Trade Deficit Hits $68B Record in July

you should be thrilled then by the recent strategically critical Chevron discovery in the Gulf. Hopefully it'll all but wipe out our middle east purchases.
 
I just DON'T GET IT?

Wasn't it just a month ago that you Topspin and other Republicans were TOUTING how great we were doing in LOWERING THE DEFICIT....

And now we read THE REAL TRUTH....? Why the hell does the administration HAVE TO PLAY WITH FRICKING NUMBERS ALL THE TIME....fixing them to say what they WANT but NOT THE TRUTH?

please, please please, start paying attention to what comes out in the news FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION...it is more than likely, LIES.... :(

So far this year, the deficit is running at an annual rate of $776 billion, putting the country on course to rack up a record annual deficit for the fifth straight year. Democrats, campaigning for control of Congress in the November elections, hope voters will view the soaring trade deficits as evidence that President Bush's trade policies are not working.
 
yeah Topspin in 10 years or so on the gulf discovery. umm, but by then with Bush's limp weiner energy plan we will be needing all that from the gulf plus more. So we will still be in the same boat.
 
I'm not a republican and I bragged on increased tax receipts from the tax cuts. You can't show me where I bragged on a lower defecit.
Also didn't you turbo-libs boast there wasn't enough oil domestically to make a difference. That looks pretty lame backed up by facts now. though it looked lame back then too.
 
Topspin said:
I'm not a republican and I bragged on increased tax receipts from the tax cuts. You can't show me where I bragged on a lower defecit.
Also didn't you turbo-libs boast there wasn't enough oil domestically to make a difference. That looks pretty lame backed up by facts now. though it looked lame back then too.
Click to expand...

you are right Top, my mistake, it was about revenues increasing,

( resulting supposedly in a decreased deficit), otherwise, what good is increased revenues if this just means free reign to increasing spending?

care
 
Also didn't you turbo-libs boast there wasn't enough oil domestically to make a difference.
//

That is what I still say spinner, or did you not understand my post ?
Still using that turbo lib label but denying being a republican :) That is really logical ;)
 
Last edited:
Your full of shit
you poor dems don't think a dem can be
Rich, pro business, pro energy, and pro low taxes
I'm anti-war more than any turbo-lib, I'm more pro education and domestic spending than the maj of dems, and I'm more marj legalizing than 99% of turbo-libs
So piss off with your High school intellect gatekeeper of the dem party. You don't qualify.
 
Topspin said:
Your full of shit
you poor dems don't think a dem can be
Rich, pro business, pro energy, and pro low taxes
I'm anti-war more than any turbo-lib, I'm more pro education and domestic spending than the maj of dems, and I'm more marj legalizing than 99% of turbo-libs
So piss off with your High school intellect gatekeeper of the dem party. You don't qualify.
Click to expand...
Ok and I willingly admit that you are a bigger jerk than I am too ;)
 
Care the article is about the trade deficit. You are talking about the federal spending deficit. These are two totally different things.
 
USC, the thing I don't understand is your constant use of excuses as a krutch for you situation or your bitterness at those who have done much better financially than you causes you to need to ridicule them for a sense of self worth.
I feel sorry for you old man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top