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

Dungheap said:
But, the money "raised" from the intragovernmental transfers was used to pay down the debt held by the public. You can make a plausible argument that such funds should be put in, I don't know, a "lockbox" to fund those future obligations, but it isn't irresponsible to use to that money to pay down the debt held by the public, which is what Clinton opted to do.
Click to expand...

Again... I am not saying Clinton was irresponsible. I am saying Clinton did a good job. That said, in order for there to be an ACTUAL surplus, you actually have to pay down the TOTAL debt. Whether he is in control of everything (which he is not) or nothing (which he is) when it comes to the actual spending, is irrelevant.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... I am not saying Clinton was irresponsible. I am saying Clinton did a good job. That said, in order for there to be an ACTUAL surplus, you actually have to pay down the TOTAL debt. Whether he is in control of everything (which he is not) or nothing (which he is) when it comes to the actual spending, is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But it's very hard to pay down total debt because of the mandated intragovernmental transfers. The better the employment situation, the more intragovernmental debt is created. Clinton could very easily have had an ACTUAL surplus if he stashed the cash from excess SS and Medicare taxes in a vault somewhere, but that isn't sensible. That's why it's just plain stupid to myopically focus on whether there was an ACTUAL reduction in TOTAL.

Clinton did a great job and, to repeat what prompted this tangent in the first instance, he finally got the recurring annual deficits under control just in time for GWB to blow them up again.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. With the help of Newt who controlled the purse strings... The President doesn't hold the purse strings, even if you really want it to be so.

And no, we didn't erase it. We borrowed money each of those years to pay interest on our debt. Less than in a long time, but no surplus was ever realized, no debt was ever paid, not since Eisenhower. And when you borrow money to pay for things it isn't a surplus no matter how many times somebody lies and tells you it is. Clinton worked well with Congress, too bad Obama can't follow that example.

I'd agree to go back to Clinton era tax rates if we also went back to Clinton era spending levels. That would be a compromise worth taking...

During Clinton's term we also came the closest to a Balanced Budget Amendment than we had ever been. One vote.. . Just one.
Click to expand...


The bold is kinda silly. If we went back to Clinton era spending levels we wouldn't need Clinton era rates (unless you want to have, like, a $1T surplus, which seems really silly).
 
Superfreak said:
For the 1000th time... debt held by the public is not the total debt of the United States. Medicare and Social Security are massive liabilities. The money raised via taxes funds the future liabilities. If that money is used for other purposes, you cannot pretend that debt doesn't matter. It is the TOTAL national debt that matters. Not just 'debt held by the public'.
Click to expand...

Say it 2000 times, 4000 times, 8000 times you fucking moron. It will STILL not be the truth...

Maybe your little pea brain is stuck in 1st grade...these are adult issues...

“gross debt” includes money the federal government owes to itself — such as the money the Social Security trust fund has lent to the Treasury in years when Social Security’s earmarked revenues exceeded expenditures.

Only debt held by the public is reported as a liability on the consolidated financial statements of the United States government. Debt held by government accounts is an asset to those accounts but a liability to the Treasury; they offset each other in the consolidated financial statements. The consolidated financial statements present consolidated and summarized financial information from the various federal government agencies and departments. They are part of the Financial Report of the United States Government, referred to as the Consolidated Financial Report (CFR). The goal of the CFR is to make available to every American a comprehensive overview of the federal government’s finances... GAO

Gross debt is not a good indicator of the government's fiscal condition, however (nor is debt subject to limit, the amount of federal debt that is subject to the overall limit set in law and is roughly equal to gross debt). The value of Treasury securities held by trust funds and other government accounts measures only some of the commitments the government has made for the future, and it includes some amounts that may not represent future obligations at all. Moreover, because those securities represent internal transactions of the government, they have no direct effect on credit markets. CBO
 
Bfgrn said:
Say it 2000 times, 4000 times, 8000 times you fucking moron. It will STILL not be the truth...

Maybe your little pea brain is stuck in 1st grade...these are adult issues...

“gross debt” includes money the federal government owes to itself — such as the money the Social Security trust fund has lent to the Treasury in years when Social Security’s earmarked revenues exceeded expenditures.

Only debt held by the public is reported as a liability on the consolidated financial statements of the United States government. Debt held by government accounts is an asset to those accounts but a liability to the Treasury; they offset each other in the consolidated financial statements. The consolidated financial statements present consolidated and summarized financial information from the various federal government agencies and departments. They are part of the Financial Report of the United States Government, referred to as the Consolidated Financial Report (CFR). The goal of the CFR is to make available to every American a comprehensive overview of the federal government’s finances... GAO

Gross debt is not a good indicator of the government's fiscal condition, however (nor is debt subject to limit, the amount of federal debt that is subject to the overall limit set in law and is roughly equal to gross debt). The value of Treasury securities held by trust funds and other government accounts measures only some of the commitments the government has made for the future, and it includes some amounts that may not represent future obligations at all. Moreover, because those securities represent internal transactions of the government, they have no direct effect on credit markets. CBO
Click to expand...

You are so easily fooled. Those treasuries that are being held in the mythical lock box will have to be sold.

There isn't enough money to pay for the promises of FDR and LBj let alone any new promises from the asswipe in chief.

You are deluding yourself. But you am those like you will just have to learn the hard way
 
Damocles said:
LOL. With the help of Newt who controlled the purse strings... The President doesn't hold the purse strings, even if you really want it to be so.

And no, we didn't erase it. We borrowed money each of those years to pay interest on our debt. Less than in a long time, but no surplus was ever realized, no debt was ever paid, not since Eisenhower. And when you borrow money to pay for things it isn't a surplus no matter how many times somebody lies and tells you it is. Clinton worked well with Congress, too bad Obama can't follow that example.

I'd agree to go back to Clinton era tax rates if we also went back to Clinton era spending levels. That would be a compromise worth taking...

During Clinton's term we also came the closest to a Balanced Budget Amendment than we had ever been. One vote.. . Just one.
Click to expand...

Thank God the balanced budget proposal didn't go through. How many people live on a balanced budget? Certainly not young families starting out. Or some older families, for that matter. How many people buy a car on payments? If a balanced budget was necessary there would be considerably fewer home owners.

A government has to have the flexibility to deal with situations like recessions. A balanced budget could result in welfare and other payments being decreased precisely when the economy was slipping. Very dangerous idea.
 
Dungheap said:
But, the money "raised" from the intragovernmental transfers was used to pay down the debt held by the public. You can make a plausible argument that such funds should be put in, I don't know, a "lockbox" to fund those future obligations, but it isn't irresponsible to use to that money to pay down the debt held by the public, which is what Clinton opted to do.
Click to expand...

No, the federal government simply borrowed less money and therefore the total amount of the debt held by the public dropped. There was no option for the President to choose. Of course the debt owed to the Social Security trust fund rose by MORE THAN the same amount. And if you want to be precise we should thank Reagan for collecting more SS contributions than needed to deal with the aging population.
 
apple0154 said:
Thank God the balanced budget proposal didn't go through. How many people live on a balanced budget? Certainly not young families starting out. Or some older families, for that matter. How many people buy a car on payments? If a balanced budget was necessary there would be considerably fewer home owners.

A government has to have the flexibility to deal with situations like recessions. A balanced budget could result in welfare and other payments being decreased precisely when the economy was slipping. Very dangerous idea.
Click to expand...

Well, families dont get to dictate what income they receive, while the Federal government does set the tax rates.
 
dixon76710 said:
No, the federal government simply borrowed less money and therefore the total amount of the debt held by the public dropped. There was no option for the President to choose. Of course the debt owed to the Social Security trust fund rose by MORE THAN the same amount. And if you want to be precise we should thank Reagan for collecting more SS contributions than needed to deal with the aging population.
Click to expand...

This is just nonsense.
 
Dungheap said:
The bold is kinda silly. If we went back to Clinton era spending levels we wouldn't need Clinton era rates (unless you want to have, like, a $1T surplus, which seems really silly).
Click to expand...

Sad that the thought of a $1 trillion surplus, used to knock the $16 trillion down to just $15 Trillion seem silly.
 
apple0154 said:
Thank God the balanced budget proposal didn't go through. How many people live on a balanced budget? Certainly not young families starting out. Or some older families, for that matter. How many people buy a car on payments? If a balanced budget was necessary there would be considerably fewer home owners.

A government has to have the flexibility to deal with situations like recessions. A balanced budget could result in welfare and other payments being decreased precisely when the economy was slipping. Very dangerous idea.
Click to expand...

Gawd this is ignorant. The Amendment had provisions that would allow the government flexibility during those times. Seriously, you are flat ignorant, childlike ignorance may make you appear "cute" to some people, but here it just makes you look like a fool.
 
Damocles said:
Gawd this is ignorant. The Amendment had provisions that would allow the government flexibility during those times. Seriously, you are flat ignorant, childlike ignorance may make you appear "cute" to some people, but here it just makes you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

And the numerous ad homs here are a-okay, because you 'addressed the post'?

Interesting standards.
 
Dungheap said:
It is extraordinarily silly, unless you have a hankering for another severe recession (or, more likely, a depression).
Click to expand...

Whats that, over 1 trillion over 10 years......then only 150 years to go............160 total.....get a clue.
 
Damocles said:
Gawd this is ignorant. The Amendment had provisions that would allow the government flexibility during those times. Seriously, you are flat ignorant, childlike ignorance may make you appear "cute" to some people, but here it just makes you look like a fool.
Click to expand...

These are the times, you idiot! Did you see the movie where the lawyer asks the guy if he saved for a rainy day and when the guy answers, "Yes", the lawyer replies, "It's raining"; did you see that movie or do you need a cite?

Cut the sh!t and admit the country went to hell under a Republican Presidency. There was a Republican President's ass on the chair in the Oval Office when Iraq was invaded. There was a Republican President's ass on the chair in the Oval Office when the world almost fell off a financial cliff. Do you understand or do you need a fvckin' memo? Now the incompetent nincompoops, the Republicans, are opposing Obama regarding raising the debt ceiling.

Do you understand the situation the country is in, from the wars to the financial crisis, all happened under a Republican Presidency? Are you having difficulty comprehending that? It's like the wife smashing the car and then giving the husband sh!t for paying the body shop to repair it! (No offence Bijou, Christie, etc.) :)

If the proposed amendment had provisions that would allow the government flexibility during those times then it doesn't make any difference now because those times are now. The Repubs took the country from booming, relatively peaceful times to war and a financial cliff. It was their "watch". Accept it and stop making excuses for their ineptitude.

I'm sick of hearing about Obama's inadequacy. The Repubs made the mess. Obama is trying to clean it up and the Repubs, not satisfied with having made the mess, are interferring with Obama trying to clean it up. The craziness has to stop. The election is over. The Repubs threw out every lie and distortion they could lay thier hands on and the people still voted for Obama. Do the Repubs need a good whack across the head to understand or maybe Obama needs to send in the army and arrest every G D Republican Congressman! :D

Talk to Cheney about balanced budgets. Talk to Rummy about war being an affordable option. Don't blame Obama and the Dems when they were handed a country that was run for the previous 8 years by people who couldn't run a hot dog stand.

Enough is enough!

On that note I'm going to bed.
 
How many years before Obama becomes responsible for the government he runs?

2007 - 2010 had democrats with control over both the house and senate. Wars taxes spending are all determined by
congress
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top