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. 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!
4.35 trillion going to 5.62 trillion is a 1.27 trillion increase.
That is not a 41% increase. 1.27 is 29% of 4.35.
Do I detect a sense of "entitlement" on the behalf of the OP?
The Republicans inherited economic surpluses in 2001 and proceeded to leave it in economic chaos by 2009 - and now the OP laments the fact that the American electorate didn't see fit to give her conservative friends a 2nd chance to finish the job!
The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....
....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."
A Pod.
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.
Do you know what surplus means?
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office
Easily led dunce.
Bush justified his 2001 tax cuts on the grounds that we had a surplus,
and according to Bush, that surplus (which you claim never existed) meant that American taxpayers were being overcharged.
So, according to your 'logic', Bush was very very very very very WRONG.
The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling in everyone else's affairs, getting entangled in all sorts of military alliances that mainly serve your allies' purposes, fighting wars for the 'good' of someone other than yourself, at great expense,
borrowing money from foreign nations to fund it all, because you don't have the resources and/or the stomach to pay for it yourself,
and in the process ending up neglecting your own domestic interests, your REAL interests.
But complain about this and be sure that the perpetrators of this crime will label you as unpatriotic.
Unpatriotic because you care more about the fate of your own country than the fate of other countries.
Republicans gave up our sovereignty to Grover Norquist
Yes, I do know what reality means, thanks.
What I find "unreal" about your posts -- and I suspect you know this, but I'm not quite sure -- is the implied notion that your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate. Your party just had its hat handed it to it by an incredibly vulnerable President with unemployment over 8%. Your party went into election night gleefully anticipating a big win, only to end the evening looking like some had shot your dog. And why? Because your party currently (and I say "currently" because I'm very hopeful that some adult leadership will return soon) has this bizarre habit of creating little fantasies and then running with them as if they were fact.
And when I see your "side" complaining about things Obama may do in his next administration, it seems clear to me that he may not have had the chance to DO so if your party were not so influenced by people like you, and had been able to attract more independent voters who are not so easily swayed by fantasy.
Worse, those little fantasies are usually created and pushed by the Limbaughs, Levins and Hannitys of the world, people who have somehow convinced you that they're perpetrating these frauds for love of country, when in fact their agenda is to keep Americans angry and ratings up. Yet people like you, in an attempt to parrot these dishonest pundits, buy into their propoganda like a 12-year old at a pro wrestling event and run with them as if they're "The Truth". So I won't try to talk you out of your little world any more than I would try to talk a 12-year old boy out of his.
Yes, I must admit it's amusing, but I would much rather have the GOP marginalize your kind and return to what I consider reality (and your definition is irrelevant to me, sorry), that absolutism and fantasy creation can not control the party. I want two strong parties, so that each can keep the other in check while working together in the best interests of the country.
Your standard, tedious and contrived narcissism, flamboyance and condescension notwithstanding, of course.
.
"...your overall tactics (on a macro level) are somehow going to be a net positive for your "side" of any given debate."
My 'tactic' is simply: I provide truth.
In order to avoid same, folks like you will do anything but confront the facts. I haven't seen so many contortions since you gave birth to yourself.
"narcissism, flamboyance and condescension..."
Guilty as charged.
Yes, I know, The Truth. I hear that one from both sides.
So I think we have a deal: I'll keep hoping that our "leaders" in DC will work together in the very best interests of our country, and you -- well, you keep doing what you do.
.
Republicans gave up our sovereignty to Grover Norquist
Another one who doesn't know what 'sovereignty' means.
Republicans gave up our sovereignty to Grover Norquist
Another one who doesn't know what 'sovereignty' means.
Who have Republicans relegated control of our great nation?
Rupert Murdoch
Rush Limbaugh
Grover Norquist
It is not a belief that many of the original founder were racist and slave-holders. It is a fact. Nor does that fact detract from our greatness as a nation. Nor does acknowledging that fact make one automatically wish for global governance and the end of our sovereignty.
The Supreme Court does not have the power to throw out the US Consitution.
In 4 more years there will be another orderly transfer of power to the next administration.
[1. 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!
4.35 trillion going to 5.62 trillion is a 1.27 trillion increase.
That is not a 41% increase. 1.27 is 29% of 4.35.
NOW I have to teach you math, too????
Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."
His term ended with an increase of $1,628,700
That is an increase of 40.7175%
Should I wait for the apology?
The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling in everyone else's affairs, getting entangled in all sorts of military alliances that mainly serve your allies' purposes, fighting wars for the 'good' of someone other than yourself, at great expense,
borrowing money from foreign nations to fund it all, because you don't have the resources and/or the stomach to pay for it yourself,
and in the process ending up neglecting your own domestic interests, your REAL interests.
But complain about this and be sure that the perpetrators of this crime will label you as unpatriotic.
Unpatriotic because you care more about the fate of your own country than the fate of other countries.
"The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling...."
Why do you insist on announcing that you are clueless???
Trust me: it's not necessary to announce it.
But...as educating you seems to fall to me.....
...let me know if you need a remedial in 'sovereignty.'
4.35 trillion going to 5.62 trillion is a 1.27 trillion increase.
That is not a 41% increase. 1.27 is 29% of 4.35.
NOW I have to teach you math, too????
Did you miss this?
"The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt."
His term ended with an increase of $1,628,700
That is an increase of 40.7175%
Should I wait for the apology?
I used the numbers you posted.
According to 'debt to the penny' the actual number is 37%. So we're both wrong.
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
The debt increased 86% under Bush, just for perspective.
The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling in everyone else's affairs, getting entangled in all sorts of military alliances that mainly serve your allies' purposes, fighting wars for the 'good' of someone other than yourself, at great expense,
borrowing money from foreign nations to fund it all, because you don't have the resources and/or the stomach to pay for it yourself,
and in the process ending up neglecting your own domestic interests, your REAL interests.
But complain about this and be sure that the perpetrators of this crime will label you as unpatriotic.
Unpatriotic because you care more about the fate of your own country than the fate of other countries.
"The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling...."
Why do you insist on announcing that you are clueless???
Trust me: it's not necessary to announce it.
But...as educating you seems to fall to me.....
...let me know if you need a remedial in 'sovereignty.'
Is that meant to be a rebuttal, or just another ill fated attempt at wit?
The ideas of a surplus is bogus....and it says a great deal about you that you believe it....
....it identifies you as the "reliable Democrat voter."
A Pod.
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
Over his term, the national debt rose 41%.
Do you know what surplus means?
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office
Easily led dunce.
Bush justified his 2001 tax cuts on the grounds that we had a surplus,
and according to Bush, that surplus (which you claim never existed) meant that American taxpayers were being overcharged.
So, according to your 'logic', Bush was very very very very very WRONG.
Gee....I thought you've always claimed that Bush was 'stoooooppppid'....
...now you claim that he is your economics expert?
"The best way to lose your sovereignty is go around the world meddling...."
Why do you insist on announcing that you are clueless???
Trust me: it's not necessary to announce it.
But...as educating you seems to fall to me.....
...let me know if you need a remedial in 'sovereignty.'
Is that meant to be a rebuttal, or just another ill fated attempt at wit?
Must everything for you be on the level of 'see jack run'?
You don't know the meaning of 'sovereignty' and I'm dying to enlighten.
That's what it means.
The American Patriots Have Lost to the Globalists.
1. It follows logically that those of us who believe that America is exceptional, in its history, its accomplishments, and its singularity, would revel in same, and desire to perpetuate it...
....but those who despise America, believe that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, wish to transform it.
These, the Leftists, wish for global governance .the end of our sovereignty.
2. Flying under the radar in this election is the fact that it ensconced progressives and that doesnt just mean Democrats, in charge. Listen to them speak:
a.Strobe Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution, has written that he welcomed super-national political authority, saying "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
b.Harold Koh, chief legal adviser of the State Department, and the legal authority of the government on foreign legal policy, states that the Supreme Court "must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law," The only way for the Supreme Court to do that "coordinating" is to subordinate the real American Constitution to ever-evolving rules of foreign and international law.
c.Richard Haass, Republican, president of the Council on Foreign Relations states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function . sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization.
d. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, is a passing phase. Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa - NYTimes.com
3. When we consider the abrupt changes in Europe, we should be concerned about the lack of consensus in our own country regarding. The following from a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. on the importance of constitutional sovereignty....
a. Had we ratified the Kyoto Protocol we would have delegated the authority over huge areas of public policy to international authorities, i.e. the lost of constitutional treaty making powers. But the Obama administration is aiming to negotiate a new treaty along those lines.
b. There is the thinking that 'human rights law' transcends the laws of particular countries, even those pertaining to national defense. But who should set the standards- especially against terrorists?
c. People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty- such as defense and protection of rights, without constitutional discipline, without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, we will be safe. Sounds as good as incantations and witchcraft.
d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?
e. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
6. Tragically, this is the position Obama voters have created.
Unable to judge the future, these voters, these Brutuses, have left the rest of us in the position of one day saying...
..'Forgive them, they knew not what they did.'
Another one who doesn't know what 'sovereignty' means.
Who have Republicans relegated control of our great nation?
Rupert Murdoch
Rush Limbaugh
Grover Norquist
Look at you!!!
You changed the subject without your default 'cutandpastecutandpaste skwawk! skwawk!!"
What was that old-dogs-new-tricks thing?
Sure you don't want to know what 'sovereignty' means?
After all:
"A day spent without learning something is a day wasted." Anonymous
And you can't afford to waste many more.....
