Comments on: History’s Latest Greatest Monster!

By: dhill

dhill — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:31:11 +0000

Jeremiah, Stooks voted for Nader because he is a leftie who for some reason writes for this site. He used to write a lot about the dangers of global warming but as that balloon has deflated he now spends his time attacking neo cons. Don’t get me wrong, they are often incorrect but at least some of the times they get it right.

By: Allan Hughes

Allan Hughes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:08:42 +0000

Sorry I made a mistake: the surpluses in 1999 and 2000 were $1.9 billion and 86.4 billion.

By: Allan Hughes

Allan Hughes — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:05:31 +0000

Steve,
Sorry to burst your bubble but you are wrong.

In 1999, Federal spending results showed a surplus of $1,920 billion in the “On-Budget” of general fund (everything other than the trust funds, primarily Social Security and Medicare). In 2000 Federal Spending had a surplus of $86,442 billion for “On-Budget” spending. The more commonly reported numbers that include both “On-Budget” and “Off-Budget” (trust funds) had surpluses of $69, $125, $236 and $128 (all figures in billions) for the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The “Off-Budget” or trust funds have been generating surpluses that have “masked” the deficit of the general fund (defense, interest payments, medicaid, etc) or “On-Budget” since Social Security taxes were increased by Saint Ronnie and his buddy Alan Greenspan.
For historical comparisons, the last surplus in the “On-Budget” number was in….1961!
And please by all means, Monsieur Hogan, feel free to refute these numbers. All the above info came from the Goverment Printing Office at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

By: Clark Stooksbury

Clark Stooksbury — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:21:28 +0000

Blog posts are supposed to have a point? I’ll make a note of that for the future.
Here is a handy link to the mentions of Nader here at “Pat Buchanan’s Magazine.”
http://www.amconmag.com/search.html?v&m=2&search=ralph+nader&start=0&end=25

By: Adam Rurik

Adam Rurik — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:26:24 +0000

Do you really believe that W was running his own show?

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:05:07 +0000

Yes, the Bush years were nothing short of a calamity. No argument.

By the way, there was never a surplus during the Clinton years. It’s a myth, despite all the propaganda to the contrary.

By: Barney Rebble

Barney Rebble — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:36:45 +0000

I disagree, but you libs certainly have a right to your opinion.

By: Jeremiah Whitmoore

Jeremiah Whitmoore — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:13:03 +0000

What exactly is the point of this post? We all know Bush was a horrible president. You supported Nader over Chuck Baldwin. A wasted vote for a socialist over a wasted vote for a constitutionalist. How proud you must be to boast your conservative bona fides here at Pat Buchanan’s magazine.