• 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!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

The White House needs to worry more about controlling the devastating damage in Moore, Oklahoma. It is now one day at a time. Impeachment is a foregone conclusion. Ignore it and do your best while still in office Obama.
 
disneydude said:
LOL Conservative...you have no credibility to talk about rhetoric over substance when you idolize the man who sold the integrity of this country and drove us to the brink of moral decay and economic bankruptcy....so forgive me if I discount your words.
Click to expand...

Interesting that I have yet to see any economic data posted that shows Obama better than Bush. Question for you are these people who aren't counted unemployed? You know I didn't know that Bush was in office in 2010-2011 and further I thought the shovel ready jobs program was signed in February 2009.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2002 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068
2013 804 885 803 835
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
12/31/1999 CLINTON $5,776,091,314,225
12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Click to expand...

Just as I thought, you have no concept of the fiscal year of the United States which runs from October to September, not a calendar year. If you bothered to check there were many months during the Bush term when there was a reduction in the debt but the total year is what matters and the debt grew during the Clinton term
 
Conservative said:
Just as I thought, you have no concept of the fiscal year of the United States which runs from October to September, not a calendar year. If you bothered to check there were many months during the Bush term when there was a reduction in the debt but the total year is what matters and the debt grew during the Clinton term
Click to expand...
There were no YOY declines in debt under Bush, ever
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There were no YOY declines in debt under Bush, ever
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point, there were monthly changes which is what you posted. Clinton increased the debt just like Bush did. Do you ever admit that you are wrong? Calendar year is not the fiscal year of the United States, never has been as the fiscal year runs from Oct 1 to September 30
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There were no YOY declines in debt under Bush, ever
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out if it is ignorance or dishonesty.

why did you choose a date in the middle of the fiscal year?
 
disneydude said:
Good fantasy ya got there Fenton. These
so called "scandals" are already dying out. You guys are going to have to come up with something better I'm afraid. The American people ain't buying this bull ****.
Click to expand...

LOL !!!

You think theyr'e dying out ? Why , because you stopped watching the news ?

Lol...No actually they're just getting started with continuous and seperate House Committee's hearings and new whistle blowers on the way.

don't count your chickens.....oh wait, you don't have any chickens.

The Democrats came into this losers with a economy on life support.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !!!

You think theyr'e dying out ? Why , because you stopped watching the news ?

Lol...No actually they're just getting started with continuous and seperate House Committee's hearings and new whistle blowers on the way.

don't count your chickens.....oh wait, you don't have any chickens.

The Democrats came into this losers with a economy on life support.
Click to expand...

people like disneydude only need to have one person come forward and deny the charges, and that is good enough for them
 
Conservative said:
That wasn't the point, there were monthly changes which is what you posted.
Click to expand...
I posted YOY, not monthly, annual. Bush never had an annual decline in the debt EVER.

Clinton increased the debt just like Bush did. Do you ever admit that you are wrong? Calendar year is not the fiscal year of the United States, never has been as the fiscal year runs from Oct 1 to September 30
Click to expand...
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear 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.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

- Brooks Jackson
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
 
The economy was on life support when we got it in 2009. Now, not so much. Holder's contempt was predetermined, as is Obama's impeachment. That is where it ends. And that is where Boehner's legacy gets flushed.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I posted YOY, not monthly, annual.
Click to expand...

to prove a surplus you can't cherry pick YOY figures. a surplus indicates we are discussing fiscal year numbers.

so when we asked you about the surplus,. why did you cherry pick a date in the middle of the reporting period?
 
ARealConservative said:
I'm still trying to figure out if it is ignorance or dishonesty.

why did you choose a date in the middle of the fiscal year?
Click to expand...
What is really dishonest is ignoring that Clinton paid down the public debt with the last 4 years of his budgets, he was able to pay back some of the trust fund IOU's that Congress has been using from the SSTF.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What is really dishonest is ignoring that Clinton paid down the public debt with the last 4 years of his budgets, he was able to pay back some of the trust fund IOU's that Congress has been using from the SSTF.
Click to expand...

can you post the YOY numbers for the actual last day of each reporting period? This will tell whether a surplus was real or imagined.
 
Gimmesometruth;1061830979]I posted YOY, not monthly, annual. Bush never had an annual decline in the debt EVER.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand fiscal year but thanks for your answer. Too bad we don't pay debt service on the calendar year budget changes rather than the fiscal year budget changes. As stated Bush had many months of deficit reductions but it doesn't matter as he added 4.9 trillion to the debt. "Your" President has added 6.8 trillion in less than 5 years yet you want to blame Bush and divert to Clinton? What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Click to expand...

Again, SS was never intended to be on Budget nor should it be. Only in the liberal world do IOU's pay for personal expenses. Hope you enjoy yours when you retire and get an IOU.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear 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.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

- Brooks Jackson
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Click to expand...

Thank you but once again you have no concept of what makes up the deficit. Maybe you ought to ask Obama why he has added 6.8 trillion in less than 5 years rather than trying to divert to what you think Clinton did.

Public debt did have a surplus and yet the debt grew. Please explain why since as stated a surplus would reduce the debt but didn't. Could it have anything to do with the shortfall in Intergovt. holdings? Hmmmm
 
we're busy watching election night re-runs (my favorite part is the one with Rove unwilling to concede ... you remember) ... sorry ... we'll start paying attention soon ... promise ...
 
windowdressing said:
we're busy watching election night re-runs (my favorite part is the one with Rove unwilling to concede ... you remember) ... sorry ... we'll start paying attention soon ... promise ...
Click to expand...

you might want to fast forward the part about transparency, hope and change, and all the great things promised though. it's all down hill from the point he gets power.
 
gimmesomebull**** is using the middle of the reporting period to claim a surplus.

If any of you report your yearly income in the middle of the fiscal year, and get away with it, let me know.
 
ARealConservative said:
wow. dishonest to the very last. pretty sad.
Click to expand...
I'll type this slowly, Clinton had four years of surpluses, negative deficits. By law, when there are surpluses from payroll sources, those must be paid back into the the SSTF which reduces the PUBLIC debt. Those were dollars taken from SS as IOU's, Clinton was paying those back. The total debt did increase marginally, but he was the last President in recent history to have negative deficits and pay down the public debt.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'll type this slowly, Clinton had four years of surpluses, negative deficits. By law, when there are surpluses from payroll sources, those must be paid back into the the SSTF which reduces the PUBLIC debt. Those were dollars taken from SS as IOU's, Clinton was paying those back.
Click to expand...

you can type it as slow as you like. you are proven to be a dishonest hack.

We asked about this surplus. you posted 12/31 numbers, then talked bs about YOY numbers.

yoy numbers have zero to do with how we report earning to government so they have nothing to do with a surplus.


The total debt did increase marginally, but he was the last President in recent history to have negative deficits and pay down the public debt.
Click to expand...

finally, something not completely full of crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom