PDA

View Full Version : Let's play "TO TELL THE TRUTH!"



LWW
09-03-2010, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What Bush Inherited VS. What he left
Unemployment Jan 01 4.2% Left Jan 09 7.6

G.</div></div>

UE was 5.8% when the D's lost congress. It was 4.3% when they won it back. It's now at 9.6%

OW! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?symbol=USD)

LWW

LWW
09-03-2010, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Budget inherited 28.1 B Surplus He left 1.2T Def.

G.

</div></div>

There was no surplus. The deficit was at -3.8% of GDP when the D's lost congress in. It was at -1.9% when they won it back. It's at -9.2% now.

OOH! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW

LWW
09-03-2010, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nat. Debt inherited 5.7 T. He left 10.6 Trillion

G.</div></div>

The debt was $5,224,810,939,135.73 when the last D budget ended in the 1990's. It was $9,007,653,372,262.48 12 years later. Since the dems won it's increased to $11,909,829,003,511.75 + the estimated $1,300,000,000,000.00 for 2010 ... and still spiraling out of control.

To put that in perspective, G excoriates the R's for running up $3.8T in debt over 12 years ... and I agree with her.

Where she loses all credibility is that she sees adding another $4.2T in only 4 years as just peachy.

LWW

Sev
09-03-2010, 08:21 PM
Thats because it was the dems spending it. It was a divine mission by the way they defend it.

LWW
09-04-2010, 04:15 AM
My favorite all time G-ism was that if Bush wouldn't have spent so much money Obama wouldn't have had to spend even more.

LWW

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 06:42 AM
That one ranks pretty high on the list, and gives us a glimps into the twisted mental process that takes place in the heads of the liberals.

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 07:22 AM
link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/03/most-blame-bush-economy/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, over two-thirds of Americans still blame Bush for the economy’s woes:

The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009. [...]

In the July 2009 poll, a third, 32%, said [Obama] should shoulder a great deal or moderate amount of the blame. That percentage has risen — no surprise, given that he’s been in office for 20 months. Now almost half, 48%, do. But 51% say he’s dealing with problems he inherited, not created, saying he deserves not much or none of the responsibility for economic problems that include high unemployment and a faltering housing market.

There was, predictably, a yawning partisan divide on the question. Republicans by 4-1, 44%-10%, were more likely to give Obama a great deal of the blame than Bush. Democrats by more than 20-1 targeted Bush: They said the former president bore a great deal of the blame; just 3% said that of the current one.

Indeed, as much as Bush advisers try to resurrect the legacy of their former boss, other polls have shown Americans really don’t miss Bush, while a recent survey of 238 presidential scholars rated Bush as the worst president of the modern era and among the bottom five of all time. </div></div>

Q

LWW
09-04-2010, 09:13 AM
And what does that have to do with the thread topic?

LWW

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 12:17 PM
Just because they don't miss Bush does not mean they are by any means embracing Obama.

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 12:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Budget inherited 28.1 B Surplus He left 1.2T Def.

G.

</div></div>

There was no surplus. The deficit was at -3.8% of GDP when the D's lost congress in. It was at -1.9% when they won it back. It's at -9.2% now.

OOH! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Government-Budget.aspx?Symbol=USD)

LWW </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. </span></div></div> link (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/FederalDeficit/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question for Dems: Clinton's "surplus"?
How did Clinton manage to have a budget "surplus" yet the national debt increased each and every year that he was in office?

Answer: There is often times confusion about the difference between the deficit and the national debt.

The national debt is a grand total of the money we owe. The deficit is simply a measure of how much we spent vs how much the government took in. When we spend more than we take in, there is a deficit. Every year that we run a deficit, it adds to the national debt. The national debt accures interest and we have to pay that too.

So when Clinton ran a budget surplus, we had to decide what to do with it... to pay down the national debt would have been a choice. It woudln't happen automatically. So the overall national debt could have been increasing due to interest that we owe, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>but we didn't borrow and spend.</span> </div></div>

Like the Tax cuts and the wars.

Q

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 01:07 PM
Q...simple fact. Unless revenue is greater than expenses, there is no surplus.
In private business, it's called profit.
Government is never profitable.
Government never takes in more than it spends.

Therefore, a fiscal surplus does not exist in government.
If there is a surplus of anything...it is government itself!

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government never takes in more than it spends. </div></div>

The chart says you are wrong. Under Clinton, the Govt took more in taxes than it spent!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In private business, it's called profit. </div></div>

Q

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 02:09 PM
And you believe this because the government tells you to believe it?
You obviously don't understand how our congress works. They do NOT save money. They spend every penny they can get their hands on, and then they spend even more.

Of course, I can tell you I made $100k last year, and my budget was only for $80k, but I also put $50k on my credit card.

By your definition, I had a surplus.
By my definition, I increased my debt.

Steve

Qtec
09-04-2010, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question for Dems: Clinton's "surplus"?
How did Clinton manage to have a budget "surplus" yet the national debt increased each and every year that he was in office?

Answer: There is often times confusion about the difference between the deficit and the national debt.

The national debt is a grand total of the money we owe. The deficit is simply a measure of how much we spent vs how much the government took in. When we spend more than we take in, there is a deficit. Every year that we run a deficit, it adds to the national debt. The national debt accures interest and we have to pay that too.

So when Clinton ran a budget surplus, we had to decide what to do with it... to pay down the national debt would have been a choice. It woudln't happen automatically. So the overall national debt could have been increasing due to interest that we owe, but we didn't borrow and spend. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Congressional Budget Office projects higher 2000 budget surplus</span>

May 12, 2000
Web posted at: 4:01 p.m. EDT (2001 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the projected U.S. budget surplus will exceed $200 billion for this fiscal year, up from its previous estimate of $179 billion.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The CBO, <u>the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress,</u> also said that the portion of the surplus excluding Social Security reserves should top $40 billion, up from its previous $26 billion estimate for fiscal 2000, which ends September 30. </span></div></div>

link (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/12/cbo.surplus/index.html)

You don't know.........you believe.


Q

Qtec
09-04-2010, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The new figures could be good news for Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the likely Republican presidential nominee, <span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>who has agreed that there is enough of a federal <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>surplus</span> </span><span style='font-size: 14pt'></u>to pay for his five-year, $483 billion tax cut as well as spending proposals on education, health-care, housing and the environment. </span> </div></div>

Q

pooltchr
09-04-2010, 03:35 PM
Q. The CBO has proven to be somewhat less than reliable when it comes to actually counting money. Those were the same people who said that Obamacare would pay for itself, a statement that is already proving to be totally false before the plan even kicks in!

The government will tell the public whatever they want the public to believe. Truth has never been a requirement with government agencies.

As for the surplus/debt debate, this is what we refer to as creative bookkeeping. They crunch numbers, and shuffle dollars from one fund to another, borrow from this pile to pay on that one, but at the end of the day, if your debt continues to go up and not down, you didn't have any frigging surplus, no matter what accounting tricks you use. You either have enough money to pay your bills, or you don't.

We didn't, we don't, and you better hope we haven't borrowed too much from your country!

Steve

LWW
09-04-2010, 08:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government never takes in more than it spends. </div></div>

The chart says you are wrong. Under Clinton, the Govt took more in taxes than it spent!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In private business, it's called profit. </div></div>

Q
</div></div>

After explaining it to you countless times ... that to achieve the sleight of hand they mixed pension funds with the general fund, which is a criminal act when done as a business, to achieve a faux surplus ... I must conclude that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend how incredibly stupid a delusion it is that you insist upon believing in.

LWW

Qtec
09-05-2010, 03:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q. The CBO has proven to be somewhat less than reliable when it comes to actually counting money. </div></div>

At this point you should give a link to something that backs up your claim. This is the CBB, not Fox news where every claim is believed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The government will tell the public whatever they want the public to believe. </div></div>

Sharron Angle. Tea party darling.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“We needed to have the press be our friend,” Angle said in an interview that aired on Fox over the weekend.

“Wait a minute. Hold on a second. To be your friend?” said a disbelieving Carl Cameron. Before Angle could fully answer, he added: “That sounds naive.” Apparently this was too much for even him.

