Stormbringer wrote:Yes, Clinton's budget was only balanced for one year any further balanced budgets (not to mention the mythical surplus) were all contingent upon unsustainable levels of growth. That's smoke and mirrors.
According to the newspapers, there were surpluses in 1998 and 1999, and balanced budgets in several other years. They also said that the US National debt dropped by some $360 billion in Clinton's last three years in office. How is this possible if he never ran a surplus? Some magic fairy took away that debt?
These numbers do not take into account money owed to trust funds (there are a lot of them, but the biggest is the Social Security Trust Fund). In the past decade the government has gotten into the practice of taking money out of trust funds and using it to pay down general debt, which is something like taking money that you need out of your retirement account and using it to pay bills, and replacing the money in that account with an IOU to be paid later. Basically, the government spends the money once, and promises to spend it again at a later date.
Bush is certainly worse, and spending did not grow at such an exorbitant rate during the Clinton years, although certainly not for lack of effort on the part of Clinton.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Joe wrote:These numbers do not take into account money owed to trust funds (there are a lot of them, but the biggest is the Social Security Trust Fund). In the past decade the government has gotten into the practice of taking money out of trust funds and using it to pay down general debt, which is something like taking money that you need out of your retirement account and using it to pay bills, and replacing the money in that account with an IOU to be paid later. Basically, the government spends the money once, and promises to spend it again at a later date.
Well, that at least makes sense, unlike Stormbringer's meaningless "it's just a projection even when CNN is talking about the 1998 budget in 2000" bullshit. When did this practice start, and where can one see the numbers on how much of this has been going on?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Which, for the third time, somehow magically reduced the national debt. Care to explain how?
No, they didn't for the simple fact THEY NEVER FUCKING EXISTED! Borrowing against those projected surpluses with regards to Social Security reduced the national debt.
In small words, he took money from Social Security and left an IOU to paid with those projected surpluses.
So Clinton had less discretionary spending than Bush, but that wasn't any better? Please explain.
Because the general spending was done on the same borrowed money as Bush and achieved by skipping necessary spending.
So, will we ever get a thread about Bush's massive fuckups without the 'Well, Clinton did THIS!' nonsense popping up, or should I post a 'Abandon All Logic, Ye Who Enter Here' sign on Bush threads?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Darth Wong wrote:Well, that at least makes sense, unlike Stormbringer's meaningless "it's just a projection even when CNN is talking about the 1998 budget in 2000" bullshit. When did this practice start, and where can one see the numbers on how much of this has been going on?
You jumped in and started screaming that "there were surpluses dammnit!" and ignored any explantion.
As for when the practice started, it began with the baby boomers. And you can just look it up along with the National Budget.
Darth Wong wrote:Well, that at least makes sense, unlike Stormbringer's meaningless "it's just a projection even when CNN is talking about the 1998 budget in 2000" bullshit. When did this practice start, and where can one see the numbers on how much of this has been going on?
You jumped in and started screaming that "there were surpluses dammnit!" and ignored any explantion.
And how did "they were just projections" explain anything? Joe provided something which made sense; you just spluttered that they were "only projections", even though CNN said otherwise two years later; that's a pretty lagged "projection".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
PS. Either that, or they were factoring inflation.
no, go to the site i linked from. it specicly states that inflation is not factored in.
No, what I meant was that when CNN said in 2000 that the national debt had been paid down by a few hundred billion dollars, they might have been factoring inflation.
Last edited by Darth Wong on 2004-02-24 11:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:And how did "they were just projections" explain anything? Joe provided something which made sense; you just spluttered that they were "only projections", even though CNN said otherwise two years later; that's a pretty lagged "projection".
When you didn't bother listening (or getting the fact straight) the first time why bother explaining it in detail over and over again?
Also given that the projected surpluses weren't until 2005-2008, that is a lagged projection. I'd like to see this CNN article since none I've ever seen claims at any point that the US was running a real, right now surplus.
Darth Wong wrote:And how did "they were just projections" explain anything? Joe provided something which made sense; you just spluttered that they were "only projections", even though CNN said otherwise two years later; that's a pretty lagged "projection".
When you didn't bother listening (or getting the fact straight) the first time why bother explaining it in detail over and over again?
Also given that the projected surpluses weren't until 2005-2008, that is a lagged projection. I'd like to see this CNN article since none I've ever seen claims at any point that the US was running a real, right now surplus.
At the end, after the various dueling quotes from politicians:
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
As I said, I was taking CNN's word over yours.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
At the end, after the various dueling quotes from politicians:
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
HemlockGrey wrote:
Didn't Clinton raise taxes? That seemed to help cut down on the debt, maybe Bush should try that.
I pay %38 of every dollar to the Gov.... plus taxes on Purches.... Gas...... and State Taxes.....
NO MORE TAXES>...... Fucking Cut something insted
You aren't the group that would have their taxes increased, the rich (whose bracket you aren't in or you would be paying closer to 50%) are the ones who need their taxes increased. Remember that when you factor in payroll taxes, you would have payed less taxes under both Clinton and Gore's tax plans then Bush's.
The only explanation that Bush has given for not taxing the wealthy harder is that it will stunt the economy, but Clinton's eight years of economic growth proved this theory to be a bunch of bullshit.
Joe wrote:These numbers do not take into account money owed to trust funds (there are a lot of them, but the biggest is the Social Security Trust Fund). In the past decade the government has gotten into the practice of taking money out of trust funds and using it to pay down general debt, which is something like taking money that you need out of your retirement account and using it to pay bills, and replacing the money in that account with an IOU to be paid later. Basically, the government spends the money once, and promises to spend it again at a later date.
Well, that at least makes sense, unlike Stormbringer's meaningless "it's just a projection even when CNN is talking about the 1998 budget in 2000" bullshit. When did this practice start, and where can one see the numbers on how much of this has been going on?
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
