Another Liberal myth exposed: Bush tax cuts increased revenue to the treasurey

[Toro]

According to your logic, really lack of, the Stock Market Crash of 2000 and 9/11 had no detrimental effects on anyone, much less policy makers.

I never said that. Didn't even hint to it. Why don't you want to talk about the issue?

The economy slowed in late 2000 and went negative in 2001 twice, but not consecutively, therefore, no recession. The 9/11 attacks obviously had an impact, but even you agree we were growing again in 2002.

So if the economy was growing, even slowly, why did tax receipts go down in 2002 and then go down AGAIN in 2003? You can't argue that they didn't go down, so if you think it was NOT due to Bush's actions, then what caused the decline?

A recession is not defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. A recession is defined as a broad slowdown in the economy. Or at least that's how the official recession dating committee defines it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Let me know if you require proof.

If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.

You didn't ask, so you probably know that the facts puncture any claim you have of living in a reality based world...but just in case anyone thinks you have a jot of fact on your side....

here it is. Read it and weep.

The actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4+ trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

If you look back over my posts you will see that I never once said Clinton did not add to debt. Obviously the debt went up during the Clinton years, that was never in dispute.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The Dow tumbled more than 600 points ...

Mach and April of 2000....Who was President?

Drops in the stock market do not signal the beginning of a recession.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How much under bush?

Very intelligent response, as usual.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Dow tumbled more than 600 points ...

Mach and April of 2000....Who was President?

Drops in the stock market do not signal the beginning of a recession.

Please, don't be stupid.

 

[Toro]

If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.

You didn't ask, so you probably know that the facts puncture any claim you have of living in a reality based world...but just in case anyone thinks you have a jot of fact on your side....

here it is. Read it and weep.

The actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4+ trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

If you look back over my posts you will see that I never once said Clinton did not add to debt. Obviously the debt went up during the Clinton years, that was never in dispute.

But even those figures that PC quoted are misleading because it just gives gross debt, including debt the government owes itself. It doesn't include net debt, which nets out intra-agency shifts in resources. For example, that rise in gross debt in the last years of Clinton was because of surging employment, which increased the credited amount owed by the government for SS but did not debit the offsetting rise in assets in the SS trusts. This makes the books look worse than they really are. Though total debt rose under Clinton, net debt as a percentage of GDP fell.

 

[DontBeStupid]

A recession is not defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. A recession is defined as a broad slowdown in the economy. Or at least that's how the official recession dating committee defines it.

Tecchnically, we're both right. From Wikipedia:

In a 1975 New York Times article, economic statistician Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was "two down quarters of GDP". In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten. Some economists prefer a definition of a 1.5% rise in unemployment within 12 months.

In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in [the] economic activity spread across the country, for at least three months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." Almost universally, academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses defer to the determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and end.

And the NBER has that recession pegged in March 2001.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

 

[DontBeStupid]

The Dow tumbled more than 600 points ...

Mach and April of 2000....Who was President?

Drops in the stock market do not signal the beginning of a recession.

Please, don't be stupid.

Ok. Show me an organization that defines a recession as beginning with a one day drop in the stock market.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you want to ignore the reality of the Clinton budgets, that's fine. You can't ignore the reality that the CBO was estimating trillions in surplus over the decade 2000-2010, and that Bush used those projections to sell his tax cuts.

You didn't ask, so you probably know that the facts puncture any claim you have of living in a reality based world...but just in case anyone thinks you have a jot of fact on your side....

here it is. Read it and weep.

The actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4+ trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

If you look back over my posts you will see that I never once said Clinton did not add to debt. Obviously the debt went up during the Clinton years, that was never in dispute.

Unfortunately, some of your whackaloon cohorts are still peddling the lunacy of Clinton Surplus'.

 

[The T]

This country is doomed because these people just can not accept facts.

Thank the republican party for that

No this Nation is doomed because of hyper partisan politic's coming from people who think they know more then they really do

And imposing thier brand of nonsense on the rest of us.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Drops in the stock market do not signal the beginning of a recession.

Please, don't be stupid.

Ok. Show me an organization that defines a recession as beginning with a one day drop in the stock market.

The Bush haters who whined about the stock market for eight years?

 

[Toro]

The Dow tumbled more than 600 points ...

Mach and April of 2000....Who was President?

Drops in the stock market do not signal the beginning of a recession.

Please, don't be stupid.

A drop in the stock market does not signal the beginning of a recession.

 

[Toro]

You didn't ask, so you probably know that the facts puncture any claim you have of living in a reality based world...but just in case anyone thinks you have a jot of fact on your side....

here it is. Read it and weep.

The actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4+ trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.

And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

If you look back over my posts you will see that I never once said Clinton did not add to debt. Obviously the debt went up during the Clinton years, that was never in dispute.

Unfortunately, some of your whackaloon cohorts are still peddling the lunacy of Clinton Surplus'.

Clinton ran a surplus.

It's not debatable.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Unfortunately, some of your cohorts are still peddling the lunacy of Clinton Surplus'.

Because there was one, or wasn't one, purely depending on how you define it.

If you define it as the projections he left Bush, yes, there was one.
If you define it separate from intragovernmental holdings, yes, there was one.
If you define it as not increasing the debt, no, there wasn't one.
If you define all budgets as being the product of the GOP Congress only (my favourite by the way), no, Clinton did not have a surplus.

So you see, it depends what you mean by "Clinton Surplus". Personally, I go with the state of the economy as it was handed over to Bush. At that point, virtually every projection was saying trillions in surplus over the next decade, which made sense since the Government had to be able to re-pay SS. Bush took care of all that quickly though.

 

[Toro]

Unfortunately, some of your cohorts are still peddling the lunacy of Clinton Surplus'.

Because there was one, or wasn't one, purely depending on how you define it.

If you define it as the projections he left Bush, yes, there was one.
If you define it separate from intragovernmental holdings, yes, there was one.
If you define it as not increasing the debt, no, there wasn't one.
If you define all budgets as being the product of the GOP Congress only (my favourite by the way), no, Clinton did not have a surplus.

So you see, it depends what you mean by "Clinton Surplus". Personally, I go with the state of the economy as it was handed over to Bush. At that point, virtually every projection was saying trillions in surplus over the next decade, which made sense since the Government had to be able to re-pay SS. Bush took care of all that quickly though.

The budgets under Clinton were in surplus in his last years. This is not debatable.

A deficit is not defined as an increase in debt. A deficit is defined as expenditures exceeding revenues. Extrapolating a deficit because debt increases is flat out wrong.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The budgets under Clinton were in surplus in his last years. This is not debatable.

A deficit is not defined as an increase in debt. A deficit is defined as expenditures exceeding revenues. Extrapolating a deficit because debt increases is flat out wrong.

Oh, believe me. I'm with you on this one!

 

[bripat9643]

If you define it as not increasing the debt, no, there wasn't one.

That's the only definition that counts.

 

[bripat9643]

The budgets under Clinton were in surplus in his last years. This is not debatable.

A deficit is not defined as an increase in debt. A deficit is defined as expenditures exceeding revenues. Extrapolating a deficit because debt increases is flat out wrong.

How can debt increase without expenditures exceeding revenues?

 

[peach174]

National Debt continued to rise under Clinton from 4.4 trillion to 5.8 trillion

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[DontBeStupid]

How can debt increase without expenditures exceeding revenues?

As I understand it, the excess SS funds must be used to buy government bonds, which as we all know, are debt. So, even if Clinton had revenues of $1T over expenditures, by law, the national debt would go up due to SS buying bonds. This is why your choice of definition is so funny, as it would make it virtually impossible for any president to ever run a "surplus".

This is also why the SS funds are typically NOT counted when looking at the budgets, and that is when you see the surplus.