billvon 2,406 #26 August 19, 2008 (sigh) Once again, people are confusing the debt with the deficit. That is not a graph of the deficit. It is a graph of our DEBT. The deficit graph is attached below. A deficit is a shortfall in the amount of money that the government has. In simple terms it's the amount of money we spend minus the amount of money we take in. If we balance the budget, we have a zero deficit. That is NOT the same as zero debt. Indeed, our debt actually increases when we have a zero deficit, since we are paying interest on it (unless you count debt service as an expense.) If we take in more money than we spend we can pay down the debt, and it becomes smaller. If we spend more than we take in, then we have to borrow. Under Clinton, we had a 5 years of a deficit, 3 years of a surplus (towards the end of his presidency.) That meant the debt leveled off. Under Bush, we have had 7 years of ever increasing deficits; several records have been set. That means our debt is increasing rapidly. >Bush has done a far better job dealing with the deficit. That is numerically false. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #27 August 19, 2008 I'm sorry I have pretty much ignored your presidential race as of late, but if this thread was started because Obama said this and McCain said that, I have to laugh. Just remember when it comes to taxes you Americans are some of the lesser taxed people around the globe. People think $22 (or even $25) jump tickets are expensive? Come to Canada with our much higher taxation and enjoy our $35 to $38 jump tickets. Better yet, go to Europe. I think it is even higher there. This is known, the fiscal situation of the US government is not a pretty picture and whether new taxes are required for all of Obama's "trust me I will fix all your problems" socialism or McCain's "I plan on continuing GWB's military spending", America's government debt grows out of control. So who feels rich out there? I sure as heck don't. But I also don't feel poor. But where will the world be 10 years from now? I say there is a strong possibility more and more of us will starting feeling more poor than we do rich. The middle class is shrinking fast. Very fast. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #28 August 19, 2008 Since supply and demand still have some effect on the market - despite attempts and denial of same. This poll is better if it were in percentage. Rich - top 10% or 5% or 2% or whatever makes more sense. Then only on a fairly local level. It means you can afford things those around you can't. At least there are no touchy feely girlie crap responses like - "I'm with so and so, therefore I'm rich" or the envious responses like "I'm more rich than people with money because I have friends" or "skydiving makes me rich even though I live in my van", etc etc ad NAUSEUM. just trying to head off the kiss asses that would post it eventually ... 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
rushmc 18 #29 August 19, 2008 QuoteWell? there is no real reason to even discuss it. If you disagree, why?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #30 August 19, 2008 Quote(sigh) Once again, people are confusing the debt with the deficit. That is not a graph of the deficit. It is a graph of our DEBT. The deficit graph is attached below. A deficit is a shortfall in the amount of money that the government has. In simple terms it's the amount of money we spend minus the amount of money we take in. If we balance the budget, we have a zero deficit. That is NOT the same as zero debt. Indeed, our debt actually increases when we have a zero deficit, since we are paying interest on it (unless you count debt service as an expense.) ----------------------------------------------------- Thanks for clearing that up. However, that being said what matters ultimately, is the national debt. They vertical speed indicator is good to alert you that you may be loosing or gaining altitude at a specific time. But utimately your altimeter is what is going to reflect when you will land. ============================== If we take in more money than we spend we can pay down the debt, and it becomes smaller. If we spend more than we take in, then we have to borrow. ----------------------------------------------------- This makes sense. However, if you tax people more, you will hurt the economy and and less tax revenue will ultimately be collected by the Federal government. ============================== Under Clinton, we had a 5 years of a deficit, 3 years of a surplus (towards the end of his presidency.) That meant the debt leveled off. -------------------------------------------- But it didn't level off, it was 1.5 times higher when he left than when he came in. This is even without taking anything else into consideration, like Newt Gingrich's contract with America changing things. ============================ Under Bush, we have had 7 years of ever increasing deficits; several records have been set. That means our debt is increasing rapidly. ---------------------------------------------- Yes we have. But its clearly all due to the Wars/Conflicts in the Middle East. Many of us think it sucks but that National Security is more important. =============================== >Bush has done a far better job dealing with the deficit. That is numerically false. ------------------------------------------ I guess that could come down to opinion. But my opinion is that a difference with leaving the National DEBT at 1.7 times where you got it verses 1.5, when you take the price of the conflicts that Bush has had to deal with, makes it such that Bush is getting more for OUR money.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #31 August 19, 2008 Quote Anybody who thinks 100K/yearly is rich, is probably a looser with low asperations. This may be one of the funniest things I have ever read... "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #32 August 19, 2008 Please, take a math class. The important thing to note about the graph you posted is the slope of the line for national debt. During the Clinton administration, the slope is monotonically decreasing. In other words, the yearly increase in debt gets smaller and smaller every year. If you take a leap of mathematical reasoning, had Clinton's poicies continued, the debt would eventually start going down. During Bush, the rate of increase of debt is going up. Our debt is blowing up at an ever increasing rate. The current fiscal policies are untenable in the medium to long run. Oh, and I like how, when billvon pointed out you were totally wrong, you turned around and said that it didn't matter anyways because Clinton caused 911. Very smooth. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 August 19, 2008 QuoteClinton took office just over 4 trillion and left office just under 6 trillion. This was at a time when the .com bubble was going on. You will also notice that by far the highest tax increase was in his first 2 years while he had a Democrat congress to work with. During the next 6 years, less deficit was being added. Still on a total you could estimate that it was 1.5 times higher when he left than when he came in. If you listen to a Democrat with fuzzy math they will claim that because of inflation or baseline spending that somehow Clinton lowered the deficit. What a joke that is! Next lets look at Bush's record. In where Clinton left off and leaving at about 9.5 Trillion. His record leaving the deficit at about 1.7-1.8 is pretty damn close to what Clinton had. However, he had the 9/11 attack to deal with. The one that would not have happened, had Clinton sent those Cruise missles without alerting Pakistan. Bush addressed the escalating situation of Iraq. The one that Clinton started to address in 1998 but didn't finish. Never the less considering how expensive these inavoidable conflicts with the Middle East have been, even after lowering taxes, Bush has done a far better job dealing with the deficit. Speaking of fuzzy math... Here, I've attached a cutout of your attachment, narrowed down to a 8 year by 8 year comparison. You tell me how similar they look. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #34 August 19, 2008 QuoteI'd say half a mil. $100k is comfortable and $250k is pretty well-off, but not "rich". It depends on where you live. Around here, $100K/year is classified as "moderate income" which makes a family of three elligible for below market rents and government assistance in buying a home. $100K isn't even enough to pay the mortgage and property taxes on a 3 bedroom ranch house in a good school district. Some places in Texas $100K almost buys the same property out right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #35 August 19, 2008 Quote Blah blah blah If you listen to a Democrat with fuzzy math they will claim that because of inflation or baseline spending that somehow Clinton lowered the deficit. What a joke that is! The only fuzziness here is in your confusing of "debt" with "deficit". Not that I'd expect mere FACTS to influence a Bush fan.... 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
billvon 2,406 #36 August 19, 2008 >However, that being said what matters ultimately, is the national debt. Agreed, with the provisio that deficits, over many years, _cause_ the debt. >However, if you tax people more, you will hurt the economy and and >less tax revenue will ultimately be collected by the Federal government. Makes sense, and indeed the Laffer Curve predicts that there is an "ideal" level of taxation. (Clearly 100% is absurd and 0% is unworkable.) So the question is - where is the ideal level of taxation? When you look at the graph, deficits tend to rise when politicians lower taxes, indicating that when they are lowered they tend to be below the ideal. >But it didn't level off, it was 1.5 times higher when he left than when >he came in. Some actual numbers: 1992 debt $4.2 trillion, 64% of the GDP (a good inflation adjuster) 2000 debt $5.6 trillion, 58% of the GDP 2008 debt $9.5 trillion, 66% of the GDP (est) >But its clearly all due to the Wars/Conflicts in the Middle East. Yep, one of which was entirely optional. When a president starts an optional war he is responsible for its costs. >But my opinion is that a difference with leaving the National DEBT at >1.7 times where you got it verses 1.5. . . . It's actually 1.4 vs. 1.7 in unadjusted dollars. >makes it such that Bush is getting more for OUR money. Actually, I'll take the Internet over the war in Iraq any day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #37 August 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell? there is no real reason to even discuss it. If you disagree, why? Feel free not to participate in this 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
Steel 0 #38 August 19, 2008 QuotePlease, take a math class. --------------------------- Thats hilarious considering that I have a Bachelours in Mathematics and have taken math classes that you probably could never dream of understanding. ========================== The important thing to note about the graph you posted is the slope of the line for national debt. ----------------------------------------- The important thing is who lowered or raised the national DEBT. Clinton's presidency raised it to 1.5 times what it was at before he took office. Bush's will have raised it to between 1.7 and 1.8 times what it was at when he took office. Its not a big difference. Neither one helped it but Bush has a reason (military conflicts) not just irresponsible spending. ================================= If you take a leap of mathematical reasoning, had Clinton's poicies continued, the debt would eventually start going down. ------------------------------------- Right up until 9/11 ========================= During Bush, the rate of increase of debt is going up. Our debt is blowing up at an ever increasing rate. The current fiscal policies are untenable in the medium to long run. --------------------------------------------- That may be true unless something else is done to rectify this. But I don't believe that it would matter how much money was saved by not dealing with security threats, if people were too scared to conduct any business. The towers coming down certainly did not bolster our economy. ================================ Oh, and I like how, when billvon pointed out you were totally wrong, you turned around and said that it didn't matter anyways because Clinton caused 911. Very smooth. I said the deficit of the last 3 years didn't matter if the over all DEBT during his presidency increased. Its funny how when somebody doesn't have a comeback they try to pretend to misunderstand. I mentioned that Bush needed to deal with 9/11 in great part because of Clintons failed policies with Osama Bin Laden, which is a fact.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 August 19, 2008 QuoteIf you spend $1M/year do you have a "rich" lifestyle That depends. Let's assume that you have just started a business - an S-corp. You lease some industrial space for $5.00 a square foot. You need 50k square feet of space, so there's $250k right there. Then you need some machinery. You take out a $500k loan for that, so you're paying roughly $10k per month on that - another $120k per year. Now you need to buy raw materials. Let's keep that going at a pretty small amount of $40k per month. $480k in materials. We're at $850k per year now. So let's add some employees. $300k per year for a small staff. Add another $100k for payroll taxes, etc. Put in another $100k for insurance and compliance, etc. After spending 1.35 million there, you'll drop another $50k on marketing, and hopefully pay yourself some sum of money to keep you alive. So we're up to $1.45 million now. Hopefully, you can sell $121k per month of product - enough to break even. Actually, you'll want to move about $170k per month so you can pay taxes, etc., on it. That'll put you close to breaking even. Well, hello! You make $170k PER MONTH! Obviously, you are wealthy. And you should be taxed by an additional 20% because of your yearly income of over $2 million. As you may be aware, these are the evil corporations that our governments seek to tax more heavily. $2 million per year for one person? You don't need that money. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #40 August 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell? there is no real reason to even discuss it. If you disagree, why? Feel free not to participate in this thread. typical kalled bull shit But in reality what rich is is totally subjective and relative"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #41 August 19, 2008 QuoteQuotePlease, take a math class. --------------------------- Thats hilarious considering that I have a Bachelours in Mathematics and have taken math classes that you probably could never dream of understanding. ========================== The important thing to note about the graph you posted is the slope of the line for national debt. ----------------------------------------- The important thing is who lowered or raised the national DEBT. Clinton's presidency raised it to 1.5 times what it was at before he took office. Bush's will have raised it to between 1.7 and 1.8 times what it was at when he took office. Its not a big difference. Neither one helped it but Bush has a reason (military conflicts) not just irresponsible spending. ================================= If you take a leap of mathematical reasoning, had Clinton's poicies continued, the debt would eventually start going down. ------------------------------------- Right up until 9/11 ========================= During Bush, the rate of increase of debt is going up. Our debt is blowing up at an ever increasing rate. The current fiscal policies are untenable in the medium to long run. --------------------------------------------- That may be true unless something else is done to rectify this. But I don't believe that it would matter how much money was saved by not dealing with security threats, if people were too scared to conduct any business. The towers coming down certainly did not bolster our economy. ================================ Oh, and I like how, when billvon pointed out you were totally wrong, you turned around and said that it didn't matter anyways because Clinton caused 911. Very smooth. I said the deficit of the last 3 years didn't matter if the over all DEBT during his presidency increased. Its funny how when somebody doesn't have a comeback they try to pretend to misunderstand. I mentioned that Bush needed to deal with 9/11 in great part because of Clintons failed policies with Osama Bin Laden, which is a fact. It's about as much a fact as your stating that "deficit"="debt"! You can try to justify the modest costs of the war in Afghanistan that way, but the OPTIONAL war on Iraq has been and continues to be many times more expensive. Had Bush not ignored Afghanistan in favor of his failed Iraq adventure we'd be finished with the Taliban and OBL by now.... 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
billvon 2,406 #42 August 19, 2008 >Feel free not to participate in this thread. Are you kidding? I predict half a dozen posts over how no one should be posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #43 August 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell? there is no real reason to even discuss it. If you disagree, why? Feel free not to participate in this thread. tpical kalled bull shit Would you like to use English for a change?... 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
rushmc 18 #44 August 19, 2008 just re-read my post and stop playing an ass"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #45 August 19, 2008 Quotejust re-read my post and stop playing an ass You sure are posting a lot for someone who thinks it not worth discussing. Billvon's crystal ball still works!... 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
rushmc 18 #46 August 19, 2008 Well then, you are not as clairvoyant as you would like to think yourself to be. but in another regard, I see you and kallend have entered into a compitition "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #47 August 19, 2008 QuoteQuotejust re-read my post and stop playing an ass You sure are posting a lot for someone who thinks it not worth discussing. Billvon's crystal ball still works! Humm, where did I say that? kallend 2 billvon 1 (by the way, I am responding more to billvon than you)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #48 August 19, 2008 QuoteThats hilarious considering that I have a Bachelours in Mathematics and have taken math classes that you probably could never dream of understanding. Really? Wow. I'm quite impressed. Bust out your calc book and refresh your memory on derivatives. QuoteBut I don't believe that it would matter how much money was saved by not dealing with security threats, if people were too scared to conduct any business. The towers coming down certainly did not bolster our economy. I would argue that in anything but the very short term the towers coming down had almost no impact on our economy. The massive military spending spree on a bullshit war, the constant fear mongering, and the preferential treatment toward the very rich, on the other hand, had a substatial effect. QuoteI said the deficit of the last 3 years didn't matter if the over all DEBT during his presidency increased. Its funny how when somebody doesn't have a comeback they try to pretend to misunderstand. Gosh, so please educate me, Mr. Math, how reducng the deficit, and thereby the growth rate of the debt, is not having a positive impact. By your logic, having a budget deficit of $1 is just as bad as having a deficit of $1 trillion. Time to dust off those trusty math books. QuoteI mentioned that Bush needed to deal with 9/11 in great part because of Clintons failed policies with Osama Bin Laden, which is a fact. I'll grant you that Bush had to deal with 911 and Clinton didn't. I'll make you a deal, you show how invading Iraq had anything to do with 911 and I'll agree that all of our current problems are Clinton's fault. I can't believe I'm defending Clinton, I never liked him or his policies, but at least I have the blinders off. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #49 August 19, 2008 >Humm, where did I say that? Come on! One more post! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #50 August 19, 2008 Quote >Humm, where did I say that? Come on! One more post! 2 to 2 ( there ya go big boy) but not one post as you prophesized Now I await you going for the win"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
