Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The minute you post what you were asked to post this is over...
Your premises, your math....all bullshit.
To give you an idea...
The FY 2008 request was 2.9 trillion.
Now, Toddy...learn how to bait the fucking hook...
No, Toddy..Bush's 2008 request doesn't matter.
His baseline spending was about $2.845 trillion.
Obama added $140 billion, according to your source, and the net TARP
lending in FY 2009 was about $572 billion.
So now Obama's starting point is $2.985 trillion. What did he spend in FY 2010?
No, Toddy..
That is complete bullshit.
Scrub requested 3.1 in FY 2009, EXCLUSIVE of ESAs for Iraqnam.
That means you STILL haven't brought a fucking thing to the table, Toddy...
Not one.
No, you are..Wait, are you saying that the Dem House and Dem Senate didn't give Bush everything he wanted?
No, you are..
Fucking idiot.
Toddster,Don't run away mad.
Toddster,
If you've failed to answer a single question to this point, you have no grounds for yapping.
Now back away from the fence or you'll drown in the spray.
I posted it.Did you ever find any evidence that dems are budget hawks?
I posted it.
You appear innumerate.
We've gone through this already, but if you insist....
Can you find a Republican administration since 1980 which has grown revenue at a rate GREATER than outlays?
Toddster,That's your evidence that dems are budget hawks? Seems pretty weak.
Toddster,
Answer the question.
Stipulate to the fact.
THEN you can insist it "doesn't matter".
Once you confirm that <, >, and = are not entirely foreign to you, we can look at how the Democrats did on that score.
'k?
Run, Toddster.
Run, Toddster.
When you pass that boot, hose it off and send it back.
I post the evidence.Still no evidence that dems are budget hawks? Ask your idiot uncle.
I post the evidence.
You deny it.
If you're in denial, there's no point in trying to convince you with the facts.
I can go on and calculate the deltas between the weighted averages, but you're going to deny there are any.
Why?
I don't want to tell you again that I've done so.Don't run away mad, just post your evidence that dems are budget hawks.
I don't want to tell you again that I've done so.
If you aren't going to do any work, or stipulate to any facts, at least have the decency to stop implying that it hasn't been done.
On a weighted average basis, spending under GOP adminstrations grew 6.35% per year, compounded.
Under Democrats, 2.5%.
That's compounded, Toddy..
If all you have is a Series 6, you probably never learned what that means...
Do you agree that's 2.5X?
Toddy,I don't want to tell you again that I've done so.
You're funny when you're angry.
On a weighted average basis, spending under GOP adminstrations grew 6.35% per year, compounded.
Under Democrats, 2.5%.
Let me guess, you think that $3.517 trillion in spending in FY 2009 and $3.457 trillion in spending in FY 2010 means Obama was cutting spending?
Toddy,
Your math has ZERO basis in Reality...if you think you can score doing this, start a thread, with your own sources.
At no point have you been able to acknowledge the facts.
You're a coward.
2.5 X on the spending side...
How about the revenue side?
GOP - 4.17%
Democrats - 6.43%
About 1.5X
Tell me how Supply Side pays for itself...
Toddy,
Your math has ZERO basis in Reality...if you think you can score doing this, start a thread, with your own sources.
At no point have you been able to acknowledge the facts.
You're a coward.
2.5 X on the spending side...
How about the revenue side?
GOP - 4.17%
Democrats - 6.43%
About 1.5X
Tell me how Supply Side pays for itself...
