jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:27:06 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:08:07 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
:


You mean the surplus that didn't exist, because the government
spent more than it got in revenue?


Ssshhhhhh, they can't handle the truth.

Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to
give it to the wealthiest 1%.

China is financing that debt with our worthless dollars.

Who can't handle the truth?

Attempt to change the subject, and hence your surrender, is noted.

Your stupidity is duly noted.

Let's see if that's really the case, or rather if this is a comment on your
own stupidity.


I'm simply following up on your ill-conceived notion that Dems are bad
stewards of the federal budget.

Really? Care to cite where I stated such a notion?

Since you can not do so it's looking like the only stupidity speaking is
yours.


Have a look at the history of federal debt during presidencies and
you'll find the deficit has gone down during D administrations and up
during R administrations.

Agreed, the D's generally have less debt, though it's looking like Obama is
going to wipe that out during his first budget, but that's not really
relevent to the point you are attempting to make.

However, a lower debt, is still a debt, and an increasing deficit still
means the government spent more than they took in. The only difference is Ds
spend us into debt, generally, at a slower rate. Further, one has to
question how much of the debt incurred by future administrations is a result
of the costs of entitlement programs enacted during a D administration. If
you factor that in, it could have a significant impact on the numbers you
refer to because adding spending to future budgets isn't included (and it
should be) in the accounting of the administration that imposed the
expendature(s).....not just when it came due for payment, but again not
directly relevent to your point.


Doesn't matter who it is, if you spend more than you have, then the deficit
increases.

Unless you can't handle the truth, which I'm certain is the case.

Where as you seem to be utterly ignoring the small truth I presented to you
for your edification and enlightenment.

So who can't handle the truth? The one that confronts it as I do, or the one
that changes the subject rather than to accept the deficit increased under
Clinton because his adminstration did, in fact, spend more than it took in
and there was no real surplus beyond numbers on paper?


And don't tell me to cite it. Prove that you have half a brain and
can use google.

IOW, don't bother asking you to back up your claims.

I acknowledge your inability to handle the truth. I accept you want to
change the subject rather than to deal with that truth. I am disappointed
that you claim positions for me which I have not expressed. Finally, I am
sadden by your self admission of stupidity by expressing all of the above.