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

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, ....

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

In article ,
says...

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


Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Sep 1, 9:19*am, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...







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

Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.


the fact is bush had ample intelligence warnings that something was
coming. i don't blame bush for 9/11 but it's ridiculous to blame obama
for things that are plainly bush's fault

you need to learn some history...as in 12 months ago

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:19:00 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...


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


Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

I remember watching the towers come down and the horror of seeing all
those innocent people killed. I was ****ed that our leadership
allowed that to happen. Didn't give a thought to Bill Clinton.
If something like that happens again I won't give a thought to GWB.
It'll be on Obama's back. I won't care if it was planned while GWB
was in office.
Same with the economy. It's Obama's economy.
I'm not blaming GWB for escalating unemployment.
GWB is gone. Obama is responsible.
You guys can blame whoever want for whatever you want.
Don't bother me. Freedom of speech.
It was Dick Cheney boasting/lying about him keeping us safe for "8
years" that got me thinking about the scorecard.
Facts is facts.

--Vic