'The worst US president'

[wmw999 2,587]

We'll take bids. This being SC, instead of money or beer, whoever says "nerdgirl and wmw999 are always right when they post" in the most convincing manner....

nah, then the challenge would go right out the window . As you were...

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Split the difference, get drunk together, and then do each other.

Get video, after all you are skychicks, not amateurs.

Only if you'll agree to do video!



/Marg

Count me IN!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

I just found a new sig line

[skydyvr 0]

Can we get this thread moved to BF please. It has taken a very unfortunate turn towards sweetness 'n light.

. . =(_8^(1)

[wmw999 2,587]

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Can we get this thread moved to BF please. It has taken a very unfortunate turn towards sweetness 'n light.

Would a gratuitous "Go F#ck Yourself" help?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Can we get this thread moved to BF please. It has taken a very unfortunate turn towards sweetness 'n light.

Would a gratuitous "Go F#ck Yourself" help?

Thank you. All that cheeriness was getting to me.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Forum listing, especially for Mike.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can we get this thread moved to BF please. It has taken a very unfortunate turn towards sweetness 'n light.

Would a gratuitous "Go F#ck Yourself" help?

Thank you. All that cheeriness was getting to me.

Any time - you only have to ask.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

'The worst US president'
A Norwegian professor .....

I stopped at that point and made some guesses at how he'd rank best and worst.

Absolutely no surprises at all.

It's a liberal conspiracy. Let's strat the war aginst liberalism.

[Lucky... 0]

A federal budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration


Lawrocket: Factually fucking untrue.


Sorry, factually true. Your hate for the clinton's can't revise history.

Do I need to post the dat from Whitehouse.gov, or is that a liberal conspiracy? He left 236M in 2000 according to the data.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do I need to post the dat from Whitehouse.gov, or is that a liberal conspiracy? He left 236M in 2000 according to the data.

You've already been corrected on this. Was it somehow not clear enough?

You can choose to hide behind the cash flow within Social Security, but probably would need to stop bitching about the other misleading propaganda out there you don't agree with.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Do I need to post the dat from Whitehouse.gov, or is that a liberal conspiracy? He left 236M in 2000 according to the data.

You've already been corrected on this. Was it somehow not clear enough?

You can choose to hide behind the cash flow within Social Security, but probably would need to stop bitching about the other misleading propaganda out there you don't agree with.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You've already been corrected on this. Was it somehow not clear enough?

I'VE been corrected? It isn't my data, in order for someone to successfully and intelligently correct someone, they must find other data or reliable, objective information saying that that data is skewed by someone twisting SS funds into that, and most imprortantly how much was supposedly transfered, borrowed, etc. Others, like lawyers with rockets, want you to think indebt is indebt and in the black is in the black. I bet those same lawyers with rockets say while in court, as times when it's convenient, that there are shades of balc and white and that most things are grey. I've been dealing with sveral lawyers lately, had a depo on Tuesday, lawyers, in general, are full of shit, so don't take them so seriously. Also, the lawyer I dealt with didn't know what a file was in regard to shaping wood or metal, so they might get a 160 on their LSAT, but many can't wipe their asses w/o instructions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can choose to hide behind the cash flow within Social Security, but probably would need to stop bitching about the other misleading propaganda out there you don't agree with.

You need to successfully deliver some RELIABLE AND OBJECTIVE data information that the SS funds were used to deceive the data. You mere implication is meaningless, your reference to others "corrected" information to me as meaningless.

So here ya go, don't find data, turn this issue into correction or Clinton hating.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You've already been corrected on this. Was it somehow not clear enough?

I'VE been corrected? It isn't my data, in order for someone to successfully and intelligently correct someone, they must find other data or reliable, objective information saying that that data is skewed by someone twisting SS funds into that, and most imprortantly how much was supposedly transfered, borrowed, etc.

This is actually the lawyerly tactic - make the obvious seem really complicated. The White House has used this tactic since the time of Reagan (who brilliantly redefined a lot of metrics to look better - see unemployment rates) to reduce the apparent size of the deficit. It is the reason I strongly oppose any 'solution' to the SS mess that consists merely of raising the current FICA taxes - the end result is the WH and Congress have more money to spend while still pretending it's not deficit spending.

The conversation with you went like this:
Clinton had a $236B surplus in 2000.
No he didn't; the debt increased that year.
Beats me how that happened.
Duh, it was social security.

And yet you're still sticking to your talking points. Which is stupid, since even a tiny deficit looks damn good compared to the runaway red ink that Shrub is producing. There's no need to distort reality.

[mnealtx 0]

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 *Baseline, FY 1992 (Bush)*
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 FY 1993
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 FY 1994
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 FY 1995
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 FY 2000

Sorry, dude... no surplus.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The conversation with you went like this:
Clinton had a $236B surplus in 2000.
No he didn't; the debt increased that year.
Beats me how that happened.
Duh, it was social security.



Actually it was 236M, not B. Uh, duh, you're the one making assumptions it was SS, no one has posted data or refernec in here. I've posted net numbers, but other than that it's all about conjecture dressed as fact.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is actually the lawyerly tactic - make the obvious seem really complicated.

Not at all, I'm posting teh numbers and asking anyone who knows, not guessers like you, people who know and can just post with citations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And yet you're still sticking to your talking points. Which is stupid, since even a tiny deficit looks damn good compared to the runaway red ink that Shrub is producing. There's no need to distort reality.

I'm thinking what you're doing is stupid since you post nothing but guesses, I post data.

Here's my theory, we had a 236M surplus in 2000, but a 23M debt increase: it could be that money has to be earmarked to pay down teh debt and it was not. I can compare it to you having a 5k credit card balance, yet 20k in the bank. Your net cash worth is 15k, but you have left the debt outstanding. I'm thinking that is why the surplus and debt increase.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 *Baseline, FY 1992 (Bush)*
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 FY 1993
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 FY 1994
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 FY 1995
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 FY 2000

Sorry, dude... no surplus.

Genius, you really aren't smart enough to distinguish between a debt and a deficit, are you? You posted debt numbers, we were talking annual budget surpluses. We have been a debtor nation for at least 170 years, so no shit we have no debt surplus, the surplus in question is the annual deficit. At the end if 2000 we had a 236M ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS, and the debt grew 23M. I think that funds have to be allocated to pay down the debt, just a theory, and therfore we had a surplus and a debt increase. Thx for playing tho........

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Genius, you really aren't smart enough to distinguish between a debt and a deficit, are you?

I hereby recind my request to have this thread moved to BF.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually it was 236M, not B. Uh, duh, you're the one making assumptions it was SS, no one has posted data or refernec in here. I've posted net numbers, but other than that it's all about conjecture dressed as fact.

No, it was not millions, you misread the chart. And somehow didn't notice the chart shows a national debt of only 6 Billion, rather than trillion.

The current positive surplus run by Social Security is not conjecture. If you're not going to acknowledge that, you shouldn't talk to others about being too dumb to know the difference between deficit and debt.

The simple accountant will tell you that if your debt increased over a year, it is because you spent more than you earned. Aka, a deficit.

In the next decade, as the Boomers have just started collecting SS this year, the outflows will catch up to inflows. In the 20s, it will run negative, and draw on the IOUs DC gave itself.

[Lucky... 0]

Before we get started, you need to illustrate which chart, as, THE CHART is highly ambiguous.


>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it was not millions, you misread the chart.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

Page 25 and 26 of 322. Top of chart, let me cut-n-paste:

THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006, HISTORICAL TABLES

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS(–): 1789–2010
(in millions of dollars)


So that means the 236M I advertised was in reality a 236B surplus in 2000.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And somehow didn't notice the chart shows a national debt of only 6 Billion, rather than trillion.


The chart? I'm guessing the debt chart on page 122 and 123 of 322. Uh, what year shows 6 B rather than 6T? Dude, ya gotta be explicit, not, the chart, not, the graph; I need page #'s and graph ID's.

In 1992, the page 122 graph shows a debt of 4,001,787 in millions, meaning 4 Trillion $. In 2000 it was 5,628,700 in millions, meaning 5.6T. Now it is ~ 9.3T, so I'm not sure of the point you're making.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The current positive surplus run by Social Security is not conjecture. If you're not going to acknowledge that, you shouldn't talk to others about being too dumb to know the difference between deficit and debt.

The difference between me and the dumb folks is that I exhibit objective data rather than what my diddy said. Are they running a positive? I hear they are, just haven't seen the data. Furthermore, how much and how is it figured into the current deficit and debt data? To simply claim there is a SS surplus and *I THINK* it figures into the debt / deficit is well, TUPID. (S intentionally left off).


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The simple accountant will tell you that if your debt increased over a year, it is because you spent more than you earned. Aka, a deficit.

Or, if you chose to keep money loose and not pay your debt, you could have a debt and a surplus, the net would be the difference. Altho we can analogize a person's personal finances to the govs, let's be real, the gov budget is farrrrrrrrrrrrrr more complex. Until we know, we just guess, but what we know is that CLinton left a 236B annaul surplus and had a 23M debt increase in 2000 - can you argue that?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In the next decade, as the Boomers have just started collecting SS this year, the outflows will catch up to inflows. In the 20s, it will run negative, and draw on the IOUs DC gave itself.

And perhaps that's true, so tell me how that figures into the issue of how the alleged SS surplus factors into the debt and deficit numbers. Not saying it doesn't, pls find data showing how it does. Firthermore, show how it skews the debt / deficit numbers of CLinton and doesn't do teh exact same thing with other presidents.

[lawrocket 3]

You posted the figures earlier and I did, too. "Off-budget spending" had the deficit, which is SS. I posted it right there.

Clinton's party did not balance the budget. And YOUR party, elected in 1994 to control of Congress, did not balance the budget, either.

YOUR PARTY, with th ecomplicity of Clinton, borrowed money "off-budget." This amount of "off-budget" money can be figured out by how much debt increased.

See, Enron did shit like that (you know, YOUR hero, Ken Lay, is no hero of mine). YOUR man Lay, and Gary Winnick, kept the huge debts "off-budget" by stickign them into subsidiaries. Thus, Enron made money but didn't lose any - it was those subsidiaries that lost money, and there's no worry abot declaring that. It's technically off-budget.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

How about I quote YOU and your admissions on the subject. You've got a short and highly selective memory.

"Those numbers, stand alone, impeach your assertion. Now, if we establish that Reagan inherited a recession, but a very slight deficit, passed 250B deficit to GHW Bush, the same passed the same 250B deficit to Clinton, then Clinton passed a $23M deficit to GW Bush, which is .01% of what he inherited, then GW Bush turned it into >$1/2 trillion deficit averaging the 7 years.

So our community lawyer wants us to believe, '6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other.' What I extrapolate from that is, especially when we consider the Repub congress for most of GW Bush's term, that the Dems in Congress slowed the spending of Reagan and GWH Bush. When we have a Repub WH and congress we see the result, 1/2T+ per year over 7 years = purely pathetic.

Borrowing a little does not = borrowing a ton, especially when you consider the little borrower inherited a huge habit of borrowing and virtually broke it even."

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3097342#3097342


And

Quote

Inheriting 250B, leaving 23M = inheriting 23M, leaving 500B+

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3099708#3099708


Of course, your real admissions were in the thread sent to the dumpster. Are you saying now that you didn't say what you said in those quotes wher eyou fully acknowledge that the budget was never balanced? That debt increased?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 *Baseline, FY 1992 (Bush)*
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 FY 1993
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 FY 1994
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 FY 1995
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 FY 2000

Sorry, dude... no surplus.

Genius, you really aren't smart enough to distinguish between a debt and a deficit, are you? You posted debt numbers, we were talking annual budget surpluses. We have been a debtor nation for at least 170 years, so no shit we have no debt surplus, the surplus in question is the annual deficit. At the end if 2000 we had a 236M ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS, and the debt grew 23M. I think that funds have to be allocated to pay down the debt, just a theory, and therfore we had a surplus and a debt increase. Thx for playing tho........

Well, *GENIUS*, any surplus would have reduced the debt...you *ARE* smart enough to figure that out, aren't you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,147]

Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget?

More

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.