kallend 2,150 #101 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Nice try with the obsolete data. From the Bush White House's own OMB site in 2002, the ACTUAL ON-BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000 was $87B www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html (Sorry, can't figure out to get the table to format correctly on here)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #102 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Right, so the net is that for those years the US had a budget surplus. Is it that hard to admit an obvious fact? How is it that there were deficits during those years? Please explain. The net result was that the US had a budget surplus.... establish otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #103 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Right, so the net is that for those years the US had a budget surplus. Is it that hard to admit an obvious fact? How is it that there were deficits during those years? Please explain. The net result was that the US had a budget surplus.... establish otherwise. 68% of the US National Debt was created during the administrations of just three presidents - all Republicans: Ron Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W Bush. SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #104 March 18, 2006 Quoteidiot Debate on is he a "diabolical genius or increadible dufus?". ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #105 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Right, so the net is that for those years the US had a budget surplus. Is it that hard to admit an obvious fact? How is it that there were deficits during those years? Please explain. The net result was that the US had a budget surplus.... establish otherwise. 68% of the US National Debt was created during the administrations of just three presidents - all Republicans: Ron Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W Bush. SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT! I guessed earlier that 80% of the entire debt was incurrd during Republican years; I wonder how close that is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #106 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteidiot Debate on is he a "diabolical genius or increadible dufus?". ltdiver 4. He has proven that even an diabolical genius can become president, not only once but twice! There, fixed it. Thanks for pointing out my error!"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #107 March 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhat SpeedRacer said! I think, 'W', started-out good but went downhill, after that. Let's see... 9 more to think of... I'll get back with you on this. Hmmmmmmmm.... Chuck How did he start out well? Got us into a war by omitting intelligence to Congress and at the dismay of most of the world? I just can't see how he started so well. BTW, he killed the Ergonomics Bill started by CLinton and OSHA to give fast help to injured workers. He also killed legislation that would have reduced the amount of arsenic in our drinking water, and that was right out of the blocks, so no one has convinced me how he jumped out of the blocks. ___________________________________ Yeah! I got jumped on for that, earlier. I later added to it: "Before he got sworn in!" Chuck Gottcha Next thread: Top ten F-ups of Bush as Gov of Texas, comming to a thread near you!!! ______________________________________ We can look at it this way. We've got just a while longer with W. Then, we get the opportunity to select someone else to 'lead' this country for 4-yrs. So far, the selection isn't looking all that good, either. JMO Chuck Couldn't agree more. I used to be a Hillary fan, but she's more of a Repub than people know. I like Kerry, but doubt he has a chance. I fear a McCain might make it. __________________________________ I don't trust that lyin' woman! She's strictly, out for herself. Though not an un-common thing with candidates. Kerry's so full of shit... he stinks! McCain? Just plain scarey to me. I think, the man's about a bubble off plumb. I wouldn't mind seeing Rudy Giuliani! After what he did with New York City after 9-11. He definately, knows how to handle a disaster. Yeah, I know about his personal stuff but, the man seems to have his head on straight. Fat chance, though that he'd run. I heard that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in New Orleans! His reason? There's no govt. agencies Chuckthat will go into that city! (Trying to lighten it up.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 March 19, 2006 Quote Ah, yes...the "surplus"... the actual ON-BUDGET numbers for 1998 show almost a $30B DEFICIT. They had to take money from the same Social Security they say is so important to save, to show the "surplus". I'm happy with a 30B deficit, too. Only one other president since LBJ was close, and that was Carter at about 60B. Of course, not such nice times economically. Probably should have spent more. SS has been masking the true deficit size for a long time now. Bush is playing the same game. So you probably don't want to use this argument to try to deny that a surplus existed. Better to argue it meant we were being overtaxed, and that it was appropriate timing for Bush to repeal the higher tax brackets that Clinton introduced in his first term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #109 March 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteHe fell off a Segway too. That was pretty funny. he also had several bicycle accidents ... I'm not sure if this the reason for this is that he's suffering from a serious case of ADHD or whether he has some psycho issues about proving himself over his senior. (remember the "manos a manos" after his drunk driving ...) It might be a combination of both. Skydivers crash all the time. Sometimes results in injuries, sometimes it just means the victim and everyone within eye sight has a laugh and the bruises fade over the next week, and the jumpsuit gets some sewing done. Doesn't mean much about about their mental deficiencies in life. Bush, much like his dad, shares our less fearful attitudes towards playing hard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #110 March 19, 2006 1. All by his lonesome, he got my mother in law, a life-long conservative Republican who is very religious, to vote for a Democrat for President (Kerry) for the first time since 1960. Trust me, that's a hell of an accomplishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #111 March 19, 2006 So what ever happened to going to Mars ? Or rebuilding New Orleans ? The big lie about going to Mars was a smokescreen for defunding the Hubble Telescope and the Shuttle program. The Shuttle is agreeably a piece of shit, but at least the Hubble works. But when you're giving taxes back to the rich, you have to make some sacrifices. Ditto for New Orleans, we're going to rebuild New Orleans by NOT beefing up the levees. Instead, we're going to rebuild New Orleans by giving more taxes back to the rich, cutting Medicaid and Food Stamps, AND by levelling the poorer black sections of that city to build a nice park for de white folks to enjoy. Oh and we'll get Trent Lott's house rebuilt at public expense, you can bet on that. (You know, the last time New Orleans was wiped out by a flood in 1927, the city was actually rebuilt by a Republican president, Calvin Coolidge. Bush-wah could give a shit about New Orleans, he'd just like the whole mess to go away...) Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #112 March 20, 2006 My, Lucky, you've been busy posting this weekend...I must say I've chuckled quite a bit reading them. You seem to be having a bit of trouble taking that first step that I mentioned...keep at it, I'm sure you'll get there someday. A few comments: - You really take the cake by wishing for an increase in entitlement spending. I believe the phrase 'no credibility with regards to deficit reduction' most apropos for anyone touting such. - Spending more than you have causes deficits - not tax cuts. Tax cuts can contribute, but the spending is what digs one in the hole - just like credit cards. - FYI, this is 2006. I asked you for one program that was funded less this year than last year, and you refer me to the '07 budget. '07 is NEXT year. I'll be waiting for you to provide me a real answer, but won't hold my breath. If you are angered by GWB wanting to drop funding for programs that have been shown to be either ineffective or without measureable benefit, then that once again shows you have no credibility with regards to deficit reduction. Eliminating ineffective programs will be necessary to reduce the deficit. Don't worry - you're not alone in bemoaning GWB wanting to drop funding for those programs. It was all over the news months ago. - You admit you don't know much about Kyoto then sem to be upset at GWB's actions there. Learn what you're talking about and get back to us. - Veteran's Benefits programs are not part of the DoD discretionary spending appropriation. The # of verterans varies with the size of the military, the condition of members who exit the military, the death rate of previous veterans, and myriad other variables. If you were actually familiar with the executive branch, you'd realize that the Department of Veteran's Affairs is separate from DoD with its own separate budget. I'm sure Secretary Nicholson and Secretary Rumsfeld interact with some modicum of frequency, however. - El Jefe Clintonista dealt with a Republican House and Senate. The Republicans took the house in '92 if memory serves. As a reminder - Congress appropriates. They have the CBO, just like the exective branch has OMB. - A simple look at the DJIA should show you the economic downturn that was going on around election time. GWB took office in Jan '01, submitted his first budget right after SOTU, and I believe his tax cut passed around Nov '01 if memory serves. Do your own research. NIPA might be another indicator that would show the slowing of the economy at the time, i.e. recession. If you'd been listening to the news around that time you would have heard it with great frequency. - You allude to the infamous arsenic scandal at the beginning of GWB's term in office. Don't you realize how hard that makes those of us who know about that laugh at you? As if I wasn't already chuckling hard enough at you wanting to increase the main cost driver for the budget over the next few decades while simultaneously complaining about deficit spending. - If you'd check out the Bureau of the Public Debt, you'd find that we have had a deficit for a long, long time. We had a budget surplus for a particular year or three under Bubba Clintonista, which would be highly dependent up on both the US and world economies, but there was no magical surplus that evaporated. Quite ludicrous to assert otherwise. - You've no proof Bush lied. Spin it however you like. - You state the country is a disaster. Prove it. What makes you think so? Certainly not the economy. Ahhh...did I miss anything? Probably. You certainly posted a bit this weekend. Quite humorous, actually. I still assert that not ONE Bush Bashing Leftie will come up with an entitlement they would reduce the funding for or elimiinate altogether. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #113 March 20, 2006 QuoteI still assert that not ONE Bush Bashing Leftie will come up with an entitlement they would reduce the funding for or elimiinate altogether. Guess what? The Republicans have held both houses of Congress plus the Presidency for some time now. Which entitlements have they reduced funding for or eliminated completely? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 March 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Nice try with the obsolete data. From the Bush White House's own OMB site in 2002, the ACTUAL ON-BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000 was $87B www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html (Sorry, can't figure out to get the table to format correctly on here) FY 2000 was used because it showed actual numbers, not projections, for FY 1998. Did you not read that part of the post, or just wanted to grab those numbers to derail the argument?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #115 March 20, 2006 To their everlasting shame, they increased entitlement spending via GWB's Prescription Drug disaster. They did attempt, as Lucky stated, to eliminate some DoE programs that were ineffective/had no measurable result. That wasn't entitlement spending and was quashed though. Sickening. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #116 March 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Nice try with the obsolete data. From the Bush White House's own OMB site in 2002, the ACTUAL ON-BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000 was $87B www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html (Sorry, can't figure out to get the table to format correctly on here) FY 2000 was used because it showed actual numbers, not projections, for FY 1998. Did you not read that part of the post, or just wanted to grab those numbers to derail the argument? And the 2002 OMB report gives ACTUAL DATA for 2000, when there was an $87Billion ON BUDGET SURPLUS, which destroys your argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #117 March 20, 2006 QuoteTo their everlasting shame, they increased entitlement spending via GWB's Prescription Drug disaster. They did attempt, as Lucky stated, to eliminate some DoE programs that were ineffective/had no measurable result. That wasn't entitlement spending and was quashed though. Sickening. How do you feel about the fact that 68% of the National Debt was run up under just three Republican administrations? 30% of the National Debt has been run up under GWB's administration alone, with a Republican Congress to back him up. Does that sicken you too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #118 March 20, 2006 Quote***1. Went to the UN to declare war on Afghanistan and got the world behind us -- I thought that was way cool and I was actually proud of him at that time. Uh, ok, how 'bout Iraq when the UN was and is against us all the way? It's easy to belive that if the UN was against us with Afgan that he would have gone in anyway, as he did with Iraq. What was the benefit of us in Afgan? Anything? Well, Iraq is another story. I do believe he did the right thing in Afghanistan and that it's a fight worth fighting. Benefit for us in Afghanistan is that there's no longer a regime that's busy training its citizens on how to kill non-Muslims. Quote***2. Signed the do-not-call registry bill. Probably the greatest thing he's done that's affected my life. Seriously? So the fact that telemarketers can't leaglly call is a ground-moving event? For me it is, I always found telemarketers pretty irritating. Quote***3. Signed McCain's campaign reform bill (albeit begrudgingly, but he did sign it) What has been the benefit since? Will things change? Will prosecutors go after violators? Apparently not, but it was a step in the right direction. Quote***4. There have been no terrorist strikes on US soil since 9/11 (even though I really do think that the whole thing could have been avoided in the first place) Ok, there have only been 2 in history, so it's not as if there were 20 during the Clinton years and none since. Furthermore, are we like Domino's Pizza that delivers and once we get out the terrorism will resume at a higher rate? Too soon to rack this one up. Could have been avoided? Not by bombing and screwing in their affairs but by leaving them alone, huh? I think 911 could have been avoided if Bush learned to listen. What kills me is how plainly spelled out it was that Bin Laden was a threat...and how much Republicans tout themselves as being strong on national security. Quote***5. He sent me a $300 check back in 2001. Truely this is one of his greatest accomplishments, even though he gave away the Clinton surplus in teh midst of a war budget and soaring annual deficit and record national debt. Bush will take his debt of 5.5T and double it. Canada's dollar will likely pass us by Bush's term's end. Great thing? I'd rather see a fiscally sound government than get a $300 check. Quote***6. Billions in aid for Africa's AIDS epidemic That is a legitimate thing, but in all reality he should fix our health system first. But at least he didn't give it to some corporation. According to freethefly, he didn't do such a good thing after all. I was just trying to, for the sake of argument, make it to ten good things Shrub did in his five years in office. Quote***7. PROTECT act of 2003 What's this? Is this part of the Patriot Act???? I don't know a whole lot about it, I was trying to make it to ten. I got the item from Mr. JACKASS's list. I was scrounging and it sounded like a half-decent accomplishment, even though it probably wasn't Bush's idea to begin with. Quote***Also, although it is not an accomplishment, I really admire the fact that he's 60 yrs old and that he can run a seven-minute mile. In my book, that's the single most impressive thing about him. Meanwhile the country is fiscally crumbling, the world hates us, but Bush is a good runner and that's noteworthy? HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most people can't run 7-minute miles, let alone 60-year old people. I respect Bush as a fellow runner, but not really in any other regard. Quotedo you think he's been a good pres? If you voted for him, are you glad? I did not vote for him, and no, I don't think he's been a good president. I think he's an absolute disgrace. I listed what I did for the sake of argument, and in contrast to the damage he's done and continues to do, his accomplishments are paltry at best. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 March 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Nice try with the obsolete data. From the Bush White House's own OMB site in 2002, the ACTUAL ON-BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000 was $87B www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html (Sorry, can't figure out to get the table to format correctly on here) FY 2000 was used because it showed actual numbers, not projections, for FY 1998. Did you not read that part of the post, or just wanted to grab those numbers to derail the argument? And the 2002 OMB report gives ACTUAL DATA for 2000, when there was an $87Billion ON BUDGET SURPLUS, which destroys your argument. John... where did I say I was referring to FY2000 data? Shall I point you back to my post again, where I said "1998"? But, to give Clinton and Congress their due... 99 shows the first actual on budget surplus ($1B) and a unified surplus of $124B. 00 shows a unified surplus of $281B 01 shows an *estimated* unified surplus of $281B 02 shows an *estimated* unified deficit of $106BMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #120 March 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote98 to 2001 show an annual surplus with 2000 showing over 200B in surplus. Oh, the site isn't gov, but they reference the White House. Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Nice try with the obsolete data. From the Bush White House's own OMB site in 2002, the ACTUAL ON-BUDGET SURPLUS in 2000 was $87B www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html (Sorry, can't figure out to get the table to format correctly on here) FY 2000 was used because it showed actual numbers, not projections, for FY 1998. Did you not read that part of the post, or just wanted to grab those numbers to derail the argument? And the 2002 OMB report gives ACTUAL DATA for 2000, when there was an $87Billion ON BUDGET SURPLUS, which destroys your argument. John... where did I say I was referring to FY2000 data? Shall I point you back to my post again, where I said "1998"? But, to give Clinton and Congress their due... 99 shows the first actual on budget surplus ($1B) and a unified surplus of $124B. 00 shows a unified surplus of $281B 01 shows an *estimated* unified surplus of $281B 02 shows an *estimated* unified deficit of $106B You didn't write This and this?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #121 March 20, 2006 Did'nt the US Congress give Clinton the Line Item Veto power from I believe 1996 to 1998 before the courts ruled against it. Clinton was able to veto I believe 80 items that kept the budget in check over that period of time. I could be wrong but this would be a good thing if it were available today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #122 March 20, 2006 QuoteDid'nt the US Congress give Clinton the Line Item Veto power from I believe 1996 to 1998 before the courts ruled against it. Clinton was able to veto I believe 80 items that kept the budget in check over that period of time. I could be wrong but this would be a good thing if it were available today. Yes, but the line item veto is contrary to good conservative values.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #123 March 20, 2006 Yes, he had line item veto for a while. I sincerely hope it gets passed again. I recall something about a bill prohibiting "riders" on bills going through Congress - I'd love to see that passed, too! A lot of Congressmen would get really nervous if their constituents could see the shit that they pack into bills...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #124 March 20, 2006 Sicken me? Needless gov't spending irks me regardless of what administration is doing it. If you'd look at the CBO & OMB projections for entitlement spending over the next few years, you'll find that the deficit will be increasing for a long, long time even if discretionary spending were reduced by half. If you are serious about deficit reduction, it is required that you be willing to cut entitlement spending. 'tis a mathematical impossibility to do otherwise. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #125 March 20, 2006 QuoteYes, he had line item veto for a while. I sincerely hope it gets passed again. I recall something about a bill prohibiting "riders" on bills going through Congress - I'd love to see that passed, too! A lot of Congressmen would get really nervous if their constituents could see the shit that they pack into bills... Wholeheartedly agreed! One of the best improvements we could make to our legislature is to remove their ability to add unrelated clauses to existing bills. When the Senate/House vote on a bill, they should be voting on the subject of the bill and the specifics associated with that topic, not the ridiculous number of side-issues that have been added to it since inception. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
