Dinar Daily
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» I am too pretty for math, but....
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeYesterday at 6:56 pm by Mission1st

» Interesting article
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeYesterday at 6:34 pm by Mission1st

» Phony Tony: New Platform, same old song and dance
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeYesterday at 6:32 pm by Mission1st

» The Craziness of Scam by "Tony TNT Renfrow" and the Iraqi Dinar Currency Scam
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeTue Jun 11, 2024 12:26 pm by Mission1st

» Even conspiratorial currency speculators aren’t buying a Russian ruble revalue - It’s not the next the Iraqi dinar
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeMon Jun 10, 2024 1:04 pm by RamblerNash

» Go Russia
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeSat Jun 08, 2024 5:20 am by Dorotnas

» The Fundamentals of Finance and Pimpy Live
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeFri Jun 07, 2024 5:02 pm by Dorotnas

» Carnival Rides
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeFri May 10, 2024 5:03 pm by kenlej

» Go Russia
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeSun May 05, 2024 10:51 am by kenlej

» Textbook Tony
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeMon Apr 29, 2024 4:13 pm by Mission1st

» The Rockefellers and the controllers are freaking out right about now
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeFri Apr 26, 2024 11:16 am by kenlej

» Phony Tony sez: Full Steam Ahead!
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeSat Apr 13, 2024 11:51 am by Mission1st

» Dave Schmidt - Zim Notes for Purchase (NOT PHYSICAL NOTES)
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeSat Apr 13, 2024 11:45 am by Mission1st

» Russia aren't taking any prisoners
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeFri Apr 05, 2024 6:48 pm by kenlej

» Deadly stampede could affect Iraq’s World Cup hopes 1/19/23
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeWed Mar 27, 2024 6:02 am by Ditartyn

» ZIGPLACE
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeWed Mar 20, 2024 6:29 am by Zig

» CBD Vape Cartridges
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeThu Mar 07, 2024 2:10 pm by Arendac

» Classic Tony is back
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeTue Mar 05, 2024 2:53 pm by Mission1st

» THE MUSINGS OF A MADMAN
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 04, 2024 11:40 am by Arendac

»  Minister of Transport: We do not have authority over any airport in Iraq
could this be true????? I_icon_minitimeMon Mar 04, 2024 11:40 am by Verina

could this be true?????

+15
ibcraig0
Terbo56
jsmmns
SEBtopdog
catman
ou812
Kevind53
1alaskan
abby ann
sugaredup
rick152
therealbutterfly
clayf
Horizon
boxerman
19 posters

Go down

could this be true????? Empty could this be true?????

Post by boxerman Tue May 15, 2012 10:12 am








  • 14th, 2012 10:30 pm · Posted in MEMBERS (Dinar & Iraq Insight) Iraqi Dinar RV and Forex Iraqi Dinar Resources




DD,

AS YOU KNOW I’M NOT INTERESTED IN POSTING & HAVE NEVER BEEN
INTERESTED AS A SO CALLED GURU BUT BASED ON WHAT I’VE BEEN TOLD RECENTLY
I FEEL AT THE VERY LEAST YOU MIGHT WANT TO POST THIS AS AN ALTERNATE
OPINION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY HURTING & COUNTING ON THIS CAN
CONSIDER.


I
WISH TO REMAIN NAMELESS AS I AM NOT ON ANY SITES OR A SO CALLED GURU, I
HAVE NO INTEREST IN BEING THE 1ST TO PREDICT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN IRAQ
OR WITH THE DINAR BUT FEEL THE NEED TO SHARE INTEL I’VE RECEIVED OVER
THE PAST FEW MONTHS FROM EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGEABLE SOURCES THAT NOT ONLY
MAKES AS MUCH SENSE AS ANY OTHER INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN FED OVER THE
YEARS BUT IS EVERY BIT AS POSSIBLE THAT HAS RECENTLY OPENED MY EYES TO
WHAT APPEARS TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHAT WE ALL ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WAS A
GREAT ONCE IN A LIFE TIME INVESTMENT THAT MAY HAVE A DARK SIDE.


I
HAVE BEEN ON THIS CRAZY TRAIN FOR OVER 5 YEARS AND WAS A VERY STRONG
BELIEVER THAT THE DINAR WOULD EVENTUALLY RV AS WE WERE ALL TOLD DAY
AFTER DAY & WEEK AFTER WEEK & MONTH AFTER MONTH BY SO MANY SO
CALLED EXPERTS THAT APPARENTLY DIDN’T KNOW ANYMORE THAN I DID. AFTER
YEARS OF BEING ON THIS RIDICULOUS ROLLER COASTER I’VE COME TO THE
CONCLUSION WITH THE HELP OF SOME VERY INFORMED INDIVIDUALS THAT WE ARE
NOT BEING TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH & ARE BEING MISLEAD BY SOME EITHER ON
PURPOSE OR DUE TO THEIR LACK OF ANY REAL INTEL.


IN
SHORT I’VE BEEN TOLD THE DINAR THAT WE ARE HOLDING WILL NEVER “RV” OR
“RI” PERIOD & THAT THIS FACT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME. WHETHER
YOU BELIEVE ITS THE POWERS TO BE, OBAMA, SOROS, OR THE EASTER BUNNY
HOLDING THIS UP DOESN’T MATTER. THE FACTS AS THEY WERE SHARED WITH
ME ARE SIMPLE & INDISPUTABLE. IRAQ IS PLANNING AND HAS NEVER HIDDEN
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE COMING OUT WITH A “NEW CURRENCY” WHICH WILL IN
FACT HAVE A REAL TRADEABLE VALUE. HOWEVER NOT THE CURRENCY THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO BUY THROUGH THE YEARS WHICH WHEN THE CAT IS FINALLY OUT OF
THE BAG WILL BE RENDERED WORTHLESS JUST LIKE THE SADAM CURRENCY. YOU SEE
ITS LIKE THIS, THE DINAR WE ALL HAVE IS LIKE MONOPOLY MONEY AND WAS
“NEVER” INTERNATIONALLY TRADEABLE, IT WAS USED FOR ”IN COUNTRY” PURPOSES
“ONLY”. WHILE IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE SOLD OUTSIDE IRAQ FOR REASONS WE CAN
ONLY SPECULATE ON IT HAD NO VALUE OUTSIDE OF IRAQ OTHER THAN THE
DEALERS THAT ARE SELLING & TRADING IT. THEREFORE AS A FILLER
CURRENCY OR IN COUNTRY FUN MONEY IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY BANKING OR
CURRENCY EXCHANGE RULES WHATSOEVER, THERE WILL BE NO PROBLEM WHEN IRAQ
IS READY TO REPLACE THE 000 CURRENCY WITH THE NEW CURRENCY THEN
RELEASING ITS REAL VALUE THAT WILL MAKE IT INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
& TRADABLE WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IM TOLD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN BY
SEPTEMBER 2012. ALL THE BS, STALLING & RUMORS WE HAVE BEEN FED OVER
THE YEARS IS DUE TO IRAQ NOT BEING READY TO RELEASE THE NEW CURRENCY AND
NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT, NOT THE GOI, IMF, CBI OR MALIKI’S MUSTACHE NOT
BEING TRIMMED HAS BEEN THE CAUSE FOR ANY DELAY, ARE THE DEALERS AWARE
OF THIS SCENARIO? I CANT & WONT SAY BUT I HAVE MY SUSPICIONS HOWEVER
FACTS ARE FACTS & DON’T BELIEVE THE WEAK ARGUMENT THAT WHAT IM
SAYING IS BS BECAUSE AN RV HAPPENED IN GERMANY & KUWAIT, YES
FOLKS IT DID BUT ONE VERY LARGE FACT THAT THE DEALERS & GURU
SITES LEAVE OUT IS THAT THOSE CURRENCIES WERE INTERNATIONALLY TRADABLE
AT THE TIME THEIR RATES CHANGED & WERE NOT SETUP AS FILLER
CURRENCIES OR IN COUNTRY MONOPOLY MONEY WHICH MAKES THE IRAQI DINAR A
VERY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. IT IS NOT MY INTENSION TO BURST ANYONE’S BUBBLE
OR RAIN ON YOUR DREAMS BUT I’VE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN & CONTINUE TO BE REALLY HURT RIDING THIS TRAIN OF HALF TRUTHS
& BS. I FELT THE NEED TO AT LEAST PRESENT WHAT INFORMATION I
HAVE & SHARE AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO & OPINION, ALL OF YOU WHO
HAVE HEARD MORE BS STORIES REGARDING THIS ALLEGED IMMINENT RV THAN WALT
DISNEY HIMSELF COULD HAVE DREAMED UP HAVE TO MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS BUT
ILL TELL YOU THIS IF MY SOURCES ARE ACCURATE & I BELIEVE THEY
ARE, WHEN THE TRUTH IS REVELED YOU BETTER HAVE MANY EMPTY WALLS THAT
NEED PAPERING BECAUSE THAT WILL BE ALL THE DINAR WILL BE GOOD FOR.
PLEASE USE YOUR COMMON SENSE & DON’T BUY IN TO THE TOMORROWS, NEXT
WEEKS, OR WHAT YOU ARE SEEING NOW THE SETUP TO STRING YOU ALONG TO 2013.

boxerman
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 32
Join date : 2011-07-24

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Horizon Tue May 15, 2012 10:33 am

Makes you say...could this be true????? 4_12_1could this be true????? 4_6_2v

*****************
could this be true????? Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbUTUwRpDbhT-xIofJl3G31OXoGzOAJS3qKlCApR1lrvZghQYKngbnt9AnaQMakin' Plans...could this be true????? 7_6_8
 
