Lucky...

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.

I think bettors from other countries will want the exchange rate for fear of only winning half....

See attached - from the 2000 budget, which is the first that shows actual numbers for 98 rather than projections. Funny you should say that... GW inherited a recession from Clinton...and we all know those take years to turn around, too... not that the current spending spree is showing any sign of slowing down. One thing that I will consider him a great President for will be if he can get line-item veto passed through Congress. On budget deficit and then on budget surplus.... wonder what each mean and if the net value is the actual deficit/surplus? That graph is broken down and inconclusive over the actual net deficit/surplus, so here's one that illustrates the debt and the annual deficit/surplus: http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/ 98 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. How about this graph: http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm Nice try with the narrow statistic, but as you know says, "I feel your pain" in response to you trying to mitigate Clinton's fiscal success and Bush's failure.....

Agree. Or the reaction to go and teardown a country rather than spend all that money securing our borders; the agenda is really about Old Testament retribution.

Was this hijack really necessary? Seems all the more tacky given the subject. Start another thread to shovel this stuff out. -- I can't think of a worse situation than to know you're dead, but have to wait an hour or two for it to happen. The videos of the jumpers had a major effect on me. I had been to the WTC several times. I had eaten at Windows on the World three times. A good friend's father lives near the WTC site. My friend was supposed to be visiting his father when the attack happened. He wasn't, but I didn't find this out until days later. I thought he died there. I started contributing to the Democratic party. Local, State, and Federal. Before 9/11/2001 I had some interest in politics, mostly how it affected me and mine. Now I follow with great interest the working of government on a much more macro scale. I write to my congresspeople and the Senators from my state. I show up at anti-war protests. I contribute to local fund that supplies body armor, long distance phone cards and toiletries to the troops in Iraq. When a local kid came back from being blown up by an IED I contributed money towards the construction of the wheelchair ramp and the widening of the doors at his parents house. They had too many volunteers, so I was unable to help with the actual construction. 9/11/2001 got me out of my complacency and made me realize that we, the people, need to hold our leaders accountable for their actions, and more importantly, their inaction, when it comes to our security. Making actual contributions to society is part of our responsibility as productive citizens. When the USA went after OBL and forced the Taliban out of power, I was totally in favor of it, all the way. When ShrubCo decided to blow off capturing OBL and invade Iraq, I started getting pissed. Now that the Taliban is back in power over a fair portion of the country and Iraq is in the midst of civil war, I am outraged. Shrubco fucked up beyond belief and my great grandchildren will be paying for his mistakes. No thread hijack at all. It is a thinking person's reaction to LIVE footage of jumpers from the WTC and those that let it happen. Part of the subject of the thread, as far as I am concerned. YMMV. Agreed. The terrorist attack of 9/11 is a viable part of the jumpers - no hijack. To me, these actions you've done demonstrate patriotism, not just falling behind some leader and riding it into the bottom of the ocean.

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". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. I'll not dispute that - I was speaking solely to the "surplus" that keeps getting trotted out. Show us where any of Clinton's surplus numbers were skewed. Basically, establish that Clinton never had a surplus for any of his latter years (99,2000,2001).

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.

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". No matter what accounting tricks you pull, the FACT is that the debt rose far more slowly under Clinton than under Reagan or either of the Bushes. The last three Republican presidents have redefined fiscal irresponsibility. Right, but he's talking annual budget surplus/deficit rather than the national debt. Although there is obviously a correlation. 80%+ of the debt belongs to the Repubs......

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". Show me where. Besides, 1998 may not have shown a surplus. 99, 2000 and 2001 were the years that may have started to show. I will research which years started showing a surplus, but I don't think 1998 showed one yet. Remember, Clinton inherited a deficit and it took years to turn it around.

I am 60 and I can run a 7 minute mile too. That and $2.00 will get me a cup of coffee. Why is it so impressive? Yea, but do you have X million $ worth of secret service men running around you? I am physically fit too - work out 3+ times per week, but I just can't see how physical fitness helps a guy run a country.... guess it's down to that. You're a teacher, right. Ever administer a test and have people so lost as to what to write they either use the shotgum approach and write everything under the sun, or just look for peripheral things that are unimportant? Well, this is more of that.

Perjury is impeachment worthy, for the record, the topic of perjury being irrelevant. It's OK. You can say the 'p' word. It won't hurt you. If you've proof that GWB lied about WMD, then by all means, please present it. Congress, by the way, including the Intelligence Committee's most absent member Monsieur sKerry never bothered to review the intelligence presented to them, with very few exceptions. I suppose they just didn't care, eh? If you don't think that a strong marriage is something to be admired, then I find your position most odd. What the hell does a thug like Barkley have to do with GWB as far as being a role model goes? This analogy is ludicrous and without meaning. Cut by not increasing? WTF are you talking about? Active duty people injured in the war are NOT funded under the VA. Get your facts straight. And what's this 'his war' crock of shit. CONGRESS VOTED TO FUND IT. Oh yeah? Which appropriation this year was less than last year? Name it. Name the program. While you're at it, please tell us how GWB spent funds from the Treasury without Congress appropriating the money. CONGRESS APPROPRIATES $$$. All the executive branch does is apportion the appropriated money within the bounds and guidelines set by the appropriation. You've got a problem with education funding? Take it up with the legislature. WTF? GWB's new prescription drug plan is going to accelerate the nation's bankruptcy! Dear God man! Watch the news sometime! And this says...what...that GWB respected the judicial process put in place by the legislature of the state of TX? You have proof of their innocence? Why didn't you go public with it? You haven't gone anywhere yet. Please take that first step. I'd love to get into the Katrina response. The response was abysmal. The FEDERAL government had to come and do the entire thing. The state and local governments failed miserably. The FEDERAL response by FEMA was a goat-fuck. The Feds unscrewed things, got the fuck criticized out of them, and saved the asses of many NawLeans folks. Where's the criticism of the state and local governents? Are you saying Gov. Blanco doesn't care about people? That would be Gov. Blanco (D-LA). I don't think that to be the case at all. I totally agree with everything there, except that I responded haughtily. If I did that, you would have posted my assertions and illustrated how I did that. See, it’s quite sad that your arguments stem around the people making the arguments rather than substance; could it be that you have no argument or substance behind them? Don’t care, just the facts, sir. Look at the volume I’ve responded with. I responded quickly and comprehensively, but you feel you must turn this into ‘you versus me.’ Just the facts, sir. Enough of the Ireland reference please, it’s like watching a Brady Bunch rerun. Yes, which is why I think Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress about the intelligence for the war. Remember, omission of facts is lying by omission. They weren’t presented with ALL of the intelligence Bush have privy to. Ken Mehlman stated this on Meet the Press by saying: - Congress had access to the exact same intelligence….. - Congress had access to the exact same intelligence….. Russert asked about the Washington Post independent investigation and then Mehlman replied: - Congress had access to basically the same evidence….. So Bush cherry-picked the intelligence to get support for the war, then when the truth cam in, he turned and said Congress backed him. If we had an investigator like Ken Starr, there would be an impeachment. OK, so you think my position is odd? What does that mean? There have been presidents that were single while in office, are they less strong due to that? A marriage has zero to do with presidential service to country. The point was made that being a married president delivers a great model, so with that, Barkley had a controversy that he wasn’t a role model - I drew the analogy and…… let me see….. Uh, I don’t care that you don’t like it. As for role models, if we must get semantic, having a drunk driver for a president is a fantastic role model. So Congress voted to fund it…. Let me see, what's the composition of Congress???? As for Vet funding, this is what I wrote: Uh, ok. He has cut virtually every veterans program by not increasing it at teh rate it takes to maintain the current vets and account for the newly injured die to his war Maybe you’re unaware of what a veteran is. A veteran is a military person that has already been discharged by the military. BTW, should have read *due to his war* not that it changes the meaning. So with that, When military people get injured, they are treated and released back to duty, rest, or discharged. They eventually have to be returned to duty or discharged. My point was that he isn’t increasing the funding at the rate of expenditure, hence a reduction. I can post several Vet groups who deplore Bush for his actions that have hurt them. Congress acts based upon what they know the president will sign or veto, especially when we have a Congress packed with Repubs., so the pres does have a lot to do with how Congress acts. Furthermore, the pres writes his budget plans, which need Congressional approval. See, Jackass, that’s why I’m here; to help ya out. The website isn’t actually objective, as it is the Whitehouse website, so it’s in your favor with lots of flowery discussion about the pres caring about people and such. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/education.html 2005 2006 2007 Total, Outlays 72,945 83,984 64,484 The 2007 Budget builds on this success by proposing to terminate an additional 42 programs, including many that the PART has shown to be ineffective or unable to demonstrate results. These terminations will save $3.5 billion, most of which will be redirected toward priority programs such as Title I, High School Reform, School Choice, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and programs that make up the Administration’s Competitiveness Initiative. Here’s a far better set of tables: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html So, his agenda is to cut: Agriculture Commerce Education Health and Human Services Housing and Urban Development Interior Justice Labor Transportation Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Executive Office of the President I think we see his agenda here. Anything else I can help you with? Not necessarily, just more of the shifting of the country to corporations. Nope, can’t prove it, must not have happened. It’s just that several have been fully exonerated from deathrow when investigated. For the first time ever the US Sup Ct reviewed a posthumous execution and it was upheld. That’s 1 review in the 1,000 executions since the reinstatement in 1976. They basically cherry-picked that one. Once again, I’m here for ya: http://www.texasmoratorium.org/article.php?sid=1024&PHPSESSID=649893906ef20672708a093a0def25a7 Men convicted of rape, murder have records wiped clean after collective 27 years in prison By Jason Embry AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Friday, December 23, 2005 Gov. Rick Perry granted pardons Thursday to two men who were shown to be innocent by DNA testing. Keith Edward Turner had been convicted of rape in 1983 in Dallas County, and Entre Nax Karage was convicted of murder in 1997 in Dallas County. Turner has been on parole; Karage was released from prison last year by a Dallas County trial court. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had unanimously recommended the pardons. "I believe that a full pardon for innocence must be supported by strong evidence, such as forensic DNA tests," Perry said. "In both of these cases, new DNA evidence proves these men are innocent. The recommendations of the district attorney, judges, the Dallas County sheriff, the Dallas chief of police and the Board of Pardons and Paroles also were important factors in my decision." Turner and Karage received pardons of innocence, which means the convictions are wiped off their records completely. Turner, 44, served 20 years in prison. Perry's office said DNA testing was not used at his trial because it was not approved for admission into evidence at the time. Karage, 36, received a life sentence and was in prison from 1997 to 2004. After DNA testing, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the new evidence cast doubt on his conviction. Maddy deLone of the Innocence Project, which represents convicts seeking DNA tests, said Thursday's pardons brought the number of post-conviction DNA exonerations in Texas to 19 and the national number to 170. "In our experience, it's harder to get DNA testing in Texas than in almost any other state in the country with a DNA testing law," deLone said. "While it's a well-written law in Texas, many prosecutors fight hard and litigate aggressively, and as a result, little testing happens." Keith Hampton, a lobbyist for the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, said Texas law should be changed to make it more difficult for prosecutors to ask appeals courts to stop a judge from ordering a DNA test. Appeals courts usually side with prosecutors, he said. "A judge right now does not have discretion to just order a DNA test in the interest of justice, and a judge ought to be able to do that," Hampton said. Perry on Thursday also announced the pardons of 12 people as recommended by the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Those people will not have their convictions completely wiped from their records. Instead, their records will reflect that they were convicted and pardoned for the crimes. That list included Paul Norman Wood, a 28-year-old Copperas Cove resident who was convicted of driving while intoxicated when he was 18. Wood paid a $500 fine and served one year of probation. Perry spokeswoman Rachael Novier would not discuss the specific reasons for Wood's pardon. Referring to the 12, Novier said, "The individuals for pardon were for the most part very young when they committed their offenses and have not had subsequent offenses." Here’s a Texas case that clearly establishes a wrongful DP case. Although Bush wasn’t gov then, he’s signed plenty of death warrants while investigating a couple. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html The prosecutor, jurors and even a victim have denounced this execution. You haven't gone anywhere yet. Please take that first step. Ahhh, you’re tho thpecial. Did you happen to see the video bite where Bush said he was fully ready, and that was before the hurricane hit? The mayor and the gov are scum, but that doesn’t absolve Bush for not handling this on the federal level. You can continue to misdirect all you want, but at the end of the day you have to address Bush’s inaction.

