Looks like Jon Kofod was right...AGAIN

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Edit Profile

Author Message Terry Springer (Tspringer) Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 838 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 6:29 pm:    Yea it looks pretty bad..... and thats the GOOD news! realise that the published number is "budget" number. Its not the actual overall deficit. You see, the Govt gets to run its books in a totally different way from you and me. Items such as entitlement programs that are perpetual are not voted on each year as part of the Federal budget that is "passed". They are "off budget" spending items. These types of expenditures are not included in the deficit calculations. What is the actual total Federal deficit as measured by overall total gross receipts minus overall total gross expenses? Nobody knows..... Isnt it funny how Congress likes to lambast the Enron execs but they run the nations finances like this. Not funny ha-ha..... but funney DAMN. Mr. Doody (Doody) Intermediate Member Username: Doody Post Number: 1989 Registered: 11-2001 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 2:08 pm:    not that i support this idiotic indebtedness, but, like many things, while the total number is one interesting factor, the real issue is the ratio to some relevant total (GDP, govt. revenues, etc.). the good news is that it could be worse (reagan-era). the bad news is that it ••••••• sucks regardless and shouldn't be this way . doody. Dave (Maranelloman) Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3095 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:58 pm:    OOPS! I meant Jim G. Sorry, Jim... Dave (Maranelloman) Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3093 Registered: 1-2002 Posted on Monday, October 20, 2003 - 1:56 pm:    Not good news, but also not nearly as bad as the know-nothing nattering nabobs of negativism (media talking trolls & Democrats) predicted 8,000 times: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100649,00.html