"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1149027230.958733.240640@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1149021806.936861.72880@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1149011148.601815.91390@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:cajo721poj55ga9du6cngmi0vpq0hri0e0@4ax.com:

On Tue, 30 May 2006 13:25:53 GMT, "Ph=FFlt=EAr" <phylter@hsotm=

.co

m>

wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> had me ROTFL with:
news:Xns97D25D559131Bfstone69@66.150.105.47:

johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in news:jhachmann-
FED5F7.22000328052006@news.giganews.com:

In article <meok72t9vc0a596dmk0fecv5k1lu8brmte@4ax.com>,
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:25:34 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

One of the big reasons the push is on to blame brown
people:

"Taxpayers owe more than a half-million dollars per
household for financial promises made by government,
mostly to cover the cost

of

retirement benefits for baby boomers, a USA TODAY
analysis

shows."

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y3A212E2D

We have met the welfare scum and they are us...

Of course, if the government didn't spend
incomprehensible amounts

of

money on developing "new and improved" ways to kill large
numbers

of

people all at once, they'd easily be able to meet the
cost of

those

retirement benefits.. <G>

And if we had a reasonable tax policy, based on ability to
pay,

that

would help too. Just six years ago, we had a budget
surplus.

You people will believe anything.

Except you Fred, you're a lying fucking jerkoff of the
highest order.

Plonking Fred was one of the best decisions I ever made. <G>

I wonder what planet Fred was living on six years ago. I
distinctly remember Slick Willie leaving office with a tidy
little surplus. Not really much by government standards, but
still a surplus. Yet Fred seems strangely unaware of that
fact.

He's probably unaware as well that his hero has managed in
only six years to turn that modest surplus into the largest
deficit in US history.

Slick Willie's surplus was not a surplus. It was a deficit,
covered up by not counting most of the federal budget. You'll
believe anything.

????????
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only shady thing in Clinton's
surplus was counting Social Security income. If this wasn't
counted, there still would have been a deficit, but it would
have been much smaller than previous deficits (under BushI and
Reagan) or later deficits (under BushII).

IINM, he was also not counting any non-discretionary spending.

What does IINM mean?

If I'm Not Mistaken.

Also, can you back that up? ISTM that most
histories show we had a surplus at the end of the Clinton years,
and on into fiscal 2001.

The simplest illustration I can give is right here:

The figures below are the US public debt to the penny as of the date
given during the Clinton years. Note that in no year does the debt go
*down*, as it would if there were a real surplus. Again, IINM, the
last real surplus was during the Truman administration.

09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $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

The numbers are from here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

And yes, before you go there, it's up quite a bit since.
05/25/2006 $8,348,185,073,893.70

Your numbers do not refute my point. I said that Clinton was including
income from the Social Security tax in his deficit/surplus
calculations, while I suspect that the numbers above do not include SS
income.

Dave, those numbers above are the total public debt. They include all
income and spending. *All* of it. No funny business.

They in no way shape or form back up your assertion that
Clinton did not include non-discretionary spending in his
deficit/surplus calculations. Indeed, considering the size of
non-discretionary spending, if it wasn't included, there would be a
huge surplus every year.

Oh, denial isn't just a river in Egypt, Dave. You asked for backup, I
gave you backup. You don't like it, don't complain to me.

Also, note that in 2 years, FY1998 and 1999, the deficits were only
$40 billion and $18 billion, respectively.

You can thank the Republicans in Congress for that. :-)

However, it seems you don't have much of a
leg to stand on here, since BushII is also counting Social
Security income under federal revenues, as did Reagan and BushI.
In addition, BushII has managed to put most of the cost of the
"GWOT" off budget, meaning that the actual deficit is quite a
bit larger than the budget figures state. Finally, in predicting
future deficits, BushII is counting revenue from the Alternative
Minimum Tax as if it isn't going to be fixed, which we all know
will have to be fixed.

I didn't make any comparison.

I was putting things into context.

Is that what it's called when a Democrat does it?

?????

When a Republican does it it's usually called "Bitching about Clinton".

So, it would seem that it is you who would believe anything, so
long as it is said by BushII.

I said nothing about BushII, so I have no idea where you got any
of that from. It figures you'd try to make excuses for Slick
Willie by pulling in some complaint about Dubya though.

In this case, no excuses need to be made for Clinton, since our
financial house was much closer to being in order while he was
president than it has with the two previous presidents or the one
following him.

Clinton didn't have the 9/11 attack and the subsequent wars to fight
either. But we can play what-ifs and shouldabeens forever.

Clinton didn't keep military adventures off budget either. And, Iraq
was a totally optional war, as you well know. Afghanistan wasn't
optional, IMHO.

Iraq wasn't optional, Dave. It needed doing, one way or another.