|
Loco Loves Clinton
No, but many other things you've said make you a dope. Your mindless backing
of a bad president who doesn't even support you also makes you one hell of a dope Right, briliant. By the way I'm not looking for the president or anyone else in government to support me unlike you democrat dimwits who expect all your needs to be taken care of cradle to grave by "entitlements" S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "No shirt, no skirt, full service" |
Loco Loves Clinton
DSK wrote: Wolfie wrote: At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of the budget process - Of course not. The idea is not to tell the truth, but to tell a plausible lie that supports the agenda... propaganda, in other words. - Clinton's last few budgets DID run surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government was spending. The difference between the *budget* and the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like Social Security -- buying securities for investments. Carefuly, don't confuse the issue with facts. The basic point here is that the Clinton-hatred industry has been *very* successful and is still producing votes for the Republicans. This crowd has never been big on facts & rational thought anyway. Fascists don't like thought either. Cheers |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Nav" wrote in message ... Scott Vernon wrote: Damn! imagine that. A politician that lied. STOP THE PRESSES!!!! Hold the front page. Bob**** made a startling discovery. A politician lied. Who'd a thunk it. Scotty, I like bush Do you really have to put your sexual preference in your sig? yes, bob makes me nervous. |
Loco Loves Clinton
On 29 Jun 2004 11:24:30 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap: I know it's hard for you to understand. Slick Willie borrowed more money than he needed, and called it a surplus. So there was money left over, but it certainly wasn't a surplus. Ahhhhh, I see! So then Bush lied and used the "fake" surplus to give everyone 300 dollars! I'm suprised you don't drill yourself into the ground with all the spinning you do. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:58:47 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap: As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a surplus. It was another Clinton lie. That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal agencies buying government securities as investments. Public-owned debt was: 09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74 09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20 09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81 09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53 09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60 Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far. That's your story. At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government was spending. The difference between the *budget* and the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like Social Security -- buying securities for investments. Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:21 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap: Horvath wrote: The budget HAS to be balanced every year. If there's not enough, we increase the debt. Right. Clinton borrowed more money than he needed, balanced the budget, and called the left over money a "surplus." That's just nonsense. Clinton's last few budgets collected more in taxes than the federal government spent, cutting the publicly held portion of the federal debt. Meanwhile Social Security (to name one) were buying federal securities because they were collecting more money than they were spending as well, adding to the overall debt by adding to the intergovernmental holdings. That's your story. I just showed the facts. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
Scott Vernon wrote: "Nav" wrote in message ... Scott Vernon wrote: Damn! imagine that. A politician that lied. STOP THE PRESSES!!!! Hold the front page. Bob**** made a startling discovery. A politician lied. Who'd a thunk it. Scotty, I like bush Do you really have to put your sexual preference in your sig? yes, bob makes me nervous. Do you mean nauseous? Cheers |
Loco Loves Clinton
We're all surprised you can type.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On 29 Jun 2004 11:24:30 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this crap: I know it's hard for you to understand. Slick Willie borrowed more money than he needed, and called it a surplus. So there was money left over, but it certainly wasn't a surplus. Ahhhhh, I see! So then Bush lied and used the "fake" surplus to give everyone 300 dollars! I'm suprised you don't drill yourself into the ground with all the spinning you do. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
You just did.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:21 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: Horvath wrote: The budget HAS to be balanced every year. If there's not enough, we increase the debt. Right. Clinton borrowed more money than he needed, balanced the budget, and called the left over money a "surplus." That's just nonsense. Clinton's last few budgets collected more in taxes than the federal government spent, cutting the publicly held portion of the federal debt. Meanwhile Social Security (to name one) were buying federal securities because they were collecting more money than they were spending as well, adding to the overall debt by adding to the intergovernmental holdings. That's your story. I just showed the fags. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
On 29 Jun 2004 21:32:28 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:16:31 GMT, felton said: And would that be the case if social security were operating on an accrual basis, rather than a cash basis? Are you suggesting that the Reagan and Bush deficits were the result of more conservative accounting policies? What lead you to that conclusion? The accounting policies for OSDI haven't changed for years, if ever. They operate on a so-called pay as you go accounting basis that counts only outlays as costs, rather than presently accruing for current service cost payable in the future. Even an accountant would recognize that this doesn't come close to matching revenue with expense g. I was just trying to address the red herring that you tossed into the discussion. Instead of denying that Clinton's time in office produced a surplus, you guys should be expressing your appreciation for giving the Bush administration something to **** away. Brought back a bit of the old Reagan deja vu...the deficit should be cut in half in only xxx years. (Usually scheduled to occur after the current Republican is out of office.) |
Loco Loves Clinton
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:21 GMT, "Wolfie" said: Meanwhile Social Security (to name one) were buying federal securities because they were collecting more money than they were spending And would that be the case if social security were operating on an accrual basis, rather than a cash basis? They'd still be collecting more than they pay out, yes. That's not dependent upon accounting methods. Social security -- and other entitlements -- don't match too well with similar private sector plans anyway. Congress can always increase or decrease benefits whenever they want. "Pay-as-you-go" is, IMO, more appropriate when you can't forecast any future liabilities to any degree of accuracy. |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
That's your story. I just showed the facts. You showed a subset of the facts without understanding them, yes. Any idea that Clinton could borrow money to show a running surplus when only the Republican-led Congress could appropriate money isn't factual in any non-delusional reality... |
Loco Loves Clinton
You're deluded.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:41:13 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" said: His "constituency" was the American people dumbass. Nonsense. His constituency, like Kerry's, was primarily a specific group of subsets of the American people as a whole. Generally it consisted of guvmint bureaucrats, members of the teachers' union and other unions, trial lawyers to provide the money, academics, others who never had to make a living in the private sector, members of minority groups, draft dodgers who've spent their whole lives trying to justify their cowardice and, to some extent, enviros. Put them all together and throw in a few more he was able to attract and you have about half of the American people. Dave S/V Good Fortune CS27 Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick? |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:58:47 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a surplus. It was another Clinton lie. That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal agencies buying government securities as investments. Public-owned debt was: 09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74 09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20 09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81 09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53 09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60 Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far. That's your story. No, it's the story of the site you cited. Not my fault you didn't understand it. At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government was spending. The difference between the *budget* and the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like Social Security -- buying securities for investments. Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:42:45 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap: Horvath wrote: That's your story. I just showed the facts. You showed a subset of the facts without understanding them, yes. Any idea that Clinton could borrow money to show a running surplus when only the Republican-led Congress could appropriate money isn't factual in any non-delusional reality... That's your story. I'm just pointing out the facts. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Dave" wrote in message On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:12:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Most folks have difficulty discerning the federal deficit (above) from an annual budget deficit. Including you. Deficit (as opposed to accumulated deficit) is an income statement item. Debt, on the other hand, (which is what Horvath gave numbers for) is a balance sheet item. A number of things can affect debt, including what items are treated as capital expenditures rather than current expense, and what other items are subjected to the fiction that they aren't part of the guvmint's expenditures at all (like social security). Save your bean-counting pedantry for someone else, Dave. I took several semesters of accounting in college and know the difference. As the terms are commonly used by the media and politicians, they are inaccurate. Big ****ing deal. The point I was making was that some actually believe that Clinton wiped out the federal accumulated deficit (or debt, if you prefer). Which of course he didn't, nor has or will any president. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Dave" wrote in message On 29 Jun 2004 02:33:01 GMT, (Bobsprit) said: Then Bush LIED. He payed out those refunds with the surplus he said was there. Gore said the surplus should be protected for a rainy day. Only in the strange world inside the Beltway is a smaller increase in spending than you projected deemed a "cut" in expenditures. Gore, of course, wanted to make sure that our taxes go to his constituency--the guvmint bureaucrats, rather than back to the people who earned the money. They might, after all, do something irresponsible like deciding that giving more tax money to the bureaucrats isn't a good idea, and then where would we be? Smaller government? What a concept. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote:
Horvath wrote: On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:58:47 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a surplus. It was another Clinton lie. That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal agencies buying government securities as investments. Public-owned debt was: 09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74 09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20 09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81 09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53 09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60 Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far. That's your story. No, it's the story of the site you cited. Not my fault you didn't understand it. At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government was spending. The difference between the *budget* and the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like Social Security -- buying securities for investments. Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. While you are to be commended for attempting to simplify this topic to the level that it can be understood by poor Horvath, just remember the old saying... "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. " :) |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap: Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. Then why did the debt go up? Slick Willie pocketing the extra money? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton & so did our 401Ks
|
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You're deluded. While your characteristic brevity is admirable, Jon, your lack of evidence to the contrary in your arguments leads one to believe you really are a clueless dogmatist. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:01:28 -0400, Horvath
wrote: On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. Then why did the debt go up? Slick Willie pocketing the extra money? Go back and re-read what Wolfie wrote. The "total debt", which you reference, is composed of two components, a "public debt", which is owed to those who buy the various treasury bills, etc. to fund the annual shortfall (deficit) and the "government debt", which is owed to various governmental agencies. The "public debt" component was decreasing during the Clinton years by the amount of the annual surpluses. While it is easy to poke holes in governmental accounting for any number of reasons, the simple matter is that it is the same accounting for both democrats and republicans and the republicans seem to have an aversion to fiscal responsibility. Ideally we would have neither a surplus nor a deficit, but we certainly shouldn't have a system that has no linkage between spending and taxes, as the republicans seem to prefer. |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. Then why did the debt go up? Slick Willie pocketing the extra money? Because government agencies were buying Government Account Series Securities, as I pointed out before. Social Security, for example, doesn't invest by buying stocks or other public issues. They invest by buying GAS securities. If they invested $1B by buying securities worth $1.2B at maturity, the government debt would rise by $0.2B at the time of purchase. Put it this way: Tax revenues for a year: $2T Total expenses for a year: $1.8T Budget surplus: $200B If it's all used to pay off existing public debt (Savings Bonds, T-Bills, whatever), the *public* part of the debt would go down by $200B *AND* the total debt would decline by the same $200B. What actually happens, though, is the government retires some public debt and invests the rest by buying GAS securities, something like this: $200B budget surplus $20B retirement of public debt $180B investments in GAS securities with a value at maturity of $250B. Public debt is lower by $20B. Government debt is higher by $70B Total debt increases by $50B. The government still ran a surplus and paid off debt. It's no secret *future* government obligations continue to rise -- and will as long as SS takes in more money than it pays out. |
Loco Loves Clinton
Dave wrote:
Wolfie" said: Congress can always increase or decrease benefits whenever they want. "Pay-as-you-go" is, IMO, more appropriate when you can't forecast any future liabilities to any degree of accuracy. Lesse...when was the last time they reduced benefits? Several times in the past few years, although not on Social Security payments. They do cut benefits, however. There really isn't any excuse for pay as you go accounting. Accounting is accounting -- it's just a way of keeping track. Regardless of the budget implications the problems with Social Security in the long-term are well-known and tracked effectively. The government publishes different views on the same overall financial situation -- so does pretty much everyone else. It's just that the view which "squeaks the loudest" contains a "pay-as-you-go" view of Social Security. |
Loco Loves Clinton
I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You're deluded. While your characteristic brevity is admirable, Jon, your lack of evidence to the contrary in your arguments leads one to believe you really are a clueless dogmatist. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow.
You're right anyway. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Dave" wrote in message On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:12:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said: Most folks have difficulty discerning the federal deficit (above) from an annual budget deficit. Including you. Deficit (as opposed to accumulated deficit) is an income statement item. Debt, on the other hand, (which is what Horvath gave numbers for) is a balance sheet item. A number of things can affect debt, including what items are treated as capital expenditures rather than current expense, and what other items are subjected to the fiction that they aren't part of the guvmint's expenditures at all (like social security). Save your bean-counting pedantry for someone else, Dave. I took several semesters of accounting in college and know the difference. As the terms are commonly used by the media and politicians, they are inaccurate. Big ****ing deal. The point I was making was that some actually believe that Clinton wiped out the federal accumulated deficit (or debt, if you prefer). Which of course he didn't, nor has or will any president. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
He must have lost in in Whitewater.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent total expenditures. Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW. 1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000 1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000 1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000 1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000 1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000 1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000 2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000 2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000 2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000 2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000 2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000 2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000 More money received than spent. Then why did the debt go up? Slick Willie pocketing the extra money? Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow. I had two semesters of German, too. Guess that makes me Teutonic, ja? Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools. And it tends to be effective, if less-than-convincing. Then again a few details of your rebuttal might be nice. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
Nonsense. His constituency, like Kerry's, was primarily a specific group of
subsets of the American people as a whole. Correct. This is typical of every politician. Generally it consisted of guvmint bureaucrats, members of the teachers' union and other unions, trial lawyers to provide the money, academics, others who never had to make a living in the private sector, members of minority groups, draft dodgers who've spent their whole lives trying to justify their cowardice and, to some extent, enviros. Put them all together and throw in a few more he was able to attract and you have about half of the American people. Right wing and racist bull****. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools. And it tends to be effective, if less-than-convincing. Then again a few details of your rebuttal might be nice. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
Nicht so. Achtung!
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow. I had two semesters of German, too. Guess that makes me Teutonic, ja? Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:55:39 GMT, felton wrote
this crap: While it is easy to poke holes in governmental accounting for any number of reasons, the simple matter is that it is the same accounting for both democrats and republicans and the republicans seem to have an aversion to fiscal responsibility. Ideally we would have neither a surplus nor a deficit, but we certainly shouldn't have a system that has no linkage between spending and taxes, as the republicans seem to prefer. You can spin all you want, but you can't change the facts. Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money. Expenditures exceeded income. There was no surplus. Period. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:09:39 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap: If it's all used to pay off existing public debt (Savings Bonds, T-Bills, whatever), the *public* part of the debt would go down by $200B *AND* the total debt would decline by the same $200B. What actually happens, though, is the government retires some public debt and invests the rest by buying GAS securities, something like this: [voodoo accounting deleted] The government still ran a surplus and paid off debt. It's no secret *future* government obligations continue to rise -- and will as long as SS takes in more money than it pays out. Keep spinning all you want, but you can't change the facts. Every year that Clinton was in office we owed more money. Expenditures exceeded income. Period. Don't try to cover it up with government bonds, interest on the debt, or any magical accounting. There was no surplus. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
Keep spinning all you want, but you can't change the facts. I'm not the one trying to change them. Every year that Clinton was in office we owed more money. Right, because future obligations increased. Expenditures exceeded income. Period. No, they didn't. Period. Don't try to cover it up with government bonds, interest on the debt, or any magical accounting. There was no surplus. So what do you call it when the government brings in more than $200M more in taxes than it spends? |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money. Bush ran a higher deficit in one year than Clinton's total for all eight years of his term. |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Dave" wrote
Lesse...when was the last time they reduced benefits? Wasn't that long ago one could retire at 65 with full benefits. Now, I have to wait til I'm 65 1/2 to get the full benefit and younger folks must wait til they're years older. So what happens when your employer shows you the door on schedule at age 65? Why you get reduced benefits of course! Of course the gummymint didn't reduce our benefit - you'll get the same $$$, buy you'll have to wait a few years to get it .... if you can. Smoke & mirrors! |
Loco Loves Clinton
Makes sense to me.
Dave wrote That is unless your underlying assumption is that any Gore supporter had to be stupid, and therefore to identify anyone as a Gore supporter is to call him stupid. |
Loco Loves Clinton
You're the racist not I. You claim that minorities and women on welfare
are the problem. You're an asshole = name calling, which is fine with me. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:02:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" said: Right wing and racist bull****. Ah, the old name-calling game again in place of reasoned discussion. But you're really stretching it to claim that any mention of minority groups as among those included in Gore's constituency is "racist." That is unless your underlying assumption is that any Gore supporter had to be stupid, and therefore to identify anyone as a Gore supporter is to call him stupid. Dave S/V Good Fortune CS27 Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick? |
Loco Loves Clinton
Forget it... Horass is only interested in one thing... his boyfriend
up his ass. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Wolfie" wrote in message ... Horvath wrote: Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money. Bush ran a higher deficit in one year than Clinton's total for all eight years of his term. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com