 Praise God for all things, and he will give us the desires of our hearts!
Horizon
Horizon
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 4683
Join date : 2011-10-16
Age : 63
Location : The South

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by clayf Tue May 15, 2012 10:39 am

8) could this be true????? 2879513009
clayf
clayf
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 1115
Join date : 2011-07-21
Location : Fox Cities,Wisconsin

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by clayf Tue May 15, 2012 10:40 am

This certainly will be some news for all the banks that are owners of dinar
clayf
clayf
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 1115
Join date : 2011-07-21
Location : Fox Cities,Wisconsin

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by therealbutterfly Tue May 15, 2012 10:59 am

Ok let me try and ease some minds here....

Yes, the saddam notes were considered worthless and thats because they were not recognized by the Global market anyway. BUT, those notes WERE allowed to be exchanged for the current IQD we now hold.

I still hold to the fact it will now redenominate vs rv because there is NO indication ever, from the CBI that they are doing something else. And with an RD, the notes we hold will be used for a time frame and then be considered worthless (like the saddam notes). So I am not concerned that what we have will be 'worthless' as he says. JMHO

*****************
could this be true????? Opinio10
therealbutterfly
therealbutterfly
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 2416
Join date : 2011-08-02

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Tue May 15, 2012 11:34 am

Interesting theory...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by rick152 Tue May 15, 2012 11:48 am

My turn to say this about the post...Let all think about this. Executive order 13033 was put in place by a sitting president of the United States. Got it? Ok then If this whole thing was to end up and there be a zero across the board and the dinar we hold to become nothing (less than the 1/10 of a cent we hold) AND if this was never intended to RV or RI than this would have been the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind. Get it? Not only would you and I (regular peeps of the U S) have been scammed but Nations around the world too.

Think about that before your pantys get in a bunch over the total trash you read at the beginning of this thread.

*****************
Love understands, Love supports, comforts and, cares for. Love forgives. Love also honors, respects and, believes
so please;
Love each other and yourself ...rick152
rick152
rick152
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2574
Join date : 2011-06-19
Age : 66
Location : Eastern Ohio

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by sugaredup Tue May 15, 2012 1:23 pm

The way i see it we still have a couple options: x-change dinar for a minimal loss buy a crap load of DONG.....LOL

sugaredup
New Member
New Member

Posts : 13
Join date : 2011-07-27

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by abby ann Tue May 15, 2012 1:30 pm

rick152 wrote:My turn to say this about the post...Let all think about this. Executive order 13033 was put in place by a sitting president of the United States. Got it? Ok then If this whole thing was to end up and there be a zero across the board and the dinar we hold to become nothing (less than the 1/10 of a cent we hold) AND if this was never intended to RV or RI than this would have been the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of mankind. Get it? Not only would you and I (regular peeps of the U S) have been scammed but Nations around the world too.

Think about that before your pantys get in a bunch over the total trash you read at the beginning of this thread.
THANKS RICK!!!!I AGREE!!!!!!MORE SMOKE!!!!
abby ann
abby ann
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 2362
Join date : 2011-10-28
Location : WIDGETSVILLE USA

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by 1alaskan Tue May 15, 2012 1:54 pm

In this world all things ar possible, most things are not probable, but I agree with TRB, this opinion piece is just that, and not likely to happen.

*****************
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Marilyn Vos Savant


Yesterday would have been better, but today is a good day

Remember as always, JMHO
Rantings from just north of sixty

1alaskan
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 4668
Join date : 2011-06-21
Age : 41
Location : Planet far far away

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Kevind53 Tue May 15, 2012 1:56 pm

Agreed ... an op by a disgruntled investor at that.

*****************
Trust but Verify --- R Reagan Suspect

"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."1 Thessalonians 5:14–18

 could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865
Kevind53
Kevind53
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 27254
Join date : 2011-08-09
Age : 24
Location : Umm right here!

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by ou812 Tue May 15, 2012 1:57 pm

therealbutterfly wrote:Ok let me try and ease some minds here....

Yes, the saddam notes were considered worthless and thats because they were not recognized by the Global market anyway. BUT, those notes WERE allowed to be exchanged for the current IQD we now hold.

I still hold to the fact it will now redenominate vs rv because there is NO indication ever, from the CBI that they are doing something else. And with an RD, the notes we hold will be used for a time frame and then be considered worthless (like the saddam notes). So I am not concerned that what we have will be 'worthless' as he says. JMHO

Dont ever say this in the chat room, you'll be crucified.

ou812
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 464
Join date : 2011-12-16
Location : New York

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by catman Tue May 15, 2012 2:08 pm

Could it be true? Maybe, but unlikely I think. Would sure be a great way for Iraq to make a whole bunch of new enemies around the world if that is what they were lookin to do.
catman
catman
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 1085
Join date : 2012-04-28

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by 1alaskan Tue May 15, 2012 2:13 pm

I truely don't think the US Gov. would put up with it, but who knows?

*****************
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Marilyn Vos Savant


Yesterday would have been better, but today is a good day

Remember as always, JMHO
Rantings from just north of sixty

1alaskan
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 4668
Join date : 2011-06-21
Age : 41
Location : Planet far far away

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by SEBtopdog Tue May 15, 2012 2:49 pm

" IT IS NOT MY INTENSION TO BURST ANYONE’S BUBBLE
OR RAIN ON YOUR DREAMS..."


Oh really? I'd say that's exactly the purpose and intention of the post. could this be true????? 3614774015 could this be true????? 3134741375 could this be true????? 2879513009

*****************
could this be true????? Emoticon-animal-028
 
Keep smiling ... It'll make 'em wonder what you're up to!
 

could this be true????? Bump~0 Will someone please let the RV Widget out of the jar?
SEBtopdog
SEBtopdog
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 4201
Join date : 2011-07-07
Age : 75
Location : Somewhere over the rainbow

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by 1alaskan Tue May 15, 2012 3:00 pm

This is posted several places, but does anyone know who posted it originaly? Who wrote it?

*****************
Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent.
Marilyn Vos Savant


Yesterday would have been better, but today is a good day

Remember as always, JMHO
Rantings from just north of sixty

1alaskan
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 4668
Join date : 2011-06-21
Age : 41
Location : Planet far far away

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by jsmmns Tue May 15, 2012 3:27 pm

Boxerman. I don't believe I would have posted that.

jsmmns
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 26
Join date : 2011-08-24

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Terbo56 Tue May 15, 2012 3:32 pm

Just what we need- More 'negative dung-Mad
Terbo56
Terbo56
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 13675
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 67
Location : Central Florida-

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Kevind53 Tue May 15, 2012 4:58 pm

Sometimes you just gotta let things slide like water off the back ...
could this be true????? Slidey10

*****************
Trust but Verify --- R Reagan Suspect

"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."1 Thessalonians 5:14–18

 could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865
Kevind53
Kevind53
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 27254
Join date : 2011-08-09
Age : 24
Location : Umm right here!

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Terbo56 Tue May 15, 2012 7:16 pm

That's the truth- You got no argument from me!:cheers:
Terbo56
Terbo56
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 13675
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 67
Location : Central Florida-

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by ibcraig0 Tue May 15, 2012 8:38 pm

There is a lot of speculation on the Kuwait dinar and what happened but there are also certain facts that can be found with a search on google. Bill Clinton took office after Bush Sr. and up to that point and for many many years before him the USA had always had a financial deficit. When Clinton was in office the deficit was almost magically eliminated and there was actually a surplus in the US budget for a time. It didn't take long for congress to spend it all and put us back into a deficit but for a short period of time there was actually a surplus of money.

Where did that money come from? It came from the Kuwait dinar that the USA obtained when Bush Sr. went into Kuwait and kicked Saddam's butt out. When Kuwait finally printed new Kuwait dinars and offered everyone the opportunity to exchange the old ones for the new ones and then reinstated the new ones at the same value they were at before Saddam invaded Kuwait. When that happened the US all of a sudden had a huge surplus of money in their budget and it was due to the Kuwait dinars they had obtained when they went in and kicked Saddam out. This theory can be found in several places if you search it out. True it is only a theory because the big boys in Washington DC don't want people knowing about this, but you can put together enough of the pieces to see that this is what really happened.

Fast forward to Bush Jr. He knew what had happened with Kuwait and he was the one who pushed for us to invade Iraq in the first place. He talked long and hard about all those weapons of mass destruction that never materialized and he used that as his impetus to invade Iraq. He stated publicly that the war in Iraq would pay for itself. His plan was to do the same thing with Iraq that was done in Kuwait only on a bigger scale.

Now for the opinion part. I believe that his plan was for himself and his buddies to buy Iraqi dinars and get richer by selling them when the dinar RVd. That is why executive order 13033 was put into place so that it would be legal for his buddies and himself once he was out of office to own dinars and exchange them after the RV.

So, I get my comfort from looking at this speculation with the thoughts I have listed here. There will always be naysayers no matter what the situation. I just read articles that talk crap about the dinar and think to myself that the government and many of the big time players in the government stand to gain big time from this and I feel very lucky to be one of the peons that got in on it before it was too late.
ibcraig0
ibcraig0
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 200
Join date : 2011-10-17

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Terbo56 Tue May 15, 2012 8:42 pm

Now read the rest of the story-www.benjaminfulford.com-Smile
Terbo56
Terbo56
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 13675
Join date : 2011-06-18
Age : 67
Location : Central Florida-

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by fang2 Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 pm

AM GOING TO BED !! GOOD NITE
fang2
fang2
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 1288
Join date : 2011-06-17
Age : 71
Location : Here and now!

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Tue May 15, 2012 9:51 pm

Ibcraig0, thanks for that...sounds like a realistic theory to me Smile

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by HeadNotTheTail Tue May 15, 2012 10:51 pm

Punisher You Have a PM..WOOOOHOOOOWOOOOO GO RV GO...HNTT
HeadNotTheTail
HeadNotTheTail
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 328
Join date : 2011-12-22
Age : 55
Location : Florida

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Tue May 15, 2012 11:33 pm

HeadNotTheTail wrote:Punisher You Have a PM..WOOOOHOOOOWOOOOO GO RV GO...HNTT

:happyjoy:

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Steve Raymond Tue May 15, 2012 11:46 pm

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?????

Steve Raymond
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2011-07-29

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Steve Raymond Tue May 15, 2012 11:53 pm

PM ????

Steve Raymond
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2011-07-29

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Steve Raymond Tue May 15, 2012 11:55 pm

ooohhh...I'm a little slow on the text jargin. PM = private message, HNTT = Head not the tail.

Steve Raymond
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2011-07-29

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Steve Raymond Tue May 15, 2012 11:57 pm

Could this be true ????

Steve Raymond
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2011-07-29

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by therealbutterfly Wed May 16, 2012 7:18 am

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.


For those that want a
more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted
in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.


Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading
articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not
only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an
argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal
government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in
FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 could this be true????? External.
In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been
reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998,
FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President
Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a
surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus
and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion
reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury
(see note about this link below) website where the national debt is
updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be
obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day
of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in
1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994),
here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year
Year
Ending
National DebtDeficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor
did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently
turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in
FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9
billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus
number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in
September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing
deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the
first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his
first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September
30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending
September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax
refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total
amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion could this be true????? External.
So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to
Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that
still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38
= $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what
makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt
and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the
public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds,
and other instruments the public can purchase from the government.
Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government
borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for
the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year
End
Date
Claimed
Surplus
Public
Debt
Intra-gov
Holdings
Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T could this be true????? Green_down $55.8B $1.792328T could this be true????? Red_up $168.9B $5.526193T could this be true????? Red_up $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T could this be true????? Green_down $97.8B $2.020166T could this be true????? Red_up $227.8B $5.656270T could this be true????? Red_up$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T could this be true????? Green_down $230.8B $2.268874T could this be true????? Red_up $248.7B $5.674178T could this be true????? Red_up $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T could this be true????? Green_down $66.0B $2.468153T could this be true????? Red_up $199.3B $5.807463T could this be true????? Red_up $133.3B

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is
patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single
year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public
debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the
decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the
public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
    Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS
    confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the
    entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
    "Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used
    to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the
    rest of the deficit look smaller
    ," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. could this be true????? External

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by
Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take
all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S.
Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and
immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing
well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money
and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more
money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all
that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities.
The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much
money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no
need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Consider the following quotes (and accompanying links) that demonstrate how people have known this for years:

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and
a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget
"surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one
of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the
"surpluses." could this be true????? External
So
the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the
Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought
to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or
checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or
get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999 Video: CSPAN
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes
being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security
benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire. could this be true????? External
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.could this be true????? External
When
these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and
non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.could this be true????? External
Despite
a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between
2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of
special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously
from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is
already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money
to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving
with one hand and taking away with the other. could this be true????? External
The
surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national
debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt
is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain
surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a
deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social
Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to
present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs
obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the
Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating
surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as
income and profit, he would face criminal charges.could this be true????? External

Are intragovernmental holdings really debt?

Yes, intragovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt.
It's not "a wash" simply because the government owes the money to
"itself."

As I explained in a previous article,
Social Security is legally required to use all its surpluses to buy
U.S. Government securities. From Social Security's standpoint, it has a
multi-trillion dollar reserve in the form of U.S. Government
securities. When the Social Security system starts to falter due to
insufficient contributions to pay for all the benefits of retiring
baby-boomers, probably around 2017, it will start cashing those
securities and will expect the U.S. Government to pay it back, with
interest. The problem is, the government doesn't have the money. The
money has already been spent--in part, effectively, to pay down the public debt under Clinton.

    Update 3/31/2009: The Social Security "surplus"--which has
    been borrowed by the Federal Government every year, including under
    Clinton to generate the "surplus"--is now expected to evaporate within a
    year (2009 or 2010) rather than the 2017 mentioned above. The
    following quote also provides additional evidence that the "surplus" was
    indeed borrowed from Social Security "for decades."

    With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that
    finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and
    other recipients is falling, according to a report from the
    Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual
    surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead
    of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had
    been counting on to help balance the nation's books.
    ...

