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 11-06-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
pretty chart.....but

uhm clinton tried to spend..it was newt that gave you an almost surplus
A booming economy and economic growth had quite a bit to do with the annual budget surplus. Newt doesn't get sole credit for the work, although I do agree with you that he advised Clinton to reduce the deficit. Bottom line is, there was a reduction in the deficit, and, at the end, a huge surplus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
but there was never an actual surplus
This is incorrect. There was a annual budget surplus of $133 billion dollars by the time Clinton left office.

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...... $326.40 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion

(I edited 2000's surplus, it was listed incorrectly.)

By FY 2002, we were back at a $157 billion dollar budget deficit, by FY 2003, $377 billion dollar deficit. Further, when Bush left office, there was a national debt of $8 trillion dollars.

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

----------------------
Again, there is a difference between the annual budget deficit and national debt. The annual budget deficit is the "difference between actual cash collections and budgeted spending (a partial measure of total spending) during a given fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30." The national debt is what it is, debt owed. The earlier graph I had posted focused solely on the annual budget deficit.

When Clinton left office, there was a booming economy and a large budget surplus predicted to continue if his policies would have been sustained. Bush arrived and restarted the deficit, via his tax cuts, two wars, Medicare D, and, a recession--leaving office with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and pushing the national debt to $8 trillion dollars by the time his circus show was complete.

The reason why I posted the graph in the first place was because of statements like this, screw Romnesia, talk about Bushnesia...

"College Grads who cannot find jobs, people cannot save a dime, division no unity, it's all Obama's fault climate problems, people problems, it is all Obama's fault, Two can play this rotten game. Not Bush 4 years later, OBAMA."

It is backward, naive and beyond silly to not give credit to Bush, where credit is due.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,849,164 times
Reputation: 11259
What people ignore is that the years 1992 thru 2000 coincide with the years between the Cold War and the War on Terror. Wars are expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,666 posts, read 23,987,722 times
Reputation: 14996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
It's poor business practice to 'profit' off of the backs of your hard-working employees.


Methinks you have no concept of what a business is, or why it exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,666 posts, read 23,987,722 times
Reputation: 14996
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
Krogers reported a net income of $279 million last quarter.

They are intentionally skirting the provision of affordable healthcare to their workers because they know it's a demographic they can take advantage of; Starbucks, Whole Foods, Lowe's, Barnes and Noble, etc. all provide health insurance to their part-time employees and still boast record-breaking profits.

If they do not have the decency to provide their low-wage workers with affordable healthcare considering they are heavily reliant on service workers, I have no interest in supporting their business.
It's amusing that you compare Kroger to the likes of Starbucks & Whole Foods. You're talking apples and oranges. Do you have any clue what the margins are for a grocery store? Starbucks?

What a stupid comparison. It's very telling that you put all those companies on the same level. There's pretty much nothing that warrants it, but you have no clue about that. You just say, "If so-and-so can do it, then Kroger can, too!" It's not that simple. If you knew anything about business - at all - you'd know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post


Methinks you have no concept of what a business is, or why it exists.
Yes, again, silly me.

I'll repeat what I listed a few pages back--you can still earn a hefty profit while treating your employees properly, plenty of small and large businesses can attest to this concept. They are your base.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
It's amusing that you compare Kroger to the likes of Starbucks & Whole Foods. You're talking apples and oranges. Do you have any clue what the margins are for a grocery store? Starbucks?

What a stupid comparison. It's very telling that you put all those companies on the same level. There's pretty much nothing that warrants it, but you have no clue about that. You just say, "If so-and-so can do it, then Kroger can, too!" It's not that simple. If you knew anything about business - at all - you'd know that.
I also compared Kroger supermarkets to Safeway. Safeway stores are comparable, and report a lower annual profit, yet still provide healthcare to their employees.

The companies I outlined earlier provide different services, cater to a different clientele, and to a degree offer different product, but, to bring this back to the OP, we are talking about a company's capacity to provide healthcare to its staff.

The Kroger Company is the country's largest grocery store chain, reporting $90.4 billion dollars in sales in FY 2012. Recent net profit figures for Kroger are listed at $279 million, Whole Foods, $117 million, Starbucks, $359 million, Safeway $157 million. Three out of four provide healthcare for both their PT and FT employees.

