Author Topic: Read my lips, there is no Federal surplus. (Read 1016 times)

Mickey1992 · « **on:** October 20, 2000, 12:04:00 PM »

Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter. All this talk about what the candidates are going to do with the budget surplus doesn't matter because THERE IS NO SURPLUS.

The non-Social Security budget was in deficit by $22 billion in 1997.
The non-Social Security budget was in deficit by $30 billion in 1998.
The non-Social Security budget was in SURPLUS by $704 MILLION in 1999.

1999 was the first year since 1960 that there was a budget surplus, and yet the GAO projects that there will be a surplus through 2010. The different GAO budget projections just this year have varied by more than 100%.

The non-Social Security 10-year budget surplus is currently projected to be $2.17 trillion. But the current federal deficit is $3.4 trillion. That means that if every dollar of the budget surplus over the next 10 years is applied to the deficit, it will only reduce the federal deficit by approx. two-thirds. And that doesn't include interest.

Forget tax cuts and new programs....if every dollar of the projected budget surplus is applied to the federal deficit for the next 10 years, it still will not be close to being paid off.

Who am I voting for? I am voting for the thrid-party candidate that I think will get the most votes. Because I think we need a third party that receives matching federal campain funds, and one that gets invited to the "presidential" debates. I am hoping to one day have a politial party in the US that understands what a sane fiscal policy is.

Gunthr · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2000, 01:50:00 PM »

Mickey, throwing your vote away to a third party candidate won't acomplish your goal in this election. (We do have more than 2 parties, it's just that they don't get much support) Wouldn't it be better to make your vote count by casting it among the only two candidates who can win? Pick the party you think would be fiscally better for the country and vote for that candidate. Since Democrats are the big spenders, I encourage you to vote Republican.

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2000, 02:07:00 PM »

I consider a vote for a third party an investment. Hopefully someday we will have a viable third party in this country. That's not to say that I would vote for a Nader if I actually thought he had a chance in winning.

Regarding the "surplus"; Democrats want to spend it, Republicans want to give it away with tax cuts. Neither of these solutions pay off the National Debt.

Cabby · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2000, 02:52:00 PM »

Quote:

"Republicans want to give it away with tax cuts. "

What do you mean "give it away"????? Fer cryin' out loud, it's the people's freakin'money not the damn Government's!!!

The Government confiscates my income thru over-taxation, and i have to fight these bureaucrat idiots to get my own money back from 'em?? WTF????

Didn't we fight a Revolutionary War over this kind of crap?? Taking one person's money out of their pocket and giving it to another person is morally questionable, and destructive to personal initiative.

So many American's just "bend-over" and take it from the Government these days i wonder what the hell is wrong with them. I'm OK with an Income Tax(grudgingly) but damn!! it can't be confiscatory or why the hell bother!!!

Sheesh,

Cabby

Udie · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2000, 02:59:00 PM »

Did you by chance see Gov. Ventura on "Hardball" last night? It was a good interview. Jessy put out a fact that when ever there is an independent on the ballot more people show up to vote. He said that there was a 60% voter turn out in his election back in '96. 60%?!?!? holy cow that's amazing. I think nationaly it was like 25% wasn't it? He also said that the other state that has an independant govenor had a compairable voter turnout.

This year there is no valid 3rd party candidate IMnsHO. Therefor I'm sticking with what I know. G.W. Bush is a man of his word and has proved that to me over the last 6 years here in Tx. I had alot of faith in the republican congress, especialy when they did what they said they would do word for word w/ the contract with America. Sadly in '95 and '96 they got "school lunched" by the democrats and the media which seemed to me to put them in the "i better not do anything to jepordize my re-election" mode. Which they've been in ever since. Hopefuly with GW in the white house they will snap out of it.

I do think that a 3rd party will pop up soon, but it won't stay 3rd party for long. I think that it will kill one of the other parties. Right now I think the green party has the best chance of success, which I think will kill the democrat party, a guy can hope can't he hehe.

udie

[edit] I just read cabby's post and he's 110% correct! How bout we get some of the countries that owe us money to pay off the debt huh? Just who do we owe the money to anyway?

[This message has been edited by Udie (edited 10-20-2000).]

Gunthr · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2000, 03:06:00 PM »

I agree that the Democrats want to spend the "so called" surplus. But the Republicans will give it back to the taxpayers, stimulating the economy. That is better than spending it on "programs" and entitlements that will burden us for years to come, as the Democrats try to buy votes.

Agreed that neither way is the ideal way to handle the deficit. The problem is, in the real world, people are just unwilling to take the pain that goes with paying off the deficit that fast. People don't want to tighten their belts that much. The politicians know this. I would like you to think about this, and consider that the Republican budget is the best vehicle available to responsible voters right now, to work towards paying down the deficit. <S>

PS. Remember the Democrats program having to do with "midnight basketball" to keep "kids" off the street? We are still stuck with that! What an example of another wastefull $$$$$$$$$$$ entitlement that we will be stuck with forever! Thanks to the Democrats. Turn the rascals out!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 10-20-2000).]

Ripsnort · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2000, 03:08:00 PM »

What Cabby said...(Damn, Cabby, except for different sims, our politics run silent and run deep)

StSanta · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2000, 05:05:00 AM »

Gunthr:

The only way you can throw away yer vote is by not voting.

The only way third party candidates will have any chnances of slowly gaining ground is for unreasonable men and women to vote for them in increasing numbers.

I think the flaw in a two party system is obvious when it is considered a waste of a vote if you do not vote for any of the two main candidates.

And, technically speaking, ya can't tell what the outcome is at this point. Which means that a little less than half the votes will have been thrown "away", since they dinnae win the presidency

.

More power to Mickey. I want Ventura as president, at least he's big enough and could bully people with his physical size

.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

leonid · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2000, 07:23:00 AM »

I agree with you mickey, and I'm probably going to do what you're thinking of doing.

llbm_MOL · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2000, 09:36:00 AM »

In Costa Rico its illegal not to vote. They have 98% voter turn out. If you don't want to vote there you get a hefty fine. I wonder what this would do here in the USA. It seems to me that the powers that be dont want us to all come out and vote as this would upset the status quo. If the the people under 30 were forced to go vote just who in the hell would vote for? Not the two walking cadavers that have nothing to do with anything they think is important(Trim and Beer and fast cars);D. I'd like to see a way to make it hurtful to your pocket book not to vote although I know all the civil rights bible thumpers will come out and say this is against you civil rights Bla Bla Bla.... I think it might change the country for the better.

LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

devildawg · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2000, 11:41:00 AM »

llbm while the intentions might be good, it would NOT be a good thing to force everyone to vote. What would you rather have? 25% of the population that has some idea on what the candidates are about? Or, would you rather have 100% of the people vote with 75% of those people not knowing a damn thing about what they are about to vote for.

------------------
Retreat hell!! We're just attacking in another direction!

Gunthr · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2000, 03:24:00 PM »

StSanta, point well taken. I don't begrudge Mickey his vote. I salute him, Leonid and others who are thinking outside the box.

I was addressing Mickey's very justifiable concern about the huge deficit load this country has been operating under.

What I failed to convey was that if Mickey votes for a 3rd Party candidate, who has absolutely no chance of winning, it may have the effect of aiding and abetting the liberal Democrats who's budget is not as fiscally responsible as the Conservative's budget. I don't think this is what Mickey wants, based on his post.

So... if Mickey's only concern is to promote the idea of a political system that has more than two viable Parties who jostle for the power, vote for the 3rd Party candidate. But the message it sends is miniscule.

If Mickey is mostly concerned with the sea of red ink lapping at our shores, as I am, I would suggest that Mickey caste his vote where it can do some good. It is certain that either Gore or Bush will win this election. To ignore this fact and vote for a third party is actually like casting a vote for either Gore or Bush, whichever one benifits from his voting 3rd Party. When his ideals are fiscally more in line with Bush compared to Gore, and he votes 3rd Party instead, you are benefiting Gore. The effect is that it steals a vote from Bush.

Mickey may not feel warm and fuzzy with the entire conservative platform, but if his goal is to see the deficit reduced, I sincerely hope that he will join with us in voting for a more responsible budget by backing George W. Bush.

I believe that creating the environment in which more than two parties are viable in this country will take years. We need to try to steer our country's financial path now]/b]. <S>

StSanta · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2000, 04:41:00 PM »

Gunthr, or steals a vote from Gore.

I see Bush's budget as pretty irresponsible, and don't know enough about Gore's to comment.

All depends on your perspective.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

Udie · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2000, 07:10:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta:
Gunthr, or steals a vote from Gore.

I see Bush's budget as pretty irresponsible, and don't know enough about Gore's to comment.

All depends on your perspective.

Just out of curiosity, have you even read his budget? What's so irresponsible about giving somebody back change when you over charge them? At least Bush's budget is ballanced. The funny thing is I swear I remember saying your conservative. Man the liberals over there must be left of Stalin.

Udie

Snoopi · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2000, 08:03:00 PM »

Just being devils advocate......

Seems to me they don't owe you change...
since every man woman and child in the U.S. is in debt.

-the country is in debt
-the money is your money,spent by the
government according to your wishes, in theory
-hence it is the citizens that are in debt
-hence they owe you nothing

Devils advocate mode off

Devildawg:
I agree..it scares me that the people who made Jerry Springer rich, also vote.
It's unfortunate but TRUE Democracy means majority rules. Look at the published breakdown of education levels in the U.S. and that concept might scare you.

[This message has been edited by Snoopi (edited 10-21-2000).]