“Well, no,” said Angle. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>“We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.” </span></div></div>

Qtec
09-05-2010, 03:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Government never takes in more than it spends. </div></div>

The chart says you are wrong. Under Clinton, the Govt took more in taxes than it spent!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In private business, it's called profit. </div></div>

Q
</div></div>

After explaining it to you countless times ... that to achieve the sleight of hand <span style='font-size: 14pt'>they mixed pension funds </span>with the general fund, which is a criminal act when done as a business, to achieve a faux surplus ... I must conclude that you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend how incredibly stupid a delusion it is that you insist upon believing in.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The CBO, the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress, also said that the portion of the surplus <span style='font-size: 23pt'>excluding Social Security reserves</span> should top $40 billion, up from its previous $26 billion estimate for fiscal 2000, which ends September 30. </div></div>
Get it now?

Q

LWW
09-05-2010, 05:17 AM
Then all you have to do is explain why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

Once you wrap your head around that one we can discuss finer points such as why Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the deficit reduction and why the Clintonista now blindly give him credit for what he was solidly against.

LWW

Qtec
09-05-2010, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then all you have to do is explain why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime? </div></div>

It would help if you actually read my posts.

Again.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So when Clinton ran a budget surplus, we had to decide what to do with it... to pay down the national debt would have been a choice. It woudln't happen automatically. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>So the overall national debt could have been increasing due to interest that we owe, but we didn't borrow and spend. </span></div></div>

LWW
09-05-2010, 05:51 AM
That isn't an answer nor an explanation.

That is the reply of a desperate partisan who is displaying their total cluelessness.

FWIW ... interest is a part of the budget. If we actually ran a surplus that means that the interest was covered.

It also means that the money could not have been spent on anything because if it were spent the surplus would be gone.

If we actually did run a surplus the national debt would have to go down.

It didn't.

Deal with it.

LWW

Qtec
09-05-2010, 07:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW ... interest is a part of the budget. If we actually ran a surplus that means that the interest was covered. </div></div>

Who is talking about the Budget?????????????????????????

Every time I show you that you are wrong you change the goalposts. The interest on the debt has nothing to do with the Govt's performance.

Once more, using as few syllables as I can, if the Govt takes in a $100 and spends $99 there is $1 dollar profit, that's called a surplus. ie the Govt is not adding to the debt by borrowing money. [ Bush <u>borrowed</u> 1.3 Trillion and gave a THIRD to the TOP 1%.]

After the Bush Tax Cuts, revenue FELL and spending and borrowing increased, That's a fact. In 8 years Bush DOUBLED a Nat Debt that had taken decades to accumulate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If we actually did run a surplus the national debt would have to go down.
</div></div>

OH REALLY!!! What if Clinton paid off only a part of the interest? Then the debt would increase but he would still be paying it off!
You are so dumb sometimes.





Q ....did I say sometimes!

pooltchr
09-05-2010, 09:38 PM
Surplus...taking in more than you spend.

If you reduce your spending by not paying your bills (interest) you can show a surplus on paper....but the bottom line is whatever "surplus" you show is actually owed, so it isn't really a surplus.

Now, had we paid our debts off, and still had some left over, that would have been a surplus.

Steve

LWW
09-06-2010, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW ... interest is a part of the budget. If we actually ran a surplus that means that the interest was covered. </div></div>

Who is talking about the Budget?????????????????????????

Every time I show you that you are wrong you change the goalposts. The interest on the debt has nothing to do with the Govt's performance.

Once more, using as few syllables as I can, if the Govt takes in a $100 and spends $99 there is $1 dollar profit, that's called a surplus. ie the Govt is not adding to the debt by borrowing money. [ Bush <u>borrowed</u> 1.3 Trillion and gave a THIRD to the TOP 1%.]

After the Bush Tax Cuts, revenue FELL and spending and borrowing increased, That's a fact. In 8 years Bush DOUBLED a Nat Debt that had taken decades to accumulate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If we actually did run a surplus the national debt would have to go down.
</div></div>

OH REALLY!!! What if Clinton paid off only a part of the interest? Then the debt would increase but he would still be paying it off!
You are so dumb sometimes.





Q ....did I say sometimes! </div></div>

Are you really that stupid?

You seem to have zero grasp of the actual issue other than what you are told to believe.

For one the govt can't pay "only a part of the interest" as that would be a default on the debt.

And, for the piece de resistance of leftist ignorance ... I can't believe you actually said this:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"the Govt is not adding to the debt by borrowing money"</span>

That is now the front runner for most ridiculous statement of the year.