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!!!

3. Never vetoed a bill. I didn't realize that was true. Guess if ya have the entire country stacked with your buds, you have no infighting.

Great reference. I had the Bushism calendar and read that - couldn't believe it was true until Farenheit 9/11 showed the clip at the end. Oh yea, made Michale Moore a multi millionaire. http://www.dubyaspeak.com/mp3/foolmeonce.mp3 Nice, thx!!! Wish I had teh vid to go with that.

The problem is that in a free-market economy, the government has little or no control over the economy. But yet when times are good, (e.g. 1995-2000), the current administration will claim credit were none was deserved. The problem is that this is a double-edged sword; When times are bad, (e.g. 2000-2004), the people will blame the current administration, even though it wasn't their fault. BTW I'm not supporting Dubya; I think he's a moron. Right to a degree. Officials can tweek spending based upon factors such as GNP and taxes, so to say it's a crap-shoot undermines the reach of Congress and the pres.

Fixed it. Take a look at his latest budget proposal to see how he cares about needy people. I really have to take a hard look at myself to figure out WHY I read your posts Thanks for stopping by with your empirical evidence, have a nice day.

Clinton's attempts at SS were shot down, and the GOP majority in Congress during the latter term did very little on that end. Bush dramatically increased the cost over the next 15-20 years with his poorly formed drug plan policy, btw. Trillions more than was already there. Right, privatized medicine (pills) and outlawed seniors from going to Canada to get their meds..... essentially monopolized it and then jacked up the rate.

Then explain how they did it in the 90's. Was it pure luck? Hey, obviously the repubs own the country, so how is it that they have fiscally run it into the ground and it's teh Dems fault, yet in the last 8 years of Dems we left em a large surplus? You still have failed to address that.

It all links to the GNP. If this country were doing well in the global market, say in the 90's, then we can have more discretionary spending. We aren't doing as wellnow, so we must end that, esp with the military. Increase the GNP via better, cheaper products. If we need to pass legislation reducing the amount of $ CEO's may earn, then great. We need to start to manufatcure goods and become more competitive in the global market, but we must establish tarriffs for imported goods. Don't worry, interest on Bush's national debt will dwarf that, then US currency will become as desireable as confed cash and it won't matter.

You said (wrote) that.

It's definately irrefutable due to you not giving us any substantive data to refute! Come on - post it! Who cares about cliche, slander, etc., let's get to substance. You have to fight the fact that Clinton was the first pres in 40 years to leave office with a surplus. Great, and I like Charlie's Angels reruns, please post OBJECTIVE (gov sources) data.

OK, and you'll have to wait until we see the decisions they render and how they impact the general population before you can add them, so they are hereby ripped off the list.

Please, it was your assertion that there was a recession, please quickly define a recession and then illustrate how the economy applied to that definition. It may have positive elements in it, but with all of the snags it chews away at Constitutional protections, even Bush's US Sup Ct agreed with that. If it has 2 positive provions and 10 detrimental, is it a fair tradeoff? Fatherhood has nothing to do with it, other than not wanting your kids to grow up in a country w/o a Constitution. Entitlement spending. I like the spin that term carries, it's as if these WWII and VIet Nam vets are just grubbing around, what free-loaders. Or the tax cuts to the rich, or the 300B+ for the war, or the gross military spending, or the zero tarrif imports, ...... I would like to see social spending increase. How is it that Clinton was able to carry large social spending, yet still carry a surplus? Oh, I know, he adjusted the taxes based upon GNP and spending. The irony is that businesses made more money under an economy like that than they did under Bush.

Incredible isn't it. And the only "legitimate" answer that has been brought forward the most so far is the do not call legislation. So, he has bankrupted the country (which he seems to do with most economic entities he is associated with) and the bets he has to show for it is a reduction in telemarketing calls.... I know! As much as I appreciate the Bush supporters for responding, usually they don't in whatever board I'm in with these topics, the resounding message has been the telemarketer thing. Geez, there are homeless people, millions of people w/o healthcare, etc and telephone is our central focus?

By contemporary example, how is it that the Repubs have done better than the Dems have done/would do? Really? What has he done that makes him not a disaster. Base this on previous few presidents. Other things like what? Stem cell? Arsenic? Medicare/Medicaide? etc.... Please establish what indicators define a recession and then illustrate which Clinton #'s support that. Then, describe which Bush policies led us out of the alleged Clinton recession. That is irrelevant when the country is wasting away. But you are probably right that that is one of best. Another world organization we've pissed off. I don't know volumes of this treaty, but feel free to explain how this is a good thing and explain why/what. Not a bad thing, but how about our Aids patients and homeless? And you deficits / national debts at record highs? If we can cut taxes because we have such an enormous GNP and the gov has a surplus, great, I'm there with ya, but when we have to keep borrowing more $$, sinking the value of the buck it is clearly a disastrous move. And no tariffs for US corps exporting jobs? OK, they are still out there, so what is the net accomplishment? What, in lives and billions, was/is the cost? And you establish the ecological cost how? Your exhaustive research is done where? please post reference. To say these things off the cuff w/o any knowledge can be dangerous. Although it sounds great to stop this shit, there is usually a downside to great things and this is it: ________________________________________________________________ a) Authorizes wiretapping and monitoring of other communications in the all cases related to child abuse or kidnapping. b) Eliminates statutes of limitations for child abduction or child abuse. c) Bars pretrial release of persons charged with specified offenses against or involving children. d) Prohibits computer-generated child pornography e) Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad. f) For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, …__________________________________________________ Even Bush’s own US Supreme Court, and yes, it’s his court, disagrees with at least 1 provision in here: “The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Online Protection Act.” So I agree with some provisions in there, the likelihood that this law will be misused is great. If we simply gave the cops the right to kick doors down wherever we go, we would have little crime, but little liberty and security. There comes a point where the government is more dangerous than the criminals, hence, the government becomes the outlaw. Didn’t Benjamin Franklin say something about those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither? This, the patriot Act, RICO and the like were what he was referring to. I’ll go over each letter to explain why I think this is detrimental. a) More warrantless eavesdropping that will be abused. All the gov has to do is claim they were wiretapping a suspected pedophile and they are justified - no requirement to prove the probable cause. b) Slippery slope to having no statutes of limitations. SOL are here for the purpose of not allowing prosecutors to bring up charges 25 years from now when defense witnesses are dead or moved away. c) No bail? 8th requires bail. Rarely is it that pedophiles are a flight risk or a danger to victims/witnesses. d) Computer generated child porn? As repulsive as the idea sounds, there is no victim. I know, it’s supposedly a stepping stone. Again, there is no victim. e) So now they’re changing the jurisdictional boundaries to extend everywhere in the world? That is so whack that it’s incomprehensible. Let their jurisdiction take care of these creeps. f) So now the age of everything is moving to 18. The idea with sexual contact with minors laws has been graduated. The idea is that a person doesn’t become an adult overnight, so the laws protecting these people and the responsibilities afforded them are proportionately equal. This law throws a spin into it by making things 18 across the board, inferring that at 18, overnight these kids become adults….. Ridiculous. We can lynch everyone that steps out of line, but crime will continue at the same rate - deterrence hasn’t been established to change crime rates - we just become more heinous. I noticed you wrote about the cowards masquerading as men who abuse children. Sure they are, but if we allow them to create the standard in which we treat the other 98% of the good people of this country then they have own once again. I don’t care if the cops did kick doors in, there would still be crime, there is no way around it. __________ So do you think all the alleged good that Bush has supposedly done outweighs all the bad, especially the fiscal state of this government?