Author Topic: Sad but true.. (Read 782 times)

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #15 on:** September 21, 2007, 09:12:25 PM »

People who automatically discredit wikipedia are handsomehunkes.

JBA · « **Reply #16 on:** September 21, 2007, 09:22:02 PM »

I can't believe we’re having this debate again. this is so 2002 on this BB.

You have to normalize every year to the GDP. That's your common denominator. In that case the greatest debt we faced was about 120% of GDP during WWII. We are now about 40% GDP.
Go read Walter E Williams or Thomas Sowell. Then come back to the BB, and we can have an informed debate.
since you so love Wikipi.

can we put this to bed now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

crockett · « **Reply #17 on:** September 21, 2007, 09:28:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Pres Bush (the current one) is NOT a conservative Republican. In fact, as the head of the Republican party he has pretty much tossed out about half of the good old conservative principles that brought Republicans into power over the last 20 years.

When he leaves, I think (hope) they'll return to real "honest" conservative policies because the current Republican platform under President GW Bush makes the Republicans look like slightly meaner Democrats.

I hope so.. I've never actually "hated" the Republican party until Bush and this current crop of swindlers came along.

If they would go back to what the party was about and drop all the "Religious" crap then maybe I'd support them.

Tango · « **Reply #18 on:** September 21, 2007, 10:46:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crockett
No that's actually a misconception. We did still "owe" money, but the budget was balanced and we had surplus money to pay off the debt. Had we continued down the path Clinton put us on we would have actually paid it off.

I think Newt was more responsible for that than Clinton. He just road on the coattails of the congress and senate after '94 and took the credit for it.

clerick · « **Reply #19 on:** September 22, 2007, 12:50:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tango
I think Newt was more responsible for that than Clinton. He just road on the coattails of the congress and senate after '94 and took the credit for it.

My memory is a bit rusty, but if i remember right the "balanced" budget was more or less a book keeping trick, where he just included monies from the Social Security General fund and that made the budget look balanced. I think that i am over simplifying though.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #20 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:00:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
People who automatically discredit wikipedia are handsomehunkes.

Cried the moron.

nirvana · « **Reply #21 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:10:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
People who automatically discredit wikipedia are handsomehunkes.

When just anyone can edit it, I take the information on wikipedia with more than just a grain of salt.

1K3 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:19:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
When just anyone can edit it, I take the information on wikipedia with more than just a grain of salt.

That's all changed. These days you must have an account and a college degree that's related to a subject/topic so you can edit the wikipedia entry about "USA".

E25280 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:25:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by nirvana
I was under the impression Clinton had the US in a $3 trillion surplus....and then the evil Bush hid it in an off shore bank account or something.

You are mixing apples and oranges here, folks. The chart is a trade deficit, not a government budget deficit.

Another way to look at this is -- wow, the US really supports the economies of a lot of other countries.

An important item missing is the trade deficit as it relates to total GDP. With a GDP of more than $12 trillion, and $862 billion trade imbalance is not unsustainable.

I wonder how much of that trade imbalance is due to oil imports?

nirvana · « **Reply #24 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:28:50 AM »

It was an old thread someone posted about why the Bush Admin. sucked. The deficit was the main point i remembered. I'll let the big boys talk now.

FBBone · « **Reply #25 on:** September 22, 2007, 01:45:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
That's all changed. These days you must have an account and a college degree that's related to a subject/topic so you can edit the wikipedia entry about "USA".

So, who checks for the degree? Is there some sort of review board you must pass through before you can be dishone....I mean, edit entries?

JB88 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 22, 2007, 03:20:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ironically, the economy has been fantastic in this administration. My 401k went up almost a quarter of a million dollars since May of 2000.

i believe that you are one of the few...of course, you might thank all of us from time to time for footing the bill.