Are You Scared Yet? Read this!

[Bfgrn]

1. From your post #64…
“Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.”

2. I scoured this post, above, and can find naught in defense of your 'Clinton' post...

3. Since you decided to change the subject, I guess that means that I beat the pants off you, huh?

Yechhhhh.....what a disgusting visual that is!

Get back in there and put something on!

Here's your word for the day: context

Post #64:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

If you are still confused, refer to post #72

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

The End? Really...such a right wing authoritarian-ism...LOL

Ronald Reagan only created 'flourish' for the elite and misery for the rest of us. Ronbo the great socialist, the reverse Robin Hood, the pied piper on the road to serfdom transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He began the evisceration of 50 years of democratic (little d) exceptionalism and returned America to the Gilded age. It IS what conservatives do and it IS what conservatism has always done. Construct aristocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. Even the father of Reaganomics sees the light. But your dogmatic ideological mind is too busy reading to gather ammunition that supports your ideology instead of what intelligent people do, read to learn.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Whole article

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's your word for the day: context

Post #64:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

If you are still confused, refer to post #72

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

The End? Really...such a right wing authoritarian-ism...LOL

Ronald Reagan only created 'flourish' for the elite and misery for the rest of us. Ronbo the great socialist, the reverse Robin Hood, the pied piper on the road to serfdom transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He began the evisceration of 50 years of democratic (little d) exceptionalism and returned America to the Gilded age. It IS what conservatives do and it IS what conservatism has always done. Construct aristocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. Even the father of Reaganomics sees the light. But your dogmatic ideological mind is too busy reading to gather ammunition that supports your ideology instead of what intelligent people do, read to learn.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Whole article

Still crawling away from the bogus 'fact' you posted about Clinton reducing the national debt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda

Why do we always hear about the GROSS with almost no mention of the NET?

Economists can't do algebra. To an economist a $30,000 car is just like a $3 hamburger.

They are both CONSUMER GOODS unless the car is purchased by Hertz. What happened to the depreciation of all of the cars since 1950? Oh, they forgot.

Why doesn't anyone suggest mandatory accounting in the schools in this country? Double-entry accounting is only SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS OLD.

Fifth graders can learn accounting as well as collegians

psik

I'm going to guess that you know that the government does not have to follow GAAP rules...

1. Publicly traded companies are bound by accounting rules known as “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,” GAAP, which account for revenue, expenses, assets, and liabilities. So, can we count on government figures with the same degree of certainty?

a. Not exactly: the government uses the rules of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, FASAB. The rules are set by Congress and the White House.

b. “The government's record-keeping was in such disarray 15 years ago that both parties agreed drastic steps were needed. Congress and two presidents took a series of actions from 1990 to 1996 that: Created the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to establish accounting rules, a role similar to what the powerful Financial Accounting Standards Board does for corporations.” USATODAY.com - What's the real federal deficit?


Further, they use between two and six different reporting methods...

2. It should be enlightening, here, to explore some of the accounting procedures…one of which is known as the Unified Cash Basis Budgeting. Just as with any one of us who writes a check, it is recorded as an expense, and when we receive a check, it is listed as income. Generally, government treats budgets in the same way. U.S. GAO - Search :: "Cash basis accounting"

a. So, a deficit means that the government spent more than it received during a specific fiscal year.

b. Now, think about this: using the cash basis method, you plan for a vacation in January by taking a $2,000 loan in December. This will appear as an asset in your bookkeeping- even though you will be obligated to repay this loan: it is actually a liability! This is exactly the situation that allowed Clinton to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, and claim this as revenue, even though it is an obligation to pay in the future. Beck, Balke, “Broke,” p. 172.

c. Now, watch the sleight-of-hand: using the money received now as revenue, even though it is supposed to be for paying future benefits! http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05958sp.pdf It It is the Social Security surplus that helps offset the huge deficits!

d. So, by this method we can pencil it in when cash is paid: it gives a picture of finances at a given moment…but fails to account for resources used but not yet paid for. Retirement costs of employees? No! This is the method used by the CBO for budgeting purposes. The federal budget: politics, policy ... - Google Books

e. This is the preferred method to use if you wish to convince folks that things aren’t as bad as they really are.

3. The Modified Accrual Basis Budget is more accurate, in that it measures inciome and expenses when they are actually earned or incurred, when the transaction is actually agreed to: buy two steaks, and pay on the spot. This method gives a longer-term view of all obligations, as well as resources used that year. But…it doesn’t show how much has to be borrowed for that year’s activities.

a. This method takes into consideration the cost of retirement benefits of federal employees; the method is generally used by private-sector corporations and businesses, as well as the federal government, for reporting- but not for budgeting.

b. This method does not include expected tax revenues, since it is difficult to estimate same…so it is not accounted for until it is officially collected.

4. The federal government uses both methods, as well as several other financial statements. But even this totality makes it difficult to account for long term commitments that include Social Security and Medicare. (Thus, some of those other statements). No. 282: Federal Government 2009 GAAP-Accounting


Gee, it's almost like they didn't want folks to be able to understand how they handle our money....

 

[Bfgrn]

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

The End? Really...such a right wing authoritarian-ism...LOL

Ronald Reagan only created 'flourish' for the elite and misery for the rest of us. Ronbo the great socialist, the reverse Robin Hood, the pied piper on the road to serfdom transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He began the evisceration of 50 years of democratic (little d) exceptionalism and returned America to the Gilded age. It IS what conservatives do and it IS what conservatism has always done. Construct aristocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. Even the father of Reaganomics sees the light. But your dogmatic ideological mind is too busy reading to gather ammunition that supports your ideology instead of what intelligent people do, read to learn.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Whole article

Still crawling away from the bogus 'fact' you posted about Clinton reducing the national debt.

I'm not crawling away from anything. HOW many times do we have go over this? Simple 2nd grade math. If revenues are rising ahead of spending, the percent of debt decreases.

If anyone is crawling away it's the one who says 'The end"

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015

Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(&#8722

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 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 -269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241

 

[PoliticalChic]

The End? Really...such a right wing authoritarian-ism...LOL

Ronald Reagan only created 'flourish' for the elite and misery for the rest of us. Ronbo the great socialist, the reverse Robin Hood, the pied piper on the road to serfdom transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He began the evisceration of 50 years of democratic (little d) exceptionalism and returned America to the Gilded age. It IS what conservatives do and it IS what conservatism has always done. Construct aristocracies, plutocracies, oligarchies and monarchies. Even the father of Reaganomics sees the light. But your dogmatic ideological mind is too busy reading to gather ammunition that supports your ideology instead of what intelligent people do, read to learn.

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By Paul Craig Roberts - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics.

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Whole article

Still crawling away from the bogus 'fact' you posted about Clinton reducing the national debt.

I'm not crawling away from anything. HOW many times do we have go over this? Simple 2nd grade math. If revenues are rising ahead of spending, the percent of debt decreases.

If anyone is crawling away it's the one who says 'The end"

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015

Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(&#8722

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 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 -269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241

Clinton was able to reduce the deficits by claiming that the money he took from the Social Security Trust Fund each year was revenue. It is not. It is a liability.
(And, of course, it was President Reagan who provided the Social Security Trust Fund).

. Would you like to see 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)

Go ahead, check out table 7.1... I'll wait.

See? That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Now try to answer this one, and you can use your mobile shout-out...did the debt go UP or did the debt go DOWN?

Now this will be more difficult for you: if Clinton actually ran a surplus,...get ready....would the national debt have gone UP or DOWN?

Right, the two answers are UP, and DOWN, in that order.

So, how dumb do you feel now?
Are you smart enough to know that you have been snookered?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm going to guess that you know that the government does not have to follow GAAP rules....

The REAL DEPRECIATION of machines are caused by the laws of physics.

The laws of physics do not care about GAAP rules or governments.

But all of us dumb human beings are stuck on a planet where the laws of physics apply and are inescapable.

So if we ignore the fact the the economics profession has been ignoring the loss of wealth due to the wearing out of all of the consumer trash then we will be stuck with the inevitable results. Can the world run on lies forever? The depreciation of consumer trash isn't just about the United States. We just inspired the rest of the world to participate in the insanity.

psik

 

[NYcarbineer]

Still crawling away from the bogus 'fact' you posted about Clinton reducing the national debt.

I'm not crawling away from anything. HOW many times do we have go over this? Simple 2nd grade math. If revenues are rising ahead of spending, the percent of debt decreases.

If anyone is crawling away it's the one who says 'The end"

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015

Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(&#8722

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 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 -269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241

Clinton was able to reduce the deficits by claiming that the money he took from the Social Security Trust Fund each year was revenue. It is not. It is a liability.
(And, of course, it was President Reagan who provided the Social Security Trust Fund).

. Would you like to see 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)

Go ahead, check out table 7.1... I'll wait.

See? That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Now try to answer this one, and you can use your mobile shout-out...did the debt go UP or did the debt go DOWN?

Now this will be more difficult for you: if Clinton actually ran a surplus,...get ready....would the national debt have gone UP or DOWN?

Right, the two answers are UP, and DOWN, in that order.

So, how dumb do you feel now?
Are you smart enough to know that you have been snookered?

You used the Gross Debt figures from the table. The total public debt figures show debt falling in 98, 99, 00, 01.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not crawling away from anything. HOW many times do we have go over this? Simple 2nd grade math. If revenues are rising ahead of spending, the percent of debt decreases.

If anyone is crawling away it's the one who says 'The end"

Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2015

Year - Receipts - Outlays - Surplus or Deficit(&#8722

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 1,031,972 1,253,007 -221,036
1991 1,054,996 1,324,234 -269,238
1992 1,091,223 1,381,543 -290,321
1993 1,154,341 1,409,392 -255,051
1994 1,258,579 1,461,766 -203,186
1995 1,351,801 1,515,753 -163,952
1996 1,453,055 1,560,486 -107,431
1997 1,579,240 1,601,124 -21,884
1998 1,721,733 1,652,463 69,270
1999 1,827,459 1,701,849 125,610
2000 2,025,198 1,788,957 236,241

Clinton was able to reduce the deficits by claiming that the money he took from the Social Security Trust Fund each year was revenue. It is not. It is a liability.
(And, of course, it was President Reagan who provided the Social Security Trust Fund).

. Would you like to see 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)

Go ahead, check out table 7.1... I'll wait.

See? That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Now try to answer this one, and you can use your mobile shout-out...did the debt go UP or did the debt go DOWN?

Now this will be more difficult for you: if Clinton actually ran a surplus,...get ready....would the national debt have gone UP or DOWN?

Right, the two answers are UP, and DOWN, in that order.

So, how dumb do you feel now?
Are you smart enough to know that you have been snookered?

You used the Gross Debt figures from the table. The total public debt figures show debt falling in 98, 99, 00, 01.

Time for your remedial, Carby..

1. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion, which includes the dough he swiped from the Social Security Trust Fund...and replaced with an I.O.U. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

2. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?

Here's how: BOGUS.


Now, unless you are an expert in accounting, or have spent the time studying same, I can understand how the pols have been able to pull the wool over your eyes...

and I would be wlling to explain how the gov uses their sleight-of-hand to keep you in the dark...but suffice it to say that if you understand that the debt- the total debt went up
forty one percent!!! over Clinton's term, then you will understand that it is an absolute lie to claim that he ran an actual surplus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clinton was able to reduce the deficits by claiming that the money he took from the Social Security Trust Fund each year was revenue. It is not. It is a liability.
(And, of course, it was President Reagan who provided the Social Security Trust Fund).

. Would you like to see 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)

Go ahead, check out table 7.1... I'll wait.

See? That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Now try to answer this one, and you can use your mobile shout-out...did the debt go UP or did the debt go DOWN?

Now this will be more difficult for you: if Clinton actually ran a surplus,...get ready....would the national debt have gone UP or DOWN?

Right, the two answers are UP, and DOWN, in that order.

So, how dumb do you feel now?
Are you smart enough to know that you have been snookered?

You used the Gross Debt figures from the table. The total public debt figures show debt falling in 98, 99, 00, 01.

Time for your remedial, Carby..

1. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion, which includes the dough he swiped from the Social Security Trust Fund...and replaced with an I.O.U. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

2. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?

Here's how: BOGUS.


Now, unless you are an expert in accounting, or have spent the time studying same, I can understand how the pols have been able to pull the wool over your eyes...

and I would be wlling to explain how the gov uses their sleight-of-hand to keep you in the dark...but suffice it to say that if you understand that the debt- the total debt went up
forty one percent!!! over Clinton's term, then you will understand that it is an absolute lie to claim that he ran an actual surplus.

How about, just to make you (and the other practitioners of the worn out talking point you're trotting out again) happy, we claim that Clinton came closer to balancing the budget than any president in the last 30 years?

Agree? Or if you disagree, tell us which president did. Or, if this puts you in a fix,

don't answer at all.

But please, no non-answer filibuster of cut and pastes.

 

[Bfgrn]

Clinton was able to reduce the deficits by claiming that the money he took from the Social Security Trust Fund each year was revenue. It is not. It is a liability.
(And, of course, it was President Reagan who provided the Social Security Trust Fund).

. Would you like to see 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)

Go ahead, check out table 7.1... I'll wait.

See? That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Now try to answer this one, and you can use your mobile shout-out...did the debt go UP or did the debt go DOWN?

Now this will be more difficult for you: if Clinton actually ran a surplus,...get ready....would the national debt have gone UP or DOWN?

Right, the two answers are UP, and DOWN, in that order.

So, how dumb do you feel now?
Are you smart enough to know that you have been snookered?

You used the Gross Debt figures from the table. The total public debt figures show debt falling in 98, 99, 00, 01.

Time for your remedial, Carby..

1. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion, which includes the dough he swiped from the Social Security Trust Fund...and replaced with an I.O.U. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

2. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?

Here's how: BOGUS.


Now, unless you are an expert in accounting, or have spent the time studying same, I can understand how the pols have been able to pull the wool over your eyes...

and I would be wlling to explain how the gov uses their sleight-of-hand to keep you in the dark...but suffice it to say that if you understand that the debt- the total debt went up
forty one percent!!! over Clinton's term, then you will understand that it is an absolute lie to claim that he ran an actual surplus.

What Bush Sr and Clinton inherited from Reagan is DEBT. Years of running deficits accumulate and add to the DEBT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the website Historical Tables, go to left ledger> Past Budgets > Fiscal Year 2000 > A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2000
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline

In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. The turnaround from deficit to surplus can be attributed to fiscal discipline and strong economic growth. The change from deficit to surplus is an important milestone.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year- just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surplus, over the years.

The Government incurred its first deficit in 1792, and it generated 70 annual deficits between 1900 and 1997.

For most of the Nation's history, deficits were the result of either wars or recessions. Wars necessitated major increases in military spending, while recessions reduced Federal tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

The Government generated deficits during the War of 1812, the recession of 1837, the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, and World War I. Once the war ended or the economy began to grow, the Government followed its deficits with budget surplus, with which it paid down the debt.

Deficits returned in 1931 and remained for the rest of the decade-due to the Great Depression and the spending associated with President Roosevelt's New Deal. Then, World War II forced the Nation to spend unprecedented amounts on defense and to incur corresponding unprecedented deficits.

Since then-with Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses-the Government has balanced its books only nine times, most recently last year.

Nevertheless, the deficits before 1981 paled in comparison to what followed. That year, the Government cut income tax rates and greatly increased defense spending, but it did not cut non-defense programs enough to make up the difference. Also, the recession of the early 1980s reduced Federal revenues, increased Federal outlays for unemployment insurance and similar programs that are closely tied to economic conditions, and forced the Government to pay interest on more national debt at a time when interest rates were high. As a result, the deficit soared.

Surplus and Debt

If the Government incurs a surplus, it generally repays debt held by the public.

Federal borrowing involves the sale, to the public, of notes and bonds of varying sizes and time periods until maturity. The cumulative amount of borrowing from the public-i.e., the debt held by the public-is the most important measure of Federal debt because it is what the Government has borrowed in the private markets over the years, and it determines how much the Government pays in interest to the public.

Debt held by the public was $3.7 trillion at the end of 1998-roughly the net effect of deficits and surplus over the last 200 years. Debt held by the public does not include debt the Government owes itself-the total of all trust fund surplus and deficits over the years, like the Social Security surplus, which the law says must be invested in Federal securities.

Because of the progress in eliminating the budget deficit, the debt held by the public has been reduced for the first time in 29 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You used the Gross Debt figures from the table. The total public debt figures show debt falling in 98, 99, 00, 01.

Time for your remedial, Carby..

1. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors (this is genuine debt that must be repaid to investors, and currently totals about $8.6 trillon), and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself: currently the I.O.U.s total about $4.5trillion. National debt is actually the total of the two. Administrations usually speak of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion, which includes the dough he swiped from the Social Security Trust Fund...and replaced with an I.O.U. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

2. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?

Here's how: BOGUS.


Now, unless you are an expert in accounting, or have spent the time studying same, I can understand how the pols have been able to pull the wool over your eyes...

and I would be wlling to explain how the gov uses their sleight-of-hand to keep you in the dark...but suffice it to say that if you understand that the debt- the total debt went up
forty one percent!!! over Clinton's term, then you will understand that it is an absolute lie to claim that he ran an actual surplus.

What Bush Sr and Clinton inherited from Reagan is DEBT. Years of running deficits accumulate and add to the DEBT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt vs Deficit

The government takes in revenues, or receipts, through income taxes, social insurance taxes, etc. The government also spends money every year (also known as outlays) on a variety of different things, including social security, defense spending, etc. etc.

If the government spends more than it takes in over the course of one year, then it has run a deficit. A deficit applies to just one year.

When the government runs a deficit, then it must borrow money to make up the difference.

A debt is completely different. Think of debt as accumulated deficits. Each year, the deficit is added to the debt.

If the government has to borrow money every year, then its debt will continue to grow year-after-year. This debt does not disappear unless the government elects to try and pay it down.

The debt usually grows year-after-year. With each additional deficit, the debt continues to grow.

Some people think that if a government takes in more money than it spends in one year, then it suddenly doesn't have any debt. This is not the case. This simply means that the government has managed to run a surplus (opposite of deficit), but any accumulated debt is still there.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the website Historical Tables, go to left ledger> Past Budgets > Fiscal Year 2000 > A Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget

Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget: Fiscal Year 2000
4. The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline

In 1998 the Federal budget reported a surplus of $69 billion, the first surplus since 1969, and reduced Federal debt held by the public by over $50 billion. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. The turnaround from deficit to surplus can be attributed to fiscal discipline and strong economic growth. The change from deficit to surplus is an important milestone.

Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year- just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surplus, over the years.

The Government incurred its first deficit in 1792, and it generated 70 annual deficits between 1900 and 1997.

For most of the Nation's history, deficits were the result of either wars or recessions. Wars necessitated major increases in military spending, while recessions reduced Federal tax revenues from businesses and individuals.

The Government generated deficits during the War of 1812, the recession of 1837, the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, and World War I. Once the war ended or the economy began to grow, the Government followed its deficits with budget surplus, with which it paid down the debt.

Deficits returned in 1931 and remained for the rest of the decade-due to the Great Depression and the spending associated with President Roosevelt's New Deal. Then, World War II forced the Nation to spend unprecedented amounts on defense and to incur corresponding unprecedented deficits.

Since then-with Democratic and Republican Presidents, Democratic and Republican Congresses-the Government has balanced its books only nine times, most recently last year.

