Dubya-nomics---de-mystified

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I am not a Keynesian but don't we have some basic problems which will not be solved by tax cuts? When I had a huge stock portfolio I spent well beyond my means. My spending supported economic activity at home and abroad. Now that my consumption is more rational doesn't that excess capacity create a drag on the economy? Isn't it more likely that I will spend extra income on reducing debt than more consumption?

Even though my creditors will enjoy payment aren't they less likely to liberally lend b/c of the explosion in unrecovered debts due to bankruptcy? Many institutions lived the high life in the late 90s as well. Why would they choose expenditure as opposed to paying off long term debt? Since money is cheap, they may refinance their debt but will savings go towards significant expansion during a period of reduced consumption?

To the extent the excess capacity is in the US and with the weaker(erning) dollar some of that capacity may be an increase export delta (if it don't go too far say 1.28-1.34 to the Euro). The balance will be a drag till tinkle down gets to the water table. We've got about 10-15 million people to get back employed to really get the consumption side going... If I were going to get US business going strong and thereby hire the consumption (worker) that is needed to close the circle. I'd have directed that tax cut and made it massive. By directed I mean a credit to hire which would increase their (business) need to consume. Tinkle up or tinkle sideway or into the wind but it must tinkle and the more fluid the more tinkle, it seems to me.

Well... lenders lend. The bankruptcy issue is in their margin. Re fi's are hurting that margin. So they gotta push CC.
The expansion will start with the splurging crew... " I got a dime so I'll spend a dollar" people tend not to care too much about the economy... they look in their pocket book, I think. Effective advertising will make that $50 tax cut appear like a thousand. Bankers have a critical role and soon the discount rates will go down... maybe 50 basis. But out on my limb I'd have gone for a change in the reserve balance (can't think of the term) (must have x reserve to lend y dollars) maybe it is reserve balance... where's my vicodin?
We are either gonna sink or swim from all this. I have my life vest handy...
Bush has demand side in mind in all this, I think. I also don't think it is well directed nor enough.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I prefer GW's tax cuts to the Democrats' constant desire for tax increases.

So who is going to pay down the debt . . . aliens?

The Dems don't use tax increases to pay down the debt, they just spend more. The debt itself is primarily the by-product of Democrat programs, which remain the government's biggest expenditures.
Preferably, we would have less government with less spending and lower taxes. Sooner or later we have to realize that government can't and shouldn't do everything.

Yaknow, I was talking about this with a friend the other day. Most liberal Democrats that I know dislike government. They hate war and the military, they see our government as corrupted by big business and shady politics, and they fear the impending encroachment of Big Brother. Yet they never cease in their desire to empower this government they hate with more and more money. The whole thing truly boggles the mind.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I prefer GW's tax cuts to the Democrats' constant desire for tax increases.

So who is going to pay down the debt . . . aliens?

The Dems don't use tax increases to pay down the debt, they just spend more. The debt itself is primarily the by-product of Democrat programs, which remain the government's biggest expenditures.
Preferably, we would have less government with less spending and lower taxes. Sooner or later we have to realize that government can't and shouldn't do everything.

Yaknow, I was talking about this with a friend the other day. Most liberal Democrats that I know dislike government. They hate war and the military, they see our government as corrupted by big business and shady politics, and they fear the impending encroachment of Big Brother. Yet they never cease in their desire to empower this government they hate with more and more money. The whole thing truly boggles the mind.

huh? What did the Clinton administration do with a lot of the surplus the last three years of his presidency? He expanded government spending BUT at the same time he paid down some of the national debt to the point that the Treasury stopped issuing treasury bonds for a while.
The National Debt was built up during the Reagan years (quadrupled) with a Democrat Congress. You can blame the Democrats all you want but it was Ronald Reagan, hero to the conservatives, who signed all those budgets that contained all that deficit spending.
So I reject the notion that Democrats only want to spend while the Republicans are fiscally conservative. Under GWB and a Republican Congress, we have expanded government's reach and breadth in more and more of people's lives. We have also increase spending in most areas while at the same time decreased the revenues the government takes in and shifted a lot more burdens on the state with underfunded mandates.

