• 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

Eighty Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do think Ike would make it in today's republican party?
 
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...

Ah, so now your failing is a 'quirk in the LAW'...

fog in the dome indeed...:lamo

keep runnin'
 
iguanaman said:
Brown is just doing what Democrats end up spending alot of their time at. Fixing bad economies and getting out of debt that Republicans always seem to leave behind wherever they go.. Imagine what they could do with our other problems if they didn't have to keep doing this?
Sour Grapes must be at the top of the menu at your place.
Click to expand...

OK, so projecting this to the national budget, Bush may have left a mess, but it all began when Clinton, as well as BOTH the Democrats and Republicans gutted the Glass -Steagal Act. Bush just rode with the horse that was handed him, and did more. But our crashed economy did begin with Clinton.

Now here is the problem I have. Sure, Bush was in office when the economy crashed, but it takes two to tango, and the Democrats and Republicans were perfect dance partners. What pisses me off are the dittoheads on both sides who only want to blame the other side for what happened.

OK, so Brown fixed California's economy. Good. But let us not accuse ONLY Republicans of leaving messes. That is hyperpartisan douchebaggery at it's worst.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ah, so now your failing is a 'quirk in the LAW'...

fog in the dome indeed...:lamo

keep runnin'
Click to expand...

Your the one that runnin and attempting to deflect from the truth. Are you saying that the social security and Medicare trust funds are not required by law to be included in the calculations of the budget surpluses? And that trust fund accounting doesn't require that the surplus dough in the fund be segregated from the government's general account?Is this what you're sayen?
 
danarhea said:
OK, so projecting this to the national budget, Bush may have left a mess, but it all began when Clinton, as well as BOTH the Democrats and Republicans gutted the Glass -Steagal Act. Bush just rode with the horse that was handed him, and did more. But our crashed economy did begin with Clinton.

Now here is the problem I have. Sure, Bush was in office when the economy crashed, but it takes two to tango, and the Democrats and Republicans were perfect dance partners. What pisses me off are the dittoheads on both sides who only want to blame the other side for what happened.

OK, so Brown fixed California's economy. Good. But let us not accuse ONLY Republicans of leaving messes. That is hyperpartisan douchebaggery at it's worst.
Click to expand...

Now hold it. California's economy is not only not fixed, but by all measures done with sound math, appears to still be going off the big cliff. That Brown has projected that it is "fixed" is nonsense for the gullible.

As for giving Bush a pass on the Housing crash, many of us have not. Yes, he inherited the bubble from Clinton and his wonder boy Andrew Cuomo. But he only rode the wave, rather than making any legitimate attempt to stop it. Bush deserves more blame than Clinton. Glass-Steagle was not the culprit. The huge expansion of Fannie and Freddie was. The bubble was independent of Glass-Steagle. It was the stuff of hyper-inflation in housing. The bubble attracted every financial rat out there. Glass-Steagle only allowed more pigs at the trough, but make no mistake, that trough was going to be full with feeders regardless. And the bubble was going to burst regardless. And folks were going to be underwater regardless.
 
Whipsnade said:
Your the one that runnin and attempting to deflect from the truth. Are you saying that the social security and Medicare trust funds are not required by law to be included in the calculations of the budget surpluses? And that trust fund accounting doesn't require that the surplus dough in the fund be segregated from the government's general account?Is this what you're sayen?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. What I am saying is that based on historical debt data posted on the US Treasury's website there was no year since the late 50's (Ike's years) that the debt went down in sequential years. That is a FACT.
 
Whipsnade said:
Yet another deflection. You and i both know he woould be primaried in a New York Minute by the baggers.
Click to expand...

**** that nonsense. Speak for yourself, but you sure as **** do not have the mental capacity to speak for me.

Ike ran a surplus. Seems to me that "baggers" would be most impresssed with such ! Seeing as you can't even take simple debt numbers at face value, why should I, or anyone, put any stock in your opinion ?

I don't, btw.
 
Dickieboy said:
No, not at all. What I am saying is that based on historical debt data posted on the US Treasury's website there was no year since the late 50's (Ike's years) that the debt went down in sequential years. That is a FACT.
Click to expand...

I showed you three of them.Fog setten in Eh?Here's some homework for you,seeings as you like the numbers on treasury direct and all.


Take= 16,432,680,097,613.85, which is (Total Public Debt Outstanding) and deduct= 4,855,259,202,279.98 which is (Intergovernmental Holdings) and see if you don’t come up with =11,577,420,895,333.87 which is Debt Held by the Public).Debt Held by the Public,which was the numbers that I put up below.

In 1999 Revenues were (Debt Held by the Public) (1,827.5) outlays were (1,701.8)

In 2000 Revenues were (Debt Held by the Public) (2,025.2)outlays were (1,789.0)

In 2001 Revenues were (Debt Held by the Public)(1,991.1)outlays were (1,862.8)
 
Eighty Deuce said:
**** that nonsense. Speak for yourself, but you sure as **** do not have the mental capacity to speak for me.

Ike ran a surplus. Seems to me that "baggers" would be most impresssed with such ! Seeing as you can't even take simple debt numbers at face value, why should I, or anyone, put any stock in your opinion ?

I don't, btw.
Click to expand...

Then it seems the"baggers"shoulda been impressed by Clinton seeings as he did THREE times.
 
Whipsnade said:
Then it seems the"baggers"shoulda been impressed by Clinton seeings as he did THREE times.
Click to expand...

LOL ... how uninformed. Show us all where the debt under Clinton went down even once ! You can't !!!!!

But Yes ! We would dearly wish Clinton and a GOP Congress in place now instead of the inept pile of jackass feces currently in the WH.
 
Whipsnade said:
I showed you three of them.Fog setten in Eh?Here's some homework for you,seeings as you like the numbers on treasury direct and all.
Click to expand...

No, I see your 'fog'. It appears that you believe that intragovernmental debt is not a liability thus are not counting it in the numbers to make your point. Are you one of those liberals who believe that we shouldn't be responsible for our debts, those to the seniors who paid into SS and expect their benefits? When the benefits come due AND the 'IOUs' must be redeemed where does that money come from? While Clinton was not the only President to raid the 'SS piggy bank' it is often claimed by some (including you) that this borrowing is not realized until the money is paid back...if this is YOU continue in YOUR fog...unless of course you can prove that a debt is not a liability...good luck with that!
 
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ... how uninformed. Show us all where the debt under Clinton went down even once ! You can't !!!!!

But Yes ! We would dearly wish Clinton and a GOP Congress in place now instead of the inept pile of jackass feces currently in the WH.
Click to expand...

Looks like your dancing around the post that you guoted. Wonder why?
 
Dickieboy said:
It appears that you believe that intragovernmental debt is not a liability thus are not counting it in the numbers to make your point.
Click to expand...

Just showing you the accounting that's used BUY ALL PRESIDENTS.I love to see wingers dance around when in there self induced fog.:lamo
 
Whipsnade said:
Just showing you the accounting that's used BUY ALL PRESIDENTS.I love to see wingers dance around when in there self induced fog.:lamo
Click to expand...

So you concede your position is fallacious...fog indeed...thanks for that ;)
 
Whipsnade said:
Then it seems the"baggers"shoulda been impressed by Clinton seeings as he did THREE times.
Click to expand...

I would imagine "baggers" would be more impressed by the repub congress through the last 6 yrs of the Clinton adm.
 
gingern44 said:
I would imagine "baggers" would be more impressed by the repub congress through the last 6 yrs of the Clinton adm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they woulda envied the money wasted on the failed impeachment for sure.And the whitewater investigation surely woulda gave them a tingle up a leg.:2wave:

:2wave:
 
Eighty Deuce said:
**** that nonsense. Speak for yourself, but you sure as **** do not have the mental capacity to speak for me.

Ike ran a surplus. Seems to me that "baggers" would be most impresssed with such ! Seeing as you can't even take simple debt numbers at face value, why should I, or anyone, put any stock in your opinion ?

I don't, btw.
Click to expand...


Ike was the last decent Republian President and the last one to not increase the deficit and national debt. Reagan and the 2 Bush's are responsible for $12 trilion of of current debt.
 
Whipsnade said:
Yeah, they woulda envied the money wasted on the failed impeachment for sure.And the whitewater investigation surely woulda gave them a tingle up a leg.:2wave:

:2wave:
Click to expand...

But wait they balanced the budget, right? After all congress has the purse strings.
 
gingern44 said:
But wait they balanced the budget, right? After all congress has the purse strings.
Click to expand...

You tell me.if Clinton would have had today's baggers in the house when the tax increase was passed during his first term, do you think he would have gotten their vote?After all, if it wasn't for those tax increase we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

By the way Clinton didn't get a republican vote when said tax increase was passed.The same tax increase that newt said would throw the nation into a recession. :2wave:
 
I don't know which is more sad...that this ill-equipped fossil actually said this, or that there are folks clueless enough to believe it.
 
Whipsnade said:
You tell me.if Clinton would have had today's baggers in the house when the tax increase was passed during his first term, do you think he would have gotten their vote?After all, if it wasn't for those tax increase we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

By the way Clinton didn't get a republican vote when said tax increase was passed.The same tax increase that newt said would throw the nation into a recession. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Well when those tax increases were voted on we weren't 16 trillion in debt with no slow down envisioned for the growth of future spending.

And when Clinton left office we were in recession.
 
QUOTE gingern44

Well when those tax increases were voted on we weren't 16 trillion in debt with no slow down envisioned for the growth of future spending.
Click to expand...

True. that's why the top 2% are paying the Clinton tax rate now.

And when Clinton left office we were in recession.
Click to expand...

I coulda sworn when President Clinton left office ,in of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.If you have numbers other than that I would appreciate seeing them.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom