On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:39:49 -0400, "RKON"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
>wreck the past week or so??
Yep, my ISP changed the news server, so I lost all those pol threads-
best thing that happened to me (as far as internet stuff goes) in a
while. Doing my best to stay the heck outta them now.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"J.B. Bobbitt" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Knock on wood.
>
> (Get it? Wood? ON TOPIC!)
>
> (I slay me).
>
> -jbb
Is it time for another safety discussion??? ;-)
Patriarch
Knock on wood.
(Get it? Wood? ON TOPIC!)
(I slay me).
-jbb
"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TrzKc.8716$%p4.1196@okepread04...
> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
> wreck the past week or so??
>
>
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:39:49 -0400, "RKON"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
>wreck the past week or so??
>
Yeah. Real woodworkers are genuine gentlemen. And don't ask me why,
they just are.
"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TrzKc.8716$%p4.1196@okepread04...
> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
> wreck the past week or so??
Even Genghis Khan stopped for a breather every now and then.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Yep, my ISP changed the news server, so I lost all those pol threads-
> best thing that happened to me (as far as internet stuff goes) in a
> while. Doing my best to stay the heck outta them now.
I added the words Bush and Kerry to my filter and I see very few political
comments.
Upscale responds:
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Yep, my ISP changed the news server, so I lost all those pol threads-
>> best thing that happened to me (as far as internet stuff goes) in a
>> while. Doing my best to stay the heck outta them now.
>
>I added the words Bush and Kerry to my filter and I see very few political
>comment
Uh, guys...the election is over, so most of the political commentary has died
down anyway.
Charlie Self
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of
nothing."
Redd Foxx
I just can't fathom why the ABB crowd thought it was aOK to inject
Bush-bashing crap into every forum in which they participated, regardless of
the focus. That got WAY tiresome.
I used to be a ticket-splitter but no more. If the radical left has no more
respect for people than that, I sure don't need them in my life...or in any
elected office that affects me.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:39:49 -0400, "RKON"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
the
> >wreck the past week or so??
>
>
> Yep, my ISP changed the news server, so I lost all those pol threads-
> best thing that happened to me (as far as internet stuff goes) in a
> while. Doing my best to stay the heck outta them now.
>
>
>
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
Swingman writes:
>"RKON" wrote in
>> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
>> wreck the past week or so??
>
> ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay the
bills the Republicans are running up.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:32:44 -0700, TeamCasa <[email protected]> wrote:
> You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
He didn't start bringing politics into it...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic
> administration.
Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim.
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:47:07 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic
>> > administration.
>> Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim.
> Unfortunately, there is none.
Of course there isn't; I was trying to get Andrew to work through this
on his own though.
Selective memory is an amazing thing, isn't it?
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:09:33 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> George <george@least> wrote:
>: Unfortunately, there is none.
>
> Au contrair:
> Clinton surplus:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
No details.
> http://www.house.gov/budget/papers/budgetsurplusbasics.htm
This link does not support your statement, and includes this:
"For all the rhetorical flourish in the Clinton budget, there is no
concrete proposal for how the White House would secure the Social
Security surpluses. They only earmark money without any legal
mechanism to protect the funds."
Maybe you have some links you've actually read, and not just random
keyword matches from a google search or something? But, let's keep
going, shall we?
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february98/budget_2-19.html
"...unveiled a budget plan that he expects will generate the first
surplus in nearly 30 years".
Plan. Expects. Will. Not "did".
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020398.htm
"Proposed budget".
> Bush deficit:
Comparing Clinton's unworkable and un-implemented changes, to that which
was actually implemented during other presidents' terms (with congressional
approval, of course) is useless at best. Pathetic, even, that you present
these as evidence when the only one that supports your claim has no
details whatsoever.
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 05:59:05 -0400, George <george@least> wrote:
> That's fair. As they say.
>
> However, counting the non-spendable Social Security intake as a surplus is
> Voo Doo or, if you believe it, Doo Doo.
Of course. Like any other shell-game accounting. If it was a Bush
ally doing it, they'd be screaming "ENRON!", but when it's Clinton
doing it, they call it "heroic".
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:20:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:37:07 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Comparing Clinton's unworkable and un-implemented changes, to that which
>> was actually implemented during other presidents' terms (with
>> congressional approval, of course) is useless at best. Pathetic, even,
>> that you present these as evidence when the only one that supports your
>> claim has no details whatsoever.
>
> The historical facts of whether or not there was an actual surplus is
> reflected in the national debt. In a deficit year, the national debt
> increases by the amount of the deficit and in a surplus year, the national
> debt decreases by the amount of the surplus. The last time the debt
> decreased was 1961.
So, without shell games, Clinton also failed to balance the budget.
That lines up with my memory, I recall him doing his little trick to
put the unspendable SS income in a different column, but I didn't know
that people would fall for the ploy and think he accomplished anything.
Sounds pretty enron-ish to me, but the lefties will now dance for us
and tell us how it's not.
You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
Dave
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman writes:
>
> >"RKON" wrote in
> >> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
the
> >> wreck the past week or so??
> >
> > ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>
> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
the
> bills the Republicans are running up.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
Dwight
> D. Eisenhower
TeamCasa writes:
>You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
>
>Dave
>
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Swingman writes:
>>
>> >"RKON" wrote in
>> >> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
>the
>> >> wreck the past week or so??
>> >
>> > ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>>
>> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
>the
>> bills the Republicans are running up.
Really? One suggestion: since you've lost your sense of humor, which Swingman
seems not to have done...ah, piss on it. I remember back when I was a
Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for someone
else.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
You sound like you're still a closet Republican. EARNING money? Working?
With the tax cut, you can even keep a bit more ... for now.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can
pay
> >the
> >> bills the Republicans are running up.
>
> Really? One suggestion: since you've lost your sense of humor, which
Swingman
> seems not to have done...ah, piss on it. I remember back when I was a
> Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for someone
> else.
Sorry Charlie, I thought it was pretty funny!
I see you are quoting Eisenhower now. Didn't he order the secret overthrow
of Iran's government and Mosaddeq? Operation Ajax?
Funny how history repeats itself.
See, I do have a sense or humor!
Dave
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> TeamCasa writes:
>
> >You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Swingman writes:
> >>
> >> >"RKON" wrote in
> >> >> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been
on
> >the
> >> >> wreck the past week or so??
> >> >
> >> > ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
> >>
> >> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can
pay
> >the
> >> bills the Republicans are running up.
>
> Really? One suggestion: since you've lost your sense of humor, which
Swingman
> seems not to have done...ah, piss on it. I remember back when I was a
> Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for someone
> else.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
Dwight
> D. Eisenhower
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20040719155627.22404.00000125@mb-
> I remember back when I was a
> Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for someone
"Normally" the switch goes the other way as we age, right?
Wasn't it Winston who said "A man under 30 who is not a liberal, has no
heart. And a man over thirty who is not a conservative, has no brain."
I guess it likely depends on the candidate each party puts forth.
Patrick Conroy notes:
>> I remember back when I was a
>> Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for someone
>
>"Normally" the switch goes the other way as we age, right?
>
>Wasn't it Winston who said "A man under 30 who is not a liberal, has no
>heart. And a man over thirty who is not a conservative, has no brain."
>
>I guess it likely depends on the candidate each party puts forth.
You might want to check on just what a conservative is in Blighty, and a
liberal.
Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You might want to check on just what a conservative is in Blighty, and a
> liberal.
Hmmm - food for thought. Never occurred to me that the terms might have a
different meaning across the pond!
Oh well. There's also: "Don't confuse me with the facts when my mind is
already made up!" ;->
Patrick Conroy responds:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You might want to check on just what a conservative is in Blighty, and a
>> liberal.
>
>Hmmm - food for thought. Never occurred to me that the terms might have a
>different meaning across the pond!
>Oh well. There's also: "Don't confuse me with the facts when my mind is
>already made up!" ;->
Yes, well, IIRC, it was ol' GB Shaw who first said we (the Brits and us) are
separated by a common language.
