yeah bush lied. And all the top ranking democrats lied right alongside him.
That is the reason the bush will never be impeached or brought up on charges.
51 – Revisionist history…
Yawn… Then why couldn’t the pretender-in-chief find them? Yeah even the U.N. weapons inspectors said on paper there were stocks unaccounted for – small stocks – did that mean Saddam was a threat to anyone – no…
Impeached?????? What’s wrong with you fool? The idiot’s not even President any more!
Brought up on charges? Maybe not. The torture may have been always Darth Cheney’s idea.
Too bad there’s no law against being a disastrous President.
Puddy @ 50 spews:
Puddy’ll use the CBO values.
Well, now, imagine my surprise. After months of Puddy vilifying me for having mistakenly typed “2004” when quoting a source that referred to the CBO estimated budget deficit of “$340 billion by 2008,” Puddy now wants to stand by a source that places the CBO’s estimated budget deficit for 2008 at $428 billion. Can Puddy tell us how my argument was flawed back then? Not in a million years.
‘Course, this is the same silly Puddy who deifies Sam Zell, demonizes Nouriel Roubini and thinks that Alan Greenspan was a liberal, so my surprise isn’t really all that great. I am, however, continually awed by the extent to which Puddy insists on remaining ignorant of his own ignorance.
Marvin @ 52
Other than demonstrating that you really have a rather poor grasp of the concept of a “lie,” what exactly is your point vis-a-vis us independent progressives who regard Democrats as a barely palatable lesser of two evils? Seriously, how, exactly, do you stack those statements up against Dick Cheney’s claim of an operational link between Iraq and al Qaeda, George Bush’s claim that Iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake from Niger and Condoleezza Rice’s mushroom cloud imagry?
Arguing that Democrats aren’t exactly pure as the driven snow does absolutely nothing to counter the idea that, as bad as Democrats are, Republicans are orders of magnitude worse.
And Lambchop scores an own goal, accidentally agreeing that the 2008 deficit was $1 trillion. Thanks Lambchop!
@53 After months of Puddy vilifying me for having mistakenly typed “2004? when quoting a source that referred to the CBO estimated budget deficit of “$340 billion by 2008,” Puddy now wants to stand by a source that places the CBO’s estimated budget deficit for 2008 at $428 billion.
————
Puddy? Everybody was in on this as I recall, as you had your butt kicked up one end of HA and back for your self-described “analysis” of our deficits that regularly confused dates with dollars. In the end, you finally admitted after a colossal waste of everyone’s time that math was not your “thing.” Well, at least you got that much right!
@ 56
Puddy? Everybody was in on this as I recall
There was a handful (which isn’t quite the same as “everybody,” and Puddy was the only person to kept referring back to it out of context.
But, if you want to rehash this:
as you had your butt kicked up one end of HA and back for your self-described “analysis” of our deficits that regularly confused dates with dollars.
Well, gosh. My argument was, essentially, that a budget deficit of $340 billion is rather bad. Turns out the actual deficit was some 25% worse. Exactly how does that result in me getting my “butt kicked up one end of HA and back”?
In the end, you finally admitted after a colossal waste of everyone’s time that math was not your “thing.”
No. I admitted the typographical error up front, and did so several times over. The “colossal waste of everyone’s time” consisted of you folks kicking that horse long after it was clearly dead.
To date, no one, yourself included, has been able to explain exactly how my mistakenly typing “2004” instead of “2008” affected the argument I had made. Frankly, I don’t think any of you even understood exactly how those numbers related to the argument I was making, but you’re quite welcome to try and prove me wrong on that.
So, Jane, are you up to it? Are you, finally, going to try and tackle my actual argument head-on now that the real numbers turned out to be worse than the ones I had originally used?
ATJ, you said it was $1 Trillion. Puddy suggested if you choose to use GAAP then Clinton NEVER BALANCED THE BUDGET Fool! Clinton is a bald face liar.
See ya swineflue weasel turkey.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha
Dismissed with PREJUDICE!
Lambchop called one approach “the truth.” Which one was that?
Let’s see the replay on that own goal.
Tool@59: “Puddy’ll use the CBO values. So when did ATJ start using GAAP?” If GAAP the truth then Clinton lied fool. Which one is it ATJ? Please regale all of us! Cum on dummy let’s hear it.
“FY 2008 deficit of $438 billion”
All can see to ATJ ‘reading ain’t fundamental’.
That’s my story and Puddy sticking to it.
See ya swineflu weasel turkey.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha
Don Joe, Puddy hasn’t changed anything in FY 2008 fool. Puddy used CBO values all the time. Puddy introduced the HA swineflu weasels to the CBO long ago. FY 2009 under Bush estimated at $407 Billion. Obama added another 1.4 Trillion.
What a guy “the messiah” (aaaaaahhhhhh sound) is.
Gotta go!
Thanks for
the assistthe own goal, Lambchop!Better trolls please.
@57 Frankly, I don’t think any of you even understood exactly how those numbers related to the argument I was making
———
You can be sure nobody understood YOUR “argument,” least of all YOU! It was an endless exercise in backtracking, pseudo analysis, and “if-else-then’s” that was absolutely mind-numbing.
And the true finale – or more accurately, shock! – was discovering you were a Microsoft “programmer” and that all of this reasoning “ability” could actually end up on our desktops!
So thanks, but no thanks, please don’t elaborate on your economic arguments anymore. Once was quite enough!
@ 63
You can be sure nobody understood YOUR “argument,” least of all YOU!
Well, gosh, if you think you don’t understand the argument, I’d be more than happy to restate it for you:
1) The Bush tax cuts favored the wealthy–namely people who have a high marginal propensity to save.
2) Wealthy people tend to save through either institutional investors or through hedge funds.
3) Institutional investors and hedge funds were a major source of demand for mortgage backed securities.
4) Therefore, the Bush tax cuts provided a significant contribution to the current economic crisis–a contribution that can be roughly measured in correlation to the effect of those tax cuts on the deficit.
So, exactly what don’t you understand about the argument above? Seems a rather straightforward argument.
It was an endless exercise in backtracking, pseudo analysis, and “if-else-then’s” that was absolutely mind-numbing.
No, Jane, it was the endless ad-hominem from you completely incompetent idiots directed at me rather than the rather simple argument I’ve outlined above. Your continued ad-hominem is the most compelling proof that you cannot attack that argument head on. If you could, you’d have done so well before now.
So, Jane, by all means. Keep attacking me. Everyone here, well at least everyone who has half a brain, will understand exactly what your attacks on me mean regarding the argument I’ve made.
So, Jane, by all means. Keep attacking me. Everyone here, well at least everyone who has half a brain, will understand exactly what your attacks on me mean regarding the argument I’ve made.
———-
Assuming they can wade through the copy, which is populated with French hedgerows!
You claim to have an economics degree, right? What school, and how is it you’ve been relegated to programming at Microsoft?
@ 65
Assuming they can wade through the copy, which is populated with French hedgerows!
French hedgerows? For once, can you come up with an argument that relies on something other than proof by repeated assertion?
I’ve restated the argument above. Exactly where are these “French hedgerows”?
You claim to have an economics degree, right? What school, and how is it you’ve been relegated to programming at Microsoft?
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 1983 with a GPA of 3.27. Shall I fax you copies of my transcripts? What will it take for you to cease this attack on my personal integrity and get you to start actually addressing my argument?
As for my present profession, I’m not so sure that the word “relegated” is relevant. There aren’t all that many economists who make the kind of money I make.
For the “how,” well there’s a bit of irony in that. You see, my timing sucked. I graduated from college in the middle of the Reagan recession. I trust you understand the irony.
Puddybud,
Yes or No:
Did President Clinton submit budgets in the1990’s that stopped borrowing money?
Did President Clinton submit a budget that started paying down the national debt at rate of $500 million per year?
Did George W. Bush stop paying down the national debt for 8 years?
Does $500 million x 8 = $4 Trillion dollars?
Did George W. Bush borrow in excess of $7 trillion dollars?
Is any of this the fault of Republican policies?
C’mon, Bro, face the obvious with honesty and integrity.
Lata for ATJ, because all can see how STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID this Donk is.
See ya fool. Keep on that GAAP ANAL-YSIS.
delbert @ 39:
Zzzzzz . . . Zzzzz . . . Zzzzz
Who gives a rat’s ass about your opinions. If I wanted any lip from you I’d unzip my pants.
Now, move along and don’t comment on my posts ever, ever againg.
Got that?
Good!
GBS,
These are not Y/N questions and you know it.
Did President Clinton submit budgets in the1990’s that stopped borrowing money? Not for the FY1994 or the FY1995 budgets. He had Donkey Legislative jockstraps (AKA support for fools that suck like ATJ)
Did President Clinton submit a budget that started paying down the national debt at rate of $500 million per year? Only after the Republican Congress started implementing their Contract with America. Remember his trumpet “welfare reform” speech? What? You getting forgetful now?
Did George W. Bush stop paying down the national debt for 8 years? 9/11 changed everything GBS. Use that hat rack God provided you dude. Puddy used to fly all over the place on AA, UA and Alaska. It was tough keeping my Executive Platinum, 100K, and MVP Gold certs on all three cuz Puddy wasn’t flying hardly anymore.
Does $500 million x 8 = $4 Trillion dollars? Hey Puddy said above it was over $5 Trillion
Did George W. Bush borrow in excess of $7 trillion dollars? Golly GBS Puddy don’t know. Really, Puddy hasn’t researched it.
Is any of this the fault of Republican policies? Puddy already agreed with you months ago it was profligate spending on Republicans from 2001-2006. Why do you continue to recover agreed to ground? We talked about this at the Mexican lunch truck on MLK Jr Ave when the punk ass bitch stillbentover was a no show. But Republican policies, hmmm… Ted Kennedy pushed for a prescription drug benefit (Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 (H.R. 1))which has cost Billions and 10s of Billions so far. Also Ted Kennedy pushed for Education Reform which has cost Billions and 10s of Billions so far. Even Bill Clinton blamed Kennedy for No Child Left Behind Flaws Nuff Said on that sucka!
C’mon, Bro, face the obvious with honesty and integrity. Puddy has answered honestly and accurately with integrity.
Gotta go!
70. Puddybud is shocked SHOCKED spews:
GBS,
These are not Y/N questions and you know it.
Yes, they are Yes or No question, and YOU know it!!
Did President Clinton submit budgets in the1990’s that stopped borrowing money?
Puddy’s real answer: YES!
Did President Clinton submit a budget that started paying down the national debt at rate of $500 million per year?
Puddy’s real answer: YES!
Did George W. Bush stop paying down the national debt for 8 years?
Puddy’s real answer: YES!
Does $500 million x 8 = $4 Trillion dollars?
Puddy’s real answer: YES!
Did George W. Bush borrow in excess of $7 trillion dollars?
Puddy’s real answer: YES!
Is any of this the fault of Republican policies?
Puddy has answered honestly and accurately with integrity.
So what does this all really mean?
Liberals spend the People’s money more wisely than Republicans.
President Clinton inherited the largest deficit in history and the largest national debt in history from Bush Sr (all records of fiscal irresponsibility were broken by his idiot son.) and he inherited a nasty recession. (again, his son did worse.)
In just a few years time Clinton righted the economy, stopped borrowing money, created 22 million new jobs, led the greatest economic expanse in the history of the world, and started paying down the debt. On BILL CLINTON’S WATCH!!
George Bush did the opposite. Lied about the Iraq WMD, lied about the Iraq/al Qeada connection, lied about spying on American citizens, lied about torture and was a failed president.
While there is some blame to go around to everyone for the financial collapse of America, far and away 95%+ of the blame can be laid at the feet of Republicans. Especially Reagan Republicans.
Say what you like, you do any ways, but the fact remains the public blames the Republican Party for our mess today. Period.
IF, and this is a BIG IF, the Republicans cannot fabricate a net gain in either house of congress in 2010, and cannot get a net gain in congressional seats in either house in 2012 and lose the WH to Obama again, you’re done as a serious national party.
In just 4 election cycles you will have gone from boasting about the “permanent Republican majority” to being a thing of the past like the 8-track player.
Good God, man. Now is not the time to quibble with Liberals over your mistakes. Now is the time for you to admit them, recognize them, and move your political ideology far to the left of where you are now, or you will surely cease to exist as a credible national entity.
Think about that. Not as a taunt, but as political reality.
Let me say that gain – move your political ideology far to the left of where you are now, or you will surely cease to exist as a credible national entity.
The time is running out FAST for you to correct the course and not “stay the course.”
12 months from now we’ll be starting the next critical test for your party’s survival, should you guys really be trotting out Dick Cheney with is approval rating in the teens as the face of the GOP?
Should you really be purging your party of moderates like Gen. Powell?
Should you really be voting on rebranding the Democratic Party “socialists?”
Is that really the best use of your party’s time and political capital? While Obama is stealing the show at every chance?
Good luck, bub.
@72
In just a few years time Clinton righted the economy, stopped borrowing money, created 22 million new jobs, led the greatest economic expanse in the history of the world, and started paying down the debt. On BILL CLINTON’S WATCH!!
Well, the wonder of bubbles. Factor out that and those numbers look a little different.
So what does this all really mean?
That you’re a dope. Ideological rants like this are a dime a dozen, and like 99.99% of similar forecasts, worth just about . . . zero.
What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.
President Obama changed the budget process to take as many of those things presidents and Congresses had tried to keep off the budget in order to make the deficit numbers look better and put them into the actual budget, so the American people have a better idea where their money is being spent. Was Clinton’s budget dishonest? Yes, in exactly the same way Bush’s was. The difference was in degree. Bush’s dishonesty was simply more massive than Clinton’s, but they were both trying to make the numbers look better than they were.
It’s important to keep one thing in mind, if someone claims that Obama added, say, $1 trillion to the deficit, or claims that Bush’s last deficit was in the $450 billion range, you can safely conclude one of two things: either that person is an idiot or a liar.
Now, Lambchop’s claims to intelligence are frequent and vociferous, so let’s take him at his word (though, I must confess, in my experience actual intelligence tends to be inversely proportionate to the number of times one must proclaim one’s intelligence, but YMMV). He must therefore be – and this conclusion is backed by his extensive history here – a liar.
Why else would such an intelligent person make such an asinine comparison unless to deceive?
@ 74
You forgot the link, ’cause Puddy can’t find these kinds of facts for himself.
@55 And Lambchop scores an own goal, accidentally agreeing that the 2008 deficit was $1 trillion. Thanks Lambchop!
—-
Provide your data source(s).
Provide your data source(s).
The U.S. Department of the Treasury. If you don’t like the number, take it up with them.
@77
But the problem isn’t the number . . . it’s the treatment of the number . . .
But the problem isn’t the number . . . it’s the treatment of the number . . .
As I pointed out @ 74.
GBS @ 72 writes:
The Republican Party’s problem isn’t where their ideology lies along the political spectrum. The Republican Party’s problem is that their ideology trumps reality every single time. As proof of this, I offer the long-standing squabble I’ve had with various wingnuts around hear regarding the argument I reiterated in my comment at 64 above.
It’s a simple argument. The causal chain leading from the structure of the Bush tax cuts to the increase in demand for mortgage backed securities is so straight-forward, a first-year Econ student can recognize it. Have the wingnuts around here spent even one moment talking about that argument? Nope. See Jane’s “French hedgerows” above.
Have you heard wingnuts talking about the Great Depression and the Smoot-Hawley (Hoot-Smalley if you’re Congresswoman Michelle Bachman) Tariff Act? It’s truly amazing. In 1929, US imports were just a hair over 5% of GDP. Yet, to hear wingnuts talk about it, Smoot-Hawley’s approximately 26% increase in import tariffs was the single, most significant factor causing the Great Depression’s 25% drop in GDP.
No. Republicans need to figure out that there is such a thing as reality, and that one’s ideology needs to shift and adjust whenever it bumps up against that reality. Until they do, they will continue to be a blight on America.
joie corrected GBS:
joie: Puddy already proved by multiple economists that almost half of those 22 Million jobs were around minimum wage. – Another Great Puddy Comeback
GBS, you should stop trying to persuade others by putting three letter words in my mouth. Puddy told th whole truth and because it didn’t fit into your compartment you had to editorialize!
Tsk tsk tsk. Cheap lunch for you dude!
To the moron@75 who thought Bob Graham was in the same room as Nancy Pelosi – OOPS,
Those accounting gimmicks were the same ones used by William Jefferson Clinton to CLAIM he blanced the budget fool! Puddy loves how you cherry pick articles. Don Joe forgets the FEMA costs for the 1998-1999 Carolina hurricanes and how Jesse Jackson smack Wet Willy around on how he EPIC FAILED the public. Those costs were not in the budget Don Joe. EPIC FOOL!
Did you drink Steve’s Stupid Solution? Looking at too much C# code lately? Your son’s sport team losing?
Another Total Jerk@74… Nope you dope. Using the CBO values as Puddy always did. Puddy posted the CBO values. But since you suggested GAAP, Puddy went back and found Clinton really didn’t balance the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors. That’s comparing Macintosh to Granny Smith moron!
You, Another Total Jerk, are a revisionist fool!
Hmmm… Another Total Jerk, who controlled Congress for FY2008 and FY2009? Where does spending originate Another Total Jerk?
Hmmm……………………….?
Another Total Jerk@76, where did Puddy agree you, large fool? You keep placing the link but nowhere does Puddy say “Puddy agrees with Another Total Jerk”. Find the word agree. Do you understand the word use?
Here let Puddy help you:
CBO values were $438 Billion. Keep looking. Implication doesn’t count. But you count as a HA swineflu weasel moron.
ButtPutty is foaming at the mouth again. Would ButtPutty like a water boarding to wash away the foam? I’ll be gentle.
Ekim, go back to your goats. That’s something you are expert at!
But since you suggested GAAP, Puddy went back and found Clinton really didn’t balance the budget.
————-
This is correct. If you look at revenue growth during the time it gets a big bounce because of the bubble. That’s apparent. This revenue helped put a lid on the growth of the debt held by the public. On the flip side, when the bubble burst its impact was reversed and now all those corporate and capital gains became tax losses, etc.
Throughout this period intragovernmental debt, whose yearly growth is driven mostly by interest payments and payroll surpluses transferred to the general fund (and spent), grew like clockwork.
[Deleted]
@77
Yes, but what’s the actual data and specific source and what’s the equivalent for Obama (and specific source) in the “apples to apples” comparison you’re making @74?
where did Puddy agree (sic) you
I’ll give you a hint. You did it here too.
Goooooooooaaaaaaallllllllll!!!!
Puddy @ 83 spews:
To the moron@75 who thought Bob Graham was in the same room as Nancy Pelosi
Apparently Puddy’s managed to already forget my correction of that error. Puddy’s also managed to also forget that the first actual full briefing of the Gang of Eight on enhanced interrogation techniques didn’t happen until 2006.
Puddy has a habit of forgetting inconvenient facts. And, when you point out that he’s forgotten those facts, Puddy effluvial response is always, “Puddy not talk about dat!”
Well, no shit, Sherlock. That’s the point. Puddy never explains why he refuses to address relevant facts. Puddy will only accuse us of deflecting for having the temerity to point out that he’s not addressing relevant facts.
As evidence:
Those accounting gimmicks were the same ones used by William Jefferson Clinton
No shit! TJ already pointed this out in his comment at 74:
TJ’s point is that Obama’s budget doesn’t include the same accounting gimmicks that Clinton and Bush used to make their budgets rosier than they really were. Why does Puddy continue to argue as if this were a controversial issue? Only Puddy knows why.
But, that’s not the worst of it. TJ cites the US Department of Treasury as his source for the number he’s given. In other words, Puddy wants to talk about the CBO’s estimates of the past deficit (and we’ve already seen problems with CBO estimates). TJ, on the other hand, is looking at the amount of money that the Treasury actually borrowed.
Does Puddy explain his preference for estimates over actual borrowing figures? Nope. I’m guessing we’ll be subjected to yet another round of “Puddy not talk about dat!” with not a single explanation for why Puddy chooses estimates over actual borrowing. That’s Puddy’s SOP.
Amazing. TJ out at 9:32, Don Joe out at 9:33 to defend him. Siamese twins?
@93 In other words, Puddy wants to talk about the CBO’s estimates of the past deficit (and we’ve already seen problems with CBO estimates).
———-
fyi, Obama used the same deficit data in his budget docs as Puddy for Bush’s deficit. What’s good enough for Obama . . .
With a lowly GPA at the “other” UW in Wisconsin, you have your own deficit. Numbers, as you FINALLY admitted after making mince meat out of them in some of your weighty “analysis” on HA, are not your strength (and that’s being kind!).
There’s a reason why you’re now programming at MSFT and not doing economic analysis.
Another Total Jerk, keep trying to show everyone Puddy said something the pixels show differently.
Funny how you scored on your own goal. Score by Puddy assist to Another Total Jerk.
Jane and Joie, what the “economics perfesser” cum programmer forgets is the amount of extra needed in Social Security and Medicare needed now. It’s there if you carefully look, but the libtards oops… HA’s swineflue weasel crew didn’t want this out.
Another Total Jerk above tried to use the GAAP ANAL-YSIS argument but Puddy was too quick to let that slide. When he went to attack GWB, Another Total Jerk was confronted with his own idiocy. Another Total Jerk went to his insipid “let me set the record straight” argument. Did he come out and state Clinton lied about balancing the budget before then? HELL NO!
The SS crossover point occurs around 2016 when more $$$ leave than come in. This increases the Bush gap and is stated in GAAP documents more than the Clinton gap. In 2028 Medicare will surpass SS payments. Don’t take Puddy’s word for it, look it up. Get Don Joe to help you since he accuses Puddy of having no search skillz.
Also moronic Don Joe forgets that 9/11 killed our economy. Yep, forget that argument.
And Don Joe and Another Total Jerk don’t want you to know the projected 10 year deficits from the CBO went from 9.3 Trillion to almost 12 Trillion? Almost 1.2 Trillion per year for the next decade. Thank “the messiah” leftist loonies.
It’s hilarious watching Lambchop arguing with himself… and losing.
Another Total Jerk’s first post 05/21/2009 at 5:47 am
Another Total Jerk claim the US Treasury… 05/21/2009 at 8:05 pm hmmm… where’s da beef?
Puddy placed his first CBO link… 05/21/2009 at 7:46 am
Even Don Joe cited Puddy’s use of CBO above. When caught in their own trap a HA swineflu weasel will deflect, obfuscate and demur over their lunacy…
See how stupid Another Total Jerk is @98. Set up his own goal, shot and scored on himself.
PRICELESS
@98
What’s even more hilarious is how you ignored the request for data and analysis @91. You do have the data, you can perform the analysis?
Let’s see something from you.
Jane @ 93 spews:
fyi, Obama used the same deficit data in his budget docs as Puddy for Bush’s deficit.
Why do you think it necessary to provide an “fyi” regarding an issue of fact that’s not at controversy? Do you simply not understand that Obama is projecting a deficit into the future, while Puddy is using an estimate to figure out what we actually did in the past? Clearly, this past vs. future thing is not your forté.
With a lowly GPA at the “other” UW in Wisconsin
Wow. A 3.27 GPA on a 4.0 scale is “lowly” in Jane’s eyes. For the record, Jane, what was your GPA and what was your field of concentration? And, for that matter, what do you actually do for a living? What are your bona fides?
There’s a reason why you’re now programming at MSFT and not doing economic analysis.
Yes. I make more money than your average economist makes–a fact which you haven’t contested in any substantive way.
As for “mincemeat,” I suggest you get back to trimming French hedgerows. If you can’t follow the rather simple argument I’ve outlined in my comment at 64, then you are clearly not qualified to discuss Economic policy.
Puddy @ 97 spews:
Also moronic Don Joe forgets that 9/11 killed our economy. Yep, forget that argument.
