Payroll Tax Battle: Shameless - Page 2

Originally Posted by jimmac

The very fact that I'm still registered independent debunks that statement. I'll tell you what's well documented here. Your blind refusal to see reality even when cold hard facts are supplied. Iraq was a prime example.

Yes things were better under Clinton than any recent Republican. And that's a fact. And it wasn't because of the republicans. The next GOP bumbler blew through the surplus he left behind in 6 months.

Would you like me to show you where you used name calling recently? It was of a more personal nature with the subject of your attack as I recall.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I respond to all cold, hard facts. I link to hard data all the time, so your statement is patently false.

Originally Posted by BR

*cough*

Originally Posted by SDW2001



Between that and my misusing the word "tantric," I think you may be getting the wrong idea about me.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

How many Republicans have you voted for in the last 10 years on the state and federal levels?



I respond to all cold, hard facts. I link to hard data all the time, so your statement is patently false.



Ah, yes..the WMD card. You always reach for that as if you knew something everyone else didn't. Tell me jimmac, what "facts" demonstrated there were no WMD prior to the war? Can't wait. Speaking of facts, how are things in Iraq going now that we've accomplished our precipitous withdrawal. Didn't a certain someone say that such a withdrawal would be catastrophic?



First, what "things?" Secondly, No, it's not a fact. Average unemployment under Bush was lower than much of the Clinton Presidency. Look it up. Third, you didn't answer the question...what did Clinton DO to help the economy?



Demonstrate that to be true with FACTS, please.



Wait...so Clinton gets all the credit for surplus, the GOP gets none, and Bush gets all the blame for any problems after that? Oh, and no..it wasn't 6 months, nor was there a "surplus" sitting in some account. The "surplus" was a budget projection, you dolt.



As trump indicated, you don't even know when you're arguing ad hominem, nor do you realize the difference between that and a "personal attack." But you won't have to look far, because I'll help you out: You're unintelligent. You're borderline illiterate. You can't write. You can't think. You project onto others. You're a hypocrite. You're a small-minded, partisan man who comes off like a child.

Celebrating 10 Years of jimmac™

How many Republicans have you voted for in the last 10 years on the state and federal levels?

Wait...so Clinton gets all the credit for surplus, the GOP gets none, and Bush gets all the blame for any problems after that? Oh, and no..it wasn't 6 months, nor was there a "surplus" sitting in some account. The "surplus" was a budget projection, you dolt.

The "surplus" was a budget projection, you dolt.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

You're unintelligent. You're borderline illiterate

"personal attack."

Originally Posted by jimmac

Two or three but not many as they all seemed to have this neocon sickness since the mid 90's.

Some people don't think so you name calling desperado!

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bud...under-clinton/

Yes you were saying......

You have every " The dog ate my homework " type of excuse in the book to avoid admiting you might have been wrong about something. Iraq being a prime example when I posted for you facts in a timeline from a website that outline them. You called it biased but say ( for arguments sake ) it was. that wouldn't change the cold hard fact that they were cold hard facts listed therein. They didn't doctor them in their favor but you still refused to acknowledge them. But for anyone who's been around here for any length of time ( and isn't a hard bolied conservative ) your methods of insults when backed into a corner and of refusing to see what you don't like are well documented.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Where are your credentials, trump?

No one's buying today, trump!?

And what about the WMD?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I just can't continue with this. You're beyond hope.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You don't use facts. You guess, and then gloat if you happen to be right. And Factcheck.org is not even close to impartial. It's a project of the left-leaning Annenberg Center.

It's a project of the left-leaning Annenberg Center

What makes people think the Annenberg Foundation is a liberal organization?

The Annenberg Foundation sponsors factcheck.org. Factcheck points out errors in candidate's public claims including both Democrats and Republicans. In particular, factcheck took a look at Obama's birth certificate, and found it to be valid.

Lately, though, people here at YA have been dismissing the Annenberg Foundation as a liberal organization. I can't find any evidence that this is the case.

The founder of the Annenberg Foundation was Walter Annenberg. Mr. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Anne…In fact, it was Walter Annenberg who introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher for the first time.

Barack Obama is not an officer or director of the Annenberg Foundation. (Source: I am a member of Guidstar.org, which allows me to review the IRS Form 990s--annual tax filings--of private foundations and other nonprofit organizations.) Nor is any other prominent Democrat or Republican. Instead, the foundation's directors are members of the Annenberg family.

The Annenberg Foundation sponsors the Annenberg Challenge. Many politicians and academics--conservative and liberal--participate as advisors to the Annenberg Challenge. Obama has. So have many conservatives. I don't see how this makes Annenberg a liberal organization, and I also don't see how the Annenberg Foundation would even ALLOW factcheck.org to be overrun by liberals. It is a traditional conservative family with conservative values.

So what is the evidence that the Annenberg Foundation, founded by Walter Annenberg and still operated in accordance with his interests, is a liberal organization?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh my God! I knew it!

What's really amazing is that these sites that you don't like supply facts you can check elsewhere on your own! They aren't just made up or skewed by the site. But you'll believe what you want to no matter what! Isn't that right SDW?

That's why almost no one here takes you seriously.



You can read the rest if you want but I know you'll never believe it because it's inconvenient.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7151115AA5yfs0 Next you'll be telling me that Yahoo is left leaning! I think it's you who doesn't use facts. You hear something from some rightwingnut rag or another conservative and assume it's right.

Much like McCarthy in the 50's they're under every bush aren't they? The Annenberg Foundation's been blacklisted!

You really have left reality behind haven't you!