quote:

i have met, and know, many, many people just like him. The wealthy are not all ogres rolling in piles of money, lighting cigars with $100 bills and evicting widows and orphans. They are people, just like us all, doing their best in life. Yes, there are some bad apples, but you find those in every financial class. Making blanket statements that a financial class doesn't "deserve" what they earn is misguided, and making further blanket statements that those individuals somehow are selfish and hoarding money from the rest of the economy is just even more misguided.
ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

First, I never claimed to be a business owner.

I must have misinterpreted something...Im glad youre not, because youre head is so loose from spinning you couldnt make a go of one.

How nice...you make a mistake, misquote me and turn it into an excuse for a personal insult. How....typical of you.

quote:

Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ....Oh unless of course you really did say or imply that you were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ....Oh unless of course you really did say or imply that you were.

Your apology is every bit as worthy of being taken seriously as your opinions, WD. Thank you for showing everyone your level of comprehension and civility.

That said, I will go back to discussing issues and you can go back to whatever it is you do to amuse yourself.

quote:

Why the fuck should I be civil on one of the most uncivil boards on the internet? You don't "discuss" issues, you present your idealogical point of view and refuse to acknowledge that others can actually have a different opinion, they have a comprehension problem. Most uncivil indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy



Actually it was an aplogy. I was thinking you were a liar, because no rational businessman could hold your views and grow a business. You confirmed that you are not a businessman, we needed no confirmation that you arent rational. So we can take the liar off the table. ....Oh unless of course you really did say or imply that you were.

Your apology is every bit as worthy of being taken seriously as your opinions, WD. Thank you for showing everyone your level of comprehension and civility.

That said, I will go back to discussing issues and you can go back to whatever it is you do to amuse yourself.

Why the fuck should I be civil on one of the most uncivil boards on the internet? You don't "discuss" issues, you present your idealogical point of view and refuse to acknowledge that others can actually have a different opinion, they have a comprehension problem. Most uncivil indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, it wasnt in surplus annually under Clinton, in fact there was never a budget surplus. Thats been debunked already. The deficit didnt decline in a single year he was in office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, it wasnt in surplus annually under Clinton, in fact there was never a budget surplus. Thats been debunked already. The deficit didnt decline in a single year he was in office.

For those interested in historical fact about the Clinton surplus, may I suggest going to the US Treasury site.

"During the 1980s, deficits widened dramatically," the Treasury notes. Its chart shows a steady decrease in the deficit over the Clinton years, reversing the trend of the Reagan-Bush era, and culminating in the first budget surplus since 1969.

Among other things, it also reports that productivity rose, (see the chart) and housing affordability, which had fallen dramatically through the Reagan-Bush era, increased.

This is embarrassing to right-wingers, who subsequently invented, out of political necessity, what they refer to as the “Clinton surplus myth,” to sway less-informed voters.  This is available on many fine Republican blogs, but, as it is not factual, is not available on the US Treasury site.

         Fiscal
                  Year 
                 Ending         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 

quote:

ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven


He paid 62% of his income in taxes.  That is what he actually paid, after deductions, etc., in Federal, State, and Local taxes.

But its not his fair share...ask Brain.

Just think if Social Security payroll tax had been uncapped he could have paid 67+%. Maybe that would have been his fair share. Oh..and if he was a homeowner he would have paid another few percent. Maybe that would have been a fair share.

Yes.  One thing the media does NOT do, when they're feeding the frenzy of hysteria over the Wall Street bonuses, is mention how much of those bonuses actually go to taxes.  It's a big number. 

The media also neglects to mention how much money these men and women personally inject back into the economy, and towards the greater good.  The individuals on Wall Street know that money is a tool that is made to be invested - not to just sit around in a giant pile like Scrooge McDuck.  And those investments contribute significantly back to Main Street.

But go ahead, tax more money away into the giant general government coffer.  Personally, i'd rather know that my money went directly to employ someone else, or educate a child, or feed a hungry family, vs. trusting a government organization to "distribute it fairly."  But that's just me.

julie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Silence8

quote:

ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven


He paid 62% of his income in taxes.  That is what he actually paid, after deductions, etc., in Federal, State, and Local taxes.

But its not his fair share...ask Brain.

Just think if Social Security payroll tax had been uncapped he could have paid 67+%. Maybe that would have been his fair share. Oh..and if he was a homeowner he would have paid another few percent. Maybe that would have been a fair share.

Yes.  One thing the media does NOT do, when they're feeding the frenzy of hysteria over the Wall Street bonuses, is mention how much of those bonuses actually go to taxes.  It's a big number. 

The media also neglects to mention how much money these men and women personally inject back into the economy, and towards the greater good.  The individuals on Wall Street know that money is a tool that is made to be invested - not to just sit around in a giant pile like Scrooge McDuck.  And those investments contribute significantly back to Main Street.

But go ahead, tax more money away into the giant general government coffer.  Personally, i'd rather know that my money went directly to employ someone else, or educate a child, or feed a hungry family, vs. trusting a government organization to "distribute it fairly."  But that's just me.

julie

Let's see here... you don't trust money going to the government, but you trust it in the hands of your Wall Street friend, who apparently something of a conspicuous display of his 'good deeds' (cf. Thorstein Veblen for a detailed discussion).

And, yet, there is no shortage of evidence that the government is simply a branch of Wall Street.

To use a bodily analogy... you might as well tell me, "Meet my new friend. He's a great guy. Now, I trust his right arm, but not his left, so, you know... watch out! But, yeah, he's a good guy."

I know it's hard recognizing that people you know are direct contributors to greater social problems. That's why an intellectual conscience is so, so rare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

No, it wasnt in surplus annually under Clinton, in fact there was never a budget surplus. Thats been debunked already. The deficit didnt decline in a single year he was in office.

For those interested in historical fact about the Clinton surplus, may I suggest going to the US Treasury site.

"During the 1980s, deficits widened dramatically," the Treasury notes. Its chart shows a steady decrease in the deficit over the Clinton years, reversing the trend of the Reagan-Bush era, and culminating in the first budget surplus since 1969.

Among other things, it also reports that productivity rose, (see the chart) and housing affordability, which had fallen dramatically through the Reagan-Bush era, increased.

This is embarrassing to right-wingers, who subsequently invented, out of political necessity, what they refer to as the “Clinton surplus myth,” to sway less-informed voters.  This is available on many fine Republican blogs, but, as it is not factual, is not available on the US Treasury site.

As a newbie I will politely suggest that you stop reading left wing bs and actually learn the facts. Since you quote the US Treasury you agree that is an acceptable source.

Here are the numbers:

         Fiscal
                  Year 
                 Ending         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 

Nary a suprlus to be found, is there?

So you can get two answers to the same question from the Treasury...whats the difference and which is right?

The difference is that the above is the TOTAL DEBT. The numbers you cite are the PUBLIC DEBT. The difference? Intergovermental holdings....amounts borrowed from other government agencies. If you spend more than your income, and borrow from your credit cards to pay your mortgage, you havent reduced your debt, youve only reduced your mortgage debt. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

I see by Google that your table has done the rounds on the conservative blogs. I wonder why they never include debt numbers from Bush?  Apart from the breathtaking increases in debt, I mean.

For the sake of anyone who might be unclear, money going into any govt trust fund actually increase the public debt, because the money is immediately invested in Treasury securities to earn interest while it's in the fund, so any issuing of those securities increases the public debt.  Treasury securities are redeemed by the funds, which causes public debt to go down. So an increase in debt with those trust funds is evidence of a surplus of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made. As others have pointed out, you and the other Craig Steiners of the world are trying to use one surplus to argue that another one didn't exist.
I'll accept the Treasury's word of a budget surplus over that period, and having seen you simply ignore facts on these boards on a regular basis, and post long, meaningless volumes of numbers to obfuscate, here's what I'll do to save my weekend for something useful.

Anyone who's curious can simply check with the US Treasury website, where they will see and read the facts of the surplus. Anyone who can't handle that can check with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

they dont include numbers from Bush because your post was about Clinton, duhhhhh. And you are still spinning. Simple question. Was government spending greater or less than its revenues, excluding borrowing? that is the definition of a surplus or deficit, and the answer is that under Clinton spending was always greater than revenues. Spin away as much as you like, you are simply wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

they dont include numbers from Bush because your post was about Clinton, duhhhhh. And you are still spinning. Simple question. Was government spending greater or less than its revenues, excluding borrowing? that is the definition of a surplus or deficit, and the answer is that under Clinton spending was always greater than revenues. Spin away as much as you like, you are simply wrong.

Well, here's the thing. People can simply check the Treasury links above, or the Congressional Budget Office, or the non-partisan FactCheck.org and decide who's wrong.  I'm just here to help anyone who might be confused by your posts.

And yes, I understand completely why you wouldn't want people looking at the Bush deficit numbers, either, although, if anyone wants a peek at the Clinton vs Bush eras, they could find a really clear chart right here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

The cumulative deficit has always been in deficit. What Clinton did was bring the annual deficit into a surplus in order to pay down the cumulative deficit. That's the way I understand it.

Over many years the United States has accumulated a significant cumulative deficit, in the trillions of dollars, I think it's around $10 trillion. Bill Clinton brought the annual budget into surplus and then started paying down that cumulative deficit and if George W. Bush had left things alone the country would be in a much better fiscal position without the Bush tax cuts.

What's really sad for me is if they pass real healthcare reform with the public option or give Medicare to everyone regardless of their age, the financial position of the country will also improve significantly. The value of health-care stocks would decline but people should be diversified in their investments, they should not have everything in healthcare companies.

Also, the money to be saved by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would help improve the country's finances. Staying over there isn't accomplishing enough and even if it is, it's just way too much money.

If it were me I would get the military out as soon as possible from Afghanistan and leave some undercover people to loiter around there in disguise and maybe they can find out where bin Laden is hiding; it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s in a mosque in Afghanistan or Pakistan somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

Well, here's the thing. People can simply check the Treasury links above, or the Congressional Budget Office, or the non-partisan FactCheck.org and decide who's wrong.  I'm just here to help anyone who might be confused by your posts.

And yes, I understand completely why you wouldn't want people looking at the Bush deficit numbers, either, although, if anyone wants a peek at the Clinton vs Bush eras, they could find a really clear chart right here.

youve mistaken me for a Bush supporter apparently. I could care less if you tear Bush apart on economics, he was never a fiscal conservativee. Keep spinning on the deficit. Until you respond to the basic question you are full of shit. I can post links all day to Treasury numbers that show that spending was greater than revenues. Now explain how there is a budget surplus when spending is greater than revenues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

The cumulative deficit has always been in deficit. What Clinton did was bring the annual deficit into a surplus in order to pay down the cumulative deficit. That's the way I understand it.

Over many years the United States has accumulated a significant cumulative deficit, in the trillions of dollars, I think it's around $10 trillion. Bill Clinton brought the annual budget into surplus and then started paying down that cumulative deficit and if George W. Bush had left things alone the country would be in a much better fiscal position without the Bush tax cuts.

What's really sad for me is if they pass real healthcare reform with the public option or give Medicare to everyone regardless of their age, the financial position of the country will also improve significantly. The value of health-care stocks would decline but people should be diversified in their investments, they should not have everything in healthcare companies.

Also, the money to be saved by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would help improve the country's finances. Staying over there isn't accomplishing enough and even if it is, it's just way too much money.

If it were me I would get the military out as soon as possible from Afghanistan and leave some undercover people to loiter around there in disguise and maybe they can find out where bin Laden is hiding; it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s in a mosque in Afghanistan or Pakistan somewhere.

Once again, Clinton did not have one year where the "cumulative deficit" (actually called the National Debt) was paid down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

Well, here's the thing. People can simply check the Treasury links above, or the Congressional Budget Office, or the non-partisan FactCheck.org and decide who's wrong.  I'm just here to help anyone who might be confused by your posts.

And yes, I understand completely why you wouldn't want people looking at the Bush deficit numbers, either, although, if anyone wants a peek at the Clinton vs Bush eras, they could find a really clear chart right here.

youve mistaken me for a Bush supporter apparently. I could care less if you tear Bush apart on economics, he was never a fiscal conservativee. Keep spinning on the deficit. Until you respond to the basic question you are full of shit. I can post links all day to Treasury numbers that show that spending was greater than revenues. Now explain how there is a budget surplus when spending is greater than revenues.

And you can obfuscate all day, as you invariably do, and resort to name-calling,  and use Rush Limbaugh as your accountant. I don't care. People have a choice:  the Congressional Budget Office, the US Treasury website, and FactCheck.org ...or you.

I'm happy to leave it in the hands of the reader.