H the K wrote:
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.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck in
the same groove again.

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
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.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck in
the same groove again.



Awwww. What's the matter, Bertie? You thought everyone would forget that
your boy Bush was the worst president ever, and that he royally screwed
this country?

Not a chance.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:49:10 -0400, BAR wrote:

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.

Yeah, I know about death taxes. And death panels. How could I not.
But it's a fact that dead folks don't pay taxes.
Unless they're exceptionally good zombies.
Never saw that happen personally, or heard any proof of it.

--Vic

H the K wrote:
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.

Something about difference between the words promoting and providing.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
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.

Would somebody please give the record player a slight tap it is stuck
in the same groove again.



Awwww. What's the matter, Bertie? You thought everyone would forget that
your boy Bush was the worst president ever, and that he royally screwed
this country?

Not a chance.

Everyone has long way to go before they can unseat Carter as the worst
president ever.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:54:08 -0500, 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.

Not true? I will accept that if you can show me where I have stated
anything that is factually incorrect. Since I'm waging a war on
disingenuous semantics, you should also be able to show me where I
used the term "budget surplus." If you can do that, I may even be
willing to concede your "not true" indictment.

Still, just for a little bit of morning amusement, I'll proffer this;

"The only debt that matters is the total national debt. You can have a
surplus and a debt at the same time, but you can't have a surplus if
the amount of debt is going up each year. And the national debt went
up every single year under Clinton. Had Clinton really had a surplus
the national debt would have gone down. It didn't go down precisely
because Clinton had a deficit every single year. The U.S. Treasury's
historical record of the national debt verifies this.

A balanced budget or a budget surplus is a great thing, but it's only
relevant if the budget surplus turns into a real surplus at the end of
the fiscal year. In Clinton's case, it never did."

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

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

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

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

You've done a VERY good job at what John would probably describe as
Obama derangement syndrome and have also done well at avoiding
mentioning anything about the lies that the conservatives are dishing
out about health care reform.

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:37:15 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Indeed - lets talk pesky facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082502734.html

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...te-house-deal/

The model for Obama care.

http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar..._in_cou ntry/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...h_insuran ce/

Did we mention rationing?

http://www.californiahealthline.org/...e-Efforts.aspx

However, to be fair, here's your side of the issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...he_massac.html

Then there are the facts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...ilblazing-its-

But let's not stop there - another "obamacare" type system.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/i...nce_rates.html

Did we talk about death panels yet?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

And of course, the best one of all - gambling for health care.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334813,00.html

Facts are pesky indeed.

Shame on you. They're not 'death panels', they're 'end of life'
panels. Any astute individual could figure out that 'end of life' has
absolutely nothing to do with death.
--
John H


Just remember, we also want to eat your babies. Right after we kill the
elderly.

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL

If we are going to have socialized medicine, why reinvent the wheel?
Let's just put everybody under the VA administration for health care
and, from what most of you folks say, everybody should be happy....

Why wouldn't that work?

I'm guessing it would be acceptable to many here if it weren't for the
fact that there's a liberal in office.