Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The two curves speak in favor of Clinton. From 1993 to 2001 the outlays curve went down and the revenues curve went up, didn't they
During Clinton's 8 years unemployment went down and thus income tax revenues up...
I've seen those charts but they dont support your argument because the income includes BORROWED money from various other budgets like the social security office... Again, EVERY YEAR Clinton was president, the national debt increased..
In my view your whole political system over there (de-facto only two big parties, lobbies, filibustering, WH vs. Congress, etc.) causes a lot of problems, no matter who is president.
I've seen those charts but they dont support your argument because the income includes BORROWED money from various other budgets like the social security office... Again, EVERY YEAR Clinton was president, the national debt increased..
If - and I am not sure it did - borrowed money played any role in those statistics, then it also did under the Bushes, Reagan etc.
Even if the national debt increased, the economy and thus the US as a whole did fine under Clinton. Debt as such is no problem, as long as it does not get out of hand. Basically all countries are in debt and nobody expects them to ever pay it back.
If - and I am not sure it did - borrowed money played any role in those statistics, then it also did under the Bushes, Reagan etc.
Yep.. its been going on for a VERY long time.. (btw, if you look at the chart on the CBO page, they represent a "Percentage of Gross Domestic Product".. NOT REAL DOLLARS.. HUGE difference..) (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product)
All you need to do is look at the US treasury website (previously linked here) for confirmation that no surplus existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Even if the national debt increased, the economy and thus the US as a whole did fine under Clinton. Debt as such is no problem, as long as it does not get out of hand. Basically all countries are in debt and nobody expects them to ever pay it back.
The question isnt if the nation as a whole did fine.. The question is, did he run a surplus.. The answer isnt no, its HELL no.. No one creates budgets based upon percentages.. Can you pay your rent/mortgage as a percentage of your neighbors income? Thats what the chart showing a "Percentage of GDP" does..percentages are not actual dollars..
Yep.. its been going on for a VERY long time.. (btw, if you look at the chart on the CBO page, they represent a "Percentage of Gross Domestic Product".. NOT REAL DOLLARS.. HUGE difference..)
(Percentage of Gross Domestic Product)
All you need to do is look at the US treasury website (previously linked here) for confirmation that no surplus existed.
The question isnt if the nation as a whole did fine.. The question is, did he run a surplus.. The answer isnt no, its HELL no.. No one creates budgets based upon percentages.. Can you pay your rent/mortgage as a percentage of your neighbors income? Thats what the chart showing a "Percentage of GDP" does..percentages are not actual dollars..
Hm, the GDP IS an absolute Dollar amount at any given time, thus when the revenue percentage is higher than the outlay percentage measured against the same GDP amount at the given moment, there automatically is a surplus that can be measured in Dollars. Good night
Hm, the GDP IS an absolute Dollar amount at any given time, thus when the revenue percentage is higher than the outlay percentage measured against the same GDP amount at the given moment, there automatically is a surplus that can be measured in Dollars. Good night
The GDP is the gross domestic product which is measured in percentages by the BEA.. It is NOT measured in DOLLARS..
Are these charts foreign to you?
One can indeed have growth in the GDP but it has no bearing on the nation debt. As you can see above there was growth of GDP in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, all the way through to 2008.. Are you going to now tell me that Bush ran surpluses also because the GDP was positive?
p.s. This is from the US Treasury website..
Tell me what year according to the treasury dept, there were surpluses?
You can very easily click the links above to see that the US debt rose every single year during the Clinton years, which directly disputes any such thought that surpluses existed..
too difficult for you to click? Then here goes a pretty picture.. Tell me what year you see a decrease in debt?
And if Clinton was running a surplus in 2000, then why did they need to raise the debt ceiling?
You can see that the debt went down as a % of GDP, but it continued to climb..
