G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The details you begged me for are in the video. Better watch it again, Liability. Let me know if some of the big words confuse you, OK?
Republicans in a Catch 22.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
The details you begged me for are in the video. Better watch it again, Liability. Let me know if some of the big words confuse you, OK?
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I didn't see any video.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I know you didn't, Liability.
But that didn't stop you from commenting on a video you didn't watch in post 35.
What a fucking idiot.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Just two points.
You pay into social security for retirement supplement....NOT to piggy bank various gov't programs and operations when they can't individually come up with the funding. If Soc Sec was left to do what it was initially intended to do, there would be no problem...and since it' not an "entitlement", it shouldn't even be a major point in the conversation regarding the budget.
Ending the Bush tax cuts is NOT "raising taxes", but allowing a sunset measure to do exactly date. Returning to the tax rates for the rich under Clinton would STILL allow for millionaires and corporate owners to make and keep their largesse.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I can't see anything in post 35 that supports your statement.
Maybe you are Taichiliberal could be specific and show me.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Basically, a surplus would have been used to handle the dot-com bust and help to transition the economy to other job creating venues.
But when you add on the illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq that was kept off the books by labeling much of it's cost under "emergency funding", that REALLY put us in the crapper. Oh, and don't forget about the prescription drug deal that essentially was passed with no way to pay for it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
From "thatpoetguy" at the Democratic Underground:
The issue is that people say "Clinton generated record surpluses" without knowing what it means.
There are three terms to understand. First there's the DEBT. The debt is the total amount the government owes. The debt can increase or decrease. The amount the debt increases is your DEFICIT. The amount the debt decreases is a SURPLUS.
Clinton did indeed rack up record surpluses. He never paid off the entire debt, which would be a preposterous undertaking, but he had fewer deficits, and more and larger surpluses, than any President in history.
That article debunks a misunderstanding -- people have a tendency to think the word "deficit" means the total debt, and that "surplus" means all the moolah left over after paying the debt. When the government's revenues fall short and the debt increases, that's a deficit; Bush and Reagan hold the records for that. When the revenues are good enough that some of the debt can be repaid, that's a surplus, and Clinton did create record surpluses.[/FONT]
Also, for ANYONE to postulate the insanity that a Gingrich lead GOP (with it's faile "contract with America" and two partial shutdowns of government), was the real hero of the Clinton legacy would have to either be a liar or totally ignorant of reality:
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2006/01/pr_2006-01-13.html/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Playing with Matches Indeed?!!
Now here is a REAL explanation of debt/surplus and deficit
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000
. In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.
more at link.....
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Its all a matter of perspective....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...ngress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png
Last edited:
Ending the Bush tax cuts is NOT "raising taxes" ???
Now there is convoluted logic and liberal spin if I ever heard it.....
Sorry pinhead...when tax rates change, for ANY reason, its either a raising the taxes or lowering the taxes....thats simple common sense logic....
anyway.....the Democrats and Obama have not put forth ANYTHING about the budget problem that can be voted on in Congress...NOTHING !
Speeches/ sound bites/ bullshit/ ....thats all we get from the Obamabots.......
The House will vote on a Republican proposal this week.....that will probably pass the House and fail in the Senate....but at least there is some work being done by the Republicans...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Now here is a REAL explanation of debt/surplus and deficit
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.
more at link.....
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Its all a matter of perspective....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...ngress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png
For those that DO NOT rely on right wing idealogues with neocon tunnelvision, or a wholly compromised "information" site like Wikipedia.... Here's the take from FactCheck.org, which has been considered objective from both sides of the political fence
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
- Brooks Jackson
.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Note how our Bravo bumpkin gets mental flatulence when he can't comprehend a simple fact of recent history. Our mentally impotent Bravo doesn't understand that the initial Bush tax cuts were a SUNSET deal.....meaning that they were DESIGNED TO EXPIRE AT AN AGREED PERIOD OF TIME. This particular deal was designed to stimulate the job market via the alleged "job creators".....well, here we are several years and an extension later, and NO JOBS.....a lot of OUTSOURCING AND DOWN SIZING, BUT NO JOBS.
So RETURNING to the ORIGINAL tax rate by which you STILL HAD millionaires and an aspiring upper middle class would NOT be raising taxes BEYOND what they have been historically capable of handling.
Also note how our brain impaired Bravo IGNORES my point regarding Social Security and it's relation to the Bush tax cuts. Instead, Bravo just regurgitates the empty rhetoric that can be found in the drivel printed by Maulkin or NewsMax or WND or the NY Post, or in the bleatings of Limbaugh, or Beck, or Levin or Hannity. But as polling shows, 50% of the voting republican public are not buying what the neocons are selling this time. "Bravo" indeed.
