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

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

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

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

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


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

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

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

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

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

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


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:11 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:27:15 -0700, Jim wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."
Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".
Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?
how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?
On the tax cuts, Bush said "It's YOUR money!" A surplus seems to be
more than the so called "conservatives" can handle.
There has never been a "surplus." What the country enjoyed at one
time was a projected budget surplus, and the country can thank
Gingrich's Contract with America for pushing the legislative bodies in
that direction. Tax cuts are an effort to revitalize the economy
through the economic exercise of supply-side economics. Supply-side
economics or Reaganomics in part are what led to the Long Boom.

uh...no. the 2 biggest deficit spenders in history were reagan and gw
bush. neither could say no to the rich

President Bush's deficit was about 250 to 300 Billion dollars. In the
first 8 months of the obama administration, the democrats have spent
750 billion in the first two months and now obama has a deficit of
nearly 1 trillion, projected to go to 2 trillion by the end of the year.
This is projected to go to 10 trillion dollars in the next 10 years,
unless the nationalized health insurance passes and the tax and cap tax.
Cost of health insurance is unknown, but based on history of social
welfare programs will be many times any projections.

I don't have the figures for President Reagan, but based on inflation in
the past 20 years they were no where near the numbers that are being run
up by obama.

I believe that the problems the Social Security Insurance System is
having today, are the results of the democrats taking the SSI money for
the general fund in the 50's or 60's.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


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


According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are not
alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher percentage,
but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K wrote:


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

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are not
alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher percentage,
but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:28:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

You can handle the book keeping.
I'm more worried that Dick Cheney said we're less safe than when he
was in office. Since he was in office on 9/11/2001, it's a bit
concerning.
So I'm keeping my eye on how Obama protects us from terrorists.
Can't spend money or even pay taxes if you're dead.

--Vic

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:06 -0400, H the K wrote:


Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt


Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Frankly, I don't blame Bush for the state of the economy. I think
Presidents get too much credit, and too much blame for economies. It is,
after all, a free market. However, I'm old school. There are two
reasons for deficit spending, to fight a war, and to fight a recession.
I give Obama credit for being bold in his dealing with the economic
collapse. Now that the economy is coming around, hopefully, Obama will
show himself to be a fiscal conservative.

Why Reagan, and the two Bushes were deficit spending, I can't say, but
bankrupting the government does tend to put social spending on hold.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:32:06 -0400, H the K wrote:


Being pretty much a fiscal conservative, I definitely don't like the
level of debt we have. 60% GDP seems pretty scary to me, but we are
not alone. Canada, Germany, France, all have a slightly higher
percentage, but what I find astounding is Japan, 170% GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt

Much of the new debt is for cleaning up the messes Bush left behind via
nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Frankly, I don't blame Bush for the state of the economy. I think
Presidents get too much credit, and too much blame for economies. It is,
after all, a free market. However, I'm old school. There are two
reasons for deficit spending, to fight a war, and to fight a recession.
I give Obama credit for being bold in his dealing with the economic
collapse. Now that the economy is coming around, hopefully, Obama will
show himself to be a fiscal conservative.

Why Reagan, and the two Bushes were deficit spending, I can't say, but
bankrupting the government does tend to put social spending on hold.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


One of the goals of the Reagan admin was to put the kabash on "social"
spending. It succeeded.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:28:32 -0400, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:00:22 -0400, H K
wrote:

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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:
In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Not true. You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.
According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.
A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.
Do you have a category on the most money spend in 1 month, 2 months, 3
months, ....

You can handle the book keeping.
I'm more worried that Dick Cheney said we're less safe than when he
was in office. Since he was in office on 9/11/2001, it's a bit
concerning.
So I'm keeping my eye on how Obama protects us from terrorists.
Can't spend money or even pay taxes if you're dead.

Contrary to popular belief you can pay taxes when you are dead. It is
called an estate tax or death tax.