Way to miss the point. You can't ignore some of your expenses and still claim you "have a surplus". Yet that is exactly the game played. Check the historical record, you'll find the last time we did not add to the national debt was 1957 under President Eisenhower. We've borrowed money every year thereafter.
You've never done business in China, have you? There is zero concept of "win-win"; if there is a winner, there MUST be a loser. You negotiate for "win-win" and YOU are the loser. You might not like his "bull in a China shop" approach, but it works, because that is how business is done in China in the first place.
And why is the Left suddenly full of hawks who want to deepen and increase wars? President Obama campaigned on ending Iraq and Afghanistan; instead of that, he involved us in numerous new wars. Do the Democrats now want to see us get deeper into military wars and conflicts around the world?
And people forget that President Obama went through 3 Secretaries of Defense in just over 2000 days - the average being shorter than Secretary Mattis.
You also conveniently ignore that President Obama had complete control for a good chunk of the first two years of his Presidency (Chuck Schumer was Senate Leader, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker).
Despite being given $350 billion by President Bush (as then-President Elect Obama requested) to stimulate the economy, the economy was starting to slink back to recession when President Trump was elected, with GDP plunging back down. Thankfully that's been arrested, and interest rates (which were at 0% for most of the Obama Administration) have started to come back up (which will strengthen the economy long-term). All while racking up more debt than pretty much all previous Presidents combined. He even got Congress to amend President Bush's 2009 budget by adding another $900 billion to it - and his supporters love to pin that $900 billion back on President Bush (which is completely disingenuous).
Trump Trump Trump! You're as bad as Jan Brady, the 12 year old girl who couldn't get her more successful, beautiful, talented older sister out of her head.
No it's a real picture! And look at the Earth - it PROVES the Earth is flat and has a circular profile! See? The flat Earth people were right all along!
Thank you for drawing attention to my post by replying to it! Posts with replies tend to draw more views, and thus more people will see my post. AC, you're doing me a great big favor - keep it up!
President Clinton ran a balanced "on books" budget; every year since 1957 the US Federal Government has borrowed money. Our debt has increased every year since Eisenhower. Clinton's accounting scam wasn't about Social Security surpluses - it was about ignoring much of the Federal spending as "off budget" and crowing about the little bit left as "balanced!"
It would be like you having $10,000 a month in expenses, a $3,000 per month mortgage, and considering yourself in surplus because you brought home $7,500 per month and have declared your mortgage as "off the budget".
It goes back further than that - quite a bit further... The last President to actually run a surplus (meaning - they did not have to borrow money, which is what you do when you have a deficit) was Eisenhower, in 1957. It's been 61 years since we've had a surplus.
Which President was the last one to actually balance the "check book" and have a surplus of funds at the end of the year (you know, not add to the national debt)?
It's an expression of teaching logic. You start with an introduction (or, in a science paper, the abstract). Then you set up the problem, analyze it for a paragraph or two, and then provide a conclusion. Basically this format is a subtle way to reinforce logical reasoning and critical thinking - structured organization of thoughts is crucial in all but the most mundane of careers. Introduction, problem summary, analysis, results, conclusion.
And if the conclusion doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem correct, theoretically you have the preceding 4+ paragraphs to learn why the conclusion was made. Much like a scientific paper - the abstract tells you what they set out to do and what the general result was, but the paper itself tells you what was done. Always cutting to the end and ignoring the meat of the work results in people understanding a mile's width of issues no more than an inch deep.
If you want the reader to comprehend what you write, then you should use appropriate structure. If you want to convey appropriate meaning, then structure and length is almost required.
appropriate then reader you structure you you,. the to is, comprehend structure what you should almost use want and appropriate to If meaning If then length convey write want required
If the oceans are rising - then yes, larger would mean the island would necessarily have gotten higher (otherwise it would shrink). Again - what islands are shrinking/disappearing?
Wait, I thought the mantra of the Left was that we need open borders/illegal immigrants to do the jobs normal people wouldn't? Basically we let the slaves in for free - then we enslave them?
Facts, please. What UBI experiment succeeded? What known Russian connections are there? Why does AC behave like a spoiled little mask-wearing Berkeley pantywaist incel?
Thank you! It's when you have your own little hate group following you around that you know you've made it... Thank you for adding validation to my statements!
It doesn't make people lazy, all evidence says the opposite. Every scrap of evidence shows that crippling people's ability to work is what makes people lazy but that UI facilitates work.
Would love to see that evidence; what UBI experiment succeeded? Or is this a case of "no True Scotsman" in terms of UBI never really being implemented correctly?
No, this is the one where Conan pursued the Doctor to the safety of the Battlestar Galactica before he was smote by Gandalf. Get your Sci-Fi/fantasy right...
Slashdot Mirror
Way to miss the point. You can't ignore some of your expenses and still claim you "have a surplus". Yet that is exactly the game played. Check the historical record, you'll find the last time we did not add to the national debt was 1957 under President Eisenhower. We've borrowed money every year thereafter.
You've never done business in China, have you? There is zero concept of "win-win"; if there is a winner, there MUST be a loser. You negotiate for "win-win" and YOU are the loser. You might not like his "bull in a China shop" approach, but it works, because that is how business is done in China in the first place.
And why is the Left suddenly full of hawks who want to deepen and increase wars? President Obama campaigned on ending Iraq and Afghanistan; instead of that, he involved us in numerous new wars. Do the Democrats now want to see us get deeper into military wars and conflicts around the world?
And people forget that President Obama went through 3 Secretaries of Defense in just over 2000 days - the average being shorter than Secretary Mattis.
Uninsured numbers weren't cut in half, and premiums increased at the same rate as prior to Obamacare.
You also conveniently ignore that President Obama had complete control for a good chunk of the first two years of his Presidency (Chuck Schumer was Senate Leader, and Nancy Pelosi was Speaker).
Despite being given $350 billion by President Bush (as then-President Elect Obama requested) to stimulate the economy, the economy was starting to slink back to recession when President Trump was elected, with GDP plunging back down. Thankfully that's been arrested, and interest rates (which were at 0% for most of the Obama Administration) have started to come back up (which will strengthen the economy long-term). All while racking up more debt than pretty much all previous Presidents combined. He even got Congress to amend President Bush's 2009 budget by adding another $900 billion to it - and his supporters love to pin that $900 billion back on President Bush (which is completely disingenuous).
Now, you forgot things like his own self-described "worst mistake" of Libya, failures in Syria, drove world opinion of the USA down (thankfully it's rebounding back up), assassinated US citizens without due process, knowingly illegally selling guns to Mexican drug gangs (one of which was used to kill a US border patrol officer), and many, many more things which could be considered abject, Administration-destroying failures.
Had to be after - before, the world was run by Johnny...
Trump Trump Trump! You're as bad as Jan Brady, the 12 year old girl who couldn't get her more successful, beautiful, talented older sister out of her head.
No it's a real picture! And look at the Earth - it PROVES the Earth is flat and has a circular profile! See? The flat Earth people were right all along!
Thank you for drawing attention to my post by replying to it! Posts with replies tend to draw more views, and thus more people will see my post. AC, you're doing me a great big favor - keep it up!
President Clinton ran a balanced "on books" budget; every year since 1957 the US Federal Government has borrowed money. Our debt has increased every year since Eisenhower. Clinton's accounting scam wasn't about Social Security surpluses - it was about ignoring much of the Federal spending as "off budget" and crowing about the little bit left as "balanced!"
It would be like you having $10,000 a month in expenses, a $3,000 per month mortgage, and considering yourself in surplus because you brought home $7,500 per month and have declared your mortgage as "off the budget".
It goes back further than that - quite a bit further... The last President to actually run a surplus (meaning - they did not have to borrow money, which is what you do when you have a deficit) was Eisenhower, in 1957. It's been 61 years since we've had a surplus.
Say I use Google Maps to find my local drug dealer; is Google now liable for anything I do whilst drugged out of my mind?
Which President was the last one to actually balance the "check book" and have a surplus of funds at the end of the year (you know, not add to the national debt)?
It's an expression of teaching logic. You start with an introduction (or, in a science paper, the abstract). Then you set up the problem, analyze it for a paragraph or two, and then provide a conclusion. Basically this format is a subtle way to reinforce logical reasoning and critical thinking - structured organization of thoughts is crucial in all but the most mundane of careers. Introduction, problem summary, analysis, results, conclusion.
And if the conclusion doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem correct, theoretically you have the preceding 4+ paragraphs to learn why the conclusion was made. Much like a scientific paper - the abstract tells you what they set out to do and what the general result was, but the paper itself tells you what was done. Always cutting to the end and ignoring the meat of the work results in people understanding a mile's width of issues no more than an inch deep.
If you want the reader to comprehend what you write, then you should use appropriate structure. If you want to convey appropriate meaning, then structure and length is almost required.
appropriate then reader you structure you you,. the to is, comprehend structure what you should almost use want and appropriate to If meaning If then length convey write want required
Pray I do not extend these references further.
If the oceans are rising - then yes, larger would mean the island would necessarily have gotten higher (otherwise it would shrink). Again - what islands are shrinking/disappearing?
Wait, I thought the mantra of the Left was that we need open borders/illegal immigrants to do the jobs normal people wouldn't? Basically we let the slaves in for free - then we enslave them?
Perfect! So first we need to get ourselves a bunch of slaves to do all the work we need, for free...
Facts, please. What UBI experiment succeeded? What known Russian connections are there? Why does AC behave like a spoiled little mask-wearing Berkeley pantywaist incel?
Thank you! It's when you have your own little hate group following you around that you know you've made it... Thank you for adding validation to my statements!
After Scooby and the group chased them from Fraggle Rock, and Elmo left the show, it was all down-hill...
It doesn't make people lazy, all evidence says the opposite. Every scrap of evidence shows that crippling people's ability to work is what makes people lazy but that UI facilitates work.
Would love to see that evidence; what UBI experiment succeeded? Or is this a case of "no True Scotsman" in terms of UBI never really being implemented correctly?
No, this is the one where Conan pursued the Doctor to the safety of the Battlestar Galactica before he was smote by Gandalf. Get your Sci-Fi/fantasy right...
I already have a backpack, but I do not have a parachute. So I'd take the parachute!
Pacific islands are overwhelmingly growing, very few are going away. Adding land typically doesn't qualify for "going bye-bye"... But scary phrases and lies rule the day, eh?