Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[Dad2three]

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

An interesting chart. Use the center column (constant dollars). See who the big spenders really were.

Hint: evry1

Here you are posting about big spenders in government….you took time to post a link to some chart because you obviously don't like what they do…..

Your solution? Give them even more money….right? How does that make any ******* sense?

IF YOU WANT TO HAVE LESS REVENUES, GREAT ARGUE THAT, BUT DON'T BE A GAWDDAM LIAR AND SAY CUTTING TAXES INCREASES GOV'T REVENUES!

 

[Dad2three]

I am far less concerned about tax rates than I am about tax expenditures.

Our American Politboro has the rubes completely snookered into focusing on tax rates. The American Politboro is guiding the conversation so the rubes never catch on to what is really happening out there.

They got this whole Us vs. Them thing going to keep the rubes divided. It's working beautifully!

No….you want to give them more money….right? None of us on the Conservastive side think it is working out beautifully…….that is why we want to cut off the spigot…..give them less money.

YOu say we are snookered by crooked politicians…right?

What is your answer? Give them more money…

How does that make any sense?

SURE, that's what CONservatives "believe"


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[g5000]

So what do we have?

We have the Democrats promising unicorns and rainbows and moar spending. They only manage to achieve the latter.

We have the Republicans promising to shrink the size of government, and decrease spending. They break both those promises.

We see outlays increase under Bush for the entirety of his Administration. We see outlays decrease under Obama during the entirety of his Administration to this point.

We see deficits shrink under Clinton, balloon under Bush, and shrink again under Obama.

Time to face some realities, boys and girls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Sorry, not true…clinton was still benefitting from the Reagan tax cuts, and it took him 8 years of increasing taxes to kill off that growth…remember, the country went into a recession just before he left office…he almost made it out but just missed it….Bush inherited the clinton recession.

Not true what?

Clinton raised taxes you moron. Look it up. And revenues rose.

 

[g5000]

The truth is the creature known as the Fiscal Conservative is damned near extinct. You won't find nary a one in the Republican or Democratic parties.

 

[Dad2three]

The 1998 Republican Congress and Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt. But then the number of retards and bigots in the GOP metastasized and everything went to shit in a hurry.

And it started with, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."

"Bill Clinton gave us a path to zero debt"

Bill the rapist Clinton raised the national debt 41%.....a number far higher than your IQ,.

Yet after BJ Bill's first surplus, he had to veto the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut to get 3 more. THEN Dubya/GOP policy took over!

 

[g5000]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Sorry, not true…clinton was still benefitting from the Reagan tax cuts, and it took him 8 years of increasing taxes to kill off that growth…remember, the country went into a recession just before he left office…he almost made it out but just missed it….Bush inherited the clinton recession.

Not true what?

Clinton raised taxes you moron. Look it up. And revenues rose.

Revenues rose after the Bush tax cuts, too. Revenues had been falling for the prior three years before that.

Recession.

 

[g5000]

I told you guys the obsession over tax rates is a fool's game. It's what the American Politboro wants you to do.

But here's the thing:

Revenues rose after Reagan's 1986 tax reform.

Revenues rose after Clinton's tax hike.

Revenues rose after Bush's tax cuts.


That really should scream something very obvious at you.

"It's the economy, stupid."

 

[Dad2three]

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts




The Pinocchio Test



It is time to abandon this myth. Reagan may have convinced himself he had been snookered, but that belief is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the deal he had reached.

Congress was never expected to match the tax increases with spending cuts on a 3-to-1 basis. Reagan appeared to acknowledge this in his speech when he referred to outlays (which would include interest expenses), rather than spending cuts. In the end, lawmakers apparently did a better job of living up to the bargain than the administration did.



If people want to cite the lessons of history, they need to get the history right in the first place.



Four Pinocchios

The historical myth that Reagan raised $1 of taxes in exchange for $3 of spending cuts

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

 

[Dad2three]

I told you guys the obsession over tax rates is a fool's game. It's what the American Politboro wants you to do.

But here's the thing:

Revenues rose after Reagan's 1986 tax reform.

Revenues rose after Clinton's tax hike.

Revenues rose after Bush's tax cuts.


That really should scream something very obvious at you.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Carter had US at 19.7% of GDP in revenues, Ronnie gutted it to 17% by 1984

Clinton had US at 20% of GDP, and Dubya took US to less than 15% of GDP, WHILE running spending to 25% of GDP.

Equally to blame, both parties right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tax cuts do pay for themselves….they always bring in more money…the problem….the democrats spend all of the money and then borrow and spend more….so if you outspend the money you generate with tax cuts….don't blame the tax cut, blame the spenders.

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

 

[Dad2three]

And here is the truth……

Thomas Sowell: Revenue was up under Bush tax cuts

Not because of the tax cuts.

Revenue was up after the Clinton tax increases too.

Sorry, not true…clinton was still benefitting from the Reagan tax cuts, and it took him 8 years of increasing taxes to kill off that growth…remember, the country went into a recession just before he left office…he almost made it out but just missed it….Bush inherited the clinton recession.

Not true what?

Clinton raised taxes you moron. Look it up. And revenues rose.

Revenues rose after the Bush tax cuts, too. Revenues had been falling for the prior three years before that.

Recession.

Nope, they measure it by GDP, Clinton was on the upswing while Dubya GUTTED it

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

 

[Dad2three]

DUMBFUX (CONservatives/GOPers) don't understand there is a LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE TO LAFFERS CURVE, and NO credible economist thinks ANY tax cut the past 50+ years has brought in more revenues. NONE

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm a paragon of truth and honesty

Exactly what my wife, Morgan Fairchild, said about you!

 

[David_42]

As I said earlier, we expect Democrats to be big spenders. It is a given. They PROMISE to spend more.

They keep their promise.

Republicans promise to cut spending and shrink government.

They DO NOT keep their promise.


Democrats: Tax and spend.

Republicans: Borrow and spend.

One works better then the other.. Taxing and spending

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clinton raised the national debt 41%

Obama made it reach the sky.



Notice how I set the record straight without any vulgarity?
That's because I'm not a Liberal.

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

 

[Dad2three]

Don't understand the difference of debt versus deficits? THAT'S WHY I MUST USE VULGARITY TO YOU DUMBFUX!

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy

US F/Y is from Oct 1 to Sept 30th every year Bubs. $1 trillion coming in and only $990 billion leaving the treasury, you have a surplus, REGARDLESS IF DEBT INCREASES (LIKE I SAID, CLINTON LOWERED THE PUBLIC DEBT, INCREASED INTRA GOV'T, EXCESS SS PAYMENTS DUMMY!)!




Get off your LONG debunked talking points!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. As the old saying goes, 'figures don't lie, but liars can figure.'

And, there is hardly a greater liar than Bill Clinton....as so proven in court.


Now....is there a relationship between 'deficits' and 'debt'? Of course. What follows is that deficits cannot have fallen if the debt has risen....unless one uses a definition of deficit that defies logic, and has an ulterior motive behind it.

The motive is to fool dopes like you.
And it does.


Bill Clinton never reduced what the taxpayers owe.

He raised the national debt 41%.....


2. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
In trillions....
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 (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 he benefited from the 'Peace Dividend' that President Reagan provided for him.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!



Did I just put you in your place, or what!!!

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy

US F/Y is from Oct 1 to Sept 30th every year Bubs. $1 trillion coming in and only $990 billion leaving the treasury, you have a surplus, REGARDLESS IF DEBT INCREASES (LIKE I SAID, CLINTON LOWERED THE PUBLIC DEBT, INCREASED INTRA GOV'T, EXCESS SS PAYMENTS DUMMY!)!




Get off your LONG debunked talking points!

"Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy."

Well.....that makes you the dummy, doesn't it.

The National Debt went up 41% under Bill the rapist Clinton....so there was no surplus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nope, BJ Bill ONLY had 4 surpluses, 3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut. Yep, there IS a relation to deficit and debt, BJ BILL, THE BEST CONSERVATIVE PREZ SINCE IKE, NEARLY GOT RID OF $500+ BILLION OF PUBLIC DEBT (YOU KNOW TBILLS AND THAT TYPE) WHILE THE SURPLUSES FROM RONNIE'S "SAVING SS" WHICH WAS "INTRA GOV'T DEBT" DID CONTINUE. Now we need to pay it back. Weird right?

Debt increased BECAUSE of Ronnie "saving SS"

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy

US F/Y is from Oct 1 to Sept 30th every year Bubs. $1 trillion coming in and only $990 billion leaving the treasury, you have a surplus, REGARDLESS IF DEBT INCREASES (LIKE I SAID, CLINTON LOWERED THE PUBLIC DEBT, INCREASED INTRA GOV'T, EXCESS SS PAYMENTS DUMMY!)!




Get off your LONG debunked talking points!

"Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy."

Well.....that makes you the dummy, doesn't it.

The National Debt went up 41% under Bill the rapist Clinton....so there was no surplus.

So who was the last president to have an annual budget surplus?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're not merely vulgar, but a slow learner as well.

There can be no 'surplus' if the debt rose each and every year of his presidency.

Only a fool who doesn't understand mathematics and/or economics would disagree.



But it does explain your post.

ANOTHER low informed right winger not understanding a YEARLY BUDGET CAN BE BALANCED, A SURPLUS OR RUN A DEFICIT, REGARDLESS OF DEBT???? Stupid fukkn right wingers

A perfect example of a 'reliable Democrat voter,' willing to abandon logic and education in order to advance his candidate.

OK, dunce.....explain how you could stop ordering your weekly newspaper, but buy a Ferrari on credit, and claim you produced a surplus.

Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy

US F/Y is from Oct 1 to Sept 30th every year Bubs. $1 trillion coming in and only $990 billion leaving the treasury, you have a surplus, REGARDLESS IF DEBT INCREASES (LIKE I SAID, CLINTON LOWERED THE PUBLIC DEBT, INCREASED INTRA GOV'T, EXCESS SS PAYMENTS DUMMY!)!




Get off your LONG debunked talking points!

"Do you have more money coming in than going out in your YEARLY BUDGET? If so you have a surplus dummy."

Well.....that makes you the dummy, doesn't it.

The National Debt went up 41% under Bill the rapist Clinton....so there was no surplus.

So who was the last president to have an annual budget surplus?

Now, this is scary....

When one starts the sentence with "So...." the implication is agreement with the preceding post...

As the preceding post exposes the Liberal lie, i.e., that the so-brilliant Bill the rapist Clinton ran the federal government sooooooo well that he provided a surplus.....he most certainly didn't...

....I would hate to find that you are agreeing with my revelation.



I rarely ask you a favor....but, as you are known to be highly, deeply, eternally disreputable....please.....if you find the that you agree with me....


....KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!!!


I would be eternally grateful.