Deficit Shrinks???

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch.

His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

Hello, your blatent false, deceptive and lie of a post should be cause for perma ban.

It you who is being deceptive dave, but that is not unusual.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

He also never ran deficits like the chimp has. Hell, nobody has. The 3 tops stops belong to the shrub! Take a few hundred billion from the SS surplus (yes, it runs a surplus right now at least for a few more years) from the Chimp and he approaches $700 Billion deficit in one year. Nice!

And graph is quite different when adjusted for inflation...

Regardless, he has outrun GDP by a mile. Between Reagan, Bush I and the shrub, our debt to GDP ratio has skyrocketed. And yes, I know that it's not at a historical high but that matters not. (Same as saying that shootings are not at a historical high so they don't matter).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

He also never ran deficits like the chimp has. Hell, nobody has. The 3 tops stops belong to the shrub! Take a few hundred billion from the SS surplus (yes, it runs a surplus right now at least for a few more years) from the Chimp and he approaches $700 Billion deficit in one year. Nice!

And graph is quite different when adjusted for inflation...

Regardless, he has outrun GDP by a mile. Between Reagan, Bush I and the shrub, our debt to GDP ratio has skyrocketed. And yes, I know that it's not at a historical high but that matters not. (Same as saying that shootings are not at a historical high so they don't matter).

When it comes to spending over the last 25 years, there is plenty of blame for both parties.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

:roll:

Thank you for displaying your ignorance.


<ahem>


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

See that first table there? The one labeled:

Table 1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2004

See that?

Scan down to 1998. See that last column of numbers? Mind telling us what those numbers are doing all the way up through FY2001?

You're confusing the entire national debt with fiscal year surpluses (which is what is meant when said that a surplus existed under the Clinton administration.) I can't imagine being able to eliminate the entire national debt in a matter of a few years, can you?

The reason the debt you showed kept rising was due mostly to the interest on the national debt.

Your chart only shows half the story. Public held debt is only one side of the debt equasion. You're completely ignoring the Intergovernmental Debt. My chart shows both sides added up. One side shows debt laid out in terms of bonds, t-bills, etc. When income falls short on this side of the equasion we talk bout the deficit. The other side lists money owed to various "trust fund" entities like social security. This money doesn't count against the general fund so it's not referred to when you talk about the deficit. They get around the fact that it's also in deficit by claiming all the IOU's as assets rather than interest accumulating debt. But the treasury HAS to count it as debt no matter what. Our total national debt is figured by adding the two together.

Here, this breaks it down for ya. Both sides accumulate debt (because one borrows from the other).

If you look at my original chart you'll see that the national debt increased by over $1.5 trillion under Clinton. Not to say that Dubbya is doing better, but the Clinton surpluses were an accounting trick. He got the surplus on the public debt side by transferring money from the intergovernmental side. There was never a surplus and the total national debt grew by 30% +/-

(Who is ignorant now?)

What's more, you're contradicting yourself. How can you have a surplus and still have the debt increase? If your debt gets larger you are not running a surplus. Interest had a little to do with it but the big factor was dipping into the social security fund and over spending.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

He also never ran deficits like the chimp has. Hell, nobody has. The 3 tops stops belong to the shrub! Take a few hundred billion from the SS surplus (yes, it runs a surplus right now at least for a few more years) from the Chimp and he approaches $700 Billion deficit in one year. Nice!

And graph is quite different when adjusted for inflation...

Regardless, he has outrun GDP by a mile. Between Reagan, Bush I and the shrub, our debt to GDP ratio has skyrocketed. And yes, I know that it's not at a historical high but that matters not. (Same as saying that shootings are not at a historical high so they don't matter).

When it comes to spending over the last 25 years, there is plenty of blame for both parties.

Ironicly, it seems a Democrat President paired with a GOP Congress seems to be the best at controlling spending during those 25 years.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

:roll:

Thank you for displaying your ignorance.


<ahem>


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

See that first table there? The one labeled:

Table 1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2004

See that?

Scan down to 1998. See that last column of numbers? Mind telling us what those numbers are doing all the way up through FY2001?

You're confusing the entire national debt with fiscal year surpluses (which is what is meant when said that a surplus existed under the Clinton administration.) I can't imagine being able to eliminate the entire national debt in a matter of a few years, can you?

The reason the debt you showed kept rising was due mostly to the interest on the national debt.

Your chart only shows half the story. Public held debt is only one side of the debt equasion. You're completely ignoring the Intergovernmental Debt. My chart shows both sides added up. One side shows debt laid out in terms of bonds, t-bills, etc. When income falls short on this side of the equasion we talk bout the deficit. The other side lists money owed to various "trust fund" entities like social security. This money doesn't count against the general fund so it's not referred to when you talk about the deficit. They get around the fact that it's also in deficit by claiming all the IOU's as assets rather than interest accumulating debt. But the treasury HAS to count it as debt no matter what. Our total national debt is figured by adding the two together.

Here, this breaks it down for ya. Both sides accumulate debt (because one borrows from the other).

If you look at my original chart you'll see that the national debt increased by over $1.5 trillion under Clinton. Not to say that Dubbya is doing better, but the Clinton surpluses were an accounting trick. He got the surplus on the public debt side by transferring money from the intergovernmental side. There was never a surplus and the total national debt grew by 30% +/-

(Who is ignorant now?)

What's more, you're contradicting yourself. How can you have a surplus and still have the debt increase? If your debt gets larger you are not running a surplus. Interest had a little to do with it but the big factor was dipping into the social security fund and over spending.

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
No no no... Have you read anything in this thread? Tax cuts do not decrease income to the government, they increase it. It worked for Kennedy. Under Reagan, tax revenues generated by the income tax doubled despite HUGE tax cuts. And the same thing is happening right now with Dubbya. The government is collecting MORE money after the tax cuts. ...

That is deceptive. Tax receipts have risen more or less steadily for most of the last century: after tax cuts, after tax increases, after no tax changes at all. This is a simple and obvious consequence of a growing economy and an inflating dollar. The valid question is how much did each tax cut reduce the rate of revenue growth.

The "tax cuts fuel growth" mantra has been faithfully parroted since the Reagonomics era, yet there is scant objective evidence it is true to any material extent, no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy. Economists are divided, to say the least. In short, the tax cut religion is based on speculation and faith, not good science.

National debt, on the other hand, places a very real and measurable drain on our economy, and is beginning to show a psychological impact on investors, foreign and domestic. If the world continues to lose confidence in America's financial health, we may lose the investment we need to sustain growth. This poses a much greater risk to the U.S. economy than moderately higher taxes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Engineer
Oh well.

Clinton never ran a surplus. That is one of the biggest urban legends ever. The national debt grew by over $1 Trillion on his watch. His so-called surpluses came from "borrowing" money from social security.

:roll:

Thank you for displaying your ignorance.


<ahem>


http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

See that first table there? The one labeled:

Table 1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2004

See that?

Scan down to 1998. See that last column of numbers? Mind telling us what those numbers are doing all the way up through FY2001?

You're confusing the entire national debt with fiscal year surpluses (which is what is meant when said that a surplus existed under the Clinton administration.) I can't imagine being able to eliminate the entire national debt in a matter of a few years, can you?

The reason the debt you showed kept rising was due mostly to the interest on the national debt.

Your chart only shows half the story. Public held debt is only one side of the debt equasion. You're completely ignoring the Intergovernmental Debt. My chart shows both sides added up. One side shows debt laid out in terms of bonds, t-bills, etc. When income falls short on this side of the equasion we talk bout the deficit. The other side lists money owed to various "trust fund" entities like social security. This money doesn't count against the general fund so it's not referred to when you talk about the deficit. They get around the fact that it's also in deficit by claiming all the IOU's as assets rather than interest accumulating debt. But the treasury HAS to count it as debt no matter what. Our total national debt is figured by adding the two together.

Here, this breaks it down for ya. Both sides accumulate debt (because one borrows from the other).

If you look at my original chart you'll see that the national debt increased by over $1.5 trillion under Clinton. Not to say that Dubbya is doing better, but the Clinton surpluses were an accounting trick. He got the surplus on the public debt side by transferring money from the intergovernmental side. There was never a surplus and the total national debt grew by 30% +/-

(Who is ignorant now?)

What's more, you're contradicting yourself. How can you have a surplus and still have the debt increase? If your debt gets larger you are not running a surplus. Interest had a little to do with it but the big factor was dipping into the social security fund and over spending.

