Liberal Math

[DirtyDishSoap]

2+2=fish.



Get it right, either hop on the gravy train or get off, but don't ruin it with your "logic."

[Baron Von PWN]

it doesn't matter. I lump facts, numbers, and statistics all into the same category, and then they are immediately dismissed equally

Right... You realize those are all very different things, don't you?

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.

I'm pretty sure it's actually closer to 3.5 trillion...

Yeah 3.5 billion would be considered a fairly modest deficit considering the size of the US economy/ government.

[Woodruff]

FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too.

And yet, you titled the thread "Liberal Math", you dishonest f*ck.

[jbrettlip]

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.)

[Woodruff]

Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.

Really? I find that odd.

Usually you are much wittier, Woody!

I am?

[jbrettlip]

Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.

Really? I find that odd.

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.

[Woodruff]

Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.

Really? I find that odd.

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.

[john9blue]

Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.

LOL that was actually a good one.

[Woodruff]

Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.

LOL that was actually a good one.

Arrowheads galore!

[Titanic]

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?

[john9blue]

Including the ones who are running huge surpluses?

Really, any government that prints its own money and spends it is "spending money we don't have". Whether that's corrupt or not depends on your opinion and the government in question. Usually the average Joe loses out, though.

[thegreekdog]

Just so you guys know, this is technically correct.

Before a state (or a company for that matter) starts its fiscal year, it has a budget (i.e. we're going to take in this much revenue and pay out this much in expense). So, if they say on March 1, 2009 that the budgeted $300 million of expenses and then, because of cuts, they only pay out $250 million of expenses, they have effectively cut their budget.

[Timminz]

Just so you guys know, this is technically correct.

Before a state (or a company for that matter) starts its fiscal year, it has a budget (i.e. we're going to take in this much revenue and pay out this much in expense). So, if they say on March 1, 2009 that the budgeted $300 million of expenses and then, because of cuts, they only pay out $250 million of expenses, they have effectively cut their budget.

Shocking, isn't it? It even holds true if they only spent $200 million in the previous year.

[thegreekdog]

Just so you guys know, this is technically correct.

Before a state (or a company for that matter) starts its fiscal year, it has a budget (i.e. we're going to take in this much revenue and pay out this much in expense). So, if they say on March 1, 2009 that the budgeted $300 million of expenses and then, because of cuts, they only pay out $250 million of expenses, they have effectively cut their budget.

Shocking, isn't it? It even holds true if they only spent $200 million in the previous year.

It's less about math and more about English. If they had used the term "cut expenses," then the OP would have some beef.