[quote]pat wrote:Can you dispute the actual facts as false, or do you think, just 'cause YOU said it, it means something. Other than double talk around the fringes, you have offered no defense and not a single shred of evidence to back up anything you said.
Is that how all you mega-leftists operate? Statements with out fact, slogans and no evidence.
If you are fucking broke, borrowing and spending an assload of money won’t fucking fix it. A kindergartner can figure it out and you can. Perhaps getting an education would help…Al least then you may have the good sense not to wait around with you hand out hoping somebody will put something in it.
[/quote]
Well, he basically said “Bush didn’t throw away lots of money,” which is obviously false to anyone who is not a republican, and he gave me a link showing me that Obama’s deficit will be large, which we already knew. What’s to talk about? He doesn’t like spending when a democrat does it, but when a republican spends money to bomb a foreign country, it’s fine.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:Er, um…there is no more credit so everything is fine now. People have to save if they want to spend. And if you think about it logically that is what debt it…saving in reverse.
And you definitely don’t understand anything…not everyone is in a “recession”. For example, I am pretty well set for the time being.[/quote]
What in the fuck are you talking about? You’re babbling incoherently. YOUR condition doesn’t matter at all, it’s the aggregate that we’re considering, and in the aggregate, demand is way down.
Future tax revenue. Do you have a point? We already had a huge debt.
I don’t know I’m talking about? You’re arguing the wrong fucking thing. I suggest you read about the multiplier effect.
[quote]dhickey wrote:you have proven in your recent posts that you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about. You need to take a step back and really understand the basics.
Start with supply and demand and the business cycle.
Then move on to speculation. How it drives the market and what it requires of the market.
Then think about, I mean really think about, where all economic knowledge resides. Then ask yourself why we would want to take the enocomy out of hands of those who hold actual economic knowledge. Those that actually drive the economy.
[/quote]
You are so full of shit that it boggles the mind. I never said I was an expert, but I do understand the basics. You on the other hand, who hold yourself out to be an expert, are completely wrong on this fundamental question. You don’t have a shred of intellectual honesty. All you care about is towing the (I assume) libertarian party line.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
This analogy is so fucking flawed it’s ridiculous. In a recession, the problem, to continue with your analogy, is not that there are only 20 pigs.That’s a supply problem and monetary policy won’t help, and no sober economist would even think to recommend it.
Debt is also a supply problem…were in debt because we do not supply enough goods to our creditor nations.
In a recession, it’s more like there are plenty of pigs, but not many Simoleons. People are hesitant to buy pigs because then they won’t have much money to spend on other things. In this case, printing more Simoleons will indeed be all you need do to end the recession. With more currency to go around, people aren’t afraid of running out anymore, and so demand for pigs returns.
No you got it exactly backwards. If there is no production there is nothing to spend money on. I don’t know why you would think that somehow goods and services magically fall out of the sky just because I have a crisp, new $100 bill in my back pocket.[/quote]
???
What planet are you on? Have you turned on the news in the past year? Supply is not the issue here.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Bush threw away trillions of dollars that got us nothing. At least the money Obama is spending is for some purpose.
I still think it’s funny that people like pat and hedo think they know better than people like Stiglitz what’s best for the economy. Especially when their criticism boils down to, “Well, I mean, that’s a LOT of money!” As well as the association of “socialism” with “spending lots of money.” The laughs never cease.
It’s simple common sense since I actually work and participate in the economy. Not only that support for the massive spending bill is not universal. In fact most businessmen oppose it. So yes I guess I do know more about how the economy works since I have principles. Your attempt to paraphrase what I think is comical at best and highlights how naive you are. Keep laughing though, it’s a good outlet.
If it was a true stimulus bill I might give it some support but it is a spending bill on a massive scale wrapped in double speak. Of course it is beloved by Democrats.
By the way Bush didn’t throw away trillions. Obama in 60 days quadrupled the deficit and will bankrupt the country in 4 years. By comparison Bush was a tightwad who left a far smaller deficit, which I also opposed. Get your facts straight. Your out of your depth here.
Blah blah blah, rationalizing, Bush-apologetics. Same old.
Same old facts. They haven’t changed.
Try adding something intelligent.
Like a link to the fucking Heritage Foundation? You’re killing me.[/quote]
Funny stuff son. Can’t formulate an opinion, let alone a retort, so you attack the medium. Typical.
Did you start to shake when you opened the link. Unless it’s predigested students like you don’t seem to do well with opinion from other schools of though. That’s what we get for dumbing down public education I guess.
You do realize all of the talking points you spew come straight from the Obama political machine don’t you? You probably don’t which is sad.
Since your knowledge of Keynesian theory is only Wikpedia deep allow me point you in the direction. Look up currency values and equilibrium of the economy. You will find the flaws in a strict Keynesian analysis of the economy by starting there.
Read a little further, away from Wikpedia, and you will see that Keynes is beloved by politicians, especially those who like to spend, like your messiah. Although the work of Keynes was monumental, much like Marx, it doesn’t make it correct nor does it make it relevant outside of an academic setting. The leakage caused by the bureaucracy in general, and the special interest groups in particular are enough to bleed off any “multiplier” from spending. The stimulus in particular isn’t spending and investing in means of production it is funding already existing programs and repairing infrastructure. The new technology it aims to invest in is not yet viable. Although it may warrant research it does not warrant investment in production.
Your understanding of economics is remedial at best. You don’t seem to understand the topics you have put forth and you defense of them is weak. That’s why the members here are giving you the ass kicking you deserve.
Come back and make a point when you complete two important things in your life. Earning a degree and getting a job. Until then study up before you start an argument with people who actually know what they are talking about.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:Can you dispute the actual facts as false, or do you think, just 'cause YOU said it, it means something. Other than double talk around the fringes, you have offered no defense and not a single shred of evidence to back up anything you said.
Is that how all you mega-leftists operate? Statements with out fact, slogans and no evidence.
If you are fucking broke, borrowing and spending an assload of money won’t fucking fix it. A kindergartner can figure it out and you can. Perhaps getting an education would help…Al least then you may have the good sense not to wait around with you hand out hoping somebody will put something in it.
Well, he basically said “Bush didn’t throw away lots of money,” which is obviously false to anyone who is not a republican, and he gave me a link showing me that Obama’s deficit will be large, which we already knew. What’s to talk about? He doesn’t like spending when a democrat does it, but when a republican spends money to bomb a foreign country, it’s fine.
[/quote]
Overspending is wrong regardless of party affiliation. You are an idealogue and can’t understand that yet. You may never.
Most of the intelligent members are getting bored with you. Try and think of something relevant because you don’t seem to grasp the concept. I’d almost say you are another sock puppet of the 100M/Lumpy/Brad61 lineage.
[quote]pat wrote:Ok what jobs are long term…You gonna get a shovel and build a road?
Are you saying that if you were offered the postion of executive with a lucrative salary you would turn it down to do something lesser for the greater good, you know like you friend marx? Or are you say ALL executives are cheats and evil and don’t deserve what they have.[/quote]
Hell no, I wouldn’t take it, I fucking hate business. I’d much rather have some sort of scientific position.
By the way, that’s not at all what Marx advocated. Nice, since I think later in this post you accuse me of critiquing books I haven’t read.
Why? I work for what I have, little as it may be. If you’re going to tax somebody, I know this is a strange concept for you as a conservative, but it’s really better to tax people who have money.
I don’t make a whole lot of money, because I’m in school, but I donate what I can. I gave $20 a couple weeks ago to a Christian drug rehab program. I also give when I can to a couple other places. Like I said, it’s not much, but it’s what I can afford.
You don’t know a goddamn thing about me, so fuck you. I’ve had a job since I was 15. Why don’t you take your own advice and actually post something substantive, instead of trying to attack my character? Of course that’s hard in your position, as facts aren’t your friend.
?? Do you read all your sources like this? That is, not at all? I said right there, he’s been on the news, which I do watch. How did you miss that?
[quote]Explain how this stimulates the economy…I want details and facts. Because your dead fucking wrong. Look no further than FDR, who sustained the depression 7 years longer than it should have because he kept string people along with shitty jobs and social programs and they could never advance; they had to take what was given them. In '37 he further fucked them up with a major tax hike.
BTW, it was the tax hike by Herbert Hoover that turned the recession in to the depression. The depression ended with WW 2, he had nothing to do with it. History has beared this out time and time again.
Please for crying out loud study history and get your fucking facts strait.[/quote]
OK, I’ll go real slow. People have no money right now, so they don’t spend much. That’s bad because a dollar spent by one person is a dollar earned by someone else. So since the seller is making less money, he cuts back too, which exacerbates the problem. Giving people jobs gives them money! They can spend a little more.
FDR screwed the pooch on the New Deal, because he never gave up on trying to balance the budget. He was trying to ride two horses with one ass. Note that once spending really did ramp up (WWII), we came right out of that slump. Well, maybe not right out, but nobody would dispute that WWII significantly boosted our economy.
[quote]hedo wrote:Funny stuff son. Can’t formulate an opinion, let alone a retort, so you attack the medium. Typical.
Did you start to shake when you opened the link. Unless it’s predigested students like you don’t seem to do well with opinion from other schools of though. That’s what we get for dumbing down public education I guess.
You do realize all of the talking points you spew come straight from the Obama political machine don’t you? You probably don’t which is sad.
Since your knowledge of Keynesian theory is only Wikpedia deep allow me point you in the direction. Look up currency values and equilibrium of the economy. You will find the flaws in a strict Keynesian analysis of the economy by starting there.
Read a little further, away from Wikpedia, and you will see that Keynes is beloved by politicians, especially those who like to spend, like your messiah. Although the work of Keynes was monumental, much like Marx, it doesn’t make it correct nor does it make it relevant outside of an academic setting. The leakage caused by the bureaucracy in general, and the special interest groups in particular are enough to bleed off any “multiplier” from spending. The stimulus in particular isn’t spending and investing in means of production it is funding already existing programs and repairing infrastructure. The new technology it aims to invest in is not yet viable. Although it may warrant research it does not warrant investment in production.
Your understanding of economics is remedial at best. You don’t seem to understand the topics you have put forth and you defense of them is weak. That’s why the members here are giving you the ass kicking you deserve.
Come back and make a point when you complete two important things in your life. Earning a degree and getting a job. Until then study up before you start an argument with people who actually know what they are talking about.[/quote]
Hmm… you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about, yet you really say nothing here, except saying essentially that there is no such thing as the multiplier effect, which is patently ridiculous. Tell you what, make a coherent point, and I’ll respond.
[quote]hedo wrote:Overspending is wrong regardless of party affiliation. You are an idealogue and can’t understand that yet. You may never.
Most of the intelligent members are getting bored with you. Try and think of something relevant because you don’t seem to grasp the concept. I’d almost say you are another sock puppet of the 100M/Lumpy/Brad61 lineage.[/quote]
Oh, I don’t recall seeing many people upset over Bush’s reckless spending. I only point out the conservative objections because they are so hypocritical. I really don’t care if you agree with me or not, let’s just be consistent.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:That is a woefully ignorant statement.
If you printed off money and tossed it from the rooftops, the only resulting effect would be an increase in prices. Nobody would have increased buying power; the recession would continue.[/quote]
The goal isn’t to increase buying power, it’s to increase willingness to spend. The rest of your post pretty well falls apart.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:Can you dispute the actual facts as false, or do you think, just 'cause YOU said it, it means something. Other than double talk around the fringes, you have offered no defense and not a single shred of evidence to back up anything you said.
Is that how all you mega-leftists operate? Statements with out fact, slogans and no evidence.
If you are fucking broke, borrowing and spending an assload of money won’t fucking fix it. A kindergartner can figure it out and you can. Perhaps getting an education would help…Al least then you may have the good sense not to wait around with you hand out hoping somebody will put something in it.
Well, he basically said “Bush didn’t throw away lots of money,” which is obviously false to anyone who is not a republican, and he gave me a link showing me that Obama’s deficit will be large, which we already knew. What’s to talk about? He doesn’t like spending when a democrat does it, but when a republican spends money to bomb a foreign country, it’s fine.
[/quote]
Bush overspent, there is no doubt. There is over spending and then there is drastically way over spending. Obama trying to spend in 6 months what Bush would have spent in 8 years. Not only that, but the democrats also voted with Bush most of the time, including Hillary.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:Ok what jobs are long term…You gonna get a shovel and build a road?
Are you saying that if you were offered the postion of executive with a lucrative salary you would turn it down to do something lesser for the greater good, you know like you friend marx? Or are you say ALL executives are cheats and evil and don’t deserve what they have.
Hell no, I wouldn’t take it, I fucking hate business. I’d much rather have some sort of scientific position.
[/quote]
Fair enough, with whom, the government or a research firm?
Does not answer the question though does it? Are all those guys cheats and thieves? First, they already pay most of the taxes, second why punish people for being successful? Do they not have the right to pursue and achieve success? Wealth envy is dangerous.
I know what marx advocated and I saw the destruction, poverty, desperation and death it caused. Don’t make any argument for his virtue. He was an even bigger idiot than yourself…I mean that in the nicest way.
It better for the governement to create as many taxing opportunities as possible. Higher taxes slows the flow of money and creates fewer tax opportunities. Income tax is one part of a much larger equation. The more money people have the more thay can spend. The more they spend, the more tax opportunities exist. The more they exist, the more the governement makes. Everybody ends up with more.
You can make all the rich people poor and the government will still have less money than they would with more money flowing through the system.
What are you trying some kind of jedi mind trick? Everything I say is based in fact. It’s your own damn fault not knowing them. You paying for your own school…Or do you want Obama to tax me to death so you can get a free ride?
The media has reported on him in the news can you honestly say that you know what he actually said vs. what is being reported? I do not listen to him often, but I can tell you I know well enough that what is being reported is not accurate. If you give me an example of something he said, I can find you the exact context in what it was said it you will find it a very different story. Everything he says is transcripted on his website. You can cross reference anything.
Even going slow you don’t get it. You don’t give people jobs, people get and earn them and keep them. Creating temporary work that doesn’t actually need to be done creates weak points in the economy. Artificial demand is not substantive or sustainable. You try to make something out of nothing, you end up with nothing, and debt. These people working the temporary jobs will end up jobless again in short order, except for the fact that these jobs are investments with no return which means no money can be made from them. If money can be made from them than every penny of said project will have to be paid back by some other means. This will just be debt and the debt will be covered by obscene taxation. This pattern will prolong and maintain recession not end it. To bad even in your slowness you are incapable of figuring that out.
FDR screwed the pooch precisely because he invested in infrastructure which has no means of paying back the cost it took to do the projects.
He generated an assload of debt and had no means of recouping the money so he raised taxes. When he raised taxes he really fucked up the economy. It is the same pattern obama is trying to follow. I guess he never figured out that that line never actually went up with any of FDR’s spending projects. FDR would have been better off setting up lemonade stands all across the country. He would have at least recouped a buck or two by selling an actual product or service.
Quite right, and they share in the blame. But now is not the time pull back. As “uncomfortable” as it may be to get that far into the red, we were already up to $9 trillion before this whole thing broke. Now granted, there was concern over the debt, but there was no outcry like there is at present. But if $9 trillion in debt isn’t enough to scare congress into more responsible spending habits, what’s the problem in adding some more in order to save your economy from collapsing?
[quote]pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:Fair enough, with whom, the government or a research firm?
Does not answer the question though does it? Are all those guys cheats and thieves? First, they already pay most of the taxes, second why punish people for being successful? Do they not have the right to pursue and achieve success? Wealth envy is dangerous.[/quote]
Preferably at a university somewhere, but I’ve got about a year and a half left, so I don’t have to decide right now. I’ll probably try to get a graduate degree anyhow.
Evidently you don’t. I really don’t want to get into this debate here (if you really want, you can PM me) because it’s a whole other can of worms, but basically that whole paragraph is wrong. But even if it weren’t–is capitalism free from those criticisms? A cursory examination, if done honestly, will reveal that it of course is not, and probably has been responsible for more death and exploitation than socialism.
[quote]It better for the governement to create as many taxing opportunities as possible. Higher taxes slows the flow of money and creates fewer tax opportunities. Income tax is one part of a much larger equation. The more money people have the more thay can spend. The more they spend, the more tax opportunities exist. The more they exist, the more the governement makes. Everybody ends up with more.
