Here's some perspective for all you arguing about this, as I sit in my office eating my lunch I am looking at our sales projection, cash flow projection, and my inventory reports for the month. And to put it bluntly looking at them really makes me consider a prescription for antidepressants. I thought this was the time of year to be merry and jolly……..oh well time to go and try and sell something to pay the employees so they can give their families a Christmas.

He bailed out the banks, banks make it harder to get home financing. Sales suck…. Check

Creates a health care bill that doesn’t do squat costing business’s and employee’s billions. Check

Reduced road and infrastructure funding bankrupting cities, counties and states. Check

States raise tax on fuel as well as other taxes to try and cover lost revenue. Check

Utilities raise prices to try to cover costs of improvements from loss of gov subsidies. Check

But never mind all that stuff, he’s going to change things and make things better for everyone. Speaking of change, anyone have a $1.50 that I can borrow? I would really like to buy a soda to drink with my lunch.

 

How's this work for you Tom?

Sends children and parents dashing the other direction from the site of black socks and sandals.........

 

Raoul's party strikes again: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...get-amendments

 

While I couldn't possibly have voted for all those people, I do agree with Leahy...

 

I don't think they should be allowed to attach bills to other, unrelated bills. Every bill should stand on it's own merit and be voted on.

 

Nothing but demagoguery by Leahy.

Sort of like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ourselves.html

 

I guess I do not understand your definition of demagoguery.
He voted against both bills and succinctly explained why in a sentence or two.

He voted as I would have or as I wish my senator would have.

 

No I cannot help it if you inferred a backhanded insult by the statement.
Read exactly what I write.
You added a plural to it to make it seem like more was wrong with it aside from NPV is the only thought I posted, nothing else.


Thank you for correcting my typing, don't know why I went Jefferson, think it was TV land on in the back ground....

Add a positive and negative and a positive number.
The summation of the 3 numbers is positive.
That is a true statement.
It is also true to say the the last number is a positive number, but that does not make the 1st statement incorrect.

You are right, that is a convoluted explanation....

Wow, 3 FY is convoluted, but this is clear ???
Something not quite right with your analogy, as I take it that my grandfather is the same as Jackson, but from the end of this quote, I take it you feel My Grandfather's picture should not be on the wall ??
If this is the case, you are making an analogy that Jackson should also be excluded with the 1st 6 POTUSs.
My opinion is you didn't want to show that, but the analogy is making that point.....

OK, forget talking in 3 fiscal years, and get into family owned property...

My great-grandfather takes out a loan for 5K to buy 15 acres of land and build a house on it. In the following 5 years, he adds $ 1K each year to the mortgage ( to try to show the 1st 6 POTUS ) for a total of 10K in loans on the 15 acres and house.

My Grandfather inherits the family property and the mortgage of 10K.
He adds another 2K to the loan, totaling 12K.
In 1835 he sells 5 acres on the west side of the property to pay off the 12K mortgage.
Great, free and clear property and house, although it is for less land than he inherited. It is not like he did something great to do away with the mortgage, he had to sell part of it off.
In 1836 he gets a new mortgage for 2K on the property.
He adds to the loan another 2K to make a total of $ 4K on the mortgage.

My dad inherits the family property and mortgage of $4K and over the next years add another $ 20K in loans to the property, totaling 24K in loans ( the Ronnie years for you ).

I inherit it from dad along with the mortgage of 24K, and I add another 30K to the loan to paint the place bright green ( to be Geo W for you to follow ).

At this point there is a mortgage of 54K on the family property that is 1/3rd smaller than when it started out way back when.

Is it not true to say the family property of 10 acres, house and what ever else was built on it, has a total mortgage of 54K on it ?

Yes that was so much easier than 3 FYs listed with a summation.

Yes, if the JPEG was made when Bush was in office ( and I can be 90% sure one was ) then the Washington to Clinton vs Bush JEPG would look similar
Then again if it was Alligators to dolphins on the left to a zebra on the right, it would show something else.....
-> Not what the picture that was posted shows.

This as example of the JEPG being incorrect in addition to the NPV item is not this JEPG is wrong.
Want something to point out as other than NPV being wrong, do some fct checking

Actual for FY 2009, 2010 and the estimated 2011 ( not done counting where all the money went ) totals $4.3 T from the debt history spread sheet on the White house site.
From Washington ( Or Jackson if you can't deal with the summation of 6 numbers to be zero ) to GW Bush is 5.3T from the same spread sheet.

So by the White house documents, and only related to budgeted items ( not Turbo Tax Timmy spending money or the fed buying our own bonds with money from ??? ) the left is 5.3 T for 1836 to 2008 FY and FY 2009 to FY2011 is 4.3T.

Feel better, Obama spent 19% less in 3 years than all other POTUSs did in 172 years. These are real ( aside form the final count not being audited on FY 2011 ) numbers, not some number of 12 year out, and not including Turbo Timmy.

 

I agree.
This way nothing would ever pass ( due to not buying votes with favors ) and nothing would ever get spent.

 

To add a plural to make something seem it is something else is the work of a deceiver.
I guess you do not see it in that light but, I do and consider it an insult.

I'm surprised you address my other considerations yet continue to claim I have but one.
Chief among them is that you acknowledge that the pics are interchangeble with the prior administration ("...90% sure").
I would consider that key evidence 'consideration' of the strength of the jpegs unique claim. You knew it and I knew it but, damiansalmond obviously didn't know it, nor did Frank or the rest of the Great Unwashed.

Including Obama out years, which you acknowledged, is another consideration.
Assuming prior debt and the interest thereon, yet another consideration.
As to Grandfather/Mortgage exercise, I was just trying to pay you back in kind, for making my eyes twirl in opposite directions with your winded post.

So this all began when I mentioned Jackson at one time paid off the National Debt, a small factoid in History.
I never wanted to type so much on this and yet have been reluctantly drug into it.

I do not blame you, I've read your other threads and you just can't help it.
I blame the OP, an embittered Redskin fan whose true Perspective is spelled 'mathmatical elimination'.

 

You did only have one.
I am the one that did the fact checking for you, as you would not / could not do it for yourself.

I am not one to lie about something, if the facts show an error, I will shine the light on it, regardless of which side of the aisle it falls on.

Sorry but the fact is, you had only one issue ( NPV ) and when it comes down to it, I supplied that for you as well. Guess it had considerations but you could not articulate them....

The summation of 3 numbers is that complex to you ?
I don't know what to say about that......
I could follow the error in your analogy, so it was not a case of "eyes twirl in opposite directions" for me.
Seemed easy enough to find the error and correct it, again to me.

Don't enter a debate unless you are prepared then. If you had facts before you put up your supposition, your 'typing this much' would not have happened.

You are correct, I cannot help using Facts with a debate that is not a theoretical situation.

I guess the same can be said of you.
Anything GOP, and you have to to discount it.
Does not matter if you come prepared with facts or supposition and speculation, any of the above are good enough for your posts.


Yep, that is another problem you have with the JEPG aside from NPV, it shows a Democrat in a bad light, and that in itself is a problem for you.

 

I'm done with your conceited nonsense.

Bite me.

 

Guess I hit a nerve pointing out I had to be the one to supply all your facts for you after you entered the debate.
Conceited ? Maybe.
Factual ? Yes.

Typical.
If you can't make a point with supposition and speculation, you resort to this.

This seems to be the corner stone of any political debate with you.

Thank you for your time, have a good evening.