Religions > Atheism > During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill Baker" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2008 12:25:40 PM |
| Object: |
During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
--
Bushism 12-9/10:
"John Thune has got a commonsense vision for good forest policy. I
look forward to working with him in the United Nations Senate to
preserve these national heritages."
--South Bend, Indiana; October 31, 2002
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 05:02:41 AM |
|
|
On 3 f=E9v, 19:25, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administrati...
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
I apologize for this question that may sound stupid but what's the
problem with having a deficit?
Don't get me wrong, I despise Republicans in general and Dumbya in
particular, but I never understood this question of the necessity of a
"balanced budget". What I mean by that is, has anything changed in
your daily life between ten years ago and now, fiscally speaking?
I live in a country (Austria) which had a big deficit a couple of
years ago and had to "bring it back under control" in order to join
the European Union. OK, fine. But, nothing seems to have changed in my
daily life: we still have healthcare, school fees are still
ridiculously low, arts and culture are still founded by the state,
social system is fine, public transportation is still the best in the
world and Vienna hasn't turned into a slum... So, again,
what's the deal?
.
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 09:20:24 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 6:02=A0am, wrote:
On 3 f=E9v, 19:25, Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Wa=
s
the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administrati...
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
I apologize for this question that may sound stupid but what's the
problem with having a deficit?
It depends entirely upon how it is financed.
Don't get me wrong, I despise Republicans in general and Dumbya in
particular, but I never understood this question of the necessity of a
"balanced budget".
It is less about balancing any particular budget than it is about
the size of the debt one is carrying. One leads to the other.
What I mean by that is, has anything changed in
your daily life between ten years ago and now, fiscally speaking?
Ten years is the wrong time span over which to look. Yes, there
are many things we don't do in the US because we can't "afford"
them in the sense that over some 30-50 year period, we can't
see how to pay for it.
I live in a country (Austria) which had a big deficit a couple of
years ago and had to "bring it back under control" in order to join
the European Union. OK, fine. But, nothing seems to have changed in my
daily life: we still have healthcare, school fees are still
ridiculously low, arts and culture are still founded by the state,
social system is fine, public transportation is still the best in the
world and Vienna hasn't turned into a slum... So, again,
what's the deal?
It probably says more about the size of your debt than anything.
You may be seeing some infrastructure decay that won't be obvious
for 30 years or more. Bridges, dams, canal projects, flood control,
these kinds of projects can be allowed to decay over decades and
takes time to begin to see the impacts. Infrastructure upgrades
can also be delayed/canceled and you wouldn't know right away.
Roads slowly get more crowded, schools have fewer "new"
items such as desks, computers, multi-media devices. At first
it's unnoticable, then one decade you walk in and everything looks
like a leftover from the last millenia.... because it is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 11:57:06 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Nine out of ten priests who have tried Camels, prefer young boys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 03:25:48 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> used a stick in the sand to babble
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
This was one of Clinton's priorities. He wanted the government
solvent so when SS borrowing time came, we'd have the space to borrow.
Funny thing, nobody thinks to much about when the boomers are fading
and SS starts taking in more than it pays out again.
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 03:24:37 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> used a stick in the sand to babble
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Actually it originally was but Johnson rolled it into the regular
budget to make it easier to raid the trust fund.
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 12:27:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:24:37 -0500 in
mpagq31noag5e3226q29nr906ck7a9c2kp@4ax.com, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> used a stick in the sand to babble
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Actually it originally was but Johnson rolled it into the regular budget
to make it easier to raid the trust fund.
There is no "trust fund". There never was a "trust fund". There will
never be a "trust fund".
You know what this "trust fund" is? Intra-governmental bonds. The SSA
surplus is used to buy government bonds. The SSA can then point to a big
stack of IOUs and say, "see, trust fund!"
But when government bonds are redeemed, from where do the funds come?
Taxes.
The "trust fund" represents future income tax hikes and budget cuts as
the other federal departments have to pay back *with interest* what they
borrowed from the SSA.
We're not just borrowing from ourselves, we're charging ourselves
interest...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight: You believe that a cosmic Jewish
zombie who was his own father will let you live forever
if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, and
telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master,
so he can remove an evil force from your soul that he put
there a long time ago as punishment for all humanity because
a rib-woman made from a dust-man was convinced by a talking
snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
- Unknown
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 12:59:55 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 12:57=A0pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_=
was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthedeficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 07:02:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 in
16be63b6-ac28-43c1-9aac-38a5f308ba43@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com, me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in
13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Well, it was going to take some years of surpluses to pay down.
And then the party of fiscal responsibility took control of the white
house and all pretense of balancing the budget and paying down the debt
was out the window...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The religious man, starting out with an outfit of
irrational postulates and untenable hopes, tries to
fit them into the facts of a harshly material world.
In the process he must do violence to both.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 07:14:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt
in the first place?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 07:28:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:07 -0500 in
rqdfq3psfrdtbb9eb35jco5pmongcoguid@4ax.com, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com>
wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in
13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget
balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the
first Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt in
the first place?
Speaking of the 80s, it was the same crew--Rummy, *****, the rest--who
bamboozled Reagan into believing in the Invisible Soviet Menace (you
know, the one that is evidenced by you can't detect it?) and blowing a
trillion arming against a nation that was imploding.
Same old *****. Same song and dance. The CIA said, "No, we don't see a
major build up" so ***** and Donald created their *own* intelligence
"agency" and fed Reagan crap.
'Course, now, he's responsible for *falling* for it but the neo-cons have
been behind the two biggest increases of US debt in history.
It's enough to make you wonder if Cheney and the rest are working *for*
bin Laden...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus loves you all, and can't wait to control you like a
small household pet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 10:08:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:07 -0500, in alt.atheism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<rqdfq3psfrdtbb9eb35jco5pmongcoguid@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt
in the first place?
Come, come, three of the last four presidents have been utterly
irresponsible when it comes to balancing the budget.
Guess what? Not one of them had the balls to admit that they were being
fiscally irresponsible, all three of them had excuses for the trillions
in debt that they added.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 01:36:53 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:08:04 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:07 -0500, in alt.atheism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<rqdfq3psfrdtbb9eb35jco5pmongcoguid@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt
in the first place?
Come, come, three of the last four presidents have been utterly
irresponsible when it comes to balancing the budget.
Absolutely. And for the hard of hearing, their names were Reagan,
Bush, and Bush.
Guess what? Not one of them had the balls to admit that they were being
fiscally irresponsible, all three of them had excuses for the trillions
in debt that they added.
In fairness, two of the three probably weren't capable of recognizing
that they were being fiscally irresponsible. George H.W. Bush had no
excuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 06:20:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:36:53 -0500, in alt.atheism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<q44gq35ce8dj0vpcikgkjhftm26hfi7q83@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:08:04 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:07 -0500, in alt.atheism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<rqdfq3psfrdtbb9eb35jco5pmongcoguid@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt
in the first place?
Come, come, three of the last four presidents have been utterly
irresponsible when it comes to balancing the budget.
Absolutely. And for the hard of hearing, their names were Reagan,
Bush, and Bush.
Guess what? Not one of them had the balls to admit that they were being
fiscally irresponsible, all three of them had excuses for the trillions
in debt that they added.
In fairness, two of the three probably weren't capable of recognizing
that they were being fiscally irresponsible. George H.W. Bush had no
excuse.
Are you sure? Maybe GHWB didn't think that Voodoo Economics counted as
Voodoo Economics when he engaged in it. Still, Ronald Reagan had a
Bachelors degree in Economics from Eureka College. I don't know what to
say about the current clown.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 11:42:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:08:04 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote
in message news:<h6ofq3ldjjmqccdf8igmaq12goaa8n117u@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:14:07 -0500, in alt.atheism
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
<rqdfq3psfrdtbb9eb35jco5pmongcoguid@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:59:55 -0800 (PST), me
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
On Feb 4, 12:57 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
<http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html>
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
The one thing I do wish they would mention here though is that yes
the budget
was "balanced" and the "deficit" was erased. But the DEBT was still
huge.
