wrote in message
ups.com...

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Now THAT tripe certainly makes you credible, huh?

Now I've seen everything.

Eisboch

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.


Yep. I think ol' rec.boats has sunk to a new low. Sad.

Eisboch

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and 1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.


It was over 70% when Eisenhower was in office...and never topped 65% until
1994 when Clinton was in office.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...6/pdf/hist.pdf

(see Table 7.1...which is on page 119)

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.

I thought it was JPS posting.

31. thunder Oct 4, 6:03 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.boats
From: thunder - Find messages by this author
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 07:03:32 -0400
Local: Tues, Oct 4 2005 6:03 am
Subject: The Edmund Fitzgearld & the National debt
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:31:48 -0700, tschnautz wrote:
and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but then
again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?



Uh, it might not be who you think.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm


This may be more accurate

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:01:32 -0700, tschnautz wrote:


http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm


This may be more accurate

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

It's the same data. It's just a more comprehensive look. It still shows,
the debt grew more under Reagan and the two Bushs, than other
Presidents, Republican or Democrat. And, it still shows the downward dip
under Clinton.

Bill,
It did sound like jps or Kevin, normally you do not see conservative
resorting to such childish behavior. ; )


"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:29:12 GMT, OlBlueEyes
wrote:

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os
a
****sucking infected ****.

Wow - talk about offensive.

I thought it was JPS posting.

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ

"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message
...
Harry,
If you really have a "bozo bin", why do you keep taking people out of the
"bozo bin" and then putting them back in the "bozo bin". Any rational
individual would think you really don't have a "bozo bin", but really just
want to talk about your "bozo bin".

[Yawn] He doesnt have a kill file. He has been caught many times responding
to people he has claimed to put in his "bozo bin"...me included.

By the way, what position did you play when you were on U of Kansas's
"Rugby
Team".

LOL!


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...



Under Bush the Second, the national debt has risen from 57% of the GNP
to 65% of the GNP. As a percentage of the GNP, he has run up the debt
as a percentage of the GNP to as high a humber as we have seen since
Bush the First was in office, and almost as high as when Eisenhower
took office and we were still paying off WWII.


Nice try, Chuck. But Debt as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1995 and
1996,
when it was 67.2 and 67.3% respectively.


My example was very accurate, as it was comparing the debt each
president inherited from the previous administration with the debt the
president left behind when his term was done. When Clinton took office,
the debt to GNP curve was going darn nearly straight up. Yes, it took
him a couple of years to get it turned around

You mean...the time period when there was a Democratic Congress?

but when he left office
the debt as a percentage of GNP was, indeed, *lower* than the debt he
inherited from Bush the First. You may not like that fact, but it is a
fact none the less.

Just curious:
What effect do you believe the change in control of Congress had on lowering
the debt? Or do you think that Clinton did a 180 in his economic policies
after 1995 and deserves all of the credit?




What effect do you believe that having a Republ


I assume you stopped typing in mid sentence just as you were about to
ask, "What effect do you believe that having a Republican congress had
on the reduction of national debt (as a percentage of GNP) during the
Clinton administration?"

You probably quit because you realized that I would point out we have a
Republican congress now, and have had during the entire BUSH II
administration, while our national debt has climbed from the mid- 5
Trillion range to a couple of bucks below 8 Trillion.

Apparently, the Republican congress argument doesn't hold water.

I will grant you this: having the congressional majority and the POTUS
from different parties does tend to create some "gridlock" in
government. For fans of smaller government and restrained government
spending (that would include little liberal ol' me)a smaller, less
invasive government restraining spending and operating within fiscal
reality would be preferable to the mess we have now.
In a perfect society, the POTUS and the congressional majority would
never be of the same party- just another one of the "checks and
balances".