XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "X, formerly known as "!Jones""  wrote in message   
   news:4kdi8jtqv4v3ajf58qe68m26202s8kptes@4ax.com...   
   > If this is a medical emergency, stop reading, log off, and dial 911!   
   >   
   >>> What he said in your quoted statement of his is on target.  The   
   >>> problem is that he replaced it with a deficit (again), and nobody has   
   >>> changed it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>      The budget is never neutral, it is   
   >>either in surplus or deficit.   
   >   
   > Well, it's never *exactly* neutral, but that's the target.  A   
   > government entity isn't a for-profit venture.  I'd be willing to call   
   > it zero if we were within a dollar, for example.  It's like   
   > calculating pi with a Taylor series... we can get infinitely close,   
   > but we'll never get an *exact* value.   
      
   Frankly if they would get it within 0.5% of the total I would consider it   
   balanced. Would probably even accept 1% given what a massive improvement   
   that would be. Personally I would like to see them set the budget at 95% of   
   revenue at most with the remainder going directly against the principle of   
   the national debt.   
      
   Indeed, I would like to see a requirement that if they exceed 100%, they are   
   no longer eligible for re-election.   
      
   I bet we could get a balanced budget then.   
      
   Emergency spending would be paid in 10% increments over the next 10 budgets,   
   and the pay and benefits of federal elected officials cut by 20% until it is   
   paid off.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)