I'll trade one shrimp on a treadmill for

Neither, it was because the economy did well enough those years that they unexpectedly received more than budgeted, and they didn't have an opportunity to get it spent in time... ;-)

sales counter at a QuickMart?

When, exactly, were these "years"?

No, dolt, the only *year* that could conceivably have anything called a "surplus", was the peak of the .bomb bubble. It wasn't increased taxes, it was a *way* overheated economy. Then it burst...

ide quoted text -

Our g'vment is so broken, it sickens me. Would a revolt from the middle to pass the Simpson-Bowles 'thingie'. and stop all this ...ing around, have a chance?

George H.

first hit on google:

not a whole lot of plusses ...

-Lasse

I think we have so many "beneficiaries" that there's no chance in hell of reversal. The United States as we once knew it is gone, and the United States is doomed to total collapse.

We can always hope that it results in civil war... I want so much to shoot a few liberals (and some horse's asses, no matter their political flavor ;-) ...Jim Thompson

ter.

hat

ible

ide quoted text -

Hmm OK, guess I'm just hopeful.

'total collapse' is in no one's best interst.

George H.

All *revenue* bills must originate in the House, in theory. In practice, no one cares about the Constitution.

In a company, the BoD doesn't create the money, either, and they sure will change the budget based on the RoI and economic climate dictates.

all spending through very specific legislation. It is against the law for the executive branch to re-program that funding for any purpose other than specified in the authorization.

Neither branch is autonomous, nor can it be.

Now check the deficit.

...and a whole lot-o-lyin' goin on!

Does your wife approve that?

-- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bing, bing, bing! This student gets an A for the week! Well, for the initial answer. The rest is just attitude and he will have to show up in detention for that. If they didn't spend it because it was unanticipated, then why did they have surpluses for four years running? Could they really not see the trend? In the first half of the 2000 decade all the local governments saw the money rolling in and had no trouble spending it so fast that they didn't know what hit them by the time it went back to normal. The irony is that they don't explain the "bubble" in the tax revenues that way (mostly property taxes). The just complain about how much it dropped with the bubble burst.

Ok, this one is squarely on you. If you don't know any of the basic facts about the economy and government there is no point discussing this with you. Can you say "google"?

BTW, when you call someone a "dolt" and in the process show that you are rather ignorant of the facts, it makes you look pretty bad. Maybe you could ease off of using pejoratives from now on? Just a thought.

Throw in 800B in "stimulus" that gets baked into the baseline and it grows even faster

Yup. If we dialed spending back to just 2007 levels we'd be in great shape and even that was ridiculous.

I can say, "I know you lefties lie".

When I call someone a "dolt" it's only because they've proven, a number of times, that they are. That would be you, dolt!

Note the crickets from the lying "rickman".

ow

ester.

in

that

ssible

ic

gs.

...

in

Right, it's nasty. That's why I've been following the country's finances and politics the past few years like never before. I read the Treasury reports.

We're spending far, far more than we can afford. George, we were spending $1.84 for every $1.00 in revenue the first two months of this year. Yet, here's the President, telling us that spending 1.2% less than he'd planned this year--which is still more than the previous year--is impossible, that airplanes will fall from the sky, cats sleeping with dogs, etc.

There isn't enough money on the planet--quite literally--to pay for that. If we can't find a 1.2% efficiency improvement anywhere, America's done.

And, instead of trying to save, to make the best use of the resources we have, the President is deliberately trying to ensure the maximum pain, chaos and fear, targeting vulnerable groups, colluding with Ray LaHood and the union reps to disrupt air travel, defense, and more.

If a foreigner were trying to disrupt society--its infrastructure, travel, and government services--for political aims, we'd call it "terrorism."

It's getting ugly.

It all comes down to one fundamental misunderstanding, which the President just repeated: half the country thinks the government is a provider, without realizing that anything the government gives you they have to take from someone first.

Obama said the economy will falter if the sequester takes effect because people will have less money to spend, chopping demand for goods and services. That's exactly wrong--deficit spending of necessity takes money *from* the economy to fund its excesses, and saddles us with debt.

The truth is the economy is already faltering, has never recovered, and, on this course it's going to get worse. This redistribution stuff doesn't fix the problems, it makes them worse. The Federalist papers, Paine's Common Sense, Bastiat's "The Law," and many other works all warned of it: a gov't used to take (forcibly) from some to give to others is unstable, and leads to revolution.

Fortunately we all have cool jobs and fun toys.

James Arthur

It is my not humble opinion that the correct term is high treason. But there will be nothing done, too much of Congress colluded.

?-)