"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?????