Reply #150: I don't need a dictionary. I was reading one everyday at five but you still dodge the questions

[TheKentuckian]

The game is justify the change in conditions that that indicates that a quicker end to the stimulus spending is in order?

There was an initial outlay, that amount was curtailed by reducing the length of the additional spending. What happened to justify that change? In actuality conditions have proven to be worse than speculated when the bill passed so what do they see now that makes them more optimistic than they were when they laid out the plan for the spending under discussion.

Did leadership overreact on food stamp funding? Was there the expectation that as you put it, that government wasn't going to do the job but has found they are?

Things are done for a purpose. What conditions have changed to revise the forecast downward?

Why can't you admit that you have no idea of what such a justification would be instead of putting your balls on the bar and demanding a beer? Why is it you cannot admit your "FACT" is a generalization that hasn't even made an argument that it is operative much less accurate in describing the cause of the policy "adjustment" or however you insist on spinning it?

Nothing today indicates a shorter duration of need than when the bill passed and you know it. What is the source of encouragement that need for food stamps will be less than the reinvestment act anticipated?

If you had "FACTS" you'd say this factor or that one. You would be able to identify these conditions that strongly indicate room for optimism and slap backs in celebration at what was done.

There is nothing. Just a witticism and indignation because it is swallowed or allowed to stand as "FACT".