No Gtech the one who fails to back up would be you, do I need to post a link to the thread where you call it 'laziness' when you didn't want to back up your claim? It's pretty much common knowledge that not all numbers are included in these numbers, it was not during the Clinton era and is not now either. Who said I was disappointed? Yet again with you and your disappointment, you must have had a trully miserable and disappointing childhood. I forgot your logic is either you jump up and down and blindly support any news good or bad, or you are disappointed. Wanting to know the full picture, all the numbers, all the facts makes me disappointed, give me a break. This is the same numbers game done during Clinton, now done during Bush, the sides have simply changed. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm Just one story of numerous reports showing the difference from numbers. There trully should be no reason to post anything else if you think the government numbers reported are the end all, well then you need to do some research before posting such stories As to your last post, I forgot you have to engage every single post out there otherwise Gtech can and will attack you of something, even though he himself does not engage every post. Speaking of being better, you used to have at least a fraction of logic 'I thought' guess I was wrong. ---edit In other words could it be I am against how the numbers are reported and incorrectly made to appear better no matter who is in office? Perhaps that's my beef here, not simply blindly taking distorted numbers to make things smell rosey, nah that couldn't be it, it must be disappointment.
Grim, I see you are going to resort right back to the usual. That's fine, if you want to play it that way. I've told you many times, I'll give as I receive. If you want to continue digs in every reply, I'll do the same thing. If you feel the need to distort the reality of your posts by pretending to "just be looking for the full picture" when you have no idea what that full picture is, don't let me stop you. Obviously you are doing it for a reason. Perhaps because your actions and words don't truly represent what later go back and try to portray. Again, I'll afford you the same you afford me. You can keep it civil and toss the digs out, or continue and we'll be right back at square one. Either way is fine with me.
Gtech I suggest you reread what you posted, the digs came from you Oh so when points are shown run away, don't respond. But you wanted links to what I was talking about, I supplied one but yeah that doesn't matter. I give what I recieve as well, you may want to keep that in mind when you spout off such as you do It is you who doesn't know what the full picture is, you've proven you do not care either, especially if it doesn't support your agenda. Speaking of what one tries to portray, I will attack both sides unlike some people A link to the article that the previous poster quoted BTW. http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/31/magazines/fortune/deficit_sloan.fortune/ This is common place, how the government adds the numbers is not generally accepted accounting. It's been this way for some time, yet again during Clinton the republicans ripped that fact apart. Now though they are quiet, I wonder why that is?..
Grim, thanks for proving my point. I now see which one (article) you embrace and which one you take issue with. Not unlike john kerry, who tried to rewrite the standards and formulas that have always been used, to distort numbers with new criteria. I do appreciate you disclosing which side you've taken. I agree with you. You do take "both sides." As of late, you've only taken one side, consistently, every time. This is something I've illustrated often. Keep trying
So again avoid the facts, yep that's taking a side These are the same methods that the republicans swore up and down during the Clinton area, now though it's convenient to go the other way So you like the false numbers instead, thanks for proving my point. As long as it fits your agenda you're AOK with it I'll stick to one method, not change depending on who is in power. Thank you very much. Afterall if we don't have it in writing that the deficit is actually worse it can't actually be worse and or hurt us, perfect logic. I still say show me where I take both sides, ohyeah you never can, you just like to spout it. BTW questioning the numbers with a better method is not 'taking a side' why is everything a side with you? Is it like an obsession or something?
No one is avoiding facts. You've not presented any to avoid. You've avoided the facts and fought against them from the first page. Only you can answer why you are fighting good news so hard. I can't answer that for you, GRIM. If you are upset about false numbers, stop posting op-eds with made up alternative criterias. Again, I see which one you take issue with, and which one you don't. I'm grateful for that. Just keep up the good work! You are more than welcome to stick with, fight and defend good news while Bush is in office and pretend that you don't. Every post you make continues to deny you that altered reality
Gtech I am not upset in the least. I have posted a link that shows how the numbers are off in how the government does their numbers, but ohyeah that's not a fact according to you because it doesn't go with your agenda. I forgot if it's not Gtechs agenda nothing is fact Who's got made up alternatives? The social security numbers are 'made up' really now, that's good news. I guess there is nothing wrong with the system, all of those saying it's going to run out of $$$ are wrong then! Thank goodness Gtech is here to prove us all wrong. The republicans during Clinton were also all wrong, wow thanks! I can sleep so much better at night knowing that unless it's on Gtechs side nothing is fact! You also have an obsession thinking I am just against Bush, let me guess you think I am that democrat you claimed about acting like one was once a republican BTW standing up for Bush, ohyeah I'd never do that It must just be a Bush thing, yep I just can't stand the guy so much that I am incapable of standing up for him ever. Ohyeah I guess I might just stand up for him when I agree with something he does http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4706472&postcount=8 I've said it before and I'll say it again. These numbers were brought out during Clinton in the same fasion, Republicans used the same methods I posted to show why the federal versions are so incorrect, they are made to look good. Republicans used this same method in an attempt to destroy Clinton. I used those numbers back then, so did most republicans. When you read into it you see they are not inflated, they include what they should unlike the federal version which 'excludes' many items that cost a bundle. I will not be a hypocrite and jump ship to another method simply because someone else is in power, you might be fine with that, I however am not. In order to get the full picture you need all budget items, especially those pesky big ones, you know something such as SS. This has nothing to do with 'sides' but has everything to do with maintaining one method, not changing when the sides change, attempting to get the full and accurate picture, not just one that looks good or goes with my agenda.
Grim, I sympathize with your disappointment over good news. It's heart wretching to see you struggle for so many posts to try and prove the deficit is not lowering. Only you can answer why. Virtually everything you say you are not doing, you continue to prove in each post that you make. Not only do you suggest you want the "full picture," and not playing a side (which you are), but you go on to post a source that you take no issue with, that attempts to change the standard by which measures are created. One standard for one side, another standard for another. If you aren't disappointed and aren't trying to prove the deficit isn't reducing with a source that calls for a different standard, what is it that you are doing. By your standard, you aren't really doing anything. Just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Good point on that post about Bush. Of course, it was the usual "if" conditional we all have come to admire. I wonder how come you couldn't have found a post in this thread, or the ron paul thread today, to prove an obscure point? Something to think about, while you are busy not taking sides Is the deficit falling, or is it not? Could you answer that question with a straight answer, without hypotheticals? After all, with the source you posted, of which you took no issue over (gee, I wonder why?!), you apparently have that "full picture" you've been desperately looking for.
I wish that word would get out here. Just going back through all my bookmarks about the economy and the deficit falling. I hope these don't upset GRIM, given his frustration with trying to prove the deficit isn't falling. Some of us like to look at the full picture, not just one op-ed by CNN changing the criteria for measurement. May 2005 Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html Nov 2005 US economy roars despite hurricanes; growth upgraded to 4.3 percent http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=051130163113.y2qc1yav&show_article=1 Dec 2005 Economy Grows at Fastest Pace in 1 1/2 Years http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8EKLL602&show_article=1 Jan 2006 US economy firing on all cylinders http://www.theage.com.au/news/Busin...-cylinders-data/2006/05/04/1146335833470.html April 2006 US economy's latest output: better jobs http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0411/p01s02-usec.html July 2006 (and by the NYT? Say it isn't so!) Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/w...00&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin January this year: Deficit Falls to Lowest Level in 4 Years http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MJU5901&show_article=1 February this year: Deficit Falls http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html March this year: Deficit Falls http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NQPD6O2&show_article=1 April this year: U.S. one-day individual tax haul at record high http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2523848020070425 June this year Deficit Falls http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PNF8600&show_article=1 July this year Deficit Falls http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QAD5LG1&show_article=1 That's a whole mess of good news. I hope no one ends up in the hospital over all that good news at once
