Page 43 of 87 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 862

Thread: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

  1. #421
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    08-26-10 @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    27
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?

  2. #422
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Seen
    08-26-10 @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    27
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Or maybe it's that your "accounting" practices only use "plussing" and "minusing". Don't confuse yourself with interest and complicated formulas that use math like "timesing".

  3. #423
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Not sure why you guys are torturing yourselves. Something like 25 years ago congress passed what they called a "unified" budget. That is to make things look better they took the SS surplus and added it to the budget to less less of a deficit or in the case you are talking about a surplus.

    As to whether the government can have debt that is not publicly held. My sense is the answer is yes. The money in the SS trust, that was paid for with the insurance money people had taken away as a pension should not be confused with other monies. If you remember, Gore talked about a "lock box". People scuffed at him. Now it looks like the government may actually steal those dollars from retirees so yes it should be considered debt in my view.
    I realize it is still debt, but how can it possibly be financed without first recieving it from revenues from somewhere? It is only possible if the government or some other agency had a surplus. It is impossible for the government in its entirety to have a deficit (as conservative implies) but still pay down the public debt. If it took the money from SS for example, it was because SS was already in surplus for that year.

  4. #424
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Plus you have to remember that most the intragovernmental holdings go towards prefunding SS. If the government decided not to prefund SS it would have had the same exact surplus. The only difference is the government would not have garanteed the money would get back to the program (and therby not increase the national debt). The effect on debt to the public, the reported surplus, etc would have been 0 though.

  5. #425
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    I realize it is still debt, but how can it possibly be financed without first recieving it from revenues from somewhere? It is only possible if the government or some other agency had a surplus. It is impossible for the government in its entirety to have a deficit (as conservative implies) but still pay down the public debt. If it took the money from SS for example, it was because SS was already in surplus for that year.
    That is correct. That is why they changed the rules for the unified budget I mentioned. Previously there were two numbers.One whatever the status of the budget ex-SS and then the surplus taken in for SS.

  6. #426
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bereal View Post
    I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?
    1) The above is clearly racist, sexist, and probably homophobic. The phrase "in the BLACK" is offensive to some minorities, as does the phrase "in the RED" presume to insult Native Americans. As a Native American (I was born in the US of A, and that makes me as native to the North American continent as ANY other hominid alive today), I find offensive that anyone could be "in" me.

    2) NO president since before Nixon had a balanced budget, let alone a budget showing a surplus, which is an alternative meaning to the bigoted phrase you used "in the BLACK". Also, even pretending the final budget under Clinton showed a surplus, that surplus would have been the product of the House of Representatives, which, at the time, was controlled by Republicans. Not that it matters, because GAAP would put anyone in jail who tried to make the claim that the federal budget was in balance . Socialist Security revenues were counted, future socialist security liabilities were not listed. This is the kind of accounting that made Enron famous.

    3) If there HAD BEEN a surplus under Clinton, the only moral thing to do with it would have been to cut taxes so the persons paying the largest fraction of the surplus got the largest fraction of the refund. Is it necessary to point out that President Clinton presided over no morally obligated tax rebates to overcharged taxpayers? Again, this is a fact that could have put civillian accountants in jail, if they tried it with a private company.

    So, there weren't no surplus, the budget was not "in the black" (I'm tempted to point out that the urban legend has it that the Washington Post grammar checker requested that the business page use the term "African American" instead of "black", but I won't), and Clinton, a convicted perjurer, doesn't haven any positive record to point to.

  7. #427
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Retirees living off investment income? a minority, for sure, unless you count tax deferred accounts, and THOSE are taxed as regular income....I suppose Warren Buffet will feel the pinch, but he can take it...
    How about your mother living off her investments, should she pay more? All you ever think about is the one or two rich people like Warren Buffet as your examples. You're not really serious about this issue are you?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  8. #428
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Plus you have to remember that most the intragovernmental holdings go towards prefunding SS. If the government decided not to prefund SS it would have had the same exact surplus. The only difference is the government would not have garanteed the money would get back to the program (and therby not increase the national debt). The effect on debt to the public, the reported surplus, etc would have been 0 though.
    The govt. doesn't prefund SS, the taxpayer does. There was NO Surplus by Bill Clinton as the U.S. Treasury shows. If you go to the U.S. Treasury website you will see that reality. SS is On Budget and that is the only reason the budget was even close to being balanced. Intergovt. holdings obligations went up as SS revenue was replaced with an IOU which is an obligation thus a debt.

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.html
    Last edited by Conservative; 08-24-10 at 10:12 AM.

  9. #429
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,874

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Now that isn't going to make a lot of liberals here very happy.
    It will make me happy. :-)

  10. #430
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

    Quote Originally Posted by Bereal View Post
    I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?
    Apparently the U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees because they report no balanced budget. Your argument is like your neighbor telling you that your bank statement has a surplus when the bank says it is overdrawn. Deficits are yearly and debt is cumulative. Clinton yearly budgets weren't even in balanced therefore he couldn't pay back any debt. Sounds like another class envy person here.

    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 Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    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


    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

    Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

    Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

Page 43 of 87 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... 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
  •