mnealtx 0 #76 February 3, 2008 Quote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #77 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Instead of finding not directly related numbers, why didnt you post the actual surplus/deficit values?Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #78 February 3, 2008 Quote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? Its easier to slam Clinton since no matter how bad things get under Bush... it will NEVER compare to that blow job..... its all about priorities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #79 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Read the thread title. Embarrassing for you GOP folks, isn't it. Yet another $400Bn DEFICIT proposed by Bush. Quite appropriate for a "worst president" thread.... 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
mnealtx 0 #80 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Instead of finding not directly related numbers, why didnt you post the actual surplus/deficit values? The numbers I posted were directly from the Treasury for the debt. *IF* there had been a surplus, the debt would have decreased. It obviously didnt.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Read the thread title. Embarrassing for you GOP folks, isn't it. Yet another $400Bn DEFICIT proposed by Bush. Quite appropriate for a "worst president" thread. Can't refute the numbers, so change the subject... typical.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #82 February 4, 2008 Hmmmmmmmm, why it that most of the red happens during the R's and most of the blue during the D's? I see a trend here ..... must be a liberal conspiracy to skew the numbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #83 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Instead of finding not directly related numbers, why didnt you post the actual surplus/deficit values? The numbers I posted were directly from the Treasury for the debt. *IF* there had been a surplus, the debt would have decreased. It obviously didnt. You're making that assumption. I bet it works like personal finances in a very vague way, as if you could have saved 10k in your bank account during the year and have 5k in credit cards, you earned 5k more than you spent, you show 5k in debt and 10k in surplus. But I'm posing mine as a theory as to how it works, you're an R so you take a theory and pose it as a fact. I'd like to see some CREDIBLE evidence as to how it works, but I'm guessing that it's a congressional thing as to how they appropriate spending vesus how the receipts come in. There is no quick and easy way to take an annual budget surplus and write a check to the 'debt fund.' They would probably have to cut taxes and count on constant receipts. Remember, spending is done on one hand and receipts are done on the other; there is no immediate and direct connection between them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #84 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Instead of finding not directly related numbers, why didnt you post the actual surplus/deficit values? The numbers I posted were directly from the Treasury for the debt. *IF* there had been a surplus, the debt would have decreased. It obviously didnt. Again, dont get secondary data. Get the primary data of the actual surplus and deficit. Here is the direct link to the Congressional Budget Office. feel free to say thet their numbers are wrong. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.htmRemster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #85 February 4, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Instead of finding not directly related numbers, why didnt you post the actual surplus/deficit values? The numbers I posted were directly from the Treasury for the debt. *IF* there had been a surplus, the debt would have decreased. It obviously didnt. Again, dont get secondary data. Get the primary data of the actual surplus and deficit. Here is the direct link to the Congressional Budget Office. feel free to say thet their numbers are wrong. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.htm As well as the Whitehouse.gov numbers I posted. Fox numbers, newsmax figures seem so much more pallatable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe numbers I posted were directly from the Treasury for the debt. *IF* there had been a surplus, the debt would have decreased. It obviously didnt. You're making that assumption. I bet it works like personal finances in a very vague way, as if you could have saved 10k in your bank account during the year and have 5k in credit cards, you earned 5k more than you spent, you show 5k in debt and 10k in surplus. But I'm posing mine as a theory as to how it works, you're an R so you take a theory and pose it as a fact. I'd like to see some CREDIBLE evidence as to how it works, but I'm guessing that it's a congressional thing as to how they appropriate spending vesus how the receipts come in. There is no quick and easy way to take an annual budget surplus and write a check to the 'debt fund.' They would probably have to cut taxes and count on constant receipts. Remember, spending is done on one hand and receipts are done on the other; there is no immediate and direct connection between them. Actually, no... you're taking a theory and posting it as if it were fact - I'm taking facts and posting them as facts and not speculating on theory. As for "credible evidence" - how much more credible can you get than the actual numbers from the Treasury Department? *So* sorry they don't agree with whatever webpage that is you keep posting your numbers from (sorry, don't recall the website). Weren't you the one stating before that "the numbers don't lie"???? Well, see below for the numbers...again. From CNN QuoteInstead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone. This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States." And... let's go to the numbers, shall we? Ok... "the last three years" - that would have been FY 1997 - 99 (fiscal years end on 30 Sep of the year following). Just for fun, we'll throw in FY 2000 (ends 30 Sep 2001) to see what sort of legacy Clinton left Bush II to start with. Debt figures from the US Treasury: Sep 30 1996: $5,224,810,939,135.73 (there's your baseline number) Sep 30 1997: $5,413,146,011,397.34 +$188,335,072,261.61 $188 billion debt increase Sep 30 1998: $5,526,193,008,897.62 +$113,046,997,500.28 $113 billion debt increase Sep 30 1999: $5,656,270,901,633.43 +$130,077,892,735.81 $130 billion debt increase Sep 30 2000: $5,674,178,209,886.86 +$17,907,308,253.43 $17 billion debt increase (*almost*!) Sep 30 2001: $5,807,463,412,200.06 +$133,285,202,313.2 133 billion debt increase (and here's the legacy) Looks like the D side has their share of red ink too, hmm? Now, the Reps sure aren't having any trouble spending money like a rapper in a strip club...but let's not pretend that the Dems are any better about it. I think we've pretty well laid that myth to bed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 February 4, 2008 Ok... NOW we get into the shell game that shows how Clinton could claim a 'surplus' - the difference between debt held by the public (t-bills, savings bonds, stuff the public can buy from the gov't), and the total public debt. The difference is intergovernmental holdings (gov't borrowing money from itself to pay itself {read:borrowing from the Social Security fund}). Date: 09/30/1997 Debt held by public : 3,789,667,546,849.60 Inter-gov holdings: 1,623,478,464,547.74 Total public debt: 5,413,146,011,397.34 Date: 09/30/1998 Debt held by public: 3,733,864,472,163.53 ($55,803,074,686.07 "surplus" from prior year) Inter-gov holdings : 1,792,328,536,734.09 ($168,850,072,186.35 deficit from prior year) Total public debt: 5,526,193,008,897.62 ($113,046,997,500.28 increase in debt) Wait a minute...I'm seeing some sort of pattern, there... 168,850,072,186.35 billion dollar deficit in inter-gov holdings, minus the 55,803,074,686.07 billion dollar 'surplus' from debt owned by the public, equals the 113,046,997,500.28 billion dollar increase in the total public debt, seen above. Looks like those numbers from the Treasury actually *ARE* the primary data, wouldn't you say? Also, please note where it was mentioned that the NATIONAL DEBT was reduced... the numbers show that to be a bald-faced lie.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #88 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Instead of sweating the small stuff, why not worry about the $400Billion+ deficit in Bush's latest budget? More The current topic is Clinton's purported 'surplus'....*DO* try to stay on-point, Professor. Read the thread title. Embarrassing for you GOP folks, isn't it. Yet another $400Bn DEFICIT proposed by Bush. Quite appropriate for a "worst president" thread. Can't refute the numbers, so change the subject... typical. Don't sweat the small stuff. You are quibbling about a miniscule amount compared to the huge record breaking deficits that Bush produced, and continues to produce. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?", Matt 7:3 "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term", GWB, SOTU address January 2002.... 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
mnealtx 0 #89 February 4, 2008 A reverse CDIF, how.....unoriginal. Refute the numbers, Professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #90 February 4, 2008 QuoteA reverse CDIF, how.....unoriginal. Refute the numbers, Professor. There's nothing to refute. The deficit, as calculated by various government budget offices, went into a small surplus, but the debt kept growing (slowly). The apparent discrepancy is due to accounting differences primarily in the Social Security account. Nothing to explain, nothing to refute. Simple, really, when you THINK about it. Now, back to "worst president ever" Bush's RECORD and CONTINUING deficits. National debt increased what, $3.5T under Bush (so far). Edited to add -- ooops - my mistake, it's up $3.6T under Bush... 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
Amazon 7 #91 February 4, 2008 is that a B or a T.....on the Debt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteA reverse CDIF, how.....unoriginal. Refute the numbers, Professor. There's nothing to refute. The deficit, as calculated by various government budget offices, went into a small surplus, but the debt kept growing (slowly). The apparent discrepancy is due to accounting differences primarily in the Social Security account. Nothing to explain, nothing to refute. Simple, really, when you THINK about it. Now, back to "worst president ever" Bush's RECORD and CONTINUING deficits. National debt increased what, $3.5B under Bush (so far). Edited to add -- ooops - my mistake, it's up $3.6B under Bush No, 3.8 Trillion under Bush, not B. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #93 February 4, 2008 QuoteNational debt increased what, $3.5B under Bush (so far). Technically correct, though that might have been just in the first 30 days. It's more like 3.5 TRILLION.... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #94 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteA reverse CDIF, how.....unoriginal. Refute the numbers, Professor. There's nothing to refute. The deficit, as calculated by various government budget offices, went into a small surplus, but the debt kept growing (slowly). The apparent discrepancy is due to accounting differences primarily in the Social Security account. Nothing to explain, nothing to refute. Simple, really, when you THINK about it. Now, back to "worst president ever" Bush's RECORD and CONTINUING deficits. National debt increased what, $3.5B under Bush (so far). Edited to add -- ooops - my mistake, it's up $3.6B under Bush No, 3.8 Trillion under Bush, not B. Hey, a trillion here or there, soon you're talking real money! The Voodoo Economics(TM) (GHW Bush) of Reagan and the Bushes turned this nation from the largest creditor to the largest debtor in history... 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
kelpdiver 2 #95 February 4, 2008 Quote Don't sweat the small stuff. You are quibbling about a miniscule amount compared to the huge record breaking deficits that Bush produced, and continues to produce. Oh, there's no doubt the Clinton did an admirable job on the budget, while Shrub has done a terrible job. So why doesn't Lucky argue that, rather than to continue to promote the false lie of a surplus? If the surplus was such a great thing, why did Al Gore spent half of the 2000 election talking about lock boxes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
packerboy 3 #96 February 4, 2008 Well.. if he's not the worst president ever he certainly fucking looks the part to the outside world. He certainly comes across as the dumbest. How the hell you guys voted him in not once but twice is absolutely mind numbing. America hating is at an all time high for sure. BTW, I know and like a lot of Americans, but shit... I think you should move. And THEN FUCKING RELAX ALREADY!!! -------------------------------------------------- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #97 February 4, 2008 QuoteYou're making that assumption. I bet it works like personal finances in a very vague way, as if you could have saved 10k in your bank account during the year and have 5k in credit cards, you earned 5k more than you spent, you show 5k in debt and 10k in surplus. dude, this is so weak. And easily disproven. The US does not have a bank account. It has a collection of IOUs to itself - more specifically, to the Social Security Administration. If over the course of the year you add 2000 to your savings account, but 2500 in debt to your credit card, have you improved your net worth? Of course not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #98 February 4, 2008 William Henry Harrison, I tell ye!Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 February 4, 2008 QuoteWell.. if he's not the worst president ever he certainly fucking looks the part to the outside world. He certainly comes across as the dumbest. How the hell you guys voted him in not once but twice is absolutely mind numbing. Have to bear in mind the choices the voters were given. Pretty much a coin flip, and the vote results were also pretty close to 50/50. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #100 February 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell.. if he's not the worst president ever he certainly fucking looks the part to the outside world. He certainly comes across as the dumbest. How the hell you guys voted him in not once but twice is absolutely mind numbing. Have to bear in mind the choices the voters were given. Pretty much a coin flip, and the vote results were also pretty close to 50/50. Maybe instead of continually patting ourselves on the back at what a wonderful system of government we have, we should worry about fixing it so that we don't just get to choose between one loser and another.... 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