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
No no no... Have you read anything in this thread? Tax cuts do not decrease income to the government, they increase it. It worked for Kennedy. Under Reagan, tax revenues generated by the income tax doubled despite HUGE tax cuts. And the same thing is happening right now with Dubbya. The government is collecting MORE money after the tax cuts. ...

That is deceptive. Tax receipts have risen more or less steadily for most of the last century: after tax cuts, after tax increases, after no tax changes at all. This is a simple and obvious consequence of a growing economy and an inflating dollar. The valid question is how much did each tax cut reduce the rate of revenue growth.

The "tax cuts fuel growth" mantra has been faithfully parroted since the Reagonomics era, yet there is scant objective evidence it is true to any material extent, no data to objectively quantify the specific impact of cuts compared to the hundreds of other factors affecting the economy. Economists are divided, to say the least. In short, the tax cut religion is based on speculation and faith, not good science.

National debt, on the other hand, places a very real and measurable drain on our economy, and is beginning to show a psychological impact on investors, foreign and domestic. If the world continues to lose confidence in America's financial health, we may lose the investment we need to sustain growth. This poses a much greater risk to the U.S. economy than moderately higher taxes.

Are you really trying to suggest that taxation has no provable effect on the economy? :disgust:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

And what happened to the economy after those "surpluses"?

 

[conjur]

The internet bubble burst which was beyond the control of Clinton or anyone else. It was doomed to fail. Esp. when Ebay at one point had a P/E ratio of over 11,000!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
The internet bubble burst which was beyond the control of Clinton or anyone else. It was doomed to fail. Esp. when Ebay at one point had a P/E ratio of over 11,000!

I'd say it was very much in his control.

Had he been as doom and gloom as you, the consumer/investor confidence would be held back to the point that all theat ridiculous optimism of the late 90's would have kept the markets under control, perhaps avoiding all the inflated companies that soon popped.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

And what happened to the economy after those "surpluses"?

So you're trying to say that deficits are a good thing?

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

And what happened to the economy after those "surpluses"?

So you're trying to say that deficits are a good thing?

I'm not saying they should be out of control, but some deficit spending helps the economy.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
The internet bubble burst which was beyond the control of Clinton or anyone else. It was doomed to fail. Esp. when Ebay at one point had a P/E ratio of over 11,000!

I'd say it was very much in his control.

Had he been as doom and gloom as you, the consumer/investor confidence would be held back to the point that all theat ridiculous optimism of the late 90's would have kept the markets under control, perhaps avoiding all the inflated companies that soon popped.

Interesting. Clinton controlled the entire dot-com industry? Neat trick!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

God I hate debate like this. You're comparing CBO numbers to Treasury numbers. :roll: So I'll say it one more time. You can't have a surplus if your debt is increasing. And under Clinton the national debt increased by $1.6 trillion dollars.

Calling Clinton's "surpluses", surpluses is EXACTLY like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card, putting it in the bank and then marveling at how much money you have in the bank. In order to do that you have to completely ignore the excess debt you created in the process. That... is insanity.

 

[conjur]

Go ahead and deny that FISCAL YEARLY SURPLUSES existed in two of Clinton's last three years. The proof is in the CBO's own numbers.

BTW, note the interest on the debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm


The deficit was being addressed under Clinton. It's been tossed aside, so far, by this administration. But, like Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

:roll:

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and deny that FISCAL YEARLY SURPLUSES existed in two of Clinton's last three years. The proof is in the CBO's own numbers.

BTW, note the interest on the debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm


The deficit was being addressed under Clinton. It's been tossed aside, so far, by this administration. But, like Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

:roll:

I guess we have a deal then. I'll continue to assert the fact that the Clinton surplus was an accounting trick and you can continue to ignore the fact that the national debt ballooned by 30% under Clinton.

As for this administration the deficit is being addressed. As matter of fact it's shrinking faster than predicted.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

And what happened to the economy after those "surpluses"?

So you're trying to say that deficits are a good thing?

I'm not saying they should be out of control, but some deficit spending helps the economy.

What we're doing right now is NOT "some", it's ridiculous.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and deny that FISCAL YEARLY SURPLUSES existed in two of Clinton's last three years. The proof is in the CBO's own numbers.

BTW, note the interest on the debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm


The deficit was being addressed under Clinton. It's been tossed aside, so far, by this administration. But, like Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

:roll:

I guess we have a deal then. I'll continue to assert the fact that the Clinton surplus was an accounting trick and you can continue to ignore the fact that the national debt ballooned by 30% under Clinton.

