Trump says he bombed Iran

[CriticalStinker]

That goes for both party's, not just Trump.

What about the tyranny of forcing the fake Covid vaccine jabs or lose your job?

The Covid scam and the 2020 election scam goes hand in hand.

Fucking forced lockdowns and forcing fucking fake vaccines should have been the tipping point to eradicate the Biden administration tyranny.

2 biggest scams in history.

Biden was certainly no stranger to executive power, and those examples highlight that.

But Trump did operation warp speed, shielded the pharma companies from lawsuits, and much of the lockdowns happened under him (though they were the decisions of governors). 

They all abuse executive power, that's the problem, there are plenty of examples for both Trump and Biden. That's why they all need to be held accountable for that, they are our employees after all. Enough of justifying when one guy does it because the guy before him did. Something that is wrong is still wrong just because someone else does it.

[putnam6]

in other news 

[putnam6]

That goes for both party's, not just Trump.

What about the tyranny of forcing the fake Covid vaccine jabs or lose your job?

The Covid scam and the 2020 election scam goes hand in hand.

Fucking forced lockdowns and forcing fucking fake vaccines should have been the tipping point to eradicate the Biden administration tyranny.

2 biggest scams in history.

100% read somewhere the impetus for COVID was partially because Congress and various NGO's persons got cocky from the long term griftand attempted to terraform and manipulate the general public

[RazorV66]

in other news 
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...8e431a.jpg]
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...c4fb7f.jpg]
[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...7b612c.jpg]

Glad to see them finally wise up.

[RazorV66]

Didn't Trump claim that pardons signed with autopen are "void"

Wasn't there an investigation into Biden's autopen scandal...

Oh wait--- that investigation has been closed 

O well

Oh well is right for you I guess.

Not really surprising as everything I've ever seen you post is anti-Trump.

[cherokeetroy]

Oh well is right for you I guess.

Not really surprising as everything I've ever seen you post is anti-Trump.

And ?

I'm going to be even more anti-Trump as the war continues to escalate while the economy crumbles

[Astyanax]

So what you are actually saying is he is acting exactly like every other politician that has held the office of President of the United States.

Bill Clinton presided over a budget surplus from 1998 to 2001. There were surpluses during the presidencies of Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and (briefly) Lyndon B. Johnson.

All Democrats.

You prove the bankruptcy of your politics by the ignorance of your posts.

[RazorV66]

And ?

I'm going to be even more anti-Trump as the war continues to escalate while the economy crumbles

Where is the economy crumbling?

We haven't even hit Biden's gas prices yet.

I am doing better than I've ever done, cars and motorcycles are paid off, house is paid off.

3 vacations in the works for the summer so far.

If I was a big steak eater, we would be having them for dinner 4 nights a week.

[Astyanax]

There is clearly a lesser evil, The US has done more for the world...

Maybe if your world is Western Europe. 

The Afghans, Argentinians, Bolivians, Brazilians, Cambodians, Chileans, Cubans, Dominicans, Ecuadoreans, Guyanese, Grenadians, Haitians, Indonesians, Iranians, Iraqis, Koreans, Laotians, Lebanese, Libyans, Mexicans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians, Punjabis, Somalis, South Africans, Sudanese, Syrians, Venezuelans, Vietnamese and Yemenis would tell you different.

Incidentally, US spending on humanitarian assistance around the world accounts for (and has always accounted for) a miniscule fraction of US spending on arms and foreign military adventures.

The idea that everyone loves and should be grateful to America is a delusion created by US propaganda. The facts are far otherwise.

[putnam6]

Bill Clinton presided over a budget surplus from 1998 to 2001. There were surpluses during the presidencies of Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman and (briefly) Lyndon B. Johnson.

All Democrats.

You prove the bankruptcy of your politics by the ignorance of your posts.

Mistake #1: Believing Bill and Hillary didn't understand creative bookkeeping. Read Blood Sport; it originated in Little Rock, by the time they were inside the Beltway, it was basically the fox in the hen house.

[quote]Yes, the Clinton-era budget surpluses (fiscal years 1998–2001) were real in the official unified budget sense—the federal government as a whole took in more revenue than it spent during those years. This marked the first consecutive surpluses in decades. However, there are legitimate reasons why many view the presentation and emphasis as somewhat bogus or misleading, though "cooking the books" is too strong for outright fraud. It was more a matter of convenient accounting choices and political spin.The Official Numbers (Unified Budget)Under the unified budget (which includes Social Security, Medicare, and all other federal operations), the U.S. ran surpluses:FY 1998: ~$70 billion surplus
FY 1999–2001: Larger surpluses followed, peaking around $236 billion in FY 2000 (estimates varied slightly by source).

This was accurate per CBO, OMB, and Treasury data at the time. The debt held by the public did decline as a share of GDP, and the government stopped adding to total public debt in those years.

en.wikipedia.org

Why It Feels Like "Cooking the Books" to CriticsThe big caveat is Social Security (and to a lesser extent Medicare). These programs run payroll tax surpluses because current workers pay more into the trust funds than is paid out in benefits (due to demographics—the large Baby Boomer workforce paying in, with retirements still ramping up).In the unified budget, these trust fund surpluses are counted as general revenue. They offset deficits in the rest of the government ("on-budget" operations, excluding Social Security).
Without counting the Social Security surplus, the "on-budget" picture was much weaker or still in deficit for parts of the period. For example:Fact-check analyses showed small on-budget surpluses in 1999–2000 even excluding Social Security, but critics argued the overall surplus was inflated by borrowing from future retirees via the trust funds.

factcheck.org

In practice, the government spent the Social Security money on other programs and issued special Treasury securities to the trust funds (IOUs). This is standard procedure, but it means the "surplus" didn't build a real rainy-day fund—it reduced the need to borrow from the public while increasing intra-governmental debt.

Critics (from libertarian outlets like Cato, some conservative commentators, and labor perspectives) called this an accounting trick:The unified budget makes the numbers look better by including dedicated payroll taxes meant for future entitlements.
Clinton administration proposals to "save" the surplus for Social Security were criticized as circular: using the unified surplus (partly created by SS) to "fix" SS by buying more government bonds.

tampabay.com

The late 1990s boom (tech/dot-com bubble, strong growth, capital gains tax revenue) also boosted receipts significantly—more than policy alone.

Defenders (including the Clinton White House, Brookings, FactCheck.org) note:Even stripping out Social Security, there were small on-budget surpluses in some years.
The 1993 deficit reduction package (tax increases on high earners, spending restraint) plus later bipartisan deals and the strong economy deserve credit.
Surpluses reduced publicly held debt, which is economically meaningful.

Bottom LineNot outright bogus: The surpluses happened. Revenues exceeded outlays. The economy performed well, deficits turned to surpluses, and fiscal metrics improved.
A bit misleading in presentation: Heavy reliance on the unified budget hid that general operations were closer to balance (or slightly in deficit) only because of the demographic bulge in Social Security payroll taxes. The government wasn't "saving" the surplus in a lockbox—it was using incoming SS taxes to fund current spending while promising future benefits. This is how the system has worked for decades across administrations, but it invites skepticism when touted as a pure triumph of budgeting discipline.

Similar dynamics apply to other eras (e.g., claims about later deficits). Budget accounting is complex, and politicians of both parties highlight the metric that flatters them most. The Clinton surpluses were a genuine bright spot fiscally, but the "we balanced the budget and fixed everything" narrative overstated the permanence and understated the role of trust fund accounting and temporary economic tailwinds.

[quote]