Ahahaha Hanson approves Escalation of Quagmire Vietraq Mass Murder for Oil, says "please pass the bucket of Exxon Brown Turds and corpses".
H2-PV, PV-H2
Oil, says "please pass the bucket of Exxon Brown Turds and corpses"
Bush, who can't get it straight that he already lost the Iraq war,
wants to purge America of dumb guys too stupid to not be in the
military. It's a kind of IQ Eugenics program to rid the nation of
redneck losers...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1978423,00.html
Bush may boost Iraq troops by 20,000
The President is likely to bow to a request for five more brigades as
attacks rise to 1,000 a week
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer
President Bush began a series of urgent consultations with his key
defence and foreign policy advisers at Camp David yesterday, amid
expectations that he was preparing to agree to a request from US
commanders to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to secure
Baghdad.
The request for five extra brigades to secure the capital follows the
decision by senior US officers that, despite deep reservations, there
was sufficient movement among Iraqi political leaders towards tackling
sectarian violence to justify the deployment of extra US troops. A
report in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported that commanders in
Iraq, including General George Casey and Lieutenant-General Raymond
Odierno, have decided to recommend a temporary increase in combat
forces, a plan that appears to be gaining favour in the administration.
Casey previously opposed the increase.
Article continues
Bush was joined at his Maryland retreat yesterday by his new Defence
Secretary, Robert Gates, who travelled to the presidential compound
from a whirlwind fact-finding mission, meeting US military and Iraqi
political leaders in Iraq. Also attending the meeting was Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, who insisted that the sacrifice in American
lives and aid to Iraq was worthwhile for regional security.
Recent comments by Bush, Gates and Rice have led to intense speculation
that Bush intends to reject several of the key recommendations of the
Iraq Study Group, instead increasing troop numbers. The talks come as a
Pentagon report disclosed last week that the number of terrorist
attacks had risen to almost 1,000 a week with almost 100 Iraqis now
dying every day.
Instead of setting a timetable for a rapid withdrawal, administration
officials have made clear that they believe that there will be a
long-term US commitment on the ground in support of the Iraqi
government. Hints from Gates in the past few days have suggested,
however, that while US troops may remain, their mission is likely to be
rapidly transformed to that of military advisers, as he spoke
approvingly of one unit's success at training Iraqi brigades by
boosting the size of the US teams embedded in each Iraqi unit.
Gates refused to rule out an expected surge in US troop numbers in
Baghdad - perhaps by as much as a further 30,000 men - which has been
widely expected as a short-term solution to the spiralling security
problems. Following this weekend's meetings, Bush will consult his
National Security Council on Thursday, which was also asked to prepare
a report on ways forward in Iraq. Gates spent three days in Baghdad
meeting leaders including Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The Bush consultations have been mirrored by negotiations in Baghdad
where senior Iraqi politicians have been involved in weeks of talks,
backed by the US embassy, to produce a new 'moderate' government around
al-Maliki designed to allow him to make the 'difficult decisions' to
tackle the Shia death squads.
Sources in Baghdad, London and Washington have described meetings
between al-Maliki - who has resisted clamping down on the militia
controlled by the firebrand preacher Sadr al-Moqtadr - and other key
parties, including the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic
Revolution in Iraq. Al-Maliki's government was plunged into crisis
following a walk-out by 30 parliamentarians, members of the 130-strong
Shia bloc loyal to al-Sadr. Negotiations have focused on two options:
to persuade the Sadrists to rejoin the government and accept that their
militia must end sectarian violence, or the formation of a coalition of
Kurds, Shias and moderate Sunnis, capable of tackling al-Sadr's
militia.
The negotiations between al-Maliki and the other parties have been
divided over how hard any new government should go against al-Sadr's
supporters if they do not end sectarian violence, criminality and
intimidation; with al-Maliki's own Islamic Dawa Party, which has
historical links to al-Sadr's family, preferring a softly-softly
approach, and the supreme council, which is at war with the al-Sadr
movement in the south, anxious to see its political rivals swiftly
brought under control.
Möbius Pretzel
were invested in researching alternative energy resources?
Neocons lack vision.
raylopez99
= 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
don't).
Market forces will decide alternative energy. The best Xmas present
for you Eco-freaks was the Chinese bumping up oil from $30-40 to $60+
over the last 3 yrs.
RL
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
raylopez99 wrote:
> The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
> = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
> Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
> don't).
>
> Market forces will decide alternative energy. The best Xmas present
> for you Eco-freaks was the Chinese bumping up oil from $30-40 to $60+
> over the last 3 yrs.
>
> RL
Since when is Rockefellers and Exxon Chink? Since when is Killer Koch
Brothers slopes?
hanson
(1) Loin Kuntz aka "Awe Shit"
(2) Scott Nudds akaVendickarse DickArian, and
(3) Möbius Pretzel aka Pink Fötzel
crank themselves constantly because they are broke and
penniless, lazy and endllessly whining about everything
over the tardy arrival of their WELFARE checks since-ever
they became damaged goods from their brainwashing by
the Green Bible that made them believe that
= "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true ... -- Paul Watson, Greenpeace, and ......
= "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
= "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
---- & The Green Scam they sponged off/from as seen in -----
Modern, attributal definitions of enviro classifications:
========= enviro Class (1) --- the Green shit(s):
...are the ones who advocate, promote, support, legalize,
institute and extort the permit charges, the user fees, the
enviro surtaxes and the CO2/Carbon tax, all reflected in
HIGHER PRICES of goods and services!, ...and being
responsible for much of the OUT-SOURCING!
========= enviro Class (2) -- the Green turd(s):
... are the ones who are recipients and beneficiaries from
the lootings of (1), directly or indirectly.
========= enviro Class (3) -- the Little green idiot(s):
.. are the unpaid, well-meaning ones who think they do
something for the "environment", when in fact they are only
the enablers and facilitators for (2) who are harvesting the
green $$$ that (1) has extorted.
---------- Views after 40 years of green criminality --------
=1= In June 05 USDA/FDA aired/published that they will
no longer endorse green products that are labeled "organic"!
=2= The FBI and Homeland Security/DHS has declared
enviros to be the number one terrorist threat to the nation.
=3= Myriads of good, rational & HARD WORKING folks had
enough from environmentalism and began to raise their voices
as did E. Gisin in news:d8j4d...@enews1.newsguy.com...
wherein it sounds like this: "Fucking greens should be shot...."
ahahahaha... BTW, do copy and use these above clarifications
often and profusely. There is no permit charge or user fee
associated with it. and nobody will accuse you of plagiarism.
It's a free public service announcement... Use it. Have fun!
...and as an encore do never forget that
= Pure politics is driving dozens of public health issues, notably
= global warming, green shit, tobacco & meds now. Great lies
= in service for/of a "noble cause" do trump now truth & fact.
=
= Enviros use the same great lies of yore. Only the color changed.
= (A) Environmentalism is Communism in Green...
= (B) Environmentalism is Nazism in Green...
= (C) Environmentalism makes the Poor poorer and the Rich richer.
Environmentalism is nothing but green pornography,
pimped by green orgs like NRDC, Sierra club, Green Piss, etc.,
whored and hookered by green bureaucrats from EPA down,
johned, pole- and lapdanced by the hordes of little green idiots
and paid for by extorting the money from hardworking taxpayers.
Environmentalism is a malignant, parasitic socio-pathology,
promulgated by opportunistic ex-communists and misogynic,
unemployable perverts, who have succeeded in generating
enviro taxes, permit fees and user surcharges, from which these
useless, enviro-pushers and eco-fanatics draw their welfare checks
and demand grants to generate more enviro shit.
Now then, you 3 stooges - mooches, do you finally get it?
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
With Gravy, Yum, Yum, Yum"
hanson wrote:
> they became damaged goods from their brainwashing by
> the Brown Bible that made them believe that
>
> = "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
> = believe is true ... -- EXXON, CEI, TechCentral and ......
> = "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
> = accurate. We use hype." -- EXXON, CATO Inst., and...
> = "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
> = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
> = -- Killer Koch Industries, Pat Michaels.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
>= 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
>Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
>don't).
Nope; over a billion a week and we've been there 4 years.
Retief
wrote:
>In article <1166963549....@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
>>= 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
>>Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
>>don't).
>
>Nope; over a billion a week and we've been there 4 years.
Now this is comedy... Raylopez99 says $100 B/year (i.e. about $2
B/week), and Parker says "Nope; over a billion a week..."... (i.e.
Parker's "criticism" claims about half what Raylopez99 claimed...)
Retief
Möbius Pretzel
> The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
> = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
> Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
> don't).
Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
New study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded
soldiers.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who
won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda
Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2
trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US
administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term
healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
20% of an entire economy is hardly a drop in the bucket.
Now figure in the rapid erosion of the U.S. dollar...
How are old you kid?
Möbius Pretzel
> = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
> Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
> don't).
Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
New study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded
soldiers.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who
won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda
Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2
trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US
administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term
healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
20% of an entire economy is hardly a drop in the bucket.
Now figure in the rapid erosion of the U.S. dollar...
How old are you kid?
Möbius Pretzel
Möbius Pretzel wrote:
> raylopez99 (somehow got access to mommy's computer) wrote:
> > The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
> > = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
> > Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
> > don't).
> .
>
>
> Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
> New study takes into account long-term costs of healthcare for wounded
> soldiers.
> By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
> A new study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who
> won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, and Harvard lecturer Linda
> Bilmes concludes that the total costs of the Iraq war could top the $2
> trillion mark. Reuters reports this total, which is far above the US
> administration's prewar projections, takes into account the long term
> healthcare costs for the 16,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq so far.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html
>
> 20% of an entire economy is hardly a drop in the bucket.
>
> Now figure in the rapid erosion of the U.S. dollar...
>
> How old are you kid?
Hello?
(crickets)
kdt...@yahoo.com
Just think WIENIE FROM HELL. When people find out the truth about the
lack of science or valid theory behind your freaky little no life self
indlulgent fantasty,they'll throw you in a concrete cell for the rest
of your life. In the meantime all your propaganda is nothing but.
MENTAL MASTURBATION
And this years award for mental masturbation,,,,,,goes to,,,,,,well
what do you know,,,,,, WIENIE FROM HELL (aka Weather From Hell, CO2
Storms,Serial Kill, @racketeersRUS)
Hey dicksucking WIENIE, Why do you keep trying to change your name,
WIENIE FROM HELL, DON'T LET ANYONE KNOW WHAT A WIIENIE YOU ARE AT THE
WIENIE ROAST, THEY'LL TOSS YOU IN THE FIRE.
hahahahhahahahahhahahahaah
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies.
Hey Wienie,
There might be a rope that fits my neck. You just aren't man enough to
string it on.
Go suck a Harvard Dick Wienie
That way they'll remember you if they ever get to be in charge.
Corporate Shill Catcher
kdt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> There might be a rope that fits my neck.
Ahaha Death-Rag say "Please Pass The Corporate Fried Bucket of Brown
raylopez99
Möbius Pretzel wrote:
> raylopez99 (somehow got access to mommy's computer) wrote:
> > The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
> > = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
> > Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
> > don't).
> Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
> 20% of an entire economy is hardly a drop in the bucket.
>
> Now figure in the rapid erosion of the U.S. dollar...
>
> How old are you kid?
>
Hey Mobius Pretzel logic: even if its 2000 billion, it's spread out
over 6 years so that's 333 billion a year, which for a 10000 trillion
economy is 3.3%.
Learn to use a calculator.
Finally, the reduction in deaths between the two Iraq wars and Vietnam
is the same as the reduction of deaths between Vietnam and the Korean
War. Technology is such that fewer deaths result as time progresses,
to the point where the next war might have zero human casualties and be
totally robotic (Rise of the Machines anyone?)
RL
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Möbius Pretzel wrote:
>> raylopez99 (somehow got access to mommy's computer) wrote:
>> > The Iraqi war cost about 100 bil a year * 6 years (including next year)
>> > = 0.6 trillion USD. A drop in the bucket for a 10 trillion $ economy.
>> > Ditto the several thousand lives lost. Not to say I support the war (I
>> > don't).
>
>> Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion
>
>> 20% of an entire economy is hardly a drop in the bucket.
>>
>> Now figure in the rapid erosion of the U.S. dollar...
>>
>> How old are you kid?
>>
>
>Hey Mobius Pretzel logic: even if its 2000 billion, it's spread out
>over 6 years so that's 333 billion a year, which for a 10000 trillion
>economy is 3.3%.
