Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #101
Now PROVE taxes cause fewer revenues liked you claimed
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.
and why would they LIE about it when its a couple of months away?
You people will just LIE about it when it is money in the bank
Why would a politician lie. Really TM?
If you are so confident CA will run a surplus, TDM.. but a wager on it.. like loser is banned from this board for life
If you are so confident CA will run a surplus, TDM.. but a wager on it.. like loser is banned from this board for life
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM]Shut the Fuck up Donny - YouTube[/ame]
Now PROVE taxes cause fewer revenues liked you claimed
and why would they LIE about it when its a couple of months away?
You people will just LIE about it when it is money in the bank
Why would a politician lie. Really TM?
dear idiot,
they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.
Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?
You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real
You won't like any of this, but here you go.
The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.
I am sorry, I know it hurts.
President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.
In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.
url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary
FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus
FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.
That is opinion and not proof you idiot
We must be pissing truth off, it is leaving nasty messages on my profile page.
You won't like any of this, but here you go.
The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.
I am sorry, I know it hurts.
President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.
In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.
url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary
FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus
FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.
dear idiot your first link is from 1998 and is the authors projects and has NOTHING to do with the REAL numbers later seen.
Your second one is right wing propaganda
I gave you a MUCH better source
Why would a politician lie. Really TM?
dear idiot,
they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.
Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?
You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real
When it's in the bank and California has actually lived within its means without bullshit accounting tricks, I'll admit I was wrong. Now, will you when those revenues fail to materialize? I doubt it.
Yes of course kid, Factcheck is a MUCH better source than the Treasury Depts ACTUAL numbers...you can't make this shit up.
You won't like any of this, but here you go.
The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.
I am sorry, I know it hurts.
President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.
In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.
url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary
FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus
FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.
dear idiot your first link is from 1998 and is the authors projects and has NOTHING to do with the REAL numbers later seen.
Your second one is right wing propaganda
I gave you a MUCH better source
dear idiot,
they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.
Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?
You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real
When it's in the bank and California has actually lived within its means without bullshit accounting tricks, I'll admit I was wrong. Now, will you when those revenues fail to materialize? I doubt it.
I am not the one here who avoids facts regualrly its you people who do that
Well, isn't that special......I guess that makes up for the state now losing one of it's biggest employers, Chevron, who's pulling up stakes and fleeing this loony bin.There is not a car assembly line left in California and New England
Guess again...
Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles
They just hit the benchmark of making 100 cars in a day up from 5 per day.