It's a short ride - save some money

[schwarzchildradius]

The Republicans are going down! By 2004 they will be evicted from the white-house, but not without taking 5 trillion hard-earned minimum-wage-overtime dollars with them. Will the Public finally learn that Deficit-Republicans are just blowing smoke up their orifaces when they promise job growth and victory despite the testament of those whose job it is to find facts?
Who knows. It is yours to decide.

[Bystander]

"5T?" in "minimum wage overtime?" When engaging in hyperbole, it is best to stick to round numbers, 10T, and furnish as few details as possible (delete the "hwmwo") to avoid the embarassment of defending a very tenuous set of assertions.

[russ_watters]

Quick calculation: $5,000,000,000,000 / $10/hr / 2000hr/yr = 250,000,000 man-years of labor. That would be just about everyone in the country working an EXTRA full-time job for one year.

Not sure if that was the point or not.

Frankly schwarz, that post didn't make a whole lot of sense. Usually you're more coherent than that.

[schwarzchildradius]

well, in any case, the surplus was in the trillions, the deficit is in the low trillions, that's still a lot of dough no matter how you divide it up. With the surplus that was squandered, the gov't could've given every man woman and child about 20 grand, or equivalent property. That seems more fair than just giving it to the already rich to me.

[Bystander]

"Surplus?" Not since the Johnson years --- and the entitlements have been growing faster than anything else in the world ever since.

[schwarzchildradius]

The congressional Budget Office has reported a surplus from 1997- 2000

[Bystander]

"Reported" surpluses, may, or may not, be real --- Washington sources, donkey or elephant, are about as believable as "Donde's pi." Trillions? Nerp.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
well, in any case, the surplus was in the trillions, the deficit is in the low trillions... Both of those numbers are long term projections, ie. MEANINGLESS. The maximum surplus seen in a year during Clinton's term was something like $50 billion. And over his entire term we still ran a deficit.The congressional Budget Office has reported a surplus from 1997- 2000 So you're saying that Clinton ran a deficit for the other 4 years of his term...

Economists also say that the economy was in recession when Clinton left office - but then I have heard that with his extrordinary influence, Bush was already in complete control of the economy for several months before the election.