The Night They Dumbed Our Country Down

[GenSeneca]

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

So yes, Obama is following the Establishment Republican model of increased spending and tax cuts. See, that's all you had to say.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

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.

" the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So yes, Obama is following the Establishment Republican model of increased spending and tax cuts. See, that's all you had to say.

Well since we can't just have all you right wingers executed, there had to be tax decreases...And I know you where screaming for Obama to get rid of the tax Cuts Under Bush durring a Recession ..you know to pay down the debt,


Wait In your world the Bush tax Cuts bring in more money...so why is it when Obama extends its all of the sudden adding to the debt?


Wait I see...Tax Cuts under Republicans = More taxes come in
Tax Cuts under Dems equal less tax money comes in.

Its good you have your story straight.

 

[Openmind]

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.

So, Clinton "increased" the debt by a total of:

1.533 Billions in 8 years But DECREASED the % of debt to GDP by 10.3% to a total of 56.4% of GDP

Prior to Clinton. . .let's see what the "Republican God" did:

Reagan INCREASED the National debt in 8 years by 1.873 Billions to 53.1% of GDP
then,
Bush 1. . .in ONLY 4 YEARS INCREASED the National debt by 1.483 Billions (almost as much as Clinton in 8 years!) to 66.1% of GDP (please note, that it was a LARGER part of the GDP then after Clinton)

and Bush 2. . .really hit the jackpot! He increased the national debt by a "mere" 6.106 Billions. . .to represent 84.2% of GDP. A 31.1% increase over Clinton!

Now, if you want to compare "just the last couple of years of Bush versus Clinton"

Bush increased the National debt between 2005 and 2009 by 3,971 TRILLIONS. . .compare that with the 22 BILLIONS increase in National Debt under Clinton between 1997 and 2000.

 

[Gipper]

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.

No Bush is relevant, but only for the left to make illogical complaints about.

The lefties love to claim BJ Bubba had a surplus (which we know is wrong), while condemning Bush for blowing up the deficit. And yet, they never complain about Obama who has blown up the deficit far more then Bush and did it in just 3 years. In fact, they love Obama.

What can we conclude from this illogical thinking?

 

[Openmind]

No Bush is relevant, but only for the left to make illogical complaints about.

The lefties love to claim BJ Bubba had a surplus (which we know is wrong), while condemning Bush for blowing up the deficit. And yet, they never complain about Obama who has blown up the deficit far more then Bush and did it in just 3 years. In fact, they love Obama.

What can we conclude from this illogical thinking?

so, can you remind me why this "Clinton's presidency" came up again inthis thread,and WHY the "surplus"or "lack of surplus" is so important?

 

[BigRob]

so, can you remind me why this "Clinton's presidency" came up again inthis thread,and WHY the "surplus"or "lack of surplus" is so important?

It came up because FatherTime declared that Bush was left with a massive surplus and managed to throw it all away and drive the country into ruin.

He stated, "Bush took over with a government surplus and the previous administration creating a huge amount of jobs. He left bailing out the banks and with the country on the brink of depression, the worst financial situation since the 30s. Your logic doesn't include that. Your version of "logic" is rightwing Limbaugh loon dogma." - FatherTime

He then followed it up with: "It is a known fact that Clinton left with a surplus, this is unquestioned. Even articles saying that there is some debate about how large the surplus was admit that he left the country in great economic shape. You can state some conspiratorial theory but then again you probably think Obama was born in the Congo too. -FatherTime

After this post, I responded with a breakdown of the actual debt figures straight from the United States government....which in fact showed the exact opposite of FatherTime's statements.

He responded, "I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now." -FatherTime

And, "It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats." -FatherTime

You then stated "The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency" - Openmind

Also, "How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?" -Openmind

And, "No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt was decreased in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .by the amount of the surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!" - Openmind

And, "NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%" -Openmind

You, Openmind, were a main voice in continuing to talk about a "surplus", which is why it must continue to be discussed. The simple fact (as easily seen from our government's own figures) shows that we never a surplus, and added to the debt every single year.

And according to FatherTime, for simply pointing this out (using Treasury figures) I am a person who "think Obama was born in the Congo" and full of conspiracy theories. It is a shame he has left and will not be back to attempt to back up his absurd position on the matter.

 

[BigRob]

" the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

Pocket...the actual Treasury numbers do now show a single Fiscal Year in which the debt went down at all.

 

[Openmind]

Pocket...the actual Treasury numbers do now show a single Fiscal Year in which the debt went down at all.

NO, but it shows several years (12, I believe, 8 at least under Clinton) when the debt as a percentage of the GDP when DOWN drastically. . .and other years when the debt as percentage of the GDP sky rocketed!

And. . .the years when the debt as a % of the GDP where the highest are ALL Republican years. . .except for the Obama presidency, because he inherited the terrible economy, and couldn't fix it all in 2 years of his own budget, without bringing terrible hardship and slowing down the economy even further!

 

[Openmind]

It came up because FatherTime declared that Bush was left with a massive surplus and managed to throw it all away and drive the country into ruin.

He stated, "Bush took over with a government surplus and the previous administration creating a huge amount of jobs. He left bailing out the banks and with the country on the brink of depression, the worst financial situation since the 30s. Your logic doesn't include that. Your version of "logic" is rightwing Limbaugh loon dogma." - FatherTime

He then followed it up with: "It is a known fact that Clinton left with a surplus, this is unquestioned. Even articles saying that there is some debate about how large the surplus was admit that he left the country in great economic shape. You can state some conspiratorial theory but then again you probably think Obama was born in the Congo too. -FatherTime

After this post, I responded with a breakdown of the actual debt figures straight from the United States government....which in fact showed the exact opposite of FatherTime's statements.

He responded, "I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now." -FatherTime

And, "It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats." -FatherTime

You then stated "The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency" - Openmind

Also, "How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?" -Openmind

And, "No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt was decreased in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .by the amount of the surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!" - Openmind

And, "NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%" -Openmind

You, Openmind, were a main voice in continuing to talk about a "surplus", which is why it must continue to be discussed. The simple fact (as easily seen from our government's own figures) shows that we never a surplus, and added to the debt every single year.

And according to FatherTime, for simply pointing this out (using Treasury figures) I am a person who "think Obama was born in the Congo" and full of conspiracy theories. It is a shame he has left and will not be back to attempt to back up his absurd position on the matter.

I obviously misspoke when I said the National debt went down under Clinton. . .but it is obvious that it didn't grow at the same rate than it had done before or after Clinton, and that if the trend had continued, we would have seen a decline.

It is also true that Clinton's spending was MUCH lower than the Republican President before and after him.

I believe that there are a LOT Of misleading information and downright LIES being spread daily by the Right, including in this forum, and when those are shown with FACTUAL information, the thread is "just dropped," and those who spread those lies (or "mistakes") never own up to it.

At least, I DO!

And I do not think that there is any excuse for a poster to tell another poster that he should go away because he disagree with the "majority" party line in this forum.

You know very well that it has happened to me several times, but because of my temperament, it only reinforces my conviction that this is one of the place where I choose to post.

However, some people can only take so much abuse. EVERYONE can make a mistake. . .only the best of us will recognize and ADMIT a mistake.

 

[BigRob]

NO, but it shows several years (12, I believe, 8 at least under Clinton) when the debt as a percentage of the GDP when DOWN drastically. . .and other years when the debt as percentage of the GDP sky rocketed!

As I said, there is not a single Fiscal Year under Clinton in which we did not increase the national debt.

If I take your assertion, that debt really doesn't matter, and all that matters is debt as a percentage of GDP, then I can logically take from that you feel we can grow our way out of debt problems, and therefore deficits, and by extension debt, don't matter?

And if this is the case, why should we care at all what the deficit and debt are, as long as we try to enact pro-growth policies?

And. . .the years when the debt as a % of the GDP where the highest are ALL Republican years. . .except for the Obama presidency, because he inherited the terrible economy, and couldn't fix it all in 2 years of his own budget, without bringing terrible hardship and slowing down the economy even further!

Again, we are discussing a different issue entirely...why you keep bringing this up is beyond me.