    The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations.
    If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an
    additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other
    investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to
    the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has
    borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation
    further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes. could this be true????? External


The Federal Government cannot just wave a magic wand and somehow
"write off" the intragovernmental debt. Essentially, citizens invested
money in Social Security and Social Security invested that money in the
Federal Government. Now Social Security effectively owes you money (in
the form of future retirement benefits) and won't be able to pay
you that money if the Federal Government just cancels the
intragovernmental debt. The only way the Federal Government can "write
off" intragovernmental debt is if it simultaneously eliminates the
Social Security system. That might very well be a good idea,
but it isn't likely. And Social Security will start running out of
money in about 2017 if the Federal Government doesn't honor those
intragovernmental holdings as real debt.

In short, if the government doesn't pay back intragovernmental holdings,
other government agencies (like Social Security) will fail. Since
allowing Social Security to fail is not a politically viable option, the
debt represented by intragovernmental holdings is just as real as the
public debt. It can't just be eliminated by some fancy accounting trick
or political maneuvering. If it were possible, believe me, politicians
would have done it already and taken credit for reducing the national
debt by trillions of dollars.

Trust Funds = Intragovernmental Debt

Social Security isn't the only trust fund in the federal budget. There
are a number of others including the civil service retirement fund,
federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund, unemployment trust
fund, military retirement trust fund, etc. All of these trust funds,
like Social Security, invest their surpluses in U.S. government bonds
and increase intragovernmental debt. And like Social Security, their
surpluses really shouldn't count toward a "surplus" because the excess
money they contribute to federal coffers actually has to be borrowed by the government from the trust funds.

When the government declared a $236 billion surplus in fiscal year 2000,
it literally borrowed $248 billion from trust funds and considered that
borrowed money "income" which it counted towards a "surplus."

For a more detailed explanation of how the government borrowed from
trust funds and used the borrowed money to count towards an alleged
surplus, please read this follow-up article which goes into more detail on the subject of government accounting.

The reality of the national debt

The only debt that matters is the total national debt. You can have a surplus and a debt at the same time, but you can't have a surplus if the amount of debt is going up each year. And the national debt went up every single year under Clinton. Had Clinton really had a surplus the national
debt would have gone down. It didn't go down precisely because Clinton
had a deficit every single year. The U.S. Treasury's historical record
of the national debt verifies this.

A balanced budget or a budget surplus is a great thing, but it's only relevant if the budget surplus turns into a real surplus at the end of the fiscal year. In Clinton's case, it never did.

COMMON RESPONSES TO THIS ARTICLE
    Since this article has become a popular reference for people
    debunking the myth of the Clinton surplus, I have seen a number of
    responses made by those that cannot seem to accept the fact that there
    was never a surplus. Some of those responses are listed here and I
    explain why the responses are invalid.

    Adjusting the National Debt for Inflation or as % of GDP

    A common tactic used by those that cling to the myth of the Clinton
    surplus seems to be showing a bar graph of the total national debt adjusted for inflation,
    or depicted as a percentage of GDP. When you adjust for inflation or
    show the debt as a percentage of GDP, it looks like the national debt
    went down for a year or two under Clinton. However, that does not
    mean Clinton had a surplus, it simply means inflation was increasing
    faster than the national debt or the economy was expanding faster than
    the national debt. That does not change the fact that Clinton never had a surplus.

    Explained another way, adjusting the national debt for inflation is valid for comparing the debt load of the federal government but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the federal government had a surplus
    a given year. If you spend more than you take in in a given year, you
    have a deficit even if your relative debt load went down because of
    inflation. Explained numerically, let's say you owe $50,000, earn
    $30,000, and spend $31,000 (debt load=50,000/30,000=167%)--that leaves
    you with a deficit of $1000 so that the following year you owe $51,000.
    The next year inflation is 5% so you now earn $31,500 and spend $32,550
    with a deficit of $1,050. $31,500 in earnings with a $51,000 debt is a
    162% debt load--so your relative debt load went down thanks entirely to
    inflation but you still had a deficit of $1,050 that year and your debt continued to grow.

    It wouldn't be accurate to claim that you had a surplus because your
    debt load went down even though you spent more than you earned. That's
    what people are saying when they try to adjust the national debt for
    inflation to claim a surplus.

    The bottom line is that the national debt going down as adjusted for
    inflation or as a percentage of GDP is a valid metric for evaluating the
    debt load of the government but it says nothing about
    whether or not there was a surplus. If the total national debt went up,
    there was a deficit. Those that think a decrease in the debt load of
    the federal government as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for inflation
    is equivalent to a same-year surplus don't understand the definitions
    and purposes of each of these terms.

    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) vs. These "Partisan" Numbers

    Another common response to the above explanation of the myth of the
    Clinton surplus is that the budget surpluses are based on the numbers
    produced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Indeed if you access the CBO's "historic budget data" document could this be true????? External,
    on the fist page you will see that 1998 shows a surplus of $69 billion,
    1999 shows $126 billion, 2000 shows $236 billion--the same surpluses
    claimed by Clinton and CNN in the article mentioned at the top of this
    page.

    However, further analysis of the document should make it very clear that
    important information is missing from the CBO document--specifically
    focusing on the last two columns of the table on page 1. If you take
    the $3,772.3 billion debt held by the public at the end of 1997 and
    subtract the "total" $69.3 billion surplus stated for 1998, you would
    expect to see the debt go down by 69.3 billion to $3,703 billion.
    Instead, the debt indicated for 1998 is $3,721.1 billion--suggesting a
    surplus of only $51.2 billion. This alone should tell you that the CBO
    numbers aren't telling the whole story because they don't add up--and
    the story they aren't telling is intragovernmental holdings.

    The reality is that the federal government and politicians use a form of
    accounting that would get most accountants thrown in jail. As USA
    Today wrote in 2007 could this be true????? External,
    special rules used by the federal government allowed it to report a
    $248 billion deficit in 2006 rather than $1.3 trillion if it had used
    corporate-style accounting.

    While the CBO may be non-partisan, that does not mean the CBO is non-political nor that their numbers are honest or transparent.

      Update 4/26/2009: Please read this note
      where President Obama, too, is trying to get certain government
      expenditures not "counted" in the official CBO deficit even though
      they'll cost billions of dollars and increase the national debt. As
      this paragraph has explained, CBO numbers are not to be trusted as an accurate reflection of reality.



    The fact remains that the total national debt, as explained above, is
    the only real measure of what we owe. We can discuss the meaning of the
    different columns of the CBO documents and what they do and don't
    include, and we can argue about the accounting tricks that the federal
    government uses for political reasons. But the fact remains that the Bureau of the Public Debt is responsible for the daily reporting of the total national debt. Regardless of how politicians play with the budget numbers, the current national debt reported by the Bureau of the Public Debt is what we owe.
    If, at the end of each year, we owe more than we did the previous
    year, politicians can call it a surplus until the cows come home--but
    the fact remains that we owed more money than we did the previous year.
    Playing accounting and political games to call it a "surplus" doesn't
    change the fact that we're even more in debt than we were the year
    before.

    During the Clinton years, the total national debt increased every year. Only in Washington D.C. would that somehow be considered a "surplus."

    There was a Surplus Not Counting Interest and "Off-Budget" Items

    It is sometimes claimed that there was a surplus but the national debt
    didn't go down because of interest payments on the existing debt, or
    because of "off-budget" items. Anyone that makes this claim is just
    buying into twisted Washington accounting games that are convenient for
    their argument.

    The reality is that "off-budget" items and interest payments on
    the debt are real government expenditures just like any other.
    Off-budget items are declared as such by the stroke of a pen
    specifically for political reasons but it does not change the fact that
    they are part of government expenses.

    To demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, consider this: We have a
    budget surplus right now, too, if we declare the department of Health
    and Human Services to be "off-budget." After all, Congress and the
    president can do that with the stroke of a pen. Presto, we now have a
    surplus!

    Of course, we wouldn't really have a surplus. And neither did Clinton. It's just a matter of saying that some expenses don't "count" even though they do.

    There Was a Surplus But It Wasn't Used to Pay Down The Debt

    Some people claim that there was a surplus but it wasn't used to pay
    down the debt. They claim that one issue is whether or not you have a
    surplus and another issue is what you do with it; hence they also claim
    that you can have a surplus and not have the national debt go down.

    However, this is not true.

    If there was a surplus and it wasn't used to pay down the debt, then that means it was spent--which means even if there could
    have been a surplus, it evaporated the moment it was spent. During the
    Clinton years, not only was it spent--the government borrowed even
    more! Every year!

    It's like earning $30k in a year and only having $29k in expenses--so
    you have a $1000 surplus. To celebrate, you then go out and spend $2000
    on a new LCD TV. All the sudden you earned $30k and spent $31k and
    what originally looked like a $1000 surplus is now a $1000 deficit and
    you're even further in debt. You almost had your financial house
    in order but then you went out and spent the "extra" money rather than
    saving it or paying off some of your existing debt.

    In short, if the government had a surplus and spent it on anything other
    than paying down the national debt, there was no longer a surplus the
    moment the money was spent on something else.

    Comparing National Debt on January 1st

    Some have responded by saying that Clinton had a surplus and paid down
    the debt because, when they compare the national debt from one January
    1st to the next, the debt does show a decrease. This may be an honest
    mistake, but the government's fiscal year is from October 1st through
    September 30th. All government and budgetary activities are based on
    that fiscal year so it is necessary to do debt comparisons using that
    same fiscal year. As a result, all comparisons should be made either on
    September 30th or October 1st... not January 1st.

    FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

    FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this
    article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the
    CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in
    my follow-up article here

    The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False

    Some people have claimed that the link I provided (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np)
    is an illegitimate or fraudulent site that provides false numbers. I
    don't know where that accusation comes from or why people think that,
    but I've seen at least some comments that criticize the link because it
    doesn't point to http://www.ustreas.gov/. To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:


    1. Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.treasury.gov/
    2. Scroll to the "Bureaus" section and click on "Bureau of the Public Debt" which takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/
    3. Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
    4. This takes you to the link I originally provided: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

    The assertion that my article points people to a fraudulent website is
    incorrect. I am providing a direct link to the U.S. Treasury, Bureau of
    the Public Debt, National Debt to the Penny website. This is the
    official website that the U.S. government provides which allows the
    public to track the debt.

*****************
could this be true????? Opinio10
therealbutterfly
therealbutterfly
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 2416
Join date : 2011-08-02

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Kevind53 Wed May 16, 2012 8:11 am

Good article TRB. Thanks :study:

*****************
Trust but Verify --- R Reagan Suspect

"Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you."1 Thessalonians 5:14–18

 could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865  could this be true????? 2805820865
Kevind53
Kevind53
Super Moderator
Super Moderator

Posts : 27254
Join date : 2011-08-09
Age : 24
Location : Umm right here!

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Steve Raymond Wed May 16, 2012 8:44 am

Thanks for forwarding me the info., I appreciate it.

Steve Raymond
Active Member
Active Member

Posts : 28
Join date : 2011-07-29

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 9:49 am

Trb, so you don't by into the theory ibcraig0 said?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by therealbutterfly Wed May 16, 2012 10:26 am

Punisher, what is YOUR take on the article I posted?

*****************
could this be true????? Opinio10
therealbutterfly
therealbutterfly
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 2416
Join date : 2011-08-02

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by dinarling77 Wed May 16, 2012 10:34 am

To answer your question - Of course it could be true. So could the statement that all the calls to the banks stopped the RV yesterday. So could the rate being $42. I believe the real truth lies somewhere in between all of the hogwash posted on the internet!

*****************

  • Your favorite (DID) Dissociative Identity Disorder DDD member
dinarling77
dinarling77
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 608
Join date : 2011-07-11

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 10:58 am

therealbutterfly wrote:Punisher, what is YOUR take on the article I posted?

This says it all to me:



In short, if the government had a surplus and spent it on anything other
than paying down the national debt, there was no longer a surplus the
moment the money was spent on something else.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by SEBtopdog Wed May 16, 2012 3:06 pm

dinarling77 wrote:To answer your question - Of course it could be true. So could the statement that all the calls to the banks stopped the RV yesterday. So could the rate being $42. I believe the real truth lies somewhere in between all of the hogwash posted on the internet!

Between the hogwash and the backwash? Razz

*****************
could this be true????? Emoticon-animal-028
 
Keep smiling ... It'll make 'em wonder what you're up to!
 

could this be true????? Bump~0 Will someone please let the RV Widget out of the jar?
SEBtopdog
SEBtopdog
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 4201
Join date : 2011-07-07
Age : 75
Location : Somewhere over the rainbow

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by SEBtopdog Wed May 16, 2012 3:07 pm

TRB: I want to thank you for posting that article about "Clinton's Surplus." I've printed it out so I can devote more attention to it a little later. I sure appreciate seeing it.

*****************
could this be true????? Emoticon-animal-028
 
Keep smiling ... It'll make 'em wonder what you're up to!
 

could this be true????? Bump~0 Will someone please let the RV Widget out of the jar?
SEBtopdog
SEBtopdog
VIP Member
VIP Member

Posts : 4201
Join date : 2011-07-07
Age : 75
Location : Somewhere over the rainbow

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 7:57 pm

Trb, what is your opinion?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by therealbutterfly Wed May 16, 2012 9:20 pm

punisher wrote:Trb, what is your opinion?

This quote sums it up for me in the article

During the Clinton years, the total national debt increased every year. Only in Washington D.C. would that somehow be considered a "surplus."

*****************
could this be true????? Opinio10
therealbutterfly
therealbutterfly
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 2416
Join date : 2011-08-02

Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by Guest Wed May 16, 2012 9:42 pm

therealbutterfly wrote:
punisher wrote:Trb, what is your opinion?

This quote sums it up for me in the article

During the Clinton years, the total national debt increased every year. Only in Washington D.C. would that somehow be considered a "surplus."

Lol, ok thanks Smile

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

could this be true????? Empty Re: could this be true?????

Post by HeadNotTheTail Wed May 16, 2012 10:55 pm

[color=green][i][b]Hello Peeps
[/b][/i][/color]
HeadNotTheTail
HeadNotTheTail
Elite Member
Elite Member

Posts : 328
Join date : 2011-12-22
Age : 55
Location : Florida

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum