The Night They Dumbed Our Country Down

[pocketfullofshells]

Just to keep it simple, lets say the national debt is $10 total. We run a deficit of $1 this year. $1 is then added to the debt making it $11. Next year we run a surplus of $1, if we put that surplus towards our debt, our national debt is reduced by $1 and is now $10. If we do not put it towards our debt, the debt remains at $11 and does not go up.


No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt WENT DOWN in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .because there was a surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!
Remember those figures that I posted just today?

Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 , 66.1% Deficit 65.4% +1,018 -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0%




Do you think that may be why the national debt went down by 9.7% between 1993 and 2001 (see above figures!)

You have gone from claiming a budget surplus to claiming a decrease in the budget deficit.

NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%


Bush is a red herring, we're talking about the supposed "surplus" of the Clinton years, a "surplus" that magically added to the national debt.

Can you read graphs, charts, tables?

Can you tell me what the numbers I provided (twice now) mean?
It demonstrate that there was a surplus, and that the national debt went down under Clinto, while it sky rocketed under Bush.[/QUOTE]


the Econ in the 90's was bad because there was a Dem, it was good in the 00's because there was a Republican...why don't you get that that is all the facts needed for some?

 

[BigRob]

NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%

Can you read graphs, charts, tables?

Do you think that may be why the national debt went down by 9.7% between 1993 and 2001

How can we take your comments seriously when Treasury states the following:

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69

How in the world is an increase of 1.4 trillion a decrease of 9.7%?

 

[Openmind]

You're missing the point...

A surplus would mean that we are NOT adding to the national debt. The national debt only increases when a deficit is added to it.

Just to keep it simple, lets say the national debt is $10 total. We run a deficit of $1 this year. $1 is then added to the debt making it $11. Next year we run a surplus of $1, if we put that surplus towards our debt, our national debt is reduced by $1 and is now $10. If we do not put it towards our debt, the debt remains at $11 and does not go up.


No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt WENT DOWN in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .because there was a surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!
Remember those figures that I posted just today?

Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 , 66.1% Deficit 65.4% +1,018 -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0%

A budget surplus would not add to the debt.

Do you think that may be why the national debt went down by 9.7% between 1993 and 2001 (see above figures!)

You have gone from claiming a budget surplus to claiming a decrease in the budget deficit.

NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%


Bush is a red herring, we're talking about the supposed "surplus" of the Clinton years, a "surplus" that magically added to the national debt.[/QUOTE]

Can you read graphs, charts, tables?

Can you tell me what the numbers I provided (twice now) mean?
It demonstrate that there was a surplus, and that the national debt went down under Clinton, while it sky rocketed under Bush.

 

[BigRob]

No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt WENT DOWN in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .because there was a surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!

This has been entirely discounted by Treasury: It is time to admit it.

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69

Do you think that may be why the national debt went down by 9.7% between 1993 and 2001 (see above figures!)

You have gone from claiming a budget surplus to claiming a decrease in the budget deficit.

NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%

This has been entirely discounted by Treasury: It is time to admit it.

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69

On what planet is an increase of $1.4 trillion dollars a 9.7% decrease?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

 

[Openmind]

This has been entirely discounted by Treasury: It is time to admit it.

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69



This has been entirely discounted by Treasury: It is time to admit it.

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69

On what planet is an increase of $1.4 trillion dollars a 9.7% decrease?

The national debt increased was EXTREMELY SMALL (much smaller than under ANY Republican presidents) AND DECREASED as a % of the GDP by 9.7%.

While, under Bush, the national debt sky rocketed!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How can we take your comments seriously when Treasury states the following:

Debt as of FY1993: 4,411,488,883,139.38
Debt as of FY2001: 5,821,971,462,166.69

How in the world is an increase of 1.4 trillion a decrease of 9.7%?

you can look at the numbers by year?

for the full 8 years, it may have gone up...the fact is they where strongly in the red before he took office, and the first few in office...but they where getting less and less...and then when Blue and above...had This path kept going, we would have been paying off debt, but we Elected a republican...and republicans do 2 things..>Spend and cut taxes...and of course we know what happened.

Show me one point on that chart in the last 20 years where the Recipts are higher then outlays...while a Republican was in office...I can for a Dem.

 

[GenSeneca]

On what planet is an increase of $1.4 trillion dollars a 9.7% decrease?

In terms of the debt as a % of GDP, it did "decrease" because of the much higher GDP. Even if not one single penny had been added to the debt, after the collapse of the dot com bubble the GDP took a nose dive and, therefore, debt as a % of GDP would have "increased", even though the actual dollar amount would not have changed. In terms of actual dollars, the debt increased by $1.4 trillion under Clinton, meaning there was no surplus. A surplus does not add to the debt.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In terms of the debt as a % of GDP, it did "decrease" because of the much higher GDP. Even if not one single penny had been added to the debt, after the collapse of the dot com bubble the GDP took a nose dive and, therefore, debt as a % of GDP would have "increased", even though the actual dollar amount would not have changed. In terms of actual dollars, the debt increased by $1.4 trillion under Clinton, meaning there was no surplus. A surplus does not add to the debt.

