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)
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:02 AM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,141,698 times
Reputation: 12920

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
REALLY????


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

every year the debt increased
everyyear shows a deficit...not a surplus
Do you not see the flaw in this chart? Look at how they care calculating the Deficit:

From 1999 to 2000, all they are doing is subtracting the two debts.

$5.674178 trillion - $5.656270 trillion = $17.91 billion

You think that's a valid calculation of deficit? WTF?

Interest is not part of the budget. Which was about 6%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:06 AM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,141,698 times
Reputation: 12920
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
What year according to the chart shows a surplus..
1999-2000, 2000-2001.

Once you subtract the 6% interest, you quickly notice that there is a surplus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:07 AM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,141,698 times
Reputation: 12920
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Considering I make my living off of debt, I very well comprehend the difference..

Its pretty dam sad that so many of you guys dont appear to..
You're certainly not a familiar with your field... given that you don't think that debt has interest. But keep doing the calculation without interest... if that makes you feel better.

Last edited by NJBest; 02-11-2014 at 12:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:11 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,417,405 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier View Post
The Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues. Period. There is no further discussion to be had on that subject.



Thats $900 billion that went back into our economy. Doesn't that do the exact same thing the "stimulus" was suppose to do?

Reagan absolutely did not create deficits by lowering taxes. Revenues increased. The problem was that government spending increased even more.

Obviously scientists were wrong when they told Reagan The Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) would never work. It did and it has worked.



The hell they can't.Every career politician in Congress and the White House is to blame. Especially Obama.

What a bunch of BS. Educate yourself about how the economy ACTUALLY works.
Taxes when they are too high decrease revenues. Lowered they increase revenue.
If the day ever comes that taxes are ever lowered too much revenues will indeed go down but its safe to say that day will never come.

Not a chance. Tax revenues as a percentage of GDP plummeted almost immediately. Even when revenues peaked in the mid-2000's (on the strength of the disastrous housing bubble) they never returned to Clinton era levels. All Bush did was help the rich grab an even larger piece of the economic pie, at the expense of the working/middle class.

Bush's presidency was a masterpiece of failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:16 AM
 
24,488 posts, read 41,141,698 times
Reputation: 12920
Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier View Post
The Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenues. Period. There is no further discussion to be had on that subject.
That would be simple if it weren't a lie. Real revenues were less during Bush's term than the preceding years: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...dp-since-1950/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:30 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,654,438 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
uhm

Clinton nearly doubled the national debt from 3.1 trill to 5.8 trillion in 8 years
bush nearly doubled the debt from 5.8 trillion to 10.6 trillion in 8 years
Obama has almost doubled the debt from 10.6 trill to 17.3 trillion in 5 years

your point???
Lets go back to the beginning,

Reagan lowered rich peoples taxes, wasted money on the military, and Reagan created huge deficits and grew our national debt (but republicans don't care.)

Reagan then handed his exploding deficits to G(H)W Bush. G(H)W Bush had to sacrifice his political career, and raise taxes to slow down Reagan's deficits and debt growth rate.

Clinton also raised taxes to fix Reagan's mess, and when Clinton left office our debt was rising at minimal levels (but republicans don't care.)

Then GW Bush cut taxes on the rich, and then attacked Iraq for nothing, and then our deficits/national debt took off (but republicans don't care.)

GW Bush turned the trivial deficits he inherited into huge deficits (but republicans don't care.)
Just like republicans don't care about the huge deficits/debt Reagan created and handed to G(H)W Bush.

Republicans never said a word about the huge deficits Reagan or GW Bush's created. But the second Bush handed his deficits to Obama (the deficits became a bad thing, and then republicans attacked Obama for the deficits Bush handed him.)

Then Obama cut GW Bush's debt growth rate in 1/2 (but republicans don't care), they just attack Obama, attack Obama.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 12:45 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
6,354 posts, read 3,654,438 times
Reputation: 2522
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Complete garbage.. SPENDING is responsible for deficits, not a surplus, or even a lack of income..

Thats like suggesting you lost your job making $50K a year and have to now flip burgers for a living, but that brand new car you are buying tomorrow isnt responsible for you needing to file bankruptcy next week.
Yes spending is responsible for deficits, but so are tax cuts (and the decreased revenue they create.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 04:22 AM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14644
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
GW Bush inherited a balanced budget from B. Clinton (a balanced budget means there are no deficits.)
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Chad you are ignorant of a lot of things:

#1 The national debt increased every single fiscal year since 1957, there was no true surplus.

#2 Every budget that Clinton proposed was factually over budget and did not pass during the time in question.

#3 It was the GOP Contract with America that said balancing the budget was a priority - after that election it was Clinton that said he "opposed balanced budgets."

#4 Both parties are to blame over the past 30+ years, when the Democrats control both houses of congress deficit spending is 4 times greater than when the Republicans control both houses of congress. So only pointing out GOP president deficits is half the story.

#5 Clinton also left a recession that showed signs of starting in his final summer and officially started 6 weeks after GWB took office. Recessions diminish revenue potential and increase spending with the safety net.

#6 Clinton left a dot-com NASDAQ bubble explosion for GWB to clean up, hello tax write offs and less revenue.

#7 Clinton pushed China into the WTO and a new permanent trade deal that has led to increased out sourcing and increased trade deficit.

#8 The housing bubble existed on Clinton's last day in office.

#9 Clinton and the GOP pushed for deregulation of banks, Clinton urged Democrats to vote for it and was proud to sign it into law.

GWB, although a poor president, inherited a mess from Clinton. Sort of like Hoover inherited a growing mess, that everyone at the time thought was a booming economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 04:25 AM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14644
Just like to point out again that the FED has said it will keep interest rates artificially near 0%.

If the interest rates were to go up to recent historic averages our annual deficit would climb back up to $1 Trillion a year.

Yeah, we are so responsible we are creating money to deal with our debt problem, seems like a long term solution!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2014, 04:32 AM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14644
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
1999-2000, 2000-2001.

Once you subtract the 6% interest, you quickly notice that there is a surplus.
Yeah, my friend was like, hey MichiganMoon, help me I am in massive debt and spending more than I make. After looking at his books, I determined he was an idiot - because he was including interest from his car loan and home mortgage as "spending" and if he didn't count those as "spending" his deficit magically turned into a surplus...so I said continue on your path despite your personal debt climbing.

Oh wait, interest payments do count as spending - anyone with a functioning brain that is not selling Snake Oil says and therefore is part of a budget?!?!

Oh crap, so when we can longer artificially hold interest rates down to around 0% - our deficit will climb back up to $1 Trillion a year...
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 05:17 PM.

© 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