Lucky...

Ditto.. >>>>>>>>>>>It's not a productive line of discussion. Think of who you are conversing with..... you will understand why.

AS a top rate taxpayer, I think I'm needed to help pay the bill China will eventually tire of paying it. No you are not. The amount you are taxed is like a drop of water in the ocean. Do not make the mistake of overstating your own importance. I bet tax bill is much higher than yours.

While your crying over those expenses, I'm just alittle concern about those entitlements that are running about 70% of the current U.S. budget. Need to look at some tough ideas to rain in the Social Security, Medicare, Medicad. Crying over a few 100 Billion per year, how trivial. I don;t think it's 70%, but whatever it is, I be if we obtained data from other industrialized nations and compared the social spending RATE, we would find the US is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than them, as well as the tax rate. Yet the R's continue to cry about our very low tax rate.

AS a top rate taxpayer, I think I'm needed to help pay the bill China will eventually tire of paying it. Maybe China will use our military to fight their enemy...... Oh wait, that's us . China will direct our military that they in part pay for to attack the US.

Feel freeto continue to vote for Nazis and then blame the Dems..... I know u will

Yes it does. However, that's where the similarity ends. Otherwise, you are comparing vastly different events. One is endorsed and sanctioned by the populous from which it originates, the other is condemned by the populous from which it originates. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which. Overall, your poll is a really lousy way to counter John Rich's poll -- doesn't even qualify for a "nice try". Yea, there were US troops executed at the end of WWII weren't there, a far more worthy and noble war, so these scum asses are not a representation of the great US troops over there. The scum for this war lies in the political end and the pathetic idiots lie within the voters who voted in King George.

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.

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........

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Why not just say that you're a lock-stepped Republican?

Wow, she's one of US!!!!!!! Well, except for being a lying piece of shit who the world would be better off without, that is. Walt Yea, the Clinton years were bad ones, we actually had a 236M surplus the last year and brought the 250B annual deficit down to 23M....... horrible times

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Using your figures, under Clinton, in 8 years, the debt increased 1.5 trillion, or 187.5 billion per year, on average. Under reagan, bush and bush, over 19 years the debt increased 6.8 trillion, or 357.9 billion per year. Now how does that impeach my assertion that under Clinton we always borrowed, and under Reagan/Bush we always borrowed more? It does not impeach it. You data supports it. I wrote that under clinton, we borroed, too. Under Republican presidents we borrowed more. Bad - to borrow. Worse - to borrow and borrow. When you inherit a trainwreck, you have to be given time to fix it. That is logical that if you inherit a mess that that mess isn't your fault. It could be easily reasoned that if he inherited a minor deficit that he would have paid down the debt quite a bit. Here's a chart to describe what I mean: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm Please, comment on the graph. Furthermore, Clinton left a whole lot better than he inherited and Bush insisted on giving it back in the form of a stimulus..... we see the result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, I am positing that we have -6 of 1 (Dem presidency), and -12 of the other (GOP Presidency). Right, you're saying that: Inheriting 250B, leaving 23M = inheriting 23M, leaving 500B+ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly what I believe. And, that the Republican Congress slowed the Spending of the Clinton Presidency. (of course, it can be argued that CLinton slowed the spending of a republican congress and that Reagan/Bush slowed the spending of a Democratic Congress. After all, Presidents DO have veto power.) HUH? Clinton left the deficit at least 250B more in the black than did any of the Repubs since Reagan. Don't you get it, the net result is what you started with versus what you left and he inherited 250B / yr, left 23M. The real indicator is net change, so it could be argued that GHW Bush didn't chaneg either way, just perpetuated the Regan BS. IOW's, did you leave it worse, same or better than when you got it. Clinton left it far better than when he got it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, shit. And look what happened when Clinton had a democratic Congress. It was going so badly that Republicans were voted in in Nov. 1994. So you're gonna try to influx logic into the popularity that is the presidential and congressional election? IN that case, why was Bush allegedly reelected? In his first term he fucked things up about as much as a person could, then he was reelected. That pretty much blows your theory of fuck up and have your counterparts brought up to fix things. I think people are afraid to have Dems accross the board, but that may change in a year. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, tell me how borrowing enough money to buy Microsoft every two years is borrowing "a little." It isn't. And you can spin it all you want but it was "borrowing" and it was borrowing "a lot." It simply was not borrowing enough to buy Microsoft every year, as has been the average under Republican presidents. You missed the boat. I wrote that borrowing a little, as with Clinton's recovery of teh deficit, doesn't not = borrowing a lot, as with any/all of the 3 stooges. BTW, Clinton inherited a system of borrowing a ton, left a system of bowing little, so the borrowing wasn't his, he just had it fix it which he did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought Clinton came in to change things. And virtually broke it even? $180 billion per year ain't exactly virtually breaking it even. HUH, what the fuck are you taking about? He inherited 250B per year, left 23 M. Here's a site that will make it clear: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf Page 25 and 26 of 322 shows the annual deficit structure. Actually, at the end of 1992 Bush left 290B, not 250B as I formerly stated. In 1993 the deficit was 255. In fact, it went down every year until the end of clinton's term when he actually left an annual deficit surplus: 1992 –290,334 1993 –255,085 1994 –203,228 1995 –163,991 1996 –107,473 1997 –21,935 1998 69,200 1999 125,541 2000 236,151 Why the federal debt still had a 23M incline in 2000 while Clinton left a budget surplus I don't know. Is it possible that payment on the debt interest was not figured in? Page 122 and 123 of 322 shows a history of the debt at end of year. Why Clinton left a budget surplus of 236M and there was still a 23M increase in debt is unclear. Either way, looka t either chart and we started healing a LOT under Clinton. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You either have a surplus, break even or have a deficit. For the past 75 years, deficit has been the rule. I really, really, really wouldn't want you as my attorney. This balck / white, all or nothing mentality doesn't fare well with critical thinking. Clinton actually left 236M surplus while the debt grew 23M in 2000, figure out why. Furthermore, the debt shrunk during a few periods well less than the 75 years you cited. 1946 to 1951 dipped back and forth a bit 1955 to 1959 dippd back and forth a bit Fell in 1969 Bleeding and bleeding to death are far different. There are shades of slamming the debt and YOUR party is really good at it. Sorry for posting graphical data from objective source, I now it really is hated by conservatives.

Ahhhhhhhhh, yet again your model sucks. The WH and Congress have been Repub owned for most of the 7 years. Hell, the SCOYUS has been 7-2 R owned for most of the last 27 years. So you are right, but it doesn't help you that you are since it was YOUR party that drafted the spending bills and YOUR president that rubber stamped it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the problem is that we can't get CONGRESS to quit spending money they don't have. I think there is hope for you afterall. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, andwhat are they spending money on? Ohhhhhhhhhh, that's riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it's the military soending. We spend >500B / yr PLUS the war hobby. Hell, how is it that Canada and most of Europe have all their social programs with a limited military budget, YET THEIR CURRENCY IS KICKING OUR ASS? Once again, your model sucks and has a poor outcome. You have started the learning process, Congress spends too much ON THE FUCKING MILITARY AND THE WAR.

They've got the Swedish Bikini Team. Come on, man. Hard to argue with that POint stands, we look for trouble, we found it on 9/11, apparently we haven't learned. In fact, didn't Sweeden just join NATO or some world organization for the first time ever to vote against us?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gotta love people who want to tax down businesses and the rich, then complain that business aren't paying enough to workers or moving overseas, then complain that the economy is down. It might sound great on the chalkboard to cut taxes for businesses, hope they will invest the money into buinesses and then watch the economy grow. However, whenever we subscribe to that practice we end up with disaster and your very example is a great example of my point. As for moving business overseas, that has everything to do with relieving the taxes of business and not placing more tarriffs on imported goods. If we taxed goods comming in, however manufactured, it would make them cot more, hence our domestic goods a better buy for domestic citizens. So tax relief is what leads to moving industry overseas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The whole 'goose and golden egg" thing is beyond their comprehension, evidently. With any scientific hypothesis, you design a test to evaluate 1 element / attribute, this is called the independent variable. Then you observe and run his test over and over again. Well, we have and your model leads to disaster. Take your 1920's model you talk about, it lead to the Great Depression, and when your party got us into that, the answer was 4 years of Hoover doing the same that you talk about and thousands starved in the streets; I guess they weren't personally responsible, right Neal? FDR came in and tried my model and we had great prosperity and it pulled us out of the GD. So what, 8 years of Republican presidency immediately preceeded the GD, 4 years during sucked worse and 6 terms of Dems brought us thru WWII and out of the GD. Neal, the imperical model just doesn't favor your chalkboard fantasy of cutting taxes to help the overall economy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." Detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes. Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 billion to $700 billion per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes). The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters. Information from the Cato Institute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Dems insistence on taxing down the country shows yet again that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. Exactly, we are doomed to repeat the GD, the very thing that was preceeded by 8 years of Republican tax cuts. And think about it, we had no or virtually no socil system then (before the GD) to bog down a recovery from Hoover using your philosophy. You'll deam up some BS to respond to this, but it inexcusable. If you want to cite a time in history to declare a recovery from debt, cite the Eisenhoer era. However he would be repulsed with your 3 neo-cons, just disgusted. When Clinton taxed the rich, the debt slowly eased and in 5 years turned the corner. He inherited a 250B/yr deficit and left a 23M deficit, virtually balanced. And he inherited 7% unemp and the tail end of a recession too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Want to see the deficit go away? Freeze spending for 2 years. Of course, that will never work because then the pols can't make their 'bread and circuses' promises in exchange for votes. We virtually match the world dollar for dollar with defense spending, if we simply cut the military spending in half, we would still be by 4 times the world's biggest military soender and we could balance teh budget. Of course we would have to stop teh Iraq war oo, which would break your heart. We don't have to do radical things like stopping all spending, we just have to cut your beloved military soending in half. Hell, Clinton just shaved it and lookat the recovery. Show me a time in history where the debt was lowred while we had a stable economy and were not an exclusive country. Merely having a period of limited success while other things are brewing on the horizon is to look at something as a microcosm. The entire picture and future need to be secure before it becomes a good example of a positive model.

Do you and Amazon attend the same grade school? Do you and Neal attend the same school of avoidance of data-based evidence? Perhaps Jesus has a reason for the Repugs fucking the US economy.

while we're blowing smoke. Liberal axiom: if we're nice to everyone else, they will return the favor. Peace will reign. Just like they did with Jesus. Fuck teh Jesus interjection, but other than that, I wonder why no one attacks Sweeden? HMMMmmmmmmmmmmm

The US has borrowed money to pay for things every year in the last 30 years. Republicans have merely borrowed more - especially over the last 6 years. OK, we'll take since Reagan and do a partisan accumulation. - Repub - Reagan, Bush, Bush = $6.8 trillion increase - Dem - Clinton = $1.5 trillion increase 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.

Ah, ok... so basically, all the stuff the Dems do now, then? Right, except that ours are founded. If you were allergic to addessing data that are number-based, we could arrive at that conclusion..... oh, shocker, perhaps that's why you don't address them! DING, DING, DING Oh, please... *rolls eyes* Affirmed then, address the data or keep acquiescing.

One psych instructor lectured that some believe the brain has an internal tension where there is a drive to survive and a drive to commit suicide, and as long as these stay in check, equal force on each side, there will be normalcy, if one gains over the other then unusul behavior will be exhibited.

What the Repugs refuse to see is that under Clinton we had a great economy based on a great future, there was a projection of paying down/off the debt. We had positive results while killing the 12 years of 250B/yr deficit. Under the 3 Repugs, there is nothing positive about the future in that we have created unprecedented debt that will never be paid off. It has caused the US dollar to fall to great depths. Anyone can come in and spend money from the next century and pretend things are fine, but to come in and balance things and also have prospoerity is difficult and Clinton did it.