On 14 Dec 2003 05:51:04 -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


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


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?

Yes I do. When you borrow money, it counts as a debt, not a surplus.

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?

Your link sucks.



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.

Pretty obvious that you're borrowing to pay your bills. This is not a
surplus.

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

How many times do I have to tell you that there was NEVER a surplus?
If you make $100 a year, and spend $120, there is no surplus. If you
borrow $50 to pay the $20 deficit, you can't claim a $30 surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

How many times do I have to tell you that you're an idiot?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2003 05:51:04 -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


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


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?

Yes I do. When you borrow money, it counts as a debt, not a surplus.

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?

Your link sucks.



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.

Pretty obvious that you're borrowing to pay your bills. This is not a
surplus.

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

How many times do I have to tell you that there was NEVER a surplus?
If you make $100 a year, and spend $120, there is no surplus. If you
borrow $50 to pay the $20 deficit, you can't claim a $30 surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
How many times do I have to tell you that you're an idiot?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2003 05:51:04 -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


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


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?

Yes I do. When you borrow money, it counts as a debt, not a surplus.

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?

Your link sucks.

Compelling argument. What if I provided you with a link to the 2001
annual report from the federal reserve that states unequivocally that
there was a surplus in fiscal 2001?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...ual01/ar01.pdf

I'm very interested in knowing if you think you know more about the
economy than the federal reserve. Do you think the federal reserve
sucks?





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.

Pretty obvious that you're borrowing to pay your bills. This is not a
surplus.

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

How many times do I have to tell you that there was NEVER a surplus?
If you make $100 a year, and spend $120, there is no surplus. If you
borrow $50 to pay the $20 deficit, you can't claim a $30 surplus.

I am starting to think that the Gantz (?) is right. You are a dim
person.






This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

It won't do any good.

The problem isn't so much that he's stupid. Certainly, that's true.
The problem is that some people (liberal and conservative) won't
listen to actual facts if they don't like them.

It's Ganz, btw.

"Crackhead Millionaire" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
How many times do I have to tell you that you're an idiot?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 14 Dec 2003 05:51:04 -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


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


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?

Yes I do. When you borrow money, it counts as a debt, not a surplus.

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?

Your link sucks.

Compelling argument. What if I provided you with a link to the 2001
annual report from the federal reserve that states unequivocally that
there was a surplus in fiscal 2001?

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...ual01/ar01.pdf

I'm very interested in knowing if you think you know more about the
economy than the federal reserve. Do you think the federal reserve
sucks?





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.

Pretty obvious that you're borrowing to pay your bills. This is not a
surplus.

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

How many times do I have to tell you that there was NEVER a surplus?
If you make $100 a year, and spend $120, there is no surplus. If you
borrow $50 to pay the $20 deficit, you can't claim a $30 surplus.

I am starting to think that the Gantz (?) is right. You are a dim
person.






This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

On 15 Dec 2003 10:28:22 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:


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


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


Your link sucks.

Compelling argument. What if I provided you with a link to the 2001
annual report from the federal reserve that states unequivocally that
there was a surplus in fiscal 2001?

I already explained SEVERAL times. Clinton borrowed money to pay the
bills, and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.





This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

I already explained SEVERAL times. Clinton borrowed money to pay the
bills, and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.


In the election that followed Bush claimed that surplus existed and would pay
for the tax rebate program.
Gore said the surplus was not something the country could afford and he was
right.
You can't have it both ways. If clinton lied about a "surplus" Bush did worse
by spending it.

B

I already explained SEVERAL times. Clinton borrowed money to pay the
bills, and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.



OK. That statement does nothing to dispute the fact that the federal
reserve, the most important decision making body in the US economy, if
not the world, states that there was a budget surplus. Are you
asserting that the federal reserve also, 'claimed' a surplus?

But perhaps something even more incredible has happened. . . Maybe I
came to this board to find out about satellite radio and was
inadvertently (sp?) dragged into an argument with a troll who actually
understands the economy better than the persons responsible for
setting the interest rate at which banks may borrow.

Why do you waste your unprecendented talents and magnificent economic
theory arguing on the internet, Horvath? You are obviously an
econimic prodigy and the rest of us are just idiots to listen to
people like the federal reserve. Go forth and take your bold economic
theories into the real world where you can have some impact!

You're arguing with an idiot. Not a troll. Not someone with odd opinions. Not
someone trying to make trouble. Just a poor soul whose mother didn't understand
prenatal care.


"Crackhead Millionaire" wrote in message
om...
I already explained SEVERAL times. Clinton borrowed money to pay the
bills, and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.



OK. That statement does nothing to dispute the fact that the federal
reserve, the most important decision making body in the US economy, if
not the world, states that there was a budget surplus. Are you
asserting that the federal reserve also, 'claimed' a surplus?

But perhaps something even more incredible has happened. . . Maybe I
came to this board to find out about satellite radio and was
inadvertently (sp?) dragged into an argument with a troll who actually
understands the economy better than the persons responsible for
setting the interest rate at which banks may borrow.

Why do you waste your unprecendented talents and magnificent economic
theory arguing on the internet, Horvath? You are obviously an
econimic prodigy and the rest of us are just idiots to listen to
people like the federal reserve. Go forth and take your bold economic
theories into the real world where you can have some impact!

On 16 Dec 2003 06:21:16 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

I already explained SEVERAL times. Clinton borrowed money to pay the
bills, and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.



OK. That statement does nothing to dispute the fact that the federal
reserve, the most important decision making body in the US economy, if
not the world, states that there was a budget surplus. Are you
asserting that the federal reserve also, 'claimed' a surplus?

One more time. Clinton borrowed money to pay the bills.

After paying the bills, there was money left over.

The leftover money was labeled as a surplus.






This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe