Text 3553, 252 rader
Skriven 2012-10-31 23:45:43 av Scout
Ärende: Re: Billy Graham
========================
alt.atheism,alt.politics.democrats,talk.politics.guns,alt.religion.christian,comp.os.os2.advocacy
<uq4js.65769$9H4.6783@fx17.am4>
<hlwdjsd2-6F4B2A.00172028102012@news.giganews.com>
<a1c9c14c-5964-4573-a23b-db9af7c42a9d@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
<XnsA0FB85A005A1CWereofftoseethewizrd@88.198.244.100>
<e958ac5d-5d9b-4a20-9ad2-990674881cd5@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>
<XnsA0FB92CAA79A0hopewell@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FBB74998E39nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FBA676236CChopewell@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FBD544757A1nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FC714769D56hopewell@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FCA4BD44FE3nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FD7660B89A1hopewell@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FDA916B9171nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FDAB8807D2Chopewell@216.196.121.131>
<XnsA0FDED0518099nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131>
"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0FDED0518099nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131...
> RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA0FDAB8807D2Chopewell@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>> news:XnsA0FDA916B9171nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA0FD7660B89A1hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA0FCA4BD44FE3nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:XnsA0FC714769D56hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA0FBD544757A1nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:XnsA0FBA676236CChopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:XnsA0FBB74998E39nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA0FB92CAA79A0hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:e958ac5d-5d9b-4a20-9ad2-990674881cd5
>>>>>>> @o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact remains, whatever your protestations, that Bush was
>>>>> handed
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> *surplus*,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, he wasn't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So Bush lied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are
>>>>>>>>> too high and government is charging more than it needs."
>>>>>>>>> Bush Address to Congress, Feb 2001
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the US Treasury lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> U.S. budget surplus shrinks
>>>>>>>>> October 29, 2001
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NEW YORK (CNNmoney) - The U.S. government's budget surplus
>>>>>>>>> shrank in 2001, the Treasury Department reported Monday,
>>>>>>>>> dragged down by a sluggish economy, falling tax revenue and
>>>>>>>>> the impact of last month's terror attacks. The Treasury
>>>>>>>>> Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year,
>>>>>>>>> which ended on Sept. 30, of $127 billion, compared with $237
>>>>>>>>> billion a year ago.
>>>>>>>>> money.cnn.com/2001/10/29/economy/budget/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Fox News lied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The last surplus was in 2001, President Bush's first year in
>>>>>> office."
>>>>>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296720,00.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the Congressional Budget Office lied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Since peaking at $290 billion in 1992, deficits have declined
>>>>>>>>> each year, dropping to a level of $22 billion in 1997. For
>>>>>>>>> 1998, the Nation recorded its first budget surplus ($69.2
>>>>>>>>> billion) since
>>>> 1969.
>>>>>>>>> As a percent of GDP, the budget bottom line went from a deficit
>>>>>>>>> of 4.7% in 1992 to a surplus of 0.8% in 1998."
>>>>>>>>> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/pdf/hist.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Newt Gingrich lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "We should take the $1 trillion in SURPLUS and spend it on a
>>>>>>>>> tax cut," Gingrich told reporters after a House GOP leadership
>>>>>>>>> meeting. But Gingrich also said that the $1 trillion tax cut
>>>>>>>>> plan he favors might net only $750 billion in tax relief for
>>>>>>>>> technical reasons. Gingrich said he favors "taking $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>> in surplus and spending it on tax cuts which, for reflow
>>>>>>>>> reasons, probably gets about to be $750 billion" in total tax
>>>>>>>>> relief." http://www.ctj.org/itep/ging98an.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And John McCain lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I believe we must save Social Security, we must pay down the
>>>>>>>>> debt, we have to make an investment in Medicare. For us to put
>>>>>>>>> all of the surplus into tax cuts, I think is not a conservative
>>>>>>>>> effort." John McCain, January 11, 2000
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/289qw6r
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are "projections".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "For 1998, the Nation recorded its first budget
>>>>>>> surplus ($69.2 billion) since 1969."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CBO didn't say "projection", they said
>>>>>>> RECORDED SURPLUS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 1998, that was true but then we weren't discussing 1998. We
>>>>>> were discussing the "surpluses" Clinton passed on to Bush. From
>>>>>> when Bush took office, those were projections from the Clinton
>>>>>> budgets.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So Bush lied when he said he inherited
>>>>> a "growing surplus"? Not a projection, but
>>>>> a surplus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The last surplus was in 2001, President Bush's
>>>>> first year in office."
