• 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!

Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Originally Posted by American View Post
There never was a Clinton surplus, it was fantasy.

Note the bolded part.

Wrong.

There was very clearly a surplus, a real one. The government took in more money than it paid out that year. Whether you include SS or not. Even when you included interest payments. Simple math.
 
Social security? Whose talking about social security? I'm talking about the interest on the national debt. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office.

No, it did not.

Debt held by the public went down. Intragovernmental holdings do not increase deficits. They are not real debt.
 
dylan rattigan on msnbc's morning meeting, segment 2 at 10:00 eastern, headline---cooking the books with stimulus jobs

rattigan---420 jobs in CA saved by stimulus, the reality: those jobs were never in jeopardy

rattigan---30 jobs created by stimulus funds in fayetteville, wisc, the reality: 6 jobs

rattigan---school district in northern chicago claims 650 jobs saved by stimulus, reality: the district employs only 600 people

extreme liberal rattigan is now the 100th voice of independence to chime in on this topic

everyone knows
 
Re: $6.4 billion in Porkulus money spent in phantom districts?

You have no idea what my ideology is.

You can pick:

1. Clerical errors.
2. Massive conspiracy to "hide" fraud by putting it on a public website for anyone to easily find.

I pick sanity. You can pick paranoid lunacy if you want.

"Clerical errors" are the most common way of laundering and hiding money, did you know that?
 
Re: $6.4 billion in Porkulus money spent in phantom districts?

"Clerical errors" are the most common way of laundering and hiding money, did you know that?

Clerical errors on a public website, in plain sight where the fact checkers(who never check liberal facts we are told, except when they do), with no effort to hide them, or disguise them, or even make them less obvious?
 
everyone knows

so much so, we're reaching critical mass

the post, the paper of woodward and bernstein: "angry congress lashes out at obama"

washingtonpost.com

it's geithner, exposed as glaringly guilty this week for engineering those mega B's in AIG bonuses

and financial regulatory reform, a related topic, gutted yesterday in bawney fwank's financial services cmte by the cbc, congressional black caucus, 10 of whose members sit on bawney's bench

reg reform replaced cap and trade as obama's #2 domestic priority on sept 1 when axelrod announced the white house's big change in strategy

the "phantom districts" cost obama a capacious clump of his fast shrinking credibility

the disasters in asia didn't help

everyone knows
 
Last edited:
Clerical errors on a public website,



Sorry sport this goes way beyond a simple clerical error it is a willful pattern of deceit for example the GAO just reported that 58,000 of these jobs supposedly saved by the stimulus package were supposedly from companies that didn't even receive stimulus money. THEY ARE MAKING UP THE NUMBERS, just like they made up this district. If this was a simple honest mistake there wouldn't have been no less than 440 fake districts in all fifty states, 4 territories, and Washington D.C.. If this was a simple honest mistake we wouldn't be seeing report after report overstating job numbers we would also be seeing reports understating job numbers but we don't, the errors are all in one direction.
 
Really now?


FY1999: $5.656270 trillion

FY2000: $5.674178 trillion

FY2001: $5.807463 trillion

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Woops.

I've explained this before.

These figures include "intragovernmental holdings" which aren't part of the deficit. They are money the government owes itself.

The deficit numbers don't lie. They clearly show the government took in more than it spent in FY2000, even when you include SS.
 
Sorry sport this goes way beyond a simple clerical error it is a willful pattern of deceit for example the GAO just reported that 58,000 of these jobs supposedly saved by the stimulus package were supposedly from companies that didn't even receive stimulus money. THEY ARE MAKING UP THE NUMBERS, just like they made up this district. If this was a simple honest mistake there wouldn't have been no less than 440 fake districts in all fifty states, 4 territories, and Washington D.C.. If this was a simple honest mistake we wouldn't be seeing report after report overstating job numbers we would also be seeing reports understating job numbers but we don't, the errors are all in one direction.

Yes, we would see report after report. Plenty of people don't know their congressional district. Measuring jobs created is very difficult. It's alot to account for. Get over it.
 
I've explained this before.

These figures include "intragovernmental holdings" which aren't part of the deficit. They are money the government owes itself.

The deficit numbers don't lie. They clearly show the government took in more than it spent in FY2000, even when you include SS.

The national debt numbers don't lie, the intragovernmental holdings don't count because you say they don't? Give me a freaking break. Just because the government wants to play little accounting games by stashing away money doesn't mean that we still don't owe this money, and whats more we still pay interest on that debt. Sorry sport the national debt went up every single year Clinton was in office, saying "interest on the debt and off budget items don't count" is not a valid argument.
 
Yes, we would see report after report. Plenty of people don't know their congressional district. Measuring jobs created is very difficult. It's alot to account for. Get over it.

Yep not a single report underestimating job numbers, funny thing that all the reports are going in a single direction IE inflating job statistics. Nothing to see here folks.
 
The national debt numbers don't lie, the intragovernmental holdings don't count because you say they don't? Give me a freaking break. Just because the government wants to play little accounting games by stashing away money doesn't mean that we still don't owe this money, and whats more we still pay interest on that debt. Sorry sport the national debt went up every single year Clinton was in office, saying "interest on the debt and off budget items don't count" is not a valid argument.

Not because I say so. The Treasury site explains the difference very clearly. Educate yourself. You are woefully ignorant of this stuff and it shows.

I am not saying interest on the debt and off-budget items don't count. They do. Clinton's surplus in FY00 included those. It was a surplus. More money came in than was spent. That is an undisputed fact.

Intragovernmental holdings means money one part of the government owes to another part. It's like owing money from your savings account to your checking account. That's not really debt. Your figures include that. When you use only real debt - "debt held by the public" - then you see it went down. Debt held by the public is money the government borrows from the outside.

I repeat - the numbers show that in FY2000, the government took in more money than it spent, including interest payments and off-budget accounts like Social Security. Period.
 
Well for example 58,000 of these supposedly save jobs were from companies that have since proven not to have received a single single stimulus penny.

But they could have been saved from the multiplier effect.
 
Yep intragovernmental debt, interest on debt, and off budget items don't count because you say they don't. Save the Washington doublespeak.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Read my response.
 
Wrong.

There was very clearly a surplus, a real one. The government took in more money than it paid out that year. Whether you include SS or not. Even when you included interest payments. Simple math.

I know that, it was in the links,(all three of them, including the CBO) but evidently Agent Ferris is so blinded by partisan kool-Aid he cant see it.

He could be using to the old standby winger defense, the tried and true winger defense, the one and only…”OBTUSE DEFENSE” that some wingers have been known to use when all else fails, clinging to it like it was a life raft. :2wave:
 
I've explained this before.

These figures include "intragovernmental holdings" which aren't part of the deficit. They are money the government owes itself.

The deficit numbers don't lie. They clearly show the government took in more than it spent in FY2000, even when you include SS.

Wrong Clinton just took money from other places to make it appear there was a surplus.

From post 82

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
 
Wrong Clinton just took money from other places to make it appear there was a surplus.

From post 82

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).


Wrong.

In FY2000, the total money the government took in exceeded the amount spent, including all trust funds, etc. Period.

The $246.5B "borrowed" was borrowed from the government, going to the government. So it nets to zero.
 
It's really very simple. The amount the government recieved from the outside world (taxes, etc) was more than the amount it spent in FY2000. That includes all off-budget stuff, trust funds, interest payments, etc. All of it. That is a surplus, not a deficit. Period.
 
Not because I say so. The Treasury site explains the difference very clearly. Educate yourself. You are woefully ignorant of this stuff and it shows.

Yep it doesn't count because they say so.

I am not saying interest on the debt and off-budget items don't count. They do. Clinton's surplus in FY00 included those. It was a surplus. More money came in than was spent. That is an undisputed fact.

No Clinton's surplus did not include off budget and interest on debt nor did it include intragovernmental debt, and when those things are added the debt increased not decreased, the Clinton surplus is a myth.

Intragovernmental holdings means money one part of the government owes to another part.

It's like owing money from your savings account to your checking account. That's not really debt. Your figures include that. When you use only real debt - "debt held by the public" - then you see it went down. Debt held by the public is money the government borrows from the outside.

Um no tax payers payed into Social Security and Social Security loaned money to the Federal Government, and Social Security owes tax payers money and won't be able to pay that money if the Federal Government writes off the Intragovernmental Holdings. To suggest that Intragovernmental Holdings aren't real debt is patently false especially considering that we still have to pay interest on said debt.

I repeat - the numbers show that in FY2000, the government took in more money than it spent, including interest payments and off-budget accounts like Social Security. Period.

Only in Washington could the national debt going up every single year be called a surplus.
 
Back
Top Bottom