Democrat programs... ok name me someone on the Republican side that want to cut any of these programs. So it's the Democrat's programs even though it is the Republicans who voted to increase discretionary spending in the current budget. Why don't the REpublican majority or President GWB call for the repeal of Social Security or Medicare or The Homeland Security Department (A DEMOCRAT proposal/program)? Why, because they don't want to stop spending. You want to blame Democrats for spending too much ... well you can't because they control none of the three branches of government. Why don't you put more pressure on the Republicans to stop spending since they are in charge.

This sums up what I believe:
Democrats and Republicans both want to spend YOUR money. They are just deciding over how.

 

[Vic]

I have never said that the Republicans are "fiscally conservative." In fact, one of my oldest personal political sayings is that "both the democrats and the republicans want big government, but only the democrats are willing to pay for it."

I'm no fan of either party. I simply said "I prefer GW's tax cuts to the Democrats' constant desire for tax increases." Which is true.

And by "Democrat programs" I meant Social Security and Welfare. Democrats did start those programs and they are the government's biggest expenditures by far, and a major cause of our debt, Reagan non-withstanding. Even if the Republicans wanted to cut those programs (and I don't believe that they do), they couldn't. Too many people, particularly senior citizens who vote en masse, depend on them now that we have them.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And by "Democrat programs" I meant Social Security and Welfare. Democrats did start those programs and they are the government's biggest expenditures by far, and a major cause of our debt, Reagan non-withstanding. Even if the Republicans wanted to cut those programs (and I don't believe that they do), they couldn't. Too many people, particularly senior citizens who vote en masse, depend on them now that we have them.

FDR is responsible for SS but it was designed to motivate the people not as a permanent budget supplement to hide deficits (which repubocrats have done). Reagan came to office planning to can the Dept of Education and the Dept of Labor . . . 8 yrs later they were larger than ever. I'm sure you can find a way to blame that on the Democratic Congress but last time I checked these depts were parts of the Executive Branch.

Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965 . . . it passed the House 313-115 and the Senate 68-21. Labeling it a Democratic program (aka Big Government waste) is disingenuous and inconsistent with history.

Nixon in 1972 enacted the most significant expansion of Medicare and created federally-guaranteed SSI (old/poor, blind, disabled) which was a precursor to the eventual establishment of Medicaid.

Despite the significant contributions of Republicans to our system of social welfare you insist on calling it a Democratic program. So what Republican solutions have been advanced in the last 30 years? Why do you think these programs exist in the first place?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And by "Democrat programs" I meant Social Security and Welfare. Democrats did start those programs and they are the government's biggest expenditures by far, and a major cause of our debt, Reagan non-withstanding. Even if the Republicans wanted to cut those programs (and I don't believe that they do), they couldn't. Too many people, particularly senior citizens who vote en masse, depend on them now that we have them.

FDR is responsible for SS but it was designed to motivate the people not as a permanent budget supplement to hide deficits (which repubocrats have done). Reagan came to office planning to can the Dept of Education and the Dept of Labor . . . 8 yrs later they were larger than ever. I'm sure you can find a way to blame that on the Democratic Congress but last time I checked these depts were parts of the Executive Branch.

Johnson signed Medicare into law in 1965 . . . it passed the House 313-115 and the Senate 68-21. Labeling it a Democratic program (aka Big Government waste) is disingenuous and inconsistent with history.

Nixon in 1972 enacted the most significant expansion of Medicare and created federally-guaranteed SSI (old/poor, blind, disabled) which was a precursor to the eventual establishment of Medicaid.

Despite the significant contributions of Republicans to our system of social welfare you insist on calling it a Democratic program. So what Republican solutions have been advanced in the last 30 years? Why do you think these programs exist in the first place?

 

[burnedout]

By the special dividend issue you're talking about dividend other than when the board historically declares them. But, of more importance to me is the notion that non "S" corps that are closely held may enable for owner worker the ability to escape total tax by diverting payroll to dividends or issue stock to effect that to normal mgmt ee's... think on that awhile.. I tried to find a provision to handle this but, alas

Yeah, that is a very good point. Didn't even consider the many smaller, closely held corps. Something to this effect would obviously change the dynamics of the equation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Why do you think these programs exist in the first place?

So that you can have your cake and eat it too?

Actually, (and you won't like my answer here either but as far as I am concerned you can take your elitish bullsh!t and take a flying fsck) these programs exist as a form of appeasement. The poor get a pittance of money, they don't revolt against the rich, the middle class pay for it. Thanks.

