What do liberals want the US to be?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Well said... Discrimination is, in fact, an essential trait... which provides for highest probability for survival.

Now... where the goal is to undermine the means of the subject TO SURVIVE, then it follows that striking at the traits which promote viability would be a very effective tactic.

And therein, one readily sees the purpose of Political Correctness... which has established within the minds of those infected with the Foreign Ideas Hostile to Natural Principle, who are in PC terms, OKA: The Intellectually Less Fortunate, the 'belief' that traits essential to viability are BAD!

And it further follows that as greater percentages of the population become so infected, that the viability of the culture is reduced.

And we see that in the recent circumstances wherein catastrophic failures of socialist policy result in the election of socialists... who come in and double the already destructive levels of debt, who legalize illicit drug use, who promote sexual abnormality as normal and who claim that any discomfort caused to those who are at war with us, is WRONG... .

Easy peasy... nothing complex about any of it.

 

[kaz]

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

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.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

ROFLMNAO!

So a trillion dollars in public debt was paid down, despite the government never having realized budget surpluses anywhere NEAR a trillion dollars?

Now since government has no other means of paying down debt, beyond the spending of less money than for which they have budgeted, given that to tax beyond that which is required to run the government is the definition of tyranny, I wonder how it could be that the US Federal Government came up with a trillion extra dollars, which it did not borrow, thus which would axiomatically increase the debt, by an equal amount?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

I love the part where just running a surplus automatically decreases the debt! ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

And that is setting aside that the graph she used showed a cumulative Clinton surplus of 236 billion... and there she is declaring a 500 billion in surplus. DOUBLING HER OWN CHARTED VALUES! Which of course, paid down a Trillion dollars of the debt.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance... the fundamental elements of socialism.

 

[kaz]

If Clinton ran a "surplus" then why did the national debt go up every year he was in office?

I have a secret for you, Beav, politicians lie. Shocking, isn't it?

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 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

You 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

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

 

[kaz]

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 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

You 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

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

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.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

 

[Dante]

Post 649

Liar, that didn't say I'm OK with spending the million on a cruise missile.

Now it is getting interesting

So Libertarians are now advocating we zero out our defense budget in addition to letting your neighbor die from lack of a heart

What else do we have to look forward to in your Libertarian utopia?

Strawman

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

 

[kaz]

Liar, that didn't say I'm OK with spending the million on a cruise missile.

Now it is getting interesting

So Libertarians are now advocating we zero out our defense budget in addition to letting your neighbor die from lack of a heart

What else do we have to look forward to in your Libertarian utopia?

Strawman

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

 

[kaz]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

 

[Dante]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

that statement makes you appear to be a troglodyte

 

[Dante]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Principles in nature which define..." I believe that natural law nonsense is just that -- nonsense. Government is a human construct that does not come from nature

 

[rightwinger]

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 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

You 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

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

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.

True, but there is another problem with the reporting of Clinton "Surpluses" that I'm alluding to.

Another report on the Clinton surplus

I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund.
George Bush Feb 27 2001 justifying his requests for tax cuts because of the existing surplus

 

[Dante]

Now it is getting interesting

So Libertarians are now advocating we zero out our defense budget in addition to letting your neighbor die from lack of a heart

What else do we have to look forward to in your Libertarian utopia?

Strawman

not really, but...

Can Dante show kaz where kaz said he would 'zero out our defense budget?' Dante clearly cannot since kaz did not say that. The word for that is strawman since that was the point rw addressed.

RW also begged the question when he assumed the only solution to a problem is government, but that's another topic.

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.


"Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

We're good. I haven't experienced the government that isn't bad, hopefully I will one day. Ironically I'm getting comments from my staff in my business today about how much they hate government. We're being audited by the State of North Carolina. A routine audit. But as I always point out, we have no Constitutional rights for tax collection. They just give us lists of documents to provide, and they assume until we provide it what we have given them is wrong. So I have half my staff getting different parts of the documentation. I provided the financial data, but we need to run endless queries in our system to show things like where we shipped out of State and that sort of thing. We are close to providing it all, a couple things to go. Then they will walk away and say whatever. We won't have to pay more money. But, they showed no cause, provided no warrant, we had no presumption of innocence and we get nothing for all the time we wasted showing everything we claimed is right except they go away.

I understand why people today in greater numbers than any in recent memory would ;'hate' government. People mistakenly transfer the crap of politicians onto government itself. One man like a Ted Cruz (example) can grind government to a halt. Doesn't make government bad at all.

 

[GWV5903]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

So do Conservatives.
Conservatives want to do those things a different way other than the Federal Government - like the States should run the welfare programs and they should be run to help them out of poverty. Not run the way it is set up now that keeps them in poverty.

States have historically left 'people' out in the cold. The federal government has stepped in because of the neglect of states

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."
America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.
Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

 

[Dante]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

Now throw Dick and Ron under that proverbial bus you're driving

 

[Listening]

So do Conservatives.
Conservatives want to do those things a different way other than the Federal Government - like the States should run the welfare programs and they should be run to help them out of poverty. Not run the way it is set up now that keeps them in poverty.

States have historically left 'people' out in the cold. The federal government has stepped in because of the neglect of states

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."
America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.
Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. "Government isn't the problem, bad government is"

So now we merely need to define 'bad government'.

I'd submit that bad government equals that government which rejects the principles in nature which define sound government and the purpose for such... none of which could ever be found advocating for the relieving of citizens of the responsibilities which sustain the rights of those citizens.

"Bad government" is synonymous with "government."

Have you ever lived under an anarchy? Just askin'.

 

[Dante]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

Dick Cheney has said on more than one occasion that, “Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.”

States have historically left 'people' out in the cold. The federal government has stepped in because of the neglect of states

That was the propaganda sold to the people in order the get the programs and for the Government to run them.
And now has become riddled with fraud, corruption and abuse.
The State are able to control that better.
American Poverty Pre-Welfare State Intellectual Takeout ITO

America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
Giving the poor a hand up rather than a hand out continued beyond the Founding era through a variety of private organizations and charities known as mutual aid societies. After visiting America in the early 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville made note of this phenomenon when he wrote, "Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. ... Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association."
America’s first settlers and Founders were certainly not oblivious to the problems of poverty, nor were they callous in their treatment of it. Yet they explicitly urged its alleviation by means other than the federal government. This ideology was concisely expressed by James Madison, who declared that "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." And Ben Franklin once stated, "the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

In 1964 President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society officially ushered in the modern welfare state with his declared war on poverty. Although this move did not eliminate private charity, it gradually created a national mentality that government should be counted on to provide for the poor, elderly, and disabled. As a result, dependence and spending on government relief has skyrocketed in recent decades.
Today, with America's national debt increasing at a rapid rate, many wonder how the government can continue to maintain the many welfare programs it has established. Others outright question whether or not the government's approach to welfare is effective and efficient at alleviating poverty at all.

No one since the beginning of this country has died in large numbers of poverty and starvation like many other big government controlled countries have had.

It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.

It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom

Yet conservatives want more power for the states

Why? Makes it easier to discriminate

Sure does. After they fine tune the gerrymandered districts they can run amok, which they are doing.

Awwwwwwww.........................

I'll bet you whine about how we gerrymandered the senate too.

IDIOT ALERT!!!

Doesn't even know what gerrymandering entails and that Senate seats are statewide.

D'Oh!