Gtech I see you posted more crap Again with disappointment, who said I was disappointed? Do you not get the point of looking at the entire picture, ohyeah I forgot you didn't, only take the numbers that are on your side. Forget about those other annoying things that show the numbers are not as good as the government says, who cares that the republicans used the same method to attack Clinton. This is now afterall and only matters to what is on your side. Do you have an obsession about making shit up? About not getting that someone does not have to be 'disappointed' to want to see the entire picture. That there is more to the deficit, there is much more in terms of federal funding than what is shown here? I could go on and on but there is no point, you don't care, you don't care about anything other than stats that are on your side. Doesn't matter who used what number when, what stats show the truth, if someone is 'disappointed' or wanting to see the entire picture. Afterall what we don't know wont hurt us Yet again I am not disappointed, you sure like making stuff up. I never said it wasn't lowering, I simply showed the stats how real accounting shows them. The real accounting that the republicans went after Clinton with. That's funny, trully it is. To me you're doing exactly what you claim not to be. You continue as always to only look at numbers on your side, similiar to what you did during the Iraq war build up, you know that entire time you were wrong. I see you like to continue being wrong to this day, you are so dead set in your ways you refuse to look at anything within a topic, only you're either A with me or B against me. Is that trully the extent of your thinking capability? I'm on a side, really what side would that be? Wanting to know the total overall health of the Federal Government finances is taking a side? This so called change in how the measures are created are the same ways the republicans went after Clinton, but you know that's no biggie. It's different now, now that your boy is in office. I get how you try to twist things, it's pretty easy to see through BTW, twist and turn, I guess work with what you have. Afterall if someone doesn't line up and simply take it in the AXX they have to be against me. Damnit nobody can think for themselves It's nothing new showing the numbers for what they trully are, but you'd rather burry your head in the sand and forget about the SS amounts, yep better burrying your head then knowing the full story. It's so easy to not let things get to you when you simply act as if they do not exist. That would be you, I'm trying to have one standard for all sides. That is why I am looking at it the way I am now, the same way I did when the republicans attacked Clinton. Wow you really have a problem following this don't you? To busy making things up in your mind I see, as usual. Yet again if we don't know what's really going on it's not actually happening. Great logic. Yep I would have no reason to uphold the same standard I used during Clinton. Nope I'd have no reason to want to know the full story, including all expenses such as that pesky SS. You know that's a pretty damn big issue, with SS running out of $$ and all. But yep, I best just jump aboard, jump up and down that the deficit is falling and shut my yap. Afterall if I'm not 100% for I a must be against it, or I must be disappointed. Yep an 'if' as I was talking with Lorien and finding out the facts. I forgot you like to blindly jump onto things. Those who blindly jump onto things make an ass out of themselves alot, are proven wrong alot. Yep it's so bad to say 'if' because it changes so much. I state outright if it's the case I support him, that changes things how exactly? If I knew the full story on that issue I would have gladly said I support him, I however did not so I stated 'if', 'if' that was the case I support him. Not hard to follow, but I know you and your blind faith, following orders w/o any thought of your own. That might be ok for you, not for me. Per the government stats the deficit is falling. So this is the end all for you, can you answer that question? Is this an end all for you and you do not care about any underlying numbers, social security or any other pesky little detail that the numbers do not show.
Just so you know, in the midst of GTech hitting us with the Good News Press; the deficit is growing EVERY YEAR. Each year we run an annual budget deficitIt adds to total debt or the total deficit. So in the midst of GTech's barrage of good news--> the deficit and debt are increasing. Something is going down though, right? Yeah...during the last 3 years the annual budget deficit has been less than the annual budget deficit from the year before. You wanna know how this became such GTechian Good News? This is so funny-- In fact it comes from one of the good news articles GTech cited..... That came out of this Breitbart reference.....http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MJU5901&show_article=1 The NYTimes article also referenced the all time record budget deficit year I wonder if the OP should have been titled differently....perhaps.... We Are Still Running Up Big Debts--We Just Aren't Debting as much as the All Time Worst Dollar Debt Year Ever in actual dollar numbers. (proudly brought to you by the Bush administration and its crazy ever lovin supporters.) So....I guess it is good news....the administration isn't screwing up as badly as it screwed up during the all time worst budget financial year. Congrats GTech. That is wonderful news.
Hey Earl, at this point, the only kudos Bush is going to get is if he starts cleaning up his own mess. Of course, the usual suspects will use it to indicate how competent he is, when in reality, increased tax receipts and growth have nothing to do with Bush, and everything to do with the ingenuity, productivity and entrepreneurship of the American people. When will folks figure out that the government doesn't actually make the money, they only spend it?
I have no doubt you would dismiss over a dozen sources that prove you wrong over a two + year time frame as crap. That's what one-sided people with an agenda and a side do. Thank you for proving that point for me. I said you were disappointed. Proving once again, that you don't read. Your posts indicate clear disappointment. I do. You don't seem to be able to grasp it, despite preaching it. In fact, you apparently don't know what it is at all. No. The obcession with making shit up belongs to you. You are the one trying to change all the indicators into disappointment. Perhaps you should read your posts. We agree on this. There is no point. You have failed in every post to twist reality, distort the truth and mask your disappointment. Why you have chosen to go on is anyone's best guess, but there is no point in you going on anymore. I suspect you will though. So you are happy the deficit is falling? This is good news! Your posts do not reflect this, but I'm happy to see the sudden change. Good for you! What side? I'm just looking at the overall numbers from more than a dozen sources over a two year time frame. I'd say that's looking at the full picture. Unlike you, who doesn't know what the full picture is, and sources one op-ed where the writer wants to change the criteria for measurement. Oooohhh, that's sure wanting to look at the full picture Anti-Bush side, of course. You've already made that clear. After all, if someone posts more than a dozen articles over a two year period of time that proves them wrong and that the deficit is reducing, they have to be on a side and cannot be looking at the full picture. Doom and gloom Yet you continue to sweep them under the rug and call them "crap" because they don't fit your agenda. Glad you could point that out. Incorrect. You post a source that clearly doesn't do so, call other sources that disprove your agenda crap, then hide behind altered reality. We do know what's going on. I've sourced many stories that give that story. You reject them. That's your problem. That's not a "we" problem, that's a "you" problem. So you are not sure if you were talking to Lorien or not? There's always an "if," isn't there? But I forget though, that you like to post biased stories for your full picture that want to change the criteria for measurement, and dismiss everything that proves you wrong, because narcissists have a hard time accepting anything other than their distorted views. This is called looking at the full picture! There's always room for improvement. Without changing the criteria for measurement, the deficit is falling. It's not a big deal to recognize such...for most. I've mentioned no end all at all. The simple truth, that you've fought against for three pages (but it's not disappointment!!!) is that the deficit is falling. The same unit of measurement that's always been used indicates such. If you feel the need to modify those units of measurement by adding in additional criteria to make the news bad, you can resort to such dishonest if you like. You have the right to do that. I have the right to call you on it. Good news for America is bad news for some. If they can't find a way to do it legitimately, they'll twist and distort all the sources that prove them wrong to achieve their goal. But, of course, not on any side though
You're correct, it is falling. Bush is finally cleaning up some of the mess he made. This good news/bad news rhetoric is akin to chastising a family member for not congratulating a child for wiping their ass after taking a crap. "Good job George! You crapped, and now you know how to flush the toilet! Yipee!"
Great job at making more stuff up Gtech. The true wonder here is that you actually believe what you spout. I have tried giving you a chance but you are simply trully unreal. I never said I was diappointed, but you surely love to make that shit up I never said the deficit didn't go down, but you love making shit up. I'm done with you as you have shown yet again just how trully pathetic you are. You seriously man, you are delusional in every sense of the word. You make shit up in your little mind and actually believe it. Using numbers that actual accounting uses is not twisting, it is trying to see the overall nations health when it comes to finanaces. I know you dont' care about that, you're more worried about trumping your boy Bush up. We all see it, I wouldn't expect anything less. If you actually cared about America you'd like to look at the full picture, not just those numbers that make your boy look better. We all know what numbers you like to look at though, administration over country a true 'cough' patriots way.
Grim: Check http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4788609&postcount=54 The point is that all that "good news" really needs to be placed into perspective. In 2004 we had the worst absolute deficit year EVER. Since then the annual deficits have not been as bad as the worst EVER. Some may think that is good news and progress. I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that after such disasterous results just a few years ago....you can't but help and go up. The only upbeat surprising thing I found in that first article is that tax revenues this year of almost $2.6 trillion are way up from the tax revenues from 2004--less than $2 trillion and less than the tax revenues from 2000 (as with 2001, 2002, 2003, and 04. Yup there are more tax revenues and problably due to big investment gains in the stock market and real estate. Those gains are typically not because of the Bush tax policy. They are the result of the business cycle, LOW interest rates and the long term growth of the stock market and real estate. People don't get taxed on the gains of asset value until they sell the assets. So I guess a lot of people were taking profits over these last 3 years. But good news/bad news. It all depends on how you want to spin it.