Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!

[MacNfries]

trying to move the goalpost when he gets proven wrong. You brought up the topic of debt with your claim that Clinton didn't add much to the debt. When proven wrong with documented evidence straight from a Democrat controlled white house source....suddenly adding $s to the debt is excusable because you want to switch the topic to interest on the debt.

well, dickwad, you have to count the interest as new debt, don't ya?
If you look at the total Nat'l Debt established at the end of GW Bush 2nd term (2010) you see it around $10.3 trillion ... Clinton raised the Nat'l Debt some BECAUSE the excess gains from Social Security programs were instead invested into government interest bearing securities instead of applying them to the national debt. Had they applied the surpluses to the national debt your number would be much lower, Einstein. The difference between on-budget and off-budget accounting ... media sources use the off-budget, have for a long time. Still, Clinton managed to have a SURPLUS in each of his last 4 years in office ... have any Republican presidents done this in the last 4 decades? No, they're stuck on voodoo economics.
Can you READ? Pass this along to your heel hound, nongolfer:
https://www.davemanuel.com/2012/09/...-debt-go-up-during-the-clinton-surplus-years/
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html on the Supply Side fallacy.

So, my question to you Trump zombies is ... who contributed more to the escalating national debt? GW Bush runs up the national debt with his unbudgeted wars, Medicaid Pt D, and his frki'n tax cuts that "pay for themselves" and then hands a crashing economy ... nose diving to a 2nd Great Depression to President Obama then Republicans start blocking every effort Obama made to save the fucking economy ... what a bunch of ASSHOLES!
And because you zombies would do it ALL AGAIN after all this proof that Supply Side doesn't work, you're assholes too.

 

[nongolfer]

Without myself resorting to calling names, such as Fake News MacNFries did above, and with me having to re-post an already posted link right here:

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

How exactly does any link posted about balancing the budget disporve that Clinton balanced the budget when he compromised with Newt?

Unless of course you are asking me to believe news media is more credible on issues of economics than economists and economic experts are.

Should I re-post for the 6th time links showing Obama met with P U T I N privately as well? Or are 6 time enough to someone that cannot be bothered to post one link showing anything he posts is factual?

 

[nongolfer]

I'll post this also, it is a slightly right leaning source. Slightly. As opposed to the garbage other people use, and call credible.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/

 

[MacNfries]

Without myself resorting to calling names, such as Fake News MacNFries did above, and with me having to re-post an already posted link right here:
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget
How exactly does any link posted about balancing the budget disporve that Clinton balanced the budget when he compromised with Newt?

I'm not going to explain it to you anymore you brain dead zombie ... read this and shut up about Clinton and the Budget ... that is if you can UNDERSTAND it.
https://www.davemanuel.com/2012/09/06/why-did-the-national-debt-go-up-during-the-clinton-surplus-years/

 

[nongolfer]

Here is where your link goes:

Not Found
The requested URL /2012/09/06/ was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Where did I mention national debt? Could you find that for me, becuase you are replying to me, and your reply isn't on the same subject.

Also, if you have some time, did you ever find a link showing P U T I N and Obama did not meet privately?

You win a lot of arguments using your style. But you won't with me. I'm fact based, and winning against me would mean not changing topic, and not making things up that informed persons know are false.

 

[MacNfries]

Not Found
The requested URL /2012/09/06/ was not found on this server.

https://www.davemanuel.com/2012/09/...-debt-go-up-during-the-clinton-surplus-years/

 

[nongolfer]

Interesting. Now how does this, which I already knew, have anything to do with my post about balancing the budget, since is is entirely about the debt?

How does this counter what I said about Bill Clinton compromising with Newt Gingrich?

Did I miss the post where you provided a link showing Obama in fact never met with P U T I N privately?

These, and more interesting questions, same bat time, same bat channel.

 

[hoping hubby]

Clinton raised the Nat'l Debt some

He raised it 75% as much as Reagan did....I realize you've struggled on here with percentage calculations, but that is a pretty simple one to cypher out....Hint: just need one simple times and a gozinta Jethro.

Clinton managed to have a SURPLUS in each of his last 4 years in office ..

Sure via accounting tricks and what is termed on budget vs off budget, they can play with the numbers to fool the useful idiots into thinking there was a surplus. The intricacies of the federal budget really should be left to people who don't screw up 7th grade math, but try to open your eyes and think for a minute. I gave you a link direct to the Obummer OMB archives. The federal debt each year under Clinton was:

1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881

Sharpen your pencil and do some 3rd grade subtraction....show us which of those Clinton years the debt went down.

 

[subhub174014]

Don't hold your breath! I think it was before you joined this site, but Sub once called me a moron in a post where he both misspelled and demonstrated he didn't understand the the meaning of the word oxymoron.

I just couldn't think of a smart remark at the time fitting your board post as a loser...but then that right there is close enough

 

[subhub174014]

I think this would be more fitting

 

[subhub174014]

 

[subhub174014]

 

[subhub174014]

Interesting. Now how does this, which I already knew, have anything to do with my post about balancing the budget, since is is entirely about the debt?

How does this counter what I said about Bill Clinton compromising with Newt Gingrich?

Did I miss the post where you provided a link showing Obama in fact never met with P U T I N privately?

These, and more interesting questions, same bat time, same bat channel.

can't give an answer so divert back to something else huh? typical of the trumpies
the statement was that Clinton worked with Gingrich...….correct answer was no...Gingrich came crawling after heat from party/public

 

[nongolfer]

No.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

Above are your words, which are factually inaccurate. Right below your word pollution are some facts.

And you are answering on behalf of MacNFries. At this point, you seem to be so out of control, you are replying to post not directed at you, but other posters. And to attempt to win the argument, you are making up what I said. Which isn't going to work, becuase it's all in black and white above.

Which is yet another example of something real, versus something you have made up. And actually is detrimental for whatever your incoherent argument is. Which as fr as I can tell is that your don't like Trump. After that with all the made up things, and all of the seemingly outright lies, it is very difficult to tell.

 

[subhub174014]

At this point, you seem to be so out of control, you are replying to post not directed at you

out of control......which means you don't have answers.....and the word pollution would apply to YOU!

 

[nongolfer]

I posted the answer. Interestingly enough, the answer I posted, which is called fact, indicates you would be yet once again, incorrect.

Which means anyone who reads this thread is now aware, or should be if they have a heart beat, that your are indeed Fake, False, Dishonest News.

It is what it is. There isn't any wiggle room.

 

[subhub174014]

I posted the answer. Interestingly enough, the answer I posted, which is called fact, indicates you would be yet once again, incorrect.

Which means anyone who reads this thread is now aware, or should be if they have a heart beat, that your are indeed Fake, False, Dishonest News.

It is what it is. There isn't any wiggle room.

it seems to me you just invited your self into the conversation and have been every since just spouting off false statements and misleading facts...all just proving that you are a part of the problem

 

[nongolfer]

Can you link one false statement please? That should clear things right up. It's easy. It certainly was for me when I linked multiple false statements that you have made.

 

[subhub174014]

Can you link one false statement please?

how about you link one accurate one!

but then in your mind I'm sure they all were...well you and HH...but most on this board know he has been brain dead now for some time

 

[nongolfer]

Obama met with P U T I N privately

https://www.cfr.org/interview/what-expect-Poroshenko-obama-meeting

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/video/77297329-157.html

Newt / Budget / Clinton

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

Note my sources. Expert sources.

Your turn, and go...........