Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 07:00 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cheney caught on film, Bush SR. caught on film

William J. Clinton, the forty-second President of the United States
(1993-2001)
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66


Thanks for supporting my point.

The debt grew by a lesser amount in *eight* years under Clinton than it has in
*four* years under Bush.



  #3   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 07:26 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now why would you delete the rest of my post?

Because you poked fun at Clinton for presiding over a 40% increse in the debt,
following the intellectually dishonest technique comparing radically different
periods of time.

It made no sense to repeat it.
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 07:34 PM
jim--
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Now why would you delete the rest of my post?


Because you poked fun at Clinton for presiding over a 40% increse in the
debt,
following the intellectually dishonest technique comparing radically
different
periods of time.


John previously posted:


09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

"Pretty close to 40%, and no war! With a budget surplus! With huge military
cuts!
With the dot.com bubble causing capitol gains tax collections to go through
the
roof! No federalizing of a huge airport security force! "

What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.

It made no sense to repeat it.


For you perhaps.


  #5   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 11:26 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default

He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.



I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion of it.




  #6   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 11:32 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.


I'll type very slowly and see if that helps.

1. I pointed out that the national debt has increased by about 40% since Bush
took office.

2. John H rebutted that it also increased about 40% when Clinton was in office

***
Important difference: The increase under Clinton took place over an eight year
period. The increase under Bush in four.
Not an equivalent comparison.

********
At the rate the Bush debt is increasing, it could easily be *double* what it
was in 2000 if we see "four more years" of unrestrained spending by the party
that is supposed to be fiscally conservative and believes in "small
government".


  #7   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 11:39 PM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do you assert that the radically different periods of time had no bearing on
the
debt? By radically different I assume you're referring to the events that
occurred, correct?


John, I thought you were a math whiz.

Story Problem:

Bill sold his business to George.

During the last *eight* years that Bill operated the business, he increased the
firm's debt by 40%.

When George bought the business, he assumed Bill's debt- and within *four*
years increased that amount of that debt by an additional 40%.

Was Bill or George borrowing greater amounts of money?

Which manager was increasing the debt at a faster pace?
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 9th 04, 11:59 PM
jim--
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the losing
end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.



I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion
of it.



Struck a nerve Chuck?


  #9   Report Post  
Old September 10th 04, 12:00 AM
jim--
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
What is so strange about the time periods he quoted. He took office in
January 1992 and left January 2000.


I'll type very slowly and see if that helps.

1. I pointed out that the national debt has increased by about 40% since
Bush
took office.

2. John H rebutted that it also increased about 40% when Clinton was in
office

***
Important difference: The increase under Clinton took place over an eight
year
period. The increase under Bush in four.
Not an equivalent comparison.



So? Bush faced far greater challenges as I previously posted. Or should I
have typed them slower for you so you could understand Chuck?


  #10   Report Post  
Old September 10th 04, 01:04 AM
Gould 0738
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Struck a nerve Chuck?

Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd
when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by
meaningless pap.

When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false conclusion, it
is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the
nonsense.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
( OT ) Creepier than Nixon -- Worse than Watergate Jim General 7 April 2nd 04 08:12 PM
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. NOYB General 23 February 6th 04 05:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017