>
How much is it as a % of government spending? Of our national deficit and
debt? How much per capita is it for future generations to pay off?
raylopez99
Below is some info that you might find of interest. The wfs.org file
is pretty good at a conceptual level. The bottom line is that the
federal deficit is not yet a crisis, but more like termites eating at a
foundation--eventually it will become a crisis, and unless you fix it
sooner than it becomes a crisis, it will become unfixable. Simply put:
beyond a certain time (experts vary as to when that time is: I've
heard as early as 2020), if you let the status quo exist, the ONLY
solution to 'solving' the deficit is hyperinflation. Even abolishing
Social Security/Medicare will not solve the problem after than point,
because interest payments will be larger than SS/M. So we have to
gradually fix the Fed deficit/ss/med problem before then.
Hey, that sounds like an argument the AGWers make?
RL
www.wfs.org/mitchell.ppt --slide 7 noteworthy: net interest since 1985
is down as % of total (surprising) but social security etc are up;slide
10: workers per retiree for US higher than OECD average (which is good)
but lower than younger countries like Mexico, Turkey; slide 12: joke
about hurricanes and debt; slide 15: fed debt per household at $411k
record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roach- The basis for Roach's
pessimism is that some statistics show when government debt grows to
greater than 50% of GDP, interest rates must go up dramatically or risk
the chance for hyperinflation (as of November 2004 the U.S. government
debt ratio stands at 37%).
Retief
wrote:
>>Hey Mobius Pretzel logic: even if its 2000 billion, it's spread out
>>over 6 years so that's 333 billion a year, which for a 10000 trillion
>>economy is 3.3%.
>
>How much is it as a % of government spending? Of our national deficit and
>debt? How much per capita is it for future generations to pay off?
$300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
Retief
Death-Rag.Suc...@ecovilliage.us
than 12,000 patents filed by staff scientists, EXXON or YOU. When they
say CO2 causes Global Warming Climate Change, you shut your dicksucking
mouth and accept it.
Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create
Confusion
ExxonMobil Report
Read the Report
ExxonMobil Report (PDF)
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)
Appendix C (part 1)
Appendix C (part 2)
Appendix C (part 3)
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3-A new report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how
ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics,
as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the
scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the
issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16
million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations
that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of
global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists'
Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has
allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay
government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to
"Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil
company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has
* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific
evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance
of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change
contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest
for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal
policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of
individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors
that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate
change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance,
which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book
edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who
is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil.
Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate
change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is
affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not
changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13
scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper.
This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing
to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has
been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by
reputable climate scientists.
"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear
and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit,"
said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS
report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests,
ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent
groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about
global warming."
ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific
understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound
science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce
heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted
unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from
successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush
administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.
"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do
eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate
change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure
the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the
steps we take now and in the coming years."
The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional
atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The
amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last
century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though
solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions
while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our
national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate
change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful
action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.
"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation
campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and
Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior
on this issue is unacceptable and must change."
God
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> $300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
> you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
> to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
Not even RepubliKKKans believe that old Canard any more.
Massive federal debts started with the tax cutting of Ronald Reagan
(RepubliKKKan), Continued under the moderate tax increase of George Bush Sr.
(RepubliKKKan) went to zero under Clinton (Democrat), and are back to record
levels with George Bush Jr. (RepubliKKKan).
The U.S. debt has been created entirely through RepubliKKKan effort and
fiscal mismanagement.
In fact Many RepubliKKKans and many NeoCon's want AmeriKKKa to be on the
verge of Bankruptcy forever. Including Bush Himself.
"We need to invent a financial crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government" - Bush - Imprimus Magazine.
Lloyd Parker
Actually Reagan doubled the debt from what it was when he took office, and
Bush has added even more to it. Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?
Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:
>In article <lp0uq2ppbjl7qd55c...@4ax.com>,
> Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>On Thu, 28 Dec 06 14:15:54 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Hey Mobius Pretzel logic: even if its 2000 billion, it's spread out
>>>>over 6 years so that's 333 billion a year, which for a 10000 trillion
>>>>economy is 3.3%.
>>>
>>>How much is it as a % of government spending? Of our national deficit and
>>>debt? How much per capita is it for future generations to pay off?
>>
>>$300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
>>you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
>>to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
>>
>>Retief
>
>Actually Reagan doubled the debt from what it was when he took office, and
>Bush has added even more to it. Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?
I seem to remember a Time magazine cover article on the subject of
how, by the time Reagan left office, the United States had gone from a
creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation, owing some half
trillion dollars to foreign investors.
As was reported on ABC's 20/20, in 1991, "The Reagan-Bush years took
America from the heights of a rich creditor nation down to a pit of
the world’s worst debtor nation. The reason was weapons purchases.
No other expense came close."
Jon
Retief
wrote:
> >$300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
> >you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
> >to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
>
> Actually Reagan doubled the debt from what it was when he took office, and
> Bush has added even more to it. Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?
Note how Parker answers with a red-herring, rather than addressing the
factual issue at hand (i.e. that $300B is comparable to the interest
on the debt, and the historical deficit numbers).
Further, were Parker's claim true, then we would not see an ever
increasing debt load (shown below) -- we should have instead observed
a flattening in the debt load. So where did that "Clinton surplus"
go, Parker? Answer, there was no such "surplus" (other than possibly
as the result of Enron style book-keeping...)
We note that the total debt increased by 40% under Clinton (or a net
deficit of $200B per year, as the only reason to borrow money is that
the budget was overspent):
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/hist07z1.xls
Table 7.1 - Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940-2009 (22 KB)
Fiscal Gross
Year Federal Debt
End (Millions)
---- ---------
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
Retief
Retief
<jki...@easystreet.com> wrote:
>I seem to remember a Time magazine cover article on the subject of
>how, by the time Reagan left office, the United States had gone from a
>creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation, owing some half
>trillion dollars to foreign investors.
>
>As was reported on ABC's 20/20, in 1991, "The Reagan-Bush years took
>America from the heights of a rich creditor nation down to a pit of
>the world’s worst debtor nation. The reason was weapons purchases.
>No other expense came close."
Perhaps true at that time. Since that time, we have gone from
Reagan's _outrageous_ $850B budget, to an even more outrageous budget
of some $2600B... The military expenditures are no longer the
dominant fraction of the budget.
Retief
Lloyd Parker
Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 07 09:58:26 GMT, lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>> >$300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
>> >you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
>> >to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
>>
>> Actually Reagan doubled the debt from what it was when he took office, and
>> Bush has added even more to it. Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?
>
>Note how Parker answers with a red-herring, rather than addressing the
>factual issue at hand (i.e. that $300B is comparable to the interest
>on the debt, and the historical deficit numbers).
>
>Further, were Parker's claim true, then we would not see an ever
>increasing debt load (shown below) -- we should have instead observed
>a flattening in the debt load. So where did that "Clinton surplus"
>go, Parker? Answer, there was no such "surplus" (other than possibly
>as the result of Enron style book-keeping...)
Actually, you are lying, as a simple google search would show you.
>
>We note that the total debt increased by 40% under Clinton (or a net
>deficit of $200B per year, as the only reason to borrow money is that
>the budget was overspent):
The last year produced a surplus.
>
>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/hist07z1.xls
>Table 7.1 - Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940-2009 (22 KB)
>
>Fiscal Gross
>Year Federal Debt
>End (Millions)
>---- ---------
>1990 3,206,290
>1991 3,598,178
>1992 4,001,787
>1993 4,351,044
>1994 4,643,307
>1995 4,920,586
>1996 5,181,465
>1997 5,369,206
>1998 5,478,189
>1999 5,605,523
>2000 5,628,700
>2001 5,769,881
>2002 6,198,401
>2003 6,760,014
>
>Retief
The last year produced a surplus. The gov't borrowed more money, why? To
refinance bonds that come due.
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/debt,+public
And:
Clearly, the President's deficit reduction efforts have paid off. The deficit
fell from $290 billion in 1992 to a surplus of $69 billion in 1998.
Retief
wrote:
> >> >$300 B is pretty similar to the _interest_ on the national debt, which
> >> >you Dems have loaded the country with... And likewise pretty similar
> >> >to the large yearly deficit, which has existed for years...
