Hey mister, can you spare 97 billion?
Rabid Weasel Lawson
and some thoughts occured to me.
Now Obama wants 97 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/97b-war-spending-bill-approved-by-the-house-2009-05-14.html
This is after, what, I think it's been about 90 billion?
Now at a time of record budget deficit. So, now this begs the question,
where is the money coming from?
Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our children
and grandchildren.
How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they can
pay it all off for us right?
I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions and
we've generated 97 billion. Easy.
What do you say, hal?
Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
Appledog
+dayton.net> wrote:
> I was reading about Obama's newest emergency funding bill for Iraq, at 97B
> and some thoughts occured to me.
>
> Now Obama wants 97 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
>
> This is after, what, I think it's been about 90 billion?
>
> Now at a time of record budget deficit. So, now this begs the question,
> where is the money coming from?
>
> Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our children
> and grandchildren.
>
> How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
> spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they can
> pay it all off for us right?
>
> I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions and
> we've generated 97 billion. Easy.
>
> What do you say, hal?
>
> Peace favor your sword (IH),
> Kirk
Kirk, I'm sure at least Trav has been raving about this for years, as
have I and a few others.
More like "defect spending" - lol.
This is why they say a revolution is coming. People like you are
starting to wake up. No offense - it should be taken as a compliment.
Just think what will happen when 50 million more people like you
realize that it's a little more serious than cereal?
You know what the solution to all this is, don't you?
-
hal
<lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>I was reading about Obama's newest emergency funding bill for Iraq, at 97B
>and some thoughts occured to me.
>
>Now Obama wants 97 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/97b-war-spending-bill-approved-by-the-house-2009-05-14.html
>
>This is after, what, I think it's been about 90 billion?
>
>Now at a time of record budget deficit. So, now this begs the question,
>where is the money coming from?
>
>Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our children
>and grandchildren.
>
>How come we can't just create the wealth?
out of what?
> What's all this deficit
>spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
>wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they can
>pay it all off for us right?
>
>I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions and
>we've generated 97 billion. Easy.
>
>What do you say, hal?
Ask the Jews. They own The Fed. And they're printing money as fast
as they can. Maybe the plan is to hyperinflate our way out of debt,
like the Weimar fellas did. Better get yourself a wheelbarrow while
they're still available.
Herbert Cannon
You know what the solution to all this is, don't you?
Tuna fish.
-
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "Bush"
and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
Oh, here's your post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/browse_frm/thread/6b507297515ce813/5da6365b9c61290d?
==================
Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
Now at a time of nearing record budget deficit (the last record was
set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), and at a time of unprecidented
tax cuts for the wealthy. So, now this begs the question, where is
the money coming from?
Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
children and grandchildren.
How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
can pay it all off for us right?
I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
Hal
==================
I just wanted some amusement at the partisan hypocrite cheerleader's
expense (you) before I left for ISMAC tomorrow.
ta.
(IH)
hal
<lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
>This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
>87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "Bush"
>and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
>Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
you're a fucking moron. Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
management, corruption, and cronyism. Obama inherited a trashed
economy and a huge Bush deficit. A severe recession is no time to try
to cut spending. Everyone agrees the only hope we have to jump start
the economy is for the fed to pump tons of money into it. Obama
already has plans for long term debt reduction. But now is not the
time. Once the economy recovers then it will be time for debt
reduction.
Rabid Weasel Lawson
> Obama inherited a trashed
> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
Which is why he is running an even BIGGER deficit, while doing exactly the
same things Bush did only spending more on them.
Now, say it with me, hal.
RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
hahahahahaha!
(IH)
hal
<lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:31:39 -0600, hal wrote:
>
>> Obama inherited a trashed
>> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
>
>Which is why he is running an even BIGGER deficit, while doing exactly the
>same things Bush did only spending more on them.
He's doing nothing of the sort. He is however trying his best to save
a failed economy thanks to Bush. He has long term deficit reduction
plans. Look them up.
>
>Now, say it with me, hal.
>
>RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
>
>hahahahahaha!
you're a pathetic little moron. Everything Bush did was fine with you
because you were stupid enough to believe he was a conservative. Now
nothing Obama can do will be right, and you will try any lies to cut
him down. It's your kind that got us into this mess. And as usual it
will be the progressives who will save your stupid prejudiced ass.
>
>(IH)
Rabid Weasel Lawson
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 20:41:20 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
> <lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:31:39 -0600, hal wrote:
>>
>>> Obama inherited a trashed
>>> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
>>
>>Which is why he is running an even BIGGER deficit, while doing exactly the
>>same things Bush did only spending more on them.
>
> He's doing nothing of the sort. He is however trying his best to save
> a failed economy thanks to Bush. He has long term deficit reduction
> plans. Look them up.
>
>>
>>Now, say it with me, hal.
>>
>>RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
>>
>>hahahahahaha!
>
> you're a pathetic little moron. Everything Bush did was fine with you
> because you were stupid enough to believe he was a conservative.
hahahaha
I didn't vote for Bush.
> Now
> nothing Obama can do will be right, and you will try any lies to cut
> him down. It's your kind that got us into this mess. And as usual it
> will be the progressives who will save your stupid prejudiced ass.
RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
(IH)
TravIsGod
> management, corruption, and cronyism. Obama inherited a trashed
HAHAHAHAHA.
So, the answer to huge deficits is even LARGER deficits?
Our previous President was the equivalent of an alcoholic on a
drinking binge so we're going to cure this with MORE drinking? You
cannot borrow your way out of debt nor drink your way to sobriety, you
idiot.
> economy and a huge Bush deficit. A severe recession is no time to try
> to cut spending. Everyone agrees the only hope we have to jump start
> the economy is for the fed to pump tons of money into it. Obama
So, the hope is what...we'll BURY ourselves even deeper? We're in a
hole, so just keep digging? China should be right at the bottom of
the shovel, eh?
> already has plans for long term debt reduction. But now is not the
> time. Once the economy recovers then it will be time for debt
> reduction.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...just like under Clitton, eh?
What STATE did this? What government anywhere in the US did? You're
a cheerleading fool who got pwned by his own words.
Trav
TravIsGod
> >same things Bush did only spending more on them.
>
> He's doing nothing of the sort. He is however trying his best to save
Really?
Bank bailouts? Check.
More war spending? Check.
Even BIGGER stimulus plan? Check.
Where is the difference? Busch inherited a stock market collapse and
vicious recession, and he got 9/11. He got the SAME shit as Clitton,
as Bush Sr, as Raygun. And each in turn did the same things in terms
of deficit spending to try to get out of it. Borrow to keep the party
goin.
> a failed economy thanks to Bush. He has long term deficit reduction
> plans. Look them up.
LOL. If you believe such a thing is even POSSIBLE, you're an insane
fool.
Look, you idiots...ORuxpin is doing NOTHING DIFFERENT from Busch if
you take a log plot of the debt. It's on a doubling interval that is
reasonably constant.
> you're a pathetic little moron. Everything Bush did was fine with you
> because you were stupid enough to believe he was a conservative. Now
So now you admit busch was NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I love it!
So, as a NON-conservative, he should have been your best friend,
right?
> nothing Obama can do will be right, and you will try any lies to cut
> him down. It's your kind that got us into this mess. And as usual it
> will be the progressives who will save your stupid prejudiced ass.
Huh? You say Kook is a conservative and that Busch is not...you are
contradicting yourself again.
Mugabama will fail because of mathematics, not because of his
policies. He has the SAME FUCKING revolving door of Goldman Sachs
executives and their proteges working for him.
JFC, Bob Jewbin was chairman of GS and SO WAS PAULSON. Do you know
who Larry Summers is?
Busch played the same game as Obamavanilli is, except he was an
earlier square on the chessboard of rice; it's as simple as that.
Trav
GreenDistantStar
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 20:12:42 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
>
> >Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
> >This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
> >87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "Bush"
> >and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
> >Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
>
> you're a fucking moron.
Untrue.
> Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
> management, corruption, and cronyism.
That's true.
> Obama inherited a trashed
> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
He did.
> A severe recession is no time to try
> to cut spending.
Depends what your base is. Keynes' pump-priming worked because back in
the day, the US economy had a small debt-to-GDP ratio and a huge,
profitable manufacturing base as an 'engine'. Once the economy was
kick-started by govt spending, exports improved, healthy trade
surpluses ensued and the US became the creditor to the world. The US
today is in a totally different position on every metric.
> Everyone agrees the only hope we have to jump start
> the economy is for the fed to pump tons of money into it.
Not everyone.
> Obama
> already has plans for long term debt reduction.
Yup, I'm sure he has. Bush would have done no different, and we know
this due to his actions in the twilight of his Presidency.
> But now is not the
> time.
Now is the only time we have.
>Once the economy recovers then it will be time for debt
> reduction.
The beatings will continue until morale improves ;>
Seriously, I think the political partisanship is misplaced here.
Almost all of our governments are running with this line, and it's not
going to end well.
Norway's doing OK though...
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/14/norways-success-in-socialism-has-me-turning-red-with-envy/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?ref=business
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
No, but if you think so, best of luck.
FWIW most of the tuna is gone. And it's more expensive now. I was
right.
-
Appledog
+dayton.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:00:14 -0600, hal wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:59:08 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
> > <law...@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>
> >>I was reading about Obama's newest emergency funding bill for Iraq, at 97B
> >>and some thoughts occured to me.
>
> >>Now Obama wants 97 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
>
> >>This is after, what, I think it's been about 90 billion?
>
> >>Now at a time of record budget deficit. So, now this begs the question,
> >>where is the money coming from?
>
> >>Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our children
> >>and grandchildren.
>
> >>How come we can't just create the wealth?
>
> > out of what?
>
> >> What's all this deficit
> >>spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> >>wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they can
> >>pay it all off for us right?
>
> >>I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions and
> >>we've generated 97 billion. Easy.
>
> >>What do you say, hal?
>
> > Ask the Jews. They own The Fed. And they're printing money as fast
> > as they can. Maybe the plan is to hyperinflate our way out of debt,
> > like the Weimar fellas did. Better get yourself a wheelbarrow while
> > they're still available.
>
> Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
> This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
> 87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "Bush"
> and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
> Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
>
> Oh, here's your post:
>
>
> ==================
> Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
> http://www.cnn.com
>
> This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
>
> Now at a time of nearing record budget deficit (the last record was
> set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), and at a time of unprecidented
> tax cuts for the wealthy. So, now this begs the question, where is
> the money coming from?
>
> Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
> children and grandchildren.
>
> How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
> spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
> can pay it all off for us right?
>
> I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
> and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
>
> Hal
> ==================
>
> I just wanted some amusement at the partisan hypocrite cheerleader's
> expense (you) before I left for ISMAC tomorrow.
>
> ta.
>
> (IH)
Oh, it was a joke?
Well with all the tarp, bailouts, and printing of money - did anyone
doubt this was real? :0
-
Rabid Weasel Lawson
> Oh, it was a joke?
On hal.
> Well with all the tarp, bailouts, and printing of money - did anyone
> doubt this was real? :0
It *IS* real. The numbers are real, the actors are real. We just get to
laugh at hal's hypocrisy and partisan cheerleading.
rah Rah RAH!
hal
<lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
>
fuck you little man. All I'm saying is at least we need to give Obama
a chance. Bush fucked up this country for 8 years, and Obama deserves
some time to at least try reversing some of that damage. You aren't
even willing to let the man try. So it's you that's still the
mindless cheerleader for the right wing. The miserably failed right
wing, that is.
Herbert Cannon
<hal> wrote in message news:bpl915pdh3ta6qu4u...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:04:11 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
> <lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>
>
>>RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
>>
> fuck you little man. All I'm saying is at least we need to give Obama
> a chance. Bush fucked up this country for 8 years, and Obama deserves
> some time to at least try reversing some of that damage.
Let me see according to you, you reverse the damage done by deficit by
running a bigger deficit. .
TravIsGod
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 21:04:11 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
>
> >RAH RAH RAH RAH RAH!!!!
>
> fuck you little man. All I'm saying is at least we need to give Obama
> a chance. Bush fucked up this country for 8 years, and Obama deserves
> some time to at least try reversing some of that damage. You aren't
> even willing to let the man try. So it's you that's still the
> mindless cheerleader for the right wing. The miserably failed right
> wing, that is.
He's got to actually reverse first.
Instead he is going down the same road as Busch did, except shoving
the throttles even further forward.
How is the damage from massive deficits going to be reversed by even
larger deficits?
Trav
pea...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 20:12:42 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
>
> >Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
> >This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
> >87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "Bush"
> >and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
> >Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
>
> you're a fucking moron. Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
> management, corruption, and cronyism. Obama inherited a trashed
> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
Obama's FIRST budget calls for a deficit greater than all the deficits
of all U.S. Presidents from Washington to Bush 43 COMBINED, Hal.
Pierre
Slim
Fuck the bankers.
Give everyone who filed an tax return last year fifty grand.
That will jump start the economy!
--
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in
England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it
is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL
THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."
�
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Slim
Dont forget that Bush inherited a BALANCED BUDGET AND A SURPLUS.
The defict is Bush's.
pea...@gmail.com
> On 2009-05-21 12:23:58 -0400, pear...@gmail.com said:
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 5:31 pm, hal wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 May 2009 20:12:42 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
>
> >> <law...@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
> >>> Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
> >>> This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush
> > 's
> >>> 87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the "B
> > ush"
> >>> and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
> >>> Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
>
> >> you're a fucking moron. Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
> >> management, corruption, and cronyism. Obama inherited a trashed
> >> economy and a huge Bush deficit.
>
> > Obama's FIRST budget calls for a deficit greater than all the deficits
> > of all U.S. Presidents from Washington to Bush 43 COMBINED, Hal.
>
> Dont forget that Bush inherited a BALANCED BUDGET AND A SURPLUS.
>
> The defict is Bush's.
No it isn't:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg
Pierre
Stanley Moore
"Slim" <sl...@pickins.com> wrote in message
news:2009052115095616807-slim@pickinscom...
> On 2009-05-20 20:31:39 -0400, hal said:
>
>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 20:12:42 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
>> <lawson@NO11707SPAM+dayton.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, I just wanted to see how giant a flaming hypocrite you were.
>>> This is actually *YOUR* post. You were pissing and moaning about Bush's
>>> 87B deficit war package. I just took the same post and swapped the
>>> "Bush"
>>> and "87" for "Obama" and *HIS* "97." Note it's a full 10B more than
>>> Bush's yet you didn't have any problem with it.
>>
>> you're a fucking moron. Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
>> management, corruption, and cronyism. Obama inherited a trashed
>> economy and a huge Bush deficit. A severe recession is no time to try
>> to cut spending. Everyone agrees the only hope we have to jump start
>> the economy is for the fed to pump tons of money into it. Obama
>> already has plans for long term debt reduction. But now is not the
>> time. Once the economy recovers then it will be time for debt
>> reduction.
>
> Fuck the bankers.
>
> Give everyone who filed an tax return last year fifty grand.
>
> That will jump start the economy!
>
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
TravIsGod
>
> The defict is Bush's.
It's amazing how the national debt went up every year of Clitton's 2
terms.
Also, the surplus was ENTIRELY because of Social Security.
The budget was not balanced...ever.
Trav
TravIsGod
>
> Give everyone who filed an tax return last year fifty grand.
>
> That will jump start the economy!
Give?
From where? Who pays for this gift?
Trav
Slim
BAD TRAV!!! NO DOUGHNUT!!!
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the
federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230
billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's
record surplus of $122.7 billion.
"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday
morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest
rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12
years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit
was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit
would be $455 billion.
Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has
been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion
this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in
the history of the United States."
"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking
all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced
the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was
created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock
those trust funds away for the future," he said.
In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211
billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after
year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.
The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to
wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year
begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13
annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White
House remain at odds over spending allocations.
"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this
year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up
the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but
can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a
patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through
Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college
education," Clinton said.
"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they
will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of
tax cuts," Clinton said.
Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican
Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the
debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used
to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs,
making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our
national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time
protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this
year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.
Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House
before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.
"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the
federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be
identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for
real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans
and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more
jobs."
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more
than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S.
government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was
1949, said the official.
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and
$69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the
first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in
national debt.
Slim
The American People.
Remember them?
Herbert Cannon
> On 2009-05-21 18:46:06 -0400, TravIsGod <trav...@aol.com> said:
>
>>> Fuck the bankers.
>>>
>>> Give everyone who filed an tax return last year fifty grand.
>>>
>>> That will jump start the economy!
>>
>> Give?
>>
>> From where? Who pays for this gift?
>
> The American People.
>
> Remember them?
I sure do remember myself every April 15 when my tribute is due.
suds mcduff
-----"Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter."
D Cheney
suds mcduff
----"Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter"
D Cheney
suds mcduff
>>> Which is why he is running an even BIGGER deficit, while doing exactly the
>>> same things Bush did only spending more on them.
>> He's doing nothing of the sort. He is however trying his best to save
>
> Really?
>
> Bank bailouts? Check.
> More war spending? Check.
> Even BIGGER stimulus plan? Check.
>
> Where is the difference? Busch inherited a stock market collapse and
> vicious recession,
----nowhere near as bad as this one....
and he got 9/11. He got the SAME shit as Clitton,
> as Bush Sr, as Raygun.
----Wrong...he inherited way worse than any President since FDR...
And each in turn did the same things in terms
> of deficit spending to try to get out of it. Borrow to keep the party
> goin.
>
>> a failed economy thanks to Bush. He has long term deficit reduction
>> plans. Look them up.
>
> LOL. If you believe such a thing is even POSSIBLE, you're an insane
> fool.
>
> Look, you idiots...ORuxpin is doing NOTHING DIFFERENT from Busch if
> you take a log plot of the debt. It's on a doubling interval that is
> reasonably constant.
>
>> you're a pathetic little moron. Everything Bush did was fine with you
>> because you were stupid enough to believe he was a conservative. Now
>
> So now you admit busch was NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I love it!
----Sure he was....a huge social conservative who was convinced that
conservative economics would destroy the country in a downturn this
severe...history will vindicate Bush on this point...
>
> So, as a NON-conservative, he should have been your best friend,
> right?
>
>> nothing Obama can do will be right, and you will try any lies to cut
>> him down. It's your kind that got us into this mess. And as usual it
>> will be the progressives who will save your stupid prejudiced ass.
>
> Huh? You say Kook is a conservative and that Busch is not...you are
> contradicting yourself again.
>
> Mugabama will fail because of mathematics, not because of his
> policies. He has the SAME FUCKING revolving door of Goldman Sachs
> executives and their proteges working for him.
---So , of course, you'd prefer he hire gold standard loons like you....
suds mcduff
> On 2009-05-21 18:45:16 -0400, TravIsGod <trav...@aol.com> said:
>
>>> Dont forget that Bush inherited a BALANCED BUDGET AND A SURPLUS.
>>>
>>> The defict is Bush's.
>>
>> It's amazing how the national debt went up every year of Clitton's 2
>> terms.
>>
>> Also, the surplus was ENTIRELY because of Social Security.
>>
>> The budget was not balanced...ever.
>
> BAD TRAV!!! NO DOUGHNUT!!!
> http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
---You're wasting your time...the Loonytunians and rightard
conservatives will believe nothing that comes from mainstream media...
It's all an Obama plot....like Obama's parents securing him a US birth
certificate when he was born in Kenya so he could run for president...
suds mcduff
---The rich, of course....
suds mcduff
----What a patriot.....he'd rather see the US collapse into anarchy than
to pay one of the lowest income taxes in the world....
Just goes to show; Conservatives are loyal to the all mighty dollar,
nothing else....
TravIsGod
> D Cheney
Have you figured out yet that I think Dick Chainy is an idiot?
Trav
TravIsGod
Show me where I ever advocated the gold standard.
Trav
TravIsGod
Fortunately for idiots such as you two, the Treasury department keeps
a daily record of the national debt.
Show me where it ever decreased.
Trav
TravIsGod
Of course, someone else can pay for everything I want.
Trav
shuu...@gmail.com
> you're a fucking moron. Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
> management, corruption, and cronyism.
And now Obama is making it much bigger via more irresponsible
management, corruption, and cronyism. And he's just getting started.
> Obama inherited a trashed economy and a huge Bush deficit.
And so the obvious solution is to spend more...
> A severe recession is no time to try to cut spending.
There is a HUGE difference between no cutting spending and
dramatically increasing spending.
> Everyone agrees the only hope we have to jump start
> the economy is for the fed to pump tons of money into it.
Complete and utter bullshit; there isn't anything remotely close to a
consensus on that. In fact, there are more economists saying the
exact opposite. Government spending has never been an answer to
recession; and is arguably one of the main reasons that the first
great depression lasted as long as it did.
> Obama already has plans for long term debt reduction.
Like hell he does. He is spending money at a record pace with every
sign indicating MORE spending down the road. He is creating
unsustainable debt - even his own administration has called it
unsustainable at this point. Long term debt reduction? You CANNOT be
this stupid.
But for fun, just what is this "plan" that you are referring to? Be
as detailed as possible; please remember to read anything that you
cite.
> But now is not the time.
Under Obama there will be no time.
> Once the economy recovers then it will be time for debt reduction.
Just a few weeks ago you were sure the economy would never recover.
There isn't going to be any debt reduction under Obama - he hasn't
even gotten started on spending.
Slim
But you had no problem with Bush SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING to
forward the NeoCon Pipeline with a little war, did you?
Slim
>>
>> So now you admit busch was NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I love it!
>
>
> ----Sure he was....a huge social conservative who was convinced that
> conservative economics would destroy the country in a downturn this
> severe...history will vindicate Bush on this point...
How?
Slim
Funny thing about "rich folks"...they all cry about high taxes...being
in the 38% bracket and such.
YET...they are all stongly AGAINST A FLAT NO-LOOPHOLE 15% TAX EVERYONE.
A 15% tax would be more than fair.
It would make everyone pay thier "fair share" and would CUT THE TAX ON
THE "RICH" BY MORE THAN HALF!
SO WHY DO THEY OPPOSE IT?
Could it be that they ACTUALLY PAY less than 15%??? hehehe....
Stanley Moore
> On 2009-05-24 13:11:35 -0400, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> TravIsGod wrote:
>>>> Fuck the bankers.
>>>>
>>>> Give everyone who filed an tax return last year fifty grand.
>>>>
>>>> That will jump start the economy!
>>>
>>> Give?
>>>
>>> From where? Who pays for this gift?
>>
>> ---The rich, of course....
>
> Funny thing about "rich folks"...they all cry about high taxes...being in
> the 38% bracket and such.
>
> YET...they are all stongly AGAINST A FLAT NO-LOOPHOLE 15% TAX EVERYONE.
>
> A 15% tax would be more than fair.
>
> It would make everyone pay thier "fair share" and would CUT THE TAX ON THE
> "RICH" BY MORE THAN HALF!
>
> SO WHY DO THEY OPPOSE IT?
>
> Could it be that they ACTUALLY PAY less than 15%??? hehehe....
>
I am not sure that the rich are so opposed to a flat tax. I know Steve
Forbes is in favor of it. I am not so sure that 15% is high enough to equal
the revenues generated by the current system. I think I read somewhere the
rate would need to be around 23% or so. The rich do pay more than 15%. I am
not rich and I certainly do. Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"I used to think I was
indecisive but now I'm
not so sure."
"Indecision is the key
to flexibility."
TravIsGod
> in the 38% bracket and such.
>
> YET...they are all stongly AGAINST A FLAT NO-LOOPHOLE 15% TAX EVERYONE.
Um...no they aren't The biggest proponents of such a tax are the
rich.
> Could it be that they ACTUALLY PAY less than 15%??? hehehe....
No, your facts are wrong. Occam's razor suggests that the paradox is
resolved by the fact that you are an idiot.
Trav
Slim
They are just greedy whores who will sell anyone out for a buck.
Slim
He's made billions for himself and his friends.
All you make is hot air.
Slim
>> ---So , of course, you'd prefer he hire gold standard loons like you....
>
> Show me where I ever advocated the gold standard.
Once China goes to a Gold Standard, US Dollars will be worthless.
Slim
Under Slick Wille it did.
Slick left us something no Republickan has done in the last
half-century....a balanced budget and a surplus.
BUSH spent, and spent, and spent, and spent, and spent us into a debt
that our great grandchildren will be paying off.
Slim
Thats what happens when you whore your ass out at truckstops.
Slim
>
>> you're a fucking moron. �Bush's deficit was run up by irresponsible
>> management, corruption, and cronyism. �
>
> And now Obama is making it much bigger via more irresponsible
> management, corruption, and cronyism. And he's just getting started.
So what would YOU do?
Stanley Moore
> On 2009-05-24 23:46:22 -0400, TravIsGod <trav...@aol.com> said:
>
>> On May 24, 1:10 pm, suds mcduff <sudsmcduff19...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Slim wrote:
>>>> On 2009-05-21 18:45:16 -0400, TravIsGod <travis...@aol.com> said:
>>>
>>>>>> Dont forget that Bush inherited a BALANCED BUDGET AND A SURPLUS.
>>>
>>>>>> The defict is Bush's.
>>>
>>>>> It's amazing how the national debt went up every year of Clitton's 2
>>>>> terms.
>>>
>>>>> Also, the surplus was ENTIRELY because of Social Security.
>>>
>>>>> The budget was not balanced...ever.
>>>
>>>> BAD TRAV!!! NO DOUGHNUT!!!
>> .surplus/
>>>
>>> ---You're wasting your time...the Loonytunians and rightard
>>> conservatives will believe nothing that comes from mainstream media...
>>> It's all an Obama plot....like Obama's parents securing him a US birth
>>> certificate when he was born in Kenya so he could run for president..
>>
>>
>> Fortunately for idiots such as you two, the Treasury department keeps
>> a daily record of the national debt.
>>
>> Show me where it ever decreased.
>
> Under Slick Wille it did.
>
> Slick left us something no Republickan has done in the last
> half-century....a balanced budget and a surplus.
I believe Nixon had a surplus for a couple of years in his administration,
Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
TravIsGod
Go to the Treasury's website and prove that.
> Slick left us something no Republickan has done in the last
> half-century....a balanced budget and a surplus.
LOL. No, the budget was not balanced. Social Security receipts
versus outlays produced a surplus that no longer exists.
>
> BUSH spent, and spent, and spent, and spent, and spent us into a debt
> that our great grandchildren will be paying off.
LOL. So what's Obamavanilli doing?
Trav