Where The Heck Did All These Leftists Come From??

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow, you left out the key part of the question, guy.

What do WORKING PEOPLE who've been victimized by the plutocrats for 30 years have to show for their support of the GOP?

And the answer is, not a damn thing.

Not that I love the Donkeys, I don't. But at least their hearts are in the right places.

The GOP needs to be sent to political siberia until they get it right with the working man.

Working people? Victimized?

Put the American Left is NOT I repeat is NOT Neo-MArxist!

They just use the same language, think the same thought and have the exact same world view

Yawn, people who blurt out "Marxist" have no credibility.

How is it that working people's salaries have DECLINED when adjusted for inflation since 1980, while CEO salaries have increased 600%?

Is the CEO Performance really improved that much? Or are they just taking advantage of the fact that they are in charge of the cookie jar?

It's Marxism. They just haven't told you that yet.

 

[Care4all]

Working people? Victimized?

Put the American Left is NOT I repeat is NOT Neo-MArxist!

They just use the same language, think the same thought and have the exact same world view

Yawn, people who blurt out "Marxist" have no credibility.

How is it that working people's salaries have DECLINED when adjusted for inflation since 1980, while CEO salaries have increased 600%?

Is the CEO Performance really improved that much? Or are they just taking advantage of the fact that they are in charge of the cookie jar?

It's Marxism. They just haven't told you that yet.

In an 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”


Thomas Jefferson said in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”


John Adams also had an opinion.
“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter Lincoln wrote,
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

President Grover Cleveland said in 1888:
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


President Theodore Roosevelt said this about them:
“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”



In his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated:

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

In 1912 G Cleveland said:
“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.” http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/10/founding-fathers/


Now tell me something Frank, were these people above "marxist" according to you?

 

[jillian]

Yawn, people who blurt out "Marxist" have no credibility.

How is it that working people's salaries have DECLINED when adjusted for inflation since 1980, while CEO salaries have increased 600%?

Is the CEO Performance really improved that much? Or are they just taking advantage of the fact that they are in charge of the cookie jar?

It's Marxism. They just haven't told you that yet.

In an 1802 letter Thomas Jefferson said, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”


Thomas Jefferson said in 1816,
“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”


John Adams also had an opinion.
“Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good.”


Abraham Lincoln
“The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.”


And in a November 21, 1864 letter Lincoln wrote,
“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood … It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

President Grover Cleveland said in 1888:
“As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters.”


President Theodore Roosevelt said this about them:
“The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”



In his State of The Union Address in 1902, Roosevelt stated:

“Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to serve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth.”

In 1912 G Cleveland said:
“We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or getting unfair advantages over business rivals.”


Now tell me something Frank, were these people above "marxist" according to you?

i'm not sure frankie can read all those words... i think they're a bit beyond his grade level.

but you're very nice to try.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you do know the difference between the National PUPLIC Debt and the Total National Debt don't you? Or is it that you are counting on the members here not knowing? Just curious....

Sure do......

....it's the flim-flam that the Left uses to pretend that Clinton actually has a balanced budget and a surplus....

You know, the same kind of propaganda the Left trots out every election, like the Right candidate is SOOOOOO StOOOOPID....

We balanced the unified budget in the 1990s. We did not balance the operating budget, but we did balance the unified budget, which includes the government trusts. The convention of unifying the budget began under Reagan. To understand the mechanics of how the budget was balanced, which refutes the arguments you posted, click here.

The idea that this is somehow a leftist convention - forget about how many times Newt Gingrich talked about how he balanced the budget in the primaries - click here to see Republicans saying there was a balanced budget.

In a prior discussion, I believe you agreed that the national debt went up considerably under President Clinton.

Isn't that so?

 

[Toro]

Sure do......

....it's the flim-flam that the Left uses to pretend that Clinton actually has a balanced budget and a surplus....

You know, the same kind of propaganda the Left trots out every election, like the Right candidate is SOOOOOO StOOOOPID....

We balanced the unified budget in the 1990s. We did not balance the operating budget, but we did balance the unified budget, which includes the government trusts. The convention of unifying the budget began under Reagan. To understand the mechanics of how the budget was balanced, which refutes the arguments you posted, click here.

The idea that this is somehow a leftist convention - forget about how many times Newt Gingrich talked about how he balanced the budget in the primaries - click here to see Republicans saying there was a balanced budget.

In a prior discussion, I believe you agreed that the national debt went up considerably under President Clinton.

Isn't that so?

The total national debt of the US rose. And debt held by the public debt fell.

The government ran surpluses for four straight fiscal years.

Please read the links to understand this issue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We balanced the unified budget in the 1990s. We did not balance the operating budget, but we did balance the unified budget, which includes the government trusts. The convention of unifying the budget began under Reagan. To understand the mechanics of how the budget was balanced, which refutes the arguments you posted, click here.

The idea that this is somehow a leftist convention - forget about how many times Newt Gingrich talked about how he balanced the budget in the primaries - click here to see Republicans saying there was a balanced budget.

In a prior discussion, I believe you agreed that the national debt went up considerably under President Clinton.

Isn't that so?

The total national debt of the US rose. And debt held by the public debt fell.

The government ran surpluses for four straight fiscal years.

Please read the links to understand this issue.

Friend Toro....it is you who fails to understand the 'issue.'

1. As you state,correctly, "The total national debt of the US rose."

a. From an earlier post:
"There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year."

2. Fact: the national news media, as well as academia, has done and will do everything in their power to advance Left-wing officials and policies....this goes beyond manipulated the truth.
You seem to have fallen under the 'spell.'


3. The basis of conversational intercourse is Standard English. I choose not to allow any other to color the debate.


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.

That would be correct, wouldn't it?

Since the debt rose by a substantial amount.....some 41%...under Clinton, it is bogus to suggest that he engineered any surplus.

a. Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

The reason for claiming a Clinton 'surplus' is the same as always....inflate the glory of a Leftist.

 

[Toro]

A surplus is cash inflow less cash outflow. Cash inflow that exceeds cash outflow is a surplus. Cash outflow that exceeds cash inflow is a deficit. Full stop. That's it. The total national debt may go up or down if there is a surplus or a deficit. Total national debt includes total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public plus total debt the government owes to itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will rise when there is a deficit. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will fall when there is a surplus. The fiscal balance does not include changes to debt the government owes itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public fell during the 1990s. This is evidence of a surplus since excess cash generated by the surplus was used to retire Treasury debt. Please refer to my prior links to explain further how this works.

This is why Republicans, conservatives, economists and accountants familiar with government accounting don't make the argument that there wasn't a surplus. Please refer to my links to the conservatives and Republicans who referenced the surpluses above. It's why Newt Gingrich repeatedly got up on stage during the primaries and said he was responsible for the surpluses, for which he certainly gets a big chunk of credit.

 

[Truthseeker420]

BTW...what's "leftism?"

It's what ever Rush Limbaugh /Fox tells her.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I didn't know Buckley was such an idiot.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[daveman]

I didn't know Buckley was such an idiot.

He pretty much nailed it. Are you feeling your toes stepped on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A surplus is cash inflow less cash outflow. Cash inflow that exceeds cash outflow is a surplus. Cash outflow that exceeds cash inflow is a deficit. Full stop. That's it. The total national debt may go up or down if there is a surplus or a deficit. Total national debt includes total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public plus total debt the government owes to itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will rise when there is a deficit. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will fall when there is a surplus. The fiscal balance does not include changes to debt the government owes itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public fell during the 1990s. This is evidence of a surplus since excess cash generated by the surplus was used to retire Treasury debt. Please refer to my prior links to explain further how this works.

This is why Republicans, conservatives, economists and accountants familiar with government accounting don't make the argument that there wasn't a surplus. Please refer to my links to the conservatives and Republicans who referenced the surpluses above. It's why Newt Gingrich repeatedly got up on stage during the primaries and said he was responsible for the surpluses, for which he certainly gets a big chunk of credit.

I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.

The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....

...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.


As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.

I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'

While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.


While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I didn't know Buckley was such an idiot.

He pretty much nailed it. Are you feeling your toes stepped on?

No he didn't nail it, liberals are offended because conservatives force their views on liberals.

 

[there4eyeM]

When disagreement automatically means 'left', that will surely swell the ranks.

 

[daveman]

I didn't know Buckley was such an idiot.

He pretty much nailed it. Are you feeling your toes stepped on?

No he didn't nail it, liberals are offended because conservatives force their views on liberals.

Really? Where is the call from conservatives to force liberal broadcasters to air conservative views?

You know, like the left wants their views forced on conservative broadcasters with the Fairness Doctrine.

Please detail how conservatives are forcing their views on liberals.

 

[Toro]

A surplus is cash inflow less cash outflow. Cash inflow that exceeds cash outflow is a surplus. Cash outflow that exceeds cash inflow is a deficit. Full stop. That's it. The total national debt may go up or down if there is a surplus or a deficit. Total national debt includes total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public plus total debt the government owes to itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will rise when there is a deficit. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will fall when there is a surplus. The fiscal balance does not include changes to debt the government owes itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public fell during the 1990s. This is evidence of a surplus since excess cash generated by the surplus was used to retire Treasury debt. Please refer to my prior links to explain further how this works.

This is why Republicans, conservatives, economists and accountants familiar with government accounting don't make the argument that there wasn't a surplus. Please refer to my links to the conservatives and Republicans who referenced the surpluses above. It's why Newt Gingrich repeatedly got up on stage during the primaries and said he was responsible for the surpluses, for which he certainly gets a big chunk of credit.

I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.

The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....

...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.


As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.

I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'

While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.


While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.

You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.

If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!

Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been ‘brainwashed.” Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas.
Brainwashed?

Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.

Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.
Prager, “Still The Best Hope,” chapter two.



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.




3. Now, while the indoctrination by universities is thorough and complete…it is not permanent. This is the meaning of 'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.

Therefore, what is required to maintain the miasma, the haze of Liberalism, is the media.

The media is the wall against which most folks bounce their search for “Truth.” In the Golden Days of Liberal control of the media, there was the Cronkite-Chancellor-Reasoner Cartel. In this top-down system for determining the Truth, it was handed out by a very few networks…and a handful of national newspapers. Cronkite went so far as to end any debate, each night with” “And that’s the way it is.”

a. Cronkite was a big believer in the powers of centralization, that the smartest people could get into a room and solve all the world’s problems.

b. Cronkite: “It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”
Remarks on Accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award - World Beyond Borders

c. Frank Zappa saw this top-down journalistic ‘Truth’ for what it was: “They walk in the door seeking a method by which they can reinforce conclusions they've already arrived at. “Zappa Family regains control of Frank's Catalog!! - Furthur Community Forum




4. Why so many in the profession lean Left? “The radicals [of the 60's] were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51



But the spell is wearing off....fewer watch the nightly news, and fewer yet the newspapers.

5. In 1987 a group of conservative news junkies started the ‘Media Research Center.’ The same year, the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine. A year later, Rush Limbaugh began his wildly successful radio show. And in 1996, Matt Drudge appeared.



The internet: the final battleground.

Wow. A liberal arts education is, essentially, a brainwash. Thanks so much for your insight; knowing all those courses, in all those departments had only one purpose - to create a liberal.

From the Golden Age of Greece to the Gilded Age and beyond all those authors - philosophers, poets, historians, novelists and chroniclers had one and only one agenda.

I suggest PC you need a course in trolling; a successful troll is credible, not comical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I didn't know Buckley was such an idiot.

He pretty much nailed it. Are you feeling your toes stepped on?

No he didn't nail it, liberals are offended because conservatives force their views on liberals.

Could there be a more Liberal term than "offended"?



1. The feelings-based nature of liberalism helps explain why people on the Left are much more likely to claim to be “offended” when faced with which they differ. Not, ‘I disagree,” but “I am offended!” When are people ‘offended’? When their feelings are hurt. A pro-choice woman is ‘offended’ by the pro-life position, ostensibly because her feelings are more worthwhile than the objective worth of a human fetus.

a. ‘Political correctness’ is also based on not hurting people’s feelings.

b. Complaint about Senator Joseph McCarthy often center around how abusive he was to communists….again, feelings.

c. In January 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Larry Summers sparked controversy with his discussion of why women may have been underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions". Yup….hurt feelings.

d. Again, the question of importance to the Left is ‘Does this statement or position hurt anyone’s feelings?’ rather than ‘Is the statement true?’


2. In the light of the essential nature of emotion to the Left, it makes perfect sense that they have created the (highly destructive) self-esteem movement, based on how one feels about oneself. Of course, it is always quite a high number for Leftists, convinced that they are brighter, kinder, finer, more sophisticated, more enlightened, more selfless, and, of course, more intellectual.
Above based on chapter two of Dennis Prager's "Still The Best Hope."

 

[PoliticalChic]

A surplus is cash inflow less cash outflow. Cash inflow that exceeds cash outflow is a surplus. Cash outflow that exceeds cash inflow is a deficit. Full stop. That's it. The total national debt may go up or down if there is a surplus or a deficit. Total national debt includes total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public plus total debt the government owes to itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will rise when there is a deficit. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will fall when there is a surplus. The fiscal balance does not include changes to debt the government owes itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public fell during the 1990s. This is evidence of a surplus since excess cash generated by the surplus was used to retire Treasury debt. Please refer to my prior links to explain further how this works.

This is why Republicans, conservatives, economists and accountants familiar with government accounting don't make the argument that there wasn't a surplus. Please refer to my links to the conservatives and Republicans who referenced the surpluses above. It's why Newt Gingrich repeatedly got up on stage during the primaries and said he was responsible for the surpluses, for which he certainly gets a big chunk of credit.

I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.

The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....

...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.


As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.

I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'

While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.


While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.

You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.

If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.

Not at all.

I am stating that it is misleading, at the very least, to point to one aspect of the fisc and generalize, imply that it represents the actual balance of payments.

And the motivation for same is clear for any open mind to see.....

....I'm suggesting that you use your insight in this regard.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.

The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....

...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.


As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.

I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'

While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.


While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.

You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.

If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.

Not at all.

I am stating that it is misleading, at the very least, to point to one aspect of the fisc and generalize, imply that it represents the actual balance of payments.

And the motivation for same is clear for any open mind to see.....

....I'm suggesting that you use your insight in this regard.

In case you missed this:

Wow. A liberal arts education is, essentially, a brainwash. Thanks so much for your insight; knowing all those courses, in all those departments had only one purpose - to create a liberal.

From the Golden Age of Greece to the Gilded Age and beyond all those authors - philosophers, poets, historians, novelists and chroniclers had one and only one agenda.

I suggest PC you need a course in trolling; a successful troll is credible, not comical.