Charlie Self
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that
it is his duty." George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra (1901)
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Patrick Conroy responds:
>
>>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> You might want to check on just what a conservative is in Blighty, and a
>>> liberal.
>>
>>Hmmm - food for thought. Never occurred to me that the terms might have a
>>different meaning across the pond!
>>Oh well. There's also: "Don't confuse me with the facts when my mind is
>>already made up!" ;->
>
>Yes, well, IIRC, it was ol' GB Shaw who first said we (the Brits and us) are
>separated by a common language.
>
And he wasn't even a Brit IIRC, he was Irish.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:45:26 -0400, Eddie Munster
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> And he wasn't even a Brit IIRC, he was Irish.
>>
>
>Ireland is part of Britain.
I believe there are some Irish who would dispute that.
the Britons were invaders from france....
>Not part of England.
>
>Did you mean to say, "And he wasn't even English....."?
>
>I will defer to Andy Dingly on this one.
>
>John
Charlie, I just noticed your sig line. The federal government is all about
force. There is no organization that uses more force than the federal
government. And I'm talking about the use of force on it's own citizens,
not military campaigns. While I'm sure Eisenhower didn't mean it that way,
that is a fact of life. Every law that gets passed in Washington means that
the federal government is forcing people to do something else, and more
freedoms are lost. The people that created this country and it's
constitution would be absolutely appalled at what the federal government has
become. I would imagine that their worst fears have been realized.
Wayne
"Why trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?" (from
the movie The Patriot).
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
Dwight
> D. Eisenhower
Charlie Self wrote:
> Patrick Conroy notes:
>
>>> I remember back when I was a
>>> Republican and the only thing funny was something that was sad for
>>> someone
>>
>>"Normally" the switch goes the other way as we age, right?
>>
>>Wasn't it Winston who said "A man under 30 who is not a liberal, has no
>>heart. And a man over thirty who is not a conservative, has no brain."
>>
>>I guess it likely depends on the candidate each party puts forth.
>
> You might want to check on just what a conservative is in Blighty, and a
> liberal.
However that particular quotation is of uncertain origin--the version I
first heard substituted "communist" for "liberal", I've seen others that
substitute "socialist", and apparently there's a version that dates back to
the French Revolution or thereabouts that uses "Republican", which I do not
believe meant the same thing in France at the time that it does in the US
now. Further, the age is generally more in the vicinity of 20 than 30.
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
> Dwight D. Eisenhower
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Unfortunately, there is none.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic
> > administration.
>
> Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim.
>
That's fair. As they say.
However, counting the non-spendable Social Security intake as a surplus is
Voo Doo or, if you believe it, Doo Doo.
<Greg G.> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "For the entire 2002 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government
> ran up a deficit of $157.8 billion, ending four consecutive years of
> surpluses."
>
> From the Bush Cronies at Fox News.
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C81699%2C00.html
>
> "The National Debt has increased an average of $1.69 billion per day
> since September 30, 2003."
> http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
>
> [Flame Suit On]
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:14:54 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>> Swingman writes:
>>
>>>"RKON" wrote in
>>>> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
>>>> the wreck the past week or so??
>>>
>>> ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>>
>> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
>> the bills the Republicans are running up.
>
>Tax and spend, borrow and spend, it's all the same. What we _need_ are
>politicians that don't spend, but that would require that a new party come
>to prominence.
>
That was tried in 1994 when the Republicans won the house for the first
time since a two year stint during the Eisenhower administration which was
the first time they had a majority in the house since the depression.
Remember the screams of anguish from the media and the left? How Newt had
a "contract ON America?" How the proposed slowdowns in spending growth
were drastic CUTS on the rights of people receiving the largesse of the
country's taxpayers? Nearly got the newly elected majority kicked out of
power the next go-around. Unfortunately, rather than fighting back and
educating voters and taxpayers, the Republicans found it easier to back
down.