 

[Openmind]

It came up because FatherTime declared that Bush was left with a massive surplus and managed to throw it all away and drive the country into ruin.

He stated, "Bush took over with a government surplus and the previous administration creating a huge amount of jobs. He left bailing out the banks and with the country on the brink of depression, the worst financial situation since the 30s. Your logic doesn't include that. Your version of "logic" is rightwing Limbaugh loon dogma." - FatherTime

He then followed it up with: "It is a known fact that Clinton left with a surplus, this is unquestioned. Even articles saying that there is some debate about how large the surplus was admit that he left the country in great economic shape. You can state some conspiratorial theory but then again you probably think Obama was born in the Congo too. -FatherTime

After this post, I responded with a breakdown of the actual debt figures straight from the United States government....which in fact showed the exact opposite of FatherTime's statements.

He responded, "I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now." -FatherTime

And, "It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats." -FatherTime

You then stated "The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency" - Openmind

Also, "How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?" -Openmind

And, "No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt was decreased in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .by the amount of the surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!" - Openmind

And, "NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%" -Openmind

You, Openmind, were a main voice in continuing to talk about a "surplus", which is why it must continue to be discussed. The simple fact (as easily seen from our government's own figures) shows that we never a surplus, and added to the debt every single year.

And according to FatherTime, for simply pointing this out (using Treasury figures) I am a person who "think Obama was born in the Congo" and full of conspiracy theories. It is a shame he has left and will not be back to attempt to back up his absurd position on the matter.

I obviously misspoke when I said the National debt went down under Clinton. . .but it is obvious that it didn't grow at the same rate than it had done before or after Clinton, and that if the trend had continued, we would have seen a decline.

It is also true that Clinton's spending was MUCH lower than the Republican President before and after him.

I believe that there are a LOT Of misleading information and downright LIES being spread daily by the Right, including in this forum, and when those are shown with FACTUAL information, the thread is "just dropped," and those who spread those lies (or "mistakes") never own up to it.

At least, I DO!

And I do not think that there is any excuse for a poster to tell another poster that he should go away because he disagree with the "majority" party line in this forum.

You know very well that it has happened to me several times, but because of my temperament, it only reinforces my conviction that this is one of the place where I choose to post.

However, some people can only take so much abuse. EVERYONE can make a mistake. . .only the best of us will recognize and ADMIT a mistake.


And. . .OBVIOUSLY the accumulated national debt didn't go down under Clinton, BUT in his last four years, he had a SURPLUS for those years, which couldn't compensate for the National debt that had accumulated, but did NOT increase the national debt during those 4 years.

I presented a FactCheck.org answer to this, including a chart. But, obviously, no one chose to even acknowledge this!

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton

 

[BigRob]

I obviously misspoke when I said the National debt went down under Clinton. . .but it is obvious that it didn't grow at the same rate than it had done before or after Clinton, and that if the trend had continued, we would have seen a decline.

Agreed...so you agree Clinton never had a surplus?

It is also true that Clinton's spending was MUCH lower than the Republican President before and after him.

I believe that there are a LOT Of misleading information and downright LIES being spread daily by the Right, including in this forum, and when those are shown with FACTUAL information, the thread is "just dropped," and those who spread those lies (or "mistakes") never own up to it.

This is probably accurate.

At least, I DO!

And you are applauded for it.

And I do not think that there is any excuse for a poster to tell another poster that he should go away because he disagree with the "majority" party line in this forum.

You know very well that it has happened to me several times, but because of my temperament, it only reinforces my conviction that this is one of the place where I choose to post.

However, some people can only take so much abuse. EVERYONE can make a mistake. . .only the best of us will recognize and ADMIT a mistake.

I saw the post in question on that, and it really seems to me that FT simply overrecated.

 

[Openmind]

Agreed...so you agree Clinton never had a surplus?

I agree that Clinton never had a surplus. . .if you consider the TOTAL, ACCUMULATED National debt. HE DID have a budget surplus in his last 4 years, as demonstrated by the graph I provided.

 

[Alias]

well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rPHlCjEs1E

I'm embarrassed for "The Band". You took a great American song and ruined it.