On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:04:40 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I'm sure there's some real subtle bookkeeping scam that I'm not seeing
here,
and I really, really don't care how you cook the numbers to make a
negative
look like a positive. You believe it, I don't.

The truth of it is that you're cooking the numbers (or, more likely, just
repeating numbers that you haven't examined closely enough) to make a
positive look like a negative. You assume that all Treasury securities are
additions to debt. As I hope you realize by now, they are not.

If you say so, Ed.

I have hope for you. g You are intelligent, and surely the facts are
beginning to sink into your head by now. Maybe not today, or next week, but
sometime in the future when the issue comes up again you'll know that there
is a curveball in here, and you'd better look at it again before making
unequivocal statements.

Thanks for the lecture, Dad.

... or Clinton's history of lying in general.

Aha. I thought you were being objective. g

That Clinton is a liar, even YOU can't disagree with.

But of course I knew all along
you were not. Nobody who knows what he's doing comes up with a figure that
includes intra-governmental Treasury securities and says that number
"proves" that there were no surpluses during the Clinton years.

Yawn.

The only way
you come up with that is by a really queer accident, or if your sources are
anti-Clinton polemics

Yeah, the treasury department is pretty damn suspect, Ed.

Obvously you've got a hard-on about this because I agree with Gunner on
something, and apparently you go way back disagreeing with him. Whatever
you say Ed, you're absolutely right about everything, blah blah blah,
you win, yadda yadda. Happy now?

But, I still believe the figures showing the total debt going up.