ADN

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122471696933660407.html

If we may borrow a phrase, this is the triumph of hope over experience. The one thing Washington hasn't failed to do in recent years is spend, yet the economy doesn't seem to have improved on the event. Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, has calculated that in 2008 Congress enacted $332 billion of "emergency" supplemental spending bills, only half of which was for the Iraq war. Do you feel stimulated?

I am looking forwards to it... :dance: To quote someone on the article:

Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to managing the economy. We heard the same kind of fears before Clinton was elected, and we got eight great years. Don't insult us by pretending you know what you're talking about anymore.

Kumicho wrote:I am looking forwards to it... :dance: To quote someone on the article:

Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to managing the economy. We heard the same kind of fears before Clinton was elected, and we got eight great years. Don't insult us by pretending you know what you're talking about anymore.

EIGHT GREAT YEARS??? you are delusional. The impact of clinton's decisions are still in red on our books. and don't talk about how he budgeted a surplus. chances are you don't know enough about it to actually defend that statement against the facts.

ACTUAL BUDGET NUMBERS:

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

(source US treasury http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLog ... ication=np)

He *projected a turn of the deficit that he ramped*, and it never turned out or ONCE lowered the national debt. The national debt skyrocketed under president Clinton, like never before, mostly due to inflation. But people *saw* more dollars flowing, so they felt like they had money.

the fact of the matter is our economy MUST be allowed to equililbrate,.. FDR takign us off the gold standard will be our undoing, otherwise, he DELAYED the Great Depression by making money worth less... and giving more people paper to play with.

That was not a real solution.

How am I delusional...Like...I don't know how much money I was making in 1999 vs how much money I'm making now..? WTF..? I know how much gas cost in 1999 vs how much it costs now...You don't tell me, or presume to tell me I'm delusional cause I don't think about things the way you do, or see things the way you do...Honestly, who do you think you're talking to..? Do I strike you as someone incapable of finding things out on his own..? Read over these threads Homez, I hold my own...Every down...Square your shoulders...

If you want to talk national debt, how to lower it (It skyrocketed under Clinton largely because of the multi-national act, a bill that allowed the U.S. to go over and get cheap labor), adverse economic plans...Start the topic...Otherwise...? Be cool...

Real talk...You don't know what I know, and what I don't know...I'm not in a hurry to run and try and seem like I know what I'm talking about on every single subject...Bush inherited budget surpluses...He depleted them...If you have beef with that, your beef isn't with me...This is widely accepted...You want to debate that..? Start the topic and lets go...

Want the economy to balance out..? Sever all international exports and regardless of cost, bring everything back to the U.S...The economic impact of that alone would be significant...The purpose of eradicating the national debt is purposeless...That's why nobody is serious about trying to eliminate it...The debt is more or less a reflection of our international activity...

Like I said, that's a whole new topic man...

I was responding the notion of italicized words that said "eight great years" - if you said them or not. That is delusional. They were eight years without consideration for the future that were steeped in intergovernmental obligations he did not properly classify as debt, which is exactly what they are.

Read this http://www.justfacts.com/news.impactSS.asp

I don't know what "Multi-National Act" you are giving Clinton a pass based on, because the only one I know of from then was Mass-Burma in 1996. And his administration was SILENTLY in favor of, and openly backed the court's decision. The next time I know of an act that addressed Multi-Nationalism was Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. As a former international Operations systems developer/administrator and current regulatory analyst of the largest multinational energy and oil trade relationships in the world, SarBox is still in my bookmarks to this day. Actually, I got a test on SarBox compliancre next week.

I am not being mean when I say this idea that Clinton balanced the budget is delusional. I am just telling the truth. It is a common delusion that Clinton balanced the budget when in fact he did not. The budget has not and will not have a surplus until 1 Dollar is backed by the gold standard, which has not existed since Franklin D. Roosevelt began to print money worth less because no gold backed it up.

The stability of a nonmaterial economy of faith-based currency is a delusion.

And most people will eat that steak dinner they pay for with false money than face the REAL TRUTH that their money is worthless. That is why money CAN NOT be the only standard of human sense of worth, or we as a country WILL die.

raum wrote:I was responding the notion of italicized words that said "eight great years" - if you said them or not.

My sentence ends with, "To quote someone on the article," to which you responded, "you are delusional"...

But semantics aside man, this stuff is not that difficult to explain or understand...This is not rocket science, hell, it is not even half as bending to comprehend as a smidgen of things we've had in personal conversations about things FAR less conventional than this...Show me where any of this goes beyond AP level econ in high school and I'll shit you a few silver dollars...

raum wrote:chances are you don't know enough about it to actually defend that statement against the facts.

I never said that, and if I had said it, please believe, I'd be ready for full fledged talks...Here's the thing...My lack of passion for politics and the like is not even in the same ballpark as yours...Clearly...But that's probably what gives us the appearance of conflicting ideas, not comprehension...I don't get the same rise as you do...Any person who has graduated high school should be aware of these things...Just because I keep things light here shouldn't give you or anyone else the impression that I'm naive or uninformed...

This political shit, this isn't football...I don't care about it...You want me to go toe to toe about something, try to tell me there's another running back in the game better than Jim Brown...Lets debate Michael vs Kobe...But whether or not Clinton balanced the budget..? What a CDR...I'm more likely to keep any details about that I know to myself for the simple fact that it just doesn't matter to me...Sometimes when I have ideas about something and feel like exploring them (like Ayers or Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank) I go into more in depth things...

This was a simple article and read...Shit man, you didn't even say anything, you just gave the link and a quote...I gave a simple response, and then things go off the deep end :laff: ...

raum wrote:

Kumicho wrote: EIGHT GREAT YEARS??? you are delusional. The impact of clinton's decisions are still in red on our books. and don't talk about how he budgeted a surplus. chances are you don't know enough about it to actually defend that statement against the facts.

ACTUAL BUDGET NUMBERS:

Fiscal
Year YearEnding National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

(source US treasury http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLog ... ication=np)

He *projected a turn of the deficit that he ramped*, and it never turned out or ONCE lowered the national debt. The national debt skyrocketed under president Clinton, like never before, mostly due to inflation.

Oh my...

The national debt skyrocketed under Clinton like never before?

(In millions of dollars)

1980 .................................... 909,041
1981 .................................... 994,828
1982 .................................... 1,137,315
1983 .................................... 1,371,660
1984 .................................... 1,564,586
1985 .................................... 1,817,423
1986 .................................... 2,120,501
1987 .................................... 2,345,956
1988 .................................... 2,601,104
1989 .................................... 2,867,800
1990 .................................... 3,206,290
1991 .................................... 3,598,178
1992 .................................... 4,001,787

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... f/hist.pdf

Under Reagan the debt rose $2.7 trillion, compared to $1.4 trillion under Clinton. During H.W. Bush's administration it grew another $1.4 trillion in just 4 years.

During the Carter administration the debt only grew by $0.2 trillion, and just $0.24 trillion during the first 2 years of the Gipper as he took over from that silly old peanut farmer.

Under dubya it's grown $5 trillion, and has accelerated it's growth far more during recent years than it did during the first 2 years of the dubya administration.

Under Reagan, the gross debt as a % of the GDP grew every year (with the exception of '81). The debt was equivalent to 33.3% of the GDP in '80, and 51.9% by the time he left. It increased to 64.1% after H.W.

1980 .................................... 33.3
1981 .................................... 32.6
1982 .................................... 35.2
1983 .................................... 39.9
1984 .................................... 40.7
1985 .................................... 43.9
1986 .................................... 48.1
1987 .................................... 50.5
1988 .................................... 51.9

1989 .................................... 53.1
1990 .................................... 55.9
1991 .................................... 60.6
1992 .................................... 64.1


In the Clinton years, the debt as % of the GDP dropped from 66.2% to 58%. It continued to drop in 2001.

1993 .................................... 66.2
1994 .................................... 66.7
1995 .................................... 67.2
1996 .................................... 67.3
1997 .................................... 65.6
1998 .................................... 63.5
1999 .................................... 61.4
2000 .................................... 58.0
2001 .................................... 57.4

The % will go back to Reagan/H.W. Bush levels at the end of dubya's 2nd term. Since this stat is a better indication of the overall health of the economy, one has to wonder why the U.S. finds itself in another recession, just as it did at the end of Reagan/H.W. years ;)

Maybe those "eight great years" weren't that great, but they sure seem like it now.



The US national debt adjusted for inflation, if you prefer:

If you start talking about how good a president Carter was, I will be sick.

Small talk:

Carter benefitted IMMENSELY from Ford, got more money in tax revenues, did less with it, bowed to our enemies, killed TONS of economic growth and paved the way for ALOT of problems in the middle east. His debt is low because he was ineffective. He was not willing to risk debt and just prolonged it.

He buwarked the oppostion of Palestine's govt.
He started funding the Mujadeen in Afghanistan.
He f#cked Iran up and left that for Reagan as well.
He almost lost the Phillipines.
He lost East timor and almost exercised the nuclear option!

So, his national debt was low. Great. The price to try and handle the crap he started or mismanaged was high, and left for others to pay.


My point is clear and proven - Clinton did not leave a surplus. He left an unrealistic projection ot a surplus that wouldn't even survive inflation!

HA! When was the last time a Republican left a substanstial surplus or even a projection of?. Not in out lifetimes that's for sure. And talk about going offtopic. You done turned your Obamanomics thread into a slagging Clinton one.

Jig-A-Meister wrote:HA! When was the last time a Republican left a substanstial surplus or even a projection of?. Not in out lifetimes that's for sure. And talk about going offtopic. You done turned your Obamanomics thread into a slagging Clinton one.

I would love to bring it back to the topic, but frankly I don't think you can.

I STUMPED the obama crowd with three questions:

A. In the case of partnership interests over 7 million, does Obama's 45% death tax apply to the purchase value of the interest of a nonparticipant being bought out and devalue the business by 4 million, or will the 4 million dollar tax come from the nonparticpant's gain from their sale of the partner's equity?

i.e. if someone dies and leaves someone interest in a partnership to sell of more than 7 million dollars, Obama says it is to be Death taxed 45% over 7 million. Should this be reflected by giving the people less money for their interest in the partnership which may compromise their estate which can cripple banks and lending institutions, or should this come from the company buying it, and thus potentially kill thousands of jobs? How will this not kill PLC's?

B. Deferred income specialist are getting 40% more business. This will reflect LARGE losses in tax revenues. This is also freezing lines of credit for operational losses for people who have enough money to live on for a decade, as they simply are pulling out of the market and shoring up against credit. This means you have to either tax more to afford your social spending or you have to punish people for having a nest egg that allows them to exist in a zero income status for years. Which is Obama prepared to do, punish the early retirees, sacrifice social welfare we can't afford, or demand more taxation of even more people working and earning income?

C. Redistributionism will result in less money overall in documented hands. For all under the table income, there will be no adjustment, leading to their increase in wealth. this effectively means that illegal workers will have more liquid capital in our country. For years, it has been practice to accumulate large amounts of cash through undocumented work and illegal activity for construction and purchase of real estate in other countries, primairly Mexico. What safeguard will be in place to disallow illegal aliens from buying our country out from under us as we tax ourselves into economic equality, which has historically happened in every Social Democracy since the early 1900's?

you want a real view of Obamanomics, on topic, stop bringing up a skewed view of Clinton, who I DID meet and discuss economic issues with.