PDA

View Full Version : The Deficit



Qtec
11-14-2010, 04:49 AM
http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

.......and the GOP want more.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-14-2010, 08:07 AM
Pure insanity!

G.

Clinton balanced the budget for four straight years,paid off 405 billion dollars in debt. He raised taxes....And reformed Welfare. this mess has to be solved in both cutting spending, AND raising taxes on those same people who threw this country in the Housing Crisis, the greedy, corrupt fat cats on Wall Street....

Leaving tax cuts for the wealthy in place, is pure insanity.

Republicans only care about the wealthy, greedy pigs, who made this mess, and that fact will become painfully clear, after they are observed again, this time.....

G.

pooltchr
11-14-2010, 08:48 AM
Yes, it is. Cutting taxes isn't going to do anything to cut the defecit unless there is actual spending cuts and downsizing of our government to go along with them.

We can not operate a government this size without stealing from the private sector to fund it.

If you want to fix our economy, look to the one entity that spends more money than any other, all the while, producing nothing that contributes to the economy.

Steve

LWW
11-14-2010, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pure insanity!

G.

Clinton balanced the budget for four straight years,paid off 405 billion dollars in debt.

G. </div></div>

Then why did the national debt rise 8 years in a row under Clinton?

Plus, how did he do this since the budget is set by congress?

If deficit reduction was his goal, why did he oppose the R congress at every turn?

Got a link to back your claims up?

What's that?

You don't?

Nobody thought you did.

LWW

LWW
11-14-2010, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

.......and the GOP want more.

Q </div></div>

Then why was the deficit only 11% under the last R budget compared to where it is now?

LWW

Qtec
11-14-2010, 09:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pure insanity!

G.

Clinton balanced the budget for four straight years,paid off 405 billion dollars in debt.

G. </div></div>

Then why did the national debt rise 8 years in a row under Clinton?

Plus, how did he do this since the budget is set by congress?

If deficit reduction was his goal, why did he oppose the R congress at every turn?

Got a link to back your claims up?

What's that?

You don't?

Nobody thought you did.

LWW </div></div>

I have shown you this info time and time again but you are such a f..k..g moron you just can't seem to grasp it.

ONE MORE TIME.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">February 3, 2008
Updated: February 11, 2008
Q:

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.</span>
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Clinton's large budget surpluses</span> also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.</span>

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.</span>

-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010. </div></div>

Are we clear now?

Q........ FactCheck (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)

LWW
11-15-2010, 03:03 AM
Actually ... you did everything but answer the question.

If the Clinton regime ran a surplus then why did the national debt increase every year of the eight years in question?

LWW

Qtec
11-15-2010, 05:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually ... you did everything but answer the question.

If the Clinton regime ran a surplus then why did the national debt increase every year of the eight years in question?

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gross federal debt

This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt[8]<span style='font-size: 17pt'> as a percentage of GDP </span>by Presidential term since World War II.[9] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The deficit briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.</div></div>

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/450px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png


In the first 6 years Clinton had a deficit so of course the debt will rise, but in the last year of Clinton's office' the Nat Debt was set to rise by only $16 billion! It was heading towards zero.

How much did it rise in Bush's last year?

Q

LWW
11-15-2010, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the first 6 years Clinton had a deficit so of course the debt will rise, but in the last year of Clinton's office' the Nat Debt was set to rise by only $16 billion! It was heading towards zero.

Q </div></div>

So ... the Clinton "SURPLUS" was actually a deficit.

Thank you.

Don't you feel better now that you have purged the myth from your mind.

LWW

LWW
11-15-2010, 05:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

.......and the GOP want more.

Q </div></div>

Out of curiosity, why are you using a chart which shows the situation at the end of the last R budget and not the current situation?

LWW

LWW
11-15-2010, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton <s>balanced the budget for four</s> ran a deficit for eight straight years,<s>paid off 405 billion dollars in</s> increased the national debt. He raised taxes....<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And reformed Welfare.</span>

G. </div></div>

Really?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q: What about the political landscape in 1996—and the realities of the welfare state—pushed welfare reform to the top of the agenda in 1996 and made its passage possible?

A: Then-governor Bill Clinton surprised Republicans by making welfare reform a major issue in his 1992 campaign. His skillful use of welfare reform was a key ingredient in his victory, especially in battleground states like Ohio. But when President Clinton failed to push welfare reform, Republicans in the House formed working groups to draft legislation that they believed would revolutionize several of the nation's major welfare programs and save money for taxpayers. With Congressional Republicans united behind a revolutionary welfare reform bill, and with Clinton and the Democratic Party badly divided on welfare reform, the shocking elections of 1994 gave Republicans control of both the House and the Senate. Another factor pushing welfare reform to the top of the agenda was public support. Polls showed that the public favored work over welfare by huge margins. Another important factor was strong evidence that the old system, which gave people cash without expecting anything in return, contributed to making people dependent on welfare and to having babies outside marriage. When the moment of truth arrived in 1996, the old welfare system had no serious defenders.

Q: Why did President Clinton veto two versions of the welfare reform bill, and what ultimately made him acquiesce?

A: Many Democrats were horrified by the Republican welfare reform bill because, among other reasons, they believed it put young mothers and their children at risk and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>because it reduced or eliminated welfare benefits for noncitizens. Thus, Clinton vetoed two early versions of the bill both because he thought the bills were too harsh</span> and because he was trying to force Republicans to change the bill so that more Democrats would support it. Republicans made a few changes in the bill, including adding more money for child care, expanding Medicaid coverage for children, and reducing some of the cuts in social programs, and passed the bill a third time in July of 1996. On this occasion, half the Democrats in Congress voted in favor of the bill and Clinton signed it. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Some critics charged Clinton with abandoning his party or trying to strengthen his political position in a cynical bid to be re-elected (he signed the bill less than three months before the presidential election of 1996).</span></div></div>


So the reality is that Billy Jeff Clinton vetoed welfare reform TWICE ... and then signed it during an election year to gain support from the right.

OH DEAR! (http://www.brookings.edu/interviews/2006/0824welfare_haskins.aspx)

LWW

Qtec
11-15-2010, 06:14 AM
Tell me o wise one, how do you turn a deficit into a surplus overnight?

Your hate for Obama is clouding what little left was of your objectivity.





Q

LWW
11-15-2010, 12:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me o wise one, how do you turn a deficit into a surplus overnight?

Your hate for Obama is clouding what little left was of your objectivity.





Q </div></div>

You stop spending more than you take in.

I'll grant you it won't happen in a day ... but I don't fantasize about a surplus which exists only in the minds of dembots.

LWW

cushioncrawler
11-15-2010, 04:40 PM
Hey fellas -- i dunn told u thrice and i dunn told quice -- deficits aint important.
Its like me paying my missus for sex, she would uze the dough to buy our food anyhow.
Or, more the case, its like me not paying her for sex -- in the end i would owe her say $1M -- and if she dies first i am off the hook -- and if i die first she inherits my debt to her.

And our children are not affekted one way or another.
It wont make any difference to them whether i payd, or whether she gave sex to me free, or whether i died first.

But the stupid usofa krappynomicysts say that the kids will suffer.
mac.

sack316
11-15-2010, 04:41 PM
Mac, can I get you to speak to some old credit card companies that call me? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Sev
11-15-2010, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey fellas -- i dunn told u thrice and i dunn told quice -- deficits aint important.
Its like me paying my missus for sex, she would uze the dough to buy our food anyhow.
Or, more the case, its like me not paying her for sex -- in the end i would owe her say $1M -- and if she dies first i am off the hook -- and if i die first she inherits my debt to her.

And our children are not affekted one way or another.
It wont make any difference to them whether i payd, or whether she gave sex to me free, or whether i died first.

But the stupid usofa krappynomicysts say that the kids will suffer.
mac.

</div></div>

What happens when you run a deficit with the Mob?

LWW
11-15-2010, 06:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2010/11/tax%20cuts.png

.......and the GOP want more.

Q </div></div>

Out of curiosity, why are you using a chart which shows the situation at the end of the last R budget and not the current situation?

LWW </div></div>

Was the question too hard?

LWW