OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

So then Bush lied AGAIN when he defended his rebate program by saying that
"surplus" would cover it!

No. You lie. The rebate program was to get the economy moving again,
after the eight disastrous years of the Clinton administration.

During his debate with Gore, Bush claimed he would use part of the SURPLUS to
pay for the rebates.
Now you say the surplus never existed and Bush knew that.
You can't have it both ways.
Bush LIED.
again!

RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

No you lie. Or is it your tits?



Seriously, Ganz. Very disturbing to keep up with this.


RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:50:22 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote this crap:

Thank you for clearing up the so-called surplus.
The Democrats wish everyone to believe there was an actual
surplus so they can claim it was squandered by President
Bush. People seem genuinely surprised when it's pointed
out that it was a projected surplus only - political sleight of
hand. It's amazing how easy it is to brainwash some people.

There needs to be an IQ test administered to all voters.
Stupid and ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Actually, I believe everyone should be allowed to vote. (But the
stupid votes should be tossed out.)


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

I think you should be able to vote even though you're
stupid.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:50:22 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote this crap:

Thank you for clearing up the so-called surplus.
The Democrats wish everyone to believe there was an actual
surplus so they can claim it was squandered by President
Bush. People seem genuinely surprised when it's pointed
out that it was a projected surplus only - political sleight of
hand. It's amazing how easy it is to brainwash some people.

There needs to be an IQ test administered to all voters.
Stupid and ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Actually, I believe everyone should be allowed to vote. (But the
stupid votes should be tossed out.)


Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

I think you're the one who has trouble keeping it up... at least according
to reports.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
No you lie. Or is it your tits?



Seriously, Ganz. Very disturbing to keep up with this.


RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Hi Horvath -

Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

Bush didn't just inherit surplus projections, he inherited a country
taking in more dollars than it was spending. There were dollar
surpluses at the end of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the
approximate amounts of 70B, 120B, and 220B. There were also some very
large projections for future surpluses, but Bush came into office with
a three year history of budget surpluses which has since evaporated.


Facts from the Treasury:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.

During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:

09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion

Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.


You are using a sixth graders simplistic view of the phrase 'national
debt' to try to prove you point, but only wind up showing your
ignorance or lack of willingness to research the issue. While the
figures you provide are technically accurate, they do NOT prove that
there was not an annual budget surplus during 1999 - 2001. The
national debt is comprised of several different types of debts,
including debts owned by the public, intra agency debt or markers and
future promised benifits, such as Medicare. That numbers you provide
only show payment obligations, not dollars that were spent up and
above what was taken in.

To see what happened to the publicly owned component of the national
debt between 1999 and 2001, follow this link:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...GFDPUN/5/10yrs

As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.


cm

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Forget it. What you're doing with this explanation is similar to
trying to explain etiquette to a pig. It'll just frustrate you and
annoy the pig.

"Crackhead Millionaire" wrote in message
om...
Hi Horvath -

Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

Bush didn't just inherit surplus projections, he inherited a country
taking in more dollars than it was spending. There were dollar
surpluses at the end of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the
approximate amounts of 70B, 120B, and 220B. There were also some very
large projections for future surpluses, but Bush came into office with
a three year history of budget surpluses which has since evaporated.


Facts from the Treasury:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.

During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:

09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion

Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.


You are using a sixth graders simplistic view of the phrase 'national
debt' to try to prove you point, but only wind up showing your
ignorance or lack of willingness to research the issue. While the
figures you provide are technically accurate, they do NOT prove that
there was not an annual budget surplus during 1999 - 2001. The
national debt is comprised of several different types of debts,
including debts owned by the public, intra agency debt or markers and
future promised benifits, such as Medicare. That numbers you provide
only show payment obligations, not dollars that were spent up and
above what was taken in.

To see what happened to the publicly owned component of the national
debt between 1999 and 2001, follow this link:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...GFDPUN/5/10yrs

As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.


cm

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

On 13 Dec 2003 07:13:53 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:


Facts from the Treasury:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.

During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:

09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion

Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.


As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.

To put it in simple terms, Klinton BORROWED money to pay our bulls,
and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Like I said... he's an idiot.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2003 07:13:53 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:


Facts from the Treasury:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.

During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:

09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion

Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.


As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.

To put it in simple terms, Klinton BORROWED money to pay our bulls,
and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 13 Dec 2003 07:13:53 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:


Facts from the Treasury:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.

During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:

09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion

Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.


As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.

To put it in simple terms, Klinton BORROWED money to pay our bulls,
and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe


Hi Horvath -

No. The reason that you continue to post false information is
precisely becuase you insist on attemping a siplified explanation when
it fits your personal world view. You came out pretty strongly
against a sixth graders analytical skills in a previous post, why not
keep applying the same high standard to yourself?

To put it in simple terms, there was an annual budget surplus! Do you
deny that the federal government took in more dollars than it spent in
the 1999-2001 fiscal years? If your simple explanation is true, how
do you explain the fact that the amount of debt held by the public has
increased since fiscal 2001 as evidenced by the link I provided
previously? Why wouldn't Bush simply come out, 'borrow money to pay
our bills' and announce that there was a surplus? It seems like he is
getting beat up on the massive deficits we are encountering for no
reason. Maybe you should be on his econonmic team; they could use
some straight shooter advice.

Suppose you owe $40 of debt. Suppose you make $100 a year. Suppose
you spend $90 a year. You now have $10 (a surplus). Suppose you
promise to pay for services in the future that you must pay for five
years from now at the cost of $20. At the end of the year, you still
have $10, which you use to pay down your debt of $40 to $30. However,
because of the promise to pay for services in the future, your debt
amount rises to $50. There was a surplus of dollars and the debt
continued to rise. It is very, very difficult to put things more
simply than this.

Do you deny that there was a budget surplus in fiscal 1999 - 2001?

cm