>> Charlie Self
>> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
>> Dwight D. Eisenhower
In article <[email protected]>, "NoOne N Particular" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>P.S. Cut the federal budget by 50% for a start.
Why stop there? If the government spent only for the purposes authorized by
the Constitution, several entire cabinet departments would cease to exist, and
spending would drop by a *lot* more than just 50%.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Like I said, for a start!
Wayne
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "NoOne N
Particular" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >P.S. Cut the federal budget by 50% for a start.
>
> Why stop there? If the government spent only for the purposes authorized
by
> the Constitution, several entire cabinet departments would cease to exist,
and
> spending would drop by a *lot* more than just 50%.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman writes:
>
> >"RKON" wrote in
> >> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
the
> >> wreck the past week or so??
> >
> > ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>
> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
the
> bills the Republicans are running up.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
Dwight
> D. Eisenhower
When people ask me if I am a Dem or a Rep I reply neither. I'm a taxpayer !!
Rich
On 18 Jul 2004 22:03:41 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>Swingman writes:
>
>>"RKON" wrote in
>>> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on the
>>> wreck the past week or so??
>>
>> ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>
>Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay the
>bills the Republicans are running up.
^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled "all politicians" there, Charlie.
-
Press HERE to arm. (Release to detonate.)
-----------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming
Charlie Self wrote:
> Swingman writes:
>
>>"RKON" wrote in
>>> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been on
>>> the wreck the past week or so??
>>
>> ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
>
> Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
> the bills the Republicans are running up.
Tax and spend, borrow and spend, it's all the same. What we _need_ are
politicians that don't spend, but that would require that a new party come
to prominence.
> Charlie Self
> "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
> Dwight D. Eisenhower
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
: I find it odd that people complain about the bills the R's are running up,
: but it STILL isn't enough for the D's.
We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic
administration. We now have the largest deficit in world history, under a
Republican.
I know what I prefer.
-- Andy Barss
George <george@least> wrote:
: Unfortunately, there is none.
Au contrair:
Clinton surplus:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
http://www.house.gov/budget/papers/budgetsurplusbasics.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february98/budget_2-19.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020398.htm
Bush deficit:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/072303bb.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id3.html
Here's a page showing the amount of debt incurred by each president back
to Truman (Bush II is the winner, followed by Bush I, followed by
Reagan):
http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm
Anyone remember whan the GOP claimed to be the party of fiscal
responsibility and small government?
-- Andy Barss
: "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 20:16:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:> >
:> > We had a big budget surplus accumulated under the last Democratic
:> > administration.
:>
:> Please provide dates and amounts to back up this claim.
:>
--
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Douglass 208, 626-3284
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:14:54 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Tax and spend, borrow and spend, it's all the same. What we _need_ are
>politicians that don't spend, but that would require that a new party come
>to prominence.
>
I fear that even that would only be a temporary solution. What is really needed is some way to ensure that the politicians of any
political party cannot buy reelection votes with our tax money - pork barrel projects, various give-away and entitlement programs,
and the whole idea of government being the be-all, end-all solver of (meddler in?) all problems.
But I do agree with the subject of this thread. Except for one or two flareups, looks like the fires are out. So quiet it's kinda
scary!
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
I find it odd that people complain about the bills the R's are running up,
but it STILL isn't enough for the D's.
Wayne
P.S. Cut the federal budget by 50% for a start.
"TeamCasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
>
> Dave
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Swingman writes:
> >
> > >"RKON" wrote in
> > >> Is it me or has anyone else noticed how quiet and civil it has been
on
> the
> > >> wreck the past week or so??
> > >
> > > ... all the Democrats have gone to Boston?
> >
> > Not all of us. Some of us have to stay home and make money so we can pay
> the
> > bills the Republicans are running up.
> >
> > Charlie Self
> > "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose."
> Dwight
> > D. Eisenhower
>
>
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 09:32:44 -0700, TeamCasa wrote:
> > You just can not help yourself, can you Charlie.
>
> He didn't start bringing politics into it...
Some of you really need to get your political panties untwisted so you can
begin to appreciate the lighter side of life.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:52:41 -0400, wrote:
> Andrew Barss said:
>
>>George <george@least> wrote:
>>: Unfortunately, there is none.
>>
>>Au contrair:
>>
>>
> Andrew, A bit of advice:
>
> Never bother to argue with followers of Bush Religion - an oppressive
> group of zealots who believe nothing but the GOP line. Facts are
> irrelevant. ;-)
The national debt of the US increased each and every year of the Clinton
administration. Now, unless there is another definition of what a
deficit/surplus is, there have been no surplusses since 1961.
<http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm>
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:37:07 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> Comparing Clinton's unworkable and un-implemented changes, to that which
> was actually implemented during other presidents' terms (with
> congressional approval, of course) is useless at best. Pathetic, even,
> that you present these as evidence when the only one that supports your
> claim has no details whatsoever.
The historical facts of whether or not there was an actual surplus is
reflected in the national debt. In a deficit year, the national debt
increases by the amount of the deficit and in a surplus year, the national
debt decreases by the amount of the surplus. The last time the debt
decreased was 1961.
The claimed surplusses were arrived at by taking all trust fund monies and
transferring them to the general fund. This is accounted for as revenue
in the annual budget. A corresponding IOU is placed in each of the myriad
of trust funds, but these IOU's are not accounted for as expenditures in
the annual budget, but are accounted for in the national debt. These IOUs
are called intragovernmental debt and are the prototype for Enron style
accounting - create shell subsidiaries to hold the debt and claim the
corportion/nation is in the black for that year.
This is not only deceptive, but when the time comes to draw the monies
from these so called trust funds, the government will have to get the
monies by taxing future generations to pay off the IOUs since government's
only source of revenue is taxation. So, the current taxpayers get to pay
more taxes than required for things like Social Security, the money is
spent but not accounted for in the annual budget and future generations
get to pay that amount again with interest in addition to the normal taxes
they have to pay. Pretty neat scheme, huh? Begs the question of why
people like Ken Ley are being prosecuted but our congresscritters talk
about preserving the trust funds with a straight face and not jail time.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 13:20:10 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> Begs the question of why
> people like Ken Ley are being prosecuted but our congresscritters talk
> about preserving the trust funds with a straight face and not jail time.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, after all. Yes, wouldn't it be nice if
the feds followed GAAP? The only justifiable reason I can think of for why
a sovereign nation wouldn't follow GAAP is to handle unforseen
contingencies. Alas, congresscritters don't limit themselves to such
necessary actions. Throw all the bums out.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:09:33 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
> George <george@least> wrote:
> : Unfortunately, there is none.
>
>
>
> Au contrair:
>
>
> Clinton surplus:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
> http://www.house.gov/budget/papers/budgetsurplusbasics.htm
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/february98/budget_2-19.html
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/budget/stories/020398.htm
>
[snip]
This is pretty scary coming from someone in "higher education". I hope
you aren't spreading the myth of the Clinton surplusses to those mushy
little minds you have direct contact with. I also hope you aren't
teaching in the math or economics departments. If you insist on claiming
Clinton surplusses, I can only assume you approve of Enron accounting.
-Doug
--
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples
then you and I will still each have one apple.
But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these
ideas,then each of us will have two ideas" George B. Shaw
Andrew Barss said:
>George <george@least> wrote:
>: Unfortunately, there is none.
>
>Au contrair:
>
Andrew, A bit of advice:
Never bother to argue with followers of Bush Religion - an oppressive
group of zealots who believe nothing but the GOP line. Facts are
irrelevant. ;-)
"For the entire 2002 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, the government
ran up a deficit of $157.8 billion, ending four consecutive years of
surpluses."
From the Bush Cronies at Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C81699%2C00.html
"The National Debt has increased an average of $1.69 billion per day
since September 30, 2003."
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
[Flame Suit On]
History will show the true impact of this POS on our world.
Fortunately, his 4 years are over.
http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/
Greg G.