Posted on 12/07/2009 9:02:46 PM PST by advance_copy
“The GOP has put up squish after squish since Reagan - a man they hated like they hate people like Palin.”
Bingo!
The party is rotten to the core. Any remaining supporters are deluding themselves.
I don’t care WHAT they spend it on, nimrod. If it isn’t permitted by the Constitution, it DOESN’T MATTER and it shouldn’t be happening. If you have a problem with that, you do NOT belong HERE where CONSERVATIVES and Constitutionalists hang out. You are just another argumentative, loudmouth STATIST.
And their accounting tricks to make a deficit look like a surplus ARE legitimate topics for discussion on this thread, seeing as how government accounting practices (which would get a private businessman JAILED) that hide costs and inflate income and assets DO MATERIALLY affect the income/expense balance sheets. Why do you have a problem with such a SIMPLE CONCEPT? If income is inflated and expenses are diminished, on paper you WILL have a surplus. NEVER, EVER trust government figures for anything of importance to you.
“What I meant by “successful conclusion” was that at the close of President Bush’s administration, Iraq was in pretty good shape. It will take a very long time - probably generations - to actually change the culture so that representative democracy takes true root. But it’s not impossible.”
They have to get rid of Islam first. Islam tends to theocracy. Everywhere. Every time. Even Turkey is headed that way after a history of rigorous removal of Islam from the public square.
“His platform was almost libertarian”
I guess we didn’t understand what “compassionate conservatism” meant.
But I do recall that he pledged “no nation building” under his adminsitration during one of the debates.
Of course 9/11 “ changed all that”. As far as I’m concerned, it didn’t need to change that part.
Go after the guys? Sure. Blow the he|| out of them? Heck
yeah?
But spend American blood and treasure to form them into a specific kind of country afterwards? Not me.
As far as I’m concerned they can go right back to being backwar a-holes - with one stipulation: They try it again, we blow the he|| out of them again.
I think they’d get the message eventually.
When I think of how many Amnericans have died over there to “avoid civilian casualties”.... It’s sickening.
We worry more about world PR than our own citizens lives.
Yeah, but he was a “great Christian”. That about all most of these clown care about anyway.
“And their accounting tricks to make a deficit look like a surplus ARE legitimate topics for discussion on this thread, seeing as how government accounting practices (which would get a private businessman JAILED) that hide costs and inflate income and assets DO MATERIALLY affect the income/expense balance sheets. Why do you have a problem with such a SIMPLE CONCEPT? If income is inflated and expenses are diminished, on paper you WILL have a surplus. NEVER, EVER trust government figures for anything of importance to you.”
100% correct.
When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.
I can’t help you any more than that.... Sheeze...
Maybe this will help you.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
Look asssniffer... I was discussing national debt and budget deficits in terms of numbers — that’s it! You are the hyped up chimp going off on what they spend it on. You have issue I cannot help you with.
I think it would be quite challenging to “get rid of Islam” in Iraq. Our best practical hope is for a secular government along the lines of Ataturk’s Turkey - which, as you said, is now going Islamist.
This struggle - between Islam and civilization - has been going on for 1400 years. At least President Bush brought the fight to the enemy, instead of playing defense and treating it as a “law enforcement problem.”
“When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.”
Like I’ve pointed out to you ad nauseam, those aren’t real numbers by ACTUAL accounting definitions.
“I think it would be quite challenging to “get rid of Islam” in Iraq. Our best practical hope is for a secular government along the lines of Ataturk’s Turkey - which, as you said, is now going Islamist.”
Islam is in the Iraqi constitution.
“At least President Bush brought the fight to the enemy, instead of playing defense and treating it as a “law enforcement problem.””
Did he? Why did he fund Al Fatah, support the KLA, and suck up to the Saudis?
That is how budget deficits and budget surpluses are defined. If you need to stay ignorant then by all means do so. At least I know what a $200 billion dollar budget deficit means and what it does not mean. You unfortunatley do not know. That’s called clueless.
Have a good day.
“That is how budget deficits and budget surpluses are defined.”
I pointed out that those surpluses are not real surpluses. Liabilities are not income. The argument started because you were defending Bush on the basis of an federal accounting surplus and I responded by pointing out that said surplus was not real - exactly what Bush said in 2000.
So, Al Gore, have a good day.
Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.
At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
“Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.”
Nope. You are confusing accounting tricks with actual surpluses. In short, you are confusing book keeping with economics. If you can define income anyway you want, you will always post a “surplus”, but that is not how accountants define income. Liabilities are NOT INCOME.
“At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.”
So, I guess you really liked Clinton. He had these “surpluses” for a number of years. They weren’t real, but he had them.
Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.
At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
Those BUDGET surpluses were due to a Republican Congress. I'm sorry that you are too dense that you continue to confuse budget bedt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.
“Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.”
You keep confusing the concept of actual deficit (as in income - outlays) with something else entirely. Liabilities are not income, they are liabilities. Defending Bush’s spending based on this is asinine. I keep trying to point out to you that what the government says is a surplus isn’t, but you just refuse to understand.
You probably believe Obama’s unemployment numbers too.
“Those BUDGET surpluses were due to a Republican Congress. I’m sorry that you are too dense that you continue to confuse budget bedt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”
Those surpluses were due to an increase in the SS taxes. By law, an SS surplus MUST be put in Treasuries to finance the government. The Treasure Department counts these notes as “income”, but they ARE NOT INCOME.
John Gibson's new book details this perfectly.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Left-Swiftboated-America-Conspiracy/dp/0061792896
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.