Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years

[forestal]

Sorry, I can't claim any karma deductions from you. I actually haven't tried deducting karma from anyone. I've only tried to give karma. I think it's a little silly to be deducting from someone else just because I don't agree with their viewpoints. I'm not surpised that the Deductor didn't want to use their own name. The way you treat the opposing political views here on this board is shameful.

I was watching "Lady in the Water" at that time last night. I recommend you save your rental on that if you haven't seen it yet. It really sucked.

Originally Posted by Lenny

Deficit Falls to Lowest... 01-12-2007 09:16 PM the hollowness of your head is very evident!

OK, Forestal, you've tried to be witty and failed. Billary will be proud you tried, be happy with that (for what it's worth). Now go back to your corner and sip your Kool-Aid.

[FromTexas]

Forest, here is a link to the historical debt of the U.S. Why don't you show me the exact year the debt went down under Clinton?

Personally I like seeing the deficit that high, it means my tax money isn't going to pay off our debt.

[SamSpade]

Clinton didn't balance the budget anywhere nor did he have a surplus; nor can it be shown that this "surplus" went to paying down existing debt.

Part of the way it came about was that when the government discusses the federal budget, it discusses on-budget(budget without Social Security trust fund), off-budget (Social Security trust fund) and unified budget (both counted together). On budget has never come close to being balanced. Off budget always has a surplus, or at least, it will for about the next 5-10 years depending on which side of the aisle you ask.

When the governmet spends the SS trust fund - which is what they do every year - they write little IOU's, just like Harry and Lloyd in "Dumb and Dumber".

But let's imagine that Harry and Lloyd got *creative* - they forecast that, for the next ten years, they were going to MAKE A LOT OF MONEY - which was somehow analogous to the Clinton forecast of additional revenue for the SS fund. Then they could "afford" to write MORE IOU's - thus spending money that wasn't there.

Then they could claim all kinds of fiscal brilliance when all they did was write more IOU's. It's still a deficit in real terms - there ain't any MORE money. This is like you spending next year's pay increase, and telling your spouse that you're out of debt. TECHNICALLY, you're in DEEPER debt, but you can play with the numbers to make it look good.

I'm tired of hearing about the 'surplus'. Never happened. We haven't had a real surplus The debt slowed down during the latter Clinton years, but it rose every year.

[remaxrealtor]

Originally Posted by forestal

Imagine how soon we could pay off the debt with even higher taxes on the rich! That would generate an even bigger surge.

BTW, they are still forecasting yet another record deficit, and our national debt stands at 8.6 TRILLION dollars.

Won't that be fun to hand off to our kids???

has it ever occured to you that if the "rich" make money, they are then able to expand their businesses. Then what will we pas on to our kids?

How about JOBS!

[FromTexas]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Clinton didn't balance the budget anywhere nor did he have a surplus; nor can it be shown that this "surplus" went to paying down existing debt.

Part of the way it came about was that when the government discusses the federal budget, it discusses on-budget(budget without Social Security trust fund), off-budget (Social Security trust fund) and unified budget (both counted together). On budget has never come close to being balanced. Off budget always has a surplus, or at least, it will for about the next 5-10 years depending on which side of the aisle you ask.

When the governmet spends the SS trust fund - which is what they do every year - they write little IOU's, just like Harry and Lloyd in "Dumb and Dumber".

But let's imagine that Harry and Lloyd got *creative* - they forecast that, for the next ten years, they were going to MAKE A LOT OF MONEY - which was somehow analogous to the Clinton forecast of additional revenue for the SS fund. Then they could "afford" to write MORE IOU's - thus spending money that wasn't there.

Then they could claim all kinds of fiscal brilliance when all they did was write more IOU's. It's still a deficit in real terms - there ain't any MORE money. This is like you spending next year's pay increase, and telling your spouse that you're out of debt. TECHNICALLY, you're in DEEPER debt, but you can play with the numbers to make it look good.

I'm tired of hearing about the 'surplus'. Never happened. We haven't had a real surplus The debt slowed down during the latter Clinton years, but it rose every year.

You are spoiling my fun, Sam. When they can't find it its fun to watch them squirm when they can't figure out *why* it went up all those years. They will usually continue to refer to article after article talking about the surpluses (and the ones the Bush administration erased), but they can't ever find any proof they existed. Then when they are toqued, you go and show them those surpluses were really Social Security money... it drives them batty.

[Pete (Premo)]

lockbox

[FromTexas]

Originally Posted by Pete

lockbox

I will take irony for $500, Alex.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by FromTexas

I will take irony for $500, Alex.

What 2000 presidential candidate kept his brain and charisma in a lockbox, then lost the key?

[FromTexas]

Originally Posted by Pete

What 2000 presidential candidate kept his brain and charisma in a lockbox, then lost the key?

This is a trick question, isn't it? You want me to say Gore, but I know he never had a brain or charisma.