"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year), the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.


I still think asslicker is too stupid to realize how stupid he is.


You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took
over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either
from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so
incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year), the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

If not, please explain what you were trying to convey.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

If not, please explain what you were trying to convey.

LMAO......he's been insisting that he hasn't interchanged debt and deficit
and there he went and did it again.....what a idiot



"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took
over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper
term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this
month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either
from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or
year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order
to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so
incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

"basskisser" wrote in message

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Are you, by any chance, Jeff Foxworthy's agent?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Are you, by any chance, Jeff Foxworthy's agent?

I didn't think anybody could be THAT stupid....

"John Gaquin" wrote in message news:JfednXuqK-
[God, why do I repeatedly do this?]
now, I'll only do this once.

BWAAAHAAAA!!!!!!

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

Apparently you ARE lost......you can't seem to comprehend plain
English. Go back and read it again...S L O W L Y, you just may get it!

"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

If not, please explain what you were trying to convey.

LMAO......he's been insisting that he hasn't interchanged debt and deficit
and there he went and did it again.....what a idiot

OH MY GOD!!!!! If you think that, then you are dumber than I EVER
imagined!!! Are you really a little kid posting as an adult, or are
you REALLY that stupid?? Be honest now, do you really not
understand?????

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took
over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either
from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so
incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......


Then how could you say Clinton had a balanced budget?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

AAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Are you, by any chance, Jeff Foxworthy's agent?



Nope, he is Jeff's foil. Where is asslickers sign?

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message

On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:

"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget."


In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!

OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.

You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took
over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it
that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you
have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that
it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper
term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this
month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either
from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or
year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".

If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in
in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order
to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.

So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt
when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so
incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt
remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.

Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......


Then how could you say Clinton had a balanced budget?

Asslicker is too stupid to realize that all you need is to incorporate debit
service to balance a budget......NOT pay off the entire debt.

He seriously needs help.


LMAO

Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I would be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year Clinton was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between the words,
debt and deficit?




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is
proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

Apparently you ARE lost......you can't seem to comprehend plain
English. Go back and read it again...S L O W L Y, you just may get it!

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I would be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President,
that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is
proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

Apparently you ARE lost......you can't seem to comprehend plain
English. Go back and read it again...S L O W L Y, you just may get it!

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2004 11:00:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is
proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

Apparently you ARE lost......you can't seem to comprehend plain
English. Go back and read it again...S L O W L Y, you just may get it!

b'asskisser, I am buying my house. I will be in debt to the mortgage
holder for
about another six years. That is the *only* long term (i.e. more than a
month)
debt I have. I make a household budget every year. The payments on the
debt are
part of my budget. At the end of the year, I will break even, have a
surplus, or
have a deficit. If I have a surplus, it means I took in more money than I
had
planned to take in, or I spent less on expenses than I thought I would. If
I
have a deficit, it means I took in less than I expected, or I spent more
than I
thought I would.

Notice that in none of these cases is my *debt* paid off.

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit you made a boo-boo than keep digging
yourself deeper?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Not for him....he must be related to Dan Rather...perhaps 1st cousins mated
and had birth to the 2 of them.

" jim--" wrote in message ...
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2004 11:00:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:9_g2d.59837$D%.9892@attbi_s51...
Basskisser,
I am totally lost. Are you saying that when Bush became President, that
there was no National Debt, the fact that the budget was balanced is
proof
that Clinton had eliminated the national debt?

Apparently you ARE lost......you can't seem to comprehend plain
English. Go back and read it again...S L O W L Y, you just may get it!

b'asskisser, I am buying my house. I will be in debt to the mortgage
holder for
about another six years. That is the *only* long term (i.e. more than a
month)
debt I have. I make a household budget every year. The payments on the
debt are
part of my budget. At the end of the year, I will break even, have a
surplus, or
have a deficit. If I have a surplus, it means I took in more money than I
had
planned to take in, or I spent less on expenses than I thought I would. If
I
have a deficit, it means I took in less than I expected, or I spent more
than I
thought I would.

Notice that in none of these cases is my *debt* paid off.

Wouldn't it be easier to just admit you made a boo-boo than keep digging
yourself deeper?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Not for him....he must be related to Dan Rather...perhaps 1st cousins mated
and had birth to the 2 of them.

NONE of the above cases has ANY similarities to the debt and budget of
the U.S. Only idiots use apples as an analogy when talking about
oranges.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I would be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the word
BALANCED means......

Basskisser,

So was there any debt during Clinton's administration? If not, why does the
US government disagree with you. According to them, the debt increased
every year during the 8 yrs Clinton was in office.

It seems that not only do you goosestep to the democratic line, but you
don't understand the democratic line.



"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None,
nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have
debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I would
be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took
office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton
took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the word
BALANCED means......

So was there any debt during Clinton's administration? If not, why does
the
US government disagree with you. According to them, the debt increased
every year during the 8 yrs Clinton was in office.

It seems that not only do you goosestep to the democratic line, but you
don't understand the democratic line.



"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None,
nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have
debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I would
be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took
office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year
Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton
took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the word
BALANCED means......

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:otA2d.207199$mD.48085@attbi_s02...
Basskisser,

So was there any debt during Clinton's administration? If not, why does
the
US government disagree with you. According to them, the debt increased
every year during the 8 yrs Clinton was in office.

It seems that not only do you goosestep to the democratic line, but you
don't understand the democratic line.

He's just dumber than a tree stump.....and insists on proving it on a
daily basis posting in this NG.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None,
nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you have
debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I
would
be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush took
office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year
Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since Clinton
took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between
the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the word
BALANCED means......

I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt". There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:otA2d.207199$mD.48085@attbi_s02...
Basskisser,

So was there any debt during Clinton's administration? If not, why
does
the
US government disagree with you. According to them, the debt increased
every year during the 8 yrs Clinton was in office.

It seems that not only do you goosestep to the democratic line, but you
don't understand the democratic line.

He's just dumber than a tree stump.....and insists on proving it on a
daily basis posting in this NG.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None,
nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you
have
debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I
would
be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush
took
office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year
Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took
office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since
Clinton
took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between
the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the
word
BALANCED means......

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:bUA2d.106003$3l3.90873@attbi_s03...
I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt". There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

Well some have suggested fetal alcohol syndrome, others, that he is smoking
some good s**t. In any regard, you are right, he cannot grasp the
difference between simple words like 'debit' and 'deficit' or 'balanced
budget' vs balanced books.



"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:otA2d.207199$mD.48085@attbi_s02...
Basskisser,

So was there any debt during Clinton's administration? If not, why
does
the
US government disagree with you. According to them, the debt
increased
every year during the 8 yrs Clinton was in office.

It seems that not only do you goosestep to the democratic line, but
you
don't understand the democratic line.

He's just dumber than a tree stump.....and insists on proving it on a
daily basis posting in this NG.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:xYl2d.445335$%_6.93194@attbi_s01...
Well you did say, " "There was NO debt when Bush took over.
None,
nada,
zilch. A balanced budget." and then you said " If you
have
debt,
the budget isn't balanced.
You keep for getting THAT key word, BALANCED"

Since you agree you did not make a mistake in your statement, I
would
be
very interested where you saw that the National Debt when Bush
took
office
was none, nada, zilch.

According to the US government the National Debt grew each year
Clinton
was
in office and was in excess of $5.6 trillion when Bush took
office.

The table below shows the growth of the National Debt since
Clinton
took
office.

09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

Is it possible that you do not understand the difference between
the
words,
debt and deficit?

He also is too stupid to to know what 'budget' means

Uh, no...it's just that YOU are too ****ing dumb to know what the
word
BALANCED means......

"basskisser" wrote in message

After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

Rereading after a time, I've concluded that you really, truly don't
understand this stuff. I thought initially that you were just being
argumentative, but I now conclude otherwise. Jesus! You really don't know
what we're talking about, do you?

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......

Rereading after a time, I've concluded that you really, truly don't
understand this stuff. I thought initially that you were just being
argumentative, but I now conclude otherwise. Jesus! You really don't
know
what we're talking about, do you?

He really is dumber than a tree stump.....can't even figure out the
difference between having a blanced bufget and balnaced books.

What a complete idiot.

P.Fritz wrote:


He really is dumber than a tree stump.....can't even figure out the
difference between having a blanced bufget and balnaced books.


So tell us...what *is* the difference between a "blanced bufget" and
"balnaced" books?


I mean, as long as your claim concerns someone you think is "dumber than
a tree stump..."

And yes, you're back in the bozo bin...how you momentarily slipped out,
I don't know.



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

LOL, you find it hard to ignore those you say you have in your bozo bin.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:


He really is dumber than a tree stump.....can't even figure out the
difference between having a blanced bufget and balnaced books.


So tell us...what *is* the difference between a "blanced bufget" and
"balnaced" books?


I mean, as long as your claim concerns someone you think is "dumber than
a tree stump..."

And yes, you're back in the bozo bin...how you momentarily slipped out,
I don't know.



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:P9F2d.1147$wV.215@attbi_s54...
LOL, you find it hard to ignore those you say you have in your bozo bin.


That is because harry's 'bozo bin' is as fictional as his 36' lobsta boat or
his wife's doctor doctor degrees


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:


He really is dumber than a tree stump.....can't even figure out the
difference between having a blanced bufget and balnaced books.


So tell us...what *is* the difference between a "blanced bufget" and
"balnaced" books?


I mean, as long as your claim concerns someone you think is "dumber than
a tree stump..."

And yes, you're back in the bozo bin...how you momentarily slipped out,
I don't know.



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message news:bUA2d.106003$3l3.90873@attbi_s03...
I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt". There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

What "simple concepts" have you posted here, that in your idiotic
mind, I've not been able to comprehend, John Smith?

basskisser wrote:
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message news:bUA2d.106003$3l3.90873@attbi_s03...
I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt". There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

What "simple concepts" have you posted here, that in your idiotic
mind, I've not been able to comprehend, John Smith?


Don't forget his other three handles here.



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

debt, deficit and balanced budget.


"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:bUA2d.106003$3l3.90873@attbi_s03...
I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt". There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

What "simple concepts" have you posted here, that in your idiotic
mind, I've not been able to comprehend, John Smith?

Harry,
How is it going? Has Karen forgiven you yet for being ashamed of her?


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:bUA2d.106003$3l3.90873@attbi_s03...
I am beginning to think it is more than just being "dumb as dirt".
There
must be a physiological or psychology reason for his inability to
comprehend simple concepts.

What "simple concepts" have you posted here, that in your idiotic
mind, I've not been able to comprehend, John Smith?


Don't forget his other three handles here.



--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!