GFY

Some might. Just you're jealous at what I have and you would like to have but you can't have, doesn't mean you should bash the military for it J@ck@ss. You are so f ing pathetic. It is because of people like you why I wish there would a draft. A shame it wouldn't affect you if there was a draft. I don't think military would put up with a miserable SOB like you are.

STFU you despicable unt. I have better things to do in my life than listen to a deceiving person.

I think Dell's numbers are more accurate. But yes, you did counter with numbers of your own, rather than others who use an abbreviation for a crass figure of speech.

My dispute with your numbers was the "regular spending" qualifier. The total is all that matters - whether military, social, stimulus, etc is irrelevant. The total overspending drives the yearly deficit, which then accumulate into the national debt.

My numbers didn't include what I said, above. I was using that to try to get Dell to separate it out by who incurred what debt. And they were not "created" by me.

The one set Dell posted is our national debt, separated by time. The two sets I posted is our national debt, separated by the President who incurred it. Which is the whole point, if one is going to accuse Obama of raising the national debt more than Bush W. That is simply false.

Here it is. Our political viewpoints don't matter, here is our national debt by the President that incurred it. And it has clearly been Republican Presidents from Reagan onward. Not Democratic. (and the congressional makeup is listed, too) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

I don't know why you "think" Dell's numbers are more accurate. I didn't even see a reference posted as to where he got them. My two sets were made separately, by different organizations, but both agree, both are referenced, and are CBO data.

But the point is this: the Republican meme that the GOP is "fiscally responsible", while the Democrats are "big spenders", is obviously and historically false.

I'm still pretty bothered by that "i hope someone you know comes home in a body bag" thing.

Nascar you really should explain yourself. If you really meant that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being. just sickens me.

you mean like wish death on the very people who serve our country?

Bash the Military? Because I said that they shouldnt get retirement benefits starting at 40? Everyone hates you here and it bothers the sh*t out of you... Why else would you go to such great lengths to tell everyone that you don't care.

On another note.... You wished death on a military man and I wished that their pensions start later... Who is the bigger scumbag? Now I'm sure you will answer by completely changing the subject like you always do since you do not have the mental acuity to do otherwise.

On another note I am considering using your post wishing death on a military person as a signature pointing out that they booted Randall yet let you stay.

Your mouth is foul. Looking at the past page after page after page of your individual posts under your name, it seems your whole purpose in life is posting hate talk and cursing. You don't do anything else.

At least I don't accuse someone of spouse abuse without proof.

Obviously you didnt get my point.

I don't hate the guy.

It's an internet horse forum.

Where everyone's a winner.

Ok folks I worded it wrong about the body bag thing. This is how it should of been worded:

How would you feel if you knew someone in the military that came home in the body.

If you dont want believe me to each is thier own.

And you dont do the same thing here?

BULLS_H_I_T!! You worded it the way you meant it douchebag. Be a MAN and Apologize dont try and snake your way out of it because there is NO ONE on this board with an IQ low enough to fall for what you are saying even in their most drunken stupor.

Go **** Yourself Trash. I hope you swing on a vine in your yard and fall off and live ther rest of your pathetic life in a whell chair as an invalid. THIS I MEAN YOU LUMP OF ****.

You really have a high IQ. Why did you want to put Riot against me in an IQ test and not you? Maybe because you know it won't take much to beat a person who cleans toilets for a living? The chemicals you use are really getting to you. You should take a break from the toilets.

:zz:Just when I think you can't go lower, you do.

I guess you can say the feeling is mutual about how we feel about each other. Enjoy the rest of your day at this website.

Nascar said to Riot:
"You should be happy I havent called you what Dell called you YET" [c.u.n.t]

Riot said to Nascar:
"You're kind of a textbook case of the domineering misogynistic jackass, who sometimes degenerates into wife-beating."

I didn't accuse you of spouse abuse, you idiot. I called you a threatening, misogynistic jackass. My happiness does not depend upon your self-important largess in not verbally abusing me and carrying out a threat against me. You do not tell me to be happy you haven't cursed me out "yet". Go away, little man.

FYI

if someone can prove I ever put the c word here, not quoting from another post $1,000.00. Never called RIOT or anyone else that ever! My mother would go pakistani on my a$$ if I ever did. I did call out RIOT looking like a little squat man though (I think or close to it)

Big hint of why I feel the way I do towards these piece of shiat abusers I can't help but not focus on.

I agree, I have never heard (seen, read?) you use that word! ;)

Thank you and my dink is a wee bit bigger than a 9 yr old. Even in cold water :tro:;)

Well, I figured that part would be more than OBVIOUS! ;)

night night

good god:wf

Muslim like father I had. ;)

Go away. Me and my buddy Dell are having a "moment". You know, in honor of Rahm becoming mayor and Oprah retiring. Right Dell? :D

Oh my gawd .... :wf

Rahm is OK so far as mayor IMO. Wants to privatize streets and san and you remember streets and san. Oprah let the Heat have an extra day of rest in Michael's house. But as long as he's cool so am I.

2009 & 2010: Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...g-cuts-pledge/
Obama Administration Makes Good on Spending Cuts Pledge
It may be a drop in the $2 trillion deficit bucket, but the federal government has made good on President Barack Obama’s promise to find $100 million in spending cuts this year.

Like pissing into the wind. He just gave Egypt a billion in aid and forgave another billion. He continues to be wildly and carelessly out of control considering the country's financial situation. The ONLY option is to limit his credit and send him to the local cash for gold store.

What contributes to our debt

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what...rojected-debt/

again stop with the Michael Moore like charts. Obama continued the Bush cuts so now they are his. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Lybia is his as well. Giving billions out like quarters is Obama. Unemployment for infinity, fannie, freddie, stimulus after stimulus all Obama. Your group neglects to include any of that. Wonder why?

some spending info:

the executive:


In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

legislative:


During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.



The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.

During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.



..i've always thought that the best way to handle the fed govt is to have one party in charge in congress, and the other in the white house. they tend to keep each other, and our dollars, more in check that way.

:zz: No. Wrong. That's all right there.

This analysis doesn't pretend, like some do, that our financial woes suddenly and magically were caused by occurences during the past 18 months, and that the past 8 years of administration didn't harm this country in multiple, major ways.

What I am hoping is to hear you unequivocally and absolutely support expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as that would obviously be a major contributor to our long-term financial soundness and welfare as a country.

I used to agree with that, historically. That's the way we, as a country, seem to vote, too.

But now, when one party has stated their only goal is to ensure this President is not re-elected, and that is how they have indeed acted, I don't think it applies any longer.

when you look at the stuff i posted above on spending, it seems to work best with no one party in complete control.

Riot, they do want to give it up. They like a 2-class situation. Each day they show this. It's not some misunderstanding. They want this.

18? Obama has been president for a lot longer than 18 months... 2 1/2 years not 1 1/2 years.

If the Dems could agree to cut spending by the same and dedicate ALL money brought in by letting the tax cuts expire to paying down the debt you got my support.

Letting the Bush-Obama extended tax cuts to expire in the current situation would simply result in more wasting of money and giving it all away to Eqypt, Tunisia, Brazil etc etc etc. Perhaps Obama should get some professional treatment for his spending addiction?

Yes, I'm aware of that :D I was just referencing the concept of "recent", versus the last years of Bush first year of Obama (stimulus and TARP)