|
"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! |
" 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...... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com