What do liberals want the US to be?

[Dad2three]

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

Relativism... it kills viability. And that is what you saw coerce the financial markets into to doing what they should have never accepted, but which it did... .

The chart tells the entire story... everyone was looking out for their own interests, having set aside any concern for objective principle. Lower mortgage standards inevitably caused a run on those highly coveted instruments, which caused the value of the underlying property to increase until the market could no longer sustain those values... then: BOOM! The House of Relativist cards comes crashing down and fascism has once again screwed everyone that have come into contact with it.

And just as the Left has always claimed: That the Right Wing fooled the Leftwing... in reality, the subjectivity overruled the objectivity which was essential to preventing what happened, from happening.

And there is only one ideology which is built upon and around the exclusion of objectivity... so despite all of the endless 'debate' which to some lends the appearance of complexity, there is nothing complex about where the problem started, who started it, who milked it and whose responsible for it.

I'm all for charging the Corporate officers with crimes... but only after those in government who started the process are charged, convicted and have been executed. Then, we can go to work demonstrating the downside to letting government tell you how you'll handle your responsibilities, to the people presently handling their responsibilities... and I bet you that those people will be most forthcoming in the investigations of who in government is telling them how to handle the responsibilities TODAY!

And in the span of a few weeks, this all gets worked out and the cultural train is set right back up on its principled tracks.

•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust


A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[elektra]

I would replace the world liberal with progressive statist. Today's liberals are not liberals in the classical sense.

Progressive statists want a supreme federal government, where people are totally dependent on the state, and thus the state is an inseparable part of their lives. On the social front, they want everyone to either agree with them, or be ostracized and eliminated from society, or at least to just shut up in public.

You are right, today's Liberals want to control over everyone's lives.

 

[Dad2three]

Well, I am glad the guy from the Ayn Rand Center can tell us with certainty that bank deregulation played no role in the financial crisis. No bias or conflict of interest in promoting reckless pirate capitalism there?

Got it, YOU can't refuter THEIR facts that CLEARLY point out that what happened WASN'T do to not enough regulation, BUT REGULATORS ON THE BEAT WAS THE PROBLEM. Dubya (like Reagan did with Mr Grays warning in 1984 with the S&L crisis) ignored regulator warnings as he cheered on the subprime bubble because he had ZERO growth without it!




all outlined here

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


November 27, 2007

A Snapshot of the Subprime Market

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding:

2007 $1.3 trillion

Dollar amount of subprime loans outstanding in 2003: $332 billion

Percentage increase from 2003: 292%


Number of subprime mortgages made in 2005-2006 projected to end in foreclosure:

1 in 5



Proportion of subprime mortgages made from 2004 to 2006 that come with "exploding" adjustable interest rates: 89-93%


Proportion approved without fully documented income: 43-50%


Proportion with no escrow for taxes and insurance: 75%



Proportion of completed foreclosures attributable to adjustable rate loans out of all loans made in 2006 and bundled in subprime mortgage backed securities: 93%


Subprime share of all mortgage originations in 2006: 28%


Subprime share of all mortgage origination in 2003: 8%



Subprime share of all home loans outstanding:
14%


Subprime share of foreclosure filings in the 12 months ending June 30, 2007: 64%

No one is arguing Bush didn't lower lending standards. But you ignore Clinton did the same and helped contribute to the resulting crisis, and the lowering of standards began under Carter through the CRA. Also, the repeal of Glass Steagall and artificially low interest rates of the Federal Reserve played a role.

You are a partisan hack with no perspective.

Got it, YOU are projecting as aa POS...

WEIRD HOW IT TOOK SO LONG FOR CARTER AND CLINTON TO DO THIS:

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf


Bushs documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

YES, CLINTON HAD A HOMES PUSH, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ SINCE FDR. WEIRD ONLY RONNIE AND DUBYA IGNORED REGULATOR WARNINGS AND HAD MAJOR ISSUES THOUGH???



