Booster4324 Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Weren't the years from 97-01 surplus years? Not really IIRC. Seems like they forgot to add in things like the troops around Iraq, the overflights etc. That wasn't part of the budget. They also left out things like Federal Aid to disaster areas, which always happens and should be accounted for. Social Security was basically added into the general budget (not a federal tax though, according to many Conservatives, to throw a barb their way). So that was a general bonus to federal income at the time. I could be wrong, but that is my recollection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Weren't the years from 97-01 surplus years? I thought it was only '99 and '00. But the national debt kept increasing despite the budget surplus, which always made me feel that the surplus was less a real surplus than some sort of accounting trick. Kind-of like my wife saying "I earned $1000 more than I spent the past month" while conveniently forgetting to mention that she borrowed $2k to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Not really IIRC. Seems like they forgot to add in things like the troops around Iraq, the overflights etc. That wasn't part of the budget. They also left out things like Federal Aid to disaster areas, which always happens and should be accounted for. Social Security was basically added into the general budget (not a federal tax though, according to many Conservatives, to throw a barb their way). So that was a general bonus to federal income at the time. I could be wrong, but that is my recollection. I never really looked into it...just going by picture one on the CBO. http://www.cbo.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Weren't the years from 97-01 surplus years? 99-00 was a surplus year, but I suppose the Tech bubble didn't have anything to do with that or the shifting of SS funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I thought it was only '99 and '00. But the national debt kept increasing despite the budget surplus, which always made me feel that the surplus was less a real surplus than some sort of accounting trick. Kind-of like my wife saying "I earned $1000 more than I spent the past month" while conveniently forgetting to mention that she borrowed $2k to do that. nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 When he is off the teleprompter he doesn't appear to have much knowlege of the subject and his gaffes like the 57 states make him look foolish. Nobody should feel comfortable with the leader of the free world not being knowlegeable and appearing foolish. Leave him alone. He has an Ivy League degree. Weren't the years from 97-01 surplus years? Repeat after me: "There was no such thing as a surplus." For whatever reason, people like to pretend that George W. Bush is solely responsible for the current mess. The facts don't add up. No matter who was elected President, the recession was going to happen. That doesn't absolve Bush, a fiscal liberal, of his responsibility in furthering the mess. But there was no surplus. Even freakin' SNL understood that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I think the real crux here is not that he uses a teleprompter but that he is lost without it. Oh, so you're more comfortable with a president who would instead ignore his inability to speak coherently in public and just wing it. Someone who speaks from the gut, and produces soundbite after soundbite of pathetically humorous utter stupidity. That's not exactly a revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Oh, so you're more comfortable with a president who would instead ignore his inability to speak coherently in public and just wing it. Someone who speaks from the gut, and produces soundbite after soundbite of pathetically humorous utter stupidity. That's not exactly a revelation. You truly have a reading comprehension problem. I said the real crux here is not that he uses the teleprompter but that he is lost without it. I'm sure he could speak very well if he knew what he was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 You truly have a reading comprehension problem. I said the real crux here is not that he uses the teleprompter but that he is lost without it. I'm sure he could speak very well if he knew what he was talking about. No comprehension problem here unless I'm missing something. You're saying he should get rid of the teleprompter and be "lost" during every speech instead of continuing to use the "crutch", no? Kind of like the last guy, who you apparently liked a lot better. I'll try to break it down further if you're still having trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Oh, so you're more comfortable with a president who would instead ignore his inability to speak coherently in public and just wing it. Someone who speaks from the gut, and produces soundbite after soundbite of pathetically humorous utter stupidity. That's not exactly a revelation. I believe we can all agree amongst rational thinking people that the Bush and Obama administration (up to now) have both been a complete disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I believe we can all agree amongst rational thinking people that the Bush and Obama administration (up to now) have both been a complete disaster. Did we invade two more countries while I wasn't looking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Did we invade two more countries while I wasn't looking? Like I said, rational thinking people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I believe we can all agree amongst rational thinking people that the Bush and Obama administration (up to now) have both been a complete disaster. agree but with the following nitpicks 1. It should be called the Cheney 78 months/Bush 18 months, administration 2. I wouldn't call either administrations complete disasters, just plain disasters. 3. While we would both call the Obama Administration a disaster I doubt our bones of contention are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Like I said, rational thinking people How very clever of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Did we invade two more countries while I wasn't looking? Because that's obviously the only meaningful criteria? Freakin' halfwit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Because that's obviously the only meaningful criteria? Freakin' halfwit. Oh hooray, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 I believe we can all agree amongst rational thinking people that the Bush and Obama administration (up to now) have both been a complete disaster. The puts the entirety of PPP out of the running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 The puts the entirety of PPP out of the running. Your defenses of Barry O are so absolute that if someone told me your vajayjay juice stained his birth cert, I'd almost believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 Your defenses of Barry O are so absolute that if someone told me your vajayjay juice stained his birth cert, I'd almost believe it. His privacy and spying problems, and his lack of support for gay marriage do not exactly constitute "a complete disaster". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 2, 2010 Share Posted September 2, 2010 His privacy and spying problems, and his lack of support for gay marriage do not exactly constitute "a complete disaster". Your stupidity rarely disappoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts