On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:17:01 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:29:19 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
ne.

Only a leftist idiot could say "relative surplus" with a straight
face. The *fact* is that there were no "sourpusses" and any reduction
in deficit was caused solely by an overheated market (dot.bomb,
anyone?) and couldn't be anything but fleeting.

Since the same accounting procedures had been in place since at least
the time of Reagan, it was a surplus relative to what others had had. I
did not even begin to pretend it was an actual surplus. And me a
leftist? Is to guffaw.

You're the one who's spouting their lies.

Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.

You can't even read what *YOU* have writen:

"So, he did have a relative surplus since these
bookkeeping shenanagins were in place before he
came on the scene."

There is no such thing as a "relative surplus". Either there is one
or there isn't. There wasn't.