.guns,alt.religion.christian,comp.os.os2.advocacy
RD Sandman wrote in
news:XnsA0FD7660B89A1hopewell@216.196.121.131:
> Mitchell Holman wrote in
> news:XnsA0FCA4BD44FE3nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>
>> RD Sandman wrote in
>> news:XnsA0FC714769D56hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>
>>> Mitchell Holman wrote in
>>> news:XnsA0FBD544757A1nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>
>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA0FBA676236CChopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Holman wrote in
>>>>> news:XnsA0FBB74998E39nomailverizonnet@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA0FB92CAA79A0hopewell@216.196.121.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SkyEyes 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.
--- MBSE BBS v0.95.15 (GNU/Linux-i386)
* Origin: TDSOTF (1:116/18@fidonet)
|
