Read this Dr. Detroit

[rozy]

All this is funny, especially Biggie (as usual) but what exactly was XXL's point?

[XXL]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DrDetroit:
Cuda, always looking for a drive-by, eh? Too bad your sentiment is based on repeated schapappings, i.e., getting dick-slapped.

XXL, I thought you said you kicked my ass in that thread?? Funny how you claim that, but use yesterday's story as proof of that alleged "ass-kicking" in that thread,

BTW, you still never addressed the point I made, i.e., Japan's multi-billion dollar government spending program that miserable failed to end its recession. Hence, there's no way you "kicked my ass" in that thread as you never showed up for the fight, preferring to stand outside the ring and shout out, "address the title of thread, waaahhhhh" and completely ignoring the fact that I was addressing YOUR comments in the first place.

That's 2-0.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant, not likely to prove or disprove a fact of consequence to determination of the thread at hand...

How about them apples?
L8
XXL

[XXL]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cuda:
[QB]

Biggie you'd kick both their asses put together. That would be my prediction

WANNA BET?

L8
XXL

[XXL]

How's that crow tasting Dr? Better than the apples? Scoreboard rules and I got scoreboard...

L8
XXL

[smackaholic]

XXL,

Sure, gov. spending will have a positive effect on an economy. I'm no econ expert, but isn't that what Keynes said about a million years ago? The problem is that the spending never stops. Once a gov program has a foothold it never goes away. So if you are touting this spending as a good thing, remember, it is only so as long as it is temporary. But, when was the last time the gov significantly cut back on any program other than the military, which, IMHO is the one area that it is justified in spending large amounts of cayshe.

[DrDetroit]

XXL, you claimed that you kicked my ass in that thread. I clearly demonstrated that you had not as you consistently ducked my point. Then you invited me to start a new thread and you'd address that. Yet, you still ducked it. Props for exposing yourself as sacless dipshit coward.

[Cuda]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Uncle Fester:


Bush made huge environmental cuts last year. Based on his 2003 budget, he plans many more:

$300 million cut from the EPA's budget
$100 million cut from EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Funds
$124 million cut from EPA's Office of Science and Technology (the office that provides the scientific research for things like the arsenic in drinking water standard, which Bush claims "needs more study.")
$112 million cut from EPA's Environmental Programs and Management (its core operating programs).
$47 million cut from clean air research at EPA's Office of Science and Technology.
Cut funds from civil enforcement and compliance monitoring. The budget proposes a total cut of 111 "work years" in enforcement personnel. (btw, EPA "enforcement" is already a joke).
Funding for energy efficiency and renewable programs is directly linked to drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see: extortion)
$28 million cut in FWS land acquisition programs
$33 million cut National Park Service land acquisition
$5 million cut for Cooperative Endangered Species.
$29 million cut in the Office of Surface Mining's Abandoned Mine and Reclamation Fund.
Eliminates funding for the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
Eliminates funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Eliminates funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Eliminates funding for the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP).

Increases:
$35 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the energy companies.
$425 million in subsidies to coal industry.
$38 million for "2010 Nuclear Program" with the focus on removing technical, institutional and regulatory barriers to the development and operation of newly created nuclear plants.
$424 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility. (Whereby nuclear wastes are shipped through American towns by train or truck. I bet the Office of Homeland Security is thrilled over that one.)</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unc. these "huge" cuts you're moaning about add up to less than a billion dollars. Considering that this year's budget is over 2 Trillion, that amounts to less than One Half of One Percent of the budget even IF these "cuts" all came in a single year- which I do not believe they do.

Further, tax reductions do not count as spending.

I think we can agree that the argument for subsudies is a weak one at best, regardless who is being subsidised.

And the combined 462 million for Nuclear regulation & storage would only amount to One Quarter of One Percent of the budget- again, IF it was all spent in one year, which again, I don't believe is the case.

[Ruff Dogg]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Biggie:


What are you guys playing to? I'll take winner, unless you want to play doubles.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great, another one-legged entrant in the tournament.

[DrDetroit]

XXL, please explain how I am eating crow...

You made a claim and I called you on it. You never showed up, you little bitch, even after I started a new thread that you invited me to do. How cherry is that?

As well, I never disagreed with the general economic theory that you posted. The prbolem I had was your "panacea" approach to recessionary conditions.

Yeah, sure looks like you kicked my ass.

Next time, at least have the courage to show up, chump.

[Jsc810]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by XXL:
Irrelevant, not likely to prove or disprove a fact of consequence to determination of the thread at hand...
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Racks XXL for the proper use of a term of art: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 401, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

~back to lurking mode