Why Do Liberals In Washington Really Love Tax Increases?

It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

:rolleyes:

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.



It's not a convoluted formula. If the government practiced proper GAAP accounting for budgeting, the unfunded future liabilities would show up as accruals and cause a deficit.

The Financial Report of the United States provides a much more accurate accounting, and it's not pretty.

U.S. GAO - Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Report of the United States Government

Check out the back issues - the excess liabilities appear from 1995 (the first report) going forward.

There is no Clinton Surplus.
 
It's called Fiscal Responsibility (No.....not the "conservative"-version).

:rolleyes:

Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'
Ah, yes....those mythical Clinton Years!!

:rolleyes:


There was no Clinton Surplus... EVER.. there has been no surplus since 1957... this is evidenced by the pure fact of the numbers.. the debt grew each and every year under Clinton

Some fluff piece does not change this fact, you fucking troll
 
So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.

I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

Idiot fucking winger robots like yourself conveniently forget little things such as intergovernmental spending (you know.. the little place Clinton liked to hide his additional spending, while proclaiming a 'surplus' to fool the gullible people such as yourself, who do not dig deep enough to look at the whole picture)
 
What's frustrating is that I made a concerted effort to help you understand history by providing the actual number and you didn't even bother to read it. If you had, you would have read the following:


You would have also noticed the chart with "National Debt" and "Deficit" clearly marked, so there would be no question that Steiner understands the difference. You should also know that Congress controls spending, but I seriously doubt you'll accept that fact.

Why would you want to continue to remain ignorant on this matter?

And I explained why it would never reach zero. There are more economic PROFESSIONALS who can read those figures accurately and who confirm that there was indeed a "budget" surplus (meaning on spending) for FY 1999-2000).

And of course I know that Congress controls spending, but theycan be stymied by a president who will always hold a veto pen, and Bush 43 never vetoed a single spending bill.

Of course it could reach zero. You're just making excuses like you normally do. The fact is the conservatives in Congress held spending in check, but somehow Clinton gets all the credit? That's just silly. He should get a little credit which I freely give him because he was easy to control. And Bush 43 and the Neocons in Congress were punished by acting like LBJ-style Democrats as they should (which is why I don't usually vote GOP). But why would you bring up Bush? Oh, yeah. Bush Derangement Syndrome. :cuckoo:

I've never solely given Clinton all the credit. (In fact, I just posted something to that effect not 2 minutes ago somewhere else.) He had the benefit of a Republican congress willing to work with him, and I've said that repeatedly. I also don't personally blame George W. Bush for much except that he allowed Cheney et al., to call the shots. When I mention "Bush," I'm usually referring to his entire administration. Isn't it interesting that BDS has been replaced by ODS, so I'd be careful how you throw that stamp around if you don't want to be called a hypocrite.
 
Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'
Ah, yes....those mythical Clinton Years!!

:rolleyes:


There was no Clinton Surplus... EVER.. there has been no surplus since 1957... this is evidenced by the pure fact of the numbers.. the debt grew each and every year under Clinton

Some fluff piece does not change this fact, you fucking troll

Surplus refers to the annual revenues vs. spending number, not the long term accumulated debt.
 
Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.



It's not a convoluted formula. If the government practiced proper GAAP accounting for budgeting, the unfunded future liabilities would show up as accruals and cause a deficit.

The Financial Report of the United States provides a much more accurate accounting, and it's not pretty.

U.S. GAO - Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Report of the United States Government

Check out the back issues - the excess liabilities appear from 1995 (the first report) going forward.

There is no Clinton Surplus.

If you're conveniently going to change Clinton's numbers with a new formula then you have to change everyone else's, which leaves Clinton's numbers still far better than anyone else's.
 
Another idiot spewing the MYTH of the clinton 'surplus'

So enlighten us please regarding the convoluted formula that the Republicans have used to debunk the surplus. I'd love to see it again.



It's not a convoluted formula. If the government practiced proper GAAP accounting for budgeting, the unfunded future liabilities would show up as accruals and cause a deficit.

The Financial Report of the United States provides a much more accurate accounting, and it's not pretty.

U.S. GAO - Fiscal Year 2009 Financial Report of the United States Government

Check out the back issues - the excess liabilities appear from 1995 (the first report) going forward.

There is no Clinton Surplus.

A "budget surplus" simply means that for a given fiscal year, the government takes in more money than it spends, which Clinton did (excuse me the "administration" did) in its last year of office.

The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years, which I agreee means that even though Clinton had a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.

All the "proof" in the world, however, doesn't belie the fact that we returned to deficit spending under the Bush Administration.
 
For the past month everywhere I go I hear conservatives saying they want to raise taxes on lower income Americans, the ones who were identified as paying no federal income taxes last year...

...now why are you talking about only liberals being the ones who want to raise taxes?
 
I just found this using google. It appears to have a good explanation of the numbers. I don't know who this guy is or what he truly stands for, but the numbers he posts are accurate.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

Idiot fucking winger robots like yourself conveniently forget little things such as intergovernmental spending (you know.. the little place Clinton liked to hide his additional spending, while proclaiming a 'surplus' to fool the gullible people such as yourself, who do not dig deep enough to look at the whole picture)

:lol: That's the "convolution" I was looking for!! Of course you neglect to post a link, so I'll stick with the facts, thank you. That said, rearranging the deck chairs is nothing "new" either, which most administrations will do based on priority spending at the time. Clinton's PAYGO initiative did just that.
 
For the past month everywhere I go I hear conservatives saying they want to raise taxes on lower income Americans, the ones who were identified as paying no federal income taxes last year...

...now why are you talking about only liberals being the ones who want to raise taxes?

They want to do away with the Earned Income Tax Credit and reduce the standard deductions (both of which help create that 40% figure). But I never hear anyone talking about reducing or eliminating the number of tax breaks a high-level earner can take on a 2040 except, of course, coming from "liberals."
 


There was no Clinton Surplus... EVER.. there has been no surplus since 1957... this is evidenced by the pure fact of the numbers.. the debt grew each and every year under Clinton

Some fluff piece does not change this fact, you fucking troll

Surplus refers to the annual revenues vs. spending number, not the long term accumulated debt.

And the intergovernmental spending that Clinton (and other presidents as well, for that matter) tried to hide, that is not claimed in the 'official budget' is not something the disappears like a fart in the wind.... each year, when including intergovernmental spending, there was indeed a deficit under Clinton... just as there has been a deficit every year since 1957
 
Steiner, like many others, confuses the national debt (deficit) and the annual budget, for which there are inescapable operating costs so it will never show a true surplus. There is no way that Clinton had a deficit surplus, of course. Bush even acknowledged the budget surplus in his first SOU address to Congress which was when he first proposed tax cuts to "give the money back to the people."

Idiot fucking winger robots like yourself conveniently forget little things such as intergovernmental spending (you know.. the little place Clinton liked to hide his additional spending, while proclaiming a 'surplus' to fool the gullible people such as yourself, who do not dig deep enough to look at the whole picture)

:lol: That's the "convolution" I was looking for!! Of course you neglect to post a link, so I'll stick with the facts, thank you. That said, rearranging the deck chairs is nothing "new" either, which most administrations will do based on priority spending at the time. Clinton's PAYGO initiative did just that.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
 
Idiot fucking winger robots like yourself conveniently forget little things such as intergovernmental spending (you know.. the little place Clinton liked to hide his additional spending, while proclaiming a 'surplus' to fool the gullible people such as yourself, who do not dig deep enough to look at the whole picture)

:lol: That's the "convolution" I was looking for!! Of course you neglect to post a link, so I'll stick with the facts, thank you. That said, rearranging the deck chairs is nothing "new" either, which most administrations will do based on priority spending at the time. Clinton's PAYGO initiative did just that.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual


I repeat (see Post #67):
The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years, which I agreee means that even though Clinton had a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.

A budget surplus = more revenue than spending in any given year, period.
 
