• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jerry Brown: California's deficit is gone

No, I dont agree with anything you say unless you can back it up with facts, instead of guesstimations

And a rise in employment in state govt jobs has nothing to do with either bubble or Clinton

Ok, what's your number on this. And show us what you back it up with.

But it counts as BS jobs.
 
You're the one making the claim. Back it up instead of wasting your time fishing for something to disagree with

My claim is that most Clinton jobs are BS. I provided a citation and estimations for factors that you agreed were important. I also subtracted the government jobs. My data and methods are transparent. You, on the other hand, are making various claims with absolutely nothing to back them.
 
My claim is that most Clinton jobs are BS. I provided a citation and estimations for factors that you agreed were important. I also subtracted the government jobs. My data and methods are transparent. You, on the other hand, are making various claims with absolutely nothing to back them.

I don't remember agreeing to any of your delusional claims, and your methods are crap
 
I don't remember agreeing to any of your delusional claims, and your methods are crap

That you continue to refuse to give a number is laughably toolish and displays your level of ignorance yet devotion.
 
That you continue to refuse to give a number is laughably toolish and displays your level of ignorance yet devotion.

That you continue to support delusional claims that you can't back up is laughaby foolish. That I choose not to do the same is wise.
 
That you continue to support delusional claims that you can't back up is laughaby foolish. That I choose not to do the same is wise.

I know you are but what am I? Wow, your pathetic debate actually went downhill. Impressive.
 
You say that “The Clinton tax increases weren't large enough to have some magical massive impact on the entire economy “Better tell that to Newt, he thought differently in 1993, when he said,“ The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.“ Actually during Clinton's second term unemployment dropped from about 5% to about 4%, where’s his first term it dropped from 7.33 to 5%.

Notice where the tax cuts are on this BLS graph? The Dot Com bubble was the years of 1997 – 2000.Check out the graph and tell me how a bubble that stetted in 1997 would have an effect on the Clinton boom. I only see about a 1% kick in the employment rate. Maybe a bit more.

OK I stand corrected. I should not have said tech bubble or dotcom bubble I should have said tech boom. Tech did not suddenly appear in 1997, it's effects on the economy were enormous. Efficiencies were realized across the economy from retail to manufacturing. That is borne out by productivity numbers. Keep in mind I'm not claiming that tech was the single driving force behind the 90s economic performance I'm merely pointing out that trying to say the Clinton tax increases were, is wrong.
Clinton changed the highest rate from 36% to 39.6%. If I'm not mistaken we just did pretty much the same thing. Anyone expecting a repeat of 90s growth? If not perhaps it could be because of other factors?

In the 90s you had oil prices in the $20 range pretty much through out the entire decade. That didn't hurt. Fed spending growth was around 3%, that also didn't hurt.
There was also a large increase in private investment in the 90s, also didn't hurt. Productivity reignited in the 90s. Trying to say all these things happened because of Clintons 93 tax increases is just silly.
 
Clinton's presidency, economically, is defined by the greatest bubble to ever rupture in cosmic history (and the feel-good BS that went along with such).
By whom? Also, when exactly did this bubble burst in regards to employment? You're overstating the effects of the dot com "bubble Burst" on the actual labor market by a criminal margin.

Household Survey Employment Smoothed for Population Controls, Seasonally Adjusted,
January 1990–December 1999 and January 2000–December 2011

1999 134,436 134,276 134,381 134,402 134,775 134,855 134,905 135,097 135,227 135,529 135,862 136,092

2000 136,560 136,601 136,705 137,276 136,637 136,949 136,541 136,674 136,906 137,103 137,338 137,632
 
Last edited:
I read an article about the deficit/budget and I couldn't help but remember this thread...

Capitol Alert: California tax revenue beats projections, Chiang says

I'm going to indulge myself and just say, I told you so.

Just giving the nay Sayers a bite outta the apple repeter.


"The state collected about $1.2 billion more in tax revenue last month than Gov. Jerry Brown projected, ending the fiscal year about $2 billion ahead of expectations, the state controller reported today."

Knowing some wont have the heart to go take a peek at the GOOD NEWS.:mrgreen:
 
Just giving the nay Sayers a bite outta the apple repeter.


"The state collected about $1.2 billion more in tax revenue last month than Gov. Jerry Brown projected, ending the fiscal year about $2 billion ahead of expectations, the state controller reported today."

Knowing some wont have the heart to go take a peek at the GOOD NEWS.:mrgreen:

I can already hear them, "oh no, the state was responsible and payed off $7.2 billion of its deficit. Not another fact that challenges our ideology and dogma!"
 
I can already hear them, "oh no, the state was responsible and payed off $7.2 billion of its deficit. Not another fact that challenges our ideology and dogma!"

I expect some lame to pop and say its a continuation of teh gippers policies.:mrgreen:
 
From the article:

"That's the context of this budget, to fix the long-standing problem. We have fixed it. We're on the road to sustainable balance. It will not be easy - there will be some disagreements, there will be some heartburn," Brown said.

He vowed to be conservative with spending "instead of just enjoying the momentary high and then having the hangover many years later."

Is he the one who decides about spending? I thought that was the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature who did that.
 
Is he the one who decides about spending? I thought that was the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature who did that.

Yes, it is. I believe that is why the state was in trouble to begin with.
 
Yes, it is. I believe that is why the state was in trouble to begin with.

Actually I believe there was a law put in place in Cali that said there needs to be a supermajority to raise taxes. So revenues basically couldn't increase no matter the policies that they did decide to enact... creating the massive deficit.
 
Well California's surplus sure didn't last long. They just spent it all giving the state employees a pay raise.
 
I'm tired of being "fair". I prefer to be accurate.

Reagan-Bush-National-Debt.png


$12 Trillion Calc

Wow, Obama has almost matched that in less than 5 years. For someone who claims they are concerned about the deficits and debt how can anyone support Obama who submitted a 3.77 trillion dollar budget request. We have 312 million Americans which that budget is supposed to help. Reagan's last budget was 994 billion dollars for 242 million Americans. My those additional 70 million Americans are expensive.

As for California, keep kicking the can down the road for someone else to pick it up. Jerry Brown is a typical leftwing politician who lives for today and forgets about tomorrow. The California debt is going to eventually come due and to claim that California's deficit is gone is half truth, it has been kicked down the road by accounting tricks and projections none of which are ever realized.
 
Actually I believe there was a law put in place in Cali that said there needs to be a supermajority to raise taxes. So revenues basically couldn't increase no matter the policies that they did decide to enact... creating the massive deficit.

Yes, there is, and yet we have a sales tax now approaching 10% and an income tax that tops out at 13%, not to mention property taxes. Our neighbor to the north has no sales tax or income tax, the one to the East has a lower sales tax and no income tax.

California used to have a sales tax of 5% and an income tax so low that nothing was withheld from paychecks. We had the best school system in the country, and no deficit.

The golden state has been turning my finger green for some time now.
 
Just giving the nay Sayers a bite outta the apple repeter.


"The state collected about $1.2 billion more in tax revenue last month than Gov. Jerry Brown projected, ending the fiscal year about $2 billion ahead of expectations, the state controller reported today."

Knowing some wont have the heart to go take a peek at the GOOD NEWS.:mrgreen:

Now as Paul Harvey used to say, "now for the rest of the story"

Report: California

Apparently Obama and Brown supporters don't understand finances very well nor do they have any concept as to the difference between debt and deficits
 
Back
Top Bottom