Liberal Math
Moderator: Community Team
Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
Liberal Math
I don't have specific numbers for this, but I heard that Washington State "cut it's budget" by some large amount. Yet the budget grew. So how does this work? Lets look at the way Liberals do math. I'll give some basic examples.
2005 - 1 billion
2006 - 1.5 billion
2007 - 2.0 billion
2008 - 2.5 billion
2009 - 3.0 billion
2010 - 3.25 billion
Now, they claim that they cut the budget for the 2010 year, but if you look at the numbers, they didn't do that at all. It still INCREASED by .25 billion. It's just that they WANTED to spend 3.5 billion, but cut it to 3.25billion. So even though they spend more and more money each year, they claim they keep cutting it. Let me show you how REAL math works.
2005 - 1 billion
2006 - 1.5 billion
2007 - 2.0 billion
2008 - 2.5 billion
2009 - 3.0 billion
2010 - 2.5 billion
Now in the example above you can clearly see that the budget was cut from 2009 to 2010. It DECREASED by .5 billion. This is an actual CUT. The other example is NOT A CUT. It's NOT a decrease. It's in fact an increase. They instead are actually INCREASING SPENDING. So next time you hear some democrat talk about how they are cutting the budget, just realize they are lying to you.
FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
2005 - 1 billion
2006 - 1.5 billion
2007 - 2.0 billion
2008 - 2.5 billion
2009 - 3.0 billion
2010 - 3.25 billion
Now, they claim that they cut the budget for the 2010 year, but if you look at the numbers, they didn't do that at all. It still INCREASED by .25 billion. It's just that they WANTED to spend 3.5 billion, but cut it to 3.25billion. So even though they spend more and more money each year, they claim they keep cutting it. Let me show you how REAL math works.
2005 - 1 billion
2006 - 1.5 billion
2007 - 2.0 billion
2008 - 2.5 billion
2009 - 3.0 billion
2010 - 2.5 billion
Now in the example above you can clearly see that the budget was cut from 2009 to 2010. It DECREASED by .5 billion. This is an actual CUT. The other example is NOT A CUT. It's NOT a decrease. It's in fact an increase. They instead are actually INCREASING SPENDING. So next time you hear some democrat talk about how they are cutting the budget, just realize they are lying to you.
FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
- pimpdave
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:15 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Anti Tea Party Death Squad Task Force Headquarters
- Contact:
Re: Liberal Math
THE DEBATE IS OVER
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Re: Liberal Math
Snorri1234 wrote:god you're dumb.
- Phatscotty
- Posts: 3714
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: Liberal Math
your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
- Phatscotty
- Posts: 3714
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: Liberal Math
Timminz wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:god you're dumb.
are you afraid to say he is dumb yourself? smoking beaners is bad for those baby nuts
Last edited by Phatscotty on Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Liberal Math
original post with facts and a valid point
one sentence retort/insult by a liberal
one sentence retort/insult by another liberal
sarcastic parody of retorts by another conservative
pwning of previous liberals by same conservative
...yep this thread is par for the course
one sentence retort/insult by a liberal
one sentence retort/insult by another liberal
sarcastic parody of retorts by another conservative
pwning of previous liberals by same conservative
...yep this thread is par for the course
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
-
tzor
- Posts: 4076
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Long Island, NY, USA
- Contact:
Re: Liberal Math
If you think that's fun, you should see math at the Federal level.
When you borrow from yourself, it's not really borrowing, even though you do have to pay it back eventually.
And it's not debt either, even though ... it is.
When you borrow from yourself, it's not really borrowing, even though you do have to pay it back eventually.
And it's not debt either, even though ... it is.

Re: Liberal Math
One thing I remember from the budget battles of the 1990s is that whenever Congress didn't raise spending by as much as they originally projected, they would call that a cut. Yes, a cut in the rate of increase was actually viewed as a real cut. Perhaps that's what Washington state is trying to claim. I don't really know because bedub said he didn't have the specific numbers.
- hecter
- Posts: 14632
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
- Contact:
Re: Liberal Math
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?
Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.


Re: Liberal Math
Phatscotty wrote:smoking beaners is bad for those baby nuts
sig'd
- Phatscotty
- Posts: 3714
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: Liberal Math
hecter wrote:bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
it doesn't matter. I lump facts, numbers, and statistics all into the same category, and then they are immediately dismissed equally
- Phatscotty
- Posts: 3714
- Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: Liberal Math
Timminz wrote:Phatscotty wrote:smoking beaners is bad for those baby nuts
sig'd
and...as for being afraid?
aw f it sig'd
Re: Liberal Math
I made the liberal comment because it's the current Democrats that are doing this. I don't know of any Republicans doing it, but I'm sure they do. 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.hecter wrote:bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too. I hate politicians.
So, why the "liberal" comment, why make such a distinction? It serves no purpose other than to try to insult and belittle your point. I mean, don't get me wrong, the total budget is increasing, but why make such a distinction?Phatscotty wrote:your "numbers" and "facts" and "statistics" make my head hurt. I'll probably make a comment that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and then call you a name.
I see numbers, but few facts and no statistics. I bet Bedub would be absolutely THRILLED if the budget was only 3.25 billion.
Stop scaring me.tzor wrote:If you think that's fun, you should see math at the Federal level.
When you borrow from yourself, it's not really borrowing, even though you do have to pay it back eventually.
And it's not debt either, even though ... it is.
Exactly! they are cutting the INCREASE so they are still increasing it...just not as much. But then they claim they are actually reducing their spending...which is a lie.beezer wrote:One thing I remember from the budget battles of the 1990s is that whenever Congress didn't raise spending by as much as they originally projected, they would call that a cut. Yes, a cut in the rate of increase was actually viewed as a real cut. Perhaps that's what Washington state is trying to claim. I don't really know because bedub said he didn't have the specific numbers.
Re: Liberal Math
Oh dear me. Whatever would happen if someone were to think I were echoing a statement in order to show my agreement with said statement? It offends my sensibilities, just thinking about it, I tell you.
- hecter
- Posts: 14632
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:27 pm
- Gender: Female
- Location: Tying somebody up on the third floor
- Contact:
Re: Liberal Math
Phatscotty wrote: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?
bedub1 wrote: 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...
In heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine, in heaven... Everything is fine... You got your things, and I've got mine.


- DirtyDishSoap
- Posts: 9356
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:42 pm
- Gender: Male
Re: Liberal Math
2+2=fish.
Get it right, either hop on the gravy train or get off, but don't ruin it with your "logic."
Get it right, either hop on the gravy train or get off, but don't ruin it with your "logic."
Dukasaur wrote:saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
- Baron Von PWN
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Capital region ,Canada
Re: Liberal Math
hecter wrote:Phatscotty wrote: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?bedub1 wrote: 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.
Re: Liberal Math
bedub1 wrote:FYI, I'm sure republicans do this too.
And yet, you titled the thread "Liberal Math", you dishonest f*ck.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: Liberal Math
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.)
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.)

nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
Re: Liberal Math
jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.
jbrettlip wrote:Usually you are much wittier, Woody!
I am?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: Liberal Math
Woodruff wrote:jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.jbrettlip wrote: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.

nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
Re: Liberal Math
jbrettlip wrote:Woodruff wrote:jbrettlip wrote:Wow, I have never seen Woodruff get so disjointed.
Really? I find that odd.jbrettlip wrote: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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: Liberal Math
Woodruff wrote:Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.
LOL that was actually a good one.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Re: Liberal Math
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:Sometimes, the blunt truth is the only way to make a point.
LOL that was actually a good one.
Arrowheads galore!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Re: Liberal Math
jbrettlip wrote: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?