Tea Party Candidate Rand Paul Has Modest 8 Pt. Lead For KY Senate Over Democrats.

[hermit]

Quote from Trader666:

Now I see you misrepresented this as well. I should have figured...

Here he is in his own words, basically making the case that Obama's deficits, NOT Bush's are out of control:

http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/

hermit = desperate libtard LIAR

So now you agree with the chart?

Perhaps it was too long ago for you to remember - I only posted the chart for a comparison to prove your idiocy, nowhere did I comment on Hennessey's analysis. Idiot.

T666 = neocon propaganda puppet living in his own world.

 

[Trader666]

You just can't stop lying can you?

You were using it in a lame attempt to rebut me.

But when I took a few seconds to actually look at it, it supported my case.

You've just been destroyed and all the lying in the world won't help you.

Get a life loser.

Quote from hermit:

So now you agree with the chart?

Perhaps it was too long ago for you to remember - I only posted the chart for a comparison to prove your idiocy, nowhere did I comment on Hennessey's analysis. Idiot.

T666 = neocon propaganda puppet living in his own world.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Trader666:

You just can't stop lying can you?

You were using it in a lame attempt to rebut me.

But when I took a few seconds to actually look at it, it supported my case.

You've just been destroyed and all the lying in the world won't help you.

Get a life loser.

What lie? When did I comment on Hennessey's chart? I said your chart was BS which was the point of posting Hennessy's chart. When did I say there won't be any deficits under Obama?

Shameless liar and hypocrite neocon, these words should be synonyms.

 

[phenomena]

Yeah, but he was mostly referencing quantitative facts. Not social and scientific commentary. Big difference. If you want to refute the data, refute the data. But saying "that website says dumb stuff on other pages of it" doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.

Quote from hermit:

T666 chose to believe Heritage.org who have a history of biased 'research' over Bush's own Senior Economic Advisor, that was the point of my post.

 

[hermit]

Quote from phenomena:

Yeah, but he was mostly referencing quantitative facts. Not social and scientific commentary. Big difference. If you want to refute the data, refute the data. But saying "that website says dumb stuff on other pages of it" doesn't qualify as a rebuttal.

His source is only heritage.org which project's Obama's first year budget but fails to show anything that Bush did including his leaving out the Wars, Medicare and Bailouts from the budget and still showing a 9.3 Trillion Deficit. Notice he doesnt discuss that and instead solely relies on the heritage projection of Obama's budget.

And the reason why Heritage projections are disingenuous, here is some explanation.

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPP’s, 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. Heritage’s 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 “current policy” when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade

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

 

[Trader666]

Here's one of the places liar...

And how about the fact that Bush's own 'senior White House economic advisor' cant put himself to agree with the neocon bs.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2915847#post2915847

In that post you also linked to a comment on Hennessey's position, NOT Hennessey's position itself, which is here and basically says that Obama's deficits and NOT Bush's are out of control.
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/

Quote from hermit:

What lie? When did I comment on Hennessey's chart? I said your chart was BS which was the point of posting Hennessy's chart. When did I say there won't be any deficits under Obama?

Shameless liar and hypocrite neocon, these words should be synonyms.

 

[Trader666]

The numbers are NOT from Heritage, they're taken from the president's budget as I explained to you last month when I beat you down here and gave you a link to them:

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

Your continued denial and lies only discredit you further and prove how desperate you are.

Quote from hermit:

His source is only heritage.org

 

[Trader666]

These comments are about A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE and I've told you that before.

There you go lying again... you're desperate and can't help yourself, can you?

Quote from hermit:

And the reason why Heritage projections are disingenuous, here is some explanation.

In constructing its baseline, Heritage partly assumes its own conclusion. The baseline projections developed by Heritage generally resemble CBPP’s, 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. Heritage’s 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 “current policy” when they make their baseline budget projections for the coming decade

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

 

[hermit]

Quote from Trader666:

Here's one of the places liar...

And how about the fact that Bush's own 'senior White House economic advisor' cant put himself to agree with the neocon bs.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2915847#post2915847

In that post you also linked to a comment on Hennessey's position, NOT Hennessey's position itself, which is here and basically says that Obama's deficits and NOT Bush's are out of control.
http://keithhennessey.com/2010/07/12/spiraling-deficits/

I posted the source you idiot, when did I comment on it. Another lie from the resident liar.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Trader666:

These comments are about A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE and I've told you that before.

There you go lying again... you're desperate and can't help yourself, can you?

It explains why heritage's projections are disingenuous, can't you make sense of something unless its handed down in pretty charts from neocon websites?