First of all, that wouldn’t be an argument. That would be an observation. An argument requires that we take several different observations, and use those to reach a coherent conclusion–a deductive process in which Puddy never actually engages.
Second, this notion that 9/11 “killed” our economy is an interesting twist on the facts. The 2001 recession lasted a whopping 8 months. Some “killing” that.
And Don Joe and Another Total Jerk don’t want you to know the projected 10 year deficits from the CBO went from 9.3 Trillion to almost 12 Trillion? Almost 1.2 Trillion per year for the next decade.
Where does Puddy get this idea? And Puddy complains about us deflecting? Having been caught out over the fact that he’s using CBO estimates to look backward, he now wants to piss and moan about projected deficits further afield? It’d be nice if Puddy made up his mind about what he actually did want to discuss.
But, since Puddy wants to discuss these projected deficits, let’s talk about ways to reduce them. We can take two rather effective measures to reduce those deficits:
1) Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. As I’ve noted many times before (and which has yet to be refuted by our hedgerow-trimming wingnuts) those tax cuts did more harm than good–way more harm than good.
2) Curb health-care costs. In this regard, one wonders why Puddy would take President Obama to task while, apparently, having no regard for fact that health insurance companies appear to be reneging on a deal that would have easily trimmed $2 trillion of that projected deficit?
No, we can expect Puddy and Friends to fight health care reform tooth and nail every step of the way forward. After all, we’re talking about people who are far more interested in trimming French hedgerows than they are in proposing viable and effective solutions to the problems we face.
As for “mincemeat,” I suggest you get back to trimming French hedgerows. If you can’t follow the rather simple argument I’ve outlined in my comment at 64, then you are clearly not qualified to discuss Economic policy.
———
That’s exactly the problem you dope, your arguments are “rather simple.” In fact, they are amazingly simple . . . which takes us all the way back to that 3.27 GPA which you thought worthy enough to publish. Too, too much!
People will not waste much time in discussions w/you that involve any kind of serious analysis. (I’m surprised Puddy has spent as much time as he has with you). That’s simply not your thing. (Carrot: I’m sure you’re well suited for what you do at MSFT, though the company’s an also ran sorry to say).
@97 “Also moronic Don Joe forgets that 9/11 killed our economy. Yep, forget that argument.”
Thanks for the reminder that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. That’s twice this last decade that the economy was “killed” while we were under Republican rule. Way to go, “morans”.
Puffybutt comes here regularly to be proven to be a cum-drunk bitch.
You do have the data, you can perform the analysis?
Let’s see something from you.
I’ll be happy to provide the link, as soon as someone credibly claims I’m wrong about the numbers.
@ 103
That’s exactly the problem you dope, your arguments are “rather simple.” In fact, they are amazingly simple
Gosh, back at 63, Jane was whining:
You can be sure nobody understood YOUR “argument,” least of all YOU!
First my argument was so complicated that no one could possibly follow it. Now, my argument is so simple, that it’s not worth anyone’s time to try to refute it. Looks like Jane’s getting lost in her French hedgerow.
There aren’t many people who have failed to notice that Jane has not refuted my argument. All Jane has done is make lame, and now contradictory, excuses for having failed to refute that argument.
which takes us all the way back to that 3.27 GPA which you thought worthy enough to publish.
You asked, I answered. I’ve asked you, and you haven’t answered. By your argument, we should conclude that your overall GPA isn’t worth sharing.
People will not waste much time in discussions w/you that involve any kind of serious analysis.
Yes. Most people are capable of seeing that the argument I posted at 64 is a rather iron-clad argument. The ones who are intellectually honest about it will generally let it go at that. The ones who aren’t will find a variety of excuses to spend time attacking me rather than attacking my arguments, and then have the temerity to say that I’m wasting their time.
Jane, why is it that whenever you post, I’m reminded of that old skit from SNL with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain?
Another Total Jerk farts:
Sorry bub, not credible. But in your mind you are in-credible!
Most people are capable of seeing that the argument I posted at 64 is a rather iron-clad argument
———
Iron-clad? When you were pressed repeatedly on your data, which confused dates and sources, you took step after step backward trying to justify your answers. In the end – after a COLOSSAL WASTE of everyone’s time – you admitted that math wasn’t your thing. That was an understatement! It’s only in your mind that you think ANYONE had the slightest idea what you were talking about. And it was certain that you didn’t!
Here, let’s give you another shot at redemption. Since TJ – who bears a remarkable resemblance to you in his/her inability to answer simple questions (to say nothing of the timing of the posts!) – can’t answer the one posted @91, why don’t you? You and TJ spent time tag teaming up above, so you should be up to the task . . .
Don Joe shocks the world with
Now that’s truly amazing Don Joe. This has to really upset the leftist whack job jihadists on HA swineflu weasels. They claimed the recession from 9/11 went for years. Your buds in the Dummocraptic party said that too. Now revisionist histrionics from Don Joe.
Now this CBO looking backward crap. Notice how Don Joe always twists truths into untruths? Hint stupido look up this post…05/20/2009 at 2:15 pm. Is using FY09 looking backward? Puddy posted that first fool. You are a blooming idiot. It’s Don Joe who can figger out time chronology to make a worthwhile argument. Too bad he is two dimensional in his thinking. The rest is a bunch of smelly farts.
PRICELESS!
EPIC FAIL!
110 You are a blooming idiot.
———-
I’m convinced he’s time sharing the same brain cells as TJ – which explains a lot!
Yes Don Joe, let’s go to British health care where the guvmint can decide you are not worth the treatment and they then in the future turn you into Soylent Green tablets. Have you seen the latest health care commercials? No? Staying ignant there too?
Oh look the stupid brothers arrived, steve and stillbentover.
Take a few letters from stillbentover and you have steve. Puddy still doesn’t know if that denigrates steve or improves stillbentover. Let the peeps decide.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
Jane @ 109
Iron-clad?
You have yet to refute the argument, Jane. Nor, for that matter, has anyone else.
When you were pressed repeatedly on your data, which confused dates and sources, you took step after step backward trying to justify your answers.
What on earth are you talking about, Jane? Apparently you’re still wandering around in your French hedgerows.
For the record, this is what happened:
1) I posted the general outline of the argument that I have restated in my comment @ 64 above, and added an offhanded remark about the budgetary effects of the Bush tax cuts. In my remark, I misquoted figures from Wikipedia.
2) Someone asked me for my source, and I gave my source. Someone pointed out that I’d typed “2004” where the Wikipedia entry said “2008.” I, essentially said, “Right you are, sorry for the mistake.”
3) Ever since then, Jane and a host of other intellectual midgets have attempted to make some kind of issue out of that simple typographical error. Not once has any of these intellectual midgets actually figured out how that data relates to the argument I’ve made, nor has any of them ever asked me to provide any explanation of the relationship. Jane’s “French hedgerow” consists of a lot of kicked-up sand about various sources and estimates over the years without ever taking notice of the relatively small magnitude of the differences in the various estimates that were cited at that time.
4) Fast-forward to the past couple of days where Puddy cites the Oct. 2008 CBO estimate for 2008, and, lo and behold, it’s 25% worse than any of the estimates that were bandied about in earlier discussions.
So, now, Jane thinks I need “another shot at redemption.” Another shot at redemption from what, Jane? I have never mislead anyone about my sources, and I’ve not ever failed to produce a link for a source when asked. If you believe otherwise, then please post a link to the comments that prove your case.
If you can’t produce links to any such comments, then you owe me an apology. Not that I expect you to actually ever come clean on such an apology, nor, for that matter, am I particularly attached to ever getting one.
I’m merely interested in pointing out the intellectual turpitude of people like Jane who will spend endless hours harping about someone else’s alleged inability to come up with the good and, yet, completely fail to deliver on any coherent counter argument when you press her for one.
Come on, Jane. I’ve given you plenty of opportunity to step up to the plate and refute my argument that the Bush tax cuts have done far more harm than good to our economy. Time for you to either take that argument on directly, or forever slink back into your French hedgrows having been proved to be incapable of discussing even a “simple” Economic argument.
1) I posted the general outline of the argument that I have restated in my comment @ 64 above, and added an offhanded remark about the budgetary effects of the Bush tax cuts. In my remark, I misquoted figures from Wikipedia.
——
You did much more than that. Much more. You had no idea what you where talking about and when pressed tried to cover your tracks with a torrent of blather. You quoted sources you couldn’t produce, and then tried to find “suitable” replacements. It was a very dishonest performance. It was apparent you were in over your head.
You should be able to answer the question @91. TJ refused (after ignoring requests!) and retreated into a response that bore a strong resemblance to your earlier performance.
You tag teamed with TJ and this should be straightforward.
Provide an answer.
Puddy @ 110 spews:
Now that’s truly amazing Don Joe. This has to really upset the leftist whack job jihadists on HA swineflu weasels.
Truly amazing? I provided a link. Apparently Puddy, now, doesn’t want to talk about actual data. Who knows what insanity is whirling around in Puddy’s addled brain?
Now this CBO looking backward crap. Notice how Don Joe always twists truths into untruths? Hint stupido look up this post…05/20/2009 at 2:15 pm. Is using FY09 looking backward?
Talk about twisting truths into untruths. Apparently Puddy is now disavowing this comment, which contains a link to this CBO post.
The Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry strikes yet again. Did Puddy fail to remember his own reference to the CBO’s 2008 final estimate posted to the CBO Director’s blog on October 7 of 2008? Apparently so.
Puddy @ 112 spews:
Yes Don Joe, let’s go to British health care where the guvmint
Why would Puddy want to talk about the British health care system when nothing like that system is even on the table as a policy proposal? Clearly, Puddy isn’t interested in having a serious debate on actual policy proposals. He’d rather debate against straw men.
This is the other half of Puddy’s intellectual ineptitude. He will either refuse to address relevant facts (protesting with a “Puddy not talking about dat!” effluvia), or will argue against something you’ve never actually proposed.
Puddy is a perfect replica of the Republican Party in miniature. He’s woefully inept at explaining what’s wrong with our country, and he has no viable solutions for the problems we actually have. He will spend hours upon hours telling us what not to do, but he hasn’t a clue about what we should do.
Jane @ 115 spews:
You did much more than that. Much more. You had no idea what you where talking about and when pressed tried to cover your tracks with a torrent of blather.
And now, Jane, you are simply flat out lying. If you want to substantiate these accusations, then post links to comments I’ve made.
Is there no end to the the depths to which you will sink in order to pursue a personal attack designed to cover up the fact that you simply cannot refute my argument?
And now, Jane, you are simply flat out lying.
————–
Sadly, no.
And if you had any understanding of the issues you claim to in this thread, answering @91 should be very easy. You sat and tag teamed with TJ – your other half – skewering others, but when asked for simple sources and analysis became silent or evaded.
This was your earlier performance.
Answer @91.
Don Joe: You foolish simpleton… You forgot this: the whole quote. You love to do that Don Joe. Leave off the meat, so you can insert your spam (something posing as meat):
Yep you provided a link. Now NutRight, Proud Leftist, and the other swineflu weasels can’t make their insipid arguments against Puddy anymore… Thanks Don Joe for the ammunition.
Hey leftist pinheads, Don Joe said you is wrong and brought ammunition to show y’all are dummies. Also Another Total Jerk has admitted Clinton didn’t balance the budget.
This has been a productive thread destroying libtard thought the easy way… let libtards do it for you.
BULLSHITTIUM ALERT BULLSHITTIUM ALERT Star Trek Klaxon horn sounds
Again look at how Don Joe argues above…
END OF BULLSHITTIUM ALERT END OF BULLSHITTIUM ALERT Star Trek Klaxon horn ends
Where on God’s green earth did Puddy say that Don Joe? My CBO posts are like the Roman ‘god’ Janus – Forward and Backward looking.
NUTHING Puddy Posted is refutable fool. Puddy has always used the CBO. Puddy introduced the CBO to most of the HA swineflu weasels. Yet in that small pea-brain mind you twist and turn truths into Don Joe lies… and then you call it Partial Punditry. Speaking of ineptitude, your argument is inept and and Puddy gives you his gratitude for proving yourself inept. Keep going cuz you getting smacked down BIG TIME!
