independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

[The Derp]

So you've finally admitted that there was no surplus? We're making progress here, Derp!

The thing about you, specifically, is that you spout off your mouth without knowing the first thing of which you speak.

Here's what the GAO says about reducing Public Debt:

When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public.
​

There is no dispute that from 1998-2001, the Public Debt was reduced. That's because of the budget surplus, just as the GAO says.

So the real question is why are you shooting your fat mouth off about something you clearly do not understand?????

 

[Oldstyle]

So you've finally admitted that there was no surplus? We're making progress here, Derp!

There most definitely was a surplus...that's how Public Debt was reduced.

******* moron.

Seriously? You're back to that nonsense again? Public Debt was reduced because Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to run government which increased the Intragovernmental Holdings instead of the Public Debt. He still spent the money. We still owe it! That's why the National Debt increased when you claim we were running surpluses.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So you've finally admitted that there was no surplus? We're making progress here, Derp!

There most definitely was a surplus...that's how Public Debt was reduced.

******* moron. Is it any wonder that any time Conservatives get their hands on the budget, deficits and debt immediately appear or are exacerbated?

And then O came along and rung up 8 trillion more in treats.....but you somehow forgot about that. Hack.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you've finally admitted that there was no surplus? We're making progress here, Derp!

The thing about you, specifically, is that you spout off your mouth without knowing the first thing of which you speak.

Here's what the GAO says about reducing Public Debt:

When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public; when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce the amount of debt held by the public.
​

There is no dispute that from 1998-2001, the Public Debt was reduced. That's because of the budget surplus, just as the GAO says.

So the real question is why are you shooting your fat mouth off about something you clearly do not understand?????

You seem to think that borrowing money from Social Security means the government doesn't owe that money...plus interest...to Social Security! It's akin to someone paying for something with their credit card instead of with their debit card and claiming they didn't really spend any money because their checking account balance didn't change! Only someone REALLY clueless about economics could come to the conclusions that you have.

 

[The Derp]

Seriously? You're back to that nonsense again? Public Debt was reduced because Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to run government which increased the Intragovernmental Holdings instead of the Public Debt. He still spent the money. We still owe it! That's why the National Debt increased when you claim we were running surpluses.

According to the GAO, Public Debt can be reduced if there is a budget surplus. And since Public Debt was reduced from 1998-2001, there was a surplus.

 

[The Derp]

And then O came along and rung up 8 trillion more in treats.....but you somehow forgot about that. Hack.

Cleaning up after the failure of Conservatism is expensive.

 

[The Derp]

You seem to think that borrowing money from Social Security means the government doesn't owe that money...plus interest...to Social Security! It's akin to someone paying for something with their credit card instead of with their debit card and claiming they didn't really spend any money because their checking account balance didn't change! Only someone REALLY clueless about economics could come to the conclusions that you have.

I mean, at this point you're just flailing. The GAO has already explained this clearly. It's literally in the first paragraph on the webpage I linked. Now it's just a matter of you getting up to speed with the rest of the class.

 

[Winston]

You'll be sure to win if you only raise rates high enough.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them. There are more arguments for raising taxes on the rich than there are for cutting them. I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Seems like there's more support for raising taxes on the rich than there is cutting them.

Yes, idiots support lots of stupid things.

We should probably punish corporations by raising their rates as well.
The best way to get them to stop hoarding cash overseas is to tax more, eh comrade?

I haven't heard a good argument for cutting taxes, other than the repeated lie that they'll pay for themselves in increased economic activity.

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?
Would raising corporate tax rates decrease economic activity?

Why?

Would cutting corporate tax rates increase economic activity?

NO. First, remember, any expenses that a company spends on expanding comes from before tax income. The reality is that the weighted average cost of capital is INVERSELY related to the tax rate. What that means is that as the tax rate declines the actual COST OF CAPITAL increases. The end result is the pool of acceptable investment, those that have a sufficient internal rate of return, shrinks as the tax rate declines. Decreasing tax rates actually cause economic activity to decline.

The classic example, a poker table. If the "rake" on the table is low one would be more conservative with their bets, while if the "rake" on the table is high one would bet more aggressively. Remember, corporations are more concerned with the return OF their money than the return ON their money. When tax rates are high they get more of their money back if the investment does not pay off.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

And then O came along and rung up 8 trillion more in treats.....but you somehow forgot about that. Hack.

Cleaning up after the failure of Conservatism is expensive.

Thats pretty lame since W and O spent this county into oblivion.

 

[The Derp]

Thats pretty lame since W and O spent this county into oblivion.

How are we "in oblivion"? Please explain.

 

[Winston]

Before you make a complete ass of yourself I would suggest a little study on public debt and intragovernmental holdings!

Before you move the goalposts, you should do a little studying on why it matters how you count the debt.

Where's your surplus, Derp? Anyone with even a cursory knowledge about intergovermental holdings knows that there was no surplus! The national debt went up each and every year of the Clinton Administration and in the last year of Slick Willie's second term the deficit went up substantially!

The national debt did go up during the Clinton administration. But the PUBLIC DEBT went down. Now impress us with your "economic knowledge" and explain the difference.

I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

"Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T

$55.8B $1.792328T

$168.9B $5.526193T

$113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T

$97.8B $2.020166T

$227.8B $5.656270T

$130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T

$230.8B $2.268874T

$248.7B $5.674178T

$17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T

$66.0B $2.468153T

$199.3B $5.807463T

$133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."

independent economists overwhelmingly side with democrats on economic policy

That is absolutely correct. But the government utilizes cash based accounting, intergovernmental debt is simply money being moved from one place to another and has no bearing on the public debt. And even better, the government pays interest on those intergovernmental obligations.

