I don't have specific numbers for this, but I heard that Washington State "cut it's budget" by some large amount. Yet the budget grew. So how does this work? Lets look at the way Liberals do math. I'll give some basic examples.
Now, they claim that they cut the budget for the 2010 year, but if you look at the numbers, they didn't do that at all. It still INCREASED by .25 billion. It's just that they WANTED to spend 3.5 billion, but cut it to 3.25billion. So even though they spend more and more money each year, they claim they keep cutting it. Let me show you how REAL math works.
Now in the example above you can clearly see that the budget was cut from 2009 to 2010. It DECREASED by .5 billion. This is an actual CUT. The other example is NOT A CUT. It's NOT a decrease. It's in fact an increase. They instead are actually INCREASING SPENDING. So next time you hear some democrat talk about how they are cutting the budget, just realize they are lying to you.
FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
If you think that's fun, you should see math at the Federal level.
When you borrow from yourself, it's not really borrowing, even though you do have to pay it back eventually. And it's not debt either, even though ... it is.
One thing I remember from the budget battles of the 1990s is that whenever Congress didn't raise spending by as much as they originally projected, they would call that a cut. Yes, a cut in the rate of increase was actually viewed as a real cut. Perhaps that's what Washington state is trying to claim. I don't really know because bedub said he didn't have the specific numbers.
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?
Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?
Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
it doesn't matter. I lump facts, numbers, and statistics all into the same category, and then they are immediately dismissed equally
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?
Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
I made the liberal comment because it's the current Democrats that are doing this. I don't know of any Republicans doing it, but I'm sure they do. I also would be thrilled if it was only 3.25 billion. I think it's more like 20 and we have a 3.5 billion shortfall.
tzor wrote:If you think that's fun, you should see math at the Federal level.
When you borrow from yourself, it's not really borrowing, even though you do have to pay it back eventually. And it's not debt either, even though ... it is.
Stop scaring me.
beezer wrote:One thing I remember from the budget battles of the 1990s is that whenever Congress didn't raise spending by as much as they originally projected, they would call that a cut. Yes, a cut in the rate of increase was actually viewed as a real cut. Perhaps that's what Washington state is trying to claim. I don't really know because bedub said he didn't have the specific numbers.
Exactly! they are cutting the INCREASE so they are still increasing it...just not as much. But then they claim they are actually reducing their spending...which is a lie.
Oh dear me. Whatever would happen if someone were to think I were echoing a statement in order to show my agreement with said statement? It offends my sensibilities, just thinking about it, I tell you.
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too.
And yet, you titled the thread "Liberal Math", you dishonest f*ck.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed. That made me laugh, so I reported his post. Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
Government is corrupt and spending money we don't have. ALL of them. Every government on the planet. The beauty is the US govt owns acres of land, natural resources and military weaponary. We owe meaningless pieces of paper. Eventually our ICBM's will pay off our debts (by vaporizing our creditors.)
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.
jbrettlip wrote:Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
I am?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.
jbrettlip wrote:Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
I am?
yes, you usually seem to have smart ass comments (which I like) as opposed to name calling. Also with your Spock avatar, it makes name calling that much funnier.
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.
jbrettlip wrote:Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
I am?
yes, you usually seem to have smart ass comments (which I like) as opposed to name calling. Also with your Spock avatar, it makes name calling that much funnier.
Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Woodruff wrote:Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.
LOL that was actually a good one.
Arrowheads galore!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed. That made me laugh, so I reported his post. Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
Government is corrupt and spending money we don't have. ALL of them. Every government on the planet. The beauty is the US govt owns acres of land, natural resources and military weaponary. We owe meaningless pieces of paper. Eventually our ICBM's will pay off our debts (by vaporizing our creditors.)
Including the ones who are running huge surpluses?
