Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

  1. #21
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Morality Games;1058613499]I'm sorry, but I don't speak hyperbole. "Shut down the government?"
    That is what it is called when the President and Congress cannot agree on a budget. Non necessary personnel are sent home and it is called a govt. shutdown

    Anyway, while duty obliges me to take assertions that Clinton's economic policy was not the catalyst for the mid-late 90s economic boom, you'd have to make a stronger argument for it; what you have now are vague generalizations.
    I don't have to make any argument at all, check out the economic growth in 1993 and 1994 before the GOP took over Congress. You can get that information from bea.gov.

    I'm also not going to argue whether or not Clinton had a surplus, so you can stop right there; I believe he did, but if you want to say he didn't, I don't care. I said he was fiscally responsible in that the economic bills he passed did not exceed fundamental limits on available capital.
    I don't say he had a deficit, the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the Govt. says he didn't have a surplus without using SS. That never was the intent of SS.


    Did you read what factcheck says? Try again, the economic plan he passed retroactive to January 1, 1993 led to the election of the Republican Congress who reversed many of those tax increases. That led to the boom the later part of the decade, a boom however that was built on the dot.com industry and thus fake assets.

    Why do you buy what you are told and never research to verify the rhetoric?

  2. #22
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Did you read what factcheck says? Try again, the economic plan he passed retroactive to January 1, 1993 led to the election of the Republican Congress who reversed many of those tax increases.

    Why do you buy what you are told and never research to verify the rhetoric?
    Wait a minute. FactCheck is liberal?

    Don't argue economics unless you are willing to source. For example, I want to know which economists have argued Clinton's tax policies (of which most were still effective) did not yield the revenue. Even though the Republicans were able to get the political capital to reverse some points of the policy, it didn't stop the plan from taking effect.

    I don't have to make any argument at all, check out the economic growth in 1993 and 1994 before the GOP took over Congress. You can get that information from bea.gov.
    If you're not here to argue, leave. I'm not going to draw inferences for you. You are going to spell them out. And then I am going to prove you wrong.

    I don't say he had a deficit, the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the Govt. says he didn't have a surplus without using SS. That never was the intent of SS.
    I repeat.

    I. Don't. Care. Given the huge deficits of previous years, it is immaterial as to whether Clinton was fiscally responsible if the budget went a hundred billion either way.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 03-11-10 at 07:00 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  3. #23
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Morality Games;1058613553]Wait a minute. FactCheck is liberal?
    Not what I said, apparently you are the liberal.

    Don't argue economics unless you are willing to source. For example, I want to know which economists have argued Clinton's tax policies (of which most were still effective) did not yield the revenue.

    Do you have a checkbook? Check out the checkbook of the United States which is the Treasury Dept. That beats any economist's opinion and what is in your world that makes economist comments credible. They are a dime a dozen and I can give you economists to refute yours. That is why I prefer the checkbook and non partisan sites.


    I
    f you're not here to argue, leave. I'm not going to draw inferences for you. You are going to spell them out. And then I am going to prove you wrong.
    Bring it on, but you better have the facts, not opinions.


    I repeat.

    I. Don't. Care. Given the huge deficits of previous years, it is immaterial as to whether Clinton was fiscally responsible if the budget went a hundred billion either way
    Clinton decimated the military and cashed in the peace dividend. When he took office the debt was 4.4 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.6 trillion. Where is the surplus? that is 1.2 trillion added to the debt. Reagan added 1.7 trillion and destroyed the Soviet Union.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Not what I said, apparently you are the liberal.
    If what you are saying is true, based on how the article is written, FactCheck is trying to cover something up.

    Do you have a checkbook? Check out the checkbook of the United States which is the Treasury Dept. That beats any economist's opinion and what is in your world that makes economist comments credible. They are a dime a dozen and I can give you economists to refute yours. That is why I prefer the checkbook and non partisan sites.
    This is a debate forum. Debate or leave.

    Capital is a tricky thing. I have no guarantee your interpretations are sound. That's why I want to see you spell them out for me. I'm not going to make guesses.

    Clinton decimated the military and cashed in the peace dividend. When he took office the debt was 4.4 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.6 trillion. Where is the surplus? that is 1.2 trillion added to the debt. Reagan added 1.7 trillion and destroyed the Soviet Union.
    Just so we know, did the Soviet Union implode on itself because communism is inherently unsustainable or did Reagan destroy it? Destroying something that isn't sustainable isn't a great feat. Also, what about all those other guys and their contributions to the decades-long Cold War policy? Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon to name a few.

    But to the point: the 1.2 trillion could be interest from unpaid debt. While yearly budgets would have included payment for some of the interest, not all of it would have been due on any given fiscal year. In which case, it was never part of Clinton's economic responsibilities.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 03-11-10 at 07:30 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  5. #25
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Morality Games;1058613618]If what you are saying is true, based on how the article is written, FactCheck is trying to cover something up.
    Fact check did a pretty good job and was fair. Suggest you read it then verify the rhetoric with bea.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Here is the budget link for 2000. Notice SS included in the revenue section. Back out SS revenue and expense and see what you get.

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf

    This is a debate forum. Debate or leave.
    Who made you moderator? Learn to do your own research and stop with just rhetoric.

    Capital is a tricky thing. I have no guarantee your interpretations are sound. That's why I want to see you spell them out for me. I'm not going to make guesses.
    All I have seen from you are wild claims that you have yet to back up. I gave you specific sites, non partisan sites and you offered nothing in return.

  6. #26
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    [quote=Conservative;1058613636]Fact check did a pretty good job and was fair. Suggest you read it then verify the rhetoric with bea.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Here is the budget link for 2000. Notice SS included in the revenue section. Back out SS revenue and expense and see what you get.

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf

    1. It doesn't mean anything unless it apportions the 1.2 trillion to specific expenses.

    2. If you are right then FactCheck is either delusional or hyper-partisan. It can't have been both Clinton's tax policies and Republican hammering of those policies which led the the mid-late 90s boom.

    Who made you moderator? Learn to do your own research and stop with just rhetoric.
    I'm not accepting it is rhetoric until you prove it.


    All I have seen from you are wild claims that you have yet to back up. I gave you specific sites, non partisan sites and you offered nothing in return
    The shoe is on the other foot. To begin with, I haven't claimed much, and hardly anything revolutionary; every word is consistent with FactCheck.

    I speculated the 1.2 trillion might be unpaid interest, at least in part. Since specific expenses are not registering on the annual budgets, and because it is routinely asserted by numerous authories that much of our exisitng debt is accumulated interest (from the Reagan and Bush Senior years; Clinton didn't add enough and George Bush Jr.'s hasn't been around long enough), that seems to be the most plausible explanation; no reason to think interest wasn't growing just because Clinton was president.

    In any event, I'm not convinced even if Clinton was responsible for the entire 1.2 trillion that he still wouldn't be fiscally responsible; adjusting for inflation, 1.2 trillion over eight years would have still been tiny in comparison to any other individual president's budgets in the last thirty years.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 03-11-10 at 08:00 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  7. #27
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    [quote=Morality Games;1058613662]
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Fact check did a pretty good job and was fair. Suggest you read it then verify the rhetoric with bea.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Here is the budget link for 2000. Notice SS included in the revenue section. Back out SS revenue and expense and see what you get.

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf

    1. It doesn't mean anything unless it apportions the 1.2 trillion to specific expenses.

    2. If you are right then FactCheck is either delusional or hyper-partisan. It can't have been both Clinton's tax policies and Republican hammering of those policies which led the the mid-late 90s boom.



    I'm not accepting it is rhetoric until you prove it.




    The shoe is on the other foot. To begin with, I haven't claimed much, and hardly anything revolutionary; every word is consistent with FactCheck.

    I speculated the 1.2 trillion might be unpaid interest, at least in part. Since specific expenses are not registering on the annual budgets, and because it is routinely asserted by numerous authories that much of our exisitng debt is accumulated interest (from the Reagan and Bush Senior years; Clinton didn't add enough and George Bush Jr.'s hasn't been around long enough), that seems to be the most plausible explanation; no reason to think interest wasn't growing just because Clinton was president.

    In any event, I'm not convinced even if Clinton was responsible for the entire 1.2 trillion that he still wouldn't be fiscally responsible; adjusting for inflation, 1.2 trillion over eight years would have still been tiny in comparison to any other individual president's budgets in the last thirty years.
    I don't have a lot of use for kids that cannot read a financial statement. 1.2 trillion in debt service? When Clinton took office the total debt was 4.4 trillion so figure out how much interest is on 4.4 trillion dollars if the interest rate was 4%? There is a line item on the financial statement for interest. Obviously you didn't go to the website because there are line items for each department expense.

    As for other Presidents, Reagan's deficits were 1.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush 1, 1.4 trillion in 4 years, Clinton 1.2 trillion in 8 years and Bush 5.0 trillion in 8 years with 9/11 and two wars.

    It is also apparent that you don't even know the difference between a deficit and debt. Learn to read a financial statement then get back to me.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Wait a minute. FactCheck is liberal?

    Don't argue economics unless you are willing to source. For example, I want to know which economists have argued Clinton's tax policies (of which most were still effective) did not yield the revenue. Even though the Republicans were able to get the political capital to reverse some points of the policy, it didn't stop the plan from taking effect.



    If you're not here to argue, leave. I'm not going to draw inferences for you. You are going to spell them out. And then I am going to prove you wrong.



    I repeat.

    I. Don't. Care. Given the huge deficits of previous years, it is immaterial as to whether Clinton was fiscally responsible if the budget went a hundred billion either way.

    Far too many use "unnamed" economists as evidence to support a particular position but since economics isn't an exact science there are various points of views depending on the economists that you talk to. Different economists different points of view.

    For those that support Obama and what he is doing, here is something to think about. FDR gets a lot of praise for what he did but as these economists state he prolonged the depression which could have ended years earlier. This just proves that different economists have different opinions. That is why I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Treasury data which is non partisan and serves as the real data for the nation's economy.

    FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

  9. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What is it in the Obama economic plan that has prevented a worldwide economic collapse? What exactly is the debt to GDP ratio with the Obama spending?

    You seem to have had a outrage over the Bush deficits which until the recession hit in December 2007 were a much smaller percentage of GDP than anything Obama is proposing?
    Who is "you"?

    Also the debt to gdp ratio is available on wikipedia. Also last I remembered most of the world was at a consensus that stabilizing the US economy did prevent economic collapse? But thank you for calling me out on what exactly was in the plan. I dont exactly know, I haven't been completely interested. What do you believe was in the plan? "Economic plan" heh... sounds... communist.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,255

    Re: Obama Deficits Continue to rise

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Who is "you"?

    Also the debt to gdp ratio is available on wikipedia. Also last I remembered most of the world was at a consensus that stabilizing the US economy did prevent economic collapse? But thank you for calling me out on what exactly was in the plan. I dont exactly know, I haven't been completely interested. What do you believe was in the plan? "Economic plan" heh... sounds... communist.
    Stabilizing the U.S. Economy occurred in 2008 with the passing of TARP, you know the program Obama is taking credit for but then blaming for the deficit? TARP, the Toxic Asset Relief Program that bailed out the banks and most of which has been paid back.

    You, is you, raised the issue of debt to GDP ratio, check out Bush's and then compare that to Obama's, get back to me with the results.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •