Da Parrot-chick
09-02-2003, 03:12 AM
Thank you all who posted the corrections. I need to hit the books.
"Howard Hess" <hmhess1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oq88lvk5jii5cptjj8d84bn3gvhh670mvg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 01:07:45 GMT, "Roger Sherman"
> <coolgrooves@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:38:31 +0000, Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> >
> >>> You have a short memory if you think this economy is bad. Relative
> >>> to the past decade, maybe it's down. But relative to the past
> >>> century, doesn't get much better aside from utopia.
> >>
> >> Mike, the federal deficit projection is over $400 Billion. That's a B,
not
> >> an M. Next year add another $80 Billion. In 2001 when President Bush
took
> >> office, there was a budget surplus of $1.6 billion dollars. Do you
still
> >> think the economy is in fine shape?
> >
> >
> >That's a little disingenuous, would you say? We didn't get out of debt
> >during Clintons presidency. Yes, we had a "surplus" of 1.6 bil, but that
> >didn't mean we were in the black by 1.6 bil. We were way, way in the red.
> >I'm no W supporter (far from it), but you make it sound like the current
> >administration had pushed us 401.6 bil onto the ugly side of the ledger.
>
> Roger,
>
> The $400 billion and $480 billion numbers in Da Parrot-chick's post
> weren't the national debt, they were the single-year budget deficits.
"Howard Hess" <hmhess1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oq88lvk5jii5cptjj8d84bn3gvhh670mvg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 01:07:45 GMT, "Roger Sherman"
> <coolgrooves@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 23:38:31 +0000, Da Parrot-chick wrote:
> >
> >>> You have a short memory if you think this economy is bad. Relative
> >>> to the past decade, maybe it's down. But relative to the past
> >>> century, doesn't get much better aside from utopia.
> >>
> >> Mike, the federal deficit projection is over $400 Billion. That's a B,
not
> >> an M. Next year add another $80 Billion. In 2001 when President Bush
took
> >> office, there was a budget surplus of $1.6 billion dollars. Do you
still
> >> think the economy is in fine shape?
> >
> >
> >That's a little disingenuous, would you say? We didn't get out of debt
> >during Clintons presidency. Yes, we had a "surplus" of 1.6 bil, but that
> >didn't mean we were in the black by 1.6 bil. We were way, way in the red.
> >I'm no W supporter (far from it), but you make it sound like the current
> >administration had pushed us 401.6 bil onto the ugly side of the ledger.
>
> Roger,
>
> The $400 billion and $480 billion numbers in Da Parrot-chick's post
> weren't the national debt, they were the single-year budget deficits.