National Tea Party Leadership Team Accepts President Obama's Invitation

[Iriemon]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

For those who will try and spout off about some mythical Clinton surplus.. for we know it is gonna come

And yes.. the budget does go in the FISCAL YEAR and not the calendar year.. and that is how historical data goes in terms of the nation's financial state including surplus or deficit numbers

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

the treasury says there wasnt

Shown otherwise here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

 

[DiamondDave]

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

For those who will try and spout off about some mythical Clinton surplus.. for we know it is gonna come

And yes.. the budget does go in the FISCAL YEAR and not the calendar year.. and that is how historical data goes in terms of the nation's financial state including surplus or deficit numbers

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

the treasury says there wasnt

This is why this twit is on the ignore list

He spouts misinformation over and over and over again.. and hopes that if he says it enough people will believe him

The FACTS:
The federal budget and reporting numbers are done in the FISCAL year (10/1 - 9/30 EVERY YEAR.. though the fiscal year dates did change for the year 1977 and for all years after that... The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.)...
All monetary numbers revolving on yearly governmental spending, debt, interest, etc are calculated within the FISCAL YEAR
The government does not run it's budget in the calendar year
There has been no fiscal year, WHATSOEVER, since 1957 where the yearly economic numbers for the government of the United States have shown a surplus AT ALL

there is no debate that all governmental financials and budgets run in the FISCAL YEAR... except by those trying to portray a myth as truth

What this twit is trying to do is twist around numbers... kind like if someone would try and convince the IRS that they made less in 2007 because they CHOOSE to report or calculate their income from the fiscal year 2007 and not the required dates of the calendar year that the IRS requires.... the rules are the rules for the IRS, just as the rules are the rules for the federal budget and reporting being in the FISCAL year

The facts are there....

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

FACTS... not myths

Game, set, match, championship... and the proof to back it up

 

[Iriemon]

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

the treasury says there wasnt

This is why this twit is on the ignore list ...

Surplus during Clinton's term proved here, if anyone is interested.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

That thread was specifically about the surplus during the Clinton admin and contains all the links and data from the Govt proving there was a surplus. If anyone has any new arguments about it they can post it there.

I'm not going to repost that entire thread again here which is about tea parties.

 

[NOBama]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

well, it needs SOME surplus year to year to pay down the massive debt
once the debt is paid, then yes, they have no need of a surplus

I stand by my comment.

We the people, albeit by proxy, approved through our elected officials that the government take on debt. Therefore, since we the people are, in the truest since of the words "the government", we are indeed responsible for the debt we allowed our elected officials to take on on our behalf, hence granting the government to collect additional monies through taxation to cover the debt we incurred.

 

[NOBama]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

See Divecon's response. He's right.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

Again, I stand by my comment.

Barf as you will. Nevertheless, had we not fought back, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today, because there would be no America.

 

[DiveCon]

The biggest growth areas during the Bush years were military. The military budget more than doubled while he was president, and that is not including the $125 billion a year spent on the wars.

I saw few conservatives squawking about that.

the military NEEDED to be built back up after the fallacy of the Clinton years and the phoney "peace dividend"
(and yes, i include the Congress in that mess as well, since they had to approve the changes)

It was actually Bush Sr who started cutting the military. Without having to face another military super power like the SU it made little sense to continue bankrupting our nation to pay for military forces we didn't need.

By 2000 we were still paying $300 billion a year on the military -- many multiples more than the next nation. The "Clinton" military kicked ass in Afgahnistan, and totally crushed one of the worlds largest military forces in Iraq in just a few weeks.

Today we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined; 6 times more than the runner up, China.

If our military leaders can't figure out how to defend the country with spending as much as the rest of the world combine, that's saying something piss poor about the quality of our military leadership, I'm afraid.

what a load of shit
that military had to be built up
and it started as soon as Bush could do so
so stop lying

 

[DiveCon]

the treasury says there wasnt

This is why this twit is on the ignore list ...

Surplus during Clinton's term proved here, if anyone is interested.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

That thread was specifically about the surplus during the Clinton admin and contains all the links and data from the Govt proving there was a surplus. If anyone has any new arguments about it they can post it there.

I'm not going to repost that entire thread again here which is about tea parties.

no it wasnt
you are a liar

 

[Bfgrn]

BO has no intention of meeting with this movement, he was trying to mock it.

That is how it's done with budding tyrants, mock the people who don't support you, BO is only your president if you support him 100%, according to BO that is.

VICTIMHOOD... the pea brain mantra...

 

[driveby]

BO has no intention of meeting with this movement, he was trying to mock it.

That is how it's done with budding tyrants, mock the people who don't support you, BO is only your president if you support him 100%, according to BO that is.

VICTIMHOOD... the pea brain mantra...

Jesus Christ get a new line Chris2.0 ........

 

[Iriemon]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

well, it needs SOME surplus year to year to pay down the massive debt
once the debt is paid, then yes, they have no need of a surplus

I stand by my comment.

We the people, albeit by proxy, approved through our elected officials that the government take on debt. Therefore, since we the people are, in the truest since of the words "the government", we are indeed responsible for the debt we allowed our elected officials to take on on our behalf, hence granting the government to collect additional monies through taxation to cover the debt we incurred.

Divecon is talking about a budgetary surplus, you seem to be using the term in the sense of the Govt having excess assets as opposed to debt.

You need a budget surplus to pay down a debt.

 

[Iriemon]

This is why this twit is on the ignore list ...

Surplus during Clinton's term proved here, if anyone is interested.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

That thread was specifically about the surplus during the Clinton admin and contains all the links and data from the Govt proving there was a surplus. If anyone has any new arguments about it they can post it there.

I'm not going to repost that entire thread again here which is about tea parties.

no it wasnt
you are a liar

Thanks for your opinion. And what a surprise you'd have it.

Others can decide for themselves. I'm willing to address any new arguments in that thread.

 

[Iriemon]

the military NEEDED to be built back up after the fallacy of the Clinton years and the phoney "peace dividend"
(and yes, i include the Congress in that mess as well, since they had to approve the changes)

It was actually Bush Sr who started cutting the military. Without having to face another military super power like the SU it made little sense to continue bankrupting our nation to pay for military forces we didn't need.

By 2000 we were still paying $300 billion a year on the military -- many multiples more than the next nation. The "Clinton" military kicked ass in Afgahnistan, and totally crushed one of the worlds largest military forces in Iraq in just a few weeks.

Today we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined; 6 times more than the runner up, China.

If our military leaders can't figure out how to defend the country with spending as much as the rest of the world combine, that's saying something piss poor about the quality of our military leadership, I'm afraid.

what a load of shit
that military had to be built up
and it started as soon as Bush could do so
so stop lying

Persuasive.

 

[Iriemon]

The government should NEVER have a surplus of money, resulting from the taxation of the people.. If it does, it's overtaxing the people.

See Divecon's response. He's right.

The military build-up and the war are probably responsibile for saving your life. Perhaps you should write GW a letter of gratitude for having saved you and your family from almost certian death, had we not fought back.

Again, I stand by my comment.

Barf as you will. Nevertheless, had we not fought back, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today, because there would be no America.

Yeah, that mighty Al Quedian navy with its hordes of LCs threatening the East Coast was a real worry. Thanks goodness we've spent a few scores of billions on the F-22. The old F-15s just weren't going to stand up to that new Al Quedian jet fighter -- what was it called again?

 

[DiveCon]

See Divecon's response. He's right.

Again, I stand by my comment.

Barf as you will. Nevertheless, had we not fought back, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today, because there would be no America.

Yeah, that mighty Al Quedian navy with its hordes of LCs threatening the East Coast was a real worry. Thanks goodness we've spent a few scores of billions on the F-22. The old F-15s just weren't going to stand up to that new Al Quedian jet fighter -- what was it called again?

a 757 and 767


how many you willing to let them use?

 

[Iriemon]

Again, I stand by my comment.

Barf as you will. Nevertheless, had we not fought back, you and I wouldn't be having this conversation today, because there would be no America.

Yeah, that mighty Al Quedian navy with its hordes of LCs threatening the East Coast was a real worry. Thanks goodness we've spent a few scores of billions on the F-22. The old F-15s just weren't going to stand up to that new Al Quedian jet fighter -- what was it called again?

a 757 and 767


how many you willing to let them use?

None. That would be kind of stupid to do again, wouldn't it?

But I'll take the F-15, you can hop in the 757, and well have a dog fight.

 

[DiveCon]

Yeah, that mighty Al Quedian navy with its hordes of LCs threatening the East Coast was a real worry. Thanks goodness we've spent a few scores of billions on the F-22. The old F-15s just weren't going to stand up to that new Al Quedian jet fighter -- what was it called again?

a 757 and 767


how many you willing to let them use?

None. That would be kind of stupid to do again, wouldn't it?

But I'll take the F-15, you can hop in the 757, and well have a dog fight.

no, if i had to choose, i would take the F-22
you can keep the F-15
and if you think we dont need the F-22, then you are a bigger moron than i already think you are
Al Quaeda isnt the only enemy we have

just like the "Peace Dividend" was stupid because the USSR was not the only enemy we had

 

[Iriemon]

a 757 and 767


how many you willing to let them use?

None. That would be kind of stupid to do again, wouldn't it?

But I'll take the F-15, you can hop in the 757, and well have a dog fight.

no, if i had to choose, i would take the F-22
you can keep the F-15
and if you think we dont need the F-22, then you are a bigger moron than i already think you are
Al Quaeda isnt the only enemy we have

just like the "Peace Dividend" was stupid because the USSR was not the only enemy we had

Damn! If forgot the Al Quedian air force had those F-22s. You're right. We needed to double our military budget.

 

[DiveCon]

None. That would be kind of stupid to do again, wouldn't it?

But I'll take the F-15, you can hop in the 757, and well have a dog fight.

no, if i had to choose, i would take the F-22
you can keep the F-15
and if you think we dont need the F-22, then you are a bigger moron than i already think you are
Al Quaeda isnt the only enemy we have

just like the "Peace Dividend" was stupid because the USSR was not the only enemy we had

Damn! If forgot the Al Quedian air force had those F-22s. You're right. We needed to double our military budget.

ok, you are an even bigger moron than i have previously thought

 

[Iriemon]

It would only be mythical if you believe the Congressional Budget Office showing there were surpluses is mythical. Could be a giant conspiracy, I suppose. Some believe that.

the treasury says there wasnt

Shown otherwise here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

Well I see this post earned the DiveCon neg rep of the day for being a "lying obamabot"

What was it Pale Rider posted when Bobo negged him in an argument ....

Found it:

So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!

WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!

Change BOBO to DIVECON and it fits rights in.

 

[DiveCon]

the treasury says there wasnt

Shown otherwise here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

Well I see this post earned the DiveCon neg rep of the day for being a "lying obamabot"

What was it Pale Rider posted when Bobo negged him in an argument ....

Found it:

So how does BOBO end his debate with me folks? That's right, after he can't defend himself and unsuccessfully tries to spin and redirect the debate to something else, HE NEG REPS ME!

WHAT A PATHETIC, PIECE OF SHIT, LOSER!!!

Change BOBO to DIVECON and it fits rights in.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

cry about a neg rep is a ***** thing to do