OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

"Jobless recovery" was in the news a lot last months but one
does not hear too much about it lately since the economy is
recovering by leaps and bounds and unemployment continues
to go down. Poor liberal Dems lose yet again.

Check this out:

"Here's a reality check: the unemployment rate right now is 6%.
This is lower than the average for: Clinton over his first three
years (6.23%), George H.W. Bush's single term (6.28%), Reagan's
2nd term (6.48%), Carter's single term (6.56%), Ford/Nixon (6.64%),
and Reagan's 1st term (8.58%). FDR, of course averaged about 18%
unemployment for his two full terms before the war. The current
rate of unemployment is, in fact, lower than the average rate of
unemployment for the past 30 years."

There's more at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20031111.shtml

S.Simon

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

What a load of crap. Almost as big as RB's ass behind the wheel.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
"Jobless recovery" was in the news a lot last months but one
does not hear too much about it lately since the economy is
recovering by leaps and bounds and unemployment continues
to go down. Poor liberal Dems lose yet again.

Check this out:

"Here's a reality check: the unemployment rate right now is 6%.
This is lower than the average for: Clinton over his first three
years (6.23%), George H.W. Bush's single term (6.28%), Reagan's
2nd term (6.48%), Carter's single term (6.56%), Ford/Nixon (6.64%),
and Reagan's 1st term (8.58%). FDR, of course averaged about 18%
unemployment for his two full terms before the war. The current
rate of unemployment is, in fact, lower than the average rate of
unemployment for the past 30 years."

There's more at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20031111.shtml

S.Simon

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

What a load of crap. Almost as big as RB's ass behind the wheel.


I wonder what makes the openly gay Ganzy, who has made an ass of himself again
and again, think he can make such remarks?
Note that everything is about Horvath, his breasts and so on. And now he's onto
my ass!
Good lord, Ganzy. You're SUCH a homo!

Bwahahhaahha! Watch the fireworks, folks! This guy is my puppet!

RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
What a load of crap. Almost as big as RB's ass behind the wheel.


I wonder what makes the openly gay Ganzy, who has made an ass of himself
again
and again, think he can make such remarks?
Note that everything is about Horvath, his breasts and so on. And now he's
onto
my ass!
Good lord, Ganzy. You're SUCH a homo!

What makes you think that your ass is of particular interest to homos?

Has Suzy been paying particular attention to it?



Regards


Donal
--

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Typical Republican lie - it sounds good until you look at the real data:

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/...sum.asp#grunem

Unemployment steadily rose under Republicans, fell under Democrats. For
example, Clinton inherited over 7% from the elder Bush and brought it down to
4%. Shrub promptly raised it to 6%. A similar pattern happened with Carter.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
"Jobless recovery" was in the news a lot last months but one
does not hear too much about it lately since the economy is
recovering by leaps and bounds and unemployment continues
to go down. Poor liberal Dems lose yet again.

Check this out:

"Here's a reality check: the unemployment rate right now is 6%.
This is lower than the average for: Clinton over his first three
years (6.23%), George H.W. Bush's single term (6.28%), Reagan's
2nd term (6.48%), Carter's single term (6.56%), Ford/Nixon (6.64%),
and Reagan's 1st term (8.58%). FDR, of course averaged about 18%
unemployment for his two full terms before the war. The current
rate of unemployment is, in fact, lower than the average rate of
unemployment for the past 30 years."

There's more at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20031111.shtml

S.Simon

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

President Bush inherited a recession from President Clinton.

President Bush inherited the 9-11 terrorists attacks from the
Clinton administration.

President Bush inherited Enron, Global Crossing, and a bunch
of crooked stock market shenanigans from the Clinton era.

President Bush has fixed or is fixing ALL of it. No Democrat
can even come close to accomplishing so much. On the contrary,
Recent history proves how damaging to the U.S.A is a Democrat
regime.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Typical Republican lie - it sounds good until you look at the real data:

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/...sum.asp#grunem

Unemployment steadily rose under Republicans, fell under Democrats. For
example, Clinton inherited over 7% from the elder Bush and brought it down to
4%. Shrub promptly raised it to 6%. A similar pattern happened with Carter.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
"Jobless recovery" was in the news a lot last months but one
does not hear too much about it lately since the economy is
recovering by leaps and bounds and unemployment continues
to go down. Poor liberal Dems lose yet again.

Check this out:

"Here's a reality check: the unemployment rate right now is 6%.
This is lower than the average for: Clinton over his first three
years (6.23%), George H.W. Bush's single term (6.28%), Reagan's
2nd term (6.48%), Carter's single term (6.56%), Ford/Nixon (6.64%),
and Reagan's 1st term (8.58%). FDR, of course averaged about 18%
unemployment for his two full terms before the war. The current
rate of unemployment is, in fact, lower than the average rate of
unemployment for the past 30 years."

There's more at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20031111.shtml

S.Simon

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Regan inhereted a recovery from Carter then. The fall of The Sovied union
also. As to Enron and the rest of the wall street debacle, Clinton went to
the securities and exchange comission 8 times, 4 with Greenspan whio
finially gave up requesting transperancy in accounting only to be
stonewalled by the republicians. Check it out.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
President Bush inherited a recession from President Clinton.

President Bush inherited the 9-11 terrorists attacks from the
Clinton administration.

President Bush inherited Enron, Global Crossing, and a bunch
of crooked stock market shenanigans from the Clinton era.

President Bush has fixed or is fixing ALL of it. No Democrat
can even come close to accomplishing so much. On the contrary,
Recent history proves how damaging to the U.S.A is a Democrat
regime.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Typical Republican lie - it sounds good until you look at the real
data:


http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/.../sum.asp#grune
m

Unemployment steadily rose under Republicans, fell under Democrats. For
example, Clinton inherited over 7% from the elder Bush and brought it
down to
4%. Shrub promptly raised it to 6%. A similar pattern happened with
Carter.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
"Jobless recovery" was in the news a lot last months but one
does not hear too much about it lately since the economy is
recovering by leaps and bounds and unemployment continues
to go down. Poor liberal Dems lose yet again.

Check this out:

"Here's a reality check: the unemployment rate right now is 6%.
This is lower than the average for: Clinton over his first three
years (6.23%), George H.W. Bush's single term (6.28%), Reagan's
2nd term (6.48%), Carter's single term (6.56%), Ford/Nixon (6.64%),
and Reagan's 1st term (8.58%). FDR, of course averaged about 18%
unemployment for his two full terms before the war. The current
rate of unemployment is, in fact, lower than the average rate of
unemployment for the past 30 years."

There's more at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20031111.shtml

S.Simon

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Good one Donal!

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
What a load of crap. Almost as big as RB's ass behind the wheel.


I wonder what makes the openly gay Ganzy, who has made an ass of himself
again
and again, think he can make such remarks?
Note that everything is about Horvath, his breasts and so on. And now
he's
onto
my ass!
Good lord, Ganzy. You're SUCH a homo!

What makes you think that your ass is of particular interest to homos?

Has Suzy been paying particular attention to it?



Regards


Donal
--

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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? Your post also fails
to mention that the largest component of job 'gains' were in temporary
or retail services; not the kind of jobs America needs. It is not as
blunt as Reagan reclassifying all armed forces personnel to employed
and gaining a percentage point or two overnight; but to trumpet this
type of increased employment as any type of a turnaround is either
ignorance or deception.

CM

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

The projected surplus was an optimistic Clinton fabrication
that did not take into account the recession that started
the last year Clinton was in office. It did not take into
account the damage to the economy 9-11 caused. It did
not take into account the necessary expense of the
war against terrorism. It did not take into account
the necessary tax cuts that are getting the economy
back on track. It did not foresee the adverse effects
on the stock market caused by crooked corporate leaders
who figured if Clinton could get away with crimes why
not they?

Get down on your knees and say a prayer of thanks to
your God that President Bush was elected because
people knew he could straighten out the Democrat
mess and he has not let the people down.

S.Simon


"Crackhead Millionaire" wrote in message om...
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? Your post also fails
to mention that the largest component of job 'gains' were in temporary
or retail services; not the kind of jobs America needs. It is not as
blunt as Reagan reclassifying all armed forces personnel to employed
and gaining a percentage point or two overnight; but to trumpet this
type of increased employment as any type of a turnaround is either
ignorance or deception.

CM

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

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

Too bad!

RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

"Simple Simon" wrote
The projected surplus was an optimistic Clinton fabrication
that did not take into account the recession that started
the last year Clinton was in office.

The recession did not start until Mar 2001, after Bush was inaugurated. This is
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of
recessions and expansions, which is run by a Bush advisor. Although the
official recession (as defined by the "real GDP") was relatively brief,
unemployment increased and over a million jobs were lost during the "recovery."
Thus, the current growth is fueled entirely by increased productivity; those
with jobs are working harder, even though increasing numbers are unemployed.

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Correction, the 'downturn in the economy' that lead to
the official recession began during Clinton's last year.

President Bush even mentioned this fact prominently while
he was campaigning while the Democrats all cried 'foul".

So, don't even attempt to revise history and blame the
recession of Mr. Bush. Even the most hard-nosed liberals
must admit the Mr. Bush inherited a souring economy from
the previous administration.

The fact is no Democrat would have taken the necessary
action to bring us out of the recession as fast as Mr. Bush
has. Democrats would have raised taxes and made matters
even worse. That's how stupid they are.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
"Simple Simon" wrote
The projected surplus was an optimistic Clinton fabrication
that did not take into account the recession that started
the last year Clinton was in office.

The recession did not start until Mar 2001, after Bush was inaugurated. This is
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of
recessions and expansions, which is run by a Bush advisor. Although the
official recession (as defined by the "real GDP") was relatively brief,
unemployment increased and over a million jobs were lost during the "recovery."
Thus, the current growth is fueled entirely by increased productivity; those
with jobs are working harder, even though increasing numbers are unemployed.

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

Of course he lied. He's a liar. Liars lie. And that's what Bush does... lie.

FYI, the troop to civilian ratio during the Bosnian war was about 24 to 1000
troops to civilians, respectively. In Iraq, it's about 6 to 1000... not
enough to
do a decent job of stabilization. No wonder yet another 60 US troops were
injured today.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

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

Too bad!

RB

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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.

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.



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.
 

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.

S.Simon


"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.

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.



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.
 

On 09 Dec 2003 18:28:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

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.


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.
 

No you lie. Or is it your tits?

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 09 Dec 2003 18:28:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

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.


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.
 

The genius with the crappy hunter knows soooo much.
Go back to school. You're outclassed by everyone
here.

"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.

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.



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.
 

Take the test again, I'm sure you can pass if you study a lot.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
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.

S.Simon


"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.

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.



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.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

"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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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!

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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!

OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
 

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