> >>
> >> Actually Reagan doubled the debt from what it was when he took office, and
> >> Bush has added even more to it. Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?
> >
> >Note how Parker answers with a red-herring, rather than addressing the
> >factual issue at hand (i.e. that $300B is comparable to the interest
> >on the debt, and the historical deficit numbers).
> >
> >Further, were Parker's claim true, then we would not see an ever
> >increasing debt load (shown below) -- we should have instead observed
> >a flattening in the debt load. So where did that "Clinton surplus"
> >go, Parker? Answer, there was no such "surplus" (other than possibly
> >as the result of Enron style book-keeping...)
>
> Actually, you are lying, as a simple google search would show you.
Parker says that I'm lying, when I cite US Gov. data... But Parker is
a typical lying lib-Dem (who thinks that Clinton's butt doesn't
stink).
Parker claims that Clinton produced a surplus, but as the GPO data
below clearly shows, in fact Clinton _borrowed_ $1,600B (that is,
Clinton spent $1600B more than he took in) -- this is what Parker
calls a "surplus". Or perhaps Parker calls "negative surpluses" (i.e.
_deficits_) "surpluses" also...
And we again note that Parker choses red-herrings, rather than
addressing the factual issue at hand (e.g. that $300B is comparable to
the interest on the debt...)
> >We note that the total debt increased by 40% under Clinton (or a net
> >deficit of $200B per year, as the only reason to borrow money is that
> >the budget was overspent):
>
> The last year produced a surplus.
So where is the surplus, Parker? We can see the debt increased below.
Did Clinton pocket the "surplus"? Did he spend all of the "surplus"?
What happened to that "surplus" money? Under Clinton, the debt went
from $4T to $5.6T -- that's $1,600B in overspending. Parker
apparently thinks he can deny or otherwise spin this fact...
> >http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/hist07z1.xls
> >Table 7.1 - Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940-2009 (22 KB)
> >
> >Fiscal Gross
> >Year Federal Debt
> >End (Millions)
> >---- ---------
> >1990 3,206,290
> >1991 3,598,178
> >1992 4,001,787
> >1993 4,351,044
> >1994 4,643,307
> >1995 4,920,586
> >1996 5,181,465
> >1997 5,369,206
> >1998 5,478,189
> >1999 5,605,523
> >2000 5,628,700
> >2001 5,769,881
> >2002 6,198,401
> >2003 6,760,014
>
> The last year produced a surplus. The gov't borrowed more money, why? To
> refinance bonds that come due.
And Parker wishes to assert that "refinancing" explains $1,600B in
federal overspending? Or that $1,600B in overspending is actually a
"surplus"? Sure...and I suppose that "War is Peace, Freedom is
Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" as well...
Parker can try to spin it any way he wants (does Parker work for
Enron?), but the fact is that federal government spent more money
than they had, and increased the debt.
Retief
Lloyd Parker
"4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first
surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50
billion."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/guide04.html
So go tell the GPO they're wrong.
Retief
wrote:
>>Parker claims that Clinton produced a surplus, but as the GPO data
>>below clearly shows, in fact Clinton _borrowed_ $1,600B (that is,
>>Clinton spent $1600B more than he took in) -- this is what Parker
>>calls a "surplus". Or perhaps Parker calls "negative surpluses" (i.e.
>>_deficits_) "surpluses" also...
[...]
>>Parker can try to spin it any way he wants (does Parker work for
>>Enron?), but the fact is that federal government spent more money
>>than they had, and increased the debt.
>
>Again, a lie.
A lie on Parker's part, that is.
Let us recall Parker's false claim:
"Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?"
>"4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline
>
>In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first
>surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50
>billion."
And Clinton overspent by $1600 Billion during his tenure in office. He
created no surplus.
>So go tell the GPO they're wrong.
The problem is more simple than that. Lloyd Parker is a liar.
He tries to pass off a LARGE debt increase as a "surplus".
Retief
VistaJustWorks
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote
> Let us recall Parker's false claim:
> "Clinton had a a budget surplus, remember?"
THAT IS CORRECT. Clinton had a budget surplus.
This has been shown to you on numerous occasions with the GAO's own
numbers.
Stupid... Dishonest Retief....