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.

If they were actual conservatives they would pay off the debt and then
save money for a rainy day.

Conservatives in name only are selfish and don't plan ahead. Think only
of the immediate minute and want it all for themselves.

On the war, it's a mystery why those same "conservatives" were silent on
paying for a war on the credit card.

A true conservative should believe in paying the bills, not avoiding
them and letting someone else pay. Which is what they would accuse a
"liberal" of.

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.

"More revolutionary was the contract's related proposal: a
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget."

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437701121.html

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:31:50 -0700 (PDT), 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

I have enjoyed your reply to my comment on the Contract with America
with its emphasis on a balanced budget amendment, and I found your
response to the distinction on federal budget surplus' compelling.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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.

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.

"More revolutionary was the contract's related proposal: a
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget."

CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437701121.html

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Good explanation of the surplus:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGqLx61MRY6w

And then, there's this, which fits right into your explanation:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1091621AAQVd1h

So, what happened to the "Contract with America?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

What allowed Bush to treat the federal budget like his personal
playground, to invite all his supporters to a share of the treasury?


Please explain.

While I'm waiting, I'll offer this explanation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/borosage

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?

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

deleted for the good of a sound polemic

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

"Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the
Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of
$75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the
debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under
President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions
again."

Another question; What body politic in the American republic approves
and appropriates all spending?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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.

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