Oops! Economic Growth Wasn't So Great After All

[Frank Ketchum]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290

"Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
3.0 percent growth pace."

Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? Why does cnbc always
seem surprised by this?

Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed Economists'
Expectations Quarterly

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:21:04 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>
>"Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
>Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
>fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
>3.0 percent growth pace."
>
>Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? Why does cnbc always
>seem surprised by this?

Why are you always surprised that CNBC is always surprised? :-)

[Frank Ketchum]

<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:7nmln8h0pk439c9tm...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:21:04 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>>
>>"Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
>>Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in
>>the
>>fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for
>>a
>>3.0 percent growth pace."
>>
>>Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? Why does cnbc
>>always
>>seem surprised by this?
>
> Why are you always surprised that CNBC is always surprised? :-)

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 38 times, I
am a journalist.

[Carbon]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:51:26 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:

> Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 38
> times, I am a journalist.

Fool me 38 times, I am a True Believer.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

You certainly are.

[Carbon]

Oh irony, why are you so funny?

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:21:04 AM UTC+8, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>
> Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter?

3.0 vs. 2.5 seems pretty good to me.

> Why does cnbc always
>
> seem surprised by this?
>

I dunno. Ask them. They've got to punch up boring news somehow.

[golfbum18]

Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."

Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
every year that Clinton was president.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 6:20:42 AM UTC-7, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>
> every year that Clinton was president.
>

I checked into that once. It's true. However one year it hardly went up at all, so it was pretty close.

The bookkeeping of the Federal deficit is pretty much a work of fiction. Just like the deregulated business bookkeeping that led to overwhelming fraud.

[John B.]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 9:20:42 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
>
> <golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>
>
> >this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>
> >we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>
> >to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>
> >office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
>
>
> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>
> every year that Clinton was president.
>

The surplus was in the federal budget.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>>
>> every year that Clinton was president.
>>
>The surplus was in the federal budget.

Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
Debt?

[BAR]

In article <01a1a936-e6ac-428b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18
@gmail.com says...

>
> On Apr 26, 2:21ï¿œpm, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
> >
> > "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
> > Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
> > fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
> > 3.0 percent growth pace."
> >

> > Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? ï¿œWhy does cnbc always

> > seem surprised by this?
> >
> > Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed Economists'
> > Expectations Quarterly
>
> Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
> an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
> country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
> gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
> applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
> important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
> I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
> this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
> we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
> to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
> office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."

Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the bank.

Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.

[Carbon]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:03:47 -0400, BAR wrote:
> In article
> <01a1a936-e6ac-428b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> golfbum18 @gmail.com says...

>> On Apr 26, 2:21 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>>>
>>> "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the
>>> Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4
>>> percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed
>>> economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace."
>>>

>>> Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter?  Why does cnbc

>>> always seem surprised by this?
>>>
>>> Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed
>>> Economists' Expectations Quarterly
>>
>> Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about an
>> economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
>> country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
>> gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
>> applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
>> important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
>> I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
>> this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>> we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>> to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>> office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
> Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the
> bank.

His budgets were more balanced than any other administration's in recent
memory. Oh wait, he's a Democrat. Because internet.

> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.

Did he start a decade-long multi-trillion dollar quagmire in some foreign
hellhole?

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...

>
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:03:47 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article
> > <01a1a936-e6ac-428b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > golfbum18 @gmail.com says...

> >> On Apr 26, 2:21ï¿œpm, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
> >>>
> >>> "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the
> >>> Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4
> >>> percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed
> >>> economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace."
> >>>

> >>> Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? ï¿œWhy does cnbc

> >>> always seem surprised by this?
> >>>
> >>> Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed
> >>> Economists' Expectations Quarterly
> >>
> >> Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about an
> >> economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
> >> country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
> >> gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
> >> applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
> >> important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
> >> I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
> >> this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
> >> we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
> >> to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
> >> office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
> >
> > Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the
> > bank.
>
> His budgets were more balanced than any other administration's in recent
> memory. Oh wait, he's a Democrat. Because internet.

Thanks to the Republican House and Senate.

> > Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.
>
> Did he start a decade-long multi-trillion dollar quagmire in some foreign
> hellhole?

Yes.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:03:47 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>
>Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the bank.
>
>Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.

Not quite. There's one more thing he can do. Retire.

[Carbon]

Of course.

>>> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.
>>
>> Did he start a decade-long multi-trillion dollar quagmire in some foreign
>> hellhole?
>
> Yes.

Really? Where?

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18

<golf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
>an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
>country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
>gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
>applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
>important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
>I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
>this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."

We could always follow the Europeans' austerity strategy - along with
their results.

--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:58:29 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
><john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>>>
>>> every year that Clinton was president.
>>>
>>The surplus was in the federal budget.
>
>Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
>Debt?

The feds spend more than the budget shows.

[golfbum18]

On Apr 27, 9:20 am, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18

> <golfbu...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>
> >this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
> >we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
> >to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
> >office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
> Clinton never had a surplus.  Check the National Debt.  It went up
> every year that Clinton was president.
>
> This signature is now the ultimate
> power in the universe

SInce you have very little accuracy to anything you say, I'm stickin'
to the surplus. How 'bout it.

