Dad2three
Gold Member
"Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization"
6 Corps own 90% of US media Bubba. Seriously????
What do liberals want the US to be?
- Thread starter Redfish
- Start date
"Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization"
6 Corps own 90% of US media Bubba. Seriously????
Dad2three
Gold Member
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Dad2three
Gold Member
Gawd you are a moron who substitutes a person for SOCIETY. SHOCKING you are this dense.
Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father, American diplomat, statesman, and scientist; letter to Robert Morris, December 25, 1783:
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." THAT MEANS GO TO INDIA OR RUSSIA IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR RULES!!!!
Dad2three
Gold Member
"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.'' — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"The power of taxing people and their property is essential to the very existence of government.'' — James Madison, U.S. President
"No government can exist without taxation. This money must necessarily be levied on the people; and the grand art consists of levying so as not to oppress.'' — Frederick the Great, 18th Century Prussian king
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,556
- 263,878
- 3,615
Yea...we get it
You hate poor people and don't want to pay for their support
Others hate wars and don't want to pay to support that
Why are you STEALING my money to pay for wars?
BlackSand
Nobody
- Oct 23, 2013
- 23,348
- 13,666
- 1,435
I probably do more to help out poor people than you do ... But that would be a guess at best. The only reason I suggest it is because I don't relinquish my responsibilities to help to poor to the government ... And pay my taxes on top of that.
If you have a problem with the government confiscating your wealth to fight wars ... Take it up with them ... Not me.
Your argument doesn't offer an argument at all ... Only speculation and the desire to reward a lack of personal responsibility cobbled to an inefficient, failing and corrupt government bureaucracy.
.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
You seem well, insane.
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #928
The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.
Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!
all outlined here
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
November 27, 2007
A Snapshot of the Subprime Market
Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:
2007 $1.3 trillion
Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion
Percentage increase from 2003: 292%
Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:
1 in 5
Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%
Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%
Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%
Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%
Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%
Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%
Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%
Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%
You are a partisan hack with no perspective.
Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...
WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???
•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006
These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.
Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture
PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times
This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.
The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street
Relativism... it kills viability. And that is what you saw coerce the financial markets into to doing what they should have never accepted, but which it did... .
The chart tells the entire story... everyone was looking out for their own interests, having set aside any concern for objective principle. Lower mortgage standards inevitably caused a run on those highly coveted instruments, which caused the value of the underlying property to increase until the market could no longer sustain those values... then: BOOM! The House of Relativist cards comes crashing down and fascism has once again screwed everyone that have come into contact with it.
And just as the Left has always claimed: That the Right Wing fooled the Leftwing... in reality, the subjectivity overruled the objectivity which was essential to preventing what happened, from happening.
And there is only one ideology which is built upon and around the exclusion of objectivity... so despite all of the endless 'debate' which to some lends the appearance of complexity, there is nothing complex about where the problem started, who started it, who milked it and whose responsible for it.
I'm all for charging the Corporate officers with crimes... but only after those in government who started the process are charged, convicted and have been executed. Then, we can go to work demonstrating the downside to letting government tell you how you'll handle your responsibilities, to the people presently handling their responsibilities... and I bet you that those people will be most forthcoming in the investigations of who in government is telling them how to handle the responsibilities TODAY!
And in the span of a few weeks, this all gets worked out and the cultural train is set right back up on its principled tracks.
Mathbud1
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 784
- 74
- 75
Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.
Simple.
See.
Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!
I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING
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
Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.
You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?
DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'
A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.
So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.
...
Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumYou have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.
The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?
Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43
Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)
Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.
It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.
The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.
The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.
See?
This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.
What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.
And it did.
United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States
This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.
And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.
Last edited: Dec 24, 2010
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,556
- 263,878
- 3,615
I probably do more to help out poor people than you do ... But that would be a guess at best. The only reason I suggest it is because I don't relinquish my responsibilities to help to poor to the government ... And pay my taxes on top of that.
I collect twinkies to feed the homeless, feed puppies and kittens and help old ladies to cross the street
Doesn't mean I don't expect my government to help people who need helping
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #933
I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING
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
Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.
You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?
DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'
A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.
So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.
...
Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumYou have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.
The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?
Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43
Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)
Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.
It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.
The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.
The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.
See?
This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.
What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.
And it did.
United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States
This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.
And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.
Last edited: Dec 24, 2010
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.
See how easy this is?
NoI think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING
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
Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.
You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?
DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'
A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.
So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.
...
Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumYou have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.
The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?
Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43
Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)
Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.
It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.
The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.
The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.
See?
This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.
What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.
And it did.
United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States
This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.
And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.
Last edited: Dec 24, 2010
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.
See how easy this is?
Mathbud1
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 784
- 74
- 75
And?
The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was "to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views."
"Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time."
Again, the point of the Fairness Doctrine was to avoid "monopolization of the message" by the companies that own the broadcasting networks. At the time it was justified by the limitations on bandwidth that made it difficult or impossible to "get your message out there" without using a network owned by a major corporation.
Now there are many methods for getting your message out there. A YouTube video made by a kid living in a trailer park can be seen by millions. Anyone can make a podcast or write a blog. Satellite radio has hundreds of stations. The limitations that were used as justification for government controlling what must be broadcast are no longer as valid.
Now, there may be other justifications that could be put forth, and some may even have merit, but the justification that radio bandwidth limitations present an opportunity for corporations to monopolize the distribution of information is no longer valid.
Edit: forgot to post the link - Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Conservative65
Gold Member
- Oct 14, 2014
- 26,127
- 2,208
- 265
- Banned
- #936
They reference many locations stating they like what is being done there. If I didn't like where I was as much as I liked somewhere else, I'd move.
Nosmo King
Gold Member
Here it is. What do Liberals want the United States to be.
First and foremost, I, like many Liberals want the United States to be a land that keeps its promises. We want this land to be one place where each and every citizen can enjoy all the rights, inalienable and enumerated. Every sober, law abiding tax paying citizen should be regarded as equal in the eyes of the law and by every other citizen. We do not believe there is a right to discriminate.
We want this nation to be benevolent and not subservient to the wealthy, the greedy and the selfish. If our citizens need a helping hand, they should not be scorned, denied, and belittled due to their circumstances. We Liberals do not see poverty as a character flaw. Rather we recognize the ancillary and systematic causes of poverty, namely lack of education, opportunity and connections to the 'upper classes'.
We Liberals recognize that this is the only planet we have and, because of this, we should be vigilant stewards of our natural resources and environment. Exploitation for profit's sake is a short sighted game advocated only by those without sufficient knowledge to make decisions.
We want the United States to be respected and admired around the globe. We do not advocate abandoning our national sense of morality and ethics in order to mete out revenge in the guise of interrogation. We would not impose a Jeffersonian democracy on a people who do not desire such a system.
We Liberals want the United States to be the envy of every other nation in the important areas such as education, science and technology, arts and literature, standard of living and every measure of security and freedom.
Now, some of these may sound like pleasant platitudes. Some of it may chafe the hides of those who want to keep classes and groups of their fellow Americans in subservient positions in our society. Others will disagree that American citizens deserve a helping hand from time to time. What does all this mean? Liberals desire fairness, equality, freedom and security like every American. Dividing us to conquer us along political lines is the game of the flamethrower, the demagogue, the power mad partisan.
First and foremost, I, like many Liberals want the United States to be a land that keeps its promises. We want this land to be one place where each and every citizen can enjoy all the rights, inalienable and enumerated. Every sober, law abiding tax paying citizen should be regarded as equal in the eyes of the law and by every other citizen. We do not believe there is a right to discriminate.
We want this nation to be benevolent and not subservient to the wealthy, the greedy and the selfish. If our citizens need a helping hand, they should not be scorned, denied, and belittled due to their circumstances. We Liberals do not see poverty as a character flaw. Rather we recognize the ancillary and systematic causes of poverty, namely lack of education, opportunity and connections to the 'upper classes'.
We Liberals recognize that this is the only planet we have and, because of this, we should be vigilant stewards of our natural resources and environment. Exploitation for profit's sake is a short sighted game advocated only by those without sufficient knowledge to make decisions.
We want the United States to be respected and admired around the globe. We do not advocate abandoning our national sense of morality and ethics in order to mete out revenge in the guise of interrogation. We would not impose a Jeffersonian democracy on a people who do not desire such a system.
We Liberals want the United States to be the envy of every other nation in the important areas such as education, science and technology, arts and literature, standard of living and every measure of security and freedom.
Now, some of these may sound like pleasant platitudes. Some of it may chafe the hides of those who want to keep classes and groups of their fellow Americans in subservient positions in our society. Others will disagree that American citizens deserve a helping hand from time to time. What does all this mean? Liberals desire fairness, equality, freedom and security like every American. Dividing us to conquer us along political lines is the game of the flamethrower, the demagogue, the power mad partisan.
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #938
NoI think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion ForumYou have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.
The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?
Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43
Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)
Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.
It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.
The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.
The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.
See?
This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.
What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.
And it did.
United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States
This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.
And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.
Last edited: Dec 24, 2010
Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.
See how easy this is?
No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.
The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.
Try this:
Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.
Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.
After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.
IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.
Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.
Mathbud1
VIP Member
- Jan 2, 2014
- 784
- 74
- 75
Can you mandate what people think? We all make judgments about other people. Do you look down on people who make bigoted statements or actions based on race or sexuality? Do you regard them as your equal in morality? You can pass laws that make it illegal to "discriminate against people", but to what extent and where can those laws be enforced. Do I have the right to discriminate in who I invite into my home? Do I have the right to discriminate in who I choose to marry? It becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that there is a right to discriminate in some things, and nobody as far as I know will argue that that is not the case. The argument comes in more about when and in what way it is OK to discriminate.
To argue that one side thinks it is always OK to discriminate and the other side thinks it is never OK to discriminate is disingenuous.
It is honorable to want people to be benevolent. It isn't realistic to expect everyone to be so, however.
It is honorable to want to help people in need. There are realistic concerns about how it should be accomplished though. If you stand on the street corner handing out $100 bills to people in need, how long do you think it will be before you are thronged by people in "need." If government hands things out indiscriminately, how long will the lines of people waiting for free handouts get?
Should people in need be helped? Sure. If government is going to do the helping, should they be very careful about how that is accomplished? Absolutely.
Do you think you are alone in wanting those things? I think from your second to last sentence below that you see that you are not.
Where_r_my_Keys
Gold Member
- Jan 19, 2014
- 15,272
- 1,853
- 280
- Banned
- #940
ROFLMNAO! Keep in mind that the word 'fairness' is a misnomer which the Left uses like a bludgeon. It's a relative term which when formally defined, can never mean what the Left implies through its usage of the term.
The term was also central to the coercion to strip the mortgage industry of the application of sound, actuarial lending principle. It turns out that those principles, quite literally executed fairness... in that those who were otherwise qualified to service large amounts of debt over long periods, had access to such debt... and those who were not, did not.
What the Left wanted was unfair lending practices... but, using that term REALLY strangles the means to sell the idea. So, they LIED!
The same is true with the "Fairness Doctrine". Ya see kids, Left-think, which was claiming that it was not being given enough air-time, DOESN'T SELL TO REASONABLE PEOPLE. When it is being sold, people CHANGE THE CHANNEL, or turn off the radio. So in fact, Left-think was being more time than was fair, given that radio stations exist to make money... not to satisfy the needs of sociopaths to have their perverse notions validated through such being aired through public airwaves.
We see this demonstrated time and again, through the consistent failure of every would-be enterprise which was engaged in the sale of that nonsense.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
brainstorm question for light experiment- Started by trevorjohnson83
- Replies: 0
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
Zone1 Just because life is hard, does not mean God does not exist- Latest: shockedcanadian
-
-
-
-
