SP4: gollyMay 7th, 2009 - 19:43:47

After raising the national debt 3.4 TRRILLION over the next x number of years, on some of the porkiest programs since The New Deal, they laud a 17 billion dollar savings!

God, we've never had it so good! Whats next...cow tipping???

Report this comment

SP4 says:May 7th, 2009 - 23:38:17

'Whats next...cow tipping??'
No, we leave that to infantile-minded drug addicts like you, SP. Smoke another doobie and lay back and enjoy the sensation of the family dog humping your leg.

Report this comment

It is soMay 8th, 2009 - 15:48:16

simple SP4, spelling is something you learn in the 2nd grade. Why don't you understand that you may have a slight bit of credibility if you could spell the simplest words and maybe one day make a post without a mistake-----not only are you wrong but it is 'Trillion' idiot stick.

Report this comment

TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 16:30:11

I see, SP, that your kiss-arse chorus is in full cry again.

Come on lads. What percentage of $3.4 trillion does $17 billion amount to? Come on, surely you can divide 17 by 3400? That's right. Now multiply by 100 to express it as a %age. OOOOOh! The sainted Barack's managed to find a 0.5% saving on projected future spend. Yet with a planned 10% deficit (PSBR), he'll still be adding over $300 billion to your national debt over the next year alone!

Must you always attack SPfudd gratuitously whenever he opens his trap? Much he says is partisan, I know, but here he is attempting to make a serious point. Yet you rush in, guns blazing, criticising him for his bad spelling etc. It's too, too bad of you! You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! Poor SP!

You should be attacking the fool intelligently, instead. What you could have slated him for here is his obvious inability to distinguish between annual government spend and national debt! The article refers to the federal budget, which SP mistakes for national debt -something entirely different. SP is obviously completely ignorant of economics and would be better just keeping stum when articles with big numbers and jargon swim in and out of focus on his computer screen.

I can only assume that you were too kind and restrained to point out his pathetic deficiencies. That's the only reason I can imagine for you not mentioning it. ?? ...or perhaps..?

Oh dear! How embarrassing.

Report this comment

@ TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 17:02:53

Just exactly what is your point foreigner?

Report this comment

TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 18:20:15

If you need me to spell it out to you in words of one syllable, then I consider it already proven.

Report this comment

@ TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 21:58:24

I believe you make more sense with one syllable words. Otherwise you sound so much like SP4, so much bullsh*t and never right. Try it with the one syllable's foreigner.

Report this comment

TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 22:54:59

OK. You are as bad as Fudd is. Worse, in fact. At least he has a sense of fun but you are just rude, as well as thick! Do you get my drift now, you yank plank?

Report this comment

TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 23:10:34

Oh, I forgot. Leave the invective to me and the Canook, eh? We know how to do it properly. A few longer words in this one, I admit. I trust that you are not yet hopelessly confused by them. Here's a little test for you. Try chewing some gum, and see if you are able to walk at the same time. Who knows, there may still be hope!

Report this comment

TruebritMay 9th, 2009 - 23:26:41

Er, this is a bit embarrassing, but I've re-read the article and it would appear that I've made a mistake of my own. Obama plans to run a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, not 10% of projected spend. This implies a PSBR of over $1 trillion, not the $300 billion I stated earlier. It also implies federal revenues of only about $2.4 trillion. Surely this can't be right? Is there an intelligent reader out there who could enlighten me? No, SP, not you! Nor you, plank!

Report this comment