Jane, you ignorant slut!
(Credit to Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live)
Hey ButtPutty, I see you are foaming at the mouth again. Ready for a water boarding to clean up?
Ekim, after you YouTube your goat sex demonstration you like to brag about here. Will you be the rider or the ridee? You have to identify it’s you so we’ll know it wasn’t steve or stillbentover…
BTW, buttputty is the standard act of hershey highway loving leftist pinheads in SF and some Seattle locales. I’m Puddybud fool!
One other thing, didn’t gay marriage go down in flames in New Hampshire? I guess no buttputty there!
Jane @ 118
Sadly, no.
Sadly, Jane, yes. You are lying. Please cite specific comments that I’ve made which would substantiate your claims.
And if you had any understanding of the issues you claim to in this thread, answering @91 should be very easy. You sat and tag teamed with TJ – your other half – skewering others, but when asked for simple sources and analysis became silent or evaded.
Honestly, you people really take the cake. Someone asked TJ for his source. In his comment @ 77 TJ said:
Since then, you and the other mental midgets have been pissing and moaning about whether or not TJ has cited a source for his numbers. It’s truly amazing. What, you can’t go search the Treasury web sites yourselves? This failure is TJ’s fault? Mine?
I’d say that you can’t possibly get more pathetic than this, Jane, but, then, you’d quite likely step up and prove that wrong as well.
@119 “Puddy introduced the CBO to most of the HA swineflu weasels.”
What a crazy fucking loon! Hey, Numbnuts, win any elections lately?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Memorial Day must be a drag for you troop-hating wingnuts. Although you’ll never grasp the meaning of this day of honor and remembrance, at least you’ll get a day off from work.
Wrong stillbentover@125. Most of us whom think right are grateful to those who died overseas. We don’t spit on them or harrass those who return safely when they walk down the street like the leftist pinheads you hang with.
Since then, you and the other mental midgets have been pissing and moaning about whether or not TJ has cited a source for his numbers
————–
He was asked this @91:
“Yes, but what’s the actual data and specific source and what’s the equivalent for Obama (and specific source) in the “apples to apples” comparison you’re making @74?”
which is for the specific source and deficit data he references, not just: “US Treasury.” He was also asked for the source and specific Obama data he references.
Do you understand the difference?
He/you ignored requests and then finally retreated to this lame response:
“I’ll be happy to provide the link, as soon as someone credibly claims I’m wrong about the numbers.”
You did the same in response to repeated requests. You at first ignored, and then finally produced this:
“Since then, you and the other mental midgets have been pissing and moaning about whether or not TJ has cited a source for his numbers.”
Provide the specific data and its sources, not just “US Treasury.”
You tag teamed with TJ – you two have much in common, incidentally – as though you were on top of these issues.
Provide an answer @91 and stop evading. You may be slow, but you can’t possibly be that slow.
Put that 3.27 GPA and “economics” degree to work.
Answer @91.
Puddy @ 119 spews:
Puddy has always used the CBO.
No shit! That’s my whole point!
What Puddy won’t do is provide any explanation for why we should use CBO data for 2008 when we can look at what the Treasury actually borrowed for 2008.
Yet another epic Puddy fail.
क्या आप अंग्रेज़ी बोलते हैं?
@126 It’d be nice if you wing-nut traitors would restrain yourselves and try not to spit on any troops this weekend.
Don Joe shits
Wasn’t your point earlier fool. How convenient for you now!!!!!
Jane @ 127
which is for the specific source and deficit data he references, not just: “US Treasury.” He was also asked for the source and specific Obama data he references.
Do you understand the difference?
Of course we understand the difference, but why the hell would that be relevant to this discussion? I might as well ask you to cite a source with specific data for the amount of calories you had for breakfast this morning.
What, exactly, is your complaint about the specificity of TJ’s number in the context of this particular argument? Demanding that people go off on wild chases for irrelevant details is one of the oldest, and more pathetic, rhetorical sleights of hand in the book. No one here is surprised that you’d stoop to doing so in an effort to browbeat people into kowtowing to your demands.
Give us a rhetorical, as opposed your penchant for personal attack, reason for needing more specific data. Until you put this in the context of the actual arguments being made, then TJ is very justified in tell you to go piss up a rope.
Puddy @ 131 spews:
Wasn’t your point earlier fool.
It sure as hell was. My point hasn’t changed, nor has Puddy’s inability to follow the argument.
I will reiterate:
What Puddy won’t do is provide any explanation for why we should use CBO data for 2008 when we can look at what the Treasury actually borrowed for 2008.
And note that, well, Puddy has not provided any such explanation.
@132 Of course we understand the difference, but why the hell would that be relevant to this discussion?
————
But without the actual data – and sources behind it – we can’t possibly know if your/TJ claim is true:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
?
Provide us with the actual data you’re using for Bush and the actual data you’re using for Obama – with sources – for the “apples to apples” comparison you’re discussing. You can’t possibly have concluded “As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
without numbers to compare.
You can’t possibly be so slow that you don’t understand what’s be asked for. Or can you?
Provide us with the data and stop evading.
Don Joe, you missed the major point like always. Puddy has been using CBO data since 2004 when Puddy first arrived here. For Puddy to switch to another source after the change of power would be disingenuous, like your debate style, twisting truth to make it fit your paradigm. Pair of dimes fool! 20 cents.
@135 you missed the major point like always
He’s being intellectually dishonest. You can’t make the claim @134 without two numbers to compare, one for Bush and one for Obama. I asked for this up above as have others, data and sources. Here we are, 135 posts, and we’ve yet to see the numbers that back up this claim:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
As you can see? There’s nothing to compare, let alone sources.
Don Joe can’t come up with the data, just endless spin.
Jane @ 134
You can’t possibly have concluded “As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
without numbers to compare.
Really? You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0? Where did you learn Algebra, Jane?
ButtPutty@122
Ekim, after you YouTube your goat sex demonstration you like to brag about here.
I don’t get invited to the Troll goat parties. Next time you have one invite me and I’ll bring my video camera. Mind you, I don’t do goats myself.
BTW, buttputty is the standard act of hershey highway loving leftist pinheads in SF and some Seattle locales.
Don’t forget Larry Craig.
I’m Puddybud fool!
You answer to ButtPutty.
One other thing, didn’t gay marriage go down in flames in New Hampshire? I guess no buttputty there!
Must be why you’re still here. Huh, ButtPutty.
Puddy @ 135
Don Joe, you missed the major point like always.
No. I think I got the point entirely.
For Puddy to switch to another source after the change of power would be disingenuous
No. The point is that Puddy uses the cloak of consistency to justify using the wrong number for one particular purpose. This has nothing to do with any switch in power. It has everything to do with the fact that Puddy can’t figure out the difference between an estimate and an actual measurement.
joie @ 136
He’s being intellectually dishonest.
No. I’m refusing to kowtow to the browbeating of people like you who can’t come up with a reasonable justification for your requests for a fishing expedition.
You can’t make the claim @134 without two numbers to compare, one for Bush and one for Obama.
I refer you to the Algebra lesson @ 137.
Really? You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0? Where did you learn Algebra, Jane?
———-
More blather. To conclude:
“the increase in the deficit is not very large”
from this:
“As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large”
you need actual data. Give us the number you used for Bush’s deficit and the number you’re using for Obama’s deficit. We can only assess the size of the increase by knowing the numbers.
Provide them and stop spinning.
You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0? Where did you learn Algebra, Jane?
And incidentally, Euler, positive numbers are generally greater than 0.
Stupid wingnut couldn’t even take it for ten seconds:
“I want to find out if it’s torture,” Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.
With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.
Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.
“It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that’s no joke,”Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. “It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back…It was instantaneous…and I don’t want to say this: absolutely torture.” “I wanted to prove it wasn’t torture,” Mancow said. “They cut off our heads, we put water on their face…I got voted to do this but I really thought ‘I’m going to laugh this off.’ ”
http://crooksandliars.com/john.....-waterboar
There’s video if you, like me, enjoy watching a wingnut being “tortured”.
Waterboarding. I bet Hannity wouldn’t last three seconds. Hell, I bet Puddy would squeal about his mama being a terrorist if he simply had to think about it for three seconds.
Here’s a great link that demonstrates how in 1983, Ronald Reagn exploded the national debt and it continued under Bush 41.
Then, on Bill Clinton’s watch the rate of borrow begins to slow down, peaks and actually drops off until Bush 43 becomes president.
Then, the rate of borrow explodes again.
Scroll down the page until you see the blue bar graph. It’s great because all $$ values are adjusted to 2000 inflated dollars so you get an accurate A/B comparison over time.
Blather all you want, clearly, borrowing stopped on Clinton’s watch then it actually went down.
Republicans got all the levers of government and borrowing went sky high again.
Bottom line is this: Liberals spend the public’s money more wisely than Republicans.
Period.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
joie @ 141
More blather. To conclude
Hm. Has anyone noticed how “joie” and “Jane” use a similar quoting style? Why the different screen names? If we’re going to make statements about intellectual honesty around here, I think such questions are valid.
“the increase in the deficit is not very large”
Gosh. Well, you know, if we go back up to TJ’s original comment at 74, we read:
Looks like you got numbers, and TJ cited his source. Why the browbeating?
Provide them and stop spinning.
No, twinkle toes. You stop your browbeating. If you think there’s a legitimate point to be made in the larger discussion with more precise numbers, then do your own homework.
@ 142
And incidentally, Euler, positive numbers are generally greater than 0.
Holy shit! First joie/Jane whomever was complaining, because the numbers weren’t precise enough. Now, this twit’s complaining because I was being too precise.
Will the trivial complaints of these nitwits never cease?
Steve @ 143:
WOW!! THANK YOU!!!!
What a way to end the week, seeing a pansy ass, big mouth, right-wing yum-yum last just a few seconds while being water boarded and saying it’s absolute torture.
Tough break for this guy, though. Now Limbaugh will order him out of the Republican Party.
I only wish Sean Hannity would live up to his words and get water boarded for military families charity.
Keith Olbermann is willing to put $1,000 per SECOND.
The difference between Hannity and our military fighting men and women, even the gay ones, they say what they do then the DO WHAT THEY SAY!!!
Sean Hannity is not an honorable man, nor is he a “good American.”
Any conservative on this blog who thinks water boarding is not torture please let me know. I’ll be happy to water board you like Mancow got treated.
Except no EMT’s and no giving up until I say you’re done.
Bush/Cheney are war criminals.
“no giving up until I say you’re done”
Heh- That could be a tough going for our Marvin and Mr. Klynical.
What do you call Mr. Klynical when he’s standing on a street corner with two goats under his arms while talking to Marvin?
A pimp.
Steve, it’s just mind over matter.
I don’t mind and Mr. “I hate the troops” Kynical doesn’t matter.
While I was off attending to other things, Don Joe has been doing yeoman’s work slapping around the J’s. Thank you, Don Joe.
I love that “they” seem to think he and I are the same person, but they’re having trouble confirming the existence of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Evidently these are the types of people who believe pro wrestling is real and the moon landings were faked.
Anyhoo, to reiterate and clarify, I have not refused to provide a link. As I said, if anyone questions my claim that the deficit in 2008 was $1 trillion, provide a specific objection. Make it credible. If you do, I will happily provide the link. If I am wrong, I will admit it quite readily.
I note that so far, no one has even attempted to claim any other figure using the methods even Lambchop has called the more honest and truthful accounting approach. That is a telling omission, I would say.
Now, this twit’s complaining because I was being too precise.
Right, you wanted to really reinforce the point that a positive number is greater than 0. Thanks! I think this is more like inept . . . you really didn’t know any better as you worked out your mathematical “ideas” for us.
You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?
If this is the extent of your argument, then these numbers are as good as any if the actual numbers don’t matter, just your really fancy “mathematical” relationship above:
0 = $2T
B = $.45T
x = $.55T
In fact, we can use any number for your 0, including 3T, 4T, 5T . . .. Do you see where this is heading, yet?