It's another sucker game designed to keep the poor poor and the rich rich and you fall for it - hook, line, sinker.

And they're frequently called "Democrat programs" because FDR and LBJ introduced them, and the Democrats have often been proud of them. Are you not proud of your party's greatest acheivements?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Why do you think these programs exist in the first place?

So that you can have your cake and eat it too?

And they're frequently called "Democrat programs" because FDR and LBJ introduced them, and the Democrats have often been proud of them. Are you not proud of your party's greatest acheivements?

Richard Nixon actually proposed and help pass the welfare programs as it is know today (SSI and Family Assistance Programs). You can label programs Democrat, Republican or Bull Moose but if both party consistently vote to increase the program's budget then both parties support the continuation and spread of the program and thus are responsible for the results of such budgeting. I am proud that Social Security and Medicare have helped a lot of seniors out of proverty. A lot of these people are the same folks who fought for this country in the various wars of the last century. I do think that the system is now in need of dramatic changes and reform should happen sooner than later.
However, GWB and the Congress have choked off money that could have gone into reforming these two programs.
What I do not support is coupling the third largest tax cut (on top of an even larger one two years ago) in the history of the world with massive increases in spending and massive deficits.

 

[LeadMagnet]

double

 

[LeadMagnet]

Social Security needs to be phased out. we just set a graduated scale of entitlement based on age and income with a cut off age of 35.

meaning no one below the age of 35 will ever get it. People above the age 60 will get 100% and everyone inbetween will get some percentage say 4% per year older than 35 as of Jan 1st 2004.

This way in 65 years all those 35s will have died off and the SS monkey would be off our kids/grand kids backs.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And they're frequently called "Democrat programs" because FDR and LBJ introduced them, and the Democrats have often been proud of them. Are you not proud of your party's greatest acheivements?

I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. Actually, I just received a survey from the Republican National Committee . . . the only political party I've ever joined. When I renewed by DL this year I registered Independent.

Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater all proposed some form of subsidized healthcare. FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Nixon were instrumental in the establishment of SS, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, AFDC, and Food Stamps. Know your history. Clinton signed the most significant reform in these programs. In the absence of his signature, virtually all would cost the Treasury more money.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: burnedout

By the special dividend issue you're talking about dividend other than when the board historically declares them. But, of more importance to me is the notion that non "S" corps that are closely held may enable for owner worker the ability to escape total tax by diverting payroll to dividends or issue stock to effect that to normal mgmt ee's... think on that awhile.. I tried to find a provision to handle this but, alas

Yeah, that is a very good point. Didn't even consider the many smaller, closely held corps. Something to this effect would obviously change the dynamics of the equation.

I suspect IRS will somehow impute tax on any attempt to do this. Owner could be forced to pay at least X in salary or some such scenerio. But, I'm sure dividends will be aflowing... until it is codified.
How can I model for this... got me... if I say every "C" corp will do this or some or none I get the same result garbage.
The affect is simply a larger tax cut and better stimuli I suppose and may end up irrelevant.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I prefer GW's tax cuts to the Democrats' constant desire for tax increases.

So who is going to pay down the debt . . . aliens?

The Dems don't use tax increases to pay down the debt, they just spend more. The debt itself is primarily the by-product of Democrat programs, which remain the government's biggest expenditures.
Preferably, we would have less government with less spending and lower taxes. Sooner or later we have to realize that government can't and shouldn't do everything.

Yaknow, I was talking about this with a friend the other day. Most liberal Democrats that I know dislike government. They hate war and the military, they see our government as corrupted by big business and shady politics, and they fear the impending encroachment of Big Brother. Yet they never cease in their desire to empower this government they hate with more and more money. The whole thing truly boggles the mind.

huh? What did the Clinton administration do with a lot of the surplus the last three years of his presidency? He expanded government spending BUT at the same time he paid down some of the national debt to the point that the Treasury stopped issuing treasury bonds for a while.
The National Debt was built up during the Reagan years (quadrupled) with a Democrat Congress. You can blame the Democrats all you want but it was Ronald Reagan, hero to the conservatives, who signed all those budgets that contained all that deficit spending.
So I reject the notion that Democrats only want to spend while the Republicans are fiscally conservative. Under GWB and a Republican Congress, we have expanded government's reach and breadth in more and more of people's lives. We have also increase spending in most areas while at the same time decreased the revenues the government takes in and shifted a lot more burdens on the state with underfunded mandates.