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006


These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Examining the big lie How the facts of the economic crisis stack up The Big Picture

PERHAPS ONE TIME YOU'LL ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS??? LOL

The reason there weren't subprime mortgages to the degree there were in the 2000s that there were in the 90s is because we were in a tech bubble. Mortgage rates were low, but higher yields existed in these artificially highly valued tech companies. The Housing Bubble was artificially pumped up by the Federal Reserve in response to the bursting of the Dot.Com bubble in the Early 2000s.
Here s How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble s Lax Lending - Business Insider
Dubya s Double Dip - New York Times


This idea that Clinton lowering standards didn't add to the crisis, only Bush lowering standards did, is objectively absurd on its face, as is claiming the Fed artificially lowering rates and Glass Steagall repeal played no role is. Just because the bubble burst under Bush, doesn't mean he is exclusively responsible. He helped accelerate lax lending standards that were already in place.

The financial collapse is the responsibility of an entire system of government that has been compromised by wall street donors dictating policy through political contributions and a revolving door between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street.
The ever-revolving door between government and Wall Street

Relativism... it kills viability. And that is what you saw coerce the financial markets into to doing what they should have never accepted, but which it did... .

The chart tells the entire story... everyone was looking out for their own interests, having set aside any concern for objective principle. Lower mortgage standards inevitably caused a run on those highly coveted instruments, which caused the value of the underlying property to increase until the market could no longer sustain those values... then: BOOM! The House of Relativist cards comes crashing down and fascism has once again screwed everyone that have come into contact with it.

And just as the Left has always claimed: That the Right Wing fooled the Leftwing... in reality, the subjectivity overruled the objectivity which was essential to preventing what happened, from happening.

And there is only one ideology which is built upon and around the exclusion of objectivity... so despite all of the endless 'debate' which to some lends the appearance of complexity, there is nothing complex about where the problem started, who started it, who milked it and whose responsible for it.

I'm all for charging the Corporate officers with crimes... but only after those in government who started the process are charged, convicted and have been executed. Then, we can go to work demonstrating the downside to letting government tell you how you'll handle your responsibilities, to the people presently handling their responsibilities... and I bet you that those people will be most forthcoming in the investigations of who in government is telling them how to handle the responsibilities TODAY!

And in the span of a few weeks, this all gets worked out and the cultural train is set right back up on its principled tracks.

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI mdash Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

 

[Dad2three]

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.

See how easy this is?

You K/K/Klowns need to grow a brain and recognize a YEARLY BUDGET (money coming in versus going out) is different than DEBT. Yes, EXCESS tax collections from payroll taxes came in and bonds were bought that increased US debt.

 

[Dad2three]

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The "Surplus" was relevant to "The Clinton Budget", not the national debt. And given that such was centered well within Kaz's point, the above post is hysterical.

See how easy this is?

No

No surprise there. But without regard to your problem, that's all there is to it.

The Annual Budget does not account for the Federal Debt. The Surplus was purely a function of the annual budget.

Try this:

Let's pretend the world began in 1994. The year prior to the Conservative Revolution, the Clinton Cult was given a budget of $10 and they spent $19.90. Leaving a deficit of $9.90 and a subsequent debt of 9.90.

Which is to say that the budget provided for the Clinton Cult was $10 and they spent MORE than the budget allowed by $9.90, thus they had to borrow money to spend it, leaving a debt of that amount.

After the Conservatives came in and tossed most of the options that the Clinton cabal was spending on, they were again budgeted the $10, but because of the cutting of the programs which were beyond the previous years budget, they only spent $9.98. That left a .02 surplus, meaning that 2 cents of what was budgeted were not spent.

IF that ENTIRE 2 cent surplus were applied to the debt, the debt would then be reduced by .02, leaving a debt of $9.88, before the 10% interests on the debt (~$1.00) is accounted for leaving the total debt at $10.88.

Note that while the annual budget realized a surplus, the debt increased.

Clinton's surplus was do to the conservatives? lol. Weird, I thought it was the fiscal discipline of the Dems/BJ Bill who created 3 new tax brackets and took the top rate to 39.6%. ? You know the bill EVERY GOPer in Congress voted against? AFTER BJ Bill's first surplus the GOP passed a $700+billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more surpluses! You do realize PUBLIC debt decreased but since excess PAYROLL taxes came in, intra Gov't debt increased as required by law? Buying bonds with the money?

 

[Dad2three]

Back in the 50s and 60s, people were wise enough to realize that since A.M. bandwidth is limited, that in order to avoid monopolization, it was necessary to implement certain requirements that ensured it served the public interests instead of merely the interests of those owning the stations. The fairness doctrine was the way to preserve that long-standing American tradition of free speech and access to a wide range of ideas so as to enable an informed electorate rather than having such ideas hand-selected for us.

The influence of money as it relates to radio should be obvious. It takes a lot of the stuff to broadcast, and in the years since the 60s, the trend has been towards conglomeration. There are fewer and fewer independent radio stations all the time, having been replaced by giants such as clear channel and cumulus, which have now merged, thus allowing for the monopolization of opinion even further.

The re-implementation of this doctrine that acted to conserve our American valuesin regards to free speech would certainly not end the ability of enormous corporations to control the political climate of this country, but it would at least provide for a little balance in the way this media operates.

That would assume that broadcast is the method of choice for Americans in receiving their news and other content. I would argue that in this day and age that is no longer remotely accurate. I NEVER listen to radio and I am far from alone in that. I much more likely to listen to streaming media, podcasts, etc even in the car. I read news online.

As you said yourself, the Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization. There has been a significant increase in the available means of transmitting and receiving information since that time. Do you still see it as expedient for the government to mandate the content that is broadcast in the current situation?

You CAN'T be honest can you? Without the Fairness Doctrine, right wingers just get to lie. Yes, other media is out there, but fed off of mostly Faux and right wing hate radio bullshit!


Tax cuts will bring in more revenues? lol. Biggest lie. Tax cuts create jobs? Second biggest. Obama a 'leftist, Marxist, Commie, etc' (He's Corp) 3rd biggest ...

What did I say that was dishonest?

Troll on friend. Troll on.

"Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization"


6 Corps own 90% of US media Bubba. Seriously????

And?

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was "to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views."

"Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time."

Again, the point of the Fairness Doctrine was to avoid "monopolization of the message" by the companies that own the broadcasting networks. At the time it was justified by the limitations on bandwidth that made it difficult or impossible to "get your message out there" without using a network owned by a major corporation.

Now there are many methods for getting your message out there. A YouTube video made by a kid living in a trailer park can be seen by millions. Anyone can make a podcast or write a blog. Satellite radio has hundreds of stations. The limitations that were used as justification for government controlling what must be broadcast are no longer as valid.

Now, there may be other justifications that could be put forth, and some may even have merit, but the justification that radio bandwidth limitations present an opportunity for corporations to monopolize the distribution of information is no longer valid.

Edit: forgot to post the link - Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

 

[Dad2three]

That would assume that broadcast is the method of choice for Americans in receiving their news and other content. I would argue that in this day and age that is no longer remotely accurate. I NEVER listen to radio and I am far from alone in that. I much more likely to listen to streaming media, podcasts, etc even in the car. I read news online.

As you said yourself, the Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization. There has been a significant increase in the available means of transmitting and receiving information since that time. Do you still see it as expedient for the government to mandate the content that is broadcast in the current situation?

You CAN'T be honest can you? Without the Fairness Doctrine, right wingers just get to lie. Yes, other media is out there, but fed off of mostly Faux and right wing hate radio bullshit!


Tax cuts will bring in more revenues? lol. Biggest lie. Tax cuts create jobs? Second biggest. Obama a 'leftist, Marxist, Commie, etc' (He's Corp) 3rd biggest ...

What did I say that was dishonest?

Troll on friend. Troll on.

"Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization"


6 Corps own 90% of US media Bubba. Seriously????

And?

The purpose of the Fairness Doctrine was "to provide adequate coverage of public issues, and to ensure that coverage fairly represented opposing views."

"Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time."

Again, the point of the Fairness Doctrine was to avoid "monopolization of the message" by the companies that own the broadcasting networks. At the time it was justified by the limitations on bandwidth that made it difficult or impossible to "get your message out there" without using a network owned by a major corporation.

Now there are many methods for getting your message out there. A YouTube video made by a kid living in a trailer park can be seen by millions. Anyone can make a podcast or write a blog. Satellite radio has hundreds of stations. The limitations that were used as justification for government controlling what must be broadcast are no longer as valid.

Now, there may be other justifications that could be put forth, and some may even have merit, but the justification that radio bandwidth limitations present an opportunity for corporations to monopolize the distribution of information is no longer valid.

Edit: forgot to post the link - Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ROFLMNAO! Keep in mind that the word 'fairness' is a misnomer which the Left uses like a bludgeon. It's a relative term which when formally defined, can never mean what the Left implies through its usage of the term.

The term was also central to the coercion to strip the mortgage industry of the application of sound, actuarial lending principle. It turns out that those principles, quite literally executed fairness... in that those who were otherwise qualified to service large amounts of debt over long periods, had access to such debt... and those who were not, did not.

What the Left wanted was unfair lending practices... but, using that term REALLY strangles the means to sell the idea. So, they LIED!

The same is true with the "Fairness Doctrine". Ya see kids, Left-think, which was claiming that it was not being given enough air-time, DOESN'T SELL TO REASONABLE PEOPLE. When it is being sold, people CHANGE THE CHANNEL, or turn off the radio. So in fact, Left-think was being more time than was fair, given that radio stations exist to make money... not to satisfy the needs of sociopaths to have their perverse notions validated through such being aired through public airwaves.

We see this demonstrated time and again, through the consistent failure of every would-be enterprise which was engaged in the sale of that nonsense.

"The term was also central to the coercion to strip the mortgage industry of the application of sound, actuarial lending principle. It turns out that those principles, quite literally executed fairness... in that those who were otherwise qualified to service large amounts of debt over long periods, had access to such debt... and those who were not, did not.

What the Left wanted was unfair lending practices... but, using that term REALLY strangles the means to sell the idea. So, they LIED!"


REALLY? NAME THE GAAAWDAM LAW THAT CREATED A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Philippines? Australia? China? Ireland? etc? lol


The massive growth of nonconventional mortgage securitization had spread at least $3.8 trillion of assets directly linked to these mortgages to financial institutions around the world by the beginning of 2007. Nonetheless it is clear that the markets, the credit ratings agencies, regulators,and most of the large banks all registered comparatively little response when housing prices started
to stall out and mortgage default rates began to rise in late 2006. Several large banks such as Merrill Lynch and Citibank continued expanding their non-prime businesses aggressively during the first two quarters of 2007. In March of 2007 Fed chairman Ben Bernanke stated in congressional testimony that “at this juncture, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained.” The credit ratings agencies also continued to maintain an implausibly upbeat outlook through the first two quarters of 2007.

Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

 

[Dad2three]

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

ROFLMNAO!

So a trillion dollars in public debt was paid down, despite the government never having realized budget surpluses anywhere NEAR a trillion dollars?

Now since government has no other means of paying down debt, beyond the spending of less money than for which they have budgeted, given that to tax beyond that which is required to run the government is the definition of tyranny, I wonder how it could be that the US Federal Government came up with a trillion extra dollars, which it did not borrow, thus which would axiomatically increase the debt, by an equal amount?

Gawd you right wingers are pathetic. What happens to excess tax revenues in payroll taxes? Oh right they buy bonds that then create debt. Yes, paying off PUBLIC debt while excess INTRA Govt debt (excess tax revenues buying US bonds as required by law) grows, is possible dummy


Bill Clinton touts fiscal record as president during campaign stop in New Jersey PolitiFact New Jersey

 

[Dad2three]

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Got it. You are being willfully ignorant. Shocking

Yes, excess payroll taxes ARE counted twice. As revenues AND as debt...

 

[Dad2three]

Sure, they 'believe in' fiscal responsibility and freedom, lol

So in the Liberal World if you can't pay your bills you print more money (debt in our case)...

In the Conservatives World you quit spending until you can afford it...

I know this is too simple to comprehend...

I knew it was too simple for you...

It's always nice when you prove my point...