[golfbum18]

On Apr 27, 1:03 pm, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <01a1a936-e6ac-428b-8e2a-5253c3c33...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18

> @gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 2:21 pm, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>
> > > "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
> > > Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
> > > fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
> > > 3.0 percent growth pace."
>

> > > Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? Why does cnbc always

> > > seem surprised by this?
>
> > > Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed Economists'
> > > Expectations Quarterly
>
> > Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
> > an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
> > country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
> > gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
> > applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
> > important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
> > I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
> > this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
> > we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
> > to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
> > office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
> Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the bank.
>
> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.

Of course you have proof of that? You guys love to say that, each and
every time this fact comes up. Get over it. Bill's surplus was spent
looking for those WMD we were supposed to find...then came the bunker
busters, which weren't supposed to be used until the WMD were found
but then again, what other promise did the Axis of Evil in the bush
administration live up to?
But remember, he stayed with his convictions...just like all those
dopes that tell us UFO are only weather balloons.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>Of course you have proof of that? You guys love to say that, each and
>every time this fact comes up. Get over it. Bill's surplus was spent
>looking for those WMD we were supposed to find.

Slick Willie never had a surplus. You can check the National Debt.
I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
me. The National Debt went up every year. These are the facts. You
can easily check them out for yourself.

[Howard Brazee]

Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
responsible than any others in modern times.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:56:15 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:

>>
>>Slick Willie never had a surplus. You can check the National Debt.
>>I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
>>me. The National Debt went up every year. These are the facts. You
>>can easily check them out for yourself.
>
>
>Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
>responsible than any others in modern times.

I won't disagree with you about Bubba being fiscally responsible. But
he inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush.

However I cringe when I hear idiots claim that Clinton had a surplus.
I was a math major and used to dealing in numbers. The numbers don't
lie. The National Debt went up during the Clinton years because he
spent more than he took in, period. Using smoke and mirrors Clinton
borrowed money to balance the budget. He borrowed more than he needed
and claimed it as income, thus the phony surplus.

Once again. He borrowed money, increasing the debt. He claimed the
borrowed money as income to balance the budget.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:48:40 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>>Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
>>responsible than any others in modern times.
>
>I won't disagree with you about Bubba being fiscally responsible. But
>he inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush.
>
>However I cringe when I hear idiots claim that Clinton had a surplus.
>I was a math major and used to dealing in numbers. The numbers don't
>lie. The National Debt went up during the Clinton years because he
>spent more than he took in, period. Using smoke and mirrors Clinton
>borrowed money to balance the budget. He borrowed more than he needed
>and claimed it as income, thus the phony surplus.
>
>Once again. He borrowed money, increasing the debt. He claimed the
>borrowed money as income to balance the budget.

Note that I didn't give credit to the president. Congress borrowed
the money.

And the unintended consequences of the feds borrowing from Social
Security (signed by Reagan), included Clinton doing an accounting
trick to make the budget appear to be balanced, and it resulted in
current Congressmen wanting to welsh on that debt.

[Carbon]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:48:40 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:56:15 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote this crap:
>>
>>> Slick Willie never had a surplus. You can check the National Debt.
>>> I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
>>> me. The National Debt went up every year. These are the facts. You
>>> can easily check them out for yourself.
>>
>> Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
>> responsible than any others in modern times.
>
> I won't disagree with you about Bubba being fiscally responsible. But
> he inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush.

How about you go back and review the yearly deficits for the Reagan and
Bush 1 presidencies? Thanks.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:

>>
>> I won't disagree with you about Bubba being fiscally responsible. But
>> he inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush.
>
>How about you go back and review the yearly deficits for the Reagan and
>Bush 1 presidencies? Thanks.

When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
suicide to run a huge deficit.

[Carbon]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:23:21 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap:
>
>>> I won't disagree with you about Bubba being fiscally responsible. But
>>> he inherited a good economy from Reagan/Bush.
>>
>> How about you go back and review the yearly deficits for the Reagan and
>> Bush 1 presidencies? Thanks.
>
> When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
> will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
> suicide to run a huge deficit.

If your team is in office everything is awesome. If your team is not in
office everything sucks.

Liberals and conservatives are guilty of this kind of myopia, and what's
wrong with it is it keeps you from seeing how similar both teams are in
practice.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:23:21 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>>How about you go back and review the yearly deficits for the Reagan and
>>Bush 1 presidencies? Thanks.
>
>When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
>will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
>suicide to run a huge deficit.

Most people figure that borrowing when times are bad and paying it
back when times are good works better.

[BAR]

In article <177305a7-1149-4285...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18
@gmail.com says...

Where did you learn to spell?

[BAR]

In article <3469caa8-182b-4dee...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18

Open your eyes and look around.

[BAR]

In article <g3sqn8l6h6mtro9hi...@4ax.com>, how...@brazee.net says...

>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:29:21 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
> ><golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> >>Of course you have proof of that? You guys love to say that, each and
> >>every time this fact comes up. Get over it. Bill's surplus was spent
> >>looking for those WMD we were supposed to find.
> >
> >Slick Willie never had a surplus. You can check the National Debt.
> >I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
> >me. The National Debt went up every year. These are the facts. You
> >can easily check them out for yourself.
>
>
> Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
> responsible than any others in modern times.

Thank you Republican Congress.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...
>

How is your team doing Carbs?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LOL. Supreme irony.

[Frank Ketchum]

"golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01a1a936-e6ac-428b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
> an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
> country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
> gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
> applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
> important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
> I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up

> this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
> we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
> to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
> office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."

Not giddy, gloating, applauding or anything of the sort, I have to live
through this shitty economy. Simply saying I told you so. This is what
irritates guys like carbs, johnb, bobby etc, I did tell them so and it has
come to pass.

I certainly am a citizen thank you. A citizen living the dream of four more
years of Obamanomics. Weee. Coming soon, the rollout of Obamacare. Double
weeeeee.

Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus. He had a year where the government
actually spent less than it took in (one year surplus). What about the
other seven? Why do you ignore those? Clinton grew the debt overall,
something I doubt you even were aware of. You tools think he eliminated the
debt and left us a big ol' pile o' cash LOL.

[Frank Ketchum]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3lqon8pagk75q0knu...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 05:47:06 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
> <golf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
>>an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
>>country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
>>gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
>>applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
>>important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
>>I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
>>this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>>we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>>to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>>office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
>
> We could always follow the Europeans' austerity strategy - along with
> their results.

Uh, Europe doesn't have much choice other than austerity. Eventually you
run out of money and creditors when you spend more than you make. It's a
lesson that we have failed to learn.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:06:37 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>> Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
>> responsible than any others in modern times.
>
>Thank you Republican Congress.

Certainly giving credit or blame to the president for being fiscally
responsible is misplaced. Congress does the spending and taxing.

[Frank Ketchum]

<Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
news:rp0on8l5m7lco7i1j...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>

>>> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>>>
>>> every year that Clinton was president.
>>>

>>The surplus was in the federal budget.
>
> Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
> Debt?

He doesn't. I accused him of not knowing the difference between debt and
deficit and here was his reply;

Quote
Dear Frank,
The $1.5t deficit for fiscal 2011 is the deficit at the end of fiscal
2010, plus whatever deficit spending has occurred in fy2011. It is NOT
-- repeat NOT -- a single-year, stand-alone figure.
With my deepest admiration,
John
Unquote

Also, fwi, the debt went up under Clinton 7 of his 8 years. One year it
went down a tiny bit.

[MNMikeW]

Obamacare.

[John B.]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:58:29 PM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
>
>
> >> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>
> >>
>
> >> every year that Clinton was president.
>
> >>
>
> >The surplus was in the federal budget.
>
>
>
> Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
>
> Debt?
>

Why, yes, I do, Mr Horvath. You obviously do not.

[John B.]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 1:03:47 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
> In article <01a1a936-e6ac-428b...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18
>
> @gmail.com says...

>
> >
>
> > On Apr 26, 2:21ï¿œpm, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>
> > >
>
> > > "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
>
> > > Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
>
> > > fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
>
> > > 3.0 percent growth pace."
>
> > >
>

> > > Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? ï¿œWhy does cnbc always

>
> > > seem surprised by this?
>
> > >
>
> > > Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed Economists'
>
> > > Expectations Quarterly
>
> >
>

> > Odd that a citizen, at least we assume that, would be so giddy about
>
> > an economy that is not growing as it should. It's tragic for us as a
>
> > country and not something that the righties should be sitting around
>
> > gloating about, but their mindthink is such that hoping for and
>
> > applauding a sluggish economy (oh come on...of course you are) is more
>
> > important to them than giving the current administration any credit.
>
> > I'm also always amazed that those same righties continue to bring up
>
> > this same sluggish economy because it reminds us, just about the time
>
> > we were about to forget, who, what, when, and where this economy began
>
> > to slip and slide. How much of a SURPLUS did Bill leave when he left
>
> > office? Wonder if that's a room that will be in the new "liberry."
>
>
>

> Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the bank.
>
>
>

> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.

Well, then he has failed miserably. The economy has grown
every month he's been in office.

[John B.]

You don't even know the difference between the debt
and the deficit.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:41:17 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:

>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:23:21 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>>How about you go back and review the yearly deficits for the Reagan and
>>>Bush 1 presidencies? Thanks.
>>
>>When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
>>will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
>>suicide to run a huge deficit.
>
>
>Most people figure that borrowing when times are bad and paying it
>back when times are good works better.

Most people know that when times are bad, you make CUTBACKS, you don't
spend more.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:04:05 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:06:37 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. But that era for the federal budget was much more fiscally
>>> responsible than any others in modern times.
>>
>>Thank you Republican Congress.
>
>Certainly giving credit or blame to the president for being fiscally
>responsible is misplaced. Congress does the spending and taxing.

Who signs the bills?

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:51:30 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>
>Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus. He had a year where the government
>actually spent less than it took in (one year surplus). What about the
>other seven? Why do you ignore those? Clinton grew the debt overall,
>something I doubt you even were aware of. You tools think he eliminated the
>debt and left us a big ol' pile o' cash LOL.
>

The National Debt went up EVERY year that Clinton was in office. There
never was even one quarter of a year that had a surplus.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54:32 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

>

>He doesn't. I accused him of not knowing the difference between debt and
>deficit and here was his reply;
>
>Quote
>Dear Frank,
>The $1.5t deficit for fiscal 2011 is the deficit at the end of fiscal
>2010, plus whatever deficit spending has occurred in fy2011. It is NOT
>-- repeat NOT -- a single-year, stand-alone figure.
>With my deepest admiration,
>John
>Unquote
>
>Also, fwi, the debt went up under Clinton 7 of his 8 years. One year it
>went down a tiny bit.
>

Nope. Check again. The debt went up every year. It went up every
quarter. It went up every week. It went up every day.

Did you ever see the Debt Clock? It goes up every second.

[Frank Ketchum]

<Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
news:2c2tn8tpatttfsme8...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54:32 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> wrote this crap:
>
>>
>>He doesn't. I accused him of not knowing the difference between debt and
>>deficit and here was his reply;
>>
>>Quote
>>Dear Frank,
>>The $1.5t deficit for fiscal 2011 is the deficit at the end of fiscal
>>2010, plus whatever deficit spending has occurred in fy2011. It is NOT
>>-- repeat NOT -- a single-year, stand-alone figure.
>>With my deepest admiration,
>>John
>>Unquote
>>
>>Also, fwi, the debt went up under Clinton 7 of his 8 years. One year it
>>went down a tiny bit.
>>
> Nope. Check again.

You are correct, my apologies. I was giving Clinton too much credit, that
must be because I am such a right wing nut.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

It went up a tiny bit in FY 1999/2000. I had thought that it actually
dropped that year instead. Either way, it is utter hogwash that Clinton
left us a surplus.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

I was a math major. I know the difference.

[golfbum18]

On Apr 29, 11:21 am, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT), "John B."

> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:29:21 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
>

> >> <golfbu...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>
> >> >Of course you have proof of that? You guys love to say that, each and
>
> >> >every time this fact comes up. Get over it. Bill's surplus was spent
>
> >> >looking for those WMD we were supposed to find.
>
> >> Slick Willie never had a surplus.  You can check the National Debt.
>
> >> I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
>
> >> me.  The National Debt went up every year.  These are the facts.  You
>
> >> can easily check them out for yourself.
>
> >You don't even know the difference between the debt
> >and the deficit.
>
> I was a math major.  I know the difference.
>
> This signature is now the ultimate
> power in the universe

You keep telling us this. There were lots of majors in lots of
institutions that never became "major graduates." Now's your chance to
cite your credentials at that institution (or the plural thereof) of
higher learning where you dazzled your friends and overwhelmed your
profs with an academic performance never seen or never to be seen
again. Otherwise, it's the
usual.........piehole........shut...........run along.

[golfbum18]

Cite?

[golfbum18]

On Apr 29, 11:06 am, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <Horvath1...@net.net> wrote in message

LOL. Little righties with their panties in a wad over the Clintons is
always a fun game to play. But once again, thanks to dubya for making
Bill look like a much better prez that we would have ever known. The
Clinton claim and the bush legacy......another reason for right
wingers getting wadded up undies once again.

[golfbum18]

On Apr 29, 10:18 am, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:44:52 -0400, BAR wrote:

> >> In article <pan.2013.04.27.17.11...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com

> >> says...
> >>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:03:47 -0400, BAR wrote:
>
> >>>> Bill Clinton left us an accounting trick rather than actual money in the
> >>>> bank.
>
> >>> His budgets were more balanced than any other administration's in recent
> >>> memory. Oh wait, he's a Democrat. Because internet.
>
> >> Thanks to the Republican House and Senate.
>
> > Of course.
>
> >>>> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.
>
> >>> Did he start a decade-long multi-trillion dollar quagmire in some foreign
> >>> hellhole?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> > Really? Where?
>
> Obamacare.

Obamacare...and long may it live. Stories from the old timers tell us
it was the same with SS and medicare. The righwingdings were in a
tizzie when they went into effect but today, you can't and won't
separate a right winger from his or her SS check or medicare payment
they won't have to make. It will be the same with you so keep
ranting....it's humorous, traditional, and exactly what we might
expect from the party that has never had a health care program of its
own. Hand on to those checks as we ALL relish in the entitlements
coming our way. Quite a dilemma isn't it....."I'm a repug, I have
entitlements, I love entitlements. Oh my, my head is imploding." LOL

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:11:15 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>>

>> >You don't even know the difference between the debt
>> >and the deficit.
>>
>> I was a math major. �I know the difference.
>>
>

>You keep telling us this. There were lots of majors in lots of
>institutions that never became "major graduates." Now's your chance to
>cite your credentials at that institution (or the plural thereof) of
>higher learning where you dazzled your friends and overwhelmed your
>profs with an academic performance never seen or never to be seen
>again. Otherwise, it's the
>usual.........piehole........shut...........run along.

It doesn't matter. Whatever I say, you will say I'm lying. I could
post a copy of my sheepskin and you would claim it was photoshopped.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:11:36 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
<golf...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>>
>> >Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus. �He had a year where the government
>> >actually spent less than it took in (one year surplus). �What about the
>> >other seven? �Why do you ignore those? �Clinton grew the debt overall,
>> >something I doubt you even were aware of. �You tools think he eliminated the
>> >debt and left us a big ol' pile o' cash LOL.
>>
>> The National Debt went up EVERY year that Clinton was in office. There
>> never was even one quarter of a year that had a surplus.
>>
>> This signature is now the ultimate
>> power in the universe
>
>Cite?

google "National Debt to the penny," and you'll get a bunch of sites,
most are gubmint sites.

[John B.]

When Clinton left office, there was a surplus in the federal budget.
That is a simple fact, acknowledged by GW Bush, who decided to give it
back to the taxpayers in the form of $600 checks.

[John B.]

OK, explain it.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

On Friday, April 26, 2013 11:21:04 AM UTC-7, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290
>
>
>
> "Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce
>
> Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the
>
> fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a
>
> 3.0 percent growth pace."
>
>
>

> Who are these economists that are wrong every quarter? Why does cnbc always

>
> seem surprised by this?
>
>
>
> Tune in three months from now for the next installment of Missed Economists'
>
> Expectations Quarterly

Why? Well duh! Obama and his radical environmental wackos have essentially quashed small business in America. They have quashed fossil energy production including oil and coal and nuclear power. Add the uncertainty over Obamacare, and the liklihood that the DOJ will attack on the side of unions, etc. and a small business would be idiotic to make a new hire. Forget it! Those who would be entrepreneurs just keep their money and join the crowds living off of welfare, disability, food stamps, and a dozen other public sources. Why work? Why invest? Its stupid!

The US will be in effective recession until we ABORT the abortion who calls himself "Obama." Of course his real name is Barry Sotero, the illegal alien who usurped the US Presidency. This is the guy who refuses to allow access to his school records or to prove his birth in the US. Actually that would be overlooked if our economy were roaring like when RR was president.

Larry

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

The last half of the Clinton Administration was effectively operated by Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House. After the Dems lost the house, Clinton announced that "the era of big government is over" so Newt would at least allow him fuel for Air Force One. Clinton still did some idiotic things like repeal Glass-Steagel which unleashed banks to create the credit bubble that created the massive recession we remain in.

Larry

Larry

[Carbon]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54:32 -0400, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> <Horva...@net.net> wrote in message
> news:rp0on8l5m7lco7i1j...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:48:11 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>>>> Clinton never had a surplus. Check the National Debt. It went up
>>>>
>>>> every year that Clinton was president.
>>>
>>> The surplus was in the federal budget.
>>
>> Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
>> Debt?
>
> He doesn't. I accused him of not knowing the difference between debt
> and deficit and here was his reply;
>
> Quote Dear Frank, The $1.5t deficit for fiscal 2011 is the deficit at
> the end of fiscal 2010, plus whatever deficit spending has occurred in
> fy2011. It is NOT -- repeat NOT -- a single-year, stand-alone figure.
> With my deepest admiration, John Unquote

Wow, this must be a cherished memory for you.

[Carbon]

How much so far as been spent so far on Obamacare over and above what
would normally be spent on healthcare?

[Howard Brazee]

The most effective thing that can happen to lower the deficit would be
full employment.

But it doesn't appear that anybody in power in Washington is even
talking about doing anything to assist in that. Maybe they don't
believe the feds can do anything.

Or maybe they have other priorities.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:47:54 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>>>When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
>>>will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
>>>suicide to run a huge deficit.
>>
>>
>>Most people figure that borrowing when times are bad and paying it
>>back when times are good works better.
>
>Most people know that when times are bad, you make CUTBACKS, you don't
>spend more.

When *can* you pay money back? When you have money.

If I'm running a business, I borrow when I need money and pay it back
when I have money. Investment is the name of the game.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:15:49 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>>
>>
>>

>> It went up a tiny bit in FY 1999/2000. I had thought that it actually
>>
>> dropped that year instead. Either way, it is utter hogwash that Clinton
>>
>> left us a surplus.
>
>When Clinton left office, there was a surplus in the federal budget.
>That is a simple fact, acknowledged by GW Bush, who decided to give it
>back to the taxpayers in the form of $600 checks.

I explained this before but you weren't smart enough to get it. I'll
try again. Slick Willie borrowed money to cover the budget. But he
listed it as income. Since it was borrowed money the debt went up. It
wasn't really income, but it made it appear that he had a surplus.

Let me put it in words that even you can understand. Say you make 50K
a year, but you spend 55K. You need 5K to cover your bills. You go
out and borrow 10k. Now you tell your wife you have 5k left over, a
surplus 5k. Then you go out and buy a fishing boat.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:05:14 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:

>On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:47:54 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>>>When the economy is running well, you can run a deficit. More money
>>>>will be coming in every quarter. When the economy is stagnant it's
>>>>suicide to run a huge deficit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Most people figure that borrowing when times are bad and paying it
>>>back when times are good works better.
>>
>>Most people know that when times are bad, you make CUTBACKS, you don't
>>spend more.
>
>When *can* you pay money back? When you have money.
>
>If I'm running a business, I borrow when I need money and pay it back
>when I have money. Investment is the name of the game.

If you're running a business and times are tough, the first thing you
do is make cutbacks. You look around and sell unused equipment and
inventory. Let some people go because there's not enough work for
them anyway. Sell some real estate you aren't using, and so on. No
bank is going to lend you money if you are constantly wasting it away.

[BAR]

In article <5351bad6-1076-4c7b...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18
@gmail.com says...

>
> On Apr 29, 11:21ï¿œam, Horvath1...@net.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
> > <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >On Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:29:21 AM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:03:13 -0700 (PDT), golfbum18
> >
> > >> <golfbu...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> > >> >Of course you have proof of that? You guys love to say that, each and
> >
> > >> >every time this fact comes up. Get over it. Bill's surplus was spent
> >
> > >> >looking for those WMD we were supposed to find.
> >

> > >> Slick Willie never had a surplus. ï¿œYou can check the National Debt.

> >
> > >> I've told you this before and several other people have agreed with
> >

> > >> me. ï¿œThe National Debt went up every year. ï¿œThese are the facts. ï¿œYou

> >
> > >> can easily check them out for yourself.
> >
> > >You don't even know the difference between the debt
> > >and the deficit.
> >

> > I was a math major. ï¿œI know the difference.

> >
> > This signature is now the ultimate
> > power in the universe
>
> You keep telling us this. There were lots of majors in lots of
> institutions that never became "major graduates." Now's your chance to
> cite your credentials at that institution (or the plural thereof) of
> higher learning where you dazzled your friends and overwhelmed your
> profs with an academic performance never seen or never to be seen
> again. Otherwise, it's the
> usual.........piehole........shut...........run along.

What are your credentials?

[MNMikeW]

Have to wait till 2014, oops, now 2015 to find out.

[John B.]

This is completely wrong. The government borrows money all the
time, every day. You're claiming that Clinton borrowed money and
deposited it in the Treasury to create the illusion of a surplus.
He did nothing of the sort. The surplus was a result of increased
tax revenues which themselves were a result of a long period of
economic growth and low unemployment. I know how painful it is for
you and your ilk to admit that any democrat ever did anything good,
but these are the facts.

[BobM]

Thank you, Lllliaary!

We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view, you ridiculous little carnival freak. Rumor has it that you are almost incomprehensible in person (as revealed by your desperate urge to babble nonsensically on message boards.) Rumor also has it that your golf sucks (as revealed by your youtube videos.) No doubt, this rumor is true.

Now get the hell out of here!

.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:06:29 -0700 (PDT), "John B."

<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>On Monday, April 29, 2013 11:50:36 PM UTC-4, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:15:49 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>>
>> <john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> It went up a tiny bit in FY 1999/2000. I had thought that it actually
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> dropped that year instead. Either way, it is utter hogwash that Clinton
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> left us a surplus.
>>
>> >
>>
>> >When Clinton left office, there was a surplus in the federal budget.
>>
>> >That is a simple fact, acknowledged by GW Bush, who decided to give it
>>
>> >back to the taxpayers in the form of $600 checks.
>>
>>
>>
>> I explained this before but you weren't smart enough to get it. I'll
>>
>> try again. Slick Willie borrowed money to cover the budget. But he
>>
>> listed it as income. Since it was borrowed money the debt went up. It
>>
>> wasn't really income, but it made it appear that he had a surplus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let me put it in words that even you can understand. Say you make 50K
>>
>> a year, but you spend 55K. You need 5K to cover your bills. You go
>>
>> out and borrow 10k. Now you tell your wife you have 5k left over, a
>>
>> surplus 5k. Then you go out and buy a fishing boat.
>>
>This is completely wrong. The government borrows money all the
>time, every day. You're claiming that Clinton borrowed money and
>deposited it in the Treasury to create the illusion of a surplus.

You must be starting to catch on.

>He did nothing of the sort. The surplus was a result of increased
>tax revenues which themselves were a result of a long period of
>economic growth and low unemployment.

I guess you're not catching on.

> I know how painful it is for
>you and your ilk to admit that any democrat ever did anything good,
>but these are the facts.

No. I gave you the facts. Borrowing increased during the Clinton
years. You can look this up. The numbers don't lie under oath, as
Clinton did.

[John B.]

You are all mouth and no facts. As usual, you're in over your head.

[MNMikeW]

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

[Horva...@net.net]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:30:21 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:

>>>
>>>
>>>> I know how painful it is for
>>>
>>>> you and your ilk to admit that any democrat ever did anything good,
>>>
>>>> but these are the facts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. I gave you the facts. Borrowing increased during the Clinton
>>>
>>> years. You can look this up. The numbers don't lie under oath, as
>>>
>>> Clinton did.
>>>
>> You are all mouth and no facts. As usual, you're in over your head.
>>
>http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
>

It must be true. There's an American flag up in the corner.

[Carbon]

Oh I see, so it's an *imaginary* trillion dollar quagmire...

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:20:10 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> > Carbon wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:18:22 -0500, MNMikeW wrote:
> >>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:44:52 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>>>> In article <pan.2013.04...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> >>>>> nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
> >>>>>> On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:03:47 -0400, BAR wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Barack Obama has done everything he can to depress the US economy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did he start a decade-long multi-trillion dollar quagmire in some
> >>>>>> foreign hellhole?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Really? Where?
> >>>
> >>> Obamacare.
> >>
> >> How much so far as been spent so far on Obamacare over and above what
> >> would normally be spent on healthcare?
> >>
> > Have to wait till 2014, oops, now 2015 to find out.
>
> Oh I see, so it's an *imaginary* trillion dollar quagmire...

For those of us who are legally eligible to vote it isn't imaginary.

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b06e8db7-982e-45c3...@googlegroups.com...

That's positively wonderful John. Making things work on paper is all that
matters right?

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:65fac384-5c6a-49d3...@googlegroups.com...

>>
> This is completely wrong. The government borrows money all the
> time, every day. You're claiming that Clinton borrowed money and
> deposited it in the Treasury to create the illusion of a surplus.
> He did nothing of the sort. The surplus was a result of increased
> tax revenues which themselves were a result of a long period of
> economic growth and low unemployment. I know how painful it is for
> you and your ilk to admit that any democrat ever did anything good,
> but these are the facts.

I will ask you the same question I have asked every liberal who brings this
up; What did Clinton do to cause this?

Go ahead, take as much time as you need, we'll be waiting.

FYI, I have never once gotten an answer to this question.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:14:13 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I will ask you the same question I have asked every liberal who brings this
>up; What did Clinton do to cause this?

The same thing Bush and Obama did to put the economy in the tank. Be
president when the economy changes.

And sign bills Congress passes.

[Carbon]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:22:17 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:14:13 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I will ask you the same question I have asked every liberal who brings
>> this up; What did Clinton do to cause this?
>
> The same thing Bush and Obama did to put the economy in the tank. Be
> president when the economy changes.
>
> And sign bills Congress passes.

It's true that the executive branch has less direct control over the
economy than many people realize. However mistakes like starting
expensive, drawn-out wars in foreign lands are definitely to be avoided.
Both parties have been guilty of that kind of hubris in the past.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.05...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...

One party was tripping over itself getting the floors of their respective houses in order to
cast a vote to go to war, it was the Democrats.

[Frank Ketchum]

"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2beac92e3...@news.giganews.com...

It's odd how conveniently the lefties can't quite recall that.

[Howard Brazee]

Yep. But the president only is responsible for starting the wars. If
they continue for a year or more, Congress is responsible - at least
for paying for them.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 07:40:20 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>> It's true that the executive branch has less direct control over the
>> economy than many people realize. However mistakes like starting
>> expensive, drawn-out wars in foreign lands are definitely to be avoided.
>> Both parties have been guilty of that kind of hubris in the past.
>
>One party was tripping over itself getting the floors of their respective houses in order to
>cast a vote to go to war, it was the Democrats.

And what was the other party doing that was different?

[MNMikeW]

We hope it's only a trillion.

[golfbum18]

On May 1, 9:00 am, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2beac92e3...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <pan.2013.05.01.03.24...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,

And youe latest admission about the ills of the Repub party were
posted where.....and when did you post them?
What's even more odd is how the righties will conveniently forget to
tell us all the short-comings from their side of the aisle. But of
course, Memorial Day is coming and we will see again this year, the
increased ranks of headstones and little flags and the inscription of
"killed in Iraq." This is the true bush legacy but you just don't
recall? Recollection seems to be relevant just as so much seems to be.

[John B.]

I didn't say Clinton did anything to cause it. The longest period of sustained
economic growth in history occurred during his administration.
Reasonable people (which would exclude you) differ on what role
he played in bringing that about.

[John B.]

Only one party voted unanimously for the Iraq War resolution. I'll give
you a hint: it wasn't the democrats.

[Frank Ketchum]

"golfbum18" <golf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79287ebc-a2ea-4331...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

> And youe latest admission about the ills of the Repub party were
> posted where.....and when did you post them?
> What's even more odd is how the righties will conveniently forget to
> tell us all the short-comings from their side of the aisle. But of
> course, Memorial Day is coming and we will see again this year, the
> increased ranks of headstones and little flags and the inscription of
> "killed in Iraq." This is the true bush legacy but you just don't
> recall? Recollection seems to be relevant just as so much seems to be.

What a powerful picture you paint. Now if only you could come up with a way
to erase the fact that Obama has been the president for the last four plus
years then you might actually have a point about current Iraq casualties.
But alas, you are as usual just being a moron.

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e63bde36-be16-4131...@googlegroups.com...

IIRC neither party voted unanimously for it.

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c6ed677c-275a-4437...@googlegroups.com...

That's odd because I've asked lots of reasonable people this question and I
never get differing answers. I always get the exact same answer, the one
you gave; nothing.

[MNMikeW]

Nope. 7 R's against.

[John B.]

That is not the answer I gave you. Obviously, your idea of reasonable differs
from mine.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:02:53 PM UTC-7, Howard Brazee wrote:
> The most effective thing that can happen to lower the deficit would be
>
> full employment.
>
>
>
> But it doesn't appear that anybody in power in Washington is even
>
> talking about doing anything to assist in that. Maybe they don't
>
> believe the feds can do anything.
>
>
>
> Or maybe they have other priorities.
>
Howard, we have several almost perfect models for economic recovery. We know how to create a roaring economy. All we need to do is what Ronald Reagan did. The economy grew at 7% creating 22 MILLION new jobs each year. What did he do? He LOWERED TAXES and reduced regulatory pressure on businesses. He made it profitable for them to hire, and they hired everyone they could find!

Our economy is tanking because Obama is philosophically against those things. He wants MORE TAXES so he can give more to those who didn't earn it. He wants "fairness" instead of growth.

Well, good luck with that. It has NEVER WORKED anywhere! There are NO examples from history in any country in the world where Socialism did anything but spread the misery.

Those who voted for Obama knowing this was his goal are MORONS! Especially after we saw him fail during his first 4 years. Fuck you. I wish you could take your president to another country and be miserable with him--and leave us alone!

Romney would have this country in spectacular growth mode. His model was Ronald Reagan.

Larry

[Horva...@net.net]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 16:33:40 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
wrote this crap:

I seem to recall that when obumma ran for office he said he would have
our troops out of the Middle East in six months. That was four years
ago. Instead he sent troops to Libya and now he's getting involved in
Syria.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Wed, 1 May 2013 13:22:27 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:

>I didn't say Clinton did anything to cause it. The longest period of sustained
>economic growth in history occurred during his administration.
>Reasonable people (which would exclude you) differ on what role
>he played in bringing that about.

He pretty much did nothing but got blow jobs in the White House.

[BAR]

In article <79287ebc-a2ea-4331...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, golfbum18
@gmail.com says...

>
> On May 1, 9:00ï¿œam, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:MPG.2beac92e3...@news.giganews.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <pan.2013.05.01.03.24...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
> > > nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
> > > says...
> >
> > >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:22:17 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:14:13 -0400, "Frank Ketchum" <fr...@nospam.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >> I will ask you the same question I have asked every liberal who brings

> > >> >> this up; ï¿œWhat did Clinton do to cause this?
> >
> > >> > The same thing Bush and Obama did to put the economy in the tank. ￜ Be

> > >> > president when the economy changes.
> >
> > >> > And sign bills Congress passes.
> >
> > >> It's true that the executive branch has less direct control over the
> > >> economy than many people realize. However mistakes like starting
> > >> expensive, drawn-out wars in foreign lands are definitely to be avoided.
> > >> Both parties have been guilty of that kind of hubris in the past.
> >
> > > One party was tripping over itself getting the floors of their respective
> > > houses in order to
> > > cast a vote to go to war, it was the Democrats.
> >
> > It's odd how conveniently the lefties can't quite recall that.
>
> And youe latest admission about the ills of the Repub party were
> posted where.....and when did you post them?
> What's even more odd is how the righties will conveniently forget to
> tell us all the short-comings from their side of the aisle. But of
> course, Memorial Day is coming and we will see again this year, the
> increased ranks of headstones and little flags and the inscription of
> "killed in Iraq." This is the true bush legacy but you just don't
> recall? Recollection seems to be relevant just as so much seems to be.

We "righties" have you liberal/progressive/Democrats are always telling us about our short-
comings, why should we list them again.

[BAR]

In article <audetq...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...

John B. wrong again!

[BAR]

In article <c6ed677c-275a-4437...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

Using Howard's logic it is all the Republican's doing since they controlled Congress.

[Carbon]

Do you mean the one where everyone was fed bad intel because the
administration was so desperate to invade?

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:69fcb1c5-3a06-41a0...@googlegroups.com...

The answer you gave was just a crab walk sideways to avoid the question like
I thought you'd do. But then you couldn't help yourself and simply had to
throw out that there are all of these opinions about Clinton's role. Well
what are they? How about you give us a few? Or one? Or will it be just
another dodge and/or crickets?

[Frank Ketchum]

"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:562607fd-48f1-4f37...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Rubbish. Do you even know what a federal budget is? Or the National
>>
>> Debt?
>>
> Why, yes, I do, Mr Horvath.

Well that's a new development. Congratulations.