storm1977 0 #76 February 8, 2006 I would also add, there really weren't any credit cards or mortage companies in the 30's.... again skewing you results. The people putting this data together aren't really good at their jobs... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #77 February 8, 2006 Quote The chart you put up shows government debt and household debt combined.... Good catch, my apologies. Here's a graph that shows only government debt (with figures taken from whitehouse.gov): http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Not as drastic as the other graph, but it does show clearly how seriously the ratio increased during the days of Reagan and the two Bushes, supply-side economics notwithstanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #78 February 8, 2006 QuoteQuote The chart you put up shows government debt and household debt combined.... Good catch, my apologies. Here's a graph that shows only government debt (with figures taken from whitehouse.gov): http://zfacts.com/p/318.html Not as drastic as the other graph, but it does show clearly how seriously the ratio increased during the days of Reagan and the two Bushes, supply-side economics notwithstanding. Reagan and the two Bushes have contributed more to the debt than all other presidents combined.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #79 February 8, 2006 And Carter and Billy boy have contributed in the strengthening of our enemies, by not wanting to be ready or eager to stop a threat."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #80 February 9, 2006 Interesting graph. I'd be interested in seeing this further broken down into discretionary and entitlement spending. The age demographics are forcing a massive increase in entitlement spending, which is definitely contributing to the recent increase - not that Bush's and the Republican Congress' abandonment of fiscal conservatism have done anything to reduce the deficit, but the entitlement spending is the bulk of any spending bill, like it or not. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #81 February 9, 2006 Apples and oranges. The debt has increased since Reagan. The debt continued to increase the first couple of years of Clinton. Like it or not, the feds are on a spending spree! It's amazing how many want to save the earth for our children, but are unwilling to save the national treasury for those same kids. Republicans and democrats alike are at fault. It's that simple. How do we know that this is a spend-crazy Congress? This is a graph of the revenues that have been received by the US treasury since "Bush cut taxes." http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg It therefore seems pretty certain that had spending stayed level, we'd still have a balanced budget. How much has this war cost us? An additional 150 billion per year? If so, that would put the budget at even if all other things remained the same. But things don't remain the same. In Washington DC, a "spending cut" is "a reduction in planned spending" that is likely a hundred billion more than the previous year. Yep, a land where "cuts" are increases. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #82 February 9, 2006 Do you feel that Congress has ceded much of its Consitutional power of the purse by waiting on OMB, part of the Executive Branch, to submit the PB for consideration vice forming it's own budget? I see the managerial wisdom of having it come out of the executive branch, but still, in a way, it seems that Congress is now simply modifying something the Executive Branch submits. True, they still appropriate, but in a manner first envisioned by the Executive branch and later modified by the Legislative branch. Interesting. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #83 February 9, 2006 Congress has given away way too much power. Let the president screw it up and blame him. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #84 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteWell, the easy solution is to let ourselves get so far in that we have no hope of getting out, and then ask other countries to forgive our debt! I mean, it's good enough for Africa... And how would you feel if you were one of the creditors that had their life savings wiped out? Uh, honeypie, it was a joke. As soon as I mentioned Africa having its debt forgiven, you should have realized I was being cynical and sarcastic about the legitimacy of just ducking one's debts in that manner. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #85 February 9, 2006 QuoteHere is a graph showing the annual % change in US National Debt over the last few years. Republican administrations in red, Democrat in blue. Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? So if the debt were HALVED under the Republicans, let's say, it would show as a 50% change, and the bar would be taller. Would that be BAD, or GOOD? (Gee, DUH.) Thanks for a USELESS graphic, Kallend. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #86 February 9, 2006 QuoteThe problem is not so much the deficit as the debt (a word that is conspicuously absent from this overly optimistic analysis). After all, that's the value we pay interest on. In fact, the debt is at record levels in comparison with the GDP as can be seen. Well, leftist Clinton supporters who cheer the mantra "We had a surplus under Clinton" are talking about a (mostly faked) BUDGET surplus, which simply means, "We expected to spend less than we took in for the specified period." Important to note is the fact that THE NATIONAL [B]DEBT[/B] WAS NEVER GONE! If you owe $10,000 on your credit cards, and you don't pay anything toward that debt, but you balance your weekly budget and you don't spend as much as you earn, you have a BUDGET SURPLUS, but you still have a debt, and that debt will grow larger with interest accrued. So the left can stop parroting how Clinton fixed our situation up so well -- it was all chicanery from the start, with confusion about "debt" versus "deficit" INTENDED to confuse the American public in much the same way that "assault weapon" was intended to make people think that the '94 "ban" was going to eliminate the (already tightly controlled) machine guns. When liars believe their own lies, they really can't fathom that those lies don't fool the rest of us. That's what makes the left so pathetic. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #87 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteHere is a graph showing the annual % change in US National Debt over the last few years. Republican administrations in red, Democrat in blue. Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? WRONG, as usual (recalling your comments on SCOTUS nominations and the Thames this week). Quote So if the debt were HALVED under the Republicans, let's say, it would show as a 50% change, and the bar would be taller. Would that be BAD, or GOOD? (Gee, DUH.) Thanks for a USELESS graphic, Kallend. - Federal debt go down? What planet are you living on? The sign of the change is just what it says it is. If it had been negative, I would have shown it as such.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #88 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe problem is not so much the deficit as the debt (a word that is conspicuously absent from this overly optimistic analysis). After all, that's the value we pay interest on. In fact, the debt is at record levels in comparison with the GDP as can be seen. Well, leftist Clinton supporters who cheer the mantra "We had a surplus under Clinton" are talking about a (mostly faked) BUDGET surplus, which simply means, "We expected to spend less than we took in for the specified period." Important to note is the fact that THE NATIONAL [B]DEBT[/B] WAS NEVER GONE! If you owe $10,000 on your credit cards, and you don't pay anything toward that debt, but you balance your weekly budget and you don't spend as much as you earn, you have a BUDGET SURPLUS, but you still have a debt, and that debt will grow larger with interest accrued. So the left can stop parroting how Clinton fixed our situation up so well -- it was all chicanery from the start, with confusion about "debt" versus "deficit" INTENDED to confuse the American public in much the same way that "assault weapon" was intended to make people think that the '94 "ban" was going to eliminate the (already tightly controlled) machine guns. When liars believe their own lies, they really can't fathom that those lies don't fool the rest of us. That's what makes the left so pathetic. - For one who has been wrong so often this week, you sure have an interesting way of showing appropriate humility. Reagan and the 2 Bushes added more debt to the USA than all the other presidents combined.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #89 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteHere is a graph showing the annual % change in US National Debt over the last few years. Republican administrations in red, Democrat in blue. Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? WRONG, as usual (recalling your comments on SCOTUS nominations and the Thames this week). Don't hand me bullshit, kallend. The FACT is, your graph says "PERCENT CHANGE" and that is an absolute value. The graph DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR MANNER DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CHANGE IN EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DIRECTION. Face it, you're caught being wrong. You can be mature and admit it, or you can keep looking foolish denying it in front of a bunch of people who know it to be true. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #90 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem is not so much the deficit as the debt (a word that is conspicuously absent from this overly optimistic analysis). After all, that's the value we pay interest on. In fact, the debt is at record levels in comparison with the GDP as can be seen. Well, leftist Clinton supporters who cheer the mantra "We had a surplus under Clinton" are talking about a (mostly faked) BUDGET surplus, which simply means, "We expected to spend less than we took in for the specified period." Important to note is the fact that THE NATIONAL [B]DEBT[/B] WAS NEVER GONE! If you owe $10,000 on your credit cards, and you don't pay anything toward that debt, but you balance your weekly budget and you don't spend as much as you earn, you have a BUDGET SURPLUS, but you still have a debt, and that debt will grow larger with interest accrued. So the left can stop parroting how Clinton fixed our situation up so well -- it was all chicanery from the start, with confusion about "debt" versus "deficit" INTENDED to confuse the American public in much the same way that "assault weapon" was intended to make people think that the '94 "ban" was going to eliminate the (already tightly controlled) machine guns. When liars believe their own lies, they really can't fathom that those lies don't fool the rest of us. That's what makes the left so pathetic. - For one who has been wrong so often this week, you sure have an interesting way of showing appropriate humility. Reagan and the 2 Bushes added more debt to the USA than all the other presidents combined. You have an annoying tendency to utterly avoid (is it cowardice?) the actual subject of what someone says. I can surmise only that you simply have no rebuttal worth mentioning, when you do that. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #91 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHere is a graph showing the annual % change in US National Debt over the last few years. Republican administrations in red, Democrat in blue. Um,please tell me I not the only one to realize that "% change" does not clarify whether the debt went UP or DOWN -- it notes only the absolute value of the degree of change from one year to the next, right? WRONG, as usual (recalling your comments on SCOTUS nominations and the Thames this week). Don't hand me bullshit, kallend. The FACT is, your graph says "PERCENT CHANGE" and that is an absolute value. The graph DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR MANNER DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CHANGE IN EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DIRECTION. Face it, you're caught being wrong. You can be mature and admit it, or you can keep looking foolish denying it in front of a bunch of people who know it to be true. - A change can be positive or negative. Divide by the starting value and multiply by 100 and you have a % change. Where did you learn mathematics? I don't know what is the written equivalent of putting your foot in your mouth, but whatever it is, you sure do it a lot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 1 #92 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, the easy solution is to let ourselves get so far in that we have no hope of getting out, and then ask other countries to forgive our debt! I mean, it's good enough for Africa... And how would you feel if you were one of the creditors that had their life savings wiped out? Uh, honeypie, it was a joke. As soon as I mentioned Africa having its debt forgiven, you should have realized I was being cynical and sarcastic about the legitimacy of just ducking one's debts in that manner. Thanks for that, sweetie. Good to know that you're not as much of a deadbeat as our president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #93 February 9, 2006 QuoteRepublicans and democrats alike are at fault. It's that simple. How do we know that this is a spend-crazy Congress? C'mon Rocket, this is in complete constrast to those that want to have an unreasonable partisan bash fest. Why rain on their parade with the facts that both parties are known for "spending" and none are know for cutting? You're a wet blanket. You know that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #94 February 9, 2006 QuoteA change can be positive or negative. Divide by the starting value and multiply by 100 and you have a % change. Where did you learn mathematics? I don't know what is the written equivalent of putting your foot in your mouth, but whatever it is, you sure do it a lot. John, don't pick on him. pj's semantic and Ad hominem arguments aside, I think he's just ignorant of the facts and may be unaware that the U.S. National Debt has gone up every year. If pj had read a graph like this attachment it would have been clearer. It appears pj understands the basic concepts but is unaware of the specific facts. When Regan took office U.S Debt was $0.789 trillion when he left office the Debt had risen to $3.000 trillion. Today debt is a little over $8.2 trillion. The Bush administrations had a lot to do with that. Although most people knew the budget surplus Clinton was claiming was not "real" it's ironic that Bush used that accounting trick to justify huge tax cuts and increased deficit spending from Clinton levels."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #95 February 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteDon't hand me bullshit, kallend. The FACT is, your graph says "PERCENT CHANGE" and that is an absolute value. The graph DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR MANNER DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CHANGE IN EITHER THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE DIRECTION. Face it, you're caught being wrong. You can be mature and admit it, or you can keep looking foolish denying it in front of a bunch of people who know it to be true. - A change can be positive or negative. Divide by the starting value and multiply by 100 and you have a % change. Where did you learn mathematics? Um, how is it you don't even understand that that's exactly what I was fucking saying? YOU put forth the graph ostensibly to show us that under Republicans, the debt has GROWN; all your graph shows is that is has CHANGED, and by what percent. Your graph does not actually say whether the change made the debt grow or shrink. Jebus Cripes you're confused. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #96 February 9, 2006 QuoteAlthough most people knew the budget surplus Clinton was claiming was not "real" it's ironic that Bush used that accounting trick to justify huge tax cuts and increased deficit spending from Clinton levels. Since the left is still griping about how Bush "blew" the "surplus," I have to assume that they are either dumb, and believed in it, or are liars, who never believed in it but want to reap the political hay that can be reaped by making Bush look like he blew money that Clinton had saved. Which is it? Are you liars or dummies? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #97 February 9, 2006 The surplus they are talking about is the Social Security Surplus. The baby boomers have been paying into it for...40 years. This money is separate from the governments revenue from taxation. Depending on the political spin, politicians talk about the surplus for their own political ends. The annual deficit is the money the government spends in excess of it's revenue from taxation. The US Debt is the sum total of annual deficits owed by US gov't to various world banks. The fact is that Clinton managed to get Congress to budget in a fashion that significantly reduced deficit spending and put the US gov't on track to paying off the US Debt. W. Bush has reversed this trend. These facts are from the the US Gov't OMB and are not contested. Most of the deficit spending under the W. Bush administration can be attributed to the the cost of the war in Iraq. "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #98 February 9, 2006 Quote The fact is that Clinton managed to get Congress to budget in a fashion that significantly reduced deficit spending and put the US gov't on track to paying off the US Debt. W. Bush has reversed this trend. These facts are from the the US Gov't OMB and are not contested. What of the FACT that Clinton counted as assets the proceeds of sales of government-held property that was never going to be purchased by anyone? (i.e. Governor's Island) He was adding imaginary money to the "assets" column in the nation's revenue to come up with what looked like a budget surplus but in fact never was. If I said that my revenue for February was going to be $4,000 based on my work income and then added $36,000 for the contents of my home -- even though I was not selling them and had no buyers lined up -- and then I went and spent (on credit) $45,000, wouldn't you say that I had, in fact, spent $5,000 in the red? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #99 February 9, 2006 Hey, let's add Governor's Island to "the list". A quick google search reveals that although The Congressional Budget Office mandated the sale to be at fair market value of $300 million it in fact was sold back to the State of New York for $1 in 2003. So it could be argued that G.W. approved a nearly $300 million dollar loss... Way to go Dubaya! I don't know how significantly $1 would affect any government surplus, probably not a whole lot."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #100 February 9, 2006 Nice try. It underscores my point that Clinton was a lying scumbag (true to form) to have listed the sale of that island as an asset in the budget, in order to pad his preposterous "surplus." Bush did not approve a $300M loss, because no one was ever going to buy that fuckin' island in the first place, and both he -- AND Clinton -- knew it. Still Clinton used it in his little charade. Fooled your ass, didn't it. I'd be as upset as you, too. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