Nevertheless, the deficits before 1981 paled in comparison to what followed. That year, the Government cut income tax rates and greatly increased defense spending, but it did not cut non-defense programs enough to make up the difference. Also, the recession of the early 1980s reduced Federal revenues, increased Federal outlays for unemployment insurance and similar programs that are closely tied to economic conditions, and forced the Government to pay interest on more national debt at a time when interest rates were high. As a result, the deficit soared.

Surplus and Debt

If the Government incurs a surplus, it generally repays debt held by the public.

Federal borrowing involves the sale, to the public, of notes and bonds of varying sizes and time periods until maturity. The cumulative amount of borrowing from the public-i.e., the debt held by the public-is the most important measure of Federal debt because it is what the Government has borrowed in the private markets over the years, and it determines how much the Government pays in interest to the public.

Debt held by the public was $3.7 trillion at the end of 1998-roughly the net effect of deficits and surplus over the last 200 years. Debt held by the public does not include debt the Government owes itself-the total of all trust fund surplus and deficits over the years, like the Social Security surplus, which the law says must be invested in Federal securities.

Because of the progress in eliminating the budget deficit, the debt held by the public has been reduced for the first time in 29 years.

I did a little emphasizing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent."

My, oh, my....poor BoringFriendlessGuy....

Your politics has stunted your education. But I love it, because it gives me a chance to enlighten any who read this and give you your usual spanking....

Once I show what horsefeathers your quote above is, I suggest that any readers apply the same punishment to both your sources, and, what passes for knowledge from you.

1. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Bill Clinton ran surpluses from 1998 through 2001, the first surpluses in twenty-eight years.

a. The national debt rose every single year that Clinton was in office. fayfreethinkers.com • View topic - Did the national debt go down under Clinton?

2. There are many ways to report data in more or less favorable ways: if there is a real cash surplus, the national debt would, of necessity, be reduced.

a. “It's as if you still have household payments of a credit card, a car payment, a mortgage payment, utility payments, etc., but you curb spending enough so that, after all your regular payments during the month, you have money left over. You still have debt, but you've managed it with regard to your budget spending on the payments.” fayfreethinkers.com • View topic - Did the national debt go down under Clinton?

3. In 2000, President Clinton stated that the recent surplus “represented the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States…the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.” President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

a. CNN stated “The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.” Ibid.

b. So, it seems, not only did President Clinton run a surplus, but he reduced the national debt!

4. Would you like to see 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 is a 41% increase!!!

5. There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors, and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself. National debt is actually the total of the two. President Clinton was speaking of the public debt alone, ignoring the intragovernmental portion. This is because the intragovernmental debt goes up every year.

6. The White House OMB reports a total deficit of $320.4 billion over the eight year period, ’93-2000. Historical Tables | The White House (table 1.1)

And they also report a national debt increase of $1.6 trillion over the eight years. So, how to explain Clinton’s ‘historic surplus’?


Hint: President Reagan saved his bacon, and provided him with 'revenue.'

Now, if you are a good boy, and sit up and beg, I might be persuaded to start a thread on economics and accounting principles....

although, I admit, it may be difficult to explain it to one as 'swift' as you, Einstein.

Here's your phrase for the day: percent of GDP.

This simple 2nd grade math. If revenues are rising ahead of spending, the percent of debt decreases.

Yr/% of GDP
1993 66.1
1994 66.6
1995 67.0
1996 67.1
1997 65.4
1998 63.2
1999 60.9
2000 57.3

See...who said you weren't capable of learning!

First, you forgot to thank me for explaining why your Clinton quote was bogus,and an outright lie!

Such manners...no wonder you'r Friendless!

Don't you want to comment on the enlightenment that I provided, i.e. that the debt grew in every single year of the Clinton administration???

Booooooo!

Now just ask for an explaination of the expansion of the economy that Clinton benefitted from? (Oops...sorry to end the sentence with a preposition!)

Well, since you're either too shy, or too frightened that I might reveal further ignorance on your part, I'll take the initiative...

Three benefits of the Reagan presidency that helped Clinton convince dolts (insert your name here) that he reduced debt....get that, while his administration had a 41% increase in the national debt...but you claim he decreased same.

