• 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!

Jerry Brown: California's deficit is gone

Dickieboy said:
Seems preciseness and coherency is deficiency progressives lack…?
Click to expand...

No I'm crystal clear that the CBO uses numerous sources, including independent experts, to make its projections. I gave the site.

Everything else is just noise from the rightwing noise machine.
 
head of joaquin said:
No I'm crystal clear that the CBO uses numerous sources, including independent experts, to make its projections. I gave the site.
Click to expand...

This is true but the numbers I posted were not projections (beliefs) but rather historical data (facts) from the Treasury...how is it that beliefs trump facts again?

Everything else is just noise from the rightwing noise machine.
Click to expand...

Leftwing noise indeed...:lamo
 
California can go bankrupt if it wants just so I dont have to pay a "red" (pardon the pun) cent to bail them out. Let them rot in fiscal hell for all there crazy totalitarian Liberal left wacko policies they've implemented.
 
head of joaquin said:
Hey look kids, he changed what he said and hoped nobody would notice.

CBO gets information from a variety of sources including independent experts.

You lose. But I'm glad you support Krugman now! He mocks rightwing memes about how SS is going broke.
Click to expand...

So was Krugman lying when he said this?

How To Read A CBO Report - NYTimes.com

How To Read A CBO Report

What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that — no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be. CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business.
Click to expand...

Looks like he affirms EVERY POINT I MADE

Hahahahaha .......
 
Whipsnade said:
They can sure as hell tell when a budget is in balance or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you sure as hell can't prove the original point...keep running...:lamo

Just a reminder:
Eighty Deuce said:
Cut the BS. Show me the year since Ike when the debt went down. Or even stayed the same (a balanced budget).

You can't. Cause it did not happen.
Click to expand...
 
Forbes Magazine, America's 20 most MISERABLE CITIES: America's Most Miserable Cities - Forbes.com

Stockton, CA
Merced, CA
Modesto, CA
Sacramento, CA (Jerry Brown's Home)
Vallejo, CA
Fresno, CA
Salinas, CA
Bakersfield, CA

How 'bout them Liberals, huh?
 
Dickieboy said:
Yeah but you sure as hell can't prove the original point...keep running...:lamo

Just a reminder:
Click to expand...

Prove what?That the budget was in balance during the Clinton presidency?I proved my point.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
He is referring to reports that congress requests from the CBO; not the data that the CBO uses to produce the reports
Click to expand...

Krugman's quote. I'll just keep pasting it and laughing at your buffonery

What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that — no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be. CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business.
Click to expand...

He's admitting the CBO is a political tool of politicians. My point stands. CBO projections are not infallible. They are wild guesses at best, made under an assortment of assumptions that reflect the current environment. Nothing more. For example they double counted Medicare savings initially when they laughably claimed Obamacare would "reduce the deficit". As a matter of fact, their initial projection has now doubled

CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act

The current head of the CBO is Douglas Elmendorf, a Democrat Appointee who met with Obama to brainstorm Obamacare legislation. This is a guy who used to work for the Brookings Institution. A left wing institution. He was part of the Hamilton project, whose leader went on to work for the Obama Campaign.

Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget Office Director As Inappropriate - ABC News

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican appointee who advised the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that he never had a private meeting at the White House during his time helming CBO, from 2003 to 2005.

“The only appearance could be that they’re leaning on him,” Holtz-Eakin said. “CBO was created for Congress, for independent analysis. The White House did him (Elmendorf) a terrible disservice.”
Click to expand...
 
Whipsnade said:
Prove what?That the budget was in balance during the Clinton presidency?I proved what my point.
Click to expand...

You proved that "Show me the year since Ike when the debt went down. Or even stayed the same..."?

No you didn't. You showed that there WAS a balanced budget that, once the fiscal period for said budget expired, was proved to be erroneous and the debt rose...ergo FAIL...
 
Whipsnade said:
Prove what?That the budget was in balance during the Clinton presidency?I proved what my point.
Click to expand...

Clinton robbed from SS to pay down Public Debt. He stuffed SS with IOUs (Intragovernmental holdings)

Intragovernmental holdings spiked every year of his Presidency because he was robbing the SS Trust Fund to cook the books

You can look at the numbers yourself. The National Debt under Clinton increased every year of his Presidency. His last budget proposal created a deficit of 100billion. Oh, and he also left Bush was a recession when he left office, as well as OBL planning/plotting 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
 
Dickieboy said:
You proved that "Show me the year since Ike when the debt went down. Or even stayed the same..."?

No you didn't. You showed that there WAS a balanced budget that, once the fiscal period for said budget expired, was proved to be erroneous and the debt rose...ergo FAIL...
Click to expand...

What post was it where I said anything about the debt going down?
 
Last edited:
Bronson said:
Clinton robbed from SS to pay down Public Debt. He stuffed SS with IOUs (Intragovernmental holdings)

Intragovernmental holdings spiked every year of his Presidency because he was robbing the SS Trust Fund to cook the books

You can look at the numbers yourself. The National Debt under Clinton increased every year of his Presidency. His last budget proposal created a deficit of 100billion. Oh, and he also left Bush was a recession when he left office, as well as OBL planning/plotting 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Click to expand...

Was Clinton the first/only President to do that?
 
