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

Superfreak said:
Ok... now tell us Bfgrn... are we talking about the total debt or the debt held by the public? Oh yeah, we are talking about the total debt of the nation. that is what matters as that is the TOTAL of what we owe. Trying to look at just a portion of our liabilities is dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

All I can say is what Edmund Burke said: "Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting"

The article explains it...try a different approach...LMAO!
 
Superfreak said:
Ok... now tell us Bfgrn... are we talking about the total debt or the debt held by the public? Oh yeah, we are talking about the total debt of the nation. that is what matters as that is the TOTAL of what we owe. Trying to look at just a portion of our liabilities is dishonest at best.
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
Except that it IS refutable. Every single year Clinton ran a deficit. Clinton ran up deficits that totaled $1.6 Trillion. Not one single year did he not have a deficit.



you do this all the time, create a straw man to beat up. I have stated time and again how much Reagan added to the deficit, how much Bush did, how much Clinton did etc... You pretending that the ship was righted under clinton is a joke. It was a booming economy with the tech/internet bubble and it as always, it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings. No matter how many times you want to pretend it was Clinton, it was not.

You then go on to ignore the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting in 2000 and causing a recession. Instead you pretend the revenue decline was due to the tax cuts and wars. Recession? what recession? lets just ignore that and ignore 9/11 as well... they never happened.



It is hilarious. You want to ignore the intragovernmental debt as a part of what this nation owes. Tell us genius... the tax receipts from SS bought Treasuries... what did the government do with the money from those treasury sales? Oh yeah, they fucking spent it. that is why it counts.
Click to expand...


Bfgrn's post at least touches on how the liars use figures to mis-characterize the truth....

and how Clinton gets the credit for a successful economy, because the Republican Congress showed competence in handling the nation money...

Bush gets the blame for an economic collapse that his Democratic Congress caused by their incompetence....
 
bravo said:
Bfgrn's post at least touches on how the liars use figures to mis-characterize the truth....

and how Clinton gets the credit for a successful economy, because the Republican Congress showed competence in handling the nation money...

Bush gets the blame for an economic collapse that his Democratic Congress caused by their incompetence....
Click to expand...

Here is the vise you and numb nuts put your little pea brain in...if Clinton created a surplus, and it didn't get applied to the debt, then the only blame lies squarely on freak's constant drone...CONGRESS. If Clinton didn't create a surplus...then the only blame lies squarely on freak's constant drone...CONGRESS.
 
Superfreak said:
Which shows yet again that you just don't get it.
Click to expand...

Educate yourself moron...

GAO-logo.jpg


How does the budget deficit or surplus relate to federal debt?

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.html#deficitsurplus
 
Superfreak said:
Except that it IS refutable. Every single year Clinton ran a deficit. Clinton ran up deficits that totaled $1.6 Trillion. Not one single year did he not have a deficit.



you do this all the time, create a straw man to beat up. I have stated time and again how much Reagan added to the deficit, how much Bush did, how much Clinton did etc... You pretending that the ship was righted under clinton is a joke. It was a booming economy with the tech/internet bubble and it as always, it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings. No matter how many times you want to pretend it was Clinton, it was not.

You then go on to ignore the tech/telecom/internet bubble bursting in 2000 and causing a recession. Instead you pretend the revenue decline was due to the tax cuts and wars. Recession? what recession? lets just ignore that and ignore 9/11 as well... they never happened.



It is hilarious. You want to ignore the intragovernmental debt as a part of what this nation owes. Tell us genius... the tax receipts from SS bought Treasuries... what did the government do with the money from those treasury sales? Oh yeah, they fucking spent it. that is why it counts.
Click to expand...


Clinton didn't add to the deficit. He erased it. On-budget or off-budget, doesn't matter how you look at it. He erased the deficit. You can't change the facts, SF.

And Clinton used the funds from the intragovernmental transfers to aggressively pay down the debt held by the public, which is the smart, sensible and responsible thing to do. What's wrong with that?
 
Rune said:
How much should the defense budget be reduced?

How should we reign in the MIC?
Click to expand...

As I have stated before, the DoD could and should be cut by at least a third. It is heavy with administrative staffing that, from what I have heard/read is unnecessary. I would imagine our military members on the site could let us know if this is accurate and where else the cuts could come from. Weapons systems is likely another area.

The first step to reigning it in would be to have the idiots in Congress at LEAST stop funding the stuff the military says it doesn't need.
 
Dungheap said:
Clinton didn't add to the deficit. He erased it. On-budget or off-budget, doesn't matter how you look at it. He erased the deficit. You can't change the facts, SF.
Click to expand...

No... he REDUCED the deficit spending levels. Saying he erased it would imply that he didn't run an actual deficit. A deficit is not something that is perpetual. It is either there in a given year or it is not. It is determined each year by whether the idiots in DC spend more than they take in. That is a FACT.

The FACT is that he ran an actual deficit every year in office. No matter how much you scream, that FACT is not going to change.

And Clinton used the funds from the intragovernmental transfers to aggressively pay down the debt held by the public, which is the smart, sensible and responsible thing to do. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I am not faulting Clinton for what he did. He was the most fiscally responsible since Ike. He, along with Congress, actually tried for fiscal responsibility. A for effort. But that doesn't change the fact that they came up a bit short in 2000. It doesn't change the fact that there were still actual deficits each year he was in office.
 
Bfgrn said:
Here is the vise you and numb nuts put your little pea brain in...if Clinton created a surplus, and it didn't get applied to the debt, then the only blame lies squarely on freak's constant drone...CONGRESS. If Clinton didn't create a surplus...then the only blame lies squarely on freak's constant drone...CONGRESS.
Click to expand...

Um, Congress is responsible... without question. That is what I have been stating over and over again. They control the purse strings. Not Clinton.
 
Superfreak said:
No... he REDUCED the deficit spending levels. Saying he erased it would imply that he didn't run an actual deficit. A deficit is not something that is perpetual. It is either there in a given year or it is not. It is determined each year by whether the idiots in DC spend more than they take in. That is a FACT.

The FACT is that he ran an actual deficit every year in office. No matter how much you scream, that FACT is not going to change.



I am not faulting Clinton for what he did. He was the most fiscally responsible since Ike. He, along with Congress, actually tried for fiscal responsibility. A for effort. But that doesn't change the fact that they came up a bit short in 2000. It doesn't change the fact that there were still actual deficits each year he was in office.
Click to expand...


Show me your calculations for 2000 showing that there was a deficit.
 
Superfreak said:
I already linked you to treasury direct. It shows the annual debt by year. 1999 was lower than 2000 by about $18B.
Click to expand...


That's just stupid. The president has no control over intragovernmental transfers for SS and Medicare (and other) trust funds. I'll just close with 3 charts in support of my claim that Clinton (and the Republican Congress) cleaned up the recurring annual deficits of Reagan and GHWB, which GWB then fucked:

Here's the trajectory of deficits under Reagan and GHWB:

fredgraph.png


Here's the trajectory (again, you can ignore the dollar amounts if they get your knickers in a twist) of deficits under Clinton:

fredgraph.png


And here's GWB:

fredgraph.png
 
LMAO... what a hack... so after being shown the numbers you resort to stomping your feet yet again and regurgitating the same tired little charts?

No matter how often you stomp your feet, there were ACTUAL deficits every year. Shouting that the President doesn't control intragovernmental doesn't change that. Because in reality the President doesn't control any of it you dolt. CONGRESS does.
 
By Dung's definition, it is obvious the Bush tax cuts worked to reduce the deficit. The deficit was falling each year after the recession ended right up until the financial and housing fiasco created by Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... what a hack... so after being shown the numbers you resort to stomping your feet yet again and regurgitating the same tired little charts?

No matter how often you stomp your feet, there were ACTUAL deficits every year. Shouting that the President doesn't control intragovernmental doesn't change that. Because in reality the President doesn't control any of it you dolt. CONGRESS does.
Click to expand...


There was only an "actual deficit" if you count intragovernmental transfers required by law as adding to the deficit. That's stupid for the reasons I have explained, and again, we aren't debating whether there was an actual surplus or deficit but whether Clinton corrected the annual deficit fest that we got under the Republican presidents that preceded him. He did and it's not an arguable point.

Reagan and GHWB ran annual deficits, year after year, racking up debt, Clinton got it under control and GWB fucked it up. That's the history.
 
Superfreak said:
By Dung's definition, it is obvious the Bush tax cuts worked to reduce the deficit. The deficit was falling each year after the recession ended right up until the financial and housing fiasco created by Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall.
Click to expand...


Uh, no. They increased created a deficit of about $400 billion during a period of economic growth.
 
Dungheap said:
There was only an "actual deficit" if you count intragovernmental transfers required by law as adding to the deficit. That's stupid for the reasons I have explained, and again, we aren't debating whether there was an actual surplus or deficit but whether Clinton corrected the annual deficit fest that we got under the Republican presidents that preceded him. He did and it's not an arguable point.

Reagan and GHWB ran annual deficits, year after year, racking up debt, Clinton got it under control and GWB fucked it up. That's the history.
Click to expand...

1) We have been debating whether there was an actual deficit or not. There was. The money was still spent dung. That is the part you are not comprehending. It is funding a liability. It is an expense that must be paid. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it stupid.

2) Again, you ignore the fact that there was an implosion in the tech/telecom/internet bubble that formed under Clinton and burst under Clinton. That a recession and 9/11 occurred right as Bush took office. Are you going to ignore the impact that has on deficits? According to your little charts above, after the recession ended, the deficits started being reduced yet again.

3) You continue to ignore that Clinton didn't get anything 'under control' until there was a REP led Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top