Lies about our national debt, W, Clinton and Reagan (its just accurate information)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JRK, Mar 25, 2011.

  1. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    I am so sick and tired of hearing about the debt and how Clinton did such a great job and GWB/Reagan did such a bad job
    the truth is Clinton reaped allot of the reward Reagan
    its also true Clinton added to the national debt
    The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
    so did GWB

    all about the same and less than BHO added in 2 years

    The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


    Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?

    Coverage of President Reagan's legacy has been generally fair, with one exception. Many say, "Reagan masterfully won the cold war … but those budget deficits." Or "America needed Reagan's infectious optimism … but those budget deficits."

    Not all debt is bad. Mortgage debt and student loan debt are worthy investments. No one criticizes President Franklin Roosevelt for the massive debt that financed World War II. Yet the commentators criticizing President Reagan for the $2.1 trillion in added debt (all numbers are in today's dollars) ignore how that debt won the Cold War, lowered the tax burden, and ignited the largest economic boom in American history.

    Those who denounce the Reagan deficits should answer the following questions:

    Would you bring back the Soviet empire? President Reagan spent $3 trillion on defense, well above the $2.2 trillion baseline. What did that extra $800 billion buy? The end of the Cold War -- saving, perhaps, a billion lives from nuclear extinction.

    No less than former Soviet Union Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh has been quoted crediting President Reagan's defense buildup for the accelerated collapse of the Soviet Union. The fragile communist economy, already stretched thin by substantial defense spending, could not keep up with America's defense buildup. The possibility of American missile defense, and President Reagan's powerful rhetoric, further persuaded the Soviets they could not win the Cold War, and induced the reforms that culminated in the collapse of the Soviet empire -- without America firing a single shot. It was the best $800 billion investment America ever made.

    Would you raise the top income-tax rate back to 70 percent? Commentators also blame the 1980s deficits on President Reagan's insistence on reducing taxes in 1981. Yet President Reagan inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Excessively high tax rates were discouraging work and investment and therefore damaging the economy while raising little revenue. President Reagan removed barriers to entrepreneurship by reducing tax rates, cutting red tape, and stabilizing the economy, thereby encouraging risk takers. The centerpiece of this policy was a radical series of across-the-board tax cuts that lowered the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, and eventually to 28 percent. (It stands at 35 percent today.)

    This tax relief unleashed a 20-year surge of entrepreneurship, as the U.S. economy tripled in size. The lasting impact of these policies can be seen in successive presidents, who ratified Reaganomics by refusing to even consider raising taxes back to their 1970s levels. Thus, America continues to benefit from lower tax rates.

    Would you trade 2.8 million jobs? Before the Reagan tax relief, the unemployment rate averaged 7.7 percent. Since the tax cuts, it has averaged 5.8 percent -- a difference that translates into 2.8 million jobs per year.

    Would you trade $15,000 of your annual income? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the average household's annual disposable income increased $13,000. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, these incomes surged $28,000.

    Would you trade the stock market boom? In the two decades before the Reagan tax relief, the S&P 500 increased 120 percent. In the 20 years following Reagan's tax cuts, the market jumped 575 percent.

    And don't forget the 12 percent inflation rate and 21 percent interest rates that Reaganomics slew.

    The Reagan tax cuts replaced the deepest recession since the Great Depression with the largest 20-year boom in American history. Tax revenues actually grew faster in the low-tax 1980s than in the high-tax 1970s, and rising incomes meant the share of taxes paid by the wealthy actually increased throughout the 1980s. Millions of people who had entered the 1980s in the lowest income quintile surged to the highest income quintile by 1990.

    All a coincidence? As Reagan would say, "there you go again."

    Sure, President Reagan would have preferred to minimize the deficits by eliminating wasteful spending. However, the only way to persuade a Democratic Congress to accept a defense buildup and pro-growth tax cuts was to agree to their domestic spending demands.

    Ironically, the 1980s budget deficits made the 1990s surpluses possible. The budget was balanced by surging tax revenues from a booming, low-tax economy and defense savings brought on by the end of the Cold War.

    To paraphrase a classic President Reagan line: Are you better off today than you were in 1980?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    Is the average middle class income american better off today than in 1980? or '84? or '88?


    That question would be a fun one to hear the answers.

    To hell with both status quo, middle class destroying political parties.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates. and if you take UE avg of 5% from the mid 80s till 2009 I am unsure how anyone can say that Regan's policies created the largest transfer of wealth
    The hi end tax rate went from 39% to 35% (basically). So how hard would it be for the "rich" to increase the amount of wealth they have?

    I mean if I get to keep 4% more wealth every year and I make 250,000 per year, thats 10,000.00
    the Liberal media have wrote 1000s of columns calling that a transfer of wealth
     
  4. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    The Fed has a lot more to do with the economy and fiscal livelihood of the american middle and lower classes than government does.

    Like I said both our status quo parties are pure garbage but the printing press and credit creation of the fed manipulating the money supply it's what's leading to or has already caused our doom financially.

    A 5% tax cut here and there coinciding with government wildy increasing spending and and credit creation and the printing press running at all time highs is essentially a waste of time.
     
  5. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    5,625
    Thanks Received:
    1,917
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +1,980
    I guess I have to post this again. I'm sorry I have to do this but some people live in such a fantasy world.

    REAL WAGES
    1964-2004
    Average Weekly Earnings (in 1982 constant dollars)
    For all private nonfarm workers
    Year Real $ Change
    1964 302.52
    1965 310.46 2.62%
    1966 312.83 0.76%
    1967 311.30 -0.49%
    1968 315.37 1.31%
    1969 316.93 0.49%
    1970 312.94 -1.26%
    1971 318.05 1.63%
    1972 331.59 4.26%
    1973 331.39 -0.06%
    1974 314.94 -4.96%
    1975 305.16 -3.11%
    1976 309.61 1.46%
    1977 310.99 0.45%
    1978 310.41 -0.19%
    1979 298.87 -3.72%
    1980 281.27 -5.89%
    1981 277.35 -1.39%
    1982 272.74 -1.66%
    1983 277.50 1.75%
    1984 279.22 0.62%
    1985 276.23 -1.07%
    1986 276.11 -0.04%
    1987 272.88 -1.17%
    1988 270.32 -0.94%
    1989 267.27 -1.13%
    1990 262.43 -1.81%
    1991 258.34 -1.56%
    1992 257.95 -0.15%
    1993 258.12 0.07%
    1994 259.97 0.72%
    1995 258.43 -0.59%
    1996 259.58 0.44%
    1997 265.22 2.17%
    1998 271.87 2.51%
    1999 274.64 1.02%
    2000 275.62 0.36%
    2001 275.38 -0.09%
    2002 278.91 1.28%
    2003 279.94 0.37%
    2004 277.57 -0.84%



    Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

    http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    48,504
    Thanks Received:
    4,455
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,358
    Reagan made the country prosper by pumping a couple trillion dollars worth of borrowed stimulus into it.

    Clinton paid the bills, and let the country's prosperity take care of itself.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    To start with your link is no good
    I have no idea what your trying to say
    are you saying during the worst inflation we have ever had in our countries history that people made more money than we did during the same time when gas was not much different than it was in 2008 at the end of Ws term and inflation was 18%
    That people where making more per week when we had no inflation?
    What the hell is this information mean?
    with respect you act like that information means something
    Do i understand that in 1978 with inflation @ 18% I would make 310.00 and in 2004 with inflation @ < 3% I would make 277.00?
    HUH?
    thats 50.00 SWING THERE
    As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.


    Read more: Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation - TIME


    Now in addition my tax rate from 2001 to 2004 allowed me to bring home about 4,000 more a year
    in my pocket
    now that was on a 65,000 year vs about a 70,000

    My friend that information you have provided is worthless
    there is no truth to it I do not care where you got it and more than that I would like to know what its suppose to mean
     
  8. JRK
    Offline

    JRK Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    7,488
    Thanks Received:
    312
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +312
    Really?

    Clinton had the same deficit in 8 years that

    The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

    For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.


    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. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

    Fiscal
    Year Year
    Ending National Debt Deficit
    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

    the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
    So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
    An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
    Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
    When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
    Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
    The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.
     
  9. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,207
    Thanks Received:
    2,218
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    I bet every damned American would pick the Clinton economy over what Bush sat and watched happen to our country.
     
  10. kiwiman127
    Offline

    kiwiman127 Comfortably Moderate Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    5,625
    Thanks Received:
    1,917
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
    Ratings:
    +1,980
    Hmm,,,? I see the link doesn't work now as I went there a did a copy & paste,,,maybe later. I see, I didn't copy the entire address.
    What I was trying to say is, in fact wages have not gone up in "real dollars" since the 1980and that's despite excellent worker productivity and good overall profits. So it's pretty hard to be better off now than you were in 1980. Also, the tax cuts to corporations, the wealthy and with Capital Gains/Dividends did not make the lives of the middle class any better at all. In fact, the middle class has lost wealth while the top percentage has gained wealth.
    The source of the numbers is the Department of Labor via the Bush Administration.
    Try this: http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages and Benefits: Real Wages (1964-2004)
    EDIT: Copy and past the link to Google's "all these words" or go to this link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Real_Wages_1964-2004.gif

    It's the same story,,,working class wages have not improved and life for the working class has gotten worse.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2011

Share This Page