This:
“As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large”
could easily be very false depending on the actual values. Do you need help on seeing that, too?
Is any of this making sense?
If only you could somehow come up with those two apparently very elusive numbers that are required to prove your claim.
Maybe we should send out a search party?
The telling omission Another Total Jerk is you taking until 5/21/09 to admit Clinton lied about balancing the budget.
That’s TELLING
I never suggested otherwise, Lambchop. You’re the one who brought him up. I agree; it is telling that I didn’t immediately address an irrelevant issue that undermined your position even further.
And Lambchop scores yet another own goal!
I’m glad that you’ve now agreed with me that your preferred method for calculating the deficit is dishonest three times in this thread. Thanks!
Another Total Jerk… You are as delusional as stillbentover.
Puddy used your hypothesis against GWB and used your hypothesis to prove Clinton was a liar. Where was your voice? Nowhere!
Nowhere has Puddy agreed with you. Puddy still says he uses the CBO. That’s why Don Joe has his pink lace panties tightly wound around his small scrote. You haven’t showed where Puddy agreed with you. Everyone knows you’re a fool, dreaming.
Time and Date stamp
URL
Citation
Butt keep hope alive. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
While I was off attending to other things
Right . . .
As I said, if anyone questions my claim that the deficit in 2008 was $1 trillion
You’re being just a tad slow, TJ. It’s the equivalent Obama number that we need . . . and that you can’t provide.
It’s the equivalent Obama number that we need
J1,
Simple, it’s in the $1.2-1.4 trillion range, according to the CBO, but we won’t know for sure for several years, of course.
And given that Bush’s final budget deficit will be in the $1.8 trillion range, though probably a bit higher (note that even if you subtract the stimulus, it’s still in the $1-1.1 trillion range), and we’re in a recession, that’s not half bad.
Of course, we’re just dealing with estimates for 2009 and 2010, but it’s not the specific numbers that matter; it’s the different approaches. Obama’s approach provides a more honest means for evaluating the size of the deficit than the approach of previous presidents, even Lambchop agrees. We no longer have to look at the “deficit” versus the actual deficit. Those two numbers will be pretty damned similar from now on.
One more, then I’ll stop laughing at you for a while:
The telling omission Another Total Jerk is you taking until 5/21/09 to admit Clinton lied about balancing the budget.
Given that I didn’t start participating in this thread until 5/21/09, it certainly tells us a lot… about you.
Better trolls please.
joie @ 152 spews:
If only you could somehow come up with those two apparently very elusive numbers that are required to prove your claim.
Do you have a problem reading? I just quoted the $1 trillion number TJ gave in the original comment to which you replied, and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above. In fact, Puddy first mentioned the Obama figure way back in his comment @13. No one here has contested that figure.
Nothing “elusive” whatsoever regarding the numbers that had already been given by the time you had asked for them.
Oh, and just in case you can’t figure out TJ’s source for the $1 actual deficit figure for FY 2008, there’s a web site that can be found by searching for “Treasury Direct.” On the home page of that web site, you can find a link to “Debt to the penny”. Click on that link. There are a couple of date controls on that page. You enter the starting date for fiscal year 2008 in the first control, the ending date for fiscal year 2008 in the second control and click on the “Find History” button. I trust you know what to do with the data you’ll get back.
Damn, but TJ’s right. Better trolls, please.
Here’s a better one for our resident trolls; think of it as an opportunity for them to redeem themselves.
One of the reasons the deficit has been blooming as of late, indeed a whopping $401 billion dollars in the first two of FY 2009, is the loss in government revenue due to the recession.
So, why not take the recession completely out of the argument? If the problem really is Obama’s out of control spending, then why don’t you go track down the actual spending numbers between Bush’s budgets and the proposed spending in Obama’s budget. Why not try to make the case that way?
I think most of us know the answer to that, but I’ll not steal the opportunity for our trolls to redeem themselves by actually stepping up to the plate and making a positive argument for a change.
Oh, and just in case you can’t figure out TJ’s source for the $1 actual deficit figure for FY 2008, there’s a web site that can be found by searching for “Treasury Direct.” On the home page of that web site, you can find a link to “Debt to the penny”. Click on that link. There are a couple of date controls on that page. You enter the starting date for fiscal year 2008 in the first control, the ending date for fiscal year 2008 in the second control and click on the “Find History” button. I trust you know what to do with the data you’ll get back.
They have the internet on computers now?
Another Total Jerk:
You posted here 07/26/2005 at 4:08 pm. Where was your condemnation of William Jefferson Clinton lies over a balanced budget then?
Goldy you need better HA swineflu weasels dude!
See ya schmuck!
Another Total Jerk diarrhead:
. How fool? Stretch Face Nancy and Scary Harry approved $407 Billion for FY09 in June 2008.
Keep trying with your lying.
Lambchop,
Admit it, you’re drunk, aren’t you?
162. You should have asked sooner.
163. Have you ever heard of a little outfit called the CBO?
Puddy @ 162 spews:
You posted here 07/26/2005 at 4:08 pm.
On 7/26/2005, TJ posted this comment consisting mostly of a pun involving the word “petafile” posted in a thread where the only mention of Clinton also involved Anita Hill and the word “budget” appears exactly 0 times. How that comment in that thread relates to TJ’s stance on Clinton’s budget is a mystery that Puddy will likely never be able to explain.
Puddy @ 163 spews:
Stretch Face Nancy and Scary Harry approved $407 Billion for FY09 in June 2008.
What a nonsensical statement to make. Puddy has already agreed that the number he cites above is, indeed, a lie due to its use of various accounting gimmicks. So, why does Puddy now cite that number in an effort to accuse TJ of lying?
Do we really need better evidence of Puddy’s addled brain than these two, back-to-back comments of his?
While you left tools are arguing over the past…
Don Joe, as stupid as ever. Another Total Jerk said
Another Total Jerk posted on this blog way back in 2005 moron. He didn’t have the cojones to write about Clinton being a liar then.
You’ve cracked Don Joe.
Puddy @ 167 spews:
Another Total Jerk posted on this blog way back in 2005 moron.
Not at issue. Never was an issue.
He didn’t have the cojones to write about Clinton being a liar then.
Also not at issue, though the “cojones” part is Puddy’s opinion.
Why does Puddy think that merely repeating the facts he’s already cited should make obvious an argument that he has yet to articulate? Puddy hasn’t given us any reason to expect that TJ should have said something about Clinton’s budget in that thread or in any other thread. Is TJ supposed to have simply blurted it out in some completely unrelated thread?
Such is the addled Puddy brain. Watch out. If your very first comment on HA doesn’t contain every conceivable statement of fact to which you would agree, then Puddy will feel free to use your failure to do so as evidence of your supposed hypocrisy.
Another Total Jerk… Nice article. The big words “Obama’s budget”
Nice try fool!
Puddy @ 167 spews:
While you left tools are arguing over the past…
Notice, again, that Puddy doesn’t try to adduce an argument based on the information there. Is Puddy going to return to his claim that Alan Greenspan was a liberal in order to “prove” that this whole mess is the fault of Democrats?
Puddy’s addled brain. It is a wonder to behold.
The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says that the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House.
Game. Set. Match. (To shamelessly mix my metaphors.)
Dismissed… with prejudice.
There he goes again.
Ummm…. Don Joe, your almost Jedi debate techniques don’t work on Puddy. Another Total Jerk admitted on 5/21/09
NUFF Said! Then Puddy asked why didn’t Another Total Jerk mention this before? His answer
Thta’s not what Puddy asked. So Puddy goes back to July 2005 and finds a Another Total Jerk post. He was posting back in 2005 but he never said
before.
NUFF SAID again.
EPIC FAIL!
Puddy @ 169 apparently doesn’t read very well. From that same article:
The current Budget is Bush’s budget, not Obama’s. Obama’s first budget won’t be until fiscal year 2010. What’s the projected deficit for that year? Again, from that article:
Got that? Bush’s budget = $1.8 trillion. Obama’s deficit = $1.4 trillion.
The Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry strikes again.
Another Total Jerk… Obama added 1.4 billion of extra debt in Feb 16, 2009 and March 12, 2009. Two votes delivered by Congressional Donkey.
Of course you missed those proposals and votes.
Dismissed with prejudice due to EPIC FAIL!
Nope Don Joe. Bush 409 Billion. Bush leaves 1/20/09. Obama adds 1.4 Trillion on 2/16 and 3/12 2009.
Got it?
Stupid!
Puddy @ 172 spews:
Don Joe, your almost Jedi debate techniques don’t work on Puddy.
Too true. Puddy is completely impervious to the most straightforward and simplest lines of reasoning.
Thta’s not what Puddy asked.
Puddy never actually asked anything. Puddy asserted that TJ has waited until 5/21/09 to say anything about Clinton, but Puddy hasn’t proven that claim outside this thread. Puddy raised the issue in this thread, and TJ answered in this thread. There is no evidence that TJ’s been duplicitous in any way form or shape.
Truth is, Puddy was caught out being stupid, again, and, rather than be a man and admit he was wrong, Puddy is now trying to convince us that this is really about every comment TJ has made on this blog regardless of the appropriateness of the context in which such comments might have been made.
Yet another epic fail by Puddy’s epically addled brain.
Wow. Lambchop doesn’t even know what the Omnibus Bill did. I would have thought I couldn’t be surprised by his stupidity, but I would have been wrong.
Of course, he’s never been much of a reader…
Puddy @ 172 spews:
Nope Don Joe. Bush 409 Billion. Bush leaves 1/20/09. Obama adds 1.4 Trillion on 2/16 and 3/12 2009.
Fascinating logic considering the fact that the actual budget deficit, according to the US treasury, had already reached $401 billion by the end of the first two months of FY 2009. It set a record. It was even in the news. Is Puddy going to blame that on President Obama?
Puddy appears to not grasp the difference between an appropriation bills and new spending that’s not already in the budget.
Well let’s see, after 156 posts and brain numbing blather like this:
You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?
where it was claimed by Don “Euler” Joe that actual numbers didn’t really matter and we could just plug and play, he now comes up with, “oh, the data was there all along I just forgot to mention it”:
“and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above”
Do you have a problem reading . . . and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above. In fact, Puddy first mentioned the Obama figure way back in his comment @13. No one here has contested that figure.
No, but you do Euler. The only cite above @157 is by Puddy @13, and that is for the FY 2009 budget not the FY2010 budget. And clearly he was comparing the deficit for FY2009 with Bush’s FY2008 deficit. You didn’t catch it?
Apparently not, because now this nonsense:
“Got that? Bush’s budget = $1.8 trillion. Obama’s deficit = $1.4 trillion.”
Well, in that case the original claim that you and TG defended so vigorously absent any data:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
makes no sense whatsoever, since the deficit is going down, not up.
Pressed for data and reduced to churning out inane responses like your “mathematical” wizardry above, you – and so TG – went back to cover your bases with . . . data. However, now you’re getting wrapped around the axle.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what you’re doing?
I was inclined to believe we had one person, one brain, and two names in TG and Don Joe. I was wrong. We have two people, one brain, and two names.
makes no sense whatsoever, since the deficit is going down, not up
J1,
You don’t seem to be much of a reader either.
There’s a simple explanation, which you would have seen if you had been more careful.
I wrote, among other things:
And given that Bush’s final budget deficit will be in the $1.8 trillion range, though probably a bit higher (note that even if you subtract the stimulus, it’s still in the $1-1.1 trillion range), and we’re in a recession, that’s not half bad.
Of course, we’re just dealing with estimates for 2009 and 2010, but it’s not the specific numbers that matter; it’s the different approaches. Obama’s approach provides a more honest means for evaluating the size of the deficit than the approach of previous presidents, even Lambchop agrees. We no longer have to look at the “deficit” versus the actual deficit. Those two numbers will be pretty damned similar from now on.
Notice that I don’t lay the stimulus at Bush’s feet, though it would be entirely reasonable to split it between Bush and Obama. No, I’m referring to the increase from the recorded 2008 deficit and the expected 2009 and 2010 deficits.
My point all along has been that there is a difference between the “budget deficit” and the budget deficit. It was a direct refutation of Lambchop’s claim that Obama’s more honest budget contains radically larger deficits than previous ones.
Perhaps if you spent more time reading and thinking and less time spinning conspiracy theories, you wouldn’t have made such an embarrassing mistake.
joie @ 179 spews:
Puddy @13, and that is for the FY 2009 budget not the FY2010 budget. And clearly he was comparing the deficit for FY2009 with Bush’s FY2008 deficit. You didn’t catch it?
You’re right. My bad.
That does, however, bring us to this:
Well, in that case the original claim that you and TG defended so vigorously absent any data:
makes no sense whatsoever, since the deficit is going down, not up.
For one who was so pedantic as to point out that a positive number is greater than zero, you now can’t seem to make sense of a negative increase? Little wonder you need these things explained to you.
Do you have any idea whatsoever what you’re doing?
Sure we do. We’re entertaining ourselves with what might well be described as a multi-player, text-based, first-person shooter. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than an X-Box Live subscription.
TJ @ 180:
No, I’m referring to the increase from the recorded 2008 deficit and the expected 2009 and 2010 deficits.
I’m afraid that’s going to fly over everyone’s heads here. So, let’s backtrack on this just a bit. Before I get started, here are a couple of links: the OMB’s original budget analysis for FY09 is here (See table 1-3), and the CBO’s monthly budget reports can be found here.
So, Puddy’s basic argument is this: take the CBO’s original estimate (well, actually, Puddy’s taking the $407 billion OMB estimate; the CBO’s estimate was $342 billion dollars), tack on the two big spending bills passed since Obama has become President, and voila! We’ve hit the magic $1.8 trillion dollars from the most recent CBO estimates.
The problem is, the original CBO/OMB estimates were made back in February of 2008. The economic circumstances back then were quite a bit different from the economic circumstances now.
Now, consider FY 08. The original budget analysis from Feb of 07 projected a deficit of $226 billion. I won’t provide a link, because Goldy’s software tends to reject comments with too many links, but the CBO projections aren’t hard to find. They’re on the same web site as the other two links I provided above.
According to the April 2008 monthly report, “Halfway through fiscal year 2008, the federal government has incurred a deficit of $310 billion…” How’s that? The original deficit estimate for FY 08 was $226 billion for the entire fiscal year. By April, we’re only half way through FY 08, and the deficit is up to $310 billion dollars. Take a look at the October 2008 and November 2008 monthly reports, and you’ll see even greater increases.
For FY 08 the deficit kept climbing, but not due to significant spending increases. Rather, the actual deficit vis-a-vis previous projections kept climbing over the course of FY 08 because actual revenue kept coming in below that of the previous projections.
Over the course of FY 2008, the current recession was just getting started. Today, we’re feeling the full brunt of the credit crisis. At the same time, the April 2008 deficit revisions were based on revenue assumptions that weren’t all that different from the ones that were used two months prior in the CBO’s analysis of the FY 2009 budget.
Puddy’s argument assumes that the CBO’s revenue projections made during their initial analysis of Bush’s FY 09 budget are just as valid today as they were back in February of 2008, but that can’t possibly be true. Not by a long shot.
Now, here’s the funny part. Our two resident J’s, those eagle-eyed and intrepid defenders of intellectual honesty everywhere, were so busy trying to figure out what “the increase in the deficit is not very large” means that they completely failed to spot this glaring flaw in Puddy’s argument. Kinda makes you wonder what passes for “intellectual honesty” among the present-day ranks of the right-wing faithful.
@182
Oh, taking a little time to back track and try to cover your butt after all the twists and turns in your stories and numbers (“negative increases” was a real dozy that deserves special mention!), DJ, in your fictitious conversation with TJ? Let’s see what TJ has to say in response.
You are ONE head case, you know.
daveS,
Are the U.N. black helicopters coming for you? The Illuminati? The Pentaverate?
Reading the oreo’s posts on this thread, you have to wonder if even PUFFYBUTT knows what the fuck he’s trying to say. This bitch has sucked so many dicks that the cum has permanently stained his brain.
@184
Don Joe, is that you, sneaking back to see if anyone made fun of your final (hopefully) attempt @182 to cover your butt after that dizzying display of mental and factual miscues?
Has your stock portfolio had a negative increase of late? (@181 for the uninitiated!)
Absolutely AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAZING!
Even ByeBye aka GoneGone is starting to actually sound coherent after your performance here, though I think your very excellent treatise on positive numbers (all positive numbers ARE great than zero, QED!) may have tripped him up!
Don Joe AKA TG, you have some serious head issues, you must have SOME understanding of that, dude.
Keep up the really CLEVER disguises!
daveS @ 183 spews:
Oh, taking a little time to back track and try to cover your butt after all the twists and turns in your stories and numbers
And yet another member of the right-wing faithful shows up to give us insights into their notion of “intellectual honesty”. It’s telling, isn’t it?
Let’s see, now. J1 shows up to ask for some data that can be easily found through a few simple web searches, and we’re supposed to believe that J1 is interested in having a well-reasoned discussion about our country’s problems and potential solutions?
People who do that are interested in only one thing: playing an adolescent game of rhetorical “gotcha”, and daveS wants to get on my case for not taking these people seriously?
No. When they show up with proposed solutions of their own or when they come up with some legitimate and interesting insights into the problems we face, then I’ll take them seriously. Until then, we’re all just playing a multi-player, text-based, first-person shooter game.
TJ @ 184:
Ya think daveS is bright enough to spot the time difference between your comment and mine?
daveS @ 186 spews:
Don Joe, is that you, sneaking back to see if anyone made fun of your final (hopefully) attempt @182…
Well, I guess that answers the question I asked at the end of my comment at 187.
Ya think daveS is bright enough to spot the time difference between your comment and mine?
It’s interesting (in a “not actually interesting, just curious, really” kind of way) that both daveS and J1 misspelled my two-letter name in the same way.
The accusation of sockpuppetry smells like projection on someone’s part.
daveS, J1, J2,
Have you located Obama’s “real” birth certificate yet?
TJ @ 189:
It’s interesting (in a “not actually interesting, just curious, really” kind of way) that both daveS and J1 both misspelled my two-letter name in the same way.
I was about to make the same observation. Instead, I’ll point out that daveS has yet to discuss anything of the substance of my comment @ 182. I predict that he won’t. Nor, for that matter, will either of the two J’s (assuming, of course, that they really are different people). The absence of any gotcha’s in those remarks means they’ll have to keep returning back to other comments in order to keep playing their game.
But, I do predict that they’ll keep coming back to those prior comments. Clearly, it galls at least daveS that I’ve managed to demonstrate my ability to put together a coherent rebuttal of Puddy’s argument using readily available data that anyone can find and without demanding that other people go find my data for me. Let’s see any of these people do the same thing.
@187
People who do that are interested in only one thing: playing an adolescent game of rhetorical “gotcha”, and daveS wants to get on my case for not taking these people seriously?
Dude, people are on your case for your inane miscues and backtracking and REALLY mind numbing statements like:
“You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?”
since ANY value for O (Obama’s deficit!) will work including REALLY big ones.
Or (one of my favorite!):
“you now can’t seem to make sense of a negative increase?”
a transparently LAME attempt to explain away how your FINAL set of numbers contradicted your original claim that the Obama deficit would increase ONLY slightly from Bush’s.
Or:
“and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above. In fact, Puddy first mentioned the Obama figure way back in his comment @13. No one here has contested that figure:”
when Puddy’s number was for 2009, not 2010. Oh, and touche for first scolding someone for not being able to read this data!
Or: Masquerading – still! – as TJ when that act became transparent loooooooooong ago!
The only person “catching you,” dude, is you with these big time mental miscues.
It’s just like they say, the DUMB mistakes are made during the coverup!
Truly, truly AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZING!
Tell us The Truth about the moon landing.
@192
Meanwhile, Don Joe AKA TJ is glued to this thread, on the ready to respond to the teasing and absolutely fearful that his reputation might be sullied EVEN MORE!
I’d say that it’s FAR TOO LATE to be worrying about that, not after this performance!
If you learn ANYTHING Don Joe AKA TG from the teasing and embarrassment learn this: the REALLY DUMB mistakes are made during the cover-up!
Bye, bye!
ps Get help.
Who really killed JFK? Come on, you can tell us. I’m sure you know The Truth about that one too.
daveS @ 191 spews:
Dude, people are on your case for your inane miscues and backtracking and REALLY mind numbing statements…
See what I mean? This twit just can’t let it go. Apparently my “inane” miscues are worthy of repeated mention, while the clearly inane game of gotcha that started this whole thing is not. Such is what passes for “intellectual honesty” among the present-day right-wing faithful.
But, true to form, daveS upheld my prediction about not even trying to tackle the substance of my comment @ 182. Why do these people think that anyone outside their own echo chamber will ever take them seriously?
Don’t go away! We were just about to get your thoughts on The Treasonous Agenda of the Trilateral Commission*!
Noooooooo!
* Actual title of WorldNutDaily article.
TJ @ 196
Well, of course daveS is running away. His miserable attempt to claim victory in the battle, while having clearly lost the war, by asserting that the concept of a “negative increase” makes no sense isn’t gaining much traction.
I don’t know why the concept of a “negative increase” makes no sense. No one has explained precisely why. Do Republicans do budgets using Roman numerals? Well, I suppose that’s an improvement over the previous fiasco where Republicans showed up with a budget that didn’t have any numbers at all.
These trolls are like sea gulls. They fly in, make a whole lot of noise, crap all over the place, and then fly back out again.
Don Joe,
She/He is done bleeding on you, I guess. Or maybe she/he is off to blow the lid of the whole Area 51 conspiracy.
In all seriousness, though, this dave/joie/jane person really hates you. Do you have any idea why? Did you run over any dogs lately?
It’s just bizarre. I don’t mind getting pulled in because, well, I guess I’m easily entertained, but her/his venom is so vastly out of proportion, it’s just… very strange.
Hmmm, I wonder if there’s any connection…
TJ,
I don’t know what’s tripped his/her/their/its trigger, but I can speculate. I suspect there’s an aspect of that Manichean world view at play. I’m an evil liberal, so I can’t possibly be right about anything.
But, I’ve pretty much shredded every conservative attempt to blame liberal policies for the credit crisis, and have even managed to draw some direct causal connections between Republican economic policy ideas and the credit crisis.
You’ve seen Puddy’s reaction to those arguments. Perhaps he/she/they/it can’t quite swallow the idea that Alan Greenspan is a liberal, but people do react to cognitive dissonance in different ways.
people do react to cognitive dissonance in different ways
True enough. I suppose, being an adult, it just surprises me when I encounter such childish reactions from emotionally/psychologically stunted people.
And on the internet, no less! ;-)
“You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?”
I don’t get how this shows Obama’s deficit would be only a slight increase over Bush’s back at the top. Can you run through your logic again (sorry, ran through the thread but couldnt find it)
@ 202
I don’t get how this shows Obama’s deficit would be only a slight increase over Bush’s back at the top.
I’m not sure why this should be such an elusive point, but people kept asking for, and I quote “actual numbers.” That’s a curious thing to ask for given that we won’t have actual numbers for Obama’s deficit until some time in November of 2010.
The point I was making is that it’s entirely possible to arrive at a number of perfectly valid Mathematical conclusions with having actual numbers in hand–that one can do so using estimates–you now, numbers that we know won’t reflect “actual” reality, but are close enough for us to reach reasonable conclusions.
Now, perhaps you can explain why anyone would ask for “actual numbers” here when rather reasonable estimates can be found using a rather simple web search?
@203 The point I was making
Oh, I’ll see you’re putting that 3.27 GPA in “Creative Blather and Tortured Logic” from Wisconsin’s “other” school to work to the best of your “abilities,” Don Joe.
Don Joe’s big tale:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
Don Joe’s Claim #1:
You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?
The problem pointed out in Don “Euler” Joe’s “math” wizardry: Obama’s deficit number O can be ANY VERY, VERY big number and so ACTUAL numbers just might be useful. (Don Joe has readily acknowledged he is not very good with numbers . . . but we KNEW that!)
