• 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!

Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Wrong Clinton just took money from other places to make it appear there was a surplus.

From post 82

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

500x_mining_fail_2.jpg


JoeBtfsplk.jpg


Here are a couple of epic fail signs for you, take your pick. Might I suggest the second one(Joe Btfsplk) as it kinda matches your handle. :2wave:
 
Wrong.

In FY2000, the total money the government took in exceeded the amount spent, including all trust funds, etc. Period.

The $246.5B "borrowed" was borrowed from the government, going to the government. So it nets to zero.

I think this is the point that continues to go over their head. It is a net zero. Interest incurred on governmental holdings will continue to increase until this specific aspect of financialization begins to reverse.
 
I think this is the point that continues to go over their head. It is a net zero. Interest incurred on governmental holdings will continue to increase until this specific aspect of financialization begins to reverse.

Yes, and it's very unfortunate that the Treasury lumps intragovernmental holdings in with debt held by the public. It confuses people.
 
Wrong.

In FY2000, the total money the government took in exceeded the amount spent, including all trust funds, etc. Period.

The $246.5B "borrowed" was borrowed from the government, going to the government. So it nets to zero.

Borrowing from non budget funds means there was a deficit Nice spin though :spin:
 
I think this is the point that continues to go over their head. It is a net zero. Interest incurred on governmental holdings will continue to increase until this specific aspect of financialization begins to reverse.

Borrowing from places is still borrowing and you did not meet your budget and did not have a surplus or would not have had to borrow within the government.
 
Borrowing from non budget funds means there was a deficit Nice spin though :spin:

No it doesn't.

Please read what I wrote again. You are confused.
 
Borrowing from places is still borrowing and you did not meet your budget and did not have a surplus or would not have had to borrow within the government.

No. It means one government program had a deficit but another had a larger surplus, so the government as a whole had a surplus. Simple math.

And in FY2000, there was an on-budget surplus, meaning a surplus even without counting the surplus in Social Security.
 
Last edited:
No. It means one government program had a deficit but another had a larger surplus, so the government as a whole had a surplus. Simple math.

And in FY2000, there was an on-budget surplus, meaning a surplus even without counting the surplus in Social Security.

What did Clinton do with the so called surplus you claim?
 
No. It means one government program had a deficit but another had a larger surplus, so the government as a whole had a surplus. Simple math.

And in FY2000, there was an on-budget surplus, meaning a surplus even without counting the surplus in Social Security.



Surplus in SS? When was that?


j-mac
 
How do you know they are overestimated in the first place?

cuz we were told so by the ex, wsj, nyt, cnn, abc, cbs, msnbc, the globe, the bee, usa today, the sun, the trib, the post, the post, the free press, the journal sentinetl, journal const, ap...

on the other hand, there're the folks over at politboro.com

LOL!
 
cuz we were told so by the ex, wsj, nyt, cnn, abc, cbs, msnbc, the globe, the bee, usa today, the sun, the trib, the post, the post, the free press, the journal sentinetl, journal const, ap...

You believe the liberal media? :doh
 
you believe politboro.com?

LOL!
 
propublica

LOL!
 
WELL NOW, look what I found, from the CBO at that. :2wave:


< CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs>


<By Michael O'Brien - 12/01/09 10:09 AM ET
The stimulus bill enacted this year has resulted in as many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created this fall, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday evening.>


<The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.>


<Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.>


< Republicans had attacked the White House jobs figures as "trying to cover up economic reality by manufacturing job numbers out of thin air" when the Obama administration released those data. Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.>


CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
 
WELL NOW, look what I found, from the CBO at that. :2wave:


< CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs>


<By Michael O'Brien - 12/01/09 10:09 AM ET
The stimulus bill enacted this year has resulted in as many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created this fall, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday evening.>


<The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.>


<Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.>


< Republicans had attacked the White House jobs figures as "trying to cover up economic reality by manufacturing job numbers out of thin air" when the Obama administration released those data. Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.>


CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

I would like to see proof of those jobs numbers since there has been so much fraud in this issue in the last few months.
 
How exactly do you know for sure if a job was "saved"?
 
There were indeed many jobs saved, but they were all in government, and this was the biggest lie ever sold to the american people!
 
WELL NOW, look what I found, from the CBO at that. :2wave:


< CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs>


<By Michael O'Brien - 12/01/09 10:09 AM ET
The stimulus bill enacted this year has resulted in as many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created this fall, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday evening.>


<The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.>


<Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.>


< Republicans had attacked the White House jobs figures as "trying to cover up economic reality by manufacturing job numbers out of thin air" when the Obama administration released those data. Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.>


CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room


Isn't this the same CBO that had their democrat appointed head called on the carpet in the oval office after putting out a report that showed that the health care, or stimulus bill I am not sure which, would cost more that Obama wanted to show?


From Rolling Stone back in July....Certainly no right wing source


CBO Chief Called Into the Principal’s (Oval) Office
7/22/09, 8:24 pm EST
Jesus. This is wildly inappropriate.

After a week in which Doug Elmendorf, the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that Congressional health care overhauls would balloon federal health care obligations by $240 billion over the next decade, the President Obama called him into the Oval Office for a little chat.

But Elmendorf didn’t just get leaned on by the president. He was outnumbered by something like 10-1:

From ABC:

In addition to the president and Elmendorf, present in the meeting were White House officials such as Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag (a former CBO director himself), National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christy Romer, senior adviser David Axelrod, and press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Others were there as well, including Department of Health and Human Services adviser Meena Seshamani, Harvard University economist David Cutler and Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institute, who was founding director of CBO from 1975-1983.

There’s nothing subtle going on there. I’m intimidated just reading about it.

CBO Chief Called Into the Principal’s (Oval) Office : Rolling Stone : National Affairs Daily


Yeah, Elmendorf gets the Chicago way taught to him up close and personal, and all of the sudden numbers start falling like Dear Leader wants....yeah very trustworthy.....:rofl


j-mac
 
WELL NOW, look what I found, from the CBO at that. :2wave:


< CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs>


<By Michael O'Brien - 12/01/09 10:09 AM ET
The stimulus bill enacted this year has resulted in as many as 1.6 million jobs saved or created this fall, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday evening.>


<The nonpartisan CBO said in a legally mandated report that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had resulted in between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs for the U.S. economy that wouldn't have existed in the absence of the stimulus.>


<Additionally, the CBO said, gross domestic product (GDP) was as much as 3.2 percent higher than it would have been in the absence of the stimulus.>


< Republicans had attacked the White House jobs figures as "trying to cover up economic reality by manufacturing job numbers out of thin air" when the Obama administration released those data. Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.>


CBO report: Stimulus package saved or created as many as 1.6 million jobs - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

You left a part out-

"Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus."
 
You left a part out-

"Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus."


Dilemma time, on the one hand we have something form (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.") from " earlier this year".

On the other hand we have a report from the CBO, that is from this week(current); now who to believe?

Myself, I will have to stick with the CBO report and relegate" earlier this year"to ancient history as for as economic reports go. :2wave:
 
Dilemma time, on the one hand we have something form (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus.") from " earlier this year".

On the other hand we have a report from the CBO, that is from this week(current); now who to believe?

Myself, I will have to stick with the CBO report and relegate" earlier this year"to ancient history as for as economic reports go. :2wave:

All the fraud in figures over the last few months from Obama and the dems and now we should believe this. I want real proof of these jobs not more useless talk and propaganda.
 
You left a part out-

"Republicans in Congress meanwhile point to testimony earlier this year from a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) official maintaining it's virtually impossible to glean such an estimate of the true impact of the stimulus."

So do me and everyone a favor..... STFU about the stimulus. You obviously have nothing constructive to say.
 
So do me and everyone a favor..... STFU about the stimulus. You obviously have nothing constructive to say.

Why would I say something constructive about something that isn't constructive?
 
Back
Top Bottom