It's pointless. fostert is a brain dead Obamabot.

Jimmie…just ignore him. He's not worth the time it takes to read his stuff. When he doesn't even know the difference between the $780 Million he says is in the stimulus bill and the $780 Billion that's _actually_ in the bill, he's either lying, stupid or isn't paying attention. His mind's made up – don't both him with the facts.

The cost of the stimulus bill was over 800 billion dollars. With the service on the debt, the cost is over a trillion. That's far greater than we spent in five years on Iraq. It's easy for you to win these "debates" that you seem to believe we're having when you invent the numbers yourself.

As far as the tax cuts go, though they're not particularly germane to my post, I believe they were far too little. Though they did, in fact, forestall a recession after the 9/11 attacks and led to steady economic growth, they should never have been temporary. You bring your two experts. I'll bring the two-hundred that signed a full page ad in the New York Times saying that the Democratic bribe fest they called the stimulus bill was exactly the wrong thing to do.

And who, besides you, claimed that the war brought a positive economic effect? That's not why we have ever fought a war. It certainly wasn't among the several reasons that both Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on numerous occasions we needed to fight the one in Iraq.

Shut the hell up about the cost of Iraq. The value of what we have done there far out weighs any price tag.

Say what you want. Lie when you want. I don't care, I'll just call you on it. You can't even admit that we spent more tan pocket change fighting the Iraq War. And you still can't show me how fighting that war produced a positive financial result. Yes, it's cool that Reagan's friend Saddam Hussein is dead now. But was it worth a trillion dollars and more? Imagine if we had spent that developing other energy resources? We'd be a lot better off. Or maybe we could have just not spent that money. A some point, you have to admit that spending money to kill people is the same as spending money to help people. The only difference is that you think a dead person on the ground is better than a healthy baby.

Really? Stimulus bill: $780 million. Iraq War: $1 trillion plus and counting. Your argument is that 760 million is a larger number than $1 trillion. Your math teacher should be shot for allowing you to graduate. Here's a lesson: 1 is less than 2. 2 is less than 3. 3 is less than 4. I don't have time to teach you how to count, but there are tutors available online. Use them before you try to argue numbers with me.

And if you don't want to take credit for Bush's tax cuts, fine. Show me a post where you opposed them. I can bring up plenty where you actually did support them. And I'll note that Arthur Laffer says that Bush's tax cuts didn't make sense because we were on the wrong side of his curve. Want to argue tax policy against me, Arthur Laffer, and Paul Krugman? Bring it on.

And I'm not insulting you, I'm just beating you in debate. If you can't handle that, then don't talk policy. But you insult me. You say that smaller numbers are bigger than larger numbers. You say that all of the math that has ever been developed in this world is wrong. That's insulting. I'll accept your apology when you agree that the number 2 is greater than the number 1. It would also be nice if you could use proper math in the future. Remember, big numbers are bigger than small numbers.