You can make all the rich people poor and the government will still have less money than they would with more money flowing through the system.[/quote]
Just to be clear, I’m not saying we should raise taxes right now. However, surely you must see the flaw in your argument? Less taxes leads to more spending and more total revenue, OK I got it, but it seems like you’re saying that if less taxes are good, then even less must be better, right? But clearly, you’ll eventually get to 0%. Now I get the point you’re making, but I’ll just say that I don’t think things are that simple.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. If you’re asking whether I think government ought to increase funding for education in general, then the answer is yes. Do I want to tax you to do it? I don’t know, it really depends on your profession and your income.
If you do not listen to him, how do you know what he says? It’s like critiquing a book you never read. Hell you may even like him if you listen to him. Or perhaps you would find yourself agreeing with him…If you don’t listen you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
No, they actually had clips of him. They didn’t just give it to you second hand. I don’t remember exactly how he phrased it, but among other things, he said, pardon me, but basically the same things you’re saying. The stimulus package is not needed/won’t help, omg the deficit (while saying nothing about reckless spending that’s been happening for years), etc. He thinks poor people are inferior (not his exact words, but easily gleaned from his statements). Also he thinks that regulating the financial industry is socialism, and I tend to tune out when I hear that kind of thing.
Step 1: create temporary work that makes money for individuals and their employers
Step 2: set them on work that DOES need to be done (hello, our infrastructure is falling apart, this is BADLY needed, as well as a healthcare overhaul and other things) which will promote future growth
Step3: gradually scale back government spending as the private sector recovers; perhaps some temporary jobs wil be lost, but throughout the recovery, companies will gradually begin hiring back employees, so it more or less evens out.
If this isn’t enough, I’ll have to use pictures or something.
[quote]FDR screwed the pooch precisely because he invested in infrastructure which has no means of paying back the cost it took to do the projects.
He generated an assload of debt and had no means of recouping the money so he raised taxes. When he raised taxes he really fucked up the economy. It is the same pattern obama is trying to follow. I guess he never figured out that that line never actually went up with any of FDR’s spending projects. FDR would have been better off setting up lemonade stands all across the country. He would have at least recouped a buck or two by selling an actual product or service.[/quote]
Hello? He didn’t spend enough, or did you ignore the part about him trying to balance the budget at the same time? As far as spending goes, military spending is one of the most inefficient ways you could possibly choose to stimulate your economy, but it worked. A more cost-effective investment would do even better. All those ships, planes, tanks, bullets, and bombs we made? What return did they give us? I’ll give you a hint, less than the return on infrastructure.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:That is a woefully ignorant statement.
If you printed off money and tossed it from the rooftops, the only resulting effect would be an increase in prices. Nobody would have increased buying power; the recession would continue.
The goal isn’t to increase buying power, it’s to increase willingness to spend. The rest of your post pretty well falls apart.
[/quote]
That’s a real chicken-shit dodge.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and you’re too scared to try to defend your position when I call you on it.
You suck.
For the record, there’s no willingness to spend because there’s no accumulated capital, and thus no buying power. But it you weren’t an economic idiot, you’d know that.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
pat wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:Fair enough, with whom, the government or a research firm?
Does not answer the question though does it? Are all those guys cheats and thieves? First, they already pay most of the taxes, second why punish people for being successful? Do they not have the right to pursue and achieve success? Wealth envy is dangerous.
Preferably at a university somewhere, but I’ve got about a year and a half left, so I don’t have to decide right now. I’ll probably try to get a graduate degree anyhow.
I know what marx advocated and I saw the destruction, poverty, desperation and death it caused. Don’t make any argument for his virtue. He was an even bigger idiot than yourself…I mean that in the nicest way.
Evidently you don’t. I really don’t want to get into this debate here (if you really want, you can PM me) because it’s a whole other can of worms, but basically that whole paragraph is wrong. But even if it weren’t–is capitalism free from those criticisms? A cursory examination, if done honestly, will reveal that it of course is not, and probably has been responsible for more death and exploitation than socialism.