LWW

Qtec
09-06-2010, 05:55 AM
In context,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once more, using as few syllables as I can, if the Govt takes in a $100 and spends $99 there is $1 dollar profit, that's called a surplus. ie the Govt is not adding to the debt by borrowing money. [ Bush borrowed 1.3 Trillion and gave a THIRD to the TOP 1%.]
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is now the front runner for most ridiculous statement of the year.


LWW </div></div>

Why? It makes perfect sense to sane people!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For one the govt can't pay "only a part of the interest" as that would be a default on the debt. </div></div>

Agreed but my point is Clinton used the surplus to pay for it, Bush paid for it by borrowing more money.

Q

Qtec
09-06-2010, 06:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Surplus...taking in more than you spend.

If you reduce your spending by not paying your bills (interest) you can show a surplus on paper....but the bottom line is whatever "surplus" you show is actually owed, so it isn't really a surplus.

Now, had we paid our debts off, and still had some left over, that would have been a surplus.

Steve </div></div>

It is a surplus.
If McDonalds opens a new shop and the shop makes 5 million in its first year, is it profitable?
What you are saying in effect is that if McDonalds Corp lost money that year, the shop lost money!
The figures we are talking about are an assessment of the Govt performance. Nothing to do with the accumulated debt from ALL the previous administrations.

BTW, the Bush Admin doubled the Nat Debt in 8 years.

Q

LWW
09-06-2010, 06:33 AM
Then why did the national debt rise all 8 years?

You can't wriggle off the hook.

Your choices are simple:

1 - Admit you were wrong and learn from it.

2 - Continue to make yourself look foolish.

Choose wisely.

LWW

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If McDonalds opens a new shop and the shop makes 5 million in its first year, is it profitable?
Q

</div></div>
Good question, Q. Let's think about it. How much did it cost to open the new building? How much was spent in payroll during the year? How much did supplies cost? Insurance? Utilities? Franchise fees?
And, perhaps the most relevent question that should be answered, how much money was borrowed to open the new store, and what are the terms of payment on the loans?
Let's say their total expenses, excluding that loan, totaled $4.5 million, but the loan payments including interest add another $ million.
Were they profitable, or did they lose money?

It's not that difficult.

Steve

LWW
09-06-2010, 03:56 PM
Then why can't you understand it?

LWW

pooltchr
09-06-2010, 05:20 PM
I got it...but there are some people who just don't understand that you have to cover all of your bills before you can possibly have anything left over.
Money that is committed, but not paid, does not constitute a surplus.

Steve

hondo
09-06-2010, 08:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why can't you understand it?

LWW </div></div>

WHOA!! Am I reading this right?
You are questioning your star pupil? !!!!!!!

LWW
09-07-2010, 01:44 AM
My bad, I meant why can't THEY understand it.

LWW

LWW
09-07-2010, 01:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I got it...but there are some people who just don't understand that you have to cover all of your bills before you can possibly have anything left over.
Money that is committed, but not paid, does not constitute a surplus.

Steve </div></div>

Someone who believes that you don't go in debt by borrowing money will never understand economics.

LWW

hondo
09-07-2010, 04:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My bad, I meant why can't THEY understand it.

LWW </div></div>

Whew! That was a close one!

LWW
09-07-2010, 04:55 AM
Yes ... you were close to an epiphany.

If a business has a surplus that means that either the surplus was paid out in dividends or the company's debt was reduced.

If it had to borrow additional money to cover expenses then it had no surplus and went farther in debt.

LWW

hondo
09-07-2010, 04:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I got it...but there are some people who just don't understand that you have to cover all of your bills before you can possibly have anything left over.
Money that is committed, but not paid, does not constitute a surplus.

Steve </div></div>

Someone who believes that you don't go in debt by borrowing money will never understand economics.

LWW </div></div>

Tap! Tap! Tap!
I kept trying to tell you that when Bush was borrowing billions from China to finance his dirty little war.
Now that Obama is in office, I see that you finally get it.

hondo
09-07-2010, 05:01 AM
This is just precious.
I was talking about your apparent criticism of grasshopper,
but you knew that, didn't you?
As for your diversion, I answer that in above post.

LWW
09-07-2010, 05:02 AM
Repeating that lie doesn't make the lie true.

Saying the same lie ever louder doesn't make the lie true.

Your claim is a lie.

You know it.

I know it.

Deal with it.

LWW

hondo
09-07-2010, 05:15 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif