Michael Moore's Movie WHERE TO INVADE NEXT

[Doc Savage Fan]

The only time the budget was close to balanced was under Democrat Clinton.
Democrats are way less irresponsible than Republicans. Democrats believe in tax and spend, Republicans believe in tax cut and still spend. Which do you think will work better in the long run? The big run up in debt started with Reagan, deal with it.

So much to say...so little time. You're regurgitating a lie and very misleading talking point commonly used by your ilk. It was Republicans who balanced the budget, not Clinton. Clinton fought Republicans every inch of the way when they planned to balance the budget in 1995. During the budget fight, Clinton had to submit five budgets until one finally matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. Gingrich vowed in 1995 they they would eliminate the deficit within seven years....they did it in four despite Clinton's obstructionism. It was one hell of a 'knock down, drag out' fight, the White House even waged a shameless 'Mediscare' campaign in an attempt to torpedo the plan and Republicans had to partially shut down the government twice in order to get Clinton to finally approve the budget.

You're ignorance on this subject is appalling. Do yourself a favor and start questioning all those lies you were told.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/

Granted, Republicans under Bush screwed us in my opinion, but please stop with the lies that Clinton had anything to do with the balanced budget during his Presidency....he fought it and he fought it hard.

 

[bshole]

So much to say...so little time. You're regurgitating a lie and very misleading talking point commonly used by your ilk. It was Republicans who balanced the budget, not Clinton. Clinton fought Republicans every inch of the way when they planned to balance the budget in 1995. During the budget fight, Clinton had to submit five budgets until one finally matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. Gingrich vowed in 1995 they they would eliminate the deficit within seven years....they did it in four despite Clinton's obstructionism. Hell the White House even waged a shameless 'Mediscare' campaign in an attempt to torpedo the plan and Republicans had to partially shut down the government for 22 days in order to get Clinton to approve the budget.

You're ignorance on this subject is appalling. Do yourself a favor and start questioning all those lies you were told.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/

Granted, Republicans under Bush screwed us in my opinion, but please stop with the lies that Clinton had anything to do with the balanced budget during his Presidency....he fought it and he fought it hard.

Given the Republicans the credit is wrong as well. The major reason was that Clinton's was the last great bull market in my lifetime. The economy has never come close to that growth rate. Tax receipts went through the roof. The balanced budget arguments were largely bullshit. The tidal wave of tax money erased the need for them. I think Clinton's tax policy was spot on and played a major role as well. It took Bush 8 years to absolutely destroy everything Clinton accomplished.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Given the Republicans the credit is wrong as well. The major reason was that Clinton's was the last great bull market in my lifetime. The economy has never come close to that growth rate. Tax receipts went through the roof. The balanced budget arguments were largely bullshit. The tidal wave of tax money erased the need for them. I think Clinton's tax policy was spot on and played a major role as well. It took Bush 8 years to absolutely destroy everything Clinton accomplished.

That's exactly why they got it done in 4 years instead of 7.

 

[Zaap]

So much to say...so little time. You're regurgitating a lie and very misleading talking point commonly used by your ilk. It was Republicans who balanced the budget, not Clinton. Clinton fought Republicans every inch of the way when they planned to balance the budget in 1995. During the budget fight, Clinton had to submit five budgets until one finally matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. Gingrich vowed in 1995 they they would eliminate the deficit within seven years....they did it in four despite Clinton's obstructionism. It was one hell of a 'knock down, drag out' fight, the White House even waged a shameless 'Mediscare' campaign in an attempt to torpedo the plan and Republicans had to partially shut down the government twice in order to get Clinton to finally approve the budget.

You're ignorance on this subject is appalling. Do yourself a favor and start questioning all those lies you were told.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/

Granted, Republicans under Bush screwed us in my opinion, but please stop with the lies that Clinton had anything to do with the balanced budget during his Presidency....he fought it and he fought it hard.

Great post but good luck. All you'll get is what amounts to: (holding of breath, stomping of feet and shouting NUH UH!!)

Its also fair to point out that Reagan not being the sole author of budgets during his term didn't single-handedly deficit spend all the money vs.the Dem controlled congress.

 

[marincounty]

So much to say...so little time. You're regurgitating a lie and very misleading talking point commonly used by your ilk. It was Republicans who balanced the budget, not Clinton. B.S. .....

You're ignorance on this subject is appalling. Do yourself a favor and start questioning all those lies you were told.
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/

Granted, Republicans under Bush screwed us in my opinion, but please stop with the lies that Clinton had anything to do with the balanced budget during his Presidency....he fought it and he fought it hard.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/


This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

It was Clinton's tax increase, opposed by ALL Republicans that led to a balanced budget.
Look at the chart in the link.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Great post but good luck. All you'll get is what amounts to: (holding of breath, stomping of feet and shouting NUH UH!!)

Its also fair to point out that Reagan not being the sole author of budgets during his term didn't single-handedly deficit spend all the money vs.the Dem controlled congress.

It's all there in black and white...the truth hurts. They either admit they're wrong and change their way of thinking (quite rare although some will surprise you) or they double down on stupidity and keep on believing their lies. I hope for the best, but the deafening silence doesn't bode well.

I wish I had time to address his Reagan comment...but that is much more involved and like I said really don't have the time right now. But honestly, I think most of them don't give a shit about facts anyway...many are self-perceived "intellectuals" with a pack mentality that seems to be only capable of endlessly regurgitating mindless political memes and talking points. And the really sad part, they're too fucking stupid to realize just how brain dead they've become.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/


This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

It was Clinton's tax increase, opposed by ALL Republicans that led to a balanced budget.
Look at the chart in the link.

Did you even look at the link I provided? It's all there. Clinton fought balancing the budget with everything he had and lost. Rationalize and spin this all you want...your comment that he balanced the budget is a bunch of crap.

 

[ElFenix]

all the balanced budget got us was another recession. congrats.

 

[marincounty]

Did you even look at the link I provided? It's all there. Clinton fought balancing the budget with everything he had and lost. Rationalize and spin this all you want...your comment that he balanced the budget is a bunch of crap.

Yes , l looked at your link, did you look at mine? CBO numbers show the budget was only balanced under Clinton and gave most of the credit to the tax increase he pushed with NO Republican support.
Funny how the budget is never balanced under Republican leadership and Congress.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

all the balanced budget got us was another recession. congrats.

Is that what caused the recession? Damn...and all this time I thought it was the dot-com bubble. You should have Wikipedia corrected to reflect this new information! Don't be an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Funny how the budget is never balanced under Republican leadership and Congress.

Under Republican PRESIDENTIAL leadership, yes...and this pains me greatly. However, as previously proven to you, it was Republican CONGRESSIONAL leadership that balanced the budget not Clinton who adamantly proposed budgets with large deficits. I'm done repeating myself as this fact obviously isn't sinking in.

 

[ElFenix]

Is that what caused the recession? Damn...and all this time I thought it was the dot-com bubble. You should have Wikipedia corrected to reflect this new information! Don't be an idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

And the bursting of the bubble was caused by the contraction of govt debt underlying the financial economy of the country.

 

[MongGrel]

I rank Michael Moore right up there with Natural News and Infowars.

citing any of those proves mental illness.

+1

I've never been a fan of him, myself.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm done repeating myself as this fact obviously isn't sinking in.

Good idea.

 

[brianmanahan]

you've fallen prey to idealism

OP has fallen prey to much, much more than idealism

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And the bursting of the bubble was caused by the contraction of govt debt underlying the financial economy of the country.

So reducing government debt is what actually popped the bubble...you don't say. So let me get this straight...are you're effectively saying that we needed to increase government debt so that the bubble would have gotten bigger and lasted longer before it popped? This is rich! Source? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along?

 

[rudder]

The only time the budget was close to balanced was under Democrat Clinton.
Democrats are way less irresponsible than Republicans. Democrats believe in tax and spend, Republicans believe in tax cut and still spend. Which do you think will work better in the long run? The big run up in debt started with Reagan, deal with it.

Wow Clinton ran two of the three branches of our government. I wonder what the republican controlled congress was doing with all that time.... Not having to worry about submitting a budget and all. Sheesh.... Common core.

 

[ElFenix]

So reducing government debt is what actually popped the bubble...you don't say. So let me get this straight...are you're effectively saying that we needed to increase government debt so that the bubble would have gotten bigger and lasted longer before it popped? This is rich! Source? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along?

First off, I'm not making a policy argument, I'm just telling you what happened. Second, If you'd like to learn more though, you can start by listening to this.
http://media.blubrry.com/kkfi901fm/p/content.blubrry.com/kkfi901fm/All_Souls-2014-05-28-1200.mp3

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://media.blubrry.com/kkfi901fm/p/content.blubrry.com/kkfi901fm/All_Souls-2014-05-28-1200.mp3

Seriously? Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criticisms

Modern Monetary Theory

MMT has garnered wide criticism from a wide range of schools of economic thought, both for its analytical content and its policy recommendations.

Fellow post-Keynesian economist, Thomas Palley argues that MMT is largely a restatement of elementary Keynesian economics, but prone to "over-simplistic analysis" and understating the risks of its policy recommendations.[25] Palley criticizes MMT for essentially assuming away the problem of fiscal - monetary conflict and denies the MMT claim that old Keynesian analysis doesn't fully capture the accounting identities and financial restrains on government that can issue its own money; Palley shows that these insights are well captured by standard Keynesian stock-flow consistent IS-LM models, and have been well understood by Keynesian economists for decades. He argues that the policies proposed by MMT proponents would cause serious financial instability in an open economy with flexible exchange rates, while using fixed exchange rates would restore hard financial constraints on the government and "undermines MMT’s main claim about sovereign money freeing governments from standard market disciplines and financial constraints". He also accuses MMT of lacking a plausible theory of inflation, particularly in the context of full employment in the 'Employer of Last Resort' policy first written about by Minsky and advocated by Bill Mitchell (economist) and other MMT theorists; of a lack of appreciation of the financial instability that could be caused by permanently zero interest rates; and of overstating the importance of government created money. Finally, Palley concludes that MMT provides no new insights about monetary theory, while making unsubstantiated claims about macroeconomic policy, and argues that MMT has only received attention recently due to it being a "policy polemic for depressed times".[26]

Marc Lavoie argues that whilst the neochartalist argument is "essentially correct", many of its counter-intuitive claims depend on a "confusing" and "fictitious" consolidation of government and central banking operations.[27]

New Keynesian economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman argues that MMT goes too far in its support for government budget deficits and ignores the inflationary implications of maintaining budget deficits when the economy is growing.[28]

Austrian School economist Robert P. Murphy states that "the MMT worldview doesn't live up to its promises" and that it seems to be "dead wrong". He observes that the MMT claim that cutting government deficits erodes private saving is true only for the portion of private saving that is not invested, and argues that the national accounting identities used to explain this aspect of MMT could equally be used to support arguments that government deficits "crowd out" private sector investment.[29] Daniel Kuehn has voiced his agreement with Murphy, stating "it's bad economics to confuse accounting identities with behavioral laws [...] economics is not accounting."[30]

Murphy also criticises MMT on the basis that savings in the form of government bonds are not net assets for the private sector as a whole, since the bond will only be redeemed after the government "raises the necessary funds from the same group of taxpayers in the future".[29]

The chartalist view of money itself, and the MMT emphasis on the importance of taxes in driving money is also a source of criticism.[27] Economist Eladio Febrero argues that modern money draws its value from its ability to cancel (private) bank debt, particularly as legal tender, rather than to pay government taxes.[31]

 

[ElFenix]

Seriously? Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory#Criticisms

Modern Monetary Theory

Show me an economic theory without criticisms.

I mean, ffs, there's an Austrian in there making a critique when the next prediction an Austrian gets right will be the first. Deficits crowd out private investment? Where's the evidence of that? We've run massive deficits recently and interest rates are as low as they've ever been. If two implications are possible from an equation and one of them isn't borne out in the real world... well....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Show me an economic theory without criticisms.

I mean, ffs, there's an Austrian in there making a critique when the next prediction an Austrian gets right will be the first. Deficits crowd out private investment? Where's the evidence of that? We've run massive deficits recently and interest rates are as low as they've ever been. If two implications are possible from an equation and one of them isn't borne out in the real world... well....

At first, I seriously thought you were trolling me. Now I'm sad to see you weren't. I don't think there is anything else to say beyond what has already been said. Peace.

 

[ElFenix]

So, no real response. Typical.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So, no real response. Typical.

I don't have the time to waste with your nonsense. Sorry.

 

[ElFenix]

I didn't think you were interested in a serious conversation.

 

[marincounty]

Wow Clinton ran two of the three branches of our government. I wonder what the republican controlled congress was doing with all that time.... Not having to worry about submitting a budget and all. Sheesh.... Common core.

He had a Democratic Congress I believe when he pushed through the tax increase on the rich with NO Republican support.
Strange how when we got a Republican President deficits skyrocketed.