Democrats: The Modern 'Know-Nothing' Party

[Katiegrrl0]

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

Again you do not understand. It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing. The budget is prepared, they are now all deficit budgets that will even if balanced add to the debt. This you fail to understand. Your first mistake.
Second: Most Presidents as in the case of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama have not balanced the budget adding even more to the debt than predicted. Seems you failed to miss this point as well.
Third: Because Clinton balanced the budget and spent less than predicted a portion of the amount his budget added to the debt could have been paid off. His mistake was leaving the money for Bush II. Bush II did not pay toward the debt which he should have he passed the money around and didn't even consider making the payment toward the debt. You seem to have missed this as well.
Since Bush II never balanced the budget he added more to the debt each year than predicted.
Do you know the difference now? The only way I can make this more simple is to try and get a crayon font for you to read. It may increase your understanding and help you learn your colors as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In 1835 Andrew Jackson was the last President to pay off the debt.
Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus and the debt was -9.0.
Truman between 1945 and 1949 actually lowered the debt by 8 billion dollars. So since Jackson no one has done anything with the debt to speak of.
What makes you think someone will turn this around now?

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

You obviously don't know the difference between an annual budget and the national debt.

That is very sad.

Noooo....don't be sad.

Here's a joke, it'll cheer you up!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK3Eo9cScEQ&feature=share]Ronald Reagan tells joke about Democrats - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

Again you do not understand. It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing. The budget is prepared, they are now all deficit budgets that will even if balanced add to the debt. This you fail to understand. Your first mistake.
Second: Most Presidents as in the case of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama have not balanced the budget adding even more to the debt than predicted. Seems you failed to miss this point as well.
Third: Because Clinton balanced the budget and spent less than predicted a portion of the amount his budget added to the debt could have been paid off. His mistake was leaving the money for Bush II. Bush II did not pay toward the debt which he should have he passed the money around and didn't even consider making the payment toward the debt. You seem to have missed this as well.
Since Bush II never balanced the budget he added more to the debt each year than predicted.
Do you know the difference now? The only way I can make this more simple is to try and get a crayon font for you to read. It may increase your understanding and help you learn your colors as well.

"It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing."


And that proves it isn't flim-flam?

Seems you failed 'Logic.'

 

[daveman]

1. When you hear Ryan promise to balance the budget, just remember,

Reagan promised to balance the budget,

with essentially the same plan Ryan is proposing.

2. Keep in mind, Obama's deficits are all occurring under Republican tax plans; Obama's deficits are the result of Obama acting like a Republican on taxes.

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

And your math sucks. You're off by a few trillion.

Oh, but "It's not Obama's fault!!" I forgot.

 

[daveman]

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

Looks like he's 6d, too, PC: No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.

 

[rightwinger]

"Clinton was the last President to leave a budget surplus..."
A myth.

The national debt increased 41% during the Clinton term...even with the 'peace dividend' that Reagan provided.

Under Reagan the national debt increased by about 200%. Under Bush by about 90%.

GOP debt = bad.

Obama debt = good.

Let's see?

What did the Bush $5 trillion debt get us?
- Two wars
- Massive tax cuts for billionaires
- unfunded prescription drug plan

What did Obamas debt get us?
- Saved Financial and Auto sectors (most paid back)
- Public Works programs
- Healthcare

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not a myth at all. He left a budget surplus that could have been used to pay toward the debt. That money was not used to pay to the debt. It was returned by Bush to taxpayers.
Now, do you know how you can still add to the debt while still balancing the budget. It seems you failed this part of economics.
The budget was set up as in most administrations higher than the amount the US would take in. He stayed inside the budget and there remained a surplus of money. Had that money been paid toward the debt where it should have gone it would have brought the number down.
Bush did not use it properly and returned it to taxpayers.
There are two different pieces to making the budget. The problem is that even when the budget is balanced the debt gets added to. Most President's fail to do even that much. Reagan is the first one to start to mass the nation's debt. Do you recall him saying the debt didn't matter.

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

"Liberal Playbook," again?

So....that would be rule 6d?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


Should I post the entire rule book so you don't have to keep flipping pages?

Just tryin' to help.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

To a Marxist, a socialist looks like a fundy rethug.

You will not understand this.

Obama extended all the Bush tax cuts and added to them despite it being a budget buster.

Where's the socialism there? What is NOT Republican about that?

 

[rightwinger]

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

And your math sucks. You're off by a few trillion.

Oh, but "It's not Obama's fault!!" I forgot.

Show us your math then

How much of "Obamas debt" went to pay for
- Bush tax cuts
- Two Bush wars
- Funding Medicare Part D

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

Looks like he's 6d, too, PC: No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.

Ya' beat me to it, daveman!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

"Liberal Playbook," again?

So....that would be rule 6d?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


Should I post the entire rule book so you don't have to keep flipping pages?

Just tryin' to help.

Proving you wrong is the cake. Getting to see you refuse to admit it is the icing.

Shorten your posts, too, remember? Are you ineducable in that regard?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How many times does your nonsense have to be debunked before you quit posting it?

We've gone through this months ago. Everything you're claiming was comprehensively disproven, and yet, here you are back, in classic rightwing myth-mongering style,

spewing it all out again as if it were true.

"Liberal Playbook," again?

So....that would be rule 6d?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection! Never, ever, be able to connect the dots!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” or “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


Should I post the entire rule book so you don't have to keep flipping pages?

Just tryin' to help.

Proving you wrong is the cake. Getting to see you refuse to admit it is the icing.

Shorten your posts, too, remember? Are you ineducable in that regard?

1. There are pills you can take for your ADD...ask your doctor if they are right for you.

2. "Proving you wrong is the cake."
Then, you must be on a really, really strict diet, huh?

 

[Katiegrrl0]

1. "It seems you failed this part of economics."
Actually, I've never failed anything.

2. I understand both economics, and flim-flam.
The debt increased 41% under Clinton, exactly as I've stated.
You must agree, since you didn't deny it.

a. "He left a budget surplus...."
This bogus claim appears with metronomic regularity among the apologists for the Left.

3.Post #51 will explain how the flim-flam is accomplished...you would do well to peruse
it. I'll save you embarrassment by not testing you about it.

4. The Reagan-Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform is the source of the funds that Clinton 'borrowed' to claim surplus.

In colloquial terms, if there was no reduction in the debt, then the use of the term 'surplus' as a political term of art is a fabrication.

For your edification:
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.

It should be referred to as 'smoke and mirrors.'

I bet there are days you feel it’s not even worth chewing through the restraints.

Again you do not understand. It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing. The budget is prepared, they are now all deficit budgets that will even if balanced add to the debt. This you fail to understand. Your first mistake.
Second: Most Presidents as in the case of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama have not balanced the budget adding even more to the debt than predicted. Seems you failed to miss this point as well.
Third: Because Clinton balanced the budget and spent less than predicted a portion of the amount his budget added to the debt could have been paid off. His mistake was leaving the money for Bush II. Bush II did not pay toward the debt which he should have he passed the money around and didn't even consider making the payment toward the debt. You seem to have missed this as well.
Since Bush II never balanced the budget he added more to the debt each year than predicted.
Do you know the difference now? The only way I can make this more simple is to try and get a crayon font for you to read. It may increase your understanding and help you learn your colors as well.

"It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing."


And that proves it isn't flim-flam?

Seems you failed 'Logic.'

It is a standard practice and anyone with a third grade education should realize this. This makes it a standard practice and not flimflam. Sorry you are wrong on this point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to be forgetting something: Obama's spending. You can't blame that on anyone but Obama -- but you'll try, just as programmed.

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

And your math sucks. You're off by a few trillion.

Oh, but "It's not Obama's fault!!" I forgot.

Spending was up 500 billion from 2008 to 2009, and much of that can be attributed to increases in non-discretionary spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again you do not understand. It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing. The budget is prepared, they are now all deficit budgets that will even if balanced add to the debt. This you fail to understand. Your first mistake.
Second: Most Presidents as in the case of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama have not balanced the budget adding even more to the debt than predicted. Seems you failed to miss this point as well.
Third: Because Clinton balanced the budget and spent less than predicted a portion of the amount his budget added to the debt could have been paid off. His mistake was leaving the money for Bush II. Bush II did not pay toward the debt which he should have he passed the money around and didn't even consider making the payment toward the debt. You seem to have missed this as well.
Since Bush II never balanced the budget he added more to the debt each year than predicted.
Do you know the difference now? The only way I can make this more simple is to try and get a crayon font for you to read. It may increase your understanding and help you learn your colors as well.

"It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing."


And that proves it isn't flim-flam?

Seems you failed 'Logic.'

It is a standard practice and anyone with a third grade education should realize this. This makes it a standard practice and not flimflam. Sorry you are wrong on this point.

Nice work not letting PC's standard baiting tactics rattle you. You make it look easy, and that is no small feat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again you do not understand. It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing. The budget is prepared, they are now all deficit budgets that will even if balanced add to the debt. This you fail to understand. Your first mistake.
Second: Most Presidents as in the case of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Obama have not balanced the budget adding even more to the debt than predicted. Seems you failed to miss this point as well.
Third: Because Clinton balanced the budget and spent less than predicted a portion of the amount his budget added to the debt could have been paid off. His mistake was leaving the money for Bush II. Bush II did not pay toward the debt which he should have he passed the money around and didn't even consider making the payment toward the debt. You seem to have missed this as well.
Since Bush II never balanced the budget he added more to the debt each year than predicted.
Do you know the difference now? The only way I can make this more simple is to try and get a crayon font for you to read. It may increase your understanding and help you learn your colors as well.

"It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing."


And that proves it isn't flim-flam?

Seems you failed 'Logic.'

It is a standard practice and anyone with a third grade education should realize this. This makes it a standard practice and not flimflam. Sorry you are wrong on this point.

So....If one chooses not to pay one's debts, the fraud is known as a surplus....and this is copacetic as long as your neighbors do it, too?

Pretty poor excuse, since you are the one who mentioned the actions of the father of the modern Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson.

Am I correct that in your post I hear the snuffling of the ubiquitous pigs of the Left…that until I agree with your claims that wrong is right, I must have a third grade education?

By that definition, I have a third grade education....we learned the difference between right and wrong, and correct usage of the English language.


Rarely has a post exposed atavism of the Left as clearly!
Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on all fours?

 

[daveman]

Under Reagan the national debt increased by about 200%. Under Bush by about 90%.

GOP debt = bad.

Obama debt = good.

Let's see?

What did the Bush $5 trillion debt get us?
- Two wars
- Massive tax cuts for billionaires
- unfunded prescription drug plan

What did Obamas debt get us?
- Saved Financial and Auto sectors (most paid back)
- Public Works programs
- Healthcare

Thanks for proving my point, stooge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It is not flimflam at all. Every President does the same thing."


And that proves it isn't flim-flam?

Seems you failed 'Logic.'

It is a standard practice and anyone with a third grade education should realize this. This makes it a standard practice and not flimflam. Sorry you are wrong on this point.

Nice work not letting PC's standard baiting tactics rattle you. You make it look easy, and that is no small feat.

"...that is no small feat!"

Hey....I think there's a compliment for me in there, too!

Shucks....thanks, carby.....
...even though you didn't know what you were doing (as usual).

 

[daveman]

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

To a Marxist, a socialist looks like a fundy rethug.

You will not understand this.

Obama extended all the Bush tax cuts and added to them despite it being a budget buster.

Where's the socialism there? What is NOT Republican about that?

And he went to a fundamentalist Christian church, too.

Obama is a fundy rethug!!

Told you you wouldn't understand it. Comrade.

 

[daveman]

What spending? The spending portion of the stimulus? Fine. That 450 billion contribution is just about all you can pin on Obama and the Democrats.

The rest is Obama being a Republican.

And your math sucks. You're off by a few trillion.

Oh, but "It's not Obama's fault!!" I forgot.

Show us your math then

How much of "Obamas debt" went to pay for
- Bush tax cuts
- Two Bush wars
- Funding Medicare Part D

You really can't help it, can you? It's a tropism.

Obama can do no wrong. Go ahead and say it. It's obvious that's your core programming.