Yes, it was. Whose fault was that? Hint: what President spent like a
drunken sailor on shore leave during the 1980s, incurring such a debt
in the first place?
Come, come, three of the last four presidents have been utterly
irresponsible when it comes to balancing the budget.
Guess what? Not one of them had the balls to admit that they were being
fiscally irresponsible, all three of them had excuses for the trillions
in debt that they added.
Of course. "The Buck Stops Here" was the saying of Democrat Harry S.
Truman. No Republican would ever think of taking responsibility like that.
--
Bushism 3-13:
"And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find
something to be pessimistic about, you can find it no matter how hard
you look, you know?"
--Washington D.C.; June 15, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 12:31:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote
in message news:<i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
--
Bushism 3-17:
"Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about."
--St. Louis, Missouri; October 18, 2000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 06:21:43 AM |
|
|
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:13qemf75fn70kf6@corp.supernews.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote
in message news:<i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
That's because Republicans have not governed as conservatives. The party
divorced itself from the reasons they were elected and chose to govern as
Democrats instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?B?qrqqYW5kY2Fyb2xl?=" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 11:10:29 AM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 7:21 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
"Bill Baker" <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:13qemf75fn70kf6@corp.supernews.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote
in message <news:i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpt...@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administrati...
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
That's because Republicans have not governed as conservatives. The party
divorced itself from the reasons they were elected and chose to govern as
Democrats instead.
we are a white cpl, 40s, looking for bi female, or cpl w/bi female for
hot times. she is 5/7 fullfigured, 44dd tits, and a juicy shaved *****
that squirts when she cums. he is 6/1 225, hairy chest, short beard,
and 7 inches. we seek people in the louisville, southern indiana area.
we can exchange pics. here is just one of our sexy poses: http://tinyurl.com/yvah46
if interested, email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 09:51:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:21:43 -0500, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<47a854d7$0$24119$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>...
"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
news:13qemf75fn70kf6@corp.supernews.com...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote
in message news:<i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
That's because Republicans have not governed as conservatives. The party
divorced itself from the reasons they were elected and chose to govern as
Democrats instead.
If that's true, then the Democrats have been governing as Republicans.
--
"Who is Bill Taylor and why do you fear him so much? Every post that a
homo or homophile can't refute is said to come from this mysterious Bill
Taylor -- when was the last time anyone saw a post from this alleged
'Bill Taylor'? I suggest that he is to homosexuals and their 'philes what
the 'Chupacabra' is to the uneducated of Mexico and Central America; some
thing that scares them shitless, that comes out of the mist of night to
torment them....poor babeeeeeeeeeees!"
--Bill Taylor <bibon@râlant.org>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 03:29:25 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> used a stick in the sand to
babble
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
Democrats ARE tax and spenders. Republicans are borrow and spenders
and they spend a lot more than Democrats.
Which of these is the more responsible fiscal policy?
a) Raise taxes to cover spending.
b) Lower taxes and borrow to cover spending.
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 06:23:16 AM |
|
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tagq31lh8lnghgta0r0a4ce5fvdo0jcmo@4ax.com...
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> used a stick in the sand to
babble
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when
we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll
do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
Democrats ARE tax and spenders. Republicans are borrow and spenders
and they spend a lot more than Democrats.
Which of these is the more responsible fiscal policy?
a) Raise taxes to cover spending.
b) Lower taxes and borrow to cover spending.
Option B, because lower tax rates (at least rates well below current levels)
results in MORE revenue. Google "Laffer" for details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and thedeficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 01:08:08 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 7:23=A0am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
"Governor Swill" <governor.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tagq31lh8lnghgta0r0a4ce5fvdo0jcmo@4ax.com...
Bill Baker <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> used a stick in the sand to
babble
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when=
we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll=
do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. =A0Not to mention that "tax and spend" is =
a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxe=
s
and spend even more."
Democrats ARE tax and spenders. =A0Republicans are borrow and spenders
and they spend a lot more than Democrats.
Which of these is the more responsible fiscal policy?
a) Raise taxes to cover spending.
b) Lower taxes and borrow to cover spending.
Option B, because lower tax rates (at least rates well below current level=
s)
results in MORE revenue. =A0Google "Laffer" for details
Even Laffer will tell you that doesn't work.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 12:18:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:23:16 -0500 in
47a85534$0$24092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com, "Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tagq31lh8lnghgta0r0a4ce5fvdo0jcmo@4ax.com...
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> used a stick in the sand to
babble
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that
when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit,
we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut
taxes and spend even more."
Democrats ARE tax and spenders. Republicans are borrow and spenders
and they spend a lot more than Democrats.
Which of these is the more responsible fiscal policy?
a) Raise taxes to cover spending.
b) Lower taxes and borrow to cover spending.
Option B, because lower tax rates (at least rates well below current
levels) results in MORE revenue. Google "Laffer" for details.
Googling "discredited and laughably stupid" will you get you to the same
place...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the
conquest of the land ..."
-- George Grant, "The Changing of the Guard"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
05 Feb 2008 09:43:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 07:23:16 -0500, Fester <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<47a85534$0$24092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>...
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9tagq31lh8lnghgta0r0a4ce5fvdo0jcmo@4ax.com...
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> used a stick in the sand to
babble
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when
we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll
do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
Democrats ARE tax and spenders. Republicans are borrow and spenders
and they spend a lot more than Democrats.
Which of these is the more responsible fiscal policy?
a) Raise taxes to cover spending.
b) Lower taxes and borrow to cover spending.
Option B, because lower tax rates (at least rates well below current levels)
results in MORE revenue. Google "Laffer" for details.
WRONG. Economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for
themselves.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html
--
Bushism 8-28:
"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying
attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why
don't you mentor a child how to read?"
--St. Louis, Missouri; January 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced andthe deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 07:15:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:31:03 +0000 in 13qemf75fn70kf6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo>
wrote in message news:<i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in
13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com, Bill Baker
<wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/
during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when
you had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is
about as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when
we do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit,
we'll do so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut
taxes and spend even more."
Yeah, since when did "borrow and spend" become "fiscally responsible"
anyway?
At least "tax and spend" means raise the money *first* and *then* spend
it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution is both fact and theory.
Creationism is neither.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: During the Clinton administration was the budget balanced and the deficit erased? |
04 Feb 2008 06:09:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:31:03 -0000, Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:57:06 -0600, Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote
in message news:<i80k75-6101.ln1@75-104-215-1.cust.wildblue.net>:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:25:40 +0000 in 13qc1p41ukpttc6@corp.supernews.com,
Bill Baker <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced?
Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Reality has such a well-known liberal bias!
Funny thing, the payroll tax hike was from the Republicans in the first
Bush administration.
It also doesn't matter which tax you use to pay down the debt. Despite
all the yap that, somehow, as if by magic, Social Security is some
"separate" thing, it's not and never has been.
Further, using the SS surplus to pay down the debt isn't a "bad" thing.
It would mean being able to start from a low--if not zero--debt when you
had to start borrowing to cover the inevitable SS deficit. Which is about
as close to a "fund" as you can get with a government.
If Bush hadn't totally wrecked the budget, we'd be a decent distance
toward actually eliminating the debt. He's managed to ensure that when we
do, inevitably, have to start borrowing to cover the SS deficit, we'll do
so starting at 10 trillion in debt.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Republicans criticize Democrats as
"tax and spenders" when Democrats have proven to be much more fiscally
responsible than Republicans. Not to mention that "tax and spend" is a
much more responsible position than the Republican position of "cut taxes
and spend even more."
The republican approach is "borrow and spend". Been that way since the brain
dead Mr. Reagan.
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