>>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296720,00.html
>>>>
>>>> You are talking about the same people who think that reducing the
>>>> size of more money to something is a cut. It is like having a
>>>> daughter who gets a $20/week allowance. You were planning to raise
>>>> her allowance to $30/week but you have to cut back on expenses.
>>>> Therefore, you only give her a $5/increase so she only goes up to
>>>> $25/week. Then you tell everybody you had to cut her allowance by
>>>> $5/week.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, the 2001 budget was passed by Clinton in 2000. Or didn't
>>>> you know that? However, there were no surpluses after that because
>>>> things changed that weren't planned on in the budget that Bush
>>>> passed. For example, the 2002 budget was passed to be effective on
>>>> 10/01/2001. Although 9/11 had just occurred, we didn't have any war
>>>> expenses then.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The surplus was real. The CBO said so, a whole
>>> raft of Republican office holders (with no ties to
>>> Clinton) said so, the incoming president said so,
>>> Fox News said so, even the Library of Congress said
>>> so.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Although the actual budget was in surplus beginning in
>>> 1998, the standardized measure first registered a balanced
>>> budget in 1999. Between 1992 and 2000, the actual budget
>>> surplus increased from -4.7% (a deficit of 4.7%) to 2.4%
>>> of gross domestic product (GDP), a shift of 7.1 percentage
>>> points"
>>> http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46694.pdf
>>>
>>> Your rant that it didn't exist, that it was
>>> just a "projection" is just silly.
>>
>> I haven't argued that Clinton's budget surpluses weren't real so why
>> would you bring that up? I said that the budget **projections** that
>> he passed to Bush were just that......projections. They weren't real.
>> The only budget that was passed to Bush that was real was the first
>> budget Bush had during his administration. It was passed by Clinton's
>> administration in September of 2000. It ended up with a $127.3B
>> surplus but it was actually Clinton's budget not Bush's since it was
>> put in place before Bush took office.
>>
>> BTW, as a simple point of fact, even Clinton's budget surpluses were
>> not real surpluses. They were only considered surpluses when compared
>> to the budget plan. Each year Clinton was president, deficits still
>> got added to the national debt.
>
>
> There were NO deficits in the last three years
> of the Clinton term. The debt only increased because
> of interest on the debt.
Two points:
1) If the debt increases then there was a deficit no matter what the cause
of the debt increase was.
2) The interest on the debt is a budgeted item and thus was not responsible
for the off-budget spending that resulted in the deficit.
> Even if you pay your credit
> card balance in full every month your tab will increase
> because of the interest rate being added to it.
Actually, if you pay your card balance in full most if not all issuers will
not charge you any interest at all.
But since interest payments are a budgeted item they weren't the cause of
the deficits.
> And as for projections, can you name any other time
> when the Treasury predicted that the ENTIRE FEDERAL DEBT
> would be paid off in our lifetime?
Yes, but it is irrelevant because it makes assumptions and predictions about
future actions which it can't possibly control.
It is merely a PROJECTION. Indeed you can take ANY downwards trend line in
spending project it and claim the debt will at some point be eliminated.
However, your projection is probably obsolete before you finish putting it
on paper.
--- MBSE BBS v0.95.15 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (1:116/18@fidonet)
|