US dollar keeps sinking endlessly--worth the same as the Canadian dollar now

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:14:01 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


Indeed. There's a tendency to blame everything on that twerp!

It's nonsense. Everyone was predicting surpluses as far as the eye
could see when Bush took office, which he turned into endless deficits
not so much with tax cuts but with refusing to restrain spending with
vetoes and this stupid war. You can track both the exchange rates and
oil prices directly to his administration. Go ahead and look if you
don't believe me.

They were? Clinton never had a surplus! The Nationl Debt went up every
year under his watch also. We have a Congress that on both sides of the
aisles spends like a drunken sailor! We need to vote out all the big
spenders. Not elect anybody from the Congress who has helped overspend
during their term.

don't know the difference between defecit and debt do you.

Yes I do and the national debt went down in his last year as well if
you bother checking. That being said, I don't have any problem
throwing them out myself.

Did not. And if you toss in the Social Security money that was moved to the
General Fund, the deficit is really big.

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:54:52 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:



I don't know what planet you live on, but "The federal budget surplus
for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal
year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed
the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.." He had a
$230 billion surplus in fiscal 2000 and left office in 2001 with a
$127 billion surplus.

You need to do some research. Clinton proposed a balanced budget at a
future time. And he was helped by an extreme stock market bubble fueled by
low interest rates. The debt increased every year Clinton was in office.
Not at the rate that Congress as assulted it for the the last 7 years, but
still it increased. The only part of the debt that we can actually tack on
to GWB is the spending bills that he did not veto. You need to take an
American Civics class and learn the the only people who can pass a spending
bill is the Congress.

I did and I posted it above, which apparently you can't read. And I
hardly need a civics lesson from you since I worked in the Senate for
several years and would daresay I know a lot more about it than you.

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:12:22 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:43:28 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:43:27 -0400,
Viking has scripted:

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:30:42 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

I guess I was fortunate to work in the finance area a few years back,
and learnt a lot about how currency values work. It really was
enlightening just how the US economy maintains its growth.

Such as?

Sorry Viking, but I'm not interested in going into it, as it's a big
area, and very complex.

Much of it is shrouded in smoke and illusion too.
--

Meaning, as usual, he doesn't have one clue what he's talking about.

Have another burger.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:19:31 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:14:01 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


Indeed. There's a tendency to blame everything on that twerp!

It's nonsense. Everyone was predicting surpluses as far as the eye
could see when Bush took office, which he turned into endless deficits
not so much with tax cuts but with refusing to restrain spending with
vetoes and this stupid war. You can track both the exchange rates and
oil prices directly to his administration. Go ahead and look if you
don't believe me.

They were? Clinton never had a surplus! The Nationl Debt went up every
year under his watch also. We have a Congress that on both sides of the
aisles spends like a drunken sailor! We need to vote out all the big
spenders. Not elect anybody from the Congress who has helped overspend
during their term.

don't know the difference between defecit and debt do you.

Yes I do and the national debt went down in his last year as well if
you bother checking. That being said, I don't have any problem
throwing them out myself.

I checked.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It didn't.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:04:42 -0700,
Hatunen has scripted:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:28:28 +1000, Alan S
wrote:

Personally I would require a psychiatric evaluation of every
political candidate everywhere as a pre-requisite for
nomination; but the law requiring that would need to be
passed by politicians...

Of course, it can be argued that anyone who makes politics
their career must be insane anyway.

Some might recall that when George Wallace was running for
president an opponent pointed out that Wallace was on 10%
government disability pay for mental problems he suffered during
WW2. Wallace immediately countered the he was the only
presidential candidate who had government certification that he
was 90% sane.

)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:39:38 -0700,
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" has scripted:



Alan S wrote:

Personally I would require a psychiatric evaluation of every
political candidate everywhere as a pre-requisite for
nomination; but the law requiring that would need to be
passed by politicians...

Good point! ;-)

Better that they merely require a clean criminal record with no 'lost'
records.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:57:10 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:19:31 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

Yes I do and the national debt went down in his last year as well if
you bother checking. That being said, I don't have any problem
throwing them out myself.

I checked.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It didn't.

???? Neither link shows whether the national debt went up or down
under Clinton. The first shows it going down as a % of GNP, and the
second is just a list of links.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:28:28 +1000, Alan S
wrote:


Personally I would require a psychiatric evaluation of every
political candidate everywhere as a pre-requisite for
nomination; but the law requiring that would need to be
passed by politicians...

Of course, it can be argued that anyone who makes politics
their career must be insane anyway.


Some might recall that when George Wallace was running for
president an opponent pointed out that Wallace was on 10%
government disability pay for mental problems he suffered during
WW2. Wallace immediately countered the he was the only
presidential candidate who had government certification that he
was 90% sane.

LOL! I didn't agree with his politics, but at least he had
a quick wit! (Unlike the present incumbent, who can't speak
a complete sentence without injecting "ums" and "ahs", and
is totally flummoxed when required to ad lib!)

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:19:31 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:14:01 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


Indeed. There's a tendency to blame everything on that twerp!

It's nonsense. Everyone was predicting surpluses as far as the eye
could see when Bush took office, which he turned into endless deficits
not so much with tax cuts but with refusing to restrain spending with
vetoes and this stupid war. You can track both the exchange rates and
oil prices directly to his administration. Go ahead and look if you
don't believe me.

They were? Clinton never had a surplus! The Nationl Debt went up every
year under his watch also. We have a Congress that on both sides of the
aisles spends like a drunken sailor! We need to vote out all the big
spenders. Not elect anybody from the Congress who has helped overspend
during their term.

don't know the difference between defecit and debt do you.

Yes I do and the national debt went down in his last year as well if
you bother checking. That being said, I don't have any problem
throwing them out myself.


John, I think the person I was accusing of not knowing the difference
was california bill not you.

G

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:53:12 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:11:30 +0200, B
has scripted:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:57:10 +0200, Doesn't Frequently Mop
wrote:

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:19:31 GMT,
(John Kulp) has scripted:

Yes I do and the national debt went down in his last year as well if
you bother checking. That being said, I don't have any problem
throwing them out myself.

I checked.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It didn't.

???? Neither link shows whether the national debt went up or down
under Clinton.

Huh????+?

The first link shows just that.

No, it doesn't. It does not tell us the value of the national
debt at the beginning and end of the Clinton administration, only
its percent of GDP. For instance, it could be that the GDP rose
by end of the Clinton years while the debt stayed more orless
constant, or maybe rose a little, leaving it smaller compared to
the debt.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *