November Deficit Highest on Record

Conservative said:

Didn't realize that this thread was about Clinton and Bush nor did I realize that we had someone here who totally ignores history. anyone that believes the Clinton tax increases gave us 22 million jobs is absolutely brainwashed as BLS doesn't show Clinton creating 22 million jobs nor does logic and common sense support that contention.

Click to expand...

The numbers are what the numbers are and no amount of spin by you or the warriors of the right changes any of that. Clinton = higher tax rates, 22 million jobs created and ended up with e budget surplus gift wrapped for Bush who crapped all over it like he just ate five bad burrito's.

Too bad the rest of the nation got soiled in the process.

But go on and urge more lowering of tax rates which don't help create any jobs. Go and an urge more for the greedy rich who do not need any more.

Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?

By your own count the difference is 20 million jobs. You want to moan and whine and complain about a 10% differential between the figures. Be my guest. Hang your hat on that one. 20 million is still 20 million more than were created the last decade with the Bush tax cut rates.

haymarket said:

The numbers are what the numbers are and no amount of spin by you or the warriors of the right changes any of that. Clinton = higher tax rates, 22 million jobs created and ended up with e budget surplus gift wrapped for Bush who crapped all over it like he just ate five bad burrito's.

Too bad the rest of the nation got soiled in the process.

But go on and urge more lowering of tax rates which don't help create any jobs. Go and an urge more for the greedy rich who do not need any more.

Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?

Click to expand...

An avowed socialist and Bernie Sanders is the great Bernie Sanders. Guffaw! Gadzooks! Ye Gads and Little Gold Fish! Throw in a Holy Mackerel, as well.

haymarket said:

The numbers are what the numbers are and no amount of spin by you or the warriors of the right changes any of that. Clinton = higher tax rates, 22 million jobs created and ended up with e budget surplus gift wrapped for Bush who crapped all over it like he just ate five bad burrito's.

Too bad the rest of the nation got soiled in the process.

But go on and urge more lowering of tax rates which don't help create any jobs. Go and an urge more for the greedy rich who do not need any more.

Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?

By your own count the difference is 20 million jobs. You want to moan and whine and complain about a 10% differential between the figures. Be my guest. Hang your hat on that one. 20 million is still 20 million more than were created the last decade with the Bush tax cut rates.

Click to expand...

Yes, because there are obviously no other factors that could have possible impacted the economy. If jobs increased during Clinton, it's obviously due to higher tax rates. If they decreased during Bush, it's obviously because of lower tax rates.

*blank stare*

haymarket said:

The numbers are what the numbers are and no amount of spin by you or the warriors of the right changes any of that. Clinton = higher tax rates, 22 million jobs created and ended up with e budget surplus gift wrapped for Bush who crapped all over it like he just ate five bad burrito's.

Too bad the rest of the nation got soiled in the process.

But go on and urge more lowering of tax rates which don't help create any jobs. Go and an urge more for the greedy rich who do not need any more.

Like the great Bernie Sanders asks "when is enough enough"?

By your own count the difference is 20 million jobs. You want to moan and whine and complain about a 10% differential between the figures. Be my guest. Hang your hat on that one. 20 million is still 20 million more than were created the last decade with the Bush tax cut rates.

Click to expand...

I posted the numbers, but you ignored them which isn't surprising. Doesn't sound to me like you are old enough to understand that you keeping more of your money happens with tax cuts and that benefits the economy. Those aren't my numbers, those are the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and it shows 18 million, not 20 million. I am still waiting for you to show me how the Clinton tax increase created those jobs although I do happen to agree with you, those tax increases gave us a GOP Congress that repealed most of them, a little fact that you ignore.

ptif219 said:

What about spending cuts? You never address the fact Clinton cut the military almost in half.

Click to expand...

Another good thing to give him credit for.

Conservative said:

I posted the numbers, but you ignored them which isn't surprising. Doesn't sound to me like you are old enough to understand that you keeping more of your money happens with tax cuts and that benefits the economy. Those aren't my numbers, those are the Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers and it shows 18 million, not 20 million. I am still waiting for you to show me how the Clinton tax increase created those jobs although I do happen to agree with you, those tax increases gave us a GOP Congress that repealed most of them, a little fact that you ignore.

Click to expand...

what do you get when you subtract 117 million from 137 million?

haymarket said:

what do you get when you subtract 117 million from 137 million?

Click to expand...

Where did you get the 117 million, that was December 1988. I am getting worried about you and your distortion of the facts.

RightinNYC said:

Yes, because there are obviously no other factors that could have possible impacted the economy. If jobs increased during Clinton, it's obviously due to higher tax rates. If they decreased during Bush, it's obviously because of lower tax rates.

*blank stare*

Click to expand...

Gimme a freakin' break. Is there any doubt that if the numbers were in your favor you righties would trumpet them and damn any other reasons or explanations?

Lets be real here. When the numbers seem to prove you are right - then you love the numbers and they speak for themselves. When the numbers work for the hated enemy - then there are other reasons. sure.

haymarket said:

Gimme a freakin' break. Is there any doubt that if the numbers were in your favor you righties would trumpet them and damn any other reasons or explanations?

Lets be real here.

Click to expand...

Yet you distort the numbers to serve your point of view using the wrong data and then never telling the rest of the story. That to me is something a true cult follower does. I remember to this day when I realized that liberalism was a total and complete failure and how it was creating dependence. I wanted no part of it and wondered why it took me so long to realize what a fool liberalism was making out of me. I am confident that it will happen to you someday.

Conservative said:

Where did you get the 117 million, that was December 1988. I am getting worried about you and your distortion of the facts.

Click to expand...

this is not in your post with the stats?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1992 117978

that was not the start of the Clinton presidency?

haymarket said:

Another good thing to give him credit for.

Click to expand...

He was given a "peace dividend" by Reagan

Conservative said:

Yet you distort the numbers to serve your point of view using the wrong data and then never telling the rest of the story. That to me is something a true cult follower does. I remember to this day when I realized that liberalism was a total and complete failure and how it was creating dependence. I wanted no part of it and wondered why it took me so long to realize what a fool liberalism was making out of me. I am confident that it will happen to you someday.

Click to expand...

so now you do not like your own numbers anymore?

This is really getting confusing and you should really stick to one position with one set of numbers if you like them so well.

haymarket said:

so now you do not like your own numbers anymore?

This is really getting confusing and you should really stick to one position with one set of numbers if you like them so well.

Click to expand...

I love my numbers, get someone to help you read them

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047

haymarket said:

Gimme a freakin' break. Is there any doubt that if the numbers were in your favor you righties would trumpet them and damn any other reasons or explanations?

Click to expand...

Yes. Believe it or not, I don't make stupid arguments about how the loss of jobs over the past few years automatically proves that Obama is terrible. Just because you're a partisan hack doesn't mean that everyone else is as well.

haymarket said:

Another good thing to give him credit for.

Click to expand...

cutting military in half is good? You need help

reefedjib said:

Tell us a little more about that!

Click to expand...

IMO, it would look basically like South Korea circa 1997 with a mix of China's state firms and their plethora of non-performing loans. While that was private banks, the effect would be the same. In South Korea circa 1997 lending was cheap to the point where it was profitable for firms to rely on 3 month revolving lines of credit to finance their operations. Eventually when the Asian Financial Crisis hit and massive amounts of money fled the country, banks couldn't keep the lines of credit open and promptly caused massive cash flow and bankruptcy problems across South Korea. Direct government lending would mirror this as it would be exceedingly loose, low rates and easily renewable. But eventually something is going to cause this to end and with it, it will take all of the firms reliant upon that financing. Direct lending will in effect boost activity. But the cost down the road is extensive.

China has for years kept employment artificially high by effectively direct government lending through the large industrial banks to state owned enterprises. These banks have hundreds of billions of non-performing loans on their books. Sure it keeps lots of people employed and creates artificial demand by keeping bad companies going and thereby boosting aggregate demand. But when the NPL apocalypse comes calling, it's the end.

In the end, direct government lending will result in lots of bad loans and serious cashflow problems for those reliant on those financing.

What are the bigger problems it causes down the line (run a higher deficit, balloon the debt, devalue the dollar, struggle with selling govt bonds and T-bills?)?

Click to expand...

A higher deficit may be an outcome, but if the profitable loans are paying for the non-profitable the net outcome to the deficit may be zero. Hard to say. Devaluation of the dollar would be likely as the rate charged would be below market. Funneling in large amounts of cash at low rates isn't going to be good for the dollar. As for debt, depends on the profitability of the overall program.

RightinNYC said:

Yes. Believe it or not, I don't make stupid arguments about how the loss of jobs over the past few years automatically proves that Obama is terrible. Just because you're a partisan hack doesn't mean that everyone else is as well.

Click to expand...

True, but in this case, hayward's opponent is indeed a hack. The problem with Conservative and Hayward is that they are dumbing down economics to suit their arguments to the point where their discussion has no value whatsoever. Both seem to hold the truly asinine argument that economics is a simple science.

ptif219 said:

cutting military in half is good? You need help

Click to expand...

no - the country and right wingers do.

Conservative... okay - I read the line incorrectly. So by this chart its still 18 million more than we had in the last decade with the Bush tax cuts.

I will take that any day of the week.

If anybody created 18 million more jobs today it would be heralded as a miracle.... and then leaving the nation with a surplus would be a double miracle.

obvious Child said:

True, but in this case, hayward's opponent is indeed a hack. The problem with Conservative and Hayward is that they are dumbing down economics to suit their arguments to the point where their discussion has no value whatsoever. Both seem to hold the truly asinine argument that economics is a simple science.

Click to expand...

You know, OC, if I never get another response from you it won't matter a bit in my life. Would love to put my results up against yours but we know that isn't possible on line, don't we? This Thread is about the Nov. 2010 deficit being the highest on record and has nothing to do with your comments.

haymarket said:

no - the country and right wingers do.

Conservative... okay - I read the line incorrectly. So by this chart its still 18 million more than we had in the last decade with the Bush tax cuts.

I will take that any day of the week.

If anybody created 18 million more jobs today it would be heralded as a miracle.... and then leaving the nation with a surplus would be a double miracle.

Click to expand...

Of course you will because you don't understand that the Clinton tax increase led to a Republican Congress and repeal of most of those taxes and you further ignore that since Obama took office he has added 3 trillion to the debt with November 2010 being the highest on record and that is almost 2 years after Bush left office. Now that is a liberal record to be proud of, isn't it?

Conservative said:

You know, OC, if I never get another response from you it won't matter a bit in my life.

Click to expand...

Well, that's for certain. You clearly have absoutely no tolerance for any belief that does not confirm 100% with your beliefs. So much so that you go off on childish tantrums whenever anyone asks you to actually prove your arguments.

Would love to put my results up against yours but we know that isn't possible on line, don't we?

Click to expand...

And no one would believe you anyways. Someone who claims to have worked in the private sector but has publicly stated he does not care about processing data into usable forms is a liar.
Every business needs processed data to make decisions on. And processed data comes from processing raw data. You have explicitly stated you do not care about processing data. Therefore you are 100% without question lying about your "experience."

This Thread is about the Nov. 2010 deficit being the highest on record and has nothing to do with your comments.

Click to expand...

Pointing out how your arguments are wrong, stupid and completely without value does not mean my arguments are not related to the thread topic.

But we all know you cannot win an argument against me. About time you stopped trying.

Conservative said:

Of course you will because you don't understand that the Clinton tax increase led to a Republican Congress and repeal of most of those taxes and you further ignore that since Obama took office he has added 3 trillion to the debt with November 2010 being the highest on record and that is almost 2 years after Bush left office. Now that is a liberal record to be proud of, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I am not ignoring the Obama debt that was necessary because of the terrible economic conditions that Bush left him with.

It simply has nothing to do with the case for the tax rates under the Clinton years being fine and dandy and helping to create prosperity and a budget surplus.

haymarket said:

I am not ignoring the Obama debt that was necessary because of the terrible economic conditions that Bush left him with.

It simply has nothing to do with the case for the tax rates under the Clinton years being fine and dandy and helping to create prosperity and a budget surplus.

Click to expand...

Two years later? The recession ended in June 2009 yet every month of 2010 the unemployment was higher and since he signed the stimulus 4 million jobs have been lost. There are over 16 million unemployed Americans so what do you think the deficit would be if those 16+ million were working again and paying their "fair share" in taxes? Obama has done nothing to put people back to work as the numbers show and therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with Bush.

I know how badly you want to defend Clinton but you don't have a clue what the tax rates were under Clinton and what the people actually paid in taxes just like you bought the 22 million number which has been shown to be wrong. Liberalism has made a fool out of you and you refuse to accept it.

Conservative said:

The recession ended in June 2009 yet every month of 2010 the unemployment was higher and since he signed the stimulus 4 million jobs have been lost.

Click to expand...

Quoted for irony. :lol:

independent_thinker2002 said:

Quoted for irony. :lol:

Click to expand...

What most economists will tell you is that TARP saved the economy and much of TARP was paid back in 2009 and we came out of recession in June 2009, long before much of the Obama stimulus could have had any impact. Still the Obama stimulus added 4 million to the unemployment roles because it did nothing to promote the private sector and all that money did was increase the debt. No one seems interested in explaining how Nov. 2010 had the highest deficit on record. Obama keeps touting that things are better so with 4 million more unemployed and the highest deficit on record I keep waiting for Obama to explain exactly what is getting better? How about Independent Thinker, give it your best shot.