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

 

[Dad2three]

You mean unions support a path to citizenship? Shocking you Birchers hate it


Nov 20, 2014 - Breaking: Americans support a path to citizenship. About six in 10 support a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants

Not they don't. Half of Americans oppose Obama's executive Amnesty and citizenship to illegals.
Pew Poll Half of Americans Oppose Obama Exec Amnesty

However, none of this changes the fact that unons should support protecting their workers wages, regardless of political winds, and protect their interests.

Good for you Bubba, you don't take my posit, but instead make up your own and argue from there. Typical from you

Americans strongly support a path to citizenship.


About six in 10 support a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, according to a new poll from NBC News and Wall Street Journal. And that number jumps to a whopping 74 percent if you qualify that the undocumented immigrants must take steps like paying back taxes.

The very same poll, though, also asked people whether they support legal status -- shy of citizenship -- for illegal immigrants. Support for this, somewhat amazingly, is just 39 percent, with 48 percent opposed.



In other words, huge majorities support a path to citizenship. But on a path to legal status, it's reversed.

Americans strongly support a path to citizenship. That means less for Obama than you think. - The Washington Post

Amnesty is the path to citizenship. What both our polls shows is that it depends how the word the question. When they say a path to citizenship, as opposed to amnesty, since this is broad and can mean any number of things, it receives more support. When the poll says amnesty, Americans oppose it.

And this still doesn't address the point that unions shouldn't be based on polls, but on protecting their workers wages, which are threatened by immigration through increase labor supply. Simple economics.

Good you agree, my original posit was correct, and you changing it and arguing from that posit, was your normal right wing crap...

I don't know where you said Americans oppose amnesty. But yes, the polls do show this. Glad we agree. But that wouldn't matter as it is a matter of fact

Got it, you are an ignorant liar. Shockinbg you being a con and all, lol
MY original posit:

"You mean unions support a path to citizenship? Shocking you Birchers hate it


Nov 20, 2014 - Breaking: Americans support a path to citizenship. About six in 10 support a new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants"

What do liberals want the US to be Page 89 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

A dollar I earn from my stock's dividend buys $1.00 worth of gasoline right? A dollar you earn working at your job buys one dollar worth of gasoline, right? So it should be taxed the same.

It's pretty simple.

The $1.00 I use to buy stock, wasn't it already taxed when I earned it working at my job? What moral imperative allows you to tax it again? Your greed seems insufficient to me.

lol, Stupid right wingers. You pay taxes on GENERATED INCOME dummy (WHY A SUPER LOW TAX RATE VERSUS A PLUMBER, ROOFER, TEACHER). NOT on the capital. You have a cost basis to write off...

 

[Dad2three]

Where is the money going to come from for longer lifes?

Let em die

We can't afford to let em live

dont remind me liberals never think ahead, just like in the 40s when median age of death was 45, they set the age of retirement to 65. Thinking payouts to S.S would be minimal

Right wing MYTH. Shocking

Life Expectancy for Social Security

If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.

As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future

So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women). Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security.
Social Security History

 

[Wyatt earp]

Quit Fucking lying. Moron

 

[Mathbud1]

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.

Simple.

See.

Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!

I guess you didn't follow the posts.. Sorry for you Bubba

I followed them fine. You avoided answering directly as hard as you could. Instead you gave gibberish and indirect answers. Which, I've noticed, is common for you.

 

[Care4all]

DON'T KNOW WHAT A YEARLY BUDGET IS HUH? SHOCKING

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

 

[Care4all]

Clinton DID NOT create NAFTA, he did not negotiate with other countries and other country Presidents on NAFTA, and he did not persuade these other countries to sign the NAFTA Treaty....

ALL of this was done BEFORE Clinton even announced his running for President, by President Bush 1....

HOWEVER, from the moment Clinton began running for President, he told the public and the media that he would HONOR President Bush's Treaty with these other Nations, and would sign it.

He did not speak out against it. At the time, he thought President Bush's Treaty was good for the USA...

That's how I remember it...

 

[kaz]

Begging the question. Why did the national debt go up every year he was in office if we ran a surplus. That's the first question I asked you, Sparky. There's a reason you're evading it, it shows your lie.

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^Liberal Utopia. All powerful government, unarmed citizens