What do liberals want the US to be?

[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.

...

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...

So you agree with me that you are counting the same revenue twice. You said what I said it true. And that makes me willfully ignorant, your saying I'm correct.

Again, how do you spend $100 and still have that same $100 in savings? Explain that.

 

[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.

...

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

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

 

[Dad2three]

We should just tax them and put that money into infrastructure and education. Trust me, it is an investment. These rich people make a fortune in America. They need to pay their fair share.

Look at it this way. The tax system was what it was when these people were not yet rich but becoming rich. They became rich under that system. Clearly that tax system worked. But then they got rich and paid off the politicians to change the tax laws so that basically the game is now rigged in their favor.

It's like climbing the corporate ladder but then pulling up the ladder so that no one after you can climb up.

What about the half in this country that don't pay a dime in income taxes? When are they going to pay their fair share of income taxes? Hate to break it to you but zero isn't a fair share.

Why do you choose to go after the 40% of Americans that only have 2 TENTHS of a percent of our total wealth when you look for additional revenue?

Guess which slice of the pie I would look to for additional tax revenue?

The distribution of wealth is not the distribution of capital gains, or personal income. This is the part that you democrats can't seem to get through your stubborn skulls.

The reason everyone should pay the same tax rates is so that everyone has some skin in the game.

In days gone by taxes were a percentage of wealth, for example a percentage of property, or cows, etc. Not sure why democrats don't understand the difference. Sales taxes and property taxes are ways to tax the evil rich. Capital gains and personal income taxes are ways to stop people from becoming rich.

Who said it was?

It shows where the money is....and it ain't with the bottom 40%

I'll ask again, cause it just does not seem to be able to penetrate democrat skulls.

Why do you think higher personal income and higher capital gains taxes is going to change the distribution of wealth?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes





The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).




CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent

 

[Dad2three]

Invest heavily in a federal vocational program to where every district in the nation could have a vocational education center that would teach kids the trades like carpentry, plumbing, welding, etc.
Kids can walk right off the graduation platform and into a job.

Where would you get the money for the additional programs? Higher taxes or by reevaluating existing federal programs and eliminating some to create the new programs? If through higher taxes, need I ask who you would like to see pay more taxes?

I think vocational education is a very practical thing to advocate for.

Expand the JROTC programs.

Expand intramural but eliminate inter-murals that extend past the normal school day. This would free up funding to expand the number of teachers, reduce class size, etc....

As for out of school programs; create a program by which the first 2 years of college are paid for by uncle sam. I've described this before.

Again, how would you fund this?

Tying this together with regular income people being able to keep more of their income would help in the areas of fairness.

What do you mean by "regular income people?"

Which is why I put it in terms of "as a group".

I'm fully aware that you used the term "as a group." I objected to that usage. When you lump people into a "group" and ask why that group is voting a certain way, you ignore the individual nature of the "group" members. There may not be a unifying reason why a perceived group is voting a certain way. Each individual chooses how they will vote based on their own motivations, perceptions, thoughts, history, emotions, etc. It is a mistake to assume that you know what motivates a "group."

Some people like to label people into groups and use those groups divisively. Women do this, white's do that, men are like this, blacks are like that. As though being a woman was the most important thing about every individual woman rather than the specific individuality of that particular woman being the most important thing about her. I don't vote the way I do because I am a man. I vote the way I do because of the particular things I've thought, felt, heard, said, seen, read, and otherwise experienced. Everyone does.

That is what I'm proposing.

The "flat tax" often means ridding ourselves of deductions. I don't mean for that. Just income being taxed the same regardless of where they come from.

But you would eliminate the progressive tax structure? No more income brackets?

No but if you pull over a white dude for drunk driving, you do a warrant sweep if that is police procedure. Just don't do it for black folks. If you're going to let 1 in 3 whites go with a warning, let 1 in 2.85 blacks go. I'm sure most of the time there is no way of knowing the race of a driver but once it's determined, it shouldn't matter.

Are you assuming that the motivation was race or do you know it?

If I grab a coin and flip it 50 times, statistically I should get 25 heads and 25 tails because there is a 50/50 chance of it landing either way. In reality I may get 49 heads and only one tails. Does that mean that the coin was biased, or was it just chance?

Maybe racism is still rampant, but jumping to that conclusion without even considering any other explanation is foolish and divisive.

As for what I think? Let's deal with what I know.

This guy shot a US Congress woman:

View attachment 35100

This guy shot a cop:

This guy punched a cop

This guy...I'm not even sure what he did:
View attachment 35101

Minorites who performed much less violent acts seem to e getting killed by the authorities than whites who commit much more violent acts.

It is easy to cherry-pick 4 scenarios and look only at the outcomes without considering anything else. I could go find two cases of white guys getting killed by white guy cops. Would that indicate a widespread problem of white on white racism?

You admitted "I'm not even sure what he did" yet somehow you are sure that what the cops did was racially motivated?

Even if you looked at every case in the country, the outcome is only part of the story. Without extensive details about each case you would be a fool to draw any conclusions.

"Where would you get the money for the additional programs? Higher taxes or by reevaluating existing federal programs and eliminating some to create the new programs? If through higher taxes, need I ask who you would like to see pay more taxes?"

 

[Dad2three]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

^ Nomination for dumbest post of the year!

How so? Did I lie? Or is it because you cannot understand Capitalism?

Sigh... no offense intended. Sorry... It's just an overly simplistic view of the world, that if you increase minimum wages, magic happens and the economy roars along because of it.

Weird. Putting more money in the hands of the poor, who spend 100% of it, doesn't work? But giving tax breaks to the 'job creators' who shift their money offshore does? *shaking head*


Rule of thumb: right wingers almost always come out on the wrong side of history.


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”
Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes



STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There s Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

They need to match the rates paid on earned income

Money earned from sweat should be taxed at the same rate as money earned from investment

How many times should the same dollar be taxed, Comrade shitflinger? Is there any limit? Tax it when I earn it, tax it when I invest it, tax it again in corporate earnings, then tax it again should I gain a return.

Sounds like greed to me, on the part of you Communists.

Weird you don't understand the money isn't taxed until you earn profit and then the NEW profit (cap gains) is taxed. You don't pay taxes on the money actually invested. ONLY the NEW money gained

Corp? Oh right hide behind a shield and don't expect to pay for the shield? lol

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High ThinkProgress

 

[Mathbud1]

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

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "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..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

 

[Dad2three]

How about narrowing the wage gap? Higher wages would make it just a little easier for the vast majority of Americans to obtain a better standard of living, a higher education, a more secure neighborhood, a brighter future.

The pie has been divided so that the lion's share go to those who do not 'earn' a living. Rather they have made a killing in the market (a rigged game). What is more noble: the rich open factories and pay a fair wage or; the rich protect their wealth with tax breaks and off shore accounts where their wealth does not circulate through our economy?

I realize that putting these two choices in the realm of nobility is a tough choice for anyone who merely thinks of their own good first and the wider American society as an after thought. But there it is. Should we strengthen the American economy by bolstering the buying power of the many, or do we advance our economy by sequestering wealth among the very few?

How do you narrow the wage gap? Mandate higher wages? As long as we are mandating wages why not pick a wage that won't need to be raised again any time soon. Let's say $30/hr.

Cue the "nobody is suggesting that idiot. We just want a 'little' increase."

Sure. Let's just ignore the question: If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little? Answer that question honestly, and we might actually be able to have a discussion.

Raising the minimum wage will help fuel the economy. Making it just a little easier for the working poor to make ends meet means the working poor will have disposable income to spend at your shop. Once that increase happens at your shop, you and your employees could afford a higher wage. That means even more capital coursing through our economy. Consumer spending drives better than 70% of our economy. The greater the spending power of the vast majority of consumers means every economic outlet may get an influx of customers. More customers means greater production. More production means more jobs.

Choking off capital by sequestering among the very few essentially kills the golden goose of American capitalism, namely the buying power of the consumer.

Care to take a stab at answering the question?

If raising the minimum wage a little will have nothing but a positive impact on the economy, why not raise it more than a little?

The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf



Increase min wage 10% you might get a 2% 'help' to the poor. Increase it 150% you might get 1%... LABOR DEMAND FOR MIN WAGE JOBS, IS NOT ELASTIC BUT SET. INCREASE WAGES AND IT HELPS. TO MUCH AND THEIR IS A POSSIBILITY OF HURTING



According to Cooper’s analysis, almost 70 percent of the benefits go to families with incomes of less than $60,000. More than half go to families with incomes below $40,000. Not quite one fourth, to families with incomes below $20,000.

Dube’s new paper, however, goes further. He measures what actually happened to family incomes after federal and state minimum wage increases between 1990 and 2012 –including any changes in the level or the composition of employment in response to the minimum wage.

Dube finds that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated, on average, with a 1.2 to 3.7 percent decrease in the federal poverty rate.

Minimum Wage and Poverty CEPR Blog



A GOOD LOOK AT IT HERE

The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand


The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand Jonathan Malesic Ph.D.

 

[Dad2three]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

Show where there has been with min wage increases? lol

 

[Dad2three]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

Ever heard of Eddie O'Connor? Derivatives existed long before Bush.

Banks were not the problem. Fed was. Banks were allowed and were simply betting on Fed, or rather on Fed lies. Let me ask you something... if you were allowed to do the same as banks did, how would you bet, for or against Fed?

Weird the US has had a Bankster failure under Ronnie AND Dubya. What did these 2 have in common?

"Another form of easing facilitated the rapid rise of mortgages that didn't require borrowers to fully document their incomes. In 2006, these low- or no-doc loans comprised 81 percent of near-prime, 55 percent of jumbo, 50 percent of subprime and 36 percent of prime securitized mortgages."

Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN'T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.




Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.


"It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

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

 

[Dad2three]

First George W. Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a $516 trillion dollar derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy in 2008.

Then Republicans on the Supreme Court voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions in the Citizens United decision.

Then Republicans in the House shut down the government and threatened the country with default.

Why would anyone vote for a party that hates government and continually tries to damage our country?

Ever heard of Eddie O'Connor? Derivatives existed long before Bush.

Banks were not the problem. Fed was. Banks were allowed and were simply betting on Fed, or rather on Fed lies. Let me ask you something... if you were allowed to do the same as banks did, how would you bet, for or against Fed?

Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.


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



Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist s View Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble




Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?


… after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate. …

When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:

Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble AEI

 

[Dad2three]

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

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "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..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

 

[Dad2three]

Trickle down

Fool me once....

Trickle down?

You're speaking of the 'economic theory', which confiscates property from those who created it, thus who rightfully own it, keeps most of it to sustain their power and trickles down a small percentage of it to those who could have created their own, but who CHOSE NOT TO... .

It's a Deceitful theory which uses FRAUDULENT reasoning as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance: The Fundamental Elements of Socialism.

Save us your libertarian logic

Contributing to the society from which you benefit is not a confiscation of property. Our wealthy are paying at one of the lowest levels in our history and laughing all the way to the bank

Confiscation of one's property is confiscation. Contributions are those things given without penalty.

And just as an FYI: That evil confiscates less at one time or more at another, is irrelevant... DUMBASS!

Taxation is the way society pays for itself. We have one of the lowest levels of taxation of any industrialized country
Stop with the confiscation of property bullshit

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Yes, ANOTHER wingnutter not knowing the diff with EFFECTIVE versus marginal. The US tax BURDEN on Corps is ONLY lower in Mexico and Chile in the developed world. Low teens is horrible right?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

“Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett explained, even bringing a chart to prove his point:
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

 

[Dad2three]

Projection from a righty. Shocking

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

So says you. Keynes' theories have been debunked by history.

lol, THAT'S why almost every nation uses it, lol

Yes, in a way. Keynes' theories justify their tax and spend like there's no tomorrow policies. If they had to use correct economic theories, they would all have to cut their spending by 90%.

Oh wait, you are trying to use PART of Keynes policies? PAYING OFF DEBT IN GOOD TIMES WAS THE OTHER PART!!!!

More 'trickle' will work though right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Same reason Bush should have only given his rich buddies a little tax break and not the one he gave that helped put us in a Great Recession. Moderation.

So there is a negative impact potential when you mandate wage changes?

I know all those arguments. We should have never raised the minimum wage above $3 hr because it just raised the cost of everything.

Ok then what is your solution? I say the workers of America need to unite again. Unionize. Only you don't have to belong to the Big 3 to join. This next union is for everyone. If you don't pay a fair wage you get a bad rating from this union. If you do something really bad we will picket you. So people who don't even work at your company will be picketing you. As a union member, I'll volunteer on my day off or if I'm out of work and we all do our time helping our fellow union members. We won't spend our money at companies that don't pay a fair wage or treat their employees right. Let the free market decide. So your company doesn't have to BE union to be fucked with by our union.

How would what you are suggesting have different end results than government mandated wage increases? Forcing wages to go up is not "Let[ting] the free market decide." Using strong arm force to manipulate wages, be it the strong arm of the government or the strong arm of a mob, will amount to the same end result: an increase in the cost of labor. That cost has to have an effect no matter how it is brought into being.

Our focus should be on forcing down the other costs businesses face and forcing up the value of labor. There will always be some people making less than what you can feed a family on. We need to get back to the point where the people who have those jobs are the people who don't need to feed a family on their wages. Anyone who does need to feed a family on their wages needs to have enough skills to make their labor valuable enough to earn that much. Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate.

"Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate."


lol, Wing nutter alert


Rule of thumb: right wingers almost always come out on the wrong side of history.



"It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not, accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest. England is certainly, in the present times, a much richer country than any part of North America. The wages of labour, however, are much higher in North America than in any part of England."
Adam Smith



"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."
President Theodore Roosevelt


"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." - Adam Smith

 

[Dad2three]

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.

You mean a wingnutter can't figure out persons position? Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

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...

True. Except NAFTA was a Heritage Foundation idea, announced by Ronnie Reagan the day he ran for Prez in 1979 and the Reagan admin started negotiating NAFTA in 1986. Poppy got the agreement together. Clinton got it passed

 

[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.

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.

Weird YOU kept arguing there was no surplus. NOW you want to argue there was no surplus IF there is no 'lock box' on SS funds? You do know the difference right? AND that even without SS taxes, Clinton had a surplus?

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


Yes, SS trust fund is IOU's. Why do you think Reagan increased taxes by 60% on SS to hide the TRUE costs of his tax cuts for the rich?

 

[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

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...

So you agree with me that you are counting the same revenue twice. You said what I said it true. And that makes me willfully ignorant, your saying I'm correct.

Again, how do you spend $100 and still have that same $100 in savings? Explain that.

Gawd you're a moron

I never stated your false premise Bubba. YOUR posit was there was no surplus. Easily refuted

Yes excess payroll taxes came into Gov't that was used as income and ALSO that payroll tax money was purchasing bonds that created debt. Gov't isn't like your household

 

[Mathbud1]

The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf



Increase min wage 10% you might get a 2% 'help' to the poor. Increase it 150% you might get 1%... LABOR DEMAND FOR MIN WAGE JOBS, IS NOT ELASTIC BUT SET. INCREASE WAGES AND IT HELPS. TO MUCH AND THEIR IS A POSSIBILITY OF HURTING



According to Cooper’s analysis, almost 70 percent of the benefits go to families with incomes of less than $60,000. More than half go to families with incomes below $40,000. Not quite one fourth, to families with incomes below $20,000.

Dube’s new paper, however, goes further. He measures what actually happened to family incomes after federal and state minimum wage increases between 1990 and 2012 –including any changes in the level or the composition of employment in response to the minimum wage.

Dube finds that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated, on average, with a 1.2 to 3.7 percent decrease in the federal poverty rate.

Minimum Wage and Poverty CEPR Blog



A GOOD LOOK AT IT HERE

The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand


The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand Jonathan Malesic Ph.D.

Interesting reading.

I wish I had the time to spend going through the math to really understand it all.

The big standout from all of the articles is the word "if."

There were a lot of "what if this" and "if we assume this..."

All of the sources seem to agree that there will be job losses as a result of an increase, but that the increased spending power of those still employed should offset that in the overall economy.

In other words, some people will be hurt by it, but others will benefit from it.

It's all very uncertain and guessing-game-like.