Now, get your pencil, and jot this down:

1) The 1983 Greenspan Commission initiated changes in Social Security that generated large surpluses. “As soon as the first surpluses began to role in, in 1985, the money was put into the general revenue fund and spent on other government programs.” How Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan Pulled off the Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated against the American People | Dissident Voice

a. In 1985, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus was only $7.5 billion, a decade later it was $60.4 billion.

b. In 2000, the surplus was $152 billion. Clinton took the $152 billion, and counted it as income, instead of the debt it actually repesented.

Sweatin' yet?

2.The tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economy began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

The rusult of said decrease in inflation and sustained growth of the economy dropped the government's costs of borrowing: net interest costs on the national debt dropped by 1% of GDP.

Are you having second thoughts…oops! That implies that you had first thoughts.


3. And, of course, the greatest benefit to the American people, the people of the world, and the 'bottom-line-propaganda' of Bill Clinton, the result of the defense/military build-up that resulted in the end of the Cold War, and Soviet's change from a red flag to a white flag...

Clinton's defense spending fell by 2.2% of GDP! The 'Peace Dividend!

Hey, let's put Ron on the Rock!


What’s that you’re muttering? “Must-defend-self…”

Now, where's that big THANK YOU????

The first guy I ever heard try to give Reagan credit for the Clinton expansion was rightwing talk radio host Mark Davis, a B-list Limbaugh wanna-be. Back in the 90's. I laughed then, too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. From your post #64…
“Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.”

2. I scoured this post, above, and can find naught in defense of your 'Clinton' post...

3. Since you decided to change the subject, I guess that means that I beat the pants off you, huh?

Yechhhhh.....what a disgusting visual that is!

Get back in there and put something on!

Here's your word for the day: context

Post #64:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

If you are still confused, refer to post #72

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's your word for the day: context

Post #64:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent (of the annual GDP) had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

If you are still confused, refer to post #72

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

That's because you are a bonehead...or, let's be kind and understand that you have not studied the respective eras.

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981. Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York
And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform
“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System

3. The economic benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116
4. As for the last two parts of Reaganomics…not so much. While there were four Presidents who convinced the Congress to cut taxes to spur growth, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush43, only Coolidge followed up with spending cuts.

a. Over eight years the national debt was up 104%...because Reagan ran deficits every year!

4. Why? Two factors…the President’s refusal to cut defense spending…and Congress, (Democrats controlled the House, and, from ’87, the Senate) which agreed to the tax cut side, but not the toxic spending cut side.

a. Reagan saw the Cold War as the pivot of history: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” Ronald Reagan, “Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches,” p. 26.

b. “Look, I am the President of the United States…If we don’t have our security, we’ll have no need for social programs. We’re going to go ahead with these [defense] programs.” Peter Schweitzer, “Reagan’s War: The Epic Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism,” p. 139-140

5. "Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt."
Actually, the benefit went to Clinton: the result of the economic expansion due to Reagan's policies reduced the costs of interest.

6. Pluses for Clinton:
a) Defense spending fell by 2.2% of GDP,

b) Tax revenues rose by 2.6% of GDP, and

c) Net interest costs on the national debt dropped by 1% of GDP.

a. How much of the drop in defense spending should we attribute to the Reagan ‘peace dividend,’ the Soviet collapse? How about all of it.


And, once again, the increase in national debt under Clinton cannot be attributed to noble endeavors such as the defeat of the Evil Empire...

 

[loosecannon]

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.

It is a bald faced lie that Carter was responsible for the econ downturn Reagan inherited. Nixon took the US off the gold standard in 73. The Saudis demanded that they be paid in gold for their oil, we refused. So OPEC decided to bargain or punish the US by choking our access to OPEC oil not once but twice in 73 and 78.

That was what triggered the recession of 79-81.

Volker did absolutely the right thing in forcing the money supply to contract by raising interest rates but the interest rates didn't normalize until AFTER the dollar had made the requisite correction in value vs gold.

Remember before 73 $35= 1 TO gold, after 73 there was no relationship between the dollar and gold. So some relationship had to be established via market forces.

If you recall gold spiked to over $800/oz or $2300 in today's dollars in the exact same period of time:

 

[loosecannon]

3. The economic benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) Economic Report of the President: 2010 Report Spreadsheet Tables
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

This is 100% myth. Not reality.

In reality the economic recovery that occurred in Reagan's era had almost nothing to do with any policy beyond the monetary policy of Volcker at the Fed.

Because Gold and the dollar essentially self corrected, and the monetary policy of the time was extremely conservative the economy benefited from a nearly perfect correction to the imbalances that caused the recession.

If an economy in recession with sound fundamentals benefits from correction to the causative imbalances a robust recovery is the norm, not the exception. That's the very definition of boom-bust cycles.

Extraneous tax policies etc had jack shit to do with it.

You can believe otherwise, you can erect fascinating rationales backed by studies, data, scholarly analysis and idealism but the reality is that Reagan was lucky after he was unlucky. His policies had almost nothing to do with causing or correcting the epic recession of his era.

And the same was true of Jimmy Carter.

Nixon on the other hand was generally responsible for the whole enchilada. He took the US off the gold standard. The rest was inevitable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that PC's evidence does not lead up to her conclusion: do your own figures, folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Reagan made the flourishing economy that you and Clinton are taking credit for....

2. Clinton presided over a 41% increase in national debt.

The End.

Reagan presided over a, lemme see, about a 190% increase in the national debt

End of 1980 - 909,401,000,000

End of 1988 - 2,601,104,000,000

...and Clinton had the extra degree of difficulty of having to pay the interest on Reagan's, not to mention Bush Sr.'s, accumulated debt.

Looks to me like Clinton did almost 5 times better than Reagan did.

That's because you are a bonehead...or, let's be kind and understand that you have not studied the respective eras.

1. Ronald Reagan attained the presidency following the most inept President in my lifetime, James Carter. Confronting real problems in the areas of foreign and domestic policy, and possibly the most palpable, the economic situation. “Reaganomics” was his plan to fight slow growth and high inflation. The four elements of the plan:
a. A restrictive monetary policy to stabilize the dollar and end inflation.
b. A 25% tax cut to all income levels.
c. A promise to cut domestic spending to balance the budget.
d. An easing of government regulation.

2. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.

You are SO full of shit. I know more about the Reagan era than you can ever cut and paste in a week.

Let's go back to the relevant point. Reagan increased the debt by 190%. You labeled Clinton a failure for increasing the debt, using your cockeyed calculations, by 41%. And yet you want to praise Reagan for more than quadrupling that number.

Reagan promised to balance the budget under a clinically insane formula of

cutting taxes, increasing defense spending, and cutting the rest of government to make up the difference. Because the first two are politically easy, Reagan did them. Because the third is politically difficult, he failed. The consequence was a massive explosion of deficit spending.

And btw Volcker was not 'Reaganomics'. Volcker was appointed by Carter and the Fed does not get its marching orders from the president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[3. The economic benefits from Reaganomics:
a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)

If you don't know what a post hoc fallacy is go look it up.

a. The economy was actually growing when Reagan took office, and went into the worst recession since the Depression 6 months AFTER Reagan became president.

b. The Fed killed the inflation spiral, along with a major decline in oil prices. Nothing to do with Reagan.

c. Unemployment in November 1982, 2 years AFTER Reagan was elected? Over 10%

d. Prime rate? That's monetary policy in the hands of the Fed, not the president.

e. The stock market took off in August 1982, almost 2 years after Reagan took office and ironically, right after Reagan's 1982 tax INCREASE, the largest in history. The Fed btw prompted the market to turn around when Volcker eased monetary policy.

And while we're at it, the stock market was up over 200% on Clinton's watch. So once again, Clinton's presidency was the 'winner'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The fact remains that PC's evidence does not lead up to her conclusion: do your own figures, folks.

Yes, but her posts are longer than yours, so she must be smarter.