PDA

View Full Version : Peanuts



Beefy
12-12-2007, 03:08 AM
A half million per household? Thank Peter North we have 2 parties to prevent this kind of thing!

Why, I was almost about to pledge my allegiance to a party, like Dano, or Desh! But the I realized that both parties are complicit.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22498576&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070529%2F1a_lede29.art.htm&partnerID=1660

uscitizen
12-12-2007, 07:33 AM
Limp.

ironhead
12-12-2007, 07:50 AM
The United States of America in 2007: We're fucking up ourselves at home, we're fucking people over abroad and virtually nobody (here) gives a shit.

uscitizen
12-12-2007, 07:51 AM
Flaccid.

ironhead
12-12-2007, 07:55 AM
Flaccid.

Weak, tired, and not even funny in a sarcastic way.

uscitizen
12-12-2007, 07:56 AM
Weak, tired, and not even funny in a sarcastic way.

Yep, that was my point.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 08:07 AM
A half million per household? Thank Peter North we have 2 parties to prevent this kind of thing!

Why, I was almost about to pledge my allegiance to a party, like Dano, or Desh! But the I realized that both parties are complicit.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22498576&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070529%2F1a_lede29.art.htm&partnerID=1660
Watch out. Dung will come in here and post some pictures and tell you how you "talked about this" in another thread. I know. You are shaking in your sandals...

Bonestorm
12-12-2007, 08:45 AM
Watch out. Dung will come in here and post some pictures and tell you how you "talked about this" in another thread. I know. You are shaking in your sandals...


Good one, Damo. You sure got me there. In the other thread I was responding to your ridiculous assertion that in the Reagan era intragovernmental holdings were included in the budget picture when they most assuredly were not. I then responded by showing that there were, indeed, BUDGET surpluses and a leveling off of public debt during the Clinton era.

As for the article, it's kind of silly don't you think? I'm all for including intragovernmental holdings in the budget picture but to include future spending as current liabilities is nonsense, particularly where we're talking about programs that are forecasted to continue into perpetuity.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 08:55 AM
Good one, Damo. You sure got me there. In the other thread I was responding to your ridiculous assertion that in the Reagan era intragovernmental holdings were included in the budget picture when they most assuredly were not. I then responded by showing that there were, indeed, BUDGET surpluses and a leveling off of public debt during the Clinton era.

As for the article, it's kind of silly don't you think? I'm all for including intragovernmental holdings in the budget picture but to include future spending as current liabilities is nonsense, particularly where we're talking about programs that are forecasted to continue into perpetuity.
And you suggested that we had "talked about it" in another thread. Had you actually read that thread and were able to comprehend you would know that we had, long before you ever showed up, already covered the difference between a budgeted and actual surplus and that I had already stated that he lowered the deficit but still increased the debt.

I can budget a surplus every day, but if I spend more than I take in I have still increased debt.

What I said here was that interest payments on the debt were budgeted in those federal budgets. If they were not, I can say "oops" and move on. But I am not stupid enough to believe that increasing debt is decreasing debt.

Bonestorm
12-12-2007, 09:03 AM
And you suggested that we had "talked about it" in another thread. Had you actually read that thread and were able to comprehend you would know that we had, long before you ever showed up, already covered the difference between a budgeted and actual surplus and that I had already stated that he lowered the deficit but still increased the debt.

I can budget a surplus every day, but if I spend more than I take in I have still increased debt.

What I said here was that interest payments on the debt were budgeted in those federal budgets. If they were not, I can say "oops" and move on. But I am not stupid enough to believe that increasing debt is decreasing debt.


But you are apparently too stupid to understand how it is possible to have a budget surplus in a given fiscal year (or three) while still ending up with an increase in debt. That's your problem.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 09:07 AM
But you are apparently too stupid to understand how it is possible to have a budget surplus in a given fiscal year (or three) while still ending up with an increase in debt. That's your problem.
No, I understand how to budget a surplus and still spend more money than that. You are disingenuous and stupid if you believe that you decrease debt by overspending a budget that has a "surplus" by simply not budgeting items like interest payments....

Playing with numbers is not fiscal responsibility no matter how many times you say "surplus".

Decreasing the deficit to 18 billion = good thing. Increasing the debt while trumpeting about how great the "surplus" is = talking points for idiots who can't understand that you do not increase the debt when you have surplus funds, you don't need to borrow when you have surplus funds.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 09:08 AM
Only the Gumby family can take an 18 billion dollar increase in debt and say it is a "surplus".

The same fricking party that says a 4% increase in spending is a "cut" because it wasn't raised to their level of "happy-happy" thought.

Bonestorm
12-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Only the Gumby family can take an 18 billion dollar increase in debt and say it is a "surplus".

The same fricking party that says a 4% increase in spending is a "cut" because it wasn't raised to their level of "happy-happy" thought.


You are conflating "debt" and "deficit."

If in year A I have a budget of X and I bring in revenues of X + Y I have a budget surplus of Y in year A, not a budget deficit. However, if my overall debt increases in an amount greater than Y in year A, I will have an overall increase in debt in year A notwithstanding my budget surplus in year A.

It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 09:16 AM
You are conflating "debt" and "deficit."

If in year A I have a budget of X and I bring in revenues of X + Y I have a budget surplus of Y in year A, not a budget deficit. However, if my overall debt increases in an amount greater than Y in year A, I will have an overall increase in debt in year A notwithstanding my budget surplus in year A.

It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
No, you are. The deficit was 18 Billion, the debt increased by that much to cover the deficit.

The conflation is the idea that a deficit is the same as a surplus because it was budgeted. That is simply a misunderstanding of accounting and what the heck a budget is.

I can make "surplus" budgets every day. But in the end if I borrow money because I overspend I am adding to my debt and had no surplus.

Damocles
12-12-2007, 09:17 AM
No fricking wonder America is in Mortgage trouble. People are too stupid to know that if they spend more than they make it isn't a "surplus" because they must have a "budget" in their head that shows a surplus.

evince
12-12-2007, 09:57 AM
A half million per household? Thank Peter North we have 2 parties to prevent this kind of thing!

Why, I was almost about to pledge my allegiance to a party, like Dano, or Desh! But the I realized that both parties are complicit.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22498576&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070529%2F1a_lede29.art.htm&partnerID=1660



And Ron Paul will change this HOW?

The fixes he wants to impliment are NOT what Americans want for this country.

The thing we really need to do to get a country we can all feel proud of is to CUT the corporate stranglehold there is on our representatives. You put an entire fleet of Libertarians in office and the corprations will buy them too. They are no less human than the R or Dems.