Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2013, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 2,172,651 times
Reputation: 1071

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Total - Surplus/Deficit

1998 - 69,270
1999 - 125,610
2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236

On Budget:
1998 - -29,925
1999 - 1,920
2000 - 86,422
2001 - -32,445

Off Budget (Payroll taxes i.e. Social Security income):
1998 - 99,195
1999 - 123,690
2000 - 149,819
2001 - 160,681

Do you both still want to act like Clinton left office with a budget surplus now? Hopefully not because that would be silly...
So we are supposed to buck common knowledge and objective facts in light of your uncited figures?

Boy, you are a Republican ain't ya? hahaha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,947,200 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Total - Surplus/Deficit

1998 - 69,270
1999 - 125,610
2000 - 236,241
2001 - 128,236

On Budget:
1998 - -29,925
1999 - 1,920
2000 - 86,422
2001 - -32,445

Off Budget (Payroll taxes i.e. Social Security income):
1998 - 99,195
1999 - 123,690
2000 - 149,819
2001 - 160,681

Do you both still want to act like Clinton left office with a budget surplus now? Hopefully not because that would be silly...
We have argued this before. It has to do with accounting and your numbers include money the government borrowed from itself. The official numbers show a surplus in Clinton's last four years.

But even if we use your numbers, nobody would complain about a $30 bil. deficit. In the context of this discussion, that's approx. zero.

How Clinton Surplus Became A $6T Deficit - Business Insider

The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:35 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,121,445 times
Reputation: 9409
Name me a time that the CBO was accurate and i'll concede the point. Until then, keep slobbering over your Messiah libs!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Lincoln, NE (via SW Virginia)
1,644 posts, read 2,172,651 times
Reputation: 1071
This video provides a good primer on our amassed deficit/debt post 2001

Video: Where Did the Debt Come From? | Center for American Progress
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,853,377 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Name me a time that the CBO was accurate and i'll concede the point. Until then, keep slobbering over your Messiah libs!
In Jan 2012, the CBO estimated 2012 deficit to be $1.10T it turned out to be $1.09T.... yep they missed it badly, huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,480,794 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
This is bizzaro world history when it comes to the debt and the deficits.

GWB ran deficits for 8 years from 2002-2009 and conservatives said nothing.


wow...talk about lies from the left

a. conservatives did complain about bush, even said he spent like a drunken sailor


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Bill Clinton's last budget in 2001 gave GWB a budget surplus.


.
really now???


clinton inherited a great growing economy and impleneted policies that cause the 2008 recession

and the ALMOST surpluses (never had ACTUAL surplus,) was due to Newts keeping spending under control with a ballance budget type approach

but there was never an actual surplus

Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt........Annual budget Deficit

FY1994..... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion...... $281.26 billion
FY1995..... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion...... $281.23 billion
FY1996..... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion...... $250.83 billion
FY1997..... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion...... $188.34 billion
FY1998..... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion...... $113.05 billion
FY1999..... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion...... $130.08 billion
FY2000..... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion...... $17.91 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????

----------------------

Last edited by workingclasshero; 02-06-2013 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,480,794 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
I am not acting like anything. It is objective reality that in the year 2001 the federal government took in more money that year than it spent.

No please go away with your fantasies and nonsense.

Reality

1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus
1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus
2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus
false

they(the government) BUDGETED for taking in more than spending....but a BUDGET IS...""""PROPOSED SPENDING""""...in REALITY they spent more


there was no surplus in ANY of those 4 years


there is a BIG DIFFERENCE in PROPOSED SPENDING(budget) and ACTUAL SPENDING(especially after natural disasters)( and off the cuff foreign aid)

Last edited by workingclasshero; 02-06-2013 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 11:11 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,296,160 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
wow...talk about lies from the left

a. conservatives did complain about bush, even said he spent like a drunken sailor




really now???


clinton inherited a great growing economy and impleneted policies that cause the 2008 recession

and the ALMOST surpluses (never had ACTUAL surplus,) was due to Newts keeping spending under control with a ballance budget type approach

but there was never an actual surplus

Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt........Annual budget Deficit

FY1994..... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion...... $281.26 billion
FY1995..... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion...... $281.23 billion
FY1996..... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion...... $250.83 billion
FY1997..... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion...... $188.34 billion
FY1998..... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion...... $113.05 billion
FY1999..... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion...... $130.08 billion
FY2000..... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion...... $17.91 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.7 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????

----------------------
conservatives said nothing about the GWB deficits until he was out of office and during the 2008 Presidential campaign. For the other years they said and did nothing. This is objective reality.

Lol, so Clinton who was last President in January 2001 was responsible for the recession in 2008. In know conservatives want to forget GWB, but damn, you have erased his entire presidency.

conservatives always want to argue at the margins.
conservatives supported a president who on every measure did much worse than Bill Clinton and they said nothing.

This is the overarching point. GWB made the debt and deficits worse and conservatives said nothing because they don't care about debt or deficit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Limbo
6,512 posts, read 7,548,631 times
Reputation: 6319
Well, it is getting better, but it is still terrible. $1T deficits are not sustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2013, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,480,794 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
conservatives said nothing about the GWB deficits until he was out of office and during the 2008 Presidential campaign. For the other years they said and did nothing. This is objective reality..
that would be false....many complained about his liberal spending....many even said he was a liberal globalist (just like his father)...and now you have another globalist with Obusha

carter, bush1, clinton, bush2, obama...all globalists



Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Lol, so Clinton who was last President in January 2001 was responsible for the recession in 2008. In know conservatives want to forget GWB, but damn, you have erased his entire presidency.

.
let this INFORM you, these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's

1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)

1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy


those are the two biggest causes of the great recession


then add these:



1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank

2002 bush and medicare part d....more big government

2003/4/5 republicans try to reighn in fanny and freddie...the liberal opposition leaders (barney frank and cris Dodd) say "there is nothing wrong with fanny/freddy..its a witch hunt"........boy does barney have egg on his face now

1965 liberals push medicare....say it will only cost 10 billion by 1995....in 1995 it cost 100 billion...in 2010 it cost 500 billion AND CLIMBING



it aint the gop.....its the liberals that have cost us
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top