• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul Ryan represents the tight wad,fiscal hawk side of the right.

Conservative said:
The facts don't support your position because you don't understand the budget at all. There are two aspects of the debt, public debt and intergovt. holdings. Please explain to me how there was a surplus and no reduction in the debt? Try to get real facts instead of selective facts. There was a public debt surplus as money was taken from intergovt. holdings, SS and Medicare, leaving that with a deficit thus causing the total deficit to rise.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt? Obviously not.
 
winston53660 said:
Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt? Obviously not.
Click to expand...

your reply makes no sense.

Conservative is on the side of the facts in this regard. There was no surplus.
 
winston53660 said:
Do you understand the difference between deficit and debt? Obviously not.
Click to expand...

Absolutely do you. Is there a deficit with a balanced budget? Was there deficits every year under Clinton? If so how was there a surplus?
 
winston53660 said:
One can acquire debt with out having a budget deficit.
Click to expand...

There was no budget surplus under Clinton, there was a public debt surplus but it was offset by an intergovt holding deficit something liberals like you want to ignore
 
ARealConservative said:
your reply makes no sense.

Conservative is on the side of the facts in this regard. There was no surplus.
Click to expand...

This has been gone over so many times its stupid. There is a distinction between debt held by the public and intragovernmental debta, which includes things like the Social Security trust fund. In fact Clinton did run three years of surpluses when you consider the debt held by the public, and in fact that is the more relevant number.

The intragovernmental debt number doesn't mean what you think it means. Ironically, it actually rises as a result of a surplus. That's because when, e.g., Social Security runs a surplus, that surplus amount is owed to future Social Security beneficiaries.

I've explained this to Conservative probably half a dozen times but he's either incapable of grasping it or he simply refuses to admit that it is what it is.
 
AdamT said:
This has been gone over so many times its stupid. There is a distinction between debt held by the public and intragovernmental debta, which includes things like the Social Security trust fund. In fact Clinton did run three years of surpluses when you consider the debt held by the public, and in fact that is the more relevant number.

The intragovernmental debt number doesn't mean what you think it means. Ironically, it actually rises as a result of a surplus. That's because when, e.g., Social Security runs a surplus, that surplus amount is owed to future Social Security beneficiaries.

I've explained this to Conservative probably half a dozen times but he's either incapable of grasping it or he simply refuses to admit that it is what it is.
Click to expand...

shhhh. the adults are talking right now.
 
AdamT said:
I'm sorry, I can't dumb it down any farther than I already have.
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain then why the U.S. Treasury Dept. shows deficits every year of the Clinton Administration and then how the debt grew from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion during the Clinton term with budget surpluses?
 
AdamT said:
I'm sorry, I can't dumb it down any farther than I already have.
Click to expand...

agreed. nobody can dumb down your posts any further then the level you presently achieved.
 
Conservative said:
Why don't you explain then why the U.S. Treasury Dept. shows deficits every year of the Clinton Administration and then how the debt grew from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion during the Clinton term with budget surpluses?
Click to expand...

Like I said, I can't dumb it down any more. The number you are talking about includes the debt held by the public + intragovernmental debt. Again, running large Social Security surpluses, as we did under Clinton, *technically* increases the debt because the government is holding that money for future beneficiaries.
 
AdamT said:
Like I said, I can't dumb it down any more. The number you are talking about includes the debt held by the public + intragovernmental debt. Again, running large Social Security surpluses, as we did under Clinton, *technically* increases the debt because the government is holding that money for future beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

you dumbed it down too much I'm afraid.

the money held for future retirees was spent on current year expenses.

So now we still hold that future liability, but the money isn't being held, it was spent to show off a phony surplus.
 
James D Hill said:
Paul Ryan is an intellegent and well spoken member of the slash and burn side of GOP politics.
Click to expand...

He's an idiot whose only "intellectual" gravitas is his ability to suck corporate ****. Being able to B. S. doesn't count as "well spoken" and the slash and burn part is a myth of epic proportions. . .

Blogging Blue | Why Paul Ryan Loves Oil Subsidies

The Ryan plan also increases national defense spending to $554 billion in 2013, an increase of $8 billion over the $546 billion that was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

That would reverse some of the $487 billion in cuts that the Pentagon has planned to implement over the next decade. Over 10 years, the Ryan budget would spend $6.2 trillion on defense, which is higher than the $5.97 trillion level set under the Budget Control Act.

GOP budget boosts defense spending - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Click to expand...

Next time, don't confuse foxnews editorial ramblings w/the facts :)
 
AdamT said:
Like I said, I can't dumb it down any more. The number you are talking about includes the debt held by the public + intragovernmental debt. Again, running large Social Security surpluses, as we did under Clinton, *technically* increases the debt because the government is holding that money for future beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

Wrong, we have a unified budget thanks to LBJ and included in that budget is SS and Medicare revenue and expenses. When SS and Medicare ran a surplus the extra money was used by the Congress and was replaced with IOU's. Those IOU's are an expense that have to be funded by cash at a future date. When SS and Medicare in Intergovt. holdings was used to fund general fund items other than SS and Medicare the IOU's created a deficit and that deficit was more than the Public debt surplus then a unified budget deficit. Instead of dumbing down claims how about learning something for a change
 
Bobcat said:
Ryan and Romney offer solutions,
Click to expand...

You need to leave limbaugh land and join reality. . .

The Ryan plan also increases national defense spending to $554 billion in 2013, an increase of $8 billion over the $546 billion that was agreed to under the Budget Control Act.

That would reverse some of the $487 billion in cuts that the Pentagon has planned to implement over the next decade. Over 10 years, the Ryan budget would spend $6.2 trillion on defense, which is higher than the $5.97 trillion level set under the Budget Control Act.

GOP budget boosts defense spending - The Hill's DEFCON Hill
Click to expand...

Ryan Budget Pads Big Oil?s Pockets with Senseless Subsidies
 
TheNextEra said:
It's amazing how all the so called "fiscal" conservatives rally and cry when there is a Dem in the whitehouse, but are amazingly silent with their vote against a Republican PResident that overspends.
Click to expand...

That is the truth about the fiscal conservatives. They only support government when it comes to getting tax dollars for the rich. That fact that some corps get to pay 2% in total taxes to just insane.
 
Vallista said:
That is the truth about the fiscal conservatives. They only support government when it comes to getting tax dollars for the rich. That fact that some corps get to pay 2% in total taxes to just insane.
Click to expand...

Getting tax dollars for the rich? Do you realize that it ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY??? Please tell me that you keeping more of what you earn is an expense to the govt?
 
AdamT said:
Like I said, I can't dumb it down any more. The number you are talking about includes the debt held by the public + intragovernmental debt. Again, running large Social Security surpluses, as we did under Clinton, *technically* increases the debt because the government is holding that money for future beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

:yt

These kinds of debt tricks are the same kind used against the post office. Through the magic of accounting, any organization can be made to look prosperous (Enron) or can be made to look bankrupt (USPS) :p

Also, if conservatives want government to run more like a business, they should be eager to ignore internal debt. Private corporations eliminate internal debt on consolidation, so it must not be THAT important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom