Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

AGAIN, ONE POLICY EVER THAT WORKED AS PROMISED?

The Republican policy, ever since Jefferson and Madison, has been freedom from liberal govt. America has had more freedom than any other country and so became the greatest country in human history. Most agree we are in decline now at a time when liberalism is at its peak having weakened our defenses, bankrupted the govt, destroyed families and schools , addicted many to welfare entitlements, permanently recessed the economy , and undermined our confidence in freedom. In fact, liberals spied for Stalin, gave him the bomb, and elected Obama who had 3 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Got it, YOU are to stupid to actually even try to formulate a policy...

 

[Dad2three]

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights

Of historical note, it was George Mason of Virginia who was the most vocal and most insistant of the anti-federalists and the rights he had supported for the Virginia constitution had a great deal of influence in the content of the 10 amendments that were ultimately written by James Madison, approved by the legislature, and ratified by the states.

Some legislators were just as concerned about defining the rights out of fear they would be the only rights held sacrosanct while the spirit of the concept of unalienable rights and liberty would be infringed. They thought the government being restrained to the specific tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would serve the purpose of preserving liberty. The anti-federalists, however, wanted assurance that the government could never take away their rights. Ultimately the anti-federalists proved to be the wiser in that regard and even now, the amendments do not always protect us from an ever more bloated, powerful, authoritarian federal government.

The matter of wealth redistribution is one glaring illustration. Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

 

[Dad2three]

Monkey boi, isn't it true that in 1978, the Department of Labor amended labor reporting to include part-time workers under 32 hours a week in reporting? Isn't it true that this instantly and artificially added 6 million people to the employed category?

Oh, your handlers at the hate sites didn't tell you this? Well, why would they?

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

I guess you don't understand math bozo. 100% of nothing is still nothing. That is the standard answer to those who gloat about doubling or tripling a small number. In 8 years Reagan increased the debt almost $1.4 trillion. Peanuts compared to Bush and even fewer peanuts when compared to Obama. Get your stories straight, you are becoming a laughing stock. If you don't believe me check out this site: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Of course you have to be smart enough to use it. (very unlikely)

Now, relative to the "data" dad2three linked us to: He failed to tell us that in fact the employment figures were going up at the same rate during Ford's administration and they just continued to go up at the same rate during Carter's. Carter was lucky Ford had put us on the rise such that it continued during Carter's. He also didn't look at the continued data which shows employment went down towards the end of Carter (Stagflation Carter caused) and then Reagan came in and employment took off some more. Then Clinton came along and it went up even more.

Dad, you really need to learn how to read graphs so you won't be such a laughing stock.

One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LINK TO YOUR LIE. Got it

Economists measure US federal debt via GDP, yes, Reagan tripled US debt, then BOTH Bush's doubled it. Policies started under Dubya (2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS AND 2 UNFUNDED WARS AS WELL AS UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH THIS DECADE AS OBAMACARES, WHICH OF COURSE WAS 100% FUNDED) DRIVE OBAMA'S DEBT

...Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

FORD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARTERS 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? I GUESS YOU BLAME CLINTON FOR DUBYA LOSING 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR THEN?


One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

YES, ONES A YEARLY BUDGET ONE IS NOT. CRAIG STEINER, LIKE APPARENTLY YOU, IS AN IDIOT!



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton





How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog

 

[alan1]

Weird, so from 1945-1980 the top 1% (yes ALWAYS 1%) received 6%-9% of ALL US income, but by 2007 they TOOK 23%. What changed?

TOOK? Your bias is evident in your word choice.
We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me.

SURE, THAT was it *shaking head*

Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


1981 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
14.0% $3,400 $5,500
16.0% $5,500 $7,600
18.0% $7,600 $11,900
21.0% $11,900 $16,000
24.0% $16,000 $20,200
28.0% $20,200 $24,600
32.0% $24,600 $29,900
37.0% $29,900 $35,200
43.0% $35,200 $45,800
49.0% $45,800 $60,000
54.0% $60,000 $85,600
59.0% $85,600 $109,400
64.0% $109,400 $162,400
68.0% $162,400 $215,400
70.0% $215,400 -


1982 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
12.0% $3,400 $5,500
14.0% $5,500 $7,600
16.0% $7,600 $11,900
19.0% $11,900 $16,000
22.0% $16,000 $20,200
25.0% $20,200 $24,600
29.0% $24,600 $29,900
33.0% $29,900 $35,200
39.0% $35,200 $45,800
44.0% $45,800 $60,000
49.0% $60,000 $85,600
50.0% $85,600 -

 

[Dad2three]

It is as stupid to to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.

Reagan took office with a high of 10.8 percent which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.

YES, REAGAN TRIPLED US DEBT, TOOK US FROM LARGEST CREDITOR TO DEBTOR NATION!!!

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


AGAIN, CARTER HAD 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS GROWTH IN 4 YEARS VERSUS 14 MILLION FOR REAGAN'S 8

Jan 1979 65,636,000
Jan 1981 74,677,000

INCREASE OF 9,041,000 Total private IN 4 YEARS

Jan 1981 74,677,000
Jan 1989 89,394,000

14,717,00 Total private IN 8 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[Dad2three]

08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.

Reagan cut taxes for everyone.


1981 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
14.0% $3,400 $5,500
16.0% $5,500 $7,600
18.0% $7,600 $11,900
21.0% $11,900 $16,000
24.0% $16,000 $20,200
28.0% $20,200 $24,600
32.0% $24,600 $29,900
37.0% $29,900 $35,200
43.0% $35,200 $45,800
49.0% $45,800 $60,000
54.0% $60,000 $85,600
59.0% $85,600 $109,400
64.0% $109,400 $162,400
68.0% $162,400 $215,400
70.0% $215,400 -


1982 Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,400
12.0% $3,400 $5,500
14.0% $5,500 $7,600
16.0% $7,600 $11,900
19.0% $11,900 $16,000
22.0% $16,000 $20,200
25.0% $20,200 $24,600
29.0% $24,600 $29,900
33.0% $29,900 $35,200
39.0% $35,200 $45,800
44.0% $45,800 $60,000
49.0% $60,000 $85,600
50.0% $85,600 -

The Myths of Reaganomics

Tax Cuts. One of the few areas where Reaganomists claim success without embarrassment is taxation. Didn't the Reagan administration, after all, slash income taxes in 1981, and provide both tax cuts and "fairness" in its highly touted tax reform law of 1986? Hasn't Ronald Reagan, in the teeth of opposition, heroically held the line against all tax increases?

The answer, unfortunately, is no. In the first place, the famous "tax cut" of 1981 did not cut taxes at all. It's true that tax rates for higher-income brackets were cut; but for the average person, taxes rose, rather than declined. The reason is that, on the whole, the cut in income tax rates was more than offset by two forms of tax increase.


The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Dad2three]

TOOK? Your bias is evident in your word choice.
We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me.

SURE, THAT was it *shaking head*

Your cute little chart has nothing to do with morals, and questions about morals was your previous point.
Moving the goalpost is what I see.

"We changed from a highly agrarian society to a society of technology. That was the change. Knowledge of history helps me"

THAT was the REASON for the chart wing nuttter!

 

[Dad2three]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?


I. Deficits, Surpluses and Debt: Definitions and A Brief History

A budget deficit occurs when the government spending exceeds government revenue in a given time period, usually one year:
deficit = government spending - revenue, where spending > revenue.

A budget surplus occurs when government spending is less than government revenue in a given time period:
surplus = revenue - spending, where revenue > spending.

In measuring deficits and surpluses, the government uses its fiscal year (October 1 - September 30), not its calendar year.

The national debt is a running total of all deficits minus all surpluses


Note that the deficit and the debt are NOT the same thing. Journalists and politicians confuse them all of the time, but you know better, now don't you?

From 1970 to 1997, the federal government ran a deficit every single year. Starting in 1998, the federal government began running surpluses. In the 1980s the size of deficits exploded, greatly increasing the national debt:

Chapter 12: Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt



I LOVE MAKING CONS LOOK FOOLISH, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT TO DIFFICULT...

 

[Dad2three]

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.

Thank you, Uncensored, all is well then.

Ignorant of yearly budgets versus debt huh? lol

 

[Dad2three]

It is as stupid to to gloat about the $1.4 trillion Reagan added to the debt in 8 years, yet give Obama a pass for increasing the debt $6.974 trillion over 6.5 years.

Reagan took office with a high of 10.8 percent which dropped to 5.3 percent under Reagan. http://Unemployment fell from a high of 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent under Reagan. So Gee, your interpretation of statistics falls short again Daddy boy.

Indeed. And don't forget much of Reagan's demand-side spending went to ending the failed policy of Détente and the rebuilding of a dilapidated and demoralized military, and the arming of Europe. Pay off: the fall of the Soviet Union.

Yeah, Putin said thanks, paid off well


Did Reagan end the Cold War? Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that. Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents. As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

 

[dnsmith35]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

By law, any surplus MUST be used to service the debt, so the answer is no. IF there is a surplus, it will be applied to the debt, and the debt will decline.

In the Clinton years. the idea that there was a surplus, but the debt rose, is simple chicanery. In basic terms, the democrats and their media are blatantly lying.

By golly, I think you've got it. Yes!

 

[Dad2three]

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

You are an historic ignoramous. Carter was President when women started entering the workforce in large number (many families needed two incomes to deal with double digit inflation, and boomer women who went to college started careers).

The Labor Force Participation rate, as a result, increased from 61.6% in January 1977, to 63.9% four years later..a gain of 3.3%. By the end of Reagan's two terms, it had increased to 66.5%...a gain of 2.6%. Population growth and demographic shifts benefited them both, but Carter got the bigger hit of women flowing into the workforce.

Btw, under Obama, the Labor Force Participation rate is back down to 62.8%.

This is a real gem.

Thank you for addressing this, boedicca. I explained this very same thing to rightwinger a few years ago, i.e., the American family's response to double digit inflation and interest rates during the era of Stagflation. I also explained to him why lower rates of taxation below the prevailing threshold garner more revenue than higher rates: a slice at a lower rate of taxation from a large pie is bigger than a slice at a higher rate of taxation from a puny pie, and it's the lower rate of taxation that causes the pie to grow in the first place. Made it simple for him, but, of course, to no avail.

But there was also another factor that is not evident from Dad2three's overly simplistic penchant for "presidential-term" analyses by graph. Toward the end of Carter's last year in office, the economy was struck by yet another downturn in employment on top of years of stagflation with investment at its lowest level since 1970. This trend continued through Reagan's first two years in office before the remedial effects of his economic policies kicked in: an additional negative of roughly 2.6% to 2.8% bled over into Reagan's presidency, a lose that had to be recouped. By the end of Reagan's first term, however, just two years into the recovery, after peaking at just over 10%, unemployment was back down to roughly 7.3%., 0.2% lower than what it was at the end of Carter's term!

By the way, Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of roughly 11.83%. At the end of his first term it was all the way back down to 4%. Investment soared, and the pressure that pushed the dramatic change in employment demographics eased.

But I'm still waiting for Dad2three to explain why he changed the terms of my observation regarding the growth of wealth into the finite sum of annual income. I'm still wondering how Dante, that master logician, failed to miss that blatantly obvious slight of hand: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution-111.html#post9483439



But most of all, we're still waiting for Dad2three to explain why the naturally occurring higher returns from investment for the wealthy is evil/unfair. How that detracts from the earnings of others as if the zero-sum-game fantasy were a reality. And why it's good/fair to redistribute the wealth of some to others.

Inquiring minds still want to know.

Want to know what? YOU are a simpleton and LIAR?

 

[dnsmith35]

Question for all: Can their be a budget surplus in any fiscal year in which the total national debt goes up? Does everyone understand the difference between debt and deficit?

Well, yes, I know the difference, but I'm not sure about the answer to the first question. I've never asked myself that question. I've always assumed that if you have a surplus in any given year that surplus goes toward reducing the extant debt . . . but I have a feeling I'm about to be disabused of that notion.

I didn't think you would have a bit of problem. And uncensored has it right as well. The question was not really aimed at you or him. I was curious how our resident left wing extremist thought about it.

 

[dnsmith35]

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights

Of historical note, it was George Mason of Virginia who was the most vocal and most insistant of the anti-federalists and the rights he had supported for the Virginia constitution had a great deal of influence in the content of the 10 amendments that were ultimately written by James Madison, approved by the legislature, and ratified by the states.

Some legislators were just as concerned about defining the rights out of fear they would be the only rights held sacrosanct while the spirit of the concept of unalienable rights and liberty would be infringed. They thought the government being restrained to the specific tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would serve the purpose of preserving liberty. The anti-federalists, however, wanted assurance that the government could never take away their rights. Ultimately the anti-federalists proved to be the wiser in that regard and even now, the amendments do not always protect us from an ever more bloated, powerful, authoritarian federal government.

The matter of wealth redistribution is one glaring illustration. Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

 

[dnsmith35]

Should be in the data then right? lol



Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

GOT A LINK FOR YOUR LIE BUBBA?

I guess you don't understand math bozo. 100% of nothing is still nothing. That is the standard answer to those who gloat about doubling or tripling a small number. In 8 years Reagan increased the debt almost $1.4 trillion. Peanuts compared to Bush and even fewer peanuts when compared to Obama. Get your stories straight, you are becoming a laughing stock. If you don't believe me check out this site: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Of course you have to be smart enough to use it. (very unlikely)

Now, relative to the "data" dad2three linked us to: He failed to tell us that in fact the employment figures were going up at the same rate during Ford's administration and they just continued to go up at the same rate during Carter's. Carter was lucky Ford had put us on the rise such that it continued during Carter's. He also didn't look at the continued data which shows employment went down towards the end of Carter (Stagflation Carter caused) and then Reagan came in and employment took off some more. Then Clinton came along and it went up even more.

Dad, you really need to learn how to read graphs so you won't be such a laughing stock.

One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LINK TO YOUR LIE. Got it

Economists measure US federal debt via GDP, yes, Reagan tripled US debt, then BOTH Bush's doubled it. Policies started under Dubya (2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS AND 2 UNFUNDED WARS AS WELL AS UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH THIS DECADE AS OBAMACARES, WHICH OF COURSE WAS 100% FUNDED) DRIVE OBAMA'S DEBT

...Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

FORD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARTERS 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? I GUESS YOU BLAME CLINTON FOR DUBYA LOSING 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR THEN?


One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

YES, ONES A YEARLY BUDGET ONE IS NOT. CRAIG STEINER, LIKE APPARENTLY YOU, IS AN IDIOT!



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton





How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog

What lie are you talking about? And why did you stop at Feb 1984? Afraid the truth would prove you wrong? It did. Your BLS link told us the real truth and by the time Reagan's term was up unemployment was down to 5.4%. Explain that away left wing extremist.

BTW, who is Craig Steiner? Whoever he is, an annual budget CANNOT BE IN SURPLUS IF THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES UP. And I don't need back up from RW or LW stooges to understand that simple truism. All one has to do is look at the US Treasury link I gave you earlier and READ TO UNDERSTAND the description of what a real surplus/deficit is.

The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget.

You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt.​

Borrowing money from ANY TRUST FUND and counting it as receipts to "show" a surplus is voodoo accounting. It is an absurd lie that Clinton had a true surplus. His surplus was only "voodoo accounted" by adding BORROWED MONEY from both off budget AND on budget trust funds as if they were receipts and the national debt went up EVERY SINGLE FISCAL YEAR. As uncensored said very clearly, it was solely chicanery, by suggesting one calendar year having a surplus equaled to a FISCAL SURPLUS. The fact of the matter is, ALL deficits and all surpluses when bounced together determine if the debt goes up, or down. The debt has not gone down since Eisenhower.

Your problem left wing extremist is, YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND BUDGETS AND ECONOMICS and you are only a stooge for the left wing extremists parroting their propaganda. Go ahead, work for your puppeteer.

 

[Dad2three]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Still harping on that?

You do realize that the strategic oil reserve is part of those subsidies so are the reduced cost heating oil programs that so many take advantage of

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil" - Forbes

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

" part of those subsidies"

How much money does the U.S. government provide to support the oil, gas and coal industries?

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually yet these don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.



How much money do governments provide to support the oil, gas, and coal industries internationally?

Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to perhaps $1 trillion annually in subsidies. This figure varies each year, but it is consistently in the hundreds of billions. Greater transparency would allow for more precise figures.


Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview | Oil Change InternationalOil Change International

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies
In a world where $100-a-barrel oil is here to stay, there's no need to pad the industry's bottom line.


Yet, some of the breaks are anachronisms that date back almost to the days of John D. Rockefeller. And in a world of permanently high crude prices, there's very little rationale for subsidizing the bottom lines of companies like ExxonMobil and BP.


The Worst of the Worst


Some of the biggest subsidies are, well, a bit goofy. In its FY 2013 budget request, Obama administration singled out eight oil and gas tax breaks for the ax, worth about $38.5 billion over the next decade. Those are laid out in the table below from a Congressional Research Service report earlier this month. Let's take the three big ones highlighted in the table below.

America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies - Jordan Weissmann - The Atlantic


Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs ($13.9 billion): Since 1913, this tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells. When it was created, drilling meant taking a gamble on what was below the earth without high-tech geological tools. But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.


Deducting percentage depletion for oil and natural gas wells ($11.5 billion): Since 1926, this has given oil companies a tax breaks based on the amount of oil extracted from its wells. The logic is, if manufacturers get a break for the cost of aging machinery, drillers can deduct the cost of their aging resources. (You decide for yourself whether that makes any sense.) Since 1975, it's only available to "independent oil producers," not the big oil companies, like Exxon and BP. But many of these smaller companies aren't actually small. According to Oil Change International, independents made up 86 of the top 100 oil companies by reserves. Those 86 had a median market cap of more than $2 billion. So essentially, this is a tax break that subsidizes the Very Big oil companies at the expense of the Very Biggest.


The domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and natural gas companies ($11.6 billion): In 2004, as American manufacturing was being ravaged by China's entrance on the global scene, Congress passed legislation designed to encourage companies to keep factories operating in the U.S. Thanks to some intensive lobbying, the oil industry ended up as one of the beneficiaries. But while the refining process does involve high-tech manufacturing, there was never any danger that either drilling or refining was going to migrate overseas.

 

[Dad2three]

I guess you don't understand math bozo. 100% of nothing is still nothing. That is the standard answer to those who gloat about doubling or tripling a small number. In 8 years Reagan increased the debt almost $1.4 trillion. Peanuts compared to Bush and even fewer peanuts when compared to Obama. Get your stories straight, you are becoming a laughing stock. If you don't believe me check out this site: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Of course you have to be smart enough to use it. (very unlikely)

Now, relative to the "data" dad2three linked us to: He failed to tell us that in fact the employment figures were going up at the same rate during Ford's administration and they just continued to go up at the same rate during Carter's. Carter was lucky Ford had put us on the rise such that it continued during Carter's. He also didn't look at the continued data which shows employment went down towards the end of Carter (Stagflation Carter caused) and then Reagan came in and employment took off some more. Then Clinton came along and it went up even more.

Dad, you really need to learn how to read graphs so you won't be such a laughing stock.

One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LINK TO YOUR LIE. Got it

Economists measure US federal debt via GDP, yes, Reagan tripled US debt, then BOTH Bush's doubled it. Policies started under Dubya (2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS AND 2 UNFUNDED WARS AS WELL AS UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH THIS DECADE AS OBAMACARES, WHICH OF COURSE WAS 100% FUNDED) DRIVE OBAMA'S DEBT

...Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

FORD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARTERS 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? I GUESS YOU BLAME CLINTON FOR DUBYA LOSING 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR THEN?


One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

YES, ONES A YEARLY BUDGET ONE IS NOT. CRAIG STEINER, LIKE APPARENTLY YOU, IS AN IDIOT!



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton





How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog

What lie are you talking about? And why did you stop at Feb 1984? Afraid the truth would prove you wrong? It did. Your BLS link told us the real truth and by the time Reagan's term was up unemployment was down to 5.4%. Explain that away left wing extremist.

BTW, who is Craig Steiner? Whoever he is, an annual budget CANNOT BE IN SURPLUS IF THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES UP. And I don't need back up from RW or LW stooges to understand that simple truism.

So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over

Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT

 

[Dad2three]

Of historical note, it was George Mason of Virginia who was the most vocal and most insistant of the anti-federalists and the rights he had supported for the Virginia constitution had a great deal of influence in the content of the 10 amendments that were ultimately written by James Madison, approved by the legislature, and ratified by the states.

Some legislators were just as concerned about defining the rights out of fear they would be the only rights held sacrosanct while the spirit of the concept of unalienable rights and liberty would be infringed. They thought the government being restrained to the specific tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would serve the purpose of preserving liberty. The anti-federalists, however, wanted assurance that the government could never take away their rights. Ultimately the anti-federalists proved to be the wiser in that regard and even now, the amendments do not always protect us from an ever more bloated, powerful, authoritarian federal government.

The matter of wealth redistribution is one glaring illustration. Once the government is given license to take away property from one citizen and give that property to another, the government can do whatever it wants to do and there are no unalienable rights.

Yes, the anti federalists (mainly conservatives) lost, the federalist (strong FEDERAL Gov't) won.

Oh? So the Bill or Rights was a victory for the Federalists? Have you even read the 9th and 10th amendments?

Those things that were part of the STRONG federal Gov't that has given US SS, Medicare, welfare, etc?

 

[dblack]

SO YOU DON'T HAVE A LINK TO YOUR LIE. Got it

Economists measure US federal debt via GDP, yes, Reagan tripled US debt, then BOTH Bush's doubled it. Policies started under Dubya (2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS AND 2 UNFUNDED WARS AS WELL AS UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION THAT COSTS AS MUCH THIS DECADE AS OBAMACARES, WHICH OF COURSE WAS 100% FUNDED) DRIVE OBAMA'S DEBT

...Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

FORD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARTERS 9+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS? I GUESS YOU BLAME CLINTON FOR DUBYA LOSING 673,000+ PRIVATE SECTOR THEN?


One questions to all: Can the total national debt increase with a budgetary surplus?

YES, ONES A YEARLY BUDGET ONE IS NOT. CRAIG STEINER, LIKE APPARENTLY YOU, IS AN IDIOT!



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton





How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%


It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8 percent.

Unemployment Rate « Extreme Liberal's Blog

What lie are you talking about? And why did you stop at Feb 1984? Afraid the truth would prove you wrong? It did. Your BLS link told us the real truth and by the time Reagan's term was up unemployment was down to 5.4%. Explain that away left wing extremist.

BTW, who is Craig Steiner? Whoever he is, an annual budget CANNOT BE IN SURPLUS IF THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES UP. And I don't need back up from RW or LW stooges to understand that simple truism.

So Ronie took US to 5.4% and Clinton increased taxes (revenues to pay for Ronnie's spending) and took unemployment to 4% when Dubya took over

Got it, you DON'T know what a yearly budget is. $1,000,000 REVENUE AND $900,000 SPENDING IS SURPLUS, regardless OF DEBT

That sure is a graph.