The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit

evince said:
that is what right wingers have told me.

Now if you think hthy are great men why not talk about that?
Click to expand...

So you have found some far right nuts on message boards and you are thus going to take their views and assign them to all Republicans? or at least a vast majority of Republicans?

You need to pay attention more. I have stated numerous times how much I like Ike and stated numerous times that he was the last fiscally responsible President.
 
cawacko said:
It was right wing friends she talked to. I think that means right-wing people on other chat boards. But it was no Republicans in office or high profile conservatives that she was referring to.
Click to expand...

You didn't read my article, did you...
 
Rana said:
Well, one persons bat shit crazy is another persons words of wisdom. If you agreed with what she stated you would find her brilliant. She just doesn't back down from your harassment, you can't controll her, so you find her bat shit crazy! It is a common occurrence with men and aggressive women.
Click to expand...

Hear, Hear!
 
cawacko said:
Kind of interesting the TNR writers claims under Eisenhower "The economy bloomed under his watch, with high growth, low inflation, and low unemployment."

I found this random liberal blog talking about recessions over the century or so and he said three occured under Eisenhowers eight years in office and he paints a completely different picture of the economic conidition of the country under his watch.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-HISTORY-OF-RECESSION-IN-by-mike-kohr-090213-845.html
Click to expand...

Rana, I did read your article.
 
cawacko said:
Rana, I did read your article.
Click to expand...

she would actually have to read your responses to have known that. when her and Darla get done 'ganging' up on you (since they agree with each other, that means they are ganging up on you by the new rules of Rana) perhaps they will actually read your responses.
 
I just want to make clear that I think that SF is a huge prick with a very authoritarian bullying personality. But that Cawacko can do no wrong in my book, even when he is doing wrong.

I am a woman so that is okay.
 
Superfreak said:
she would actually have to read your responses to have known that. when her and Darla get done 'ganging' up on you (since they agree with each other, that means they are ganging up on you by the new rules of Rana) perhaps they will actually read your responses.
Click to expand...

Bawahahahaha, I missed a post, didn't go back far enough! I made a mistake, I do make them, quite frequently and I admit I make them, so get over yourself!
 
Darla said:
I just want to make clear that I think that SF is a huge prick with a very authoritarian bullying personality. But that Cawacko can do no wrong in my book, even when he is doing wrong.

I am a woman so that is okay.
Click to expand...


its all his falt
 
Superfreak said:
No Bfgrn, I am not. I posted a link to our nations debt by fiscal year. Every single year since 1957 it has increased.



Yes, but it is apparent you have never been to even econ 101. Again... a Clinton surplus would mean the nations debt was LOWERED... NOT ELIMINATED. Not once have I stated the nonsense you are posting. Which shows which of us really is full of cowpoop.



Now, do you understand the above? If the outlays exceed the total receipts then that number is ADDED to the nations debt total. If there was a surplus, that number would be subtracted from the nations debt total. So if there was an actual surplus, the national debt would have to go DOWN.
Click to expand...

WRONG...the debt held by the public DID go down...

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


Was there a national surplus when Clinton left office?

Yes, there most definitely was a federal budget surplus when Clinton left office.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. Following is why there was a budget surplus with corresponding decrease in public debt, while the gross public debt increased in FY 2000.

By law, the social security and medicare trust funds are included in the calculations of the budget surplus. In FY 2000, both trust fund accounts had more revenues than expenses. This means -- for example-- that social security's tax revenues (from the payroll tax) were greater than social security's expenses (payments to the retired beneficiaries.) The trust fund surpluses were about the same as the budget surplus. Trust fund accounting requires that surplus monies in the trust fund be segregated from the government's general account. This is so that the trust fund monies are held in reserve for payments to future beneficiaries, and cannot be spent willy nilly for building bridges, etc; however, the trust fund is allowed to earn interest income on any surplus it holds. Therefore, the trust fund purchases treasury bonds (or their equivalent) from the Treasury department.

The Treasury department therefore doesn't need to borrow that money from the public, which is why the public debt decreases by the same amount as the surplus. However, since the Treasury now owes this surplus money to the trust fund, the gross national public debt (which includes both the public debt and debts owed to the trust funds) does not decrease.
 
Darla said:
I just want to make clear that I think that SF is a huge prick with a very authoritarian bullying personality. But that Cawacko can do no wrong in my book, even when he is doing wrong.

I am a woman so that is okay.
Click to expand...

What is usually hilarious is that we are being tongue in check with Cawacko and SF comes on trying to ruffle everyone's feathers! It cracks me up!
 
Bfgrn said:
WRONG...the debt held by the public DID go down...

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


Was there a national surplus when Clinton left office?

Yes, there most definitely was a federal budget surplus when Clinton left office.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. Following is why there was a budget surplus with corresponding decrease in public debt, while the gross public debt increased in FY 2000.

By law, the social security and medicare trust funds are included in the calculations of the budget surplus. In FY 2000, both trust fund accounts had more revenues than expenses. This means -- for example-- that social security's tax revenues (from the payroll tax) were greater than social security's expenses (payments to the retired beneficiaries.) The trust fund surpluses were about the same as the budget surplus. Trust fund accounting requires that surplus monies in the trust fund be segregated from the government's general account. This is so that the trust fund monies are held in reserve for payments to future beneficiaries, and cannot be spent willy nilly for building bridges, etc; however, the trust fund is allowed to earn interest income on any surplus it holds. Therefore, the trust fund purchases treasury bonds (or their equivalent) from the Treasury department.

The Treasury department therefore doesn't need to borrow that money from the public, which is why the public debt decreases by the same amount as the surplus. However, since the Treasury now owes this surplus money to the trust fund, the gross national public debt (which includes both the public debt and debts owed to the trust funds) does not decrease.
Click to expand...

Ok... now tell us Bfgrn... are we talking about the total debt or the debt held by the public? Oh yeah, we are talking about the total debt of the nation. that is what matters as that is the TOTAL of what we owe. Trying to look at just a portion of our liabilities is dishonest at best.
 
Dungheap said:
You'd have a great point if we were arguing over whether Clinton had actual surplusses or not, but we aren't. My unrefutable point was the annual deficits that the government ran up under Reagan and GHWB ran for 12 years were fixed under Clinton.
Click to expand...

Except that it IS refutable. Every single year Clinton ran a deficit. Clinton ran up deficits that totaled $1.6 Trillion. Not one single year did he not have a deficit.

You do this all the time. It's really funny. Rather than facing the obvious truth that Reagan was a fiscal nightmare and that the annual deficits were resolved under Clinton you instead debate whether there was an actual surplus or not. The fiscal ship was righted under Clinton (whomever you want to credit for that is up to you) and then Bush fucked it up with his tax cuts (which you supported) wars and the rest.
Click to expand...

you do this all the time, create a straw man to beat up. I have stated time and again how much Reagan added to the deficit, how much Bush did, how much Clinton did etc... You pretending that the ship was righted under clinton is a joke. It was a booming economy with the tech/internet bubble and it as always, it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings. No matter how many times you want to pretend it was Clinton, it was not.

You then go on to ignore the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting in 2000 and causing a recession. Instead you pretend the revenue decline was due to the tax cuts and wars. Recession? what recession? lets just ignore that and ignore 9/11 as well... they never happened.

It is isn't it. You want to complain that intragovernmental holding should count against Clinton's surplus even though he had no control over it. If the excess tax receipts from SS and Medicare taxes didn't buy government debt but instead were horded under a mattress somewhere, that money would count in Clinton's favor (as cash) instead of against him (as intragovernmental debt) even though it's the same money.
Click to expand...

It is hilarious. You want to ignore the intragovernmental debt as a part of what this nation owes. Tell us genius... the tax receipts from SS bought Treasuries... what did the government do with the money from those treasury sales? Oh yeah, they fucking spent it. that is why it counts.
 
Superfreak said:
1) you don't pay down the deficit, you pay down DEBT
2) you reduce deficit spending
3) Clinton raised the nations debt by $1.6 Trillion, the same amount as Reagan. Though if adjusted for inflation it would be slightly less.
4) It was only with a Rep Congress and a revenue boom from the tech/internet bubble that allowed Clinton to come close to a balanced budget and nearly an actual surplus.
Click to expand...

Pay down the debt . Semantic bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top