Democrat programs... ok name me someone on the Republican side that want to cut any of these programs. So it's the Democrat's programs even though it is the Republicans who voted to increase discretionary spending in the current budget. Why don't the REpublican majority or President GWB call for the repeal of Social Security or Medicare or The Homeland Security Department (A DEMOCRAT proposal/program)? Why, because they don't want to stop spending. You want to blame Democrats for spending too much ... well you can't because they control none of the three branches of government. Why don't you put more pressure on the Republicans to stop spending since they are in charge.

This sums up what I believe:
Democrats and Republicans both want to spend YOUR money. They are just deciding over how.

The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.

 

[LunarRay]

The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.[/quote]

If this is true then there were no surpluses... but, there really were none but one year if ya really balance the trust funds..

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: HJD1
The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.

If this is true then there were no surpluses... but, there really were none but one year if ya really balance the trust funds..[/quote]

There is NO trust fund. Social Security is a pay as you go type program requiring the addition of more people into the system (or higher taxes) to pay for the people currently enjoying the benefits. It has the full faith backing of the US government which has never defaulted. All revenues for the FICA tax/withholdings are mixed in with the general funds. The government simply takes money from all funding sources and pays out the recipients each month. The Trust Fund is a myth. Congress has used the Social Security surplus to mask the deficits in other parts of the budget. The structure is very Ponzi-like. This system needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, there is not the will or the means (decreased revenues) to do this.

Of course the debt grew during the surplus years (last three years) when Clinton was in office. It did not grow by as much. It is like paying the minimum balance due (which is required to avoid default) on your credit card and NOT charging any more and maybe paying a little bit more than the minimum. You still have interest tacked onto the debt if your interest rate is high enough (and the debt is large enough).
With GWB, it is like paying the minimum (required) and at the same going on a large spending spree and increasing the debt. How complicated is that?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: HJD1
The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.

If this is true then there were no surpluses... but, there really were none but one year if ya really balance the trust funds..

There is NO trust fund. Social Security is a pay as you go type program requiring the addition of more people into the system (or higher taxes) to pay for the people currently enjoying the benefits. It has the full faith backing of the US government which has never defaulted. All revenues for the FICA tax/withholdings are mixed in with the general funds. The government simply takes money from all funding sources and pays out the recipients each month. The Trust Fund is a myth. Congress has used the Social Security surplus to mask the deficits in other parts of the budget. The structure is very Ponzi-like. This system needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, there is not the will or the means (decreased revenues) to do this.

Of course the debt grew during the surplus years (last three years) when Clinton was in office. It did not grow by as much. It is like paying the minimum balance due (which is required to avoid default) on your credit card and NOT charging any more and maybe paying a little bit more than the minimum. You still have interest tacked onto the debt if your interest rate is high enough (and the debt is large enough).
With GWB, it is like paying the minimum (required) and at the same going on a large spending spree and increasing the debt. How complicated is that?[/quote]


Table 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962-2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In billions of dollars)
Surplus or Deficit (-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt
Held by
the Publicb

Revenues Outlays On-
Budgeta Social
Security Postal
Servicea
Total

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.7 n.a. 3.2 278.1
1970 192.8 195.6 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.4 3.0 n.a. -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.4 0.5 n.a. -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -8.0 1.8 n.a. -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -55.3 2.0 n.a. -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -70.5 -3.2 n.a. -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.8 -3.9 n.a. -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -54.9 -4.3 n.a. -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -38.7 -2.0 n.a. -40.7 640.3
1980 517.1 590.9 -72.7 -1.1 n.a. -73.8 711.9
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 n.a. -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.0 -7.9 n.a. -128.0 924.6
1983 600.6 808.4 -208.0 0.2 n.a. -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.6 0.3 n.a. -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.7 9.4 n.a. -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 n.a. -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -169.3 19.6 n.a. -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -194.0 38.8 n.a. -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.6 -205.2 52.4 0.3 -152.5 2,190.7
1990 1,032.0 1,253.2 -277.8 58.2 -1.6 -221.2 2,411.6
1991 1,055.0 1,324.4 -321.5 53.5 -1.3 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.7 -340.5 50.7 -0.7 -290.4 2,999.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.3 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.5 2.0 -163.9 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.3 -103.3 81.3 * -22.0 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.0 0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6 3,632.4
2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 151.8 -2.0 236.4 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.9 -33.4 163.0 -2.3 127.3 3,319.6
2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 160.3 -0.7 -157.8 3,540.4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CBO link
It appears there was a surplus AND debt reduction.
If you consider the impact of trust fund accounting the surplus reported would be reduced.
is this clearer?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: HJD1
The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.

If this is true then there were no surpluses... but, there really were none but one year if ya really balance the trust funds..

There is NO trust fund. Social Security is a pay as you go type program requiring the addition of more people into the system (or higher taxes) to pay for the people currently enjoying the benefits. It has the full faith backing of the US government which has never defaulted. All revenues for the FICA tax/withholdings are mixed in with the general funds. The government simply takes money from all funding sources and pays out the recipients each month. The Trust Fund is a myth. Congress has used the Social Security surplus to mask the deficits in other parts of the budget. The structure is very Ponzi-like. This system needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, there is not the will or the means (decreased revenues) to do this.

Of course the debt grew during the surplus years (last three years) when Clinton was in office. It did not grow by as much. It is like paying the minimum balance due (which is required to avoid default) on your credit card and NOT charging any more and maybe paying a little bit more than the minimum. You still have interest tacked onto the debt if your interest rate is high enough (and the debt is large enough).
With GWB, it is like paying the minimum (required) and at the same going on a large spending spree and increasing the debt. How complicated is that?

Table 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962-2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In billions of dollars)
Surplus or Deficit (-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt
Held by
the Publicb

Revenues Outlays On-
Budgeta Social
Security Postal
Servicea
Total

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.7 n.a. 3.2 278.1
1970 192.8 195.6 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.4 3.0 n.a. -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.4 0.5 n.a. -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -8.0 1.8 n.a. -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -55.3 2.0 n.a. -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -70.5 -3.2 n.a. -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.8 -3.9 n.a. -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -54.9 -4.3 n.a. -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -38.7 -2.0 n.a. -40.7 640.3
1980 517.1 590.9 -72.7 -1.1 n.a. -73.8 711.9
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 n.a. -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.0 -7.9 n.a. -128.0 924.6
1983 600.6 808.4 -208.0 0.2 n.a. -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.6 0.3 n.a. -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.7 9.4 n.a. -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 n.a. -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -169.3 19.6 n.a. -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -194.0 38.8 n.a. -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.6 -205.2 52.4 0.3 -152.5 2,190.7
1990 1,032.0 1,253.2 -277.8 58.2 -1.6 -221.2 2,411.6
1991 1,055.0 1,324.4 -321.5 53.5 -1.3 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.7 -340.5 50.7 -0.7 -290.4 2,999.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.3 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.5 2.0 -163.9 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.3 -103.3 81.3 * -22.0 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.0 0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6 3,632.4
2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 151.8 -2.0 236.4 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.9 -33.4 163.0 -2.3 127.3 3,319.6
2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 160.3 -0.7 -157.8 3,540.4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CBO link
It appears there was a surplus AND debt reduction.
If you consider the impact of trust fund accounting the surplus reported would be reduced.
is this clearer?[/quote]

Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: HJD1
The debt grew every year Clinton was office, even with record surpluses.

If this is true then there were no surpluses... but, there really were none but one year if ya really balance the trust funds..

There is NO trust fund. Social Security is a pay as you go type program requiring the addition of more people into the system (or higher taxes) to pay for the people currently enjoying the benefits. It has the full faith backing of the US government which has never defaulted. All revenues for the FICA tax/withholdings are mixed in with the general funds. The government simply takes money from all funding sources and pays out the recipients each month. The Trust Fund is a myth. Congress has used the Social Security surplus to mask the deficits in other parts of the budget. The structure is very Ponzi-like. This system needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, there is not the will or the means (decreased revenues) to do this.

Of course the debt grew during the surplus years (last three years) when Clinton was in office. It did not grow by as much. It is like paying the minimum balance due (which is required to avoid default) on your credit card and NOT charging any more and maybe paying a little bit more than the minimum. You still have interest tacked onto the debt if your interest rate is high enough (and the debt is large enough).
With GWB, it is like paying the minimum (required) and at the same going on a large spending spree and increasing the debt. How complicated is that?

Table 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962-2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In billions of dollars)
Surplus or Deficit (-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt
Held by
the Publicb

Revenues Outlays On-
Budgeta Social
Security Postal
Servicea
Total

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1962 99.7 106.8 -5.9 -1.3 n.a. -7.1 248.0
1963 106.6 111.3 -4.0 -0.8 n.a. -4.8 254.0
1964 112.6 118.5 -6.5 0.6 n.a. -5.9 256.8
1965 116.8 118.2 -1.6 0.2 n.a. -1.4 260.8
1966 130.8 134.5 -3.1 -0.6 n.a. -3.7 263.7
1967 148.8 157.5 -12.6 4.0 n.a. -8.6 266.6
1968 153.0 178.1 -27.7 2.6 n.a. -25.2 289.5
1969 186.9 183.6 -0.5 3.7 n.a. 3.2 278.1
1970 192.8 195.6 -8.7 5.9 n.a. -2.8 283.2
1971 187.1 210.2 -26.1 3.0 n.a. -23.0 303.0
1972 207.3 230.7 -26.4 3.0 n.a. -23.4 322.4
1973 230.8 245.7 -15.4 0.5 n.a. -14.9 340.9
1974 263.2 269.4 -8.0 1.8 n.a. -6.1 343.7
1975 279.1 332.3 -55.3 2.0 n.a. -53.2 394.7
1976 298.1 371.8 -70.5 -3.2 n.a. -73.7 477.4
1977 355.6 409.2 -49.8 -3.9 n.a. -53.7 549.1
1978 399.6 458.7 -54.9 -4.3 n.a. -59.2 607.1
1979 463.3 504.0 -38.7 -2.0 n.a. -40.7 640.3
1980 517.1 590.9 -72.7 -1.1 n.a. -73.8 711.9
1981 599.3 678.2 -73.9 -5.0 n.a. -79.0 789.4
1982 617.8 745.7 -120.0 -7.9 n.a. -128.0 924.6
1983 600.6 808.4 -208.0 0.2 n.a. -207.8 1,137.3
1984 666.5 851.9 -185.6 0.3 n.a. -185.4 1,307.0
1985 734.1 946.4 -221.7 9.4 n.a. -212.3 1,507.3
1986 769.2 990.4 -237.9 16.7 n.a. -221.2 1,740.6
1987 854.4 1,004.1 -169.3 19.6 n.a. -149.7 1,889.8
1988 909.3 1,064.5 -194.0 38.8 n.a. -155.2 2,051.6
1989 991.2 1,143.6 -205.2 52.4 0.3 -152.5 2,190.7
1990 1,032.0 1,253.2 -277.8 58.2 -1.6 -221.2 2,411.6
1991 1,055.0 1,324.4 -321.5 53.5 -1.3 -269.3 2,689.0
1992 1,091.3 1,381.7 -340.5 50.7 -0.7 -290.4 2,999.7
1993 1,154.4 1,409.5 -300.4 46.8 -1.4 -255.1 3,248.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.9 -258.9 56.8 -1.1 -203.3 3,433.1
1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 -226.4 60.5 2.0 -163.9 3,604.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.1 66.4 0.2 -107.5 3,734.1
1997 1,579.3 1,601.3 -103.3 81.3 * -22.0 3,772.3
1998 1,721.8 1,652.6 -30.0 99.0 0.2 69.2 3,721.1
1999 1,827.5 1,701.9 1.9 124.7 -1.0 125.6 3,632.4
2000 2,025.2 1,788.8 86.6 151.8 -2.0 236.4 3,409.8
2001 1,991.2 1,863.9 -33.4 163.0 -2.3 127.3 3,319.6
2002 1,853.2 2,011.0 -317.5 160.3 -0.7 -157.8 3,540.4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CBO link
It appears there was a surplus AND debt reduction.
If you consider the impact of trust fund accounting the surplus reported would be reduced.
is this clearer?

Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG[/quote]

you must be referring to intergovernmental holdings... like what the fed may buy or other government agencies... usually this is not considered by economical chimps due to the net out factor.. but, given that orangs may it is a fair representation for humans to consider. Teach the CBO to calculate in ferengie factors and I'd go for that too. or as my grand kids say... whaaaaat everrrrrrr...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG

you must be referring to intergovernmental holdings... like what the fed may buy or other government agencies... usually this is not considered by economical chimps due to the net out factor.. but, given that orangs may it is a fair representation for humans to consider. Teach the CBO to calculate in ferengie factors and I'd go for that too. or as my grand kids say... whaaaaat everrrrrrr...

So this is how people claim Clinton "lowered" the National Debt? by telling half truths? Numbers don't lie my freind - The facts are that the National Debt HAS increased every year, since 1960.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG

you must be referring to intergovernmental holdings... like what the fed may buy or other government agencies... usually this is not considered by economical chimps due to the net out factor.. but, given that orangs may it is a fair representation for humans to consider. Teach the CBO to calculate in ferengie factors and I'd go for that too. or as my grand kids say... whaaaaat everrrrrrr...

So this is how people claim Clinton "lowered" the National Debt? by telling half truths? Numbers don't lie my freind - The facts are that the National Debt HAS increased every year, since 1960.

CkG

Sir CAD
I seem to recall I said that awhile back (what you posted) But, did not bother to point out the Clinton Myth...
What the poster I responded to said.. appeared to me at least to indicate just ole run of the mill debt. Not the real big picture that does get netted if you take every thing we owe and offset by every thing we hold as investment. But, even if you use just the public debt and trust fund I think he was in surplus only one year.. but that beats Reagan Bush and Bush I think...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG

you must be referring to intergovernmental holdings... like what the fed may buy or other government agencies... usually this is not considered by economical chimps due to the net out factor.. but, given that orangs may it is a fair representation for humans to consider. Teach the CBO to calculate in ferengie factors and I'd go for that too. or as my grand kids say... whaaaaat everrrrrrr...

So this is how people claim Clinton "lowered" the National Debt? by telling half truths? Numbers don't lie my freind - The facts are that the National Debt HAS increased every year, since 1960.

CkG

Sir CAD
I seem to recall I said that awhile back (what you posted) But, did not bother to point out the Clinton Myth...
What the poster I responded to said.. appeared to me at least to indicate just ole run of the mill debt. Not the real big picture that does get netted if you take every thing we owe and offset by every thing we hold as investment. But, even if you use just the public debt and trust fund I think he was in surplus only one year.. but that beats Reagan Bush and Bush I think...

Well, it seems your response to charrison questioned the validity of his statement( "if..." ). Then you used the CBO link that only dealt with half of the story. You stated "It appears there was a surplus AND debt reduction." While I don't care to discuss the surplus(because it is "fuzzy math"), you seem to claim there was a debt reduction - which may be partially true, but posted without direct stipulation. One must remember the amount of misinformation spewed in this forum and post carefully(myself not excluded).

I know you posted it a while back, I was just making sure you hadn't gone totally moonbeam on us

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Ummm Public held debt isn't the only part of the National debt

Care to share the big picture?

CkG

you must be referring to intergovernmental holdings... like what the fed may buy or other government agencies... usually this is not considered by economical chimps due to the net out factor.. but, given that orangs may it is a fair representation for humans to consider. Teach the CBO to calculate in ferengie factors and I'd go for that too. or as my grand kids say... whaaaaat everrrrrrr...

So this is how people claim Clinton "lowered" the National Debt? by telling half truths? Numbers don't lie my freind - The facts are that the National Debt HAS increased every year, since 1960.

CkG

Sir CAD
I seem to recall I said that awhile back (what you posted) But, did not bother to point out the Clinton Myth...
What the poster I responded to said.. appeared to me at least to indicate just ole run of the mill debt. Not the real big picture that does get netted if you take every thing we owe and offset by every thing we hold as investment. But, even if you use just the public debt and trust fund I think he was in surplus only one year.. but that beats Reagan Bush and Bush I think...

Well, it seems your response to charrison questioned the validity of his statement( "if..." ). Then you used the CBO link that only dealt with half of the story. You stated "It appears there was a surplus AND debt reduction." While I don't care to discuss the surplus(because it is "fuzzy math"), you seem to claim there was a debt reduction - which may be partially true, but posted without direct stipulation. One must remember the amount of misinformation spewed in this forum and post carefully(myself not excluded).

I know you posted it a while back, I was just making sure you hadn't gone totally moonbeam on us

CkG

There you go again... (ala reagan ) Moonie goes to the trouble to edify with thought provoking dialog. I just toss out the odd scrap of ideosyncratic babble. I'll recommend we hire a flock of attornies to vett the posts before they are allowed to be posted at the next meeting of the galactically inept.