Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1. As conservative, i.e., I behave with civility, I try not to toss around the term 'lie.'
2. If you change that indictment to 'was incorrect in his usage' and provide a link, I might subscribe to same.
3. Now, look at you stamp your little feet, and squench your eyes closed so you can ignore the data on national debt.
4. If only you had the gift of irony, you'd be as amused as I when anyone uses the phrase " want to discredit the Clinton administration..."
How can anyone 'discredit' a rapist moreso than the rapist himself???
And, you don't realize what a brain-dead automaton you are becoming. Get a grip, wingy.
George Bush stood in front of the American people and said it was not just for the Government to take in more money than it needs (surplus). He insisted on a tax cut to give that money back.
Now, by your own assertion, he was wrong, there was no surplus to justify his tax cut.
Now, there are two possibilities
He is a "know nothing" (your term) and got the budget numbers wrong
He knew there was no surplus and lied to get his tax cut
By changing he subject, I assume that means that you realize you've lost....
No Clinton surplus.
No?
Allahu Akbar.
Do you know what surplus means?
It doesn't mean deciding not to pay debts, and squirreling the money away....
....or spending it elsewhere.
The word 'surplus' is a term of art applied to Democrat-progressive-liberal- Leftists so that the gullible will be impressed.
Are you impressed?
Now.....please.....get rid of that ugly bird!!!!
i know what a surplus is, i also know what a budget is.
i know that your line:
"debt increased.no surplus"
shows that you seem to be the one having trouble with those concepts.
the bird stays, for now.
maybe i change it if you behave,
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
No greater expert than the very PoliticalChic is going to disabuse you of your error:
Now watch this:
Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
No matter who says it....the figures are real. Check 'em.
Debt increased. No surplus.
But, not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince individuals such as you....
Explaining to a Liberal is like trying to tell a devout Muslim that Al-Buraq didn't carry the prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem and back during the Isra and Mi'raj or "Night Journey."
Clinton's surplus is your Al-Buraq.
It is your religious devotion.
Carry on.
So which is it?
Did Bush lie or was he a know-nothing when he used the Clinton surplus to justify his tax cut?
Looks like Republicans use one accounting method when they want to cut taxes and another when they want to discredit the Clinton administration
1. As conservative, i.e., I behave with civility, I try not to toss around the term 'lie.'
2. If you change that indictment to 'was incorrect in his usage' and provide a link, I might subscribe to same.
3. Now, look at you stamp your little feet, and squench your eyes closed so you can ignore the data on national debt.
4. If only you had the gift of irony, you'd be as amused as I when anyone uses the phrase " want to discredit the Clinton administration..."
How can anyone 'discredit' a rapist moreso than the rapist himself???
And, you don't realize what a brain-dead automaton you are becoming. Get a grip, wingy.
George Bush stood in front of the American people and said it was not just for the Government to take in more money than it needs (surplus). He insisted on a tax cut to give that money back.
Now, by your own assertion, he was wrong, there was no surplus to justify his tax cut.
Now, there are two possibilities
He is a "know nothing" (your term) and got the budget numbers wrong
He knew there was no surplus and lied to get his tax cut
By changing he subject, I assume that means that you realize you've lost....
No Clinton surplus.
No?
Allahu Akbar.
You are ducking the question..
As we all know, cowardice is a sign of conservatism
What was the justification of your messiah, George Bush telling the American people that he had been given a budget surplus?
Was he lying like most conservative leaders or just a "know-nothing"
And since the tax cut was not warranted, don't you think we should repeal it?
Let's agree that the debate is founded in common English usage.
sur·plus/ˈsərpləs/
Noun:
An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.
Adjective:
More than what is needed or used; excess.
Synonyms:
noun. excess - overplus - overage - superfluity - redundance
adjective. redundant - superfluous - spare - excessive
NO UGLY BIRDS!
How about a nice little canary?
Cardinal?
a budget deficit. not an overall deficit. that would be debt.
a budget surplus. not an overall surplus. i have no idea if there is a word for that. governments operate on debt.
canaries and cardinals are nice birds. i will consider it.
"...governments operate on debt."
On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: "Gentlemen ... the national debt ... is PAID."
When The U.S. Paid Off The Entire National Debt (And Why It Didn't Last) : Planet Money : NPR
Guess I just blew chances for a canary, huh?
i know what a surplus is, i also know what a budget is.
i know that your line:
"debt increased.no surplus"
shows that you seem to be the one having trouble with those concepts.
the bird stays, for now.
maybe i change it if you behave,
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
Birdy....I am not arguing...at least at this time, where it is regular or even beneficial to run a debt, or a deficit.
I am simply proving that there was no surplus under the rapist....er, under the Democrat, Clinton.
Just one more Liberal fib.
Nor am I disputing that every President since number seven has done the same....although Reagan made it easy for Clinton due to the change in SS law.
Cardinal?
Tit Willow?
Even a cute chicken chic?
So which is it?
Did Bush lie or was he a know-nothing when he used the Clinton surplus to justify his tax cut?
Looks like Republicans use one accounting method when they want to cut taxes and another when they want to discredit the Clinton administration
1. As conservative, i.e., I behave with civility, I try not to toss around the term 'lie.'
2. If you change that indictment to 'was incorrect in his usage' and provide a link, I might subscribe to same.
3. Now, look at you stamp your little feet, and squench your eyes closed so you can ignore the data on national debt.
4. If only you had the gift of irony, you'd be as amused as I when anyone uses the phrase " want to discredit the Clinton administration..."
How can anyone 'discredit' a rapist moreso than the rapist himself???
And, you don't realize what a brain-dead automaton you are becoming. Get a grip, wingy.
An intentional act of omission is a lie, wouldn't you agree PC?
By changing he subject, I assume that means that you realize you've lost....
No Clinton surplus.
No?
Allahu Akbar.
You are ducking the question..
As we all know, cowardice is a sign of conservatism
What was the justification of your messiah, George Bush telling the American people that he had been given a budget surplus?
Was he lying like most conservative leaders or just a "know-nothing"
And since the tax cut was not warranted, don't you think we should repeal it?
1. "You are ducking the question.."
There it is! Resorting to the Liberal Playbook!
That's rule #1, isn't it?
1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.
a. Every issue must by stated as one of Race-Gender-or Class. There is nothing else that matters
The question is and always was, was there a surplus under Democrat Clinton...
...answer: NO.
2. But I'm gonna give you credit for rule #6, too:
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.
Too bad you don't do as well on the short answer part.
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
Birdy....I am not arguing...at least at this time, where it is regular or even beneficial to run a debt, or a deficit.
I am simply proving that there was no surplus under the rapist....er, under the Democrat, Clinton.
Just one more Liberal fib.
Nor am I disputing that every President since number seven has done the same....although Reagan made it easy for Clinton due to the change in SS law.
Cardinal?
Tit Willow?
Even a cute chicken chic?
you did not prove that. and i think you know it.
you are on the way of earning a sand puppy
You are ducking the question..
As we all know, cowardice is a sign of conservatism
What was the justification of your messiah, George Bush telling the American people that he had been given a budget surplus?
Was he lying like most conservative leaders or just a "know-nothing"
And since the tax cut was not warranted, don't you think we should repeal it?
1. "You are ducking the question.."
There it is! Resorting to the Liberal Playbook!
That's rule #1, isn't it?
1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.
a. Every issue must by stated as one of Race-Gender-or Class. There is nothing else that matters
The question is and always was, was there a surplus under Democrat Clinton...
...answer: NO.
2. But I'm gonna give you credit for rule #6, too:
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.
Too bad you don't do as well on the short answer part.
Sorry, but your attempt at obfuscation is a Fail
Your messiah, George Bush based his tax cut on the fact that Clinton had given him a SURPLUS
Now was he just lying like most conservatives?
Or
Was he a know-nothing
Proving once and for all that Republicans are the Know-Nothing Party
Birdy....I am not arguing...at least at this time, where it is regular or even beneficial to run a debt, or a deficit.
I am simply proving that there was no surplus under the rapist....er, under the Democrat, Clinton.
Just one more Liberal fib.
Nor am I disputing that every President since number seven has done the same....although Reagan made it easy for Clinton due to the change in SS law.
Cardinal?
Tit Willow?
Even a cute chicken chic?
you did not prove that. and i think you know it.
you are on the way of earning a sand puppy
Just because you don't accept same, even with the dictionary definition evident, that doesn't mean that I didn't prove it.
And you are a baaaaaaaaaaaad bird! You use visual water-torture.
i know what a surplus is, i also know what a budget is.
i know that your line:
"debt increased.no surplus"
shows that you seem to be the one having trouble with those concepts.
the bird stays, for now.
maybe i change it if you behave,
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
1. "You are ducking the question.."
There it is! Resorting to the Liberal Playbook!
That's rule #1, isn't it?
1. Always be the first to accuse, and make certain to accuse the opponent of exactly what you are doing.
a. Every issue must by stated as one of Race-Gender-or Class. There is nothing else that matters
The question is and always was, was there a surplus under Democrat Clinton...
...answer: NO.
2. But I'm gonna give you credit for rule #6, too:
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.
Too bad you don't do as well on the short answer part.
Sorry, but your attempt at obfuscation is a Fail
Your messiah, George Bush based his tax cut on the fact that Clinton had given him a SURPLUS
Now was he just lying like most conservatives?
Or
Was he a know-nothing
Proving once and for all that Republicans are the Know-Nothing Party
You guys brought up in the Liberal echo chamber seem to feel that as long as you don't admit error, there is no error.
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican "
Coulter
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.
A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.
For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.
People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.
Sorry, but your attempt at obfuscation is a Fail
Your messiah, George Bush based his tax cut on the fact that Clinton had given him a SURPLUS
Now was he just lying like most conservatives?
Or
Was he a know-nothing
Proving once and for all that Republicans are the Know-Nothing Party
You guys brought up in the Liberal echo chamber seem to feel that as long as you don't admit error, there is no error.
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican "
Coulter
It is already well established that the Republican Party is a party of liars and crooks.
Liars as in......"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
And Crooks as in....."I am not a crook"
Now, with this thread, we are trying to establish once and for all that Republicans are also the Know-Nothing Party. Now, I have clearly established that Political Chics messiah, George Bush admitted there was indeed a Clinton Surplus......but PC refuses to attribute
Now, in establishing their Know-Nothing credentials, we already know their disdain for higher learning, science, economics and historical accuracy. But are the Alinsky tactics of Political Chic and her new toady daveman effective in switching the label to Democrats?
Not even close
You guys brought up in the Liberal echo chamber seem to feel that as long as you don't admit error, there is no error.
"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They cant put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican "
Coulter
It is already well established that the Republican Party is a party of liars and crooks.
Liars as in......"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
And Crooks as in....."I am not a crook"
Now, with this thread, we are trying to establish once and for all that Republicans are also the Know-Nothing Party. Now, I have clearly established that Political Chics messiah, George Bush admitted there was indeed a Clinton Surplus......but PC refuses to attribute
Now, in establishing their Know-Nothing credentials, we already know their disdain for higher learning, science, economics and historical accuracy. But are the Alinsky tactics of Political Chic and her new toady daveman effective in switching the label to Democrats?
Not even close
Wow....I really hit a nerve, didn't I....
Relax, wingy....I never expected you to admit the truth.
Have a nice day.
I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.
And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???
There are laws you know!
i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.
but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.
so, what happened with the surplus?
This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.
A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.
For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.
People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.
It is already well established that the Republican Party is a party of liars and crooks.
Liars as in......"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
And Crooks as in....."I am not a crook"
Now, with this thread, we are trying to establish once and for all that Republicans are also the Know-Nothing Party. Now, I have clearly established that Political Chics messiah, George Bush admitted there was indeed a Clinton Surplus......but PC refuses to attribute
Now, in establishing their Know-Nothing credentials, we already know their disdain for higher learning, science, economics and historical accuracy. But are the Alinsky tactics of Political Chic and her new toady daveman effective in switching the label to Democrats?
Not even close
Wow....I really hit a nerve, didn't I....
Relax, wingy....I never expected you to admit the truth.
Have a nice day.
Sulking off in defeat?
Hey....it's not the first time, nor will it be the last
Wow....I really hit a nerve, didn't I....
Relax, wingy....I never expected you to admit the truth.
Have a nice day.
Sulking off in defeat?
Hey....it's not the first time, nor will it be the last
Right, wingy.
That's it.
You're a reaaaallllllll winner.