 

[Oldstyle]

Seriously? You're back to that nonsense again? Public Debt was reduced because Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to run government which increased the Intragovernmental Holdings instead of the Public Debt. He still spent the money. We still owe it! That's why the National Debt increased when you claim we were running surpluses.

According to the GAO, Public Debt can be reduced if there is a budget surplus. And since Public Debt was reduced from 1998-2001, there was a surplus.

Let's make Public Debt A. Let's make Intragovernmental Holdings B. Let's call the National Debt C.

If you subtract 100 million from A by borrowing 140 million from B...do you have a "surplus"?

C = A + B. -100 plus 140 = what? Let me guess...accounting isn't your strong point? Because C ISN'T a positive number!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Thats pretty lame since W and O spent this county into oblivion.

How are we "in oblivion"? Please explain.

You really do think we can print trillions of notes that aren't backed without any repercussions.

 

[Winston]

I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

No, it doesn't. You problem is that you jump from intergovernmental debt, to public debt, to total debt. But you never stay within a single context, instead you shift your argument around from type-of-debt to type-of-debt and hope no one notices.

It's a fact that Total Public Debt declined between 1998-2001. That isn't up for dispute. Now, total debt increased, but that increase came from intragovernmental holdings, not public debt.

OMG are you dense! Let me see if I can explain this in terms simple enough for even you to grasp.

If in a given year you earn $30,000 ...a friend loans you $5,000 and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later. That's pretty much what happened in 2000.

We still owe that intragovernmental holdings debt...which is why the National Debt increased while the Public debt decreased!

That example fails. But, if you borrowed the money from your life insurance policy and not a friend, it would stand.

 

[The Derp]

Let's make Public Debt A. Let's make Intragovernmental Holdings B. Let's call the National Debt C.
If you subtract 100 million from A by borrowing 140 million from B...do you have a "surplus"?
C = A + B. -100 plus 140 = what? Let me guess...accounting isn't your strong point? Because C ISN'T a positive number!

For the love of God -

From 1998-2001, the government ran a budget surplus.

Because it ran a budget surplus, it was able to pay down Public Debt with intergovernmental Debt, and reduce interest payments, per the GAO in the link I provided.

What is it about that you have such a hard time understanding? Do you not think the government ran a budget surplus? Because they did. That's why they were able to pay down public debt.

There's nothing more to say.

 

[The Derp]

You really do think we can print trillions of notes that aren't backed without any repercussions.

Can you tell me exactly when the government must pay all the debt?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You really do think we can print trillions of notes that aren't backed without any repercussions.

Can you tell me exactly when the government must pay all the debt?

Lol. Theyre not even paying on it, just billions on the interest.

 

[jc456]

and again, why can't a black neighborhood exist without gun violence?.

Because of racist drug laws that create a drug trade that results in crime.

Maybe if you shitheads stop letting guns be sold via the Iron Pipeline into cities, the gun death rate would decline.

But of course, that would require you to actually reconcile your fundamental contradictory and masturbatory argument. You lament the crime in the cities, yet oppose ending the War on Drugs and stricter standards on gun purchasing. So how are you not the cause of the thing you complain about?

People didn't want to deal with gun violence. so they left. It's happened around the globe. so again, how is it racist to want to be in peace with more property, more money less taxes? fk man, they're in bed with the dems. don't know why.

They didn't leave because of gun violence - that wasn't a thing in the 1950's and 60's when places like Levittown were created. They left because they are racist ***** who don't like black people, and they supported segregation because they're racist *****.

Because of racist drug laws that create a drug trade that results in crime.
and you think white's want to be in that? why?

thanks for at least admitting what the issue is and why whites want no part of it.

Maybe if you shitheads stop letting guns be sold via the Iron Pipeline into cities, the gun death rate would decline.

You don't want blacks to be able to defend themselves against illegal gang members?

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's make Public Debt A. Let's make Intragovernmental Holdings B. Let's call the National Debt C.
If you subtract 100 million from A by borrowing 140 million from B...do you have a "surplus"?
C = A + B. -100 plus 140 = what? Let me guess...accounting isn't your strong point? Because C ISN'T a positive number!

For the love of God -

From 1998-2001, the government ran a budget surplus.

Because it ran a budget surplus, it was able to pay down Public Debt with intergovernmental Debt, and reduce interest payments, per the GAO in the link I provided.

What is it about that you have such a hard time understanding? Do you not think the government ran a budget surplus? Because they did. That's why they were able to pay down public debt.

There's nothing more to say.

If the government ran a budget surplus, Derp then the National Debt should have decreased. How come it went up? Quite obviously the government DIDN'T run a surplus...they simply shifted debt from one area to another and claimed to have a surplus. That debt didn't disappear.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think the following does a fair job of explaining my point, Winston...

No, it doesn't. You problem is that you jump from intergovernmental debt, to public debt, to total debt. But you never stay within a single context, instead you shift your argument around from type-of-debt to type-of-debt and hope no one notices.

It's a fact that Total Public Debt declined between 1998-2001. That isn't up for dispute. Now, total debt increased, but that increase came from intragovernmental holdings, not public debt.

OMG are you dense! Let me see if I can explain this in terms simple enough for even you to grasp.

If in a given year you earn $30,000 ...a friend loans you $5,000 and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus? While you can claim "I received $35,000 and only spent $32,000, thus I have a surplus," that's a pretty weak argument when you know that $2,000 of the money you spent was actually borrowed and has to be paid back later. That's pretty much what happened in 2000.

We still owe that intragovernmental holdings debt...which is why the National Debt increased while the Public debt decreased!

That example fails. But, if you borrowed the money from your life insurance policy and not a friend, it would stand.

Fails in what way? You still have debt. You still spent the money. What is wrong with you people that you can't grasp this concept?