• 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!

Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security

apdst said:
Like **** we can! I'm a business operator and the last thing I want to do is pay more when matching funds paid on my employees.

As a business owner I don't get a single benefit from paying that money and sure as hell can't write it off my taxes.
Click to expand...

:) It's how it goes. You always have the peace of mind that comes with knowing you and your employees will be taken care of in your golden years...
 
reefedjib said:
:) It's how it goes. You always have the peace of mind that comes with knowing you and your employees will be taken care of in your golden years...
Click to expand...

Me and my employees? I'm not responsible for paying into a man's retirement that probably isn't going to be working for me till he retires. That's his problem. Not to mention, the money that my company pays into his retirement doesn't do **** for me, nor my company.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Actualy the last two years of the Clinton admin, they did not use the SS surplus ( the government had a surplus over and above that of the SS)
Click to expand...

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus


While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
 
apdst said:
Me and my employees? I'm not responsible for paying into a man's retirement that probably isn't going to be working for me till he retires. That's his problem. Not to mention, the money that my company pays into his retirement doesn't do **** for me, nor my company.
Click to expand...

Um, yes you are.... :)
 
reefedjib said:
Um, yes you are.... :)
Click to expand...

Um, no, I'm not. Just because a dude works for me for a year doesn't mean that I suddenly become his mommy and thereby responsible to see that he has something to retire on.:mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
Um, no, I'm not. Just because a dude works for me for a year doesn't mean that I suddenly become his mommy and thereby responsible to see that he has something to retire on.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but under current legislation you are in fact responsible for doing that...mommy?
 
ptif219 said:
If there was no budget deficit then explain why the national debt increased.
Click to expand...

Cant say for sure

The official budget shows a surplus over and above Social Security

and yes the national debt did increase

Perhaps off off budget items.

But using the same accounting methods as Bush and Obama used/are using their was a surplus over and above the SS surplus
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Cant say for sure

The official budget shows a surplus over and above Social Security

and yes the national debt did increase

Perhaps off off budget items.

But using the same accounting methods as Bush and Obama used/are using their was a surplus over and above the SS surplus
Click to expand...

So then a surplus including Clinton's is on paper only.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Actualy the last two years of the Clinton admin, they did not use the SS surplus ( the government had a surplus over and above that of the SS)
Click to expand...

Yes they did.
 
ptif219 said:
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus


While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion Deficit
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Click to expand...

Do you have the same chart for the Bush years?
 
USA-1 said:
Do you have the same chart for the Bush years?
Click to expand...

No one claims a surplus for Bush. 2001 is on there the first year of Bush under the Clinton budget.

Go to the link
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Yeah, right, you have no clue what his SS plan was.......:rofl
Click to expand...

Private savings accounts, which the country soundly dismissed.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account]Health savings account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


I was standing in line at the RX a few weeks ago when some poor slob in front of me was trying pay for his meds from his HSA which didn't have enough money left to cover the total. Apparently, like me, he has to meet a medication deductible before insurance kicks in (Blue Cross) and his bill was over $200. He tried using his credit card but it was declined (3 times). He left without his meds.
 
ptif219 said:
So then a surplus including Clinton's is on paper only.
Click to expand...

Clinton's "surplus" was clearly Paper Shenanigans and nothing else.

Any real surplus means either tax refunds or tax cuts, targeted proportionately so those who overpaid the most gets the largest cuts.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clinton's "surplus" was clearly Paper Shenanigans and nothing else.

Any real surplus means either tax refunds or tax cuts, targeted proportionately so those who overpaid the most gets the largest cuts.
Click to expand...

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

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.
 
Last edited:
Don't you know that the CBO can only be used in favor of rightwing positions? You can't just trot out their figures when they disagree with republicans.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Don't you know that the CBO can only be used in favor of rightwing positions? You can't just trot out their figures when they disagree with republicans.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I will try to remember that.
 
USA-1 said:
FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

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...

Then how did the deficit increase?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Don't you know that the CBO can only be used in favor of rightwing positions? You can't just trot out their figures when they disagree with republicans.
Click to expand...

The CBO is not political..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom