PDA

View Full Version : The debt , there and back.



Qtec
08-01-2011, 10:59 AM
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gope-debt-orgy-2.jpg

HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

1. Bill Clinton LEFT THIS COUNTRY WITH A SURPLUS

OUR DEFICIT IS BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING:

2. The Deficit is made up of 4 things:
a) Iraq War
b) Afghanistan War
c) Medicare, Part D
d) Bush Tax Cuts [if you want to twist the knife in, point out, that this was the first time in American history that tax cuts were done during WARTIME]



Nancy tells it how it is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M5sUiE3800A#at=513)

Q

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 11:18 AM
That isn't entirely right.

Broadly speaking, close to factual, but everyone wants to ignore the elephant in the room. (Just an expression, not referring to the GOP.)

The first Gulf War cost the US approximately nothing, as that was the deal with some of the non-combatant countries in the coalition. Japan among some others put in money more than personnel, and what I recall was that we spent maybe $40 billion, and got it all back, except for maybe a smallish single figure billion dollar amount or something.

So the accumulative extra debt created under HW Bush had essentially nothing to do whatsoever with that war. Even had we paid all of it, and we didn't as we were repaid, that would have only been 2.5% of the total extra debt.

Lest we forget, it was paying the price for the S&L debacle that cost so much extra debt. It was about $300 billion, but financed off budget, to keep it off the stated deficit, it cost extra interest compared to financing it on budget, and amortized over it's payoff period, ultimately cost approx. $1 trillion plus.

Similarly, another banking fraud has cost a largish part of the current deficit. The fraud and theft of the large banks and brokerage houses has hollowed out the housing market values, and somewhere over half of the current deficit is the twin effect of lowered tax revenues, and higher benefit payments due to the lowered income of those not working, with the super sized TARP and stimulus programs also the result of this bank fraud.

(The chart shows these factors contributing to the debt run up so far in the O years, but you omit it in your summary. It is as large or larger an effect than the ones you mention).

eg8r
08-01-2011, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bill Clinton LEFT THIS COUNTRY WITH A SURPLUS
</div></div>Yet still left the country in debt. It would be nice if you decided to talk apples to apples. It is funny to see you ignorantly swap the words debt and deficit back and forth like they are the same thing.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
08-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Of course that's true, but consider, the WORRY THEN was that maybe the debt (all of it) WOULD BE PAID OFF TOO SOON.

How soon was too soon? 10 years. That is, right about now.

Was that ever realistic? Yes and no.

Yes, because we HAD been paying off the publicly held debt, with every extra dollar of SS surplus going to retire Treasury bonds, bills, and notes as they matured and came due. Over $500 billion in retired debt. Even then, the supposedly Balance the Budget concerned GOP had been demanding a sizable new tax cut out of the surpluses, at least $250 billion. Clinton's response was 'save SS first,' and by his actions, saving any new debt being created by the SS surplus, he was being the fiscal conservative that the GOP pretended to be. Clinton won public support for that tactic, and kept it going despite the GOP's attempt to divert those surplus monies to the owners of their party.

Also no, as even paying off existing publicly held debt one-for-one with the SS surplus created exactly the same amount of debt that was paid off, since the SS surplus monies BECAME new Treasury debt obligations, when swapped with what the law required any SS surplus monies be invested in-- T bonds.

eg8r
08-01-2011, 01:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course that's true, but consider, the WORRY THEN was that maybe the debt (all of it) WOULD BE PAID OFF TOO SOON.

How soon was too soon? 10 years. That is, right about now.

Was that ever realistic? Yes and no.
</div></div>I think it is a resounding no. The surplus was driven by many unexpected events like the dot com businesses only to have them fall flat once Clinton left (no one is crazy enough to think if he stayed they would been profitable). To be honest I think Clinton benefitted from a lot of good luck. Raising taxes does increase revenue but nothing like a dot com bubble when it was never expected. The stock market was booming, etc. A lot of things were going right in spite of Clinton. He was the benficiary of a lucky period in time when money was rolling in for everyone.

What is annoying is the fact that qtip cannot tell the difference between debt and deficit and uses the two interchangably. Every time we talk about the nation's debt that idiot says, "yeah well Clinton left a surplus" and he doesn't even know what he is talking about.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
08-01-2011, 01:59 PM
No, YOU don't know what YOU'RE talking about.
But, that's nothing new, you still refuse to acknowledge that Valarie Plame, was a covert, SECRET, NOC CIA AGENT, and Specialist in WMD.

Really, your denials become more and more absurd, over time.




G.

eg8r
08-01-2011, 02:04 PM
LOL, go for it gayle, defend qtip and his misuse of the two words over and over. Remember qtip is all you got.

eg8r

LWW
08-01-2011, 02:25 PM
Still butt sore from learning that nearly a;ll of the US debt came from democrook congresses I see.

Qtec
08-02-2011, 10:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet still left the country in debt. </div></div>

What a dumb thing to say. The USA has been in debt since 1840! You criticize him for not wiping out a debt that has been accumulating for 178 years!!!!!!!!

Q

Qtec
08-02-2011, 10:48 AM
Not my misuse, if it is misuse.

link (http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2011/08/monday-open-thread-158/)

I posted the chart to counter the 'its Obama's 14 T debt' coming from the lunatic fringe here, like nobody else is responsible.

It quite clear that Ronnie and Bush amassed the most debt and Bush gave Obama an economy that was in the ditch. For some reason, which I can't yet fathom , he seems to have given them the keys back.

Q

LWW
08-02-2011, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, because we HAD been paying off the publicly held debt, with every extra dollar of SS surplus going to retire Treasury bonds, bills, and notes as they matured and came due. Over $500 billion in retired debt. </div></div>

Then why did the national debt rise each and every year of the Clinton regime?

Telling the lie doesn't make the lie true.

Telling the lie again doesn't make the lie true.

Telling the lie louder doesn't make the lie true.

Believing the lie doesn't make the lie true.

The lie is, by definition, untrue.

LWW
08-02-2011, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not my misuse, if it is misuse.

link (http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2011/08/monday-open-thread-158/)

I posted the chart to counter the 'its Obama's 14 T debt' coming from the lunatic fringe here, like nobody else is responsible.

It quite clear that Ronnie and Bush amassed the most debt and Bush gave Obama an economy that was in the ditch. For some reason, which I can't yet fathom , he seems to have given them the keys back.

Q

</div></div>

How did Reagan, Bush, and Obama incur this debt?

LWW
08-02-2011, 11:07 AM
BTW ... even using your wholly dishonest chart:

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gope-debt-orgy-2.jpg

it still doesn't say what you think it says.

Even by this, under 2 years of Obama as POTUS we added more debt than in 8 years ofd Reagan, more than in 4 years of Bush the Elder, more than in 8 years of Clinton, and more than in 4 years of Bush the Younger.

LWW
08-02-2011, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

1. Bill Clinton LEFT THIS COUNTRY WITH A SURPLUS

OUR DEFICIT IS BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING:

2. The Deficit is made up of 4 things:
a) Iraq War
b) Afghanistan War
c) Medicare, Part D
d) Bush Tax Cuts



Nancy tells it how it is. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M5sUiE3800A#at=513)

Q </div></div>
1 - Clinton did not leave the nation with a surplus.

2 - According to CBO the Bush tax cuts add $54.4B to the annual deficit.

3 - According to the Obama regime, total US expense in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in 2011 is $159.3B. Assigning all of that to the deficit is dubious as armed forces have a cost associated with them even when sitting in US barracks ... but your lame argument needs every break it can get.

4 - According to the US federal gubmint, MEDICARE PART-D costs $72.7B per year.

5 - According to the Obama regime, the US deficit for 2011 will be $1,650B.

6 - If you take $1,650B and subtract $72,7B ... and then subtract $159.3B ... and then subtract $54.4B ... you are still left with a US deficit of $1,363.6B.

7 - Prior to the democrooks retaking congress, the highest deficits in US history had been 2003/2004/2005 ... which totaled $1,108.6B for 3 years.

8 - If you subtract everything which you claim causes the deficit ... this year's deficit is greater than the 3 largest deficits of all time [i]EVEN WHEN YOU INCLUDE ALL FOUR ITEMS THAT YOU SAY MAKE UP THE ENTIRE DEFICIT IN THOSE YEARS YET EXCLUDE IT FROM THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT.