:lol: That's the "convolution" I was looking for!! Of course you neglect to post a link, so I'll stick with the facts, thank you. That said, rearranging the deck chairs is nothing "new" either, which most administrations will do based on priority spending at the time. Clinton's PAYGO initiative did just that.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual


I repeat (see Post #67):
The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years, which I agreee means that even though Clinton had a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.

A budget surplus = more revenue than spending in any given year, period.


Mags... are you that fucking ignorant??... yes debt is accumulative... but the increase of debt year by year does not show that a surplus happened... you see, a surplus or a positive cash flow would reduce the debt from one year to the next... we are not talking about the elimination of the debt, but not even one single penny was used to pay down the debt

Fact.... Clinton Budget spending plus Clinton intergovernmental spending > Income to the Federal Government under Clinton... each and EVERY year...... in Clinton's BEST year, he ran an 18 billion dollar deficit.... this is irrefutable and directly in the actual numbers reported by the government

If you make 50K and spend 75K and you borrow 26K from your mom to cover the difference... it does not mean that you made more than you spent
 


I repeat (see Post #67):
The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years, which I agreee means that even though Clinton had a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.

A budget surplus = more revenue than spending in any given year, period.


Mags... are you that fucking ignorant??... yes debt is accumulative... but the increase of debt year by year does not show that a surplus happened... you see, a surplus or a positive cash flow would reduce the debt from one year to the next... we are not talking about the elimination of the debt, but not even one single penny was used to pay down the debt

Fact.... Clinton Budget spending plus Clinton intergovernmental spending > Income to the Federal Government under Clinton... each and EVERY year...... in Clinton's BEST year, he ran an 18 billion dollar deficit.... this is irrefutable and directly in the actual numbers reported by the government

If you make 50K and spend 75K and you borrow 26K from your mom to cover the difference... it does not mean that you made more than you spent

Sigh...and you're just not getting what I'M saying. Let's try this:

If spending stayed as it was when Clinton declared a "surplus" (call it something else, if you don't like the word), the national debt for the out years would have been greatly reduced. All you have to do is think of it as creating a personal budget where your credit cards are paid off in a projected amount of time and in the meantime, you spend a lot less.
 
I repeat (see Post #67):
The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years, which I agreee means that even though Clinton had a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.

A budget surplus = more revenue than spending in any given year, period.


Mags... are you that fucking ignorant??... yes debt is accumulative... but the increase of debt year by year does not show that a surplus happened... you see, a surplus or a positive cash flow would reduce the debt from one year to the next... we are not talking about the elimination of the debt, but not even one single penny was used to pay down the debt

Fact.... Clinton Budget spending plus Clinton intergovernmental spending > Income to the Federal Government under Clinton... each and EVERY year...... in Clinton's BEST year, he ran an 18 billion dollar deficit.... this is irrefutable and directly in the actual numbers reported by the government

If you make 50K and spend 75K and you borrow 26K from your mom to cover the difference... it does not mean that you made more than you spent

Sigh...and you're just not getting what I'M saying. Let's try this:

If spending stayed as it was when Clinton declared a "surplus" (call it something else, if you don't like the word), the national debt for the out years would have been greatly reduced. All you have to do is think of it as creating a personal budget where your credit cards are paid off in a projected amount of time and in the meantime, you spend a lot less.

No.... what is a surplus mags?? It is taking in more than you spend.... Where Clinton successfully fooled ones like yourself is showing that he paid down the PUBLIC DEBT... but what you and so many others refuse to see is the intergovernmental spending that he INCREASED in order to do that...

Let's repeat this again..... Clinton never took in more that he spent in any given year... ANY.... he 'borrowed' from other entities within the government (ever hear of dipping into the SS fund?)

So.. to use your little credit card analogy.... he paid down his Visa by using a balance transfer to his Master Card.... you only saw the Visa statement, but if you dig just a little, you can see the Master Card statement as well
 
Last edited:
There was no Clinton Surplus... EVER.. there has been no surplus since 1957... this is evidenced by the pure fact of the numbers.. the debt grew each and every year under Clinton

Some fluff piece does not change this fact, you fucking troll

Surplus refers to the annual revenues vs. spending number, not the long term accumulated debt.

