PDA

View Full Version : The Balanced Budget Amendment is a joke



Qtec
07-18-2011, 03:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindsey Graham compares America to Greece <u>which is why he shouldn't be taken seriously</u>


Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union" Sunday, Graham said that Republicans would raise the debt ceiling only in exchange for the requirements in the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Cut, Cap and Balance”</span> legislation the House is expected to vote this week. That bill would cut government spending to 2008 levels, cap sending for the next decade and require the passage of a balanced budget<span style='font-size: 14pt'> constitutional amendment.</span>

“For those three things, we’ll raise the debt limit,” Graham said. “That will be the Republican position in the House almost unanimously; I think it will be the Republican position in the Senate.” [..]

"What is calamitous is the path we’re on as a nation,” he said. “We’re becoming Greece.”

<span style="color: #3333FF">"Greece" is the new fear-mongering catch phrase much like 'Saddam Hussein" was in 2002/3. The same scare tactics that lied to Americans and brought us into an unjust war with Iraq that Graham had no problems with paying for.</span>




<u>The Balanced Budget Amendment is a joke, as every one knows. Graham lied to Crowley</u> when he said that since he's been in DC since 1995, it's obvious to him that <u>both parties are incapable of balancing the budget so we need a constitutional amendment.</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Crowley should have then reminded the big Goober that in 2000, when he was in Congress under Bill Clinton, <u>the US had a surplus in our federal budget and that George Bush took the cash, gave it to his pals and led us into massive debt soon afterwards.</u> </span></div></div>


Under Bush, the GOP had no problem with borrowing and spending <u>so long as the money went to their special interest base, ie high earners, the defence industry, big pharma etc.</u>

What he is actually saying is that you can't trust the GOP to be financially conservative and the only way to stop them spending is to change the USCON!


What a dork.

Q......... http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/lindsey-graham-compares-america-greece

LWW
07-18-2011, 05:27 AM
Here we go again.

For you ro maintain intellectual integrity and believe this lie you must answer why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime ... yet you run like a scared poodle every time the question is asked.

Qtec
07-18-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 23pt'>Clinton Paid Down the Debt</span>


A friend writes in with some concerns over the last post about Clinton paying down the debt-- and the crazy right wing saying he didn't.

<span style="color: #3333FF">I think you're missing the point. As an introduction, because I can't write this without bringing this up, you referring to the News Buster's contributor as Matt Shepphard the boy who was tragically beaten to death in Wyoming because he was gay is repugnant. I don't know if Noel is gay or not. Your name calling is classless even for a Democrat. Aren't you supposed to be the political correct, Big Tent party?

As you mention in your post with no links other than a graph developed by a left winger, how much did Clinton pay on the debt? He clearly didn't pay it down like he said for if he had it would have went down. I know you like to keep things simple, so is that simple enough. He might have paid some interest on the debt but he did not pay it down. The national debt rose every year under Clinton and its a pipe dream to say otherwise.</span>

It keeps going on and on but you get the gist of it.

Yes he's a friend of mine. We talk that way to each other all the time. You should see us after a couple beers.

I keenly remember me stating that "[a]s you can clearly see from the charts the national debt increased under Clinton at its slowest rates in 50 years." So my pipe dream is nonexistent. I gladly, freely admit the national debt increased under Clinton in terms of non-adjusted real dollars. The debt has increased every year since Eisenhower left office. So I don't get the confusion or the concentration by Republicans on dollar amounts especially when Republicans have increased real dollar amounts at twice the rate Democrats have.

<u>The point of contention seems to be on whether or not Clinton paid money down on the debt. He most certainly did. </u> He not only paid on the interest but he also paid on the principal that helped reduce the rate of growth to 0.32% his last year in office. This resulted in an actual reduction in the national debt as a percent of GDP and after adjustment a reduction in dollar amounts as well. Since my zfacts.com graph wasn't good enough last time I'll post another one that will show the exact same thing. </div></div>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The data hasn't changed from the last graph. As you can clearly see, as a percentage of GDP the national debt shrunk under Clinton. It hadn't done that since the Democratic president before him, Jimmy Carter. The graph also shows since the Reagan Revolution-- a time when Republicans supposedly ushered in a new era of fiscal conservancy-- not once have Republicans ever reduced the national debt. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's also worth mentioning that Republicans increased the national debt on average since 1978 by 36.4% compared to only 4.2% by Democrats.</span>

In reiteration, in terms of GDP, President Clinton reduced the national debt, and when you seasonally adjust for inflation, real dollar amounts also reduced between 1999 and 2000. That clearly indicates he not only paid down the debt, but that he also shrunk it. </div></div>

OK? Are we now finally finished with this illusion of yours?

Q link (http://www.thefoldblog.com/2010/09/clinton-paid-down-debt.html)

Soflasnapper
07-18-2011, 01:17 PM
Any thought-through BBA would have to include exclusions and exceptions, so that an urgent matter such as being in a war, having a severe economic downturn, or a grave national emergency would not require a balance for the duration of such an event or events and a decent interval for a time afterwards.

Otherwise, in the middle of a war, we might have to quit the field of battle over a Constitutional level requirement, or try to get by with half the forces, half the ammunition, etc., required to win the war. Insanity, and many have remarked that the Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact.

So what that means is that such a BBA in place RIGHT NOW would have no effect, until we cease our wars, and get out of this extremely difficult economic period. Which isn't happening any time soon.

LWW
07-18-2011, 02:47 PM
That was some pretty charts ... none of which answer why the national debt rose every year of the Clinton regime.

Here are the numbers at FY end for each of the years:

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

My source?

The Obama regime. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

Gayle in MD
07-18-2011, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindsey Graham compares America to Greece <u>which is why he shouldn't be taken seriously</u>


Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union" Sunday, Graham said that Republicans would raise the debt ceiling only in exchange for the requirements in the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“Cut, Cap and Balance”</span> legislation the House is expected to vote this week. That bill would cut government spending to 2008 levels, cap sending for the next decade and require the passage of a balanced budget<span style='font-size: 14pt'> constitutional amendment.</span>

“For those three things, we’ll raise the debt limit,” Graham said. “That will be the Republican position in the House almost unanimously; I think it will be the Republican position in the Senate.” [..]

"What is calamitous is the path we’re on as a nation,” he said. “We’re becoming Greece.”

<span style="color: #3333FF">"Greece" is the new fear-mongering catch phrase much like 'Saddam Hussein" was in 2002/3. The same scare tactics that lied to Americans and brought us into an unjust war with Iraq that Graham had no problems with paying for.</span>




<u>The Balanced Budget Amendment is a joke, as every one knows. Graham lied to Crowley</u> when he said that since he's been in DC since 1995, it's obvious to him that <u>both parties are incapable of balancing the budget so we need a constitutional amendment.</u> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Crowley should have then reminded the big Goober that in 2000, when he was in Congress under Bill Clinton, <u>the US had a surplus in our federal budget and that George Bush took the cash, gave it to his pals and led us into massive debt soon afterwards.</u> </span></div></div>


Under Bush, the GOP had no problem with borrowing and spending <u>so long as the money went to their special interest base, ie high earners, the defence industry, big pharma etc.</u>

What he is actually saying is that you can't trust the GOP to be financially conservative and the only way to stop them spending is to change the USCON!


What a dork.

Q......... http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/lindsey-graham-compares-america-greece
</div></div>

Repiglicans only know how to do four things.

Take Bribes.

Lie.

Slander.

And kick the can down the road.

PIGS!

Soflasnapper
07-19-2011, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was some pretty charts ... none of which answer why the national debt rose every year of the Clinton regime.

Here are the numbers at FY end for each of the years:

09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

My source?

The Obama regime. (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm) </div></div>

This was asked by you, and answered by me, months ago on this forum.

Perhaps you recall that you had no rejoinder or response, other than that I was a blinded moon bat and was wrong, although you couldn't say how.

Every year's SS surplus creates that much extra debt, since the surplus cannot be kept in cash, and must be turned into Treasury bonds. Clinton's first couple of budgets said to be in balance used the SS surplus to make that balance (unified budget accounting), so those years, debt grew by (close to) the whole amount of the SS surplus, plus the imputed interest on the trust fund bonds held by SS (which isn't paid annually, but is accounted for in the total debt figure).

The final year was a true surplus, not counting the SS surplus, and all of the SS surplus cash, creating that much in new debt, was used to pay off publicly held debt, taking down as much old debt as new debt that was thus created. However, still, the imputed interest (not paid, but still accruing and owed down the road) ends up showing an increase in the debt by that figure.

It's an artifact of the double entry accounting system for the trust funds. Ever study any accounting?