OH DEAR! (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

OH MY! (http://yossigestetner.com/2011/07/30/cbo-only-12-1-of-each-dollar-in-new-monthly-debt-is-from-bush-tax-cuts/)

GOOD GOSH! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War)

Snoopy's gonna be butt sore again. (https://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf)

Yep, he's really going to be really butt sore over this. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703361904576143253522341850.html)

Next ridiculous claim you want swatted down by the heavy leather of truth?

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 03:29 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: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, because we HAD been paying off the publicly held debt, with every extra dollar of SS surplus going to retire Treasury bonds, bills, and notes as they matured and came due. Over $500 billion in retired debt. </div></div>

Then why did the national debt rise each and every year of the Clinton regime?

Telling the lie doesn't make the lie true.

Telling the lie again doesn't make the lie true.

Telling the lie louder doesn't make the lie true.

Believing the lie doesn't make the lie true.

The lie is, by definition, untrue. </div></div>

I already mentioned something I hadn't before, which is the $1 trillion financed OFF BUDGET, but still on the debt, each year's financing paid with more debt upon debt.

Just not in the budget accounting, which you evidently think needs a new definition. But we have its definition, to your dismay and objection, and by those budget definitions, we know what a balance in the budget consists of, and we had those.

It's interesting that even given a budget balance, or budget surplus, as these are defined, the debt still may grow*, and thank you for noticing it. It's a relatively important and unknown fact, and one you should instruct the Tea Party in (it will blow their minds!).

Although you don't infer this*, the proper conclusion, and instead complain that REALLY there wasn't a balance or surplus, IF IT DOESN'T RESULT IN WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD RESULT IN.

But the problem is your insistence on things that aren't so. Get over yourself, and stop trying to rewrite the dictionary so that terms of art mean what you think they ought to.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 03:37 PM
You left off the 60% or so of the deficit, from the loss of $600 billion in revenues, and the large amount spent because of the recession toward benefits as prescribed by pre-existing law.

The loss of the 20+% range of gdp in revenues, to the 17-18% range under the better W years, to its collapse to 14-15% of gdp (and a far smaller gdp, in addition), add up to a very large figure indeed. 4% of even this reduced gdp number is around $500 billion a year, and that doesn't begin the accounting for the larger payouts in Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, or other social services.

For someone who might complain about static budget forecasting, you show zero understanding of these dynamic effects of the economy, and its reduction in income, and increase in expenditures.

Or that may be a tactical claim to not understand these things, because it is very hard indeed to put Obama to blame for the catastrophic near-collapse of the financial system and its resultant very bad recession.

If the recession itself, and its aftermath, this very sluggish recovery, are put into their rightful place as the leading causes of the current deficits (where they belong), then you'd have to concede not much blame for the new guy. Which of course you won't do, so you play stupid with these numbers.

Almost got away with it, as it's all anyone expects of your understanding.

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Even by this, under 2 years of Obama as POTUS we added more debt than in 8 years ofd Reagan, more than in 4 years of Bush the Elder, more than in 8 years of Clinton, and more than in 4 years of Bush the Younger.

If you assume the dollar in the '80s is the dollar now, you might have a point. (You still wouldn't, given that the extra debt incurred carries extra interest payments, or wars still on-going, or 4-year defense appropriations lagging the end of a given presidential term in which they were started, continue to cost a new president's budget their pounds of flesh, but leaving that aside...)

The more correct way would be to compare either real dollars (adjusted for inflation), or percentages of gdp increase, or percentages of total debt increase.

For instance, using constant dollars, Reagan didn't really triple the existing debt, but merely raised it 80%, in real terms. If the current levels of deficit and increased debt continue, O will have just about matched that by the end of his second term, although not by an arbitrary and optional program as Reagan did (doubling the defense budget for no particular reason), but out of necessity of this once-in-a-hundred years financial collapse.

Since the end of the various spending measures will be final this year or next, actually the deficit will fall on its own to half the current figure, so O's total will be considerably less than Reagan's on this measure.