On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:54:08 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?

Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

Not true? I will accept that if you can show me where I have stated
anything that is factually incorrect. Since I'm waging a war on
disingenuous semantics, you should also be able to show me where I
used the term "budget surplus." If you can do that, I may even be
willing to concede your "not true" indictment.

Still, just for a little bit of morning amusement, I'll proffer this;

"The only debt that matters is the total national debt. You can have a
surplus and a debt at the same time, but you can't have a surplus if
the amount of debt is going up each year. And the national debt went
up every single year under Clinton. Had Clinton really had a surplus
the national debt would have gone down. It didn't go down precisely
because Clinton had a deficit every single year. The U.S. Treasury's
historical record of the national debt verifies this.

A balanced budget or a budget surplus is a great thing, but it's only
relevant if the budget surplus turns into a real surplus at the end of
the fiscal year. In Clinton's case, it never did."

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access