[/quote]
Capitalism, though not perfect, is the best thing we got. How many times must Communism/ Socialism be tried for you to understand the it is a colossal fail, cannot work and will never work? It has been tried and is being tried and every time it fails, over and over again. This is theory put into practice. It cannot work, and will never work for it is flawed in it’s most basic fundamentals. Humans are wired to be ego centric, period. Like any other animal we are wired this way. We can only break from the mold by doing it consciously and will fully. Being forced causes resentment and resistance. You know why the Soviets never built anything good? Because nobody gave enough of a fuck to build something good. I have ridden in a Russian car and it was the biggest piece of shit I have ever seen, not to mention flat out dangerous. You will not survive a wreck in that thing. If you get paid the same no matter what, if you cannot succeed as an individual, you will not be motivated to do shit. Ever seen a lion in a zoo? I have, and have never seen one awake. They don’t have to compete for mates, they don’t have hunt food so thaey just don’t do shit. Humans will be have the same. It is in our biology. We want to do for ourselves. We need more than to have our needs met. Marx only saw a single dimension, getting everyone’s needs met, his method does the basics, we need more than that, because we actually need very little.
When you go to class, are you shooting to make a “C” or an “A”? How hard would you study and try if everybody was getting a “C” no matte what? That is socialism/ communism. You get the basics but you get no more than the basics, and the basics suck.
I’ll be happy to debate you, anytime anywhere.
Yes they are that simple. Unfortunately we need taxes, but it should be fair to everyone. I support a complete overhaul of the current system. The current system is the worst case scenario?The very collection of taxes is so complicated that the process itself wastes millions, if not billions of dollars. Leanness and efficiency is what we need, not throwing more money at old, bad system. We need either a flat tax or a national sales tax system. That way everybody contributes and if you consume more, you pay more. So the rich, that you hate so much, will pay more, because they consume more.
The stimulus isn’t and won’t do a fucking thing for the economy. Yes, Bush was a wasteful spender and I never liked that. He sort of had to be to get any budgets passed by congress, but it was wasteful nonetheless. However, it wasn’t pushing us to the brink. Obama’s spending is taking a HUGE risk for the whole country. He is going to add 50% to the deficit in less than 6 months if he gets his way, which put’s us dangerously close to having more interest compounded than can be paid. Bush was wasteful, but he no where near what obama is. He is throwing the whole country on a roulette table. Rush is right in this matter.
Temporarily, then what? Back to square one. Creating bubbles got us into this mess.
What? You must not know what a bad infrastructure looks like. America’s sewers are paved with gold compared to some places. Our infrastructure is quite in tact and in really damn good shape. Secondly, Even if the whole system was crumbling, you don’t stimulate the economy with infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending is a necessary evil, but spending a fuck load of money on it, will not stimulate the economy, all it does is create debt, because infrastructure cannot pay you back. Infrastructure spending has to be as lean as possible because of this fact. It’s not good to have awesome roads if you only got a bicycle to ride on them.
A stimulus should either clear debt or invest, obama’s stimulus is .75 trillion bucks down the drain, literally. Does it matter how good the sewer system is if you don’t have a pot to piss in? Infrastructure is part of a budget, it is less than useless as a “stimulus”.
There is no provision to do this.
Trying to balance the budget was the only smart thing he did. I think we should retroactively impeach the son of a bitch. He didn’t spend enough? Now your just being obtuse. If you own a business that has accumulated debt and you business is now in trouble, what makes more sense? A) Take out a huge loan and redo the bathroom and repave the parking lot or B) reduce spending, invest in the business itself taking a minimal loan if necessary, and reduce your prices to drum up business?
We should be doing ‘B’, but obama is doing ‘A’. these are simple things, they are not complicated. A cowboy with some horse sense could figure this out.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
hedo wrote:Overspending is wrong regardless of party affiliation. You are an idealogue and can’t understand that yet. You may never.
Most of the intelligent members are getting bored with you. Try and think of something relevant because you don’t seem to grasp the concept. I’d almost say you are another sock puppet of the 100M/Lumpy/Brad61 lineage.
Oh, I don’t recall seeing many people upset over Bush’s reckless spending. I only point out the conservative objections because they are so hypocritical. I really don’t care if you agree with me or not, let’s just be consistent.
[/quote]
Blah Blah Blah. No wonder people think you are an idiot.
Back to class schoolboy. Try and learn something. You’ll need it.