As for this administration the deficit is being addressed. As matter of fact it's shrinking faster than predicted.

You can ASSert all you want.

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

That's a 31.6% rise. Most of that was in the first couple of years as his adminstration worked to undo the effects of voodoo economics. But, his 2nd term saw:

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

7.3% increase for four years.



Now, what has the Propagandist done for the debt...let's see:

09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
07/12/2005 $7,843,596,586,237.71

35.1% increase in LESS than 4 years!!

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Back to my link. See that fourth column. The one titled "On-Budget"?

Scroll down to 1999 and 2000. Are those numbers Positive or Negative?

Good lord... I guess it's ok to ignore certain realities if they don't support your view. :roll: Those numbers went down because he was dipping into SS. It's called robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's like taking a huge cash advance off your credit card and then saying "Gee, look at all the money I have!" What's more, if we just follow your ridiculous point a little further, are we supposed to believe that the national debt was only $3.5 trillion +/- in the late 90's? IT WAS AN ACCOUNTING TRICK. THE NATIONAL DEBT GREW BY $1.6 TRILLION UNDER CLINTON. You're wrong, get over it.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you. Apparently you need the Reader Rabbit version.

From the 1999 and 2000 numbers from: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

(Amounts are in billions)
Year: 1999
Revenues: 1,827.5
Outlays: 1,701.9
Social Security: 124.7
On-Budget: 1.9

Year: 2000
Revenues: 2,025.2
Outlays: 1,789.1
Social Security: 151.8
On-Budget: 86.3


You see that "On-Budget" value? That's without Social Security's surplus in the picture.

The last two fiscal years under Clinton a yearly fiscal surplus existed.

And what happened to the economy after those "surpluses"?

So you're trying to say that deficits are a good thing?

I'm not saying they should be out of control, but some deficit spending helps the economy.

What we're doing right now is NOT "some", it's ridiculous.

I'm not disagreeing with that, never have

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and deny that FISCAL YEARLY SURPLUSES existed in two of Clinton's last three years. The proof is in the CBO's own numbers.

BTW, note the interest on the debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm


The deficit was being addressed under Clinton. It's been tossed aside, so far, by this administration. But, like Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

:roll:

I guess we have a deal then. I'll continue to assert the fact that the Clinton surplus was an accounting trick and you can continue to ignore the fact that the national debt ballooned by 30% under Clinton.

As for this administration the deficit is being addressed. As matter of fact it's shrinking faster than predicted.

You can ASSert all you want.

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

That's a 31.6% rise. Most of that was in the first couple of years as his adminstration worked to undo the effects of voodoo economics. But, his 2nd term saw:

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

7.3% increase for four years.



Now, what has the Propagandist done for the debt...let's see:

09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
07/12/2005 $7,843,596,586,237.71

35.1% increase in LESS than 4 years!!

Oh... are we changing the subject now? Just admit you're wrong. It will do your soul good.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and deny that FISCAL YEARLY SURPLUSES existed in two of Clinton's last three years. The proof is in the CBO's own numbers.

BTW, note the interest on the debt:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm


The deficit was being addressed under Clinton. It's been tossed aside, so far, by this administration. But, like Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

:roll:

I guess we have a deal then. I'll continue to assert the fact that the Clinton surplus was an accounting trick and you can continue to ignore the fact that the national debt ballooned by 30% under Clinton.

As for this administration the deficit is being addressed. As matter of fact it's shrinking faster than predicted.

You can ASSert all you want.

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

That's a 31.6% rise. Most of that was in the first couple of years as his adminstration worked to undo the effects of voodoo economics. But, his 2nd term saw:

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

7.3% increase for four years.



Now, what has the Propagandist done for the debt...let's see:

09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
07/12/2005 $7,843,596,586,237.71

35.1% increase in LESS than 4 years!!

I agree, the deficit is pathetically ridiculous. However, I don't put all the blame on Bush. Some is his for refusing to get spending under control, but the recession sure didn't help either.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Oh... are we changing the subject now? Just admit you're wrong. It will do your soul good.

Not changing anything. Unless you're saying the CBO is full of liars.

But, go ahead and rail on Clinton for reining in the deficit while the Propagandist has obliterated any kind of spending controls.