The Right to Work for less money

[Gadawg73]

I agree with you.
Do not cut any of them.
We are out of $$$ so just let them die.
Good idea.

There are alternatives, one of which is a S.T.E.T. tax, which will impose a small tax on every stock trading transaction.

Another is to impose serious cuts in the bloated defense budget.

Show where the defense budget is bloated. Or are you just going along with anti-military lib talking points?
Cutting the military budget does two things. One, it weakens the nation. Two, lots of jobs disappear. And House members do not want to go back to their districts to tell people there that they will be let go soon.
Nope, the cuts have to come from entitlements. There are lots of ways to cut entitlement funding without hurting recipients. Case and point. The federal government spends 40 cents of every dollar administering entitlements. That translates to there are too many federal employees pushing paper and creating bureaucracy and red tape.

Obsolete military bases are not necessarily "bloated" but they do cost $$$.
But Republicans try to close them and Democrats fight that.

 

[Koios]

Social entitlements have gotten out of control.
Instead of their intended purpose of a "hand up", these things have been transmogrified into a "hand out"...
The big lie is that these programs were devised to end poverty. Here we are trillions of dollars wasted and the percentage of social entitlement recipients has ballooned.
These programs have created generations of a permanent underclass of people who think they are owed something.
It is not the neediest of our fellow Americans which is the concern. It is the millions of people gaming the system. Getting checks via fraud.
The notion of "paid in" is a myth.
These deductions from out paychecks are TAXES. This is proved out by the SCOTUS ruling on ACA. ACA is not a system into which we "pay into"...According to the SCOTUS ACA is a TAX.
The theory of paying into a system would require some kind of savings vehicle or account set up specifically for the payee. This does not exist.
An IRA is an example of a vehicle one pays into...
A pension is another example of same.
I see the real reason for your being here. You're just another entitlement lib who displays hate and vitriol towards people who have the gall to want people to be responsible for themselves. You despise all who do not wish to contribute any longer to a broken system which has an exponentially growing cost with no end in sight.
Don't go spewing crap about "weaseling out of responsibilities". That is a bunch of shit.
It is not our responsibility to take care of those who are gaming the system. We want government to find them and kick them off the taxpayer tit.

Nah; they're doing great. Just time to pay them back for all we borrowed to pay for shit while taxes have been too low. Go look; you'll see.

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nah; they're doing great. Just time to pay them back for all we borrowed to pay for shit while taxes have been too low. Go look; you'll see.

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Anyone that believes that we had a surplus after Clinton's second term:
I have some beach front property in Woodstock, Ga. FOR SALE.
Good deal.

 

[Koios]

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Anyone that believes that we had a surplus after Clinton's second term:
I have some beach front property in Woodstock, Ga. FOR SALE.
Good deal.

No shit. Can imagine these dumbfucks believe it too?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[P@triot]

Anyone crying about "the right to work for less money" - you have complete CONTROL over the situation.

Start your own business. Problem solved. You can now wallow in billions just like Bill Gates does. See how easy that was?

(*Bonus - you can hire workers and pay each of them 7-figures. You'll be the ultimate hero to the working man, and a shining example to other companies of how to run a business)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nah; they're doing great. Just time to pay them back for all we borrowed to pay for shit while taxes have been too low. Go look; you'll see.

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Go smoke some more meth you fuckwad... none of what you said is even remotely accurate you lying sack-of-shit. Have you always been like this?

 

[Koios]

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Go smoke some more meth you fuckwad... none of what you said is even remotely accurate you lying sack-of-shit. Have you always been like this?

Yeah; I think so. I never suffered fools, well, that I can recall.

Meanwhile, if some good ice was easily attainable, I might take you up on your suggestion. I'm guessing anything as habit-forming as meth, probably delivers significant benefit. Why else would folks want more and more, to the point of poverty, jail and premature aging? Gotta be some good shit; yeah? But try to not dwell on that too much. Best you not try something that's a special kinda nirvana. Really; don't even think about its miraculous qualities, and start wondering what you're missing out on. Just say "no;" Nancy will be glad you did.

 

[P@triot]

Just time to pay them back for all we borrowed to pay for shit while taxes have been too low. Go look; you'll see.

Higher tax rates discourage all of the activities that lead to a stronger economy. That's even something Obama acknowledged when he signed legislation preventing a similar tax hike two years ago.

Facts, they are a real bitch for you agents of misinformation, aren't they?

 

[Gadawg73]

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Anyone that believes that we had a surplus after Clinton's second term:
I have some beach front property in Woodstock, Ga. FOR SALE.
Good deal.

No shit. Can imagine these dumbfucks believe it too?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Anyone that believes "outlays" is Federal spending I have some mountain property in Havana, Florida For Sale.
Good deal.
The Treasury Department has the debt increasing every year for decades, 2001 debt increased from 5.6 trillion in 2000 to 5.9 trillion in 2001 and more from 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and on to date.
There are TWO KINDS OF FEDERAL DEBT:
Government debt and intra-governmental debt.
Your "surplus" numbers from the Tax Policy Center DO NOT list intra-governmental debt. Instead they listed the surpluses from social security contributions during those years that far exceeded payouts, unlike now.
Those phony baloney figures did not account for the $$$ that the government has borrowed against itself, about 800 billion in the last 3 years of Clinton in office.
WELL DUH

 

[P@triot]

Meanwhile, as for entitlements, there's a reason we call them that: folks paid-in; they're fucking entitled, and in fact are owed for the money the Trust Fund loaned so we could pay for shit without raising taxes. Now to say cut them in service of more retarded fucking rightie desires to weasle out of responsibilities, is, uh, kinda an asshole thing to even entertain in your little pea-brains.

Just saying.

If, as you say, "folks paid in" - then it's not an entitlement. It's something you EARNED. You it would be "earnings". That fact alone shows how disingenuous you left-wing nut's are.

Second, it was your side of the aisle that set up the nation collapsing "entitlements" - and it was the GOP who screamed as loud as they could each time that it would harm America exponentially.

Dumbocrat F.D.R gave us Social Security (now bankrupt)
Dumbocrat L.B.J. gave us Medicare & Medicaid (now bankrupt)
Dumbocrat Obama gave us Obamcare (guaranteed to go bankrupt)

Perhaps if you government-loving, government-free-loading, parasites would take personal responsibility for your own needs and your own well being, this nation would be on the verge of both full-fledged communism and bankruptcy.

Just saying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

There are alternatives, one of which is a S.T.E.T. tax, which will impose a small tax on every stock trading transaction.

Another is to impose serious cuts in the bloated defense budget.

Show where the defense budget is bloated. Or are you just going along with anti-military lib talking points?
Cutting the military budget does two things. One, it weakens the nation. Two, lots of jobs disappear. And House members do not want to go back to their districts to tell people there that they will be let go soon.
Nope, the cuts have to come from entitlements. There are lots of ways to cut entitlement funding without hurting recipients. Case and point. The federal government spends 40 cents of every dollar administering entitlements. That translates to there are too many federal employees pushing paper and creating bureaucracy and red tape.

Obsolete military bases are not necessarily "bloated" but they do cost $$$.
But Republicans try to close them and Democrats fight that.

I submit that whomever represents a particular district in which one of these so called obsolete bases is located will fight to keep that base open. This is for the simple reason of preserving jobs in their district. No House Member will want to have to answer to pissed off constituents who've lost their jobs when they know other items can be cut from the budget that will hurt the fewest people.
For example, I remember when Griffis AFB in Rome, NY was closed. Thousands of civilians lost their jobs in an already economically devastated area. It was not until the Oneida Indians opened a casino in Verona. NY that the economy started to turn there. And even with the casino the hotels and other amenities that were built as a result of economic growth, the area still suffers.
Base closings are a part of the process. However, when the politics of entitlement rules the day and the goodies are deemed sacrosanct, the only people who are made to suffer working/producing taxpayers.

 

[Koios]

Anyone that believes that we had a surplus after Clinton's second term:
I have some beach front property in Woodstock, Ga. FOR SALE.
Good deal.

No shit. Can imagine these dumbfucks believe it too?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Anyone that believes "outlays" is Federal spending I have some mountain property in Havana, Florida For Sale.
Good deal.
The Treasury Department has the debt increasing every year for decades, 2001 debt increased from 5.6 trillion in 2000 to 5.9 trillion in 2001 and more from 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and on to date.
There are TWO KINDS OF FEDERAL DEBT:
Government debt and intra-governmental debt.
Your "surplus" numbers from the Tax Policy Center DO NOT list intra-governmental debt. Instead they listed the surpluses from social security contributions during those years that far exceeded payouts, unlike now.
Those phony baloney figures did not account for the $$$ that the government has borrowed against itself, about 800 billion in the last 3 years of Clinton in office.
WELL DUH

Astonishing.

Now back to some very basic shit, so ya'll can (merely can) get up-to-speed.

Indeed, outlays are actual spending, which the US Con requires the Executive to report to the People, "from time to time." These days, that's often, and even projected, which often takes some years to be tallied to the point of being "actual." (Actual numbers are adjusted up and down, too. But many years later, actual is pretty spot on.)

Now back to Bush 43, who "fixed" a problem we did not have, saying the "surplus" needed to go to the People (not the debt, obviously). Hell; remember the rebate checks mailed in 2001? And ya'll on the Right were sure as shit in favor of getting your surplus rebated and voted for that functional retard, many twice.

But of course as fucked up as things became, afterward, when about 80% of Americans thought him an abject failure as president, a bit of recasting of history was needed to sustain your delusions. And my how well you're doing in that regard.

 

[dnsmith35]

Anyone that believes that we had a surplus after Clinton's second term: I have some beach front property in Woodstock, Ga. FOR SALE.
Good deal.

How true! When people talk about the "unified budget" they are saying they are comfortable putting all of the premiums collected from FICA AND MC AND OTHER GOVERNMENT TRUST FUNDS and including it in the "on budget money" in the general treasury without counting the new debt created by borrowing that money. It is a voodoo accounting "convention" designed to make the administration look good. The total national public debt went up every year Clinton was president. Therefore, NO SURPLUS except in the minds of fools.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Nah; they're doing great. Just time to pay them back for all we borrowed to pay for shit while taxes have been too low. Go look; you'll see.

Here's the flaw in your argument. I was not the one who borrowed. It was those geniuses in Washington. Go get your payback from them.
And taxes are not too low. Spending is too great.

Really? Who voted for the no-taxes crowd, thus making borrowing necessary? Hmmm?

Also, who voted for Bush 43 whose stated mission was to fix a problem we did not have? (surplus, at a time of high national debt)

The Right is totally to blame. Peace and prosperity turned into wars and deep recession, while the debt, which was already a signficant problem, was allowed to double, with no policies to mitigate it even considered by the Right. Hell; they even signed a pack with that dumbfuck Grover Norquist, a politico with zero background in economics. Pure fucking politics, despite towering and rapidly rising national debt, for which the Right should be ashamed.

But instead, now the fucking assholes (the Right) want to gut a vital program that lent from its trust fund to keep the nation afloat while taxes were kept low, so again you slime bag fucks can avoid responsibility??? Oh; and now that you abject retards finally discovered we have a deficit and huge debt about 20 years too late, ya'll say it's too big to fix with a modest tax increase, and yet sufficient tax increases, which you'll go ape fucking shit fighting, are a non starter -- and then blame the Left for your fuckups???

Blow me, your retarded fucking little maggots.

Also, Happy Holidays, ya'll. I hope Santa drops by your trailer parks and is good to you.

Once again, a lib with no answers to the facts blows a gasket.
Responsibility you say. Hmm, fascinating.
Vital program? Which one?
The left gets all the blame for over spending and poor administration. The left gives all of it away, creates mountains of bureaucracy, driving up costs.
The left creates these social safety nets and leaves them unfunded. The left increases federal employment with the idea of needing these programs to be administered.
ACA is just one example.
16,000 new IRS employees have to be hired at a cost of $800 million per year in wages and benefits. That's figuring an average wage/benefit of $50k per year.
And there are countless other positions that will have to created and filled. The money comes from where?
Obama and his cronies said ACA will "save" money. No, ACA simply takes the chess pieces and moves them around the board. There is no reduction in cost. Oh there may be lower "prices" in some instances, but ACA does no address "cost".
Don't give me this nonsense about "paid into" and "vital programs".
Newsflash. Government does nothing it to enhance anything. "Lent?"...
No whatever money was located in the magical "lockbox" was STOLEN long ago by politicians trying to look good for the Sunday AM talk shows, touting this alleged budget surplus.
BTW, Bush 43 may have had an (R) next to his name, but he was nothing close to resembling a conservative. In fact what got him elected to his first term was a willingness to steal democrat issues. Bush 43 was a right leaning populist. Clinton was a left leaning populist. Both presidents were essentailly alike in fiscal and social policy.
So now you will swear, spit nails and offer up more liberal talking points. You will sum it up with same line, "raise taxes"....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Like I said, liberal ideology is that of entitlement. Of government handouts. Of high taxes. Of less freedom. Is anti business and anti capitalism.

 

[Gadawg73]

No shit. Can imagine these dumbfucks believe it too?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Anyone that believes "outlays" is Federal spending I have some mountain property in Havana, Florida For Sale.
Good deal.
The Treasury Department has the debt increasing every year for decades, 2001 debt increased from 5.6 trillion in 2000 to 5.9 trillion in 2001 and more from 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and on to date.
There are TWO KINDS OF FEDERAL DEBT:
Government debt and intra-governmental debt.
Your "surplus" numbers from the Tax Policy Center DO NOT list intra-governmental debt. Instead they listed the surpluses from social security contributions during those years that far exceeded payouts, unlike now.
Those phony baloney figures did not account for the $$$ that the government has borrowed against itself, about 800 billion in the last 3 years of Clinton in office.
WELL DUH

Astonishing.

Now back to some very basic shit, so ya'll can (merely can) get up-to-speed.

Indeed, outlays are actual spending, which the US Con requires the Executive to report to the People, "from time to time." These days, that's often, and even projected, which often takes some years to be tallied to the point of being "actual." (Actual numbers are adjusted up and down, too. But many years later, actual is pretty spot on.)

Now back to Bush 43, who "fixed" a problem we did not have, saying the "surplus" needed to go to the People (not the debt, obviously). Hell; remember the rebate checks mailed in 2001? And ya'll on the Right were sure as shit in favor of getting your surplus rebated and voted for that functional retard, many twice.

But of course as fucked up as things became, afterward, when about 80% of Americans thought him an abject failure as president, a bit of recasting of history was needed to sustain your delusions. And my how well you're doing in that regard.

Wow, got back $300 out of the $30,000 I paid that year.
Massive amount of cash there for the moocher class for sure.

 

[Koios]

Anyone that believes "outlays" is Federal spending I have some mountain property in Havana, Florida For Sale.
Good deal.
The Treasury Department has the debt increasing every year for decades, 2001 debt increased from 5.6 trillion in 2000 to 5.9 trillion in 2001 and more from 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and on to date.
There are TWO KINDS OF FEDERAL DEBT:
Government debt and intra-governmental debt.
Your "surplus" numbers from the Tax Policy Center DO NOT list intra-governmental debt. Instead they listed the surpluses from social security contributions during those years that far exceeded payouts, unlike now.
Those phony baloney figures did not account for the $$$ that the government has borrowed against itself, about 800 billion in the last 3 years of Clinton in office.
WELL DUH

Astonishing.

Now back to some very basic shit, so ya'll can (merely can) get up-to-speed.

Indeed, outlays are actual spending, which the US Con requires the Executive to report to the People, "from time to time." These days, that's often, and even projected, which often takes some years to be tallied to the point of being "actual." (Actual numbers are adjusted up and down, too. But many years later, actual is pretty spot on.)

Now back to Bush 43, who "fixed" a problem we did not have, saying the "surplus" needed to go to the People (not the debt, obviously). Hell; remember the rebate checks mailed in 2001? And ya'll on the Right were sure as shit in favor of getting your surplus rebated and voted for that functional retard, many twice.

But of course as fucked up as things became, afterward, when about 80% of Americans thought him an abject failure as president, a bit of recasting of history was needed to sustain your delusions. And my how well you're doing in that regard.

Wow, got back $300 out of the $30,000 I paid that year.
Massive amount of cash there for the moocher class for sure.

Sure; it was a pittance for most high wage earners, me included. But nice to see your memory coming back. So that's worth something. Meanwhile if OMB data (Mental heavy lifting for the Executive, by real live economists and not the pundits ya'll Righy dipshits look to for learnin' on "economics.") is not to your liking, how about CBO, the folks who do the research for the dimwits on Capitol Hill, which Boehner & Co call upon any time a tiny snippet might be used to spin Righty pseudo-economic horseshit?

CBO graph ... enjoy

 

[Gadawg73]

Astonishing.

Now back to some very basic shit, so ya'll can (merely can) get up-to-speed.

Indeed, outlays are actual spending, which the US Con requires the Executive to report to the People, "from time to time." These days, that's often, and even projected, which often takes some years to be tallied to the point of being "actual." (Actual numbers are adjusted up and down, too. But many years later, actual is pretty spot on.)

Now back to Bush 43, who "fixed" a problem we did not have, saying the "surplus" needed to go to the People (not the debt, obviously). Hell; remember the rebate checks mailed in 2001? And ya'll on the Right were sure as shit in favor of getting your surplus rebated and voted for that functional retard, many twice.

But of course as fucked up as things became, afterward, when about 80% of Americans thought him an abject failure as president, a bit of recasting of history was needed to sustain your delusions. And my how well you're doing in that regard.

Wow, got back $300 out of the $30,000 I paid that year.
Massive amount of cash there for the moocher class for sure.

Sure; it was a pittance for most high wage earners, me included. But nice to see your memory coming back. So that's worth something. Meanwhile if OMB data (Mental heavy lifting for the Executive, by real live economists and not the pundits ya'll Righy dipshits look to for learnin' on "economics.") is not to your liking, how about CBO, the folks who do the research for the dimwits on Capitol Hill, which Boehner & Co call upon any time a tiny snippet might be used to spin Righty pseudo-economic horseshit?

CBO graph ... enjoy

CBO= NO accounting of intra governmental debt.
Too big a word for you to understand?

 

[Gadawg73]

$800 billion minus 500 billion equals 300 billion in aditional debt.
Same as Treasury Dept. figures which show NO surplus in any year from 1980 until the present.
Treasury Department, ever heard of them?
What do they do?

 

[Koios]

$800 billion minus 500 billion equals 300 billion in aditional debt.
Same as Treasury Dept. figures which show NO surplus in any year from 1980 until the present.
Treasury Department, ever heard of them?
What do they do?

Yeah; I seem to recall having heard of Treasury (the dept.). I think it was a Goldman branch office when that Paulson fella was running things. Is that of which you speak?

And in 2001, the interest on our outstanding debt was $359,507,635,242.41, which is included in "outlays." And yet, revenue was higher. Whadaya know.

 

[Koios]

Meanwhile, for facts (yeah; that pesky little word) on budgeting and shit, the CBO has a real nice PDF that explains how it works, which I think you might enjoy, if knowing shit is better than clinging to comfortable delusions. Enjoy:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/budgetinfographic.pdf