Since you are the business expert, maybe you can help explain the 3/4 business above, as it relates to providing their workforce with basic healthcare as part of their compensation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,665 posts, read 19,936,526 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
I also compared Kroger supermarkets to Safeway. Safeway stores are comparable, and report a lower annual profit, yet still provide healthcare to their employees.

The companies I outlined earlier provide different services, cater to a different clientele, and to a degree offer different product, but, to bring this back to the OP, we are talking about a company's capacity to provide healthcare to its staff.

The Kroger Company is the country's largest grocery store chain, reporting $90.4 billion dollars in sales in FY 2012. Recent net profit figures for Kroger are listed at $279 million, Whole Foods, $117 million, Starbucks, $359 million, Safeway $157 million. Three out of four provide healthcare for both their PT and FT employees.

Since you are the business expert, maybe you can help explain the 3/4 business above, as it relates to providing their workforce with basic healthcare as part of their compensation.
That would mean Krogers net profit is a pithy 3% of revenue. They obviously must improve that, or risk their stock price tanking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Old Town Alexandria
14,496 posts, read 26,555,454 times
Reputation: 8966
Post agrre

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileVisitor09 View Post
A booming economy and economic growth had quite a bit to do with the annual budget surplus. Newt doesn't get sole credit for the work, although I do agree with you that he advised Clinton to reduce the deficit. Bottom line is, there was a reduction in the deficit, and, at the end, a huge surplus.



This is incorrect. There was a annual budget surplus of $133 billion dollars by the time Clinton left office.

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...... $326.40 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion

(I edited 2000's surplus, it was listed incorrectly.)

By FY 2002, we were back at a $157 billion dollar budget deficit, by FY 2003, $377 billion dollar deficit. Further, when Bush left office, there was a national debt of $8 trillion dollars.



Again, there is a difference between the annual budget deficit and national debt. The annual budget deficit is the "difference between actual cash collections and budgeted spending (a partial measure of total spending) during a given fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30." The national debt is what it is, debt owed. The earlier graph I had posted focused solely on the annual budget deficit.

When Clinton left office, there was a booming economy and a large budget surplus predicted to continue if his policies would have been sustained. Bush arrived and restarted the deficit, via his tax cuts, two wars, Medicare D, and, a recession--leaving office with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and pushing the national debt to $8 trillion dollars by the time his circus show was complete.

The reason why I posted the graph in the first place was because of statements like this, screw Romnesia, talk about Bushnesia...

"College Grads who cannot find jobs, people cannot save a dime, division no unity, it's all Obama's fault climate problems, people problems, it is all Obama's fault, Two can play this rotten game. Not Bush 4 years later, OBAMA."

It is backward, naive and beyond silly to not give credit to Bush, where credit is due.
Add in the bailouts and housing meltdown from Wall St/Paulson Goldman Sachs and Bush.

5 years ago and yet people "cant remember"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,400,602 times
Reputation: 4190
And last year it was $1.5 trillion....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2012, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD / NY
781 posts, read 1,193,324 times
Reputation: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
That would mean Krogers net profit is a pithy 3% of revenue. They obviously must improve that, or risk their stock price tanking.
Exactly. Which illustrates that certain companies, like Kroger, will never be in the business or providing adequate healthcare to their PT workforce (despite other companies attempts to successfully do so), and shows they will jump on any incentive to provide less--meaning, these low wage folks go uninsured and end up on subsidized healthcare or rely on the ER for care. Posters were griping about lost wages due to this FT to PT shift, which, is understandable. But, on the flip side, what happens with Mr. Smith, who works for Kroger's PT (even prior to Obamacare) and makes $20K a year, rendering him ineligible for subsidized insurance--he comes down with a major medical condition or gets into an accident, ends up in the ER, and, then is saddled with a $10K bill that he cannot afford? What does he do? How will this be covered? At the individual level--bankruptcy, poverty, never getting ahead, wash, rinse, repeat. At the system level--this debt ends up costing the taxpayer in these scenarios (and those with insurance via higher premiums), contributing to the dysfunctional system that we have in place right now.

While Obamacare may have its kinks that need to be worked out, especially this 'full time' distinction loophole, 48.6 million do not have insurance in this country. That's a problem I wish more posters in this thread would be discussing rather than ripping apart an attempt to at least try to rectify the problem.

Last edited by MobileVisitor09; 11-06-2012 at 06:47 PM.. Reason: Fixed a word. :)
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 12:05 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