At least take this statistics with a grain of salt.
24.jpg
01.jpg
02.jpg
03.jpg
 
Whipsnade said:
What post was it where said anything about the debt going down?
Click to expand...

This one:

Whipsnade said:
You seem to be confused as to what a balanced budget is. Not surprising. A balanced budget, particularly a government budget, has revenues equal to expenditures. Hopefully it’s a budget with no deficits,if you keep your fingers crossed has a surplus.

In 1999 Revenues were (1,827.5), outlays were (1,701.8), on budget (1.9) Social Security (124.7) Postal Service (-1.0 ) total (125.6 )

In 2000 Revenues were (2,025.2)outlays were (1,789.0)on budget(86.4)Social Security (151.8) Postal Service (-2.0) total (236.2)

In 2001 Revenues were(1,991.1)outlays were (1,862.8)on budget(-32.4)Social Security (163.0) Postal Service (-2.3)total (128.2)

This all had two things in common going back to 1972, and more than likely as far as social security being added to the pot,going back further. Like I said SS is part of the national budget and they all had this in common= Debt Held by the Public. Debt Held by the Public, in 1972 was= 322.4. Debt Held by the Public, in 2001 was= 3,319.6.


CBO | Historical Budget Data
Click to expand...

Which was challenged:

Eighty Deuce said:
Cut the BS. Show me the year since Ike when the debt went down. Or even stayed the same (a balanced budget).

You can't. Cause it did not happen.

Notching my pistol as you contemplate knowing you have been busted for liberal nonsense. ;)
Click to expand...

Which you failed to do...and you still keep running...done
 
Dickieboy said:
This one:



Which was challenged:



Which you failed to do...and you still keep running...done
Click to expand...

These numbers look pretty balanced to me.GASP.:shock:..could even be called a surplus.

In 1999 Revenues were INPUT (1,827.5), OUTPUT outlays were (1,701.8)
In 2000 Revenues were INPUT (2,025.2) OUTPUT outlays were (1,789.0)
In 2001 Revenues were INPUT(1,991.1)OUTPUT outlays were (1,862.8)

I bolded the pertinent parts.Maybe this time the winger fog will clear out and it'l enter the ole dome.I doubt it though.
 
Whipsnade said:
These numbers look pretty balanced to me.GASP.:shock:..could even be called a surplus.

In 1999 Revenues were INPUT (1,827.5), OUTPUT outlays were (1,701.8)
In 2000 Revenues were INPUT (2,025.2) OUTPUT outlays were (1,789.0)
In 2001 Revenues were INPUT(1,991.1)OUTPUT outlays were (1,862.8)

I bolded the pertinent parts.Maybe this time the winger fog will clear out and it'l enter the ole dome.I doubt it though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I got all that unfortunately for you those are BUDGET (belief) numbers. The actual numbers (FACTS) were posted previously and revealed there was not a single Clinton year that the debt either remained unchanged or went down...hence FAIL

winger fog indeed...:lamo
 
Whipsnade said:
These numbers look pretty balanced to me.GASP.:shock:..could even be called a surplus.

In 1999 Revenues were INPUT (1,827.5), OUTPUT outlays were (1,701.8)
In 2000 Revenues were INPUT (2,025.2) OUTPUT outlays were (1,789.0)
In 2001 Revenues were INPUT(1,991.1)OUTPUT outlays were (1,862.8)

I bolded the pertinent parts.Maybe this time the winger fog will clear out and it'l enter the ole dome.I doubt it though.
Click to expand...

Your numbers are foolish nonsense. The stuff of liberal lala ignorance. The National debt has gone up every year since Eisenhower. It went up every year of Clinton's terms. YOu can be dazzled by the smoke and mirrors all you want, but in the end, Clinton had no "balanced budgets", much less a surplus.

I'm not knocking Clinton, as he and the GOP House worked together well, and got the deficit down to a near microscpic $19 B one year. I'm knocking you for not comprehending the simple bottom line. The government's own numbers show that I am correct, and know what I am speaking of, while we haven't a clue WTF you are boasting about here !
 
Dickieboy said:
Yeah I got all that unfortunately for you those are BUDGET (belief) numbers. The actual numbers (FACTS) were posted previously and revealed there was not a single Clinton year that the debt either remained unchanged or went down...hence FAIL

winger fog indeed...:lamo
Click to expand...

Take the year 2000.The federal surplus was $230 billion. Our gross national debt increased by $18 billion that year and BJ go’s on CNN and announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion???WTF happened.:shock:

What happened is a quirk in the LAW that says that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are included in the calculations of the budget surplus.I hope this clears some of the winger fog outta the ole dome.:mrgreen:
 
Whipsnade said:
Take the year 2000.The federal surplus was $230 billion. Our gross national debt increased by $18 billion that year and BJ go’s on CNN and announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion???WTF happened.:shock:

What happened is a quirk in the LAW that says that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are included in the calculations of the budget surplus.I hope this clears some of the winger fog outta the ole dome.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Its not a "quirk" in any Law. Its politics for the dumbasses. Its no different then "baseline budgeting", and all the other smoke and mirrors meant to befuddle the gullible. The only "surplus" in 2000 was the pretend one.

Simple math from the easily readable bottom lines: No balanced budgets since Ike. No surplus since Ike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom