Almost $18.5 Trillion in debt.

[bedowin62]

who wrote and passed clinton's budgets???

i cant hear you

 

[NYcarbineer]

it's a simple question. so nobody gets your wrong

you're saying tax hikes are the reason for the economic success of the clinton yearz??/?


yes or no?????

Of course they were. They proved that we could have good growth without borrowing it like Reagan and Bush before Clinton did.

Without borrowing...

Taking money from SS wasn't borrowing, right?

Btw, if Clinton's budget was balanced, then how debt increased cca $1.5T?

Look you can think that zero taxes will produce infinite revenue but you are wrong.

 

[leftwinger]

Paying down 20 trillion in debt will take 20 trillion of American taxpayer dollars. That's 20 trillion above and beyond the tax dollars needed to run the government.

Are you willing to chip in? It's your debt remember.

Why don't you get J. Yellen to print $18.4T and give to Obama to pay the debt to zero now?

 

[bedowin62]

there were no clinton "surpluses" nor should there have been

idiots and hypocrites

 

[NYcarbineer]

leftard says tax hikes only are responsible for the 90's economic boom

this is going on my tag line!!

Yes, tell another lie. That's your style. We're used to it now.

 

[bedowin62]

Paying down 20 trillion in debt will take 20 trillion of American taxpayer dollars. That's 20 trillion above and beyond the tax dollars needed to run the government.

Are you willing to chip in? It's your debt remember.

Why don't you get J. Yellen to print $18.4T and give to Obama to pay the debt to zero now?

NO!! we just need more unemployement, welfare, and food stamps!!

libs actually say they "save or create jobs"!!

 

[bedowin62]

leftard says tax hikes only are responsible for the 90's economic boom

this is going on my tag line!!

Yes, tell another lie. That's your style. We're used to it now.

ok then crybaby

what was more responsible than the tax hikes IN YOUR MIND for the success of the clinton years??

that's all you're talking about crybaby, why shouldnt i assume that/?

 

[bedowin62]

leftard is quick with another post

never backs up the previous stupidity

idiots and hypocrites

 

[NYcarbineer]

there were no clinton "surpluses" nor should there have been

idiots and hypocrites

In 1999 the US government took in 1.82 trillion and spent 1.7 trillion. Do the math.

 

[NYcarbineer]

leftard says tax hikes only are responsible for the 90's economic boom

this is going on my tag line!!

Yes, tell another lie. That's your style. We're used to it now.

ok then crybaby

what was more responsible than the tax hikes IN YOUR MIND for the success of the clinton years??

that's all you're talking about crybaby, why shouldnt i assume that/?

Apologize for lying about what I said.

 

[bedowin62]

there were no clinton "surpluses" nor should there have been

idiots and hypocrites

In 1999 the US government took in 1.82 trillion and spent 1.7 trillion. Do the math.

the clinton surpluses were accounting gimmicks


keep trying..........................

 

[bedowin62]

leftard says tax hikes only are responsible for the 90's economic boom

this is going on my tag line!!

Yes, tell another lie. That's your style. We're used to it now.

ok then crybaby

what was more responsible than the tax hikes IN YOUR MIND for the success of the clinton years??

that's all you're talking about crybaby, why shouldnt i assume that/?

Apologize for lying about what I said.

i will when you explain how i lied ok???

i promise

i'm not a liar like lefties are

 

[bedowin62]

you DID insist the tax hikes were responsible for the success of the 90s.
i have ASKED YOU WHAT ELSE

why cry when you can offer an explanation??

 

[leftwinger]

there were no clinton "surpluses" nor should there have been

idiots and hypocrites

In 1999 the US government took in 1.82 trillion and spent 1.7 trillion. Do the math.

the clinton surpluses were accounting gimmicks


keep trying..........................

There were too many words on the Clinton funny-money games links prior post. Someone will have to spoon feed it to all of us.

 

[bedowin62]

big-mouth carbin-tard, responds fast, types fast; didnt take up my offer for him to explain what ELSE he says is responsible for the success of the clinton years, just wants to cry cuz i said he chalks it all up to tax hikes. it's ALL HE MENTIONED

 

[Faun]

1984 .... Ronald Reagan was President. Because it was then that the Federal Communications Commission created the original Lifeline Assistance program (technically, Lifeline Assistance is the official name of the Obama Phone program).

GIMME MY DAMN REAGAN PHONE !!!!

Actually, the idea is from Communications Act of 1934.

Except that it didn't. The language in the 1934 act was to provide "universal service" at "reasonable charges."