Don Joe’s Claim #2 in response:
Do you have a problem reading? I just quoted the $1 trillion number TJ gave in the original comment to which you replied, and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above. In fact, Puddy first mentioned the Obama figure way back in his comment @13. No one here has contested that figure.
The problem pointed out: It’s revealed Don Joe’s the one who CAN’T read, Puddy’s figure @13 IS FOR FY2009 not FY2010, and there ARE NO other citations. In other words, the data he CLAIMS he was relying upon for his “big” claim was totally missing in action. (No wonder he refused to say what his data was for sooooooooooo long.) But let’s see what happens to that $1 trillion . . .
Don Joe’s Claim #3 in response:
Got that? Bush’s budget = $1.8 trillion. Obama’s deficit = $1.4 trillion.
The problems pointed out: The $1 trillion in claim #2 has now TOTALLY disappeared AND the NEWLY DISCOVERED numbers have the deficit actually DECLINING not INCREASING:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
Don Joe’s Claim #4 in response:
you now can’t seem to make sense of a negative increase?
That’s what happens when you’re TOO BUSY trying to cover your tracks AFTER the original MISDEED – you lose track of what you’ve said and so the tall tales HAVE TO get BIGGER and BIGGER and BIGGER!
The difference between a potted plant and Don Joe: Give the plant some water and it flourishes, give Don Joe some ideas and he founders!
UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’re back!
Did you find the chupacabra evidence you were looking for?
joie, dude. You’re going to bust a vein if you keep this up.
1) TJ and I are not the same person. If you don’t believe that, ask Darryl. He’ll check the e-mail and posting IP addresses.
2) I already copped to my mistake regarding the FY09 issue, so be my guest. Flog it to death if it makes you feel better about yourself.
3) You’re the one who has made the absurd claim that a “negative increase” makes no sense. You can say it’s unusual. You can say that it’s awkward. But to say that it makes no sense whatsoever is to completely disavow what it means when you multiply both sides of an inequality by -1. For someone who can throw out Euler’s name like you have, that’s truly an amazing claim to make.
Lastly, regarding your claim about giving me some ideas, when have you ever brought to this discussion anything more than a cheap attempt to play rhetorical gotcha? The only thing you’ve brought to this discussion is a completely idiotic question that you could have easily answered for yourself through a simple web query.
If you think yourself capable of bringing thoughtful ideas and true insights to this discussion, then please add some substance to the comment I made back at 182. See if you can put forth an honest and well-considered effort to try to rehabilitate Puddy’s attempt to blame some $1 trillion of the FY09 projected deficit on President Obama.
If can’t do that, then, despite whatever little battles you think you might have won here, you’ve clearly lost the war, at which point you really ought to take your bony little, black and blue, kicked-all-over-the-place ass back to your right-wing echo chamber where other people can lick your wounds for you. Complain about how us shifty, good-for-nothing liberals have treated you so badly. I’m quite certain you can find someone’s shoulder to cry on.
Or, better yet, you can take up TJ’s suggestion, and go see if you can’t find that allegedly missing birth certificate. That’d be a hell of a lot more contribution to the well-being of society than the contribution you’ve made here.
See, TJ? I predicted that not one of these twits would undertake a rebuttal of my argument at 182. They are so predictable.
Don Joe farts again:
So why did it take your F O R E V E R to cop out fool? Puddy been discussing FY09 all over this thread and you been farting about Partial Punditry without figgering out anything worthwhile? Seems to Puddy Don Joe is
Delisional
Onstinate
Numbnutz
Jokingly
Obtuse
Everyday
Now to Another Total Jerk… Yes this is the first thread anyone has admitted Clinton was disingenuous over his balanced budget claims and how the HA swineflu weasel class claimed it all over and over and over and over, eh NutRight, My Left Foot, GBS, proud leftist, rhp6033, etc.
Notice who is missing from above… headless, pelletizer, clueless wonder, ekim, rujax, etc. These are lower life forms who made the same worthless claim now determined by Another Total Jerk to be worthless.
Now Another Total Jerk continues to claim Puddy agrees with him. Au contraire. All Puddy has done in this thread is use the Another Total Jerk logic against his hero Slick Willie. Puddy still stands by CBO figgers.
Puddy @ 207 spews:
Still more bullshit. Puddy seems to not realize that I’ve already completely destroyed his argument that Obama is to blame for the bulk of the increase in the FY09 deficit from the original $407 billion OMB estimate.
Poor Puddy. Still can’t figure out how we managed to run up a $401 billion deficit in the first two months of FY 09 alone and $485 billion in the first quarter of FY 09–all of that on George Bush’s watch (and according to Puddy’s vaunted CBO as well).
Don Joe, Delusional as ever dude. While the two votes in Feb and March prove “the messiah” spent the money this year, Don Joe is still on his delusional high horse
So why did it take your F O R E V E R to cop out fool? Puddy been discussing FY09 all over this thread and you been farting about Partial Punditry without figgering out anything worthwhile? Seems to Puddy Don Joe is
—————-
Because he never had the original data to support his claim @74:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
He was asked repeatedly for the Bush and Obama deficit numbers, and refused to provide them, instead FINALLY come up with this @137:
Really? You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0? Where did you learn Algebra, Jane?
When it was pointed out this was nonsense and didn’t preclude Obama from have a VERY, VERY big number compared to Bush’s, he back-tracked and came back with @159:
Do you have a problem reading? I just quoted the $1 trillion number TJ gave in the original comment to which you replied, and Obama’s projected budget for 2010 has been cited several times in this thread well before TJ restated it @ 157 above. In fact, Puddy first mentioned the Obama figure way back in his comment @13. No one here has contested that figure.
So, Bush = $1 trillion, Obama = $1.85 trillion (your FY2009 number)
When it was pointed out he was using your FY2009 number (forget the fact the increase in the deficit would have been a lot – see original claim above!), he came back with this @173:
Got that? Bush’s budget = $1.8 trillion. Obama’s deficit = $1.4 trillion.
So, now Bush = $1.8 trillion, Obama = $1.4 trillion
When it was pointed out that this means the deficit would have decreased (see the original claim again!), he came back with this @181:
you now can’t seem to make sense of a negative increase?
Too, too much!
If he’d had the LAST set of numbers when he made his claim above he would have provided them and PROCLAIMED that Obama had actually DECREASED the deficit, rather than lead us through a MIND NUMBING 125 posts of blather.
These exchanges ALWAYS begin and end in the same way. Don Joe gets involved in a discussion that involves NUMBERS and ANALYSIS and SOURCE CHECKING, complex concepts that are totally foreign to his brain. Before you know it, he’s in a desperate battle to cover his mistakes using the only tool he has: unrelenting blather. But the outcome is always the same: he gets his butt kicked up through the top of his head because there’s NOTHING to stop it!
Puddy @ 209
While the two votes in Feb and March prove “the messiah” spent the money this year…
It’s really quite amusing that Puddy can make a statement like that and then claim that I’m delusional. Puddy doesn’t understand the difference between appropriations and new spending, and Puddy also doesn’t seem to realize that the first quarter of FY 09 ended before Obama took the oath of office.
Poor Puddy. Thinks he’s proved a relevant fact, when all he’s really proved is his own ignorance.
joie @ 210
These exchanges ALWAYS begin and end in the same way…
Well, this one began with joie asking for numbers he should have been able to find himself, and it appears to be ending with joie repeating himself over and over and over again.
The fascinating part is the extent of joie’s righteous indignation considering the fact that joie hasn’t added a single substantive thought to the entire conversation.
How long will joie keep this up before he figures out that he is rapidly making the transition from merely being tedious to being outright boring?
Ooooh, a conspiracy theorist who repeatedly gets tripped up by the second letter in my two-letter name is insulting someone’s intelligence!
Tell us, did the lizard people force you to do this?
Don Joe, the C# programming must be getting to your head. First you had to backtrack on Bob Graham and now you finally figgered out the FY09 budget (to a point). The FY09 Budget which you can’t seem to get your head totally wrapped around called for a $407 Billion Deficit. Stretch Face Pelosi and Scary Land Deal Reid approved it summer 2008. The Dummocraptics added their pork and then said we didn’t add any. Except the media did show John Murtha being the fool he is still being the fool he is.
Bush left in January 20, 2009. Obama then asked for more spending and approved it Feb 16, 2009. Yep it’s more appropriations on the FY09 budget. “the messiah” called it stimulus. Puddy called it Porkulous. Search the HA swineflu weasel archives Don Joe. Then “the messiah” says we need more appropriations becuz the previous Porkulous bull (yep, bull) didn’t produce enough fertizer to spread enough to his buds. So March 12, another stimulus appropriations bill was added bringing the final FY09 debt to 1.85 Trillion.
So Puddy asked Don Joe above where did the additional FY09 debt come from fool? GWB? Hell no, he been gone 27 days when “the messiah” signed the first “appropriations” bill. It’s all added to FY09 fool.
Too bad facts smack your small femtometer brain around inside that granite encased neanderthal mind and the concussion is demonstrated in your incessant Partial Punditry rants and look at me blatherings on HA swineflu weasels. Typical, so typical.
Puddy does have to give Another Total Jerk a kudo. Now we whom think right have the ammunition to use against the “Clinton Balanced Budget” argument.
“The point I was making is that it’s entirely possible to arrive at a number of perfectly valid Mathematical conclusions with having actual numbers in hand–that one can do so using estimates–you now, numbers that we know won’t reflect “actual” reality, but are close enough for us to reach reasonable conclusions.“
What???????????
“The point I was making is that it’s entirely possible to arrive at a number of perfectly valid Mathematical conclusions with having actual numbers in hand–that one can do so using estimates–you now, numbers that we know won’t reflect “actual” reality, but are close enough for us to reach reasonable conclusions.“
Then you should have provided those estimates – but, you didn’t – instead of:
O – B > O – (B + x)
which is mathematically equivalent to
x > 0
So your statement:
“You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?”
is equivalent to:
“You need actual numbers to know that x > 0 where x is a positive number?”
Summing it all up, you were using this:
“You need actual numbers to know that x < 0 where x is a positive number?”
as the support for your claim:
“What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.”
But since O and B could have been anything, meaning Obama’s deficit could have been much larger than Bush’s, it certainly didn’t provide that!
The only thing you’ve demonstrated – and conclusively, I might add – is that you’re an idiot . . .
Who really killed Princess Diana? Only our friend knows!
And for a third time in this thread, Lambchop proves he doesn’t know what the omnibus appropriations bill did. Astounding.
Lambchop, before you embarrass yourself again, please, look it up. I enjoy your collisions with rakes, don’t get me wrong, but, really, at this point there’s just no sport in it anymore.
Another Total Jerk, where do these appropriations get credited to in budget in a fiscal year? And since Bush and the Dummocraptic Congress couldn’t agree on the spending (Dummocrapts wanted to spend way more than Bush wanted to approve) they were never acted on. And since these appropriations were passed on “the messiah’s” watch under Dummocratic House and Senate leadership regale us how you are still claiming they are GWB’s values?
And since Another Total Jerk will not discuss the Porkulous Bill because that’s all “the messiah’s” doing it too is credited to FY2009.
It’s a really simple answer Another Total Jerk. Come on, show the world how “smart” you are. Don’t stop eating your feces, because we all know you love to wallow in it.
Puddy @ 214 spews:
First you had to backtrack on Bob Graham
I should thank Puddy for pointing out that I have no compulsion against admitting an error when I’ve made one. We are, however, still waiting for Puddy to admit to any one of several errors that have been pointed out to him both here in this thread and in other threads.
The FY09 Budget which you can’t seem to get your head totally wrapped around called for a $407 Billion Deficit.
Puddy clearly hasn’t read the full text of my comment at 182, where I said:
Not only did I start out with Puddy’s $407 billion dollars in that comment, but I’d also noted Puddy’s error in attributing that amount to the CBO. You can go back to my comment at 182, and find the link to the CBO report on the FY 09 budget.
As for wrapping anyone’s head around anything, Puddy is the only one who can’t wrap his head around the fact that the accumulated deficit for FY 09 had already exceeded the original OMB deficit projection by $72 billion before Obama ever took office. Puddy has yet to explain how he can attribute this to any expenditures that Obama has made.
But, and here’s where we start entering the twilight zone. Puddy spews:
Bush left in January 20, 2009. Obama then asked for more spending and approved it Feb 16, 2009. Yep it’s more appropriations on the FY09 budget.
Puddy still hasn’t figured out that an appropriations bill authorizes the spending of funds that have already been budgeted. Appropriations bills do not add to the deficit that was projected against the original budget.
So, we have two facts that Puddy has failed to account for:
1) That the accumulated FY 09 deficit had already exceeded the original projected deficit for the entire fiscal year in the months before Obama ever took office; and
2) That the appropriations bill Obama signed into law did not increase the deficit, because those funds had already been budgeted.
Puddy wants to blame President Obama for the entire difference between the original deficit projections and the most recent projections, but, in order to do so, he has to ignore those two fundamental facts.
This is the same Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry we’ve seen over and over again. And, I dare say, Puddy will never admit to having made these fundamental mistakes in both fact and reasoning.
tj @ 216
Then you should have provided those estimates
TJ had already provided one of those estimates. At the time I’d made the “O – B” inequality statement I had mistakenly thought that the other estimate had already been provided. Turns out I was wrong on that, and admitted so immediately after that was pointed out.
I thought you said you’d read through the whole thread?
as the support for your claim:
That wasn’t my claim. It’s been rather falsely attributed to me by people who have a great deal of difficulty attacking my character without having to distort the truth.
Lambchop,
Type less. Read more. You’ll thank me one day.
TJ,
I wonder if Puddy is one of those folks whose turn indicators don’t work until they’re already half-way through the turn.
(For the analogy impaired, budget = turn indicator, appropriations = actually turning the steering wheel.)
I don’t know. He also seems to think that if you buy a car and you had planned to spend $20k, but you spent $21k instead, you’ve spent $21k more than you had planned.
You mentioned cognitive dissonance upthread. Someday, reality may catch up with him, and he’s going to fall apart completely. His “reality” is so carefully constructed to block out any negative information; it’s going to be epic when he snaps out of it.
Pardon me… IF he snaps out of it.
Don Joe’s SIGNIFICANT contribution to this thread:
You need actual numbers to know that O – B > O – (B + x) where O, B and x are all positive numbers greater than 0?
which can be simplified to the brain rattling:
x > 0 where x is a positive number greater than 0
which is proof that Obama’s deficit isn’t much larger than Bush’s:
What Lambchop is so desparate to avoid is an apples to apples comparison of the last Bush budget to the first Obama budget. As you can see, if one makes that comparison, the increase in the deficit is not very large.
a claim which is supported by actual numbers after all:
Bush deficit: $1 trillion, Obama = $1.85 trillion
OR (take your pick!):
Bush deficit: $1.8 trillion, Obama deficit = $1.4 trillion
which should be interpreted as a perfectly reasonable negative increase.
And with THAT mind-bending performance, Don Joe has ONCE AGAIN SUBTRACTED from the collective body of human knowledge!
Does the Matrix have you?
Can you tell the difference between a G and a J in your Matrix?
TJ,
You know, I think I’m beginning to understand how the band “Blink 182” got their name, though how the band could be so prescient as to know that comment #182 would be so significant is quite the mystery.
Don Joe,
Yeah, both Lambchop and your stalker have had a heck of a time with such basic information and concepts. I’m tempted to conclude that they don’t know what on earth they’re talking about… Naaaah, that’s impossible.
That said, reading Lambchop’s responses, I’m reminded of “A Fish Called Wanda:”
Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it.
As for your stalker, well, it’s hard to work up much concern over someone who sees conspiracy around every corner and struggles with – and is defeated by – that most treacherous of opponents, the alphabet.
TJ,
The only person getting worked up here is my stalker, which is what makes this so amusing.
The masochist said to the sadist, “Hurt me! Hurt me!”
And the sadist said, “No.”
I should add, that, if anyone really wants to get worked up over something, this is a far more worthy cause.
Oh, my, it’s true, 230 posts!
Don Joe is still engaged in a conversation with himself!
Don Joe is still engaged in a conversation with himself!
I’ll take it as a compliment that people think TJ and I are the same person.
‘Course, you do realize that there’s nothing wrong with talking to yourself. It’s even OK if you talk back. But, as is often the case with our wingnut friends, when you find yourself saying, “What?” that’s when you need to seek help.
The one thing not being considered by both sides of the Bush/Obama deficit debate is this:
What did we get for the Bush deficits? In other words what was the money used for and will the returns on Bush’s deficit spending be worth it?
On Obama’s side we don’t yet have history to look back on only projections on what his investments will return.
Stopping another Great Depression from starting.
Healthcare reform
Energy Independence
Tax cuts for 95% of the citizens
Saving the auto industry
etc.
I think we’ll find the ROI for the Bush years to be less than the $7 Trillion dollars he borrowed.
I prefer the Clinton strategy of the “pay as you go” system. However, Bush and the Republicans broke our nation while pulling the levers of government.
What Republicans won’t admit is that the country went broke on their watch. It takes a long time to build wealth and it can be squandered rather quickly. Even Trillions of dollars.
The sad truth is that we won’t recapture what the conservatives lost any time soon. Their model of governing was unsustainable.
Obama cannot spend forever either, I believe that making the right investments now will, over time, help us regain our lost wealth.
Wow! The conspiracy has expanded, and now Don Joe is responsible for all 230 comments!
Rings within rings! We are through the looking glass here people!
GBS @ 233
What did we get for the Bush deficits? In other words what was the money used for and will the returns on Bush’s deficit spending be worth it?
Actually, my comment @ 64 addresses just that question. The Bush tax cuts served little more than to help fuel the housing bubble as the increase in savings among the wealthy contributed to the demand for mortgage backed securities.
Some people might be quick to point to how employment changed during Bush’s 8 years in Office, but, as I have also, on other occasions, pointed out, this is not the case when you take a closer look at how employment changed over the course of those same eight years.
The National Bureau of Economic Research did a study on the ratio of the two ways that we tend to measure employment: what are generally referred to as the “Establishment Survey” and the “Household Survey”. In particular, the NBER found that the ratio of the Establishment Survey to the Household Survey tends to go up as the economy grows while the ratio tends to fall during a recession.
You can read the details of this study here. Take a look at the first chart on that web site. Through nearly every period of growth (the white vertical bands), the ratio trends upward. There is, however, no point during the entire Bush Administration where that ratio trends upward.
The conclusion is inescapable. The Bush tax cuts did not lead to the kinds of job increases that we normally expect during a period of expansion. Indeed, those tax cuts led to the opposite.
I’ll take it as a compliment that people think TJ and I are the same person.
Ditto. On the other hand, if the latest conspiracy theory is correct and you’re responsible for every comment in this thread, you’ve not only written my comments, you’ve also been trying to insult me for days.
You son of a bitch!
TJ,
You son of a bitch!
I’m more than happy to inform my mother regarding your opinion of her. I’m sure it will disturb her deeply–roughly equivalent to extent to which someone pulling down a window shade bothers the Sun.
Did I neglect to mention that my mother never put much stock in conspiracy theories?
I notice that Lambchop has tucked tail and run. The first smart decision he’s made in this thread…
TJ,
He’s busy trying to figure out if there’s some mathematical operation that can be used to transform “activism” into “restraint.”
@238
It’s far more likely he’s still rolled up in laughter like everyone else after wading through Don Joe’s magnum opus that explained in mind-bending detail why Obama’s deficit wouldn’t be too much larger than Bush’s. Here’s the complete, unabridged version of Don Blow’s work:
x > 0 where x is a positive number greater than 0
Did you catch that? If not, here’s the simplified form:
x > 0
The first page of Don Joe’s treatise was devoted to this analysis, the remaining 500 to what he really meant to say!
So that we may never forget . . .
Little tj,
Are you still trying to figure out what happens to the direction of an inequality when you multiply both sides of it by -1?
@241
Somehow I have an idea you’re trying to figure out what happens to an inequality when you multiply just one side by -1!
Let us know when this chapter – hopefully replete with “numbers that we know won’t reflect ‘actual’ reality” – is complete
We want to believe, Don Joe!!!!
The Truth is Out There!
Tell us about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I have this image of little tj/joie/daveS/whatever encountering the following math problem on the WASL, getting a negative number for an answer, and spending the rest of the test trying to figure out what went wrong.
Puddy thought he’d get better gas mileage if he switched from normal gas to ethanol. He drove his car for 542 miles, filling his gas tank twice with 22.4 gallons of regular gas. He then drove his car for 516 miles, filling his gas tank twice with 21.8 gallons of ethanol. By how much did Puddy’s mileage increase after he switched to ethanol?
@244
I think people are having fun with you because of your simple math mistakes, DJ. I must say, I’m also tempted because they are sorta’ over the top. OK, just this once:
Don Joe recently had his pay cut by Microsoft as the company continues to reduce unnecessary costs. Don Joe’s response when he received the news: “I’m delighted, because I’m receiving a negative increase in salary!”
Go Joe!
Have you figured out that alphabet enigma yet? Or have Gs and Js been declared permanently interchangeable?
Almost as importantly, is flouridation a commie plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?
@ 245
Mistakes? Plural? The only “mistake” one could arguably attribute to me is that I made the redundant statement that a positive number is strictly greater than 0. The whole mess about “increase” vs “decrease” is based on something TJ said which my critics have rather brazenly attributed to me.
What I found amusing is that someone who can invoke Euler’s name would find the concept of a “negative increase” to be “nonsense”, and your attempt at a joke would seem to rebut this notion that a “negative increase” is “nonsense,” would it not?
‘Course why would I be happy about a negative salary increase? Now that makes no sense. I’d be much happier with a negative salary decrease.
Why are these appropriation bills called supplementals? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbud.....tables.pdf page 165. Everything else is on Obama.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110o1S6JB:e1237:
See what the Dummocraptic Congress wrote. Good try you two fools.
Is that based on a real WASL question at #244? Can you show me where you got it at WASL? Thank you.
Sandra @ 248 spews:
Is that based on a real WASL question at #244?
No.
Funny how all these new people keep showing up to ask me these questions. I have an ever-growing fan club. Must be a negative decrease.
Just for grins I did a web query for “negative increase,” and ran across this article.
‘Course, it’s a UK web site, so it must be those Brits have silly notions about what to do with a negative increase.
I’m a teacher and my husband showed me this site because of the WASL question. The reason I was interested is because I don’t think a question would be phrased in a way where the word “increase” was used but the answer was actually a decrease in value. It leads to too many problems.
thank you, Sandra
Well, Sarah, thanks for the input. I only used the WASL scenario as a hypothetical, but, upon reflection, I supposed it wouldn’t be a good question to include in an assessment test.
However, since you are a teacher, perhaps you’d address the pedagogical value of such a wording for a practice test or a set of problems designed to teach mathematical concepts?
I’m inclined to think it’s not a bad problem after all, for two reasons. First, it involves the kind of real-world problems students are likely to encounter. Second, it sets up a particular expectation that ends up being a false expectation. But wording the problem in that particular way, it teaches students to learn to trust the math rather than their expectations.
Do you think these are worthy pedagogical objectives?
Was HIV man-made? You know The Truth, don’t you?
Does the WASL help identify students who don’t know the difference between a G and a J?
Looks like someone continues to refuse to read before typing.
“What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.” – Dan Quayle
I spoke to several other teachers, all math teachers in our department, about the use of “negative increase,” and they pretty much agreed that aside from WASL, they wouldn’t use the term in the classroom. Not because students couldn’t be shown what it meant, but because there’s more straightforward terminology that avoids any confusion. Also, then you get into “negative decrease,” “positive decrease,” and so forth, all of which could also be explained, but which could also result in a lot of confusion or disagreement since it’s not commonly used terminology.
Paul is dead?