Deficit Shrinks???

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train
1. Employment up. Your just flat out being retarted now, because its already been beat to death in a dozen other threads that 150k is "equilibrium". And we have beat that by over 30k per month on average over the past year and a half.

Hmm...interesting. The last two months missed it with May missing it badly. Also, last month showed a 24,000 drop in manufacturing jobs.

2. Spending under control. Yep, I would say that. only 7% increase in spending this year while revenues are up 41%. Numbers that are that far apart are difficult to spin.

WTF? Receipts were up 15%. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p17s01-cogn.html

Receipts were up 15 percent from last year.

And, a spending increase is still bad. It's still deficit spending. Our defense (on-budget) is already more than the rest of the world's COMBINED. Spending needs to be cut big-time.

3. Employment Number is obsolete? Why because you dont like it? So what if it was changed at the start of 2003, even if you invalidate all previous data, its still the lowest its been in over 2 and a half years.

Because it's a meaningless stat at this point. It's based on a survey of individuals. If someone is working part-time they are not considered unemployed. If someone has taken a pay cut as their job was outsourced or downsized, they are not considered unemployed. The average worker is getting raises at or below the rate of inflation and more and more workers are taking jobs that do not offer benefits. This is hurting the working class more and more.

4. Deficit is shrinking. Fact. you even agreed on it. Then threw in the "long way to go" spin. Well "long" is an objective term, but either way, we are ahead of schedule for the 2009 goal.

Well, let's see what things look like with the Iraq war supplementals. Want to add those back in?

5. Dollar up... for the 1st time in 7 days, you got me there, but I'm more intersted in the 20% it has gained so far this year against the Euro.

20%? Hmm...
http://today.reuters.co.uk/investing/fi...H76277_2005-07-13_16-37-50_N13443587:1

So far this year, the dollar has shrugged off concerns about structural weakness in the U.S. economy, such as the current account deficit, and gained about 10 percent versus the euro as investors have sought to benefit from rising U.S. interest rates.

6. Exports up. If you want to factor in high oil here, and use it for your spin, then you'd have to allow it for factoring into the CPI, which you have not in the Wage vs CPI arguments in many of other threads, so sorry pal, cant have your cake and eat it too. Exports are up, period.

WTF are you talking about? Go look at the numbers. Wages are barely keeping pace with inflation. There's no spin involved.

It just sickens you that things are getting better doesnt it? You'd rather see the country fall apart to satisfy your partisan rage than to actually see it succeed.

No. I'd love to see a truly booming economy but aren't anywhere near it. There are mixed messages all over the place on several different fronts. I'm just being realistic in the face of all of the wanna-be propagandists.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train
1. Employment up. Your just flat out being retarted now, because its already been beat to death in a dozen other threads that 150k is "equilibrium". And we have beat that by over 30k per month on average over the past year and a half.

Hmm...interesting. The last two months missed it with May missing it badly. Also, last month showed a 24,000 drop in manufacturing jobs.

2. Spending under control. Yep, I would say that. only 7% increase in spending this year while revenues are up 41%. Numbers that are that far apart are difficult to spin.

WTF? Receipts were up 15%. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/p17s01-cogn.html

Receipts were up 15 percent from last year.

And, a spending increase is still bad. It's still deficit spending. Our defense (on-budget) is already more than the rest of the world's COMBINED. Spending needs to be cut big-time.

3. Employment Number is obsolete? Why because you dont like it? So what if it was changed at the start of 2003, even if you invalidate all previous data, its still the lowest its been in over 2 and a half years.

Because it's a meaningless stat at this point. It's based on a survey of individuals. If someone is working part-time they are not considered unemployed. If someone has taken a pay cut as their job was outsourced or downsized, they are not considered unemployed. The average worker is getting raises at or below the rate of inflation and more and more workers are taking jobs that do not offer benefits. This is hurting the working class more and more.

4. Deficit is shrinking. Fact. you even agreed on it. Then threw in the "long way to go" spin. Well "long" is an objective term, but either way, we are ahead of schedule for the 2009 goal.

Well, let's see what things look like with the Iraq war supplementals. Want to add those back in?

5. Dollar up... for the 1st time in 7 days, you got me there, but I'm more intersted in the 20% it has gained so far this year against the Euro.

20%? Hmm...
http://today.reuters.co.uk/investing/fi...H76277_2005-07-13_16-37-50_N13443587:1

So far this year, the dollar has shrugged off concerns about structural weakness in the U.S. economy, such as the current account deficit, and gained about 10 percent versus the euro as investors have sought to benefit from rising U.S. interest rates.

6. Exports up. If you want to factor in high oil here, and use it for your spin, then you'd have to allow it for factoring into the CPI, which you have not in the Wage vs CPI arguments in many of other threads, so sorry pal, cant have your cake and eat it too. Exports are up, period.

WTF are you talking about? Go look at the numbers. Wages are barely keeping pace with inflation. There's no spin involved.

It just sickens you that things are getting better doesnt it? You'd rather see the country fall apart to satisfy your partisan rage than to actually see it succeed.

No. I'd love to see a truly booming economy but aren't anywhere near it. There are mixed messages all over the place on several different fronts. I'm just being realistic in the face of all of the wanna-be propagandists.

You're not being realistic. You are being overly pessimistic in responce to what you believe to be overly optimistic conservatives.

 

[conjur]

I just flat-out disproved two of Train's claims by clicking on one of the links in this thread and doing a 3-second Google search.

And I'm the unrealistic one?

:roll:

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur



I just flat-out disproved two of Train's claims by clicking on one of the links in this thread and doing a 3-second Google search.

And I'm the unrealistic one?

:roll:

Yet, you didn't prove your claims. You say employment isn't up, and yet the last year and a half, or around there, we have been averaging 180k jobs per month. One month of "only" 90k jobs doesn't mean the economy is somehow bad. You seemingly "disprove" his claims, and yet leave your claims unproven...

 

[conjur]

No, I said unemployment isn't down. And, the last two months have been below necessary levels. And, real wages are not burning up any charts either (unless you're a CEO)

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, I said unemployment isn't down. And, the last two months have been below necessary levels. And, real wages are not burning up any charts either (unless you're a CEO)

Unemployment isn't down? It went down .1% last month. It's at it's lowest levels since 9/11. Please don't cite your same old crap about unemployment rate not mattering, its just more lies from you. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, month to month, the "neccesary levels" might change?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well technically thanks to some of the corruption and I emphasize only some of the corruption, getting knocked down, that a very small fraction of trickle down that only works from the rich to more of the very rich is actually starting to be seen.

Trickle down does not make it down to the common man, never has and never will.

I'll call BS on that one. It has more than trickled down on me.

Edit: Perhaps I should elaborate...

The owner of my store recently expanded and opened a second location. I now manage that store. Had he been taxed to the max and lacking in capital, I'd still be passing my days in another store making less than I make now.

Trickle down... In full Effect

So are you saying your boss is skirting his tax responsibility???

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well technically thanks to some of the corruption and I emphasize only some of the corruption, getting knocked down, that a very small fraction of trickle down that only works from the rich to more of the very rich is actually starting to be seen.

Trickle down does not make it down to the common man, never has and never will.

I'll call BS on that one. It has more than trickled down on me.

Edit: Perhaps I should elaborate...

The owner of my store recently expanded and opened a second location. I now manage that store. Had he been taxed to the max and lacking in capital, I'd still be passing my days in another store making less than I make now.

Trickle down... In full Effect

So are you saying your boss is skirting his tax responsibility???

No, he's saying the tax cuts helped his boss, which in turn helped him.

 

[nageov3t]

I for one think it's good.

but it also remains to be seen whether it's a trend or just a blip.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur
No, I said unemployment isn't down. And, the last two months have been below necessary levels. And, real wages are not burning up any charts either (unless you're a CEO)

Unemployment isn't down? It went down .1% last month. It's at it's lowest levels since 9/11. Please don't cite your same old crap about unemployment rate not mattering, its just more lies from you. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, month to month, the "neccesary levels" might change?

What's the U-6 value? Hmm?? HMMM??

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Well technically thanks to some of the corruption and I emphasize only some of the corruption, getting knocked down, that a very small fraction of trickle down that only works from the rich to more of the very rich is actually starting to be seen.

Trickle down does not make it down to the common man, never has and never will.

I'll call BS on that one. It has more than trickled down on me.

Edit: Perhaps I should elaborate...

The owner of my store recently expanded and opened a second location. I now manage that store. Had he been taxed to the max and lacking in capital, I'd still be passing my days in another store making less than I make now.

Trickle down... In full Effect

So are you saying your boss is skirting his tax responsibility???

Actually it's exactly the opposite. Rather than just sit on the money he saved from his tax cut, he invested the money in a second store front. That second store front generates more taxable revenue (so he's paying MORE in taxes now) and created new jobs. These jobs were filled by employees whose income is also taxed. By reinvesting his tax savings he has, in effect, placed himself in a posistion to pay even more tax than if he had just sat on his winfall.

So he's not skirting his tax responsibility, he's taking on even more tax liability! Doesn't that make you feel better?

 

[gutharius]

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Doesn't matter we will still be piling on the debt.

The problem isn't reducing the deficit the porblem is getting our selves OUT of DEBT. This is a problem that was being fixed in Clintons years but was destroyed by the tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Doesn't matter we will still be piling on the debt.

The problem isn't reducing the deficit the porblem is getting our selves OUT of DEBT. This is a problem that was being fixed in Clintons years but was destroyed by the tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush.

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.

Our problem isn't government income... It's government spending. (That and a little thing happened back in September of 2001. Remember that? A bunch of a-holes flew some planes into a few buildings. The result was a net loss of $1 trillion lost in the economy and a million jobs. We're still in the recovery from that and paying for the resultant war.)

And you're right... we DO need to dig ourselves out of this hole. But the only way to do it is to grow our way out. You don't grow an economy by raising taxes. You grow it by reducing taxes. Please see my post above as a real life example of how this works.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Doesn't matter we will still be piling on the debt.

The problem isn't reducing the deficit the porblem is getting our selves OUT of DEBT. This is a problem that was being fixed in Clintons years but was destroyed by the tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush.

Fixed by Clinton? Really?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CMDEBT_10yrs.png

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Doesn't matter we will still be piling on the debt.

The problem isn't reducing the deficit the porblem is getting our selves OUT of DEBT. This is a problem that was being fixed in Clintons years but was destroyed by the tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush.

Fixed by Clinton? Really?
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CMDEBT_10yrs.png

I think he was talking about the national debt from a governmental stand point. Not consumer credit card debt. (Your chart)

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: gutharius

Originally posted by: maluckey
CNN

National Review

Christian Science Monitor

Why is this not getting much coverage on the AT Forums?? If it continues at half this rate, then it will be more than Bush promised.

Doesn't matter we will still be piling on the debt.

The problem isn't reducing the deficit the porblem is getting our selves OUT of DEBT. This is a problem that was being fixed in Clintons years but was destroyed by the tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush.

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.

Our problem isn't government income... It's government spending. (That and a little thing happened back in September of 2001. Remember that? A bunch of a-holes flew some planes into a few buildings. The result was a net loss of $1 trillion lost in the economy and a million jobs. We're still in the recovery from that and paying for the resultant war.)

And you're right... we DO need to dig ourselves out of this hole. But the only way to do it is to grow our way out. You don't grow an economy by raising taxes. You grow it by reducing taxes. Please see my post above as a real life example of how this works.

I agree completely.

See laffer curve.

government can maximize tax revenue by setting a tax rate at the peak of this curve. The curve is clearly accurate at both extremes of taxation --zero percent and one-hundred percent-- where the government collects no revenue. At one extreme, a 0% tax rate means the government's revenue is, of course, zero. At the other, where there is a 100% tax rate, the government collects zero revenue because taxpayers have no incentive to work or avoid taxes and the government collects 100% of nothing. Somewhere between 0% and 100%, therefore, lies a tax rate percentage that will maximize revenue.

The point at which the curve achieves its maximum will vary from one economy to the next and is subject to much theoretical speculation. Another contentious issue is whether a government should try to maximise its revenue in the first place.

Pic of the curve

 

[Engineer]

Oh well.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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.

Whatever dude. Congress has been borrowing from social security since it started running a significant surplus in the early 90's.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

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.

Whatever dude. Congress has been borrowing from social security since it started running a significant surplus in the early 90's.

So I can "officially" accuse Bush and the GOP of running even bigger deficits than shown! :thumbsup:

*BAH*

 

[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...

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

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.

Whatever dude. Congress has been borrowing from social security since it started running a significant surplus in the early 90's.

It was actually LBJ(D) who made the changes needed for congress to spend the SS surpluses....