WHY do you worry about Socialism?

[sunman]

BeanCounter and Dan40


The is where the surplus numbers come from.

Cnn, Sept 27, 2000, six weeks before elections,

Pres Clinton announced,

$2,025 billion fed taxs collected fiscal year 2000
$1,800 billion fed budget fiscal year 2000
$225 billion surplus

In 1999 they claimed $123 billion surplus.

I don't make up the news I just read it.

Yes as a accounting method this is a crock!!! This is THEIR idea of surplus/ deficit not mine.

But, if this would have continued and the extra money was applied to the fed debt, it would of been reduced assuming it was larger than the interest.

The question was "but where is this surplus the liberals always refer to ?"

Answer, it was the difference between taxes collected and the fed budget. It was very short lived and now is history.

Sunman

[Joe Wicked]

Originally Posted by sunman

BeanCounter and Dan40


The is where the surplus numbers come from.

Cnn, Sept 27, 2000, six weeks before elections,

Pres Clinton announced,

$2,025 billion fed taxs collected fiscal year 2000
$1,800 billion fed budget fiscal year 2000
$225 billion surplus

In 1999 they claimed $123 billion surplus.

I don't make up the news I just read it.

Yes as a accounting method this is a crock!!! This is THEIR idea of surplus/ deficit not mine.

But, if this would have continued and the extra money was applied to the fed debt, it would of been reduced assuming it was larger than the interest.

The question was "but where is this surplus the liberals always refer to ?"

Answer, it was the difference between taxes collected and the fed budget. It was very short lived and now is history.

Sunman

Maybe I am off here, but since this states BUDGET, and not actual expenditures, it is meaningless. When was the last time the government (whoever was in charge) spent just the BUDGET. Give me the actual expenses vs taxes and I bet that surplus turns into a deficit.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by sunman

BeanCounter and Dan40


The is where the surplus numbers come from.

Cnn, Sept 27, 2000, six weeks before elections,

Pres Clinton announced,

$2,025 billion fed taxs collected fiscal year 2000
$1,800 billion fed budget fiscal year 2000
$225 billion surplus

In 1999 they claimed $123 billion surplus.

I don't make up the news I just read it.

Yes as a accounting method this is a crock!!! This is THEIR idea of surplus/ deficit not mine.

But, if this would have continued and the extra money was applied to the fed debt, it would of been reduced assuming it was larger than the interest.

The question was "but where is this surplus the liberals always refer to ?"

Answer, it was the difference between taxes collected and the fed budget. It was very short lived and now is history.

Sunman

Did we owe more at the end of the fiscal year or did we owe less?

[Dan40]

Am I a right wing hate monger? NO, but I love what my country was and will fight those that wish to overthrow the American way of life. Sadly many rank and file liberals do not realize that liberal ideology is as dangerous, and more insidious, than the Muslim jihadists.
Extrapolate liberals ideals and eventually you end up with all having all wants satisfied. That is incompatible with a free society,,,,,,,,,,,,,,incompatible with reality also.
our Gov't. is charged to promote the general welfare.
Allowing tax breaks for charitable donations and charitable organizations is 'promoting' the general welfare. TAKING money from those that earned it and giving it to those that cannot and will not earn it is providing, not promoting, the very less than general, welfare.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by Dan40

...liberal ideology is as dangerous, and more insidious, than the Muslim jihadists.

Do you actually believe that bull?
You think Oinie's mindset is more dangerous than Bin Laden's??
Generally, your posts indicate a reasonably high level of education and intelligence, but emotionally, you drag yourself back to the brink of drooling moronitude. It's a pity because you're probably a good guy, but your idea of of winning an argument is bludgeoning the other person with canned rhetoric.
Wash that foam out of your mouth Dan, and wipe the dribble off your chin. You have the tools to make a strong persuasive argument without resorting to statements that destroy your credibility.

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Do you actually believe that bull?
You think Oinie's mindset is more dangerous than Bin Laden's??
Generally, your posts indicate a reasonably high level of education and intelligence, but emotionally, you drag yourself back to the brink of drooling moronitude. It's a pity because you're probably a good guy, but your idea of of winning an argument is bludgeoning the other person with canned rhetoric.
Wash that foam out of your mouth Dan, and wipe the dribble off your chin. You have the tools to make a strong persuasive argument without resorting to statements that destroy your credibility.

No doubt you consider your post to be candid and reasonable. Perhaps pseudo intelligent. I consider it to be typical liberal ridicule and name calling. The true foamers are those that believe the Utopian. but illogical and unsupportable liberal canons.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by Dan40

No doubt you consider your post to be candid and reasonable. Perhaps pseudo intelligent. I consider it to be typical liberal ridicule and name calling. The true foamers are those that believe the Utopian. but illogical and unsupportable liberal canons.

No ridicule intended at all Dan. I meant what I said in all sincerity and I stand by it. Within the context of a discussion - any discussion - tis not only about the position or opinion expressed, but also about the delivery. Quit selling yourself short with the angry BS. And stop with resorting to bawling and crying "LIBERAL!!!" everytime someone disagrees with you. We have disagreed on some fundamentals and agreed on others. I really mean you no harm.