NAACP Racism story disintegrates: Another Breitbart lie

Trader666 · Jul 21, 2010

+1

hermit desperately supports the left and Obamunism no matter what. Almost as if his survival depends on the U.S. being a socialist welfare state.

Here, for example, he repeatedly tried to blame Heritage for numbers that came from the Obama administration until I rubbed his nose in the facts until he had no choice but to run away.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It was outrageous of Breitbart to quote the woman's own words. That seems to be the gist of it. He certainly didn't fire her.

As for the Media Matters accusations, they are well-known leftwing slimemeisters. I'll trust Breitbart anyday over them.

hermit · Jul 21, 2010

Quote from Trader666:

+1

hermit desperately supports the left and Obamunism no matter what. Almost as if his survival depends on the U.S. being a socialist welfare state.

Here, for example, he repeatedly tried to blame Heritage for numbers that came from the Obama administration until I rubbed his nose in the facts until he had no choice but to run away.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Ya, those numbers are so real, Obama is going to do a stimulus every year, dumb moron cant think beyond what his neocon site tells him to.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPPâs, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritageâs decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define âcurrent policyâ when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade.

Trader666 · Jul 21, 2010

They're FROM THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, liar, and you know that from when I beat you down here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Quote from hermit:

Ya, those numbers are so real, Obama is going to do a stimulus every year, dumb moron cant think beyond what his neocon site tells him to.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPPâs, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years.

hermit · Jul 21, 2010

Quote from Trader666:

They're FROM THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, liar, and you know that from when I beat you down here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Yea right, that's why you cant find anyone else other than that neocon site projecting those numbers, there was no cumulative projection of those numbers which are totally baseless.

Re-read this again since you are too slow to understand - Heritageâs decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit

Trader666 · Jul 21, 2010

You're a total joke. Not only are they IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, I even gave you a link to the budget and told you what table they're in.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Your continuing lies and spin only show how pathetic and desperate you are.

Quote from hermit:

Yea right, that's why you cant find anyone else other than that neocon site projecting those numbers, there was no cumulative projection of those numbers which are totally baseless.

Re-read this again since you are too slow to understand - Heritageâs decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit

hermit · Jul 21, 2010

Quote from Trader666:

You're a total joke. Not only are they IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, I even gave you a link to the budget and told you what table they're in.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

Your continuing lies and spin only show how pathetic and desperate you are.

Re-read this again moron

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPPâs, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritageâs decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define âcurrent policyâ when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036#_ftn14

Trader666 · Jul 21, 2010

What part of THE NUMBERS ARE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET don't you understand?

Actually, you do understand because I gave you the links to prove it. You're just a desperate, lying libtard.

You've lost ALL credibility.

P.S. Those comments from your libtard website apply to something else entirely.

Quote from hermit:

Re-read this again moron

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPPâs, with one crucial difference. Heritage assumes that regular discretionary spending (other than war costs and stimulus funds) will grow at the same rate as the GDP over the next 10 years. In contrast, we assume that such appropriations will grow somewhat more slowly in the 10-year budget window because they will grow with inflation; this is the standard, widely accepted baseline assumption. Heritageâs decision to scrap normal baseline practices and assume higher levels of discretionary spending boosts such spending by more than a full percentage point of GDP by the end of the ten-year period and adds to interest costs as well. Heritage then uses this increased spending it assumes to buttress its claim that it is excessive spending growth that causes the deficit. In theory, policymakers might choose to increase discretionary spending to keep pace with GDP, but that is highly unlikely in these straitened times. And that is not how the Budget Enforcement Act, CBO, and the Office of Management and Budget define âcurrent policyâ when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036#_ftn14

hermit · Jul 21, 2010

Quote from Trader666:

What part of THE NUMBERS ARE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET don't you understand?

Actually, you do understand because I gave you the links to prove it. You're just a desperate, lying libtard.

You've lost ALL credibility.

Yea right, thats why you cant find any other source than your neocon website because even the regular Cons arent stupid enough to believe those numbers.

In case you need to go over some basics, I strongly suggest wikipedia.

CBO calculates 35-year baseline projections, which are used extensively in the budget process. Baseline projections are intended to reflect spending under current law, and are not intended as predictions of the most likely path of the economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Trader666 · Jul 21, 2010

Another lame attempt to obfuscate what the original debate was about.

Here's the issue and here's the beat down I gave you.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900278#post2900278

You may as well change your nic because you've been exposed yet again!

Quote from hermit:

Yea right, thats why you cant find any other source than your neocon website because even the regular Cons arent stupid enough to believe those numbers.

In case you need to go over some basics, I strongly suggest wikipedia.

CBO calculates 35-year baseline projections, which are used extensively in the budget process. Baseline projections are intended to reflect spending under current law, and are not intended as predictions of the most likely path of the economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

AAAintheBeltway · Jul 21, 2010

Quote from hermit:

Funny, when Mark Williams was caught and expelled for his 'own' racist remarks, you had a remarkably different standard on how its all the other side's fault.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2900729#post2900729

Ofcourse you will trust Breitbart, he is a hypocrite just like you.

No, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the racists at the NAACP, just as Breitbart did.

And no one "caught and expelled" Williams. Some publicity seeker issued a press release.