jcd11235

Now that was some funny shit! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So you earn more than most of us here do you? Damn, those minority contractors must be hitting you really hard... Shhhh … would you guys please stop trying to scare away my action? It's tough finding a game with such payout odds. While I'm pretty sure he's all woof and no bite, if he wants to put his money where his mouth is, let me give him the opportunity, will you? Hey Deere -- add spelling bee to that list of possible games. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There's another regular poster with similar views and spelling skills that's always absent when either of them are around. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That doesn't contradict anything I've claimed, Vinny. And let me repeat, since you seem to be quite fearful of actual numbers. The debt increased by a smaller amount than the holdings of the government increased. In 1999, the amount of the difference was $88.7 billion. In 2000 the amount of the difference was $222.5 billion. If you read your source, you would know know that the government is required by law to invest trust funds in government backed securities. That does not explain how cash holdings of the government increased by a greater amount than the debt. The only way that could occur, given proper accounting (which appears to be the case), is for there to have been a surplus. No Vinny, I never said it did. Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? Negative, sailor. The government borrowed money from itself in order to fulfill legislated requirements regarding investments of trust funds. The cash holdings of the government increased by a greater amount than these loans. Yes, Vinny, we did. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Roxio Toast Titanium 9, because I already have it and it does the trick (although that's a trick I haven't needed to do). I think I could also do it with a combination of Quicktime Pro and iDVD. I might not even need Quicktime. I haven't messed around with iDVD enough to know. Have you checked VersionTracker? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No more so than mine. That's common in many vocations, and race tends to be incidental. Once upon a time I ran a crew that could get more done in less time when the half of the crew that just took up space called in than when everyone showed up. Only one minority on the crew. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Annual income against annual income? Sounds promising. What's your game? Chess? Eight ball? Nine ball? 14.1? Hold 'Em tournament? Football picks? Let me know. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Like his deflection of the point about career employees having political views used as a criteria during the hiring process? Having asked that … Who's to say if there was preference for a minority, or if there was simply preference for a superior subcontractor that happened to be a minority. In my experience, the latter happens often, perhaps more often than the former (not referring strictly to sub-contractors). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Some would think. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I misunderstood the ramblings of your post. It appears you were correct about something that wasn't in dispute. I've never denied that fact, as you know if you've been paying attention. Wrong. The numbers do not support that assertion. If you performed some basic arithmetic, you would see that. (Yes, I realize tequila and arithmetic don't go well together.) Still, facts are facts, and sooner or later you'll have to face them. Or not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps some contractors consider spelling and writing abilities when considering bids? I'm not trying to be critical; I'm simply pointing out that often times communication skills, including written communications, are important considerations. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Let me spell it out for you, since you have apparently missed it every other time I've made the statement. Clinton's budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 were surpluses both on budget and off budget. They were not, as lawrocket originally claimed, total surpluses with on budget deficits covered by off budget surpluses. If you can find one post in this thread that provides evidence to the contrary then perhaps you might be justified claiming I've been "beat like a mule". Else, you should try a reading comprehension class (as well as a class or two on economics and interest theory). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Congratulations, Vinny. You have highlighted a valid reason for the government to increase debt despite having the cash to pay as they went. From page 16 of your linked source (emphasis mine): "By law, trust fund surpluses generally must be invested in federal securities." How do you propose that be done without increasing debt, Vinny? BTW, did you read page 17 of your source? It has to do with the amount of federal debt outstanding and average interest rate of that debt, both of which are relevant only to your straw man argument, not the discussion at hand. Why would I think I know more than he does? He said the same things I did. I am glad to see that we can all acknowledge that there was, in fact, a budget surplus (total in 1998-2001 and in each on budget & off budget in 1999-2000) in 1998-2001! I think you'll find that is what I have been claiming all along. Once again, I found that if I give you enough time, you'll seek out additional sources to corroborate my claim. You were half right, too, about the public debt. Of course, what should I expect from someone who posts (emphasis mine): A quick perusal of historical debt data collected by the government entity that tracks such things shows the public debt did not decrease at all during EJC's tenure - and certainly not under GWB or GHWB or the Great Ronald Reagan. Link to Post And then, in your very next post: The debt held by the public was decreased with the so-called surplus. Link to post Just covering all your bases, Vinny? Maybe the public debt increased, maybe it decreased, so you wanted to make both claims so you could be right? I didn't claim it did and have reiterated that fact already. Nice strawman, though. Right again. Six of eight years under Clinton saw on budget deficits which were covered by off budget surpluses in 1998 (and 2001 under Clinton's budget during Bush's first year). I have also acknowledged this all along. Read my posts, Vinny. I've maintained these very things all along. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No mistake. Just pointing out that highest funding != highest quality. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For the arithmetic challenged: receipts - outlays - new_debt + change_in_cash _in_gov't_accounts > 0 for fiscal years 1998 - 2001. Source That's some interesting logic you're using there, Vinny. Did the worm tell that to you? It's wrong. It is indeed possible to take on debt that one can afford to pay off immediately without using the funds received from taking that debt on. Yes, the budget surpluses were, in fact, surpluses, according the the Office of Management and budget, as well as the Congressional Budget Office. But I'm sure you know more than those actuaries, right Vinny? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Who said anything about having the best military? We have the most expensive military. All that money doesn't seem to help us win the unpopular/needless wars we start. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Which trick? The intellectually honest argument or recognizing the strawman? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If Congress deserves the credit instead of the POTUS, why is it they could not pass a balanced budget after Clinton left office? The Republicans had control of the legislative and the executive branches. There were no evil liberals to stop them from being fiscally responsible if they wanted to be. Yet, they chose to be fiscally irresponsible. Why? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the off budget sources of revenue were not raided. In 1998 and 2001, yes, on budget deficits were covered by off budget surpluses, but that was not true of 1999 or 2000. I think you'll find the sources I posted with this information to be quite credible, coming from the Office of Management and Budget. Well, they didn't raid the off budget items. However, they also borrowed cash that they didn't need to borrow. I'm not sure what the reasoning for that was. I could speculate, but that's all it would be. I will say that there are a few scenarios in which it is wise for an individual or a business to borrow money even when they have the equivalent cash on hand. It's not unreasonable to consider that the government faced such a situation. Note that I'm not saying that was what happened, just that there is no absolute rule that pay as you go is always better. Agreed. In fact, for two years it was so close to a balanced budget that it was a balanced budget. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Are you referring to "nation building" in Iraq again? Perhaps he meant the military in general. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nice strawman. I challenge you to find in this thread any post in which I claimed that the national debt decreased. You'd better work on that reading comprehension, Vinny. A nice GAO report on the FY 99 debt and its structure should infuriate everyone: Yes, he was correct about the debt not decreasing. That, however, is not the point in contention, which you would know had you read the relevant posts. During fiscal years 1999 and 2000, receipts for each on budget and off budget expenditures exceeded the outlays for each. That is the fact that lawrocket was unable to acknowledge. And yes, there was an execution surplus during those two years. The cash on hand by the federal government increased by an amount greater than the debt increased. That cannot happen unless the government takes in more revenue than it sends out in expenditures. Feel free to read the data from the Whitehouse's Office of Budget and Management to which I previously linked. It actually breaks the data down in the same manner in which it is being discussed here (i.e. on budget, off budget and total surplus/deficit). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can increase cash on han by taking my creit card to an ATM. Also, if I transfer money from my business to myself I also will show a surplus. My business may, in fact, still turn a profit or break even. You can't increase debt and have a surplus unless you borrowed money for the surplus. That's how raiding off-budget cash for on-buget receipts works. It was a "budget surplus." Just not a "surplus." Do you really lack the ability to read a simple spreadsheet? In 1999, there was an on-budget surplus and an off budget surplus. Cash on hand increased by more than the debt increased. You were just claiming to make intellectually honest arguments regarding the war in Iraq. Try making one regarding the economy under Clinton. The man kept outlays less than receipts on and off budget for 25% of his tenure, and total outlays under total receipts much longer. It's been a long time since we've had a president as fiscally responsible as he was. Some historical perspective: Before Clinton oversaw it, the last time the US has seen budget surpluses both on and off budget were 1956 and 1957. The last four years that on budget and off budget outlays combined were less than total receipts were 1956, 1957, 1960 and 1969. The last time the US has had four consecutive years of total budget surplus was 1927-1930. The last President to oversee four years of budget surplus from budgets he signed into office was Harry Truman. The last President to see three years of total budget surplus while in office was Dwight Eisenhower. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's funny how that has not been true under any of the last three Democrat Presidents. It seems clear that our best chance of fiscal responsibility at the federal level lies in having a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes they did, based on the faulty intelligence of Iraq posing an imminent threat. The fact of he matter is, the President had access to intelligence reports that the Congress did not. You always seem to forget to mention the last two bits of information, as important and relevant as they are. Really? That assertion would be incorrect according to the Office of Management and Budget. Perhaps you should check out Table 1.1(Link downloads Excel spreadsheet, attached in PDF format below). You may want to pay particularly close attention to fiscal years 1999 and 2000. While the federal debt did increase during 1999 and 2000, the cash held in federal accounts increased by greater amounts. (see Table 7.1 (Link downloads Excel spreadsheet, attached in PDF format below)) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'll say whatever I choose. My post was a direct comparison to another thread specifically for Nerdgirl. I have made my point, unfortunate if you do not get it. What point was that? That you have nothing constructive to offer? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!