Whereas ReaganPhones were targeted for underprivileged folks for no charge.

Bush later expanded ReaganPhones to include cell phones.

The base for Reagan phones was Communication Act of 1934.

Btw, somehow you missed that there was another president between Reagan and Bush, who also expanded the program. Those minor details are not worth mentioning, right?

None of those program cost not even close to the cost of ObozoPhones.

The program started under Reagan. Deal with it.

 

[Ame®icano]

it's a simple question. so nobody gets your wrong

you're saying tax hikes are the reason for the economic success of the clinton yearz??/?


yes or no?????

Of course they were. They proved that we could have good growth without borrowing it like Reagan and Bush before Clinton did.

Without borrowing...

Taking money from SS wasn't borrowing, right?

Btw, if Clinton's budget was balanced, then how debt increased cca $1.5T?

Look you can think that zero taxes will produce infinite revenue but you are wrong.

You can think that 100% taxes will produce maximum revenue, but you are wrong.

 

[bedowin62]

1984 .... Ronald Reagan was President. Because it was then that the Federal Communications Commission created the original Lifeline Assistance program (technically, Lifeline Assistance is the official name of the Obama Phone program).

GIMME MY DAMN REAGAN PHONE !!!!

Actually, the idea is from Communications Act of 1934.

Except that it didn't. The language in the 1934 act was to provide "universal service" at "reasonable charges."

Whereas ReaganPhones were targeted for underprivileged folks for no charge.

Bush later expanded ReaganPhones to include cell phones.

The base for Reagan phones was Communication Act of 1934.

Btw, somehow you missed that there was another president between Reagan and Bush, who also expanded the program. Those minor details are not worth mentioning, right?



None of those program cost not even close to the cost of ObozoPhones.

The program started under Reagan. Deal with it.

dont you love these moronic left-wing memes?
who the phuk cares who started it? i believe the other poster already admitted that leftard!1
lmao what a moron!!
ANYWAY doesnt it bother the rant about the rich crowd that obam is making the richest man in the world even richer running the obamaphone program OBAMA EXPANDED BY 300%?????

pays to be a major obama campaign donor huh????

 

[Ame®icano]

1984 .... Ronald Reagan was President. Because it was then that the Federal Communications Commission created the original Lifeline Assistance program (technically, Lifeline Assistance is the official name of the Obama Phone program).

GIMME MY DAMN REAGAN PHONE !!!!

Actually, the idea is from Communications Act of 1934.

Except that it didn't. The language in the 1934 act was to provide "universal service" at "reasonable charges."

Whereas ReaganPhones were targeted for underprivileged folks for no charge.

Bush later expanded ReaganPhones to include cell phones.

The base for Reagan phones was Communication Act of 1934.

Btw, somehow you missed that there was another president between Reagan and Bush, who also expanded the program. Those minor details are not worth mentioning, right?

None of those program cost not even close to the cost of ObozoPhones.

The program started under Reagan. Deal with it.

I haven't stated otherwise.

I pointed that you omitted Clinton's program expansion.

Only difference, under Reagan, and Clinton, phones were used to be in touch with potential employer, while BlackBarry phones are used to stay in touch with local Welfare office or a drug dealer.

 

[Faun]

1984 .... Ronald Reagan was President. Because it was then that the Federal Communications Commission created the original Lifeline Assistance program (technically, Lifeline Assistance is the official name of the Obama Phone program).

GIMME MY DAMN REAGAN PHONE !!!!

Actually, the idea is from Communications Act of 1934.

Except that it didn't. The language in the 1934 act was to provide "universal service" at "reasonable charges."

Whereas ReaganPhones were targeted for underprivileged folks for no charge.

Bush later expanded ReaganPhones to include cell phones.

The base for Reagan phones was Communication Act of 1934.

Btw, somehow you missed that there was another president between Reagan and Bush, who also expanded the program. Those minor details are not worth mentioning, right?

None of those program cost not even close to the cost of ObozoPhones.

The program started under Reagan. Deal with it.

I haven't stated otherwise.

I pointed that you omitted Clinton's program expansion.

Only difference, under Reagan, and Clinton, phones were used to be in touch with potential employer, while BlackBarry phones are used to stay in touch with local Welfare office or a drug dealer.

Of course you said otherwise. You said...

"Actually, the idea is from Communications Act of 1934."​

At any rate, Clinton's change only effected the way the fund to pay for it was setup. Reagan started the plan and Bush expanded it to allow for participants to get the Blackberry's you're complaining about.