When the Democrats Took Over Congress in 2007....... (interview, drugs, CNN)

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Ahh no.. I dont need a lesson in budgeting, and your own breakdown shows why YOU are wrong and Clinton did not run a surplus

BING.. Clinton spent more money than they brought in..

Yep, which wasnt Clinton

Wrong.. Clinton did not spend less than he took in.. He spent more, and then borrowed more than was needed to cover the spending which was taking place..

Its like you bringing in $100K a year, and spending $110K, and then going to your home and borrowing $25K, and claiming you had a surplus because you ended up with $15K.. Really, its not rocket science. If you have more debt than last you, you are NOT generating surpluses, no matter how you try to spin the numbers..

Shaking my head.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html - broken link)

A relevant highlight...

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

You obviously dont own a business do you?

Don't own them, but I'm managed or helped manage a couple family businesses and one of a very close friend, so I'm not exactly uneducated on matters relating to business.

If you think I'm reducing my profits just to boost the employment figures, your out of your mind..

Boost or maintain them? Big difference.

The Card and Kreuger study only looked at minimum wage in the fast food industry, and ignored every other sector of the population, including the effects upon the employment levels by those above the minimum wage levels.. The study also focused on number of employees, vs hours worked.. It was very very flawed and pretty much meaningless..

And yet despite some legitimate gripes about it's methods, many economists recognize it as a valid and accurate study.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Shaking my head.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html - broken link)

A relevant highlight...

Don't own them, but I'm managed or helped manage a couple family businesses and one of a very close friend, so I'm not exactly uneducated on matters relating to business.

Boost or maintain them? Big difference.

I've seen the "factcheck" link NUMEROUS times.. It was wrong the first time someone linked to it, it continues to be wrong today.. They ignore intragovernmental debt and ONLY count the budget. Note their parameter, Debt to the "PUBLIC" ONLY in their equation, they completely ignore debt to other governmental budgets, something that only an amature, or a complete fool could do..

DEBT WENT UP.. Period.. again, its not rocket science.. Although some of you make it sound like its high level finance when in reality, its 5th grade math.. If debt is > this year than last year, then you didnt create a surplus..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

And yet despite some legitimate gripes about it's methods, many economists recognize it as a valid and accurate study.

Are these the same fools that keep celebrating imaginary surpluses under Clinton?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pghquest

You might just wanna put a big red dot on your foorhead, so everyone will know who doesnt have a clue...

Republicans are ok with allowing people to KEEP their own money, and have no problem allowing an individual to determine what they consider the value of their labor to be. You see I dont need government to determine my acceptable working wage, do you?

Then why have Republicans made it their life mission to destroy labor unions that exist to do exact job you just described?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I've seen the "factcheck" link NUMEROUS times.. It was wrong the first time someone linked to it, it continues to be wrong today.. They ignore intragovernmental debt and ONLY count the budget. Note their parameter, Debt to the "PUBLIC" ONLY in their equation, they completely ignore debt to other governmental budgets, something that only an amature, or a complete fool could do..

DEBT WENT UP.. Period.. again, its not rocket science.. Although some of you make it sound like its high level finance when in reality, its 5th grade math.. If debt is > this year than last year, then you didnt create a surplus..

So you've effectively decided that you have your own definition of budgeting terms and anyone who doesn't abide by that is using fuzzy math.

Ironic.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Then why have Republicans made it their life mission to destroy labor unions that exist to do exact job you just described?

You need the government to determine how much your hourly wage should be? Maybe considering your inability to understand basic math, you might..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

So you've effectively decided that you have your own definition of budgeting terms and anyone who doesn't abide by that is using fuzzy math.

Ironic.

I'm sorry if you dont understand that if you owe more in debt this year than last, that you didnt pay down debt. Maybe you can stop at an elementary school one day and ask a math teacher to explain it to you.

And I wonder how we got into the current economic situation we are in, people dont know such basic accounting. Btw, it was fuzzy math to create the "surplus" not the otherway around..

Here is a better breakdown
WikiAnswers - When was the last time the US had a budget surplus

Lets give you an example, do you consider the Bush "wars", off budget, to contribute to the national debt? Of course they do, and of course you understand that they contribute to the debt, but somehow Clinton, who did THE SAME accounting scheme as Bush, you somehow believe didnt.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pghquest

You need the government to determine how much your hourly wage should be?

Last I checked, labor unions weren't "government" but collective bargaining bodies made up of members of the profession they represent.

I'm sorry if you dont understand that if you owe more in debt this year than last, that you didnt pay down debt.

And I'm sorry that you're facts are wrong and your definitions of budgeting terms are completely whack. Try this one on for size.

Federal Deficit






If you own a business that is anything more substantial than a hot dog stand, well, you have my condolences because you're clearly in over your head.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Last I checked, labor unions weren't "government" but collective bargaining bodies made up of members of the profession they represent.

What does labor unions have to do with raising minimum wage? You lose the argument and have to change the topic?

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

And I'm sorry that you're facts are wrong and your definitions of budgeting terms are completely whack. Try this one on for size.

Federal Deficit

Which ignores Intragovernmental holdings.. Seriously, why is this difficult for you to understand? You dont think the SS Department "IOU's" are debts? You see the little "Assumes NO payback for Social Security" on the chart? Your own links tell you how they are wrong and you just keep ignoring the errors..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

If you own a business that is anything more substantial than a hot dog stand, well, you have my condolences because you're clearly in over your head.

I own numerous businesses, the larges one involves being a landlord to the US Government. I can tell you that I watch their actual debt closely because it affects the cap rate on their returns.. Tell me what your qualifications are, because it seems all you can do is selectively read sources and ignore the parts that tell you how wrong they are..

Tell me again what year debt went down under Clinton.. I challenge you to find ONE year.. JUST ONE where the TOTAL debt declined.. Here, I'll even save you the time to find the federal governments website that tracks federal debt..
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Tell me what year debt went down under Clinton..

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by pghquest

What does labor unions have to do with raising minimum wage? You lose the argument and have to change the topic?

I see we need to have a review here.

There is no changing the topic here, just your apparent inability to keep up with the most basic of conversations.

Which ignores Intragovernmental holdings.. Seriously, why is this difficult for you to understand? You dont think the SS Department "IOU's" are debts? You see the little "Assumes NO payback for Social Security" on the chart? Your own links tell you how they are wrong and you just keep ignoring the errors..

Did you even read the link and try to apply any critical thinking? Obviously not, so let me once again provide some relevant highlights.

President Bush claims that "we have now achieved our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half." Source Is this true?

First, be careful, the deficit is annual additions to national debt. So all he's saying is that the national debt is not going up as fast as it had been. It's certainly not going down (as it did in between 1995 and 2001 — see graph). So in terms of the accumulated national debt, we haven't cut anything except its rate of increase (that's better, but the debt is still headed the wrong way).

Obviously you can't reduce the debt without a budget surplus.

This part below is reflected in the first graph of my previous post which does take into effect the borrowing from Social Security.

Second, he's not talking about the annual gross (total) budget deficit, but only a part of it. As this chart shows, the total deficit has hardly decreased at all.

Bush's deficit, call it deficit 'lite', counts borrowing from the 'public' (financial markets) but does not count borrowing from Social Security--which is huge. This ignores the fact that like public debt, Social Security contributions are actually an obligation that must be repaid. Most importantly, those funds should be helping to increase savings and investment in order to provide for the coming retirement of the large "baby-boom" generation. They should not be used for current government expenses (see below (http://zfacts.com/p/527.html - broken link)).

It was also touched on in the FactCheck article you were so quick to dismiss.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

I own numerous businesses, the larges one involves being a landlord to the US Government.

I have a gut feeling that you're talking about section 8 housing.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I see we need to have a review here.

There is no changing the topic here, just your apparent inability to keep up with the most basic of conversations.

Ahh no.. Again.. I can determine the value of my own labor.. Why do you need the government to determine yours? And since you now want to bring a union into the equation, why do you need the unionto determine what you will work for? You cant do this on your own?

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Did you even read the link and try to apply any critical thinking? Obviously not, so let me once again provide some relevant highlights.

Yes I read the link, it didnt help to support your argument..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Obviously you can't reduce the debt without a budget surplus.

So now after pages and pages of postings, you are now admitting I was correct...

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

This part below is reflected in the first graph of my previous post which does take into effect the borrowing from Social Security.

And lets continue on this.. They had a $1.9B surplus from YOUR link, if you remove Social Security borrowing, now remove the borrowing from Civil Service Retirement Fund, the borrowing from Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Fund, the borrowing from Federal Unemployment Trust Fund, borrowing from the Military Retirement Fund, etc...

If you are now admitting that you should remove the borrowing from the SS, then you must also remove the borrowing from EVERY OTHER FUND..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

It was also touched on in the FactCheck article you were so quick to dismiss.

Because I've seen it over, and over, and over.. Every month or so we get some liberal on here arguing the factcheck link. Its not new, it wasnt right then, and its still not right now..

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I have a gut feeling that you're talking about section 8 housing.

Your gut feeling would be wrong just like everything else here is wrong.. My largest tenant would be the US Postal Service..

[Off Topic]

Kudos to Republican Ken Buck for admitting that both parties had a hand in getting us into this mess.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Buck: Republicans are also to blame for ‘mess’ in Washington « - Blogs from CNN.com