OT-The party of hate picks a leader

Damn Ed, if you expect him to understand it *all* he'll never get anything posted.

Oh, wait...

Jim

Where does it say that, Dave? As I've quoted here a couple of times, Treasury tells you what the meaningful column is. It appears you're reading the one that is essentially meaningless -- the one that includes Treasury bonds that are not additions to debt.

-- Ed Huntress

In the initial link I showed you, where you said the same as Clinton, "Yabut, you can count SS money as income even though it's already spent".

Right, because a bond doesn't represent debt now?

I'm sure there's some real subtle bookkeeping scam that I'm not seeing here, and I really, really don't care how you cook the numbers to make a negative look like a positive. You believe it, I don't. I don't see any chance that either of us are going to change the other's mind about this in specific, or Clinton's history of lying in general.

Feel free to have the last word, though.

Do you get the feeling this is deja vu all over again? Either that, or an echo...

-- Ed Huntress

It means I posted them without comment Eddy boyo.

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.

Your not liking them is notable, though not unusual as they tend to be at odds with your claims.

But then..so many things are....

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

Cites?

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

As usual, Gunner, you've posted some complete idiocy that you neither understand nor could defend.

But you're welcome to try.

-- Ed Huntress

You can use the Treasury Dept. data that Dave and I have been discussing.

First, go to this site and see what the terms mean:

Note their comment, after you see the definitions, "Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits."

The reason they say that is that the debt represented by bonds held in the SS trust funds is not addition to debt. The debt has already been accrued by statute. The bonds add nothing more, they're just notes that make it look like there's some money stored somewhere to pay them off. Haha!

Then go to this Treasury site and look at the data itself:

Note that the "debt held by the public" went down during the later Clinton years.

Next question?

-- Ed Huntress

The readers are welcome to make up their own minds. Or they simply can not read them and go on about their business. Their choice. Not yours, not mine.

Get over it. You are almost starting to sound like a totalitarian with a hard on for the First Amendment.

But then...most Libs are...

Shrug

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

Gosh, Gunner, he _gave_ you the cites. "Look at the budgets".

OK, "King rule" (conservatism) vs. "mob rule" (democracy)....

If those are the only choices, I think I'd prefer "king rule" because it should be easier to depose a king than to disperse a mob....

-jc-

But why did you choose those particular sites? Do you agree with them, or not?

You get over it, Gunner. You either have a point, or you're just spamming. It appears you don't have a point, eh?

-- Ed Huntress

Well, they are now. But they weren't then.

It isn't a matter of "belief," Dave. That's for religion. This is fairly simple finance, and it isn't something about which you need to revert to "belief." You can just look into it and find out what the facts are.

But it's a lot easier just to say, "Clinton's a liar, so I don't believe the budget figures for the late '90s."

Remember, you were the one who made the assertion that it was all a lie, and who quoted Treasury Dept. figures to assert your point. The problem is that the Treasury Dept. itself explains that you were looking at the wrong figures. You just didn't dig deep enough.

'No need to get annoyed about it. I was polite with you until you suggested I was "insane." After that, I felt no compunction about pointing out the fact that you don't understand what you're making claims about.

-- Ed Huntress

They had a debate here in Portland tonight between Howard (The Duck) Dean and Richard Perl. Well Portland Oregon lived up to its rep as little Beirut. Just as Richard Pearl started speaking some Democratic Activist charged the stage and hit him whit a thrown Shoe. As the police were taking him down he was screaming that next time it would be a bomb. The arrested him for Disorderly conduct just like the other 738 demonstrators against Republicans in the last 6 years.

The only thing is all the charges have been dropped and no one has ever spent a night in Jail.

Oh the joys of living in a Socialist Dictatorship of Oregon.

I did. And I agree with you. As do the 4 links I provided.

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

Evidently the point was lost on you. But then, those with closed minds tend to not be able to comprehend things in conflict with their world views.

Gunner

Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error"

Broken record, Ed.

No, Clinton is a liar _AND_ I don't believe his (or your) claims about how a number getting bigger really is a number getting smaller. Not a cause-effect, it's additive.

If you say so, Ed.

If you say so, Ed.

You made no point. You said so yourself. You said, "without comment." You didn't even suggest why one would want to read those polemics.

-- Ed Huntress

And actually quite a good one :) "Real Conservatives" (tm) believe that you don't change things unless they really need changing, not just because someone else changed it in another country etc. What most americans seem to call conservative is more like 'reactionary' ie back to the past, or 'radical right'; oh, and you also (mostly) misuse 'liberal' :)

Cheers, Chris