Again...over 8 years...take the last few years and what do you have...? Surplus

 

[GenSeneca]

republicans do 2 things..>Spend and cut taxes...and of course we know what happened.

Is Obama a closet Republican? He's spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8, he's continued the Bush tax cuts and even "cut" taxes for "95%" of "working Americans"....

 

[Openmind]

The actual numbers from the United States Treasury (you know, the group that oversees all of this) directly contradict your above statement...how do you explain that?

Total Debt as of FY1993: $4,411,488,883,139.38
Total Debt as of FY 2000: $5,675,479,560,020.27

So that is a "decrease" of how much?

It is obviously not a decrease, however there was a DECREASE in terms of debt in % of GDP of 9.7% under Clinton.

While, under Bush, there was an INCREASE of Debt in % of GDP of 27.8%

The Debt is ONLY significant when compared to the GDP. . .
Just as, if a family with an income of $50,000 a year, but with a debt of only $1,000, is "better off" in term of ability to meet it's debt and to obtain credit than a person with an income of $100,000 but with a debt of $80,000.


And, Clinton's policies (as well as MOST OTHER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS' policies) have allowed the debt to stay relatively low compared to the GDP. . .while under Bush, and now under Obama (because of the down turn in the economy due to Bush's policies) the amount of debt has not only sky rocketed (almost doubled under Bush 8 years with an increase in National debt of almost $5 trillions), but the ratio to the GDP has also sky rocketed. . .which is obviously a lot more serious than "the debt" considered on its own!

 

[BigRob]

The national debt increased was EXTREMELY SMALL (much smaller than under ANY Republican presidents) AND DECREASED as a % of the GDP by 9.7%.

While, under Bush, the national debt sky rocketed!

We are disussing whether Clinton had a surplus. Bush, or any other President is not relevant to this debate.

That said, measuring the debt as a % of GDP does not negate an increase in the debt. All that means is that inflation rose faster than the debt itself. If you owe someone $10 and earn $5, and then you owe someone $11 and earn $6, you have not decreased your debt load, or run a surplus of any kind.

 

[BigRob]

Again...over 8 years...take the last few years and what do you have...? Surplus

No, in fact you do not. In fact, according to Treasury, there is not a single fiscal year from 1993 to 2001 in which we ran a surplus.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Is Obama a closet Republican? He's spent more in 3 years than Bush did in 8, he's continued the Bush tax cuts and even "cut" taxes for "95%" of "working Americans"....

he did not keep Bush tax Cuts because he wanted to, your idiot Republicans put a gun to his head and said they would cut off unemployment to millions if he did not. You may not have noticed this, but before Obama took office...ummm well things kinda went to ****. You know the banks Fell, the housing market fell, Unemployment starting going up fast ( I know you like to pretend all these things happened after he took office, but facts are facts...)

TARP was passed under Bush..the Spending much of it, went out under Obama...its a nice trick Bush Writes the Check, but its Cashed under Obama...Blame Obama for the Check....

"Obama took office in January 2009. But the federal budget works on a fiscal year from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 of each year. So a third of the 2009 fiscal year had passed before Obama even took office.

So the spending for 2009 was largely determined by a Congress controlled by Democrats and a Republican president. The omnibus spending bill was held over and signed by Obama, who added $20 billion in discretionary spending. But that's hardly a blip in the scheme of things.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Obama administration inherited a deficit of more than $1.2 trillion the day it walked in the door."


And lets just look at this "spending" Money to Bail out Auto Companies ( who have now come back and are doing well proving jobs and helping our Econ while paying much of this back)....A auto Industry that fell apart Before Obama took office...I am guessing you would cry about the Unemployment jump if he let them fail...and complain about spending money to save them to keep the jobs...so its not like he could have ever made you happy...

Money to help spur housing Sales for new homeowners...Again to try to fix the Housing Collapse that happened...wait for it....before he ever took office...

Spending on 2 wars he did not start....One by Bush's choice and one that he Failed to care about or try to Finnish letting it get worse and worse untill someone else stepping in, decided to actuly fight it and killed that OBL guy...

Stimulus Package ( 40% tax Cuts)....again trying to Jump start the econ that Died before he took office..

Basicly the majority of this spending is...trying to repair what fell apart in the 8 years with a republican in the white house...

Why not care about the cause not the guy trying to cure the problems? I know because of the (R) behind the guys name.

 

[GenSeneca]

Let's say I earn $25k/yr. That's my GDP.

I have $10k in debt. I pay off none of it.

I get a raise and now earn $34,030/yr

My debt as a % of GDP had just been decreased by 9.7% without paying off a single penny of my debt.

I get fired and go on unemployment earning $20k/yr

I do not add a single penny to my debt.

My debt as a % of GDP has just skyrocketed to 50% of GDP, even though I've not actually increased my debt.

take the last few years and what do you have...? Surplus - Pocket

US Treasury Figures

Debt 1997: 5.42 Trillion
Debt 2000: 5.66 Trillion

Those are figures from the "last few years" when we were running a "surplus", yet the national debt increased by over $240 billion dollars.... How do we end up adding to the debt when we're supposed to have a "surplus" has yet to be explained.