It's Nice and Quiet

Page 2 of 3  
(Charlie Self) wrote:

And he wasn't even a Brit IIRC, he was Irish.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Ireland is part of Britain. Not part of England.
Did you mean to say, "And he wasn't even English....."?
I will defer to Andy Dingly on this one.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:45:26 -0400, Eddie Munster

I believe there are some Irish who would dispute that.
the Britons were invaders from france....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I find it odd that people complain about the bills the R's are running up, but it STILL isn't enough for the D's.
Wayne
P.S. Cut the federal budget by 50% for a start.

on
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why stop there? If the government spent only for the purposes authorized by the Constitution, several entire cabinet departments would cease to exist, and spending would drop by a *lot* more than just 50%.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I said, for a start!
Wayne
wrote:

by
and
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: I find it odd that people complain about the bills the R's are running up, : but it STILL isn't enough for the D's.
We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic administration. We now have the largest deficit in world history, under a Republican.
I know what I prefer.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Unfortunately, there is none.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course there isn't; I was trying to get Andrew to work through this on his own though.
Selective memory is an amazing thing, isn't it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: Unfortunately, there is none.
Au contrair:
Clinton surplus:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html http://www.house.gov/budget/papers/budgetsurplusbasics.htm http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february98/budget_2-19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020398.htm
Bush deficit:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072303bb.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id3.html
Here's a page showing the amount of debt incurred by each president back to Truman (Bush II is the winner, followed by Bush I, followed by Reagan):
http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm
Anyone remember whan the GOP claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and small government?
    -- Andy Barss
: wrote: :> > :> > We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic :> > administration. :> :> Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim. :>
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Andy Barss
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No details.

This link does not support your statement, and includes this:
"For all the rhetorical flourish in the Clinton budget, there is no concrete proposal for how the White House would secure the Social Security surpluses. They only earmark money without any legal mechanism to protect the funds."
Maybe you have some links you've actually read, and not just random keyword matches from a google search or something? But, let's keep going, shall we?

"...unveiled a budget plan that he expects will generate the first surplus in nearly 30 years".
Plan. Expects. Will. Not "did".

"Proposed budget".

Comparing Clinton's unworkable and un-implemented changes, to that which was actually implemented during other presidents' terms (with congressional approval, of course) is useless at best. Pathetic, even, that you present these as evidence when the only one that supports your claim has no details whatsoever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:37:07 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:

The historical facts of whether or not there was an actual surplus is reflected in the national debt. In a deficit year, the national debt increases by the amount of the deficit and in a surplus year, the national debt decreases by the amount of the surplus. The last time the debt decreased was 1961.
The claimed surplusses were arrived at by taking all trust fund monies and transferring them to the general fund. This is accounted for as revenue in the annual budget. A corresponding IOU is placed in each of the myriad of trust funds, but these IOU's are not accounted for as expenditures in the annual budget, but are accounted for in the national debt. These IOUs are called intragovernmental debt and are the prototype for Enron style accounting - create shell subsidiaries to hold the debt and claim the corportion/nation is in the black for that year.
This is not only deceptive, but when the time comes to draw the monies from these so called trust funds, the government will have to get the monies by taxing future generations to pay off the IOUs since government's only source of revenue is taxation. So, the current taxpayers get to pay more taxes than required for things like Social Security, the money is spent but not accounted for in the annual budget and future generations get to pay that amount again with interest in addition to the normal taxes they have to pay. Pretty neat scheme, huh? Begs the question of why people like Ken Ley are being prosecuted but our congresscritters talk about preserving the trust funds with a straight face and not jail time.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:20:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, after all. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if the feds followed GAAP? The only justifiable reason I can think of for why a sovereign nation wouldn't follow GAAP is to handle unforseen contingencies. Alas, congresscritters don't limit themselves to such necessary actions. Throw all the bums out.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, without shell games, Clinton also failed to balance the budget. That lines up with my memory, I recall him doing his little trick to put the unspendable SS income in a different column, but I didn't know that people would fall for the ploy and think he accomplished anything.
Sounds pretty enron-ish to me, but the lefties will now dance for us and tell us how it's not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss said:

Andrew, A bit of advice:
Never bother to argue with followers of Bush Religion - an oppressive group of zealots who believe nothing but the GOP line. Facts are irrelevant. ;-)
"For the entire 2002 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government ran up a deficit of $157.8 billion, ending four consecutive years of surpluses."
From the Bush Cronies at Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C81699%2C00.html
"The National Debt has increased an average of $1.69 billion per day since September 30, 2003." http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
[Flame Suit On]
History will show the true impact of this POS on our world. Fortunately, his 4 years are over. http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com /
Greg G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's fair. As they say.
However, counting the non-spendable Social Security intake as a surplus is Voo Doo or, if you believe it, Doo Doo.
<Greg G.> wrote in message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course. Like any other shell-game accounting. If it was a Bush ally doing it, they'd be screaming "ENRON!", but when it's Clinton doing it, they call it "heroic".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:52:41 -0400, wrote:

The national debt of the US increased each and every year of the Clinton administration. Now, unless there is another definition of what a deficit/surplus is, there have been no surplusses since 1961.
<http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:09:33 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

[snip]
This is pretty scary coming from someone in "higher education". I hope you aren't spreading the myth of the Clinton surplusses to those mushy little minds you have direct contact with. I also hope you aren't teaching in the math or economics departments. If you insist on claiming Clinton surplusses, I can only assume you approve of Enron accounting.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.