TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
so you admit to the surplus? progress indeed...
No, because there was no surplus.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
so you admit to the surplus? progress indeed...
Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
Your flaccid attempts at re-writing the rules of legitimate and honest bookkeeping notwithstanding, who controlled the congress and wrote the budget bills during those years, Corky?Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
Seeing how you got here on the short buss and all, let me explain the budget is big and when it is "balanced" sometimes it runs a little over sometimes a little under but if you got debt and doing a good job over time you bring the debt down like we did the last year Clinton was in office from Jan 01 2000 to Jan 01 2001 where we brought total debt down by about 110 billion dollars.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
you can plug the dates in yourself and see.
Who controlled the congress and wrote the budget bills during those years, Corky?Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
Seeing how you got here on the short buss and all, let me explain the budget is big and when it is "balanced" sometimes it runs a little over sometimes a little under but if you got debt and doing a good job over time you bring the debt down like we did the last year Clinton was in office from Jan 01 2000 to Jan 01 2001 where we brought total debt down by about 110 billion dollars.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
you can plug the dates in yourself and see.
Doesn't matter.Who controlled the congress and wrote the budget bills during those years, Corky?Seeing how you got here on the short buss and all, let me explain the budget is big and when it is "balanced" sometimes it runs a little over sometimes a little under but if you got debt and doing a good job over time you bring the debt down like we did the last year Clinton was in office from Jan 01 2000 to Jan 01 2001 where we brought total debt down by about 110 billion dollars.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
you can plug the dates in yourself and see.
The Ds passed an omnibus bill in 1993 that brought us to the balance and Clinton vetoed every GOP attempt to derail it...truth sucks if you're a con.
Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
Seeing how you got here on the short buss and all, let me explain the budget is big and when it is "balanced" sometimes it runs a little over sometimes a little under but if you got debt and doing a good job over time you bring the debt down like we did the last year Clinton was in office from Jan 01 2000 to Jan 01 2001 where we brought total debt down by about 110 billion dollars.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
you can plug the dates in yourself and see.
Are we changing surplus to balanced budget now?
Seeing how you got here on the short buss and all, let me explain the budget is big and when it is "balanced" sometimes it runs a little over sometimes a little under but if you got debt and doing a good job over time you bring the debt down like we did the last year Clinton was in office from Jan 01 2000 to Jan 01 2001 where we brought total debt down by about 110 billion dollars.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
you can plug the dates in yourself and see.
For someone who claims I rode in on the short bus, you sure are lacking intelligence. Jan. 1 to Jan. 1 of any given year means nothing, Corky. What matters are fiscal year ends. Which happens at the end of October in a given year. Before you go talking about the short bus, Cork, you might want to make sure you're not riding it....with e a helmet on.
The year end balance on those years saw the debt grow considerably. Bubba may have came close to balancing a udget (by 2002), but he didn't balance it, never balanced it and more over, never had a surplus.
You're pushing strings on a subject you clearly need remediation on.
By cutting spending, and i mean cutting it with s chainsaw and a jackhammer, you free up current revenues to pay down debt. it isn't that difficult.
Cutting spending requires cutting jobs which will increase unemployment. Not only those government jobs but those jobs supported by government employees.
Default is exactly what is going to happen. Then the govt. will put protectionist measures in place. Like massive taxation on commodity holders, shareholders, etc...in order to insulate itself. It will pass its poor fiscal adn monetary behaviors on to us. Once again.
Government is not going to dedicate any revenue to debt repayment. This argument can go in circles for weeks based on the IF this and IF that. It isn't happening. There is no plan for it to happen. It's just a fantasy.
And then we got attacked.
Defense is not an economically productive endeavor. So no, I dont consider the CIA or the military as economically productive. Units go in. These are constitutional necessities (well, the army is, the intelligence industry created adn maintains itself need by creating far more trouble than it cures)
The FDA, the USDA, FCC and NASA aren't economically productive and furthermore, could be if they were private enterprise.
The FDA and USDA are some of the most corrupt corporatist agencies in the federal plethora of agancies.
Actually, governments certainly do create jobs. And they are "legitimately productive" as well, unless you consider the U.S. Army, NASA, the USDA, the FDA, the FCC, and the CIA as being unproductive.
Why would you even say such a thing?
Defense is not an economically productive endeavor. So no, I dont consider the CIA or the military as economically productive. Units go in. These are constitutional necessities (well, the army is, the intelligence industry created adn maintains itself need by creating far more trouble than it cures)
The FDA, the USDA, FCC and NASA aren't economically productive and furthermore, could be if they were private enterprise.
The FDA and USDA are some of the most corrupt corporatist agencies in the federal plethora of agancies.
Now you must define "economically productive," because I don't see how most of New York's financial firms fill that definition. I see no tangible goods that they produce. That includes Baine Capital.
Now you must define "economically productive," because I don't see how most of New York's financial firms fill that definition. I see no tangible goods that they produce. That includes Baine Capital.
Defense is not an economically productive endeavor...
Now you must define "economically productive," because I don't see how most of New York's financial firms fill that definition. I see no tangible goods that they produce. That includes Baine Capital.