And the intergovernmental spending that Clinton (and other presidents as well, for that matter) tried to hide, that is not claimed in the 'official budget' is not something the disappears like a fart in the wind.... each year, when including intergovernmental spending, there was indeed a deficit under Clinton... just as there has been a deficit every year since 1957

So you want us to say that Clinton came closer to having a budget surplus than any other president in the last 50 years?
 
Surplus refers to the annual revenues vs. spending number, not the long term accumulated debt.

And the intergovernmental spending that Clinton (and other presidents as well, for that matter) tried to hide, that is not claimed in the 'official budget' is not something the disappears like a fart in the wind.... each year, when including intergovernmental spending, there was indeed a deficit under Clinton... just as there has been a deficit every year since 1957

So you want us to say that Clinton came closer to having a budget surplus than any other president in the last 50 years?

I have no problem with that.... except that budget surplus does kind of make it like you are only looking at the budget he submitted to congress.... when we should know that many things that are spent on are not on that budget.... but I would prefer it said like that than the continual portraying of some mythical 'surplus'

The semantics of how and why the spending more closely matched the intake, til the cows come home though
 
I am a child of the 50's. I am lucky to be the son of a very wealthy liberal democrat attorney. The tax rates that HE paid in the Eisenhower years were more than twice as high as they are today.

He never once complained about paying higher taxes because he knew that he lived very well in our society and that he could afford to pay high taxes and still provide for his family in fine fashion.

Liberal democrats know that our nation can and has prospered with much higher tax rates than we have today and that we can certainly afford to increase the marginal tax rate a few measley percentage points without causing any traumatic effects.

Why the Hell don't you get it over with and proclaim you LOVE for larger Government and be done with it?

Our Republic is going down the tubes and you sing the praises of those that are providing the downfall.

And I don't care what your background is sport.

Personally? I think you're full of shit. ONE soldier to another..."Commander"

I don't mind government administering big social programs and I don't mind paying incrementally more in taxes to fund them.

I would much rather live in a nation where the government is on the side of the people than in a country where the government feels free to intrude into my bedroom.

Your opinion as to the future of our republic is irrelevant to me, as is your ignorant insult about my service. (I am not now, nor have I EVER been a "soldier", just like you, clearly, have never been a sailor) Oh... Thanks for the retirement check, "sport".
 
Last edited:
I am a child of the 50's. I am lucky to be the son of a very wealthy liberal democrat attorney. The tax rates that HE paid in the Eisenhower years were more than twice as high as they are today.

He never once complained about paying higher taxes because he knew that he lived very well in our society and that he could afford to pay high taxes and still provide for his family in fine fashion.

Liberal democrats know that our nation can and has prospered with much higher tax rates than we have today and that we can certainly afford to increase the marginal tax rate a few measley percentage points without causing any traumatic effects.

Why the Hell don't you get it over with and proclaim you LOVE for larger Government and be done with it?

Our Republic is going down the tubes and you sing the praises of those that are providing the downfall.

And I don't care what your background is sport.

Personally? I think you're full of shit. ONE soldier to another..."Commander"

I don't mind government administering big social programs and I don't mind paying incrementally more in taxes to fund them.

I would much rather live in a nation where the government is on the side of the people than in a country where the government feels free to intrude into my bedroom.

Your opinion as to the future of our republic is irrelevant to me, as is your ignorant insult about my service. (I am not now, nor have I EVER been a "soldier", just like you, clearly, have never been a sailor) Oh... Thanks for the retirement check, "sport".

You don't mind paying more.. but our government is supposed to be operated on a basis of equal treatment, are we not?? And if you FEEL the need or want to give more after your equal % share is taxed, you are more than free to donate more to any cause you wish, even the federal government....

I do not want a government that intrudes into what I do in my bedroom, nor do I want a government that plays Robin Hood..
 

Forum List

Back
Top