quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

There's no need to raise taxes on corporations or individuals. The fact is, Congress refuses to control their spending so no matter how much we give them, they will spend more.

quote:



The budget surpluses during the Clinton administration were the result of 8 years of Reaganomics, and the dot com boom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

This is what happens when rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

I assume you're alluding to the Bush tax cuts, passed years ago.  They obviously can not be responsible for just last year's increase in the deficit, but if you want to make a case that they're responsible for the swelling of the deficit since they've been passed, you will have logic on your side and a stronger argument.  I've always held that we cannot afford those cuts, and it's an insult to intelligence that we are expected to believe that cuts in taxes coupled with an increase in spending will help the economy magically, with no repercussions.

Just a hint - the economy also took a nosedive last year.  When people's incomes drop, that's another reason the deficit could have swelled.  As well as increases in federal spending.

quote:



And I will add its unfortunate Americans continue to vote for corrupt politicians. 

Please point out to me the candidates that are not corrupt.

quote:



US Debt rises from 41% to 53% of Gross National Product (GDP)

Over the past year alone,

the public debt of the United States rose sharply from 41 to 53 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Under reasonable assumptions, the debt is projected to grow steadily, reaching 85 percent of GDP by 2018, 100 percent by 2022, and 200 percent in 2038. 

Dead wrong.  Those are NOT reasonable assumptions.  They seem to assume a constant 3.2% deficit growth per year ad infinitum.  This assumes unlimited outside money to buy our debt with no confidence crisis among our lenders.  

quote:



However, before the debt reached such high levels, the United States would almost certainly experience a debt-driven crisis — something previously viewed as almost unfathomable in the world’s largest economy.

A comment from the site: "Also, most telling that neither party will take on govt. corruption to save money either. Buying votes with taxpayer money till the China banker cuts the credit card!"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Report-In-one-year-US-debt-has-risen-from-41-to-53-percent-of-GDP-79253352.html

I don't view this as corruption as much as pandering.  Nobody's paying off the pols to drive up the deficits but they're afraid to tell people that the easy times are gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You can respond to the Treasury department links I posted that show exactly what Ive said. But that would actually take acknowledgement that there was no surplus.

Then re-post them.

Because what you are saying is that the Treasury Department was in direct contradiction of the Congressional Budget Office.

No, that isnt what Im saying. Im saying that the cited numbers from the CBO are correct PUBLIC DEBT numbers. However a decrease in the PUBLIC DEBT does not mean there was a budget surplus. The TOTAL DEBT, as shown in the link I posted that Brain cant figure out how to use (entering two dates is really hard, I know) increased every year. There are probably TOTAL DEBT numbers in the CBO site somewhere, but all of them come out of Treasury anyway. The CBO is responsible for BUDGETS, not for reporting the actual results, thats Treasury. The link to Treasury shows the PUBLIC DEBT, the INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBT and the TOTAL DEBT...you know...the one on the National Debt Clock thats over 12 trillion now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You can respond to the Treasury department links I posted that show exactly what Ive said. But that would actually take acknowledgement that there was no surplus.

Then re-post them.

Because what you are saying is that the Treasury Department was in direct contradiction of the Congressional Budget Office.

No, that isnt what Im saying. Im saying that the cited numbers from the CBO are correct PUBLIC DEBT numbers. However a decrease in the PUBLIC DEBT does not mean there was a budget surplus. The TOTAL DEBT, as shown in the link I posted that Brain cant figure out how to use (entering two dates is really hard, I know) increased every year. There are probably TOTAL DEBT numbers in the CBO site somewhere, but all of them come out of Treasury anyway. The CBO is responsible for BUDGETS, not for reporting the actual results, thats Treasury. The link to Treasury shows the PUBLIC DEBT, the INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBT and the TOTAL DEBT...you know...the one on the National Debt Clock thats over 12 trillion now.

I previously posted, when we argued this on another thread, the CBO figures showing a reduction in the national debt corresponding to the surpluses.

If you still doubt those surpluses maybe you can explain what the Republican Congress and White House were arguing about how to spend what you claim did not exist.


federal budget Resources | BNET


After three decades of federal budget deficits, a budget surplus was realized in 1998.


...........
During his 1999 State of the Union address, President Clinton presented the framework of a plan to use most of the federal budget surplus to build the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare to levels that are required to provide benefits to the large baby-boom generation as it reaches retirement age. (The problems facing Social Security are addressed in greater detail in the online debate entitled: "Will Social Security survive into the 21st century?.") As part of this plan, Clinton proposed to invest some of the surplus in government managed retirement accounts that invest funds in the stock market. He proposed that the rest of the surplus be used to fund new initiatives in education, health care, national defense, and pollution abatement.

Many conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the economy would operate more efficiently with less government intervention. They believe that a federal budget surplus is unlikely to be saved or used to reduce the national debt since there will always be pressure to use the funds to satisfy requests from special interest groups that are engaged in rent-seeking behavior.

Many of these conservatives believe that the federal budget surplus provides an historic opportunity to reduce the size of government by providing tax cuts. These tax cuts, in their view, would transfer funds that would ultimately have been used for government spending back to private consumption and investment alternatives.

In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration successfully sponsored tax cut legislation that, combined with the aftereffects of the attack on the World Trade Center and the recession beginning in 2001, have eliminated the budget surplus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Until you can explain how the deficit increase every year as shown in the Treasury web site, yet there were supposedly "surpluses" this thread is over for me. As usual you keep citing references to public debt and to budget estimates instead of responding directly. Your usual bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Until you can explain how the deficit increase every year as shown in the Treasury web site, yet there were supposedly "surpluses" this thread is over for me. As usual you keep citing references to public debt and to budget estimates instead of responding directly. Your usual bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



What do you want me to respond to that the references do not state clearly?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcbride

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Until you can explain how the deficit increase every year as shown in the Treasury web site, yet there were supposedly "surpluses" this thread is over for me. As usual you keep citing references to public debt and to budget estimates instead of responding directly. Your usual bullshit.

Wow.  Another thread in which various people try to help you acknowledge the same easily-verified fact is over for you.  Ah, the nomadic life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

This is what happens when rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And I will add its unfortunate Americans continue to vote for corrupt politicians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



What do you want me to respond to that the references do not state clearly?

I gave you the link. bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Since neither you nor RML can explain the inconsistency between your claims and the easily verified facts on the Treasury website without admitting you were wrong, you choose to ignore them. Intellectual dishonesty at its CM finest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife



What do you want me to respond to that the references do not state clearly?

I gave you the link. bye.

You did?

How did I miss that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Since neither you nor RML can explain the inconsistency between your claims and the easily verified facts on the Treasury website without admitting you were wrong, you choose to ignore them. Intellectual dishonesty at its CM finest.