Liberal Forum

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote: Oh gosh, it's not your fault you go blind every time I cite one.

Cannonpointer » 06 Jan 2015 2:20 pm » wrote: I also said this, but you conveniently went blind:

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

So I ask AGAIN, Running Bare:

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote:Hey look, a squirrel!
I won't even waste my time counting employees to refute your snark hunt.

That's not a problem, you blind-going little rat. I ALREADY SOURCED IT AND YOU WENT BLIND!

It's okay, you little rat - I LIKE you blind, bitch - so I will source it AGAIN and make you go blind AGAIN!

Watch and learn, you flapjacking whamshammer. This is called "sourcing your claim," you **** hack:

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversigh ... ince-1962/

Year........Exec Civilians..........Military..........Judicial and legislative..........Total Federal Employees

1977........2,840,000 ..........2,112,000......53,000...............................5,005,000 .....................Ford's last Budget
1981........2,806,000 ..........2,122,000......54,000...............................4,982,000 .....................Carter's last Budget Civ. shrank, military grew
1989........3,064,000 ..........2,168,000......60,000...............................5,292,000 .....................Reagan's last Budget As % of population, military SHRANK. Civilian employees - federal bureaucrats- grew by leaps and bounds.

But perhaps I cheat? Perhaps Carter's population dropped while Reagan's grew? There must be SOME trick, if the great Ron Reagan is continually sucking hind teat to that old flub-up Jimma Cawduh, right clemmie? It's not POSSIBLE that you're just a rube who fell for marketing - right?

Let's look at population. https://www.google.com/fusiontables/Dat ... #rows:id=1 Ford's last year was 220,239,425 people in '77. Carter's last year was 229,465,714 - a population growth of 4.189% during his presidency. Reagan ended 1989 with 246,819,230 people - a population growth of 7.57%. Reagan's military forces (see above) grew by an anemic 2.2% (Carter's only grew by half a point, but Carter was CUTTING civilians, not padding the government employment roster with bureaucrats).

While Reagan was growing the population by 7.57% and the debt by 300% and the military by 2.2%, he was growing the CIVILIAN side of government - the part that focuses on we the people - by a whopping 9.2%. The man who promised to shrink government - who told Americans that government was the problem and that he was going to get government out of their way - grew that government faster than the population it served grew. The debt grew, the federal government's control of education grew, The only thing that grew slower than the population was the military.

Enjoy that meal, you little weasel. Choose what condiments you will, I assure you that I served it up with relish, bitch.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2015 2:25 pm » wrote: Spending fell by approx. 2% of GDP over Reagan's presidency, despite the steep Carter-caused rise at the beginning.

Great, great job at ignoring those posts.

"Ignoring," you skirt lifting, high-heel wearing, back-stepping little fan-dancer? I prefer to debunk it.

BUT YOU HAVE REFUSED TO CITE A SOURCE, AND YOU REFUSE TO SAY FROM WHAT YEAR THE ALLEGED 2% DROP OCCURRED, SO I HAVE TO TREAT IT AS JUST ANOTHER UNSOURCED CLEM WHOPPER. YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY 10%, YOU FEM-FABULOUS LITTLE FEM-FAPPER, SINCE YOU REFUSE TO BACK IT UP WITH A SOURCE OR EVEN EXPLAIN IT SO THAT I HAVE A CHANCE TO DEBUNK IT.

So go ahead and make some more unsourced false claims, you queer little weasel. I enjoy watching you expose your incompetence to back up you claims, while I keep bitch-slapping you with objectively verified and sourced reality, you delusional little trollop.

Did Tip O'Neil hire all those extra workers, you hack?

...and the circus clown goes blind...