The Deficit Did Not Cause The Recession, The Recession Caused The Deficit

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... take a look at the trend under Reagan and Bush you dolt.

Yes, look at it. 12 straight years of significant deficit spending (particularly with Reagan's +6% in 83, and then around 5% in 84, 85 and 86 -- that's a lot of debt). Then it gets turned around during the Clinton administration.

That said, you chart is bogus... it is impossible for there to have been positive numbers when not one single year did the nations debt decrease under Clinton. So what are they using? Budget numbers?

It's the St. Louis Fed. And even if you dismiss the chart because it doesn't include intragovernmental debt, as a comparative measure it's fine. The same standard applies for each year. And then even if you still dismiss the chart, you can't dismiss the trajectory of deficits under each president.

and yes, since CONGRESS controls the purse strings, we are most certainly going to attribute the budget and spending in large part to who has control of Congress.

Whatever makes you happy, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, look at it. 12 straight years of significant deficit spending (particularly with Reagan's +6% in 83, and then around 5% in 84, 85 and 86 -- that's a lot of debt). Then it gets turned around during the Clinton administration.

It's the St. Louis Fed. And even if you dismiss the chart because it doesn't include intragovernmental debt, as a comparative measure it's fine. The same standard applies for each year. And then even if you still dismiss the chart, you can't dismiss the trajectory of deficits under each president.

Yet it doesn't show the overall picture. What was it WITH intragovernmental debt. That debt matters every bit as much.

Whatever makes you happy, SF.

yes, reality does make me happy. In your deluded world, the President is the one that controls everything. Here in reality that is not the case.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, look at it. 12 straight years of significant deficit spending (particularly with Reagan's +6% in 83, and then around 5% in 84, 85 and 86 -- that's a lot of debt). Then it gets turned around during the Clinton administration.



It's the St. Louis Fed. And even if you dismiss the chart because it doesn't include intragovernmental debt, as a comparative measure it's fine. The same standard applies for each year. And then even if you still dismiss the chart, you can't dismiss the trajectory of deficits under each president.



Whatever makes you happy, SF.

The freak doesn't even know the difference between debt and deficit...econ 101 stuff...LMFAO!!!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The freak doesn't even know the difference between debt and deficit...econ 101 stuff...LMFAO!!!

what leads you to that conclusion?

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet it doesn't show the overall picture. What was it WITH intragovernmental debt. That debt matters every bit as much.

As a comparative measure it doesn't matter so long as every year is treated the same. And here they are being treated the same. I'm not offering the chart to prove the existence of a surplus or deficit under Clinton (though by any measure 2000 was a surplus year), but to demonstrate that Clinton reversed the shitshow he inherited from 12 years of Republican significant annual deficit spending. It is undeniable.

(Also, too, as an aside: including intragovernmental debt is a tricky proposition since Clinton really had no say in whether excess SS and Medicare taxes were invested in US government debt. They have to be so invested by law. Thus, when employment and wages are high, intragovernmental debt is going to increase just by virtue of lots of people paying SS and Medicare taxes).

yes, reality does make me happy. In your deluded world, the President is the one that controls everything. Here in reality that is not the case.

I don't remember advocating that view, but whatever makes you happy, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Desh said the right hates Ike. I said they don't. You have yet to show an example of a right wing individual or group today that hates Ike.

I don't know, nor do I really care, what level of feelings today's GOP and conservative leaders hold for Ike. I've never heard it discussed.

Exactly.

You don't know. Just as I said, I don't know. I posted some thoughts on the matter. But no, as far as I know no one knows what today's right thinks of Ike. As you said, they simply do not discuss the man. Maybe Desh knows something, if so I'm sure she'll post it later.

 

[Bfgrn]

what leads you to that conclusion?

Your ignorance, based on historical evidence, you open your pie hole. The fact that the debt did not just evaporate when Clinton created 4 consecutive years of surplus after Reagan turned government from 'tax and spend' to 'borrow and spend', created a trillion dollars of debt in 5 years, when it took 200 years and ALL the previous Presidents COMBINED created the first trillion dollars of debt.

BTW, the only surplus during the Eisenhower administration was 1960.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As a comparative measure it doesn't matter so long as every year is treated the same. And here they are being treated the same. I'm not offering the chart to prove the existence of a surplus or deficit under Clinton (though by any measure 2000 was a surplus year), but to demonstrate that Clinton reversed the shitshow he inherited from 12 years of Republican significant annual deficit spending. It is undeniable.

When discussing the TOTAL deficit addition by President it most certainly DOES matter. No, 2000 was not a surplus year. We ran an actual deficit in 2000 given the national debt increased year over fiscal year.

(Also, too, as an aside: including intragovernmental debt is a tricky proposition since Clinton really had no say in whether excess SS and Medicare taxes were invested in US government debt. They have to be so invested by law. Thus, when employment and wages are high, intragovernmental debt is going to increase just by virtue of lots of people paying SS and Medicare taxes).

Hilarious.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I think it's interesting on this thread how ridiculous things get here. Desh says the right hates Eisenhower, and SF starts screaming "hates hates HATES?????? PROVE IT PROVE IT" In other words, SF acts like SF. Not exactly breaking news he does that to everyone.

Cawacko follows suit not because like SF, he is a prick, but because he obviously has a hard-on for Desh.

I personally would not use the word "hate" but I feel that it's obvious today's republican party has no use for Eisenhower. How controversial would it be if I said that today's Democratic party has no use for Lyndon Johnson? And I mean other than Vietnam. Let's face it today everybody's the war party. What do they give a shit about Vietnam it's not as if they're embarrassed about it. They might as well send out the R nominee and the D nominee with AC/DC's Big Balls blasting in the background and have them both whip them out and call it the "foreign policy debate".

But the war on poverty? Some of the things Johnson held to be true, and dedicated himself to? His Brown University speech which heralded in Affirmative Action?

Today's Democratic party has no use for that and you don't generally see them running around quoting Johnson.

You can't even have a discussion on this board without someone going ballistic over nothing.

Maybe we should all just sign in and post CUNT to each other.

 

[cawacko]

Exactly.

You don't know. Just as I said, I don't know. I posted some thoughts on the matter. But no, as far as I know no one knows what today's right thinks of Ike. As you said, they simply do not discuss the man. Maybe Desh knows something, if so I'm sure she'll post it later.

Ok, we'll wait for Desh to show her examples of the right today hating Ike.

 

[cawacko]

I think it's interesting on this thread how ridiculous things get here. Desh says the right hates Eisenhower, and SF starts screaming "hates hates HATES?????? PROVE IT PROVE IT" In other words, SF acts like SF. Not exactly breaking news he does that to everyone.

Cawacko follows suit not because like SF, he is a prick, but because he obviously has a hard-on for Desh.

I personally would not use the word "hate" but I feel that it's obvious today's republican party has no use for Eisenhower. How controversial would it be if I said that today's Democratic party has no use for Lyndon Johnson? And I mean other than Vietnam. Let's face it today everybody's the war party. What do they give a shit about Vietnam it's not as if they're embarrassed about it. They might as well send out the R nominee and the D nominee with AC/DC's Big Balls blasting in the background and have them both whip them out and call it the "foreign policy debate".

But the war on poverty? Some of the things Johnson held to be true, and dedicated himself to? His Brown University speech which heralded in Affirmative Action?

Today's Democratic party has no use for that and you don't generally see them running around quoting Johnson.

You can't even have a discussion on this board without someone going ballistic over nothing.

Maybe we should all just sign in and post CUNT to each other.

I made no negative comments towards Desh. I stated I haven't heard anyone on the right say they hate Ike. It doesn't mean someone hasn't but I haven't heard anyone say that. That's it. It has nothing to do with having a hard-on towards Desh or anything else. If right-wing individuals or groups today hate Ike that would be news to me and I'd be interested in hearing about it. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your ignorance, based on historical evidence, you open your pie hole. The fact that the debt did not just evaporate when Clinton created 4 consecutive years of surplus after Reagan turned government from 'tax and spend' to 'borrow and spend', created a trillion dollars of debt in 5 years, when it took 200 years and ALL the previous Presidents COMBINED created the first trillion dollars of debt.

BTW, the only surplus during the Eisenhower administration was 1960.

Thanks for confirming which of us doesn't understand the topic being discussed. Nowhere did I suggest the debt had to evaporate for Clinton to have run an actual surplus. Clinton did NOT create an actual surplus for one year, let alone four. Your comment shows that you simply do not comprehend the difference between the budget and the actual results. The government has been in borrow and spend mode since IKE. Kennedy began the deficits and they have been escalated since. Clinton also created a trillion dollars of debt. Yet you and other liberals continue to pretend otherwise. $1.6 Trillion under Reagan. $1.6Trillion under Clinton (again, Clintons was less comparitively due to inflation).

Congress controls the purse strings. This is a concept the left has a very hard time with. Likely because Reagan dealt with Tips House and Clinton's best years were under the Rep led Congress.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

show us an example Desh... show us someone on the 'right' that 'hates Ike'....

The above was my response to Desh... the below is the deranged lunatics version of how I responded to desh...

I think it's interesting on this thread how ridiculous things get here. Desh says the right hates Eisenhower, and SF starts screaming "hates hates HATES?????? PROVE IT PROVE IT" In other words, SF acts like SF. Not exactly breaking news he does that to everyone.

Cawacko follows suit not because like SF, he is a prick, but because he obviously has a hard-on for Desh.

I personally would not use the word "hate" but I feel that it's obvious today's republican party has no use for Eisenhower. How controversial would it be if I said that today's Democratic party has no use for Lyndon Johnson? And I mean other than Vietnam. Let's face it today everybody's the war party. What do they give a shit about Vietnam it's not as if they're embarrassed about it. They might as well send out the R nominee and the D nominee with AC/DC's Big Balls blasting in the background and have them both whip them out and call it the "foreign policy debate".

But the war on poverty? Some of the things Johnson held to be true, and dedicated himself to? His Brown University speech which heralded in Affirmative Action?

Today's Democratic party has no use for that and you don't generally see them running around quoting Johnson.

You can't even have a discussion on this board without someone going ballistic over nothing.

Maybe we should all just sign in and post CUNT to each other.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I made no negative comments towards Desh. I stated I haven't heard anyone on the right say they hate Ike. It doesn't mean someone hasn't but I haven't heard anyone say that. That's it. It has nothing to do with having a hard-on towards Desh or anything else. If right-wing individuals or groups today hate Ike that would be news to me and I'd be interested in hearing about it. Nothing more nothing less.

See, but much as with Ike, I have deduced that you don't like Desh. From your behavior. Isn't that interesting?

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for confirming which of us doesn't understand the topic being discussed. Nowhere did I suggest the debt had to evaporate for Clinton to have run an actual surplus. Clinton did NOT create an actual surplus for one year, let alone four. Your comment shows that you simply do not comprehend the difference between the budget and the actual results. The government has been in borrow and spend mode since IKE. Kennedy began the deficits and they have been escalated since. Clinton also created a trillion dollars of debt. Yet you and other liberals continue to pretend otherwise. $1.6 Trillion under Reagan. $1.6Trillion under Clinton (again, Clintons was less comparitively due to inflation).

Congress controls the purse strings. This is a concept the left has a very hard time with. Likely because Reagan dealt with Tips House and Clinton's best years were under the Rep led Congress.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Year Total
Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–)
1789–1849 1,160 1,090 70
1850–1900 14,462 15,453 -991
1901 588 525 63
1902 562 485 77
1903 562 517 45
1904 541 584 -43
1905 544 567 -23
1906 595 570 25
1907 666 579 87
1908 602 659 -57
1909 604 694 -89
1910 676 694 -18
1911 702 691 11
1912 693 690 3
1913 714 715 −*
1914 725 726 −*
1915 683 746 -63
1916 761 713 48
1917 1,101 1,954 -853
1918 3,645 12,677 -9,032
1919 5,130 18,493 -13,363
1920 6,649 6,358 291
1921 5,571 5,062 509
1922 4,026 3,289 736
1923 3,853 3,140 713
1924 3,871 2,908 963
1925 3,641 2,924 717
1926 3,795 2,930 865
1927 4,013 2,857 1,155
1928 3,900 2,961 939
1929 3,862 3,127 734
1930 4,058 3,320 738
1931 3,116 3,577 -462
1932 1,924 4,659 -2,735
1933 1,997 4,598 -2,602
1934 2,955 6,541 -3,586
1935 3,609 6,412 -2,803
1936 3,923 8,228 -4,304
1937 5,387 7,580 -2,193
1938 6,751 6,840 -89
1939 6,295 9,141 -2,846
1940 6,548 9,468 -2,920
1941 8,712 13,653 -4,941
1942 14,634 35,137 -20,503
1943 24,001 78,555 -54,554
1944 43,747 91,304 -47,557
1945 45,159 92,712 -47,553
1946 39,296 55,232 -15,936
1947 38,514 34,496 4,018
1948 41,560 29,764 11,796
1949 39,415 38,835 580
1950 39,443 42,562 -3,119
1951 51,616 45,514 6,102
1952 66,167 67,686 -1,519
1953 69,608 76,101 -6,493
1954 69,701 70,855 -1,154
1955 65,451 68,444 -2,993
1956 74,587 70,640 3,947
1957 79,990 76,578 3,412
1958 79,636 82,405 -2,769
1959 79,249 92,098 -12,849
1960 92,492 92,191 301
1961 94,388 97,723 -3,335
1962 99,676 106,821 -7,146
1963 106,560 111,316 -4,756
1964 112,613 118,528 -5,915
1965 116,817 118,228 -1,411
1966 130,835 134,532 -3,698
1967 148,822 157,464 -8,643
1968 152,973 178,134 -25,161
1969 186,882 183,640 3,242
1970 192,807 195,649 -2,842
1971 187,139 210,172 -23,033
1972 207,309 230,681 -23,373
1973 230,799 245,707 -14,908
1974 263,224 269,359 -6,135
1975 279,090 332,332 -53,242
1976 298,060 371,792 -73,732
TQ 81,232 95,975 -14,744
1977 355,559 409,218 -53,659
1978 399,561 458,746 -59,185
1979 463,302 504,028 -40,726
1980 517,112 590,941 -73,830
1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968
1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977
1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802
1984 666,438 851,805 -185,367
1985 734,037 946,344 -212,308
1986 769,155 990,382 -221,227
1987 854,288 1,004,017 -149,730
1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,958 1,252,994 -221,036
1991 1,054,988 1,324,226 -269,238
1992 1,091,208 1,381,529 -290,321
1993 1,154,335 1,409,386 -255,051
1994 1,258,566 1,461,753 -203,186
1995 1,351,790 1,515,742 -163,952
1996 1,453,053 1,560,484 -107,431
1997 1,579,232 1,601,116 -21,884
1998 1,721,728 1,652,458 69,270
1999 1,827,452 1,701,842 125,610
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Thanks again for proving you have no comprehension of what you are talking about. In order for there to be an ACTUAL surplus, the national debt MUST GO DOWN year over fiscal year.

 

[cawacko]

See, but much as with Ike, I have deduced that you don't like Desh. From your behavior. Isn't that interesting?

Ha!

 

[Phantasmal]

Most people alive today don't know anything about Eisenhower. They were either born way after he left office, or they were too young to care. But suffice it to say, you'd hate Eisenhower just as much as you hate any Republican if he were President today, because you hate all Republicans.

I doubt that, and I doubt she hates all Republucans.

 

[Phantasmal]

That was news to me as well. Can't say I've ever heard someone on the right claim to hate Ike.

Bawahahahaha, you try running a progressive Republucan these days and see how much love they get from the right. Desh's point, which went right over your head because you are both blinded by your Desh hate, is that if Ike were presented as a Presidential candidate today he would not get the nomination. The far right would think he was too far left and would hate him.

 

[Bonestorm]

When discussing the TOTAL deficit addition by President it most certainly DOES matter. No, 2000 was not a surplus year. We ran an actual deficit in 2000 given the national debt increased year over fiscal year.

You'd have a great point if we were arguing over whether Clinton had actual surplusses or not, but we aren't. My unrefutable point was the annual deficits that the government ran up under Reagan and GHWB ran for 12 years were fixed under Clinton.

You do this all the time. It's really funny. Rather than facing the obvious truth that Reagan was a fiscal nightmare and that the annual deficits were resolved under Clinton you instead debate whether there was an actual surplus or not. The fiscal ship was righted under Clinton (whomever you want to credit for that is up to you) and then Bush fucked it up with his tax cuts (which you supported) wars and the rest.

Also, as a COMPARATIVE MEASURE, the chart is perfectly fine since the expenditures under EACH PRESIDENT are treated the same.

Hilarious.

It is isn't it. You want to complain that intragovernmental holding should count against Clinton's surplus even though he had no control over it. If the excess tax receipts from SS and Medicare taxes didn't buy government debt but instead were horded under a mattress somewhere, that money would count in Clinton's favor (as cash) instead of against him (as intragovernmental debt) even though it's the same money.