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

[Mr. Shaman]

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 so did GWB

....And, this dude proved it, with his (own) "customized" graphs.

How convenient (aka bullshit).

Try THIS!!!!!

09/30/1979 - * 826,519,000,000.00

09/30/1991 - 3,665,303,351,697.03

Face the FACTS......

.....Clinton KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING!!!!

 

[auditor0007]

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.

One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates.

.....Yeah, let's totally-disregard....

....the Obama tax-cuts.

The FACT is.....if we drop-back to the CLINTON-RATES.....

.....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I bet every damned American would pick the Clinton economy over what Bush sat and watched happen to our country.

For.....

....OBVIOUS REASONS!!!!!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is no better example of the type of spam that got Obama elected and made GWB out to be what many see him as

Yeah.......

......HISTORICAL-DATA!!!!!!!

 

[beowolfe]

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.

No. 1980 is when the GOP started killing off the private sector unions. Unable to bargain for wages and benefits, the average middle class worker saw their incomes stagnate.
The only period since then when they did better was in the 1990's.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I bet every damned American would pick the Clinton economy over what Bush sat and watched happen to our country.

Every American with a brain in their head would.


The rest of them were more concerned about him getting a BJ in the White House.

why would people choose Clinton's over Ws?
what did W sit and watch happen?

(Try to make your next question a tough one.

)
​

 

[JRK]

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.

Well yeah.

But the ability of the Conservative to recognize how math works..is very limited.

Think of it like faith. They have "faith" in the "invisible" hand of the deregulated "free" markets.

What de regulation?
you mean The repeal of glass/sea gall?
Hmm that would be Clinton's de regulation, which i happen to agree with
The greedy caused the mess, the repeal of this legislation allowed the greed to have a place to go to cause it

This is just one of our articles referencing the financial crisis, crash of the housing market, subprime, and more:


Even as the Fed helped to stabilize the situation over the weekend, the stock market is down again on Monday morning. What is alarming from our standpoint is that CIT, Lehman, and National City Corporation all are down – by 25 to 31 percent as we write this. Liquidity questions surround Lehman after what we learned from Bear Sterns. Even JPMorgan needed help and considerations from the Fed to buy Bear Sterns for a reported $2 a share.

This issue now goes far beyond the mortgage blues of some lenders. There is no way that crazy wild-eyed mortgage brokers with lax standards could cause worldwide problems like this. President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Economists have criticized the action.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978

So.....ya' got Clinton's 22 MILLION.....then, you've gotta (first) figure-out how many jobs Bush LOST (or, gave-away), before you can "add" any he created.​

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam

You need to work on your terminology....a little.....

spam: unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses.

 

[JRK]

Every American with a brain in their head would.


The rest of them were more concerned about him getting a BJ in the White House.

why would people choose Clinton's over Ws?
what did W sit and watch happen?

(Try to make your next question a tough one.

)
​

so 400 billion dollars in added defict with 2 wars and 6 major hurricanes along with 9-11 is something to gloat about?
and let us not forget that was done with a republican congress
Oh-yea
that 400 billion that W had that was more than Clintons?
Tax rebates

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


here would be Ws
http://diplomatdc.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg?w=400&h=330

For eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. Bush responded with TARP (the toxic asset recovery program). This was done because $550 billion was pulled out of our financial and investment systems in ONE hour on September 18, 2008. The situation was dire and there was no longer a firewall between the banks and the stock market. There was $40 trillion in outstanding Credit Default Swaps, and most of it turned out to be worthless. That’s more than the GDP of the entire United States for three years.
The Bush administration worked diligently to keep the American economy going. Many conservatives and libertarians were disappointed by TARP. They believed we should leave the economy alone and it would fix itself. The conservative magazine National Review did not agree and supported TARP as a necessary evil. The House Progressive Caucus was opposed but their prediction that it would fail, has not proven true.
TARP was necessary to save the economy from collapse. Letting the banks fail was not the right thing to do and it would have led to a Great Depression. TARP and all of the other government efforts in the fall of 2008 did unfreeze the credit markets. Every single credit indicator (LIBOR, TED spread, A2/P2 spread, intra-bank lending, etc) shows that the markets have significantly unfrozen. The major banks have now passed their stress tests, and they are able to raise capital through the public markets. The American economy survived without a depression. There was no wholesale meltdown of the U.S. banking system. The big banks did not fail.
The taxpayers could still lose $12 to $20 billion on the money given to AIG. That is disappointing, but it is big improvement from a few months ago. AIG received $182 billion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
Many thought the taxpayers were going to get stuck for over $100 billion, but AIG has been rapidly selling assets and the loss will be far less than what was once believed. The real outrage is that AIG lost $98 billion in 2008 but that did not stop them from paying large bonuses after they received the balout money.
President Obama went well beyond TARP with his $787 stimulus in February of 2009. The Stimulus bill includes tax cuts but they are not the type that spur the economy. The economic model of the stimulus bill assumes every $1 of government spending increases the economy by $1.60. By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. Not one House Republican voted for the final stimulus package, which is remarkable.
The moderates did not support it because it was too big, too porky, and hardly stimulative at all. It also wiped out many of Bill Clinton’s excellent welfare reform laws. We did see deficit reduction and economic growth in the late 1990′s.
Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress worked together. They agreed to restore a lower tax rate on capital gains and virtually eliminate capital gains taxes on owner-occupied housing. The galloping economy then reduced the deficit by a record level.
Another major factor was the “peace dividend” after the Cold War. Clinton however did not erase the debt. The national debt went up every single year. The Clinton surplus is also debatable. He took a vast amount of money out of Social Security in order to cover his budgets and give the appearance of reducing debt.

 

[JRK]

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.

The middle class bring home pay is the best its ever been thanks to Ws tax rates.

.....Yeah, let's totally-disregard....

....the Obama tax-cuts.

The FACT is.....if we drop-back to the CLINTON-RATES.....

.....the middle-class WON'T EVEN NOTICE!!!!

"The 1993 budget legislation did increase federal tax receipts. One can not, however, draw from this the conclusion that taxes increased significantly for the majority of taxpayers. The 1993 changes in the tax code increased federal income tax rates only for high-income taxpayers.

The vast majority of taxpayers saw no change in their income taxes as a result of the 1993 law. CBO estimates that most households paid only $38 more per year, as a result of the 4.3 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax."

Bull shit
I made 70,000 in 01 and in 03 and it made 4000 in difference
look you want to give the govt that much more go for it, dont lie so i will have to

 

[JRK]

There is no better example of the type of spam that got Obama elected and made GWB out to be what many see him as

Yeah.......

......HISTORICAL-DATA!!!!!!!

If it is so funny where is your historical data?
what you think 9% UE with 3 trillion dollars in additional debt is funny?
You living off of the tax payer?
you got kids?
I do not see anything funny about this situation we find our selves in

Let me add that W had a 5% UE rate for 8 years on avg
he added less debt in 8 years than BHO did in 18 months
historical data?
By the way that debt W had included 3 tax rebates
how much money did you get from Obama's stimulus?

 

[kiwiman127]

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam

"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?

I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.

My numbers aren't from the Census but from the Department of Labor.
And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased".
Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No!

 

[JRK]

"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?

I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.

My numbers aren't from the Census but from the Department of Labor.
And Heritage? I remember reading one of their pieces arguing that wages weren't stagnant, their reasoning was "because wages hadn't decreased".
Try a resource that isn't partisan please. Did I use a partisan resource? No!

Yes
let me add that 1/2 truths are 1/2 truths every where you look
I agree that yu cannot just say that 1978 has anything to do with 2004
40 million jobs where added
that alone is a information that cannot be ignored
I agree heritage is 1/2 truth, but thats the 1/2 that makes that story a whole

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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
[/url]

So, I'm gonna go ahead and call a massive BULLSHIT here.

THIS is what "trickle down", deregulation of the banking industry and the "conservative" corporatism disaster has wrought:

News Headlines

But we have a whole bunch of new millionaires, so all is good, right?

bullshit?
bullshit?
more millionaires because they keep more of there wealth
De regulation in the banking industry was in 1998 "Mr Bull Shit"
Glass

Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagall faulty as seen today
Written on March 17th, 2008 in Government Positions


This is just one of our articles referencing the financial crisis, crash of the housing market, subprime, and more:


Even as the Fed helped to stabilize the situation over the weekend, the stock market is down again on Monday morning. What is alarming from our standpoint is that CIT, Lehman, and National City Corporation all are down – by 25 to 31 percent as we write this. Liquidity questions surround Lehman after what we learned from Bear Sterns. Even JPMorgan needed help and considerations from the Fed to buy Bear Sterns for a reported $2 a share.

This issue now goes far beyond the mortgage blues of some lenders. There is no way that crazy wild-eyed mortgage brokers with lax standards could cause worldwide problems like this. President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Economists have criticized the action.

WHAT DE REGULATION DID GWB DO? IF YOUR GOING TO VOTE DO SOME FUCKING HOME WORK PLEASE

Gee.....you (almost) got that one right!!

Clinton (no doubt) signed-off on the appropriations bill (where Gramm-Leach-Bliley was BURIED).....'cause Phil Gramm couldn't get the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PASSED....on IT'S OWN MERIT, much EARLIER!!!!!

(You don't do a whole-lotta-research, do you?? )



@ 6:25 thru 12:00

*

Ya' got NOTHIN'!!!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam

"My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate"

It's straight from the Department of Labor.
I'll tell you what, why not produce something that reflects the opposite to what The Dept of Labor is saying?

I did
its called common sense
You ask for it

Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution
Published on September 29, 1999 by Rea Hederman, Jr. and Robert Rector CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #99-07

Edit by Moderator: Please remember the copyright rules. NO posting of entire articles or even a large part of them, (one or two paragraphs is good) and source must be linked. Thx.

Inequality Statistics and Poverty Facts | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Aw, jeez.....a blog from.....

The Heritage Foundation

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.

....And, he was using S.S. bucks to pay-down The Debt, as well.....right??

September 27, 2000

Clinton; Another Record Budget Surplus​

(You REALLY wanna compete with JRK, for ZERO credibility????

)​

 

[beowolfe]

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.

One thing very few will acknowledge is the fact that they all stole from SS to make their budgets work. Even Clinton's surplus was only due to the fact that he also used excess SS funds to cover the budget. So in reality, even Clinton was running deficits.

Dude, you can't steal from SS. SS invests any excess funds into T-bills. That's the law. So, in reality Clinton wasn't running deficits when he had a balanced budget. When will you people wake up, research how things actually work, and quit paying attention to the wingnut talking heads trying to re-write history.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Well yeah.

But the ability of the Conservative to recognize how math works..is very limited.

Think of it like faith. They have "faith" in the "invisible" hand of the deregulated "free" markets.

What de regulation?
you mean The repeal of glass/sea gall?
Hmm that would be Clinton's de regulation, which i happen to agree with
The greedy caused the mess, the repeal of this legislation allowed the greed to have a place to go to cause it.

.....And, then the greedy moved up to UBS!!!!​

"Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill, Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any. The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight. Basically, it gave way to the Enron debacle and ushered in the new era of unregulated securities. Interestingly enough, Gramm's wife, Wendy, had been part of the Enron board, and her salary and stock income brought in between $900,000 and $1.8 million to the Gramm household, prior to the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

In 2003, Gramm left the Senate to join UBS, which had acquired investment house PaineWebber due to his deregulation bill. At UBS, Gramm lobbied Congress, the Fed and the Treasury Department."

The Subprime Mess And Phil Gramm​

 

[onecut39]

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

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:

File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the same story,,,working class wages have not improved and life for the working class has gotten worse.

My friend we have added 40 million jobs to our economy sense 1978
that information your using cannot be accurate
Jimmy Carter had an 18% inflation rate in 1978 and your claim is I would have made 10% more?
I would have to make 28% more
And if the value of the dollar is the reason then would not that one year be the biggest impact?

There is no way any-one can claim that the average Joe/Jane made 10% more as a middle class worker in 1977 than he did in 2004
no way

you have 40 million more people working in 2004 than you did in 1978

Women?
part time jobs?
Legal aliens?

Thats pure spam

Amazing! You really don't have a clue.