Listen, I am not an economics expert, nor are you obviously (GDP is not a percentage, but an absolute value in Dollars, Euros or whatever. Your first chart is about GDP change, which is in percent naturally, but it is a completely different thing). Thus there is no point in continuing this conversation as there are obviously different data and people claiming different things, stressing different aspects and ways to look at things, depending on what they want to prove etc. Obviously neither you nor I have what it takes to evaluate that data and come to an objective conclusion, we don't even agree on the basic terms used in such contexts. You won't accept my opinion and I won't accept yours. So, let's leave it at that.
As far as I can see the US did very well economically and fiscally during Clinton's terms, compared to the Bush era. (Regarding your "question" on the GDP under Bush, I guess having a growing GDP does not necessarily mean that there is no increase in debt, it depends on how the outlays are developing during the same period.)
Getting back to Obama, the topic, what I don't get is that on the one hand people complain he is destroying the US etc., when in reality he can hardly do or decide anything on his own, not even the Democrats support all he wants, not to mention Republicans. So whichever of his ideas get implemented, he obviously has the required support for them. So you can hardly blame things on him alone.
The only area where he can pretty much decide on his own what happens is the military.
Listen, I am not an economics expert, nor are you obviously (GDP is not a percentage, but an absolute value in Dollars, Euros or whatever. Your first chart is about GDP change, which is in percent naturally, but it is a completely different thing).
But YOU poclaimed the data on the CBO home page showed a surplus because it showed changes in a PERCENTAGE of federal spending.. Now you are admitting they are completely different things. All I did was show you how the CBO chart was wrong and not relevant. Anyone who wants to discuss deficits vs surpluses ONLY needs to look at the total federal debt each year to determine if it went up, or down.. We havent had an up year in I dont recall how long.. 50+ years I'm guessing off the top of my head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Thus there is no point in continuing this conversation as there are obviously different data and people claiming different things, stressing different aspects and ways to look at things, depending on what they want to prove etc.
Its rather an easy argument to prove.. If there was a surplus, the total national debt would decrease. I linked you right to the treasury department, and even posted a nice pretty graph, showing the natiional debt increased every single year during the Clinton administration...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Obviously neither you nor I have what it takes to evaluate that data and come to an objective conclusion, we don't even agree on the basic terms used in such contexts. You won't accept my opinion and I won't accept yours. So, let's leave it at that.
Long as you dont repeat the nonsense that Clinton ran a surplus, we wont have to go throught this exercise again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
As far as I can see the US did very well economically and fiscally during Clinton's terms, compared to the Bush era. Regarding your "question" on the GDP under Bush, I guess having a growing GDP does not necessarily mean that there is no increase in debt, it depends on how the outlays are developing during the same period.)
Ahh, and here we indeed need to point out errors again. While we did better in real dollars under Clinton than we did under Bush, this is because Bush inherited an economy with a shrinking rise in GDP vs real dollars. As you can see the real US Dollars turned lower than the nominal GDP during the Clinton years.. Many want to ignore this but its a FACT. This is why we hear more moaning and groaning now about ones dollar not stretching far enough.. Because its not..
As you can see above, right before 2007, there was a huge jump in the Real US GDP.. But we all know that growth in GDP does not automatically equal growth in the economy.. If it did, we wouldnt have entered into a recession at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Getting back to Obama, the topic, what I don't get is that on the one hand people complain he is destroying the US etc., when in reality he can hardly do or decide anything on his own, not even the Democrats support all he wants, not to mention Republicans. So whichever of his ideas get implemented, he obviously has the required support for them. So you can hardly blame things on him alone.
Are you telling me that things like national healthcare, cap/trade, the latest tax adjustments, the turning of investments into equity for GM, AIG etc wasnt Obama? Presidents lead the nation, they decide policies, they decide spending. Congress indeed has to implement those plans because the president has no authority (except by executive order), but indeed Obama came up with plans, Congress put them into execution for him. You can remove Republicans completely from your equation because up until now, Republicans couldnt stop the Democrats from doing anything they wanted..
But, just like liberals blame Bush for the faltering economy, which indeed has very little to do with him, Obama will of course get the blame for the current failures. Its how it works. Its clearly wrong because Congress spends and allowcates budgets, but if we want to discuss Congress spending, then we'd have to discuss that the Democratic Congress has increased the national debt 50% in the last 3 years alone. Democrats dont want to blame the Democratic Congress for their spending, so they are the ones who point to the Republican President. Now that Democrats have everything, they still want to blame Republicans.. Its how they operate, dont hold your own people accountable for 50% increases in the national debt.. Just keep pointing to blame someone else who doesnt even hold power.. Pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
The only area where he can pretty much decide on his own what happens is the military.
Nope.. He cant even decide this on his own because Congress has to allocate funding.
Interesting article. Who will his supporters blame, the minoroity party or the party with all 3 branches in control?
Health care? His best hope now is a Senate plan that would leave millions still uninsured, dashing his promise of universal health care, and even that may already be out of reach.
Legislation to fight global warming? Stalled in the Senate .
Forging peace in the Middle East ? Hasn't been able to get the region's adversaries in the same room, let alone close to agreement.
Ending venomous partisanship? Washington is more polarized than ever.
Leading his party to an enduring majority? Right now, it's heading in the other direction.
Obama's chance to be next FDR or Reagan fading fast - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100212/pl_mcclatchy/3425683 - broken link)
Never mind that he's only been in office a little over a year, during which he has
quote/
faced three main problems:
- The recession forced him to spend time and political capital on a stimulus plan that may have reduced job losses, but didn't stop them.
- A year-long fight over health care, with buyoffs for select lawmakers, looked like politics as usual, scared Americans already skeptical about a government racing deeper into debt and produced no results.
- Obama misread the political landscape at home and abroad and overestimated his ability to bend people his way.
Reagan, by comparison, swept into office with a broad national appetite for cutting taxes — a grassroots tax rebellion had started earlier in California — and for a big buildup in defense spending; Democrat Jimmy Carter already had started one.
With that mandate and a less polarized Congress , Reagan focused on his core objectives and was able quickly to push through the tax and defense policies that helped shape his presidency and transform the country's politics.
/quote
The above is exactly what those of us who support the president have been trying to point out to you all this time. Your own link admits he *did* inherit a big mess but has been brave enough to try to make things change and fix chronic and serious problems. It's not his fault you all want him to fail, or are being told that that's what you want.
Your are wasting your time with these air-heads,they know nothing of the real world inside their little cubicals.Working on the railroad taught me more than any book,class,or teacher.Right now that big rail yard is empty it wasn't that way with BUSH.Unemployment was 5-6% even my die hard democratic buddies are sorry they voted for King O,cause they are laid off.People like Henry Ford starting with nothing but an idea created wealth thru hard work pride of product and they belittle this fact that gave the common man a better living and created this world we live in today.I guess we can go back to being agricultural again which didn't bring prosperity but capitalism did
Henry Ford was successful in creating his empire because he believed in paying workers a wage high enough to buy the produce they were building. Today's manufacturers care nothing about the people that work for them. It's all about going where they can pay the lowest wages. American workers could work for $3.00 an hour but the companies would still go off shore if they could get the work done for $2.00. Haiti had a thriving t-shirt factory before the hurricane, producing for quality name companies. They were paying their workers $3.00 a day. Who here in America is willing to work for that? Corporate greed is causing many of the problems we have today so talk all you want about what the railroad taught you but you still have a few things to learn about what the current breed of capitalists are doing to this country. Obama is not the problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But YOU poclaimed the data on the CBO home page showed a surplus because it showed changes in a PERCENTAGE of federal spending.. Now you are admitting they are completely different things. All I did was show you how the CBO chart was wrong and not relevant. Anyone who wants to discuss deficits vs surpluses ONLY needs to look at the total federal debt each year to determine if it went up, or down.. We havent had an up year in I dont recall how long.. 50+ years I'm guessing off the top of my head.
