RE: How the Deficit Got This Big????

RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:02:46 PM)
Or, to borrow words from the Wall Street Journal since it was just put it so well: "In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."

tazzygirl -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:05:44 PM)
Curious. You state this... quote: Well the discrepancy is pretty easy to explain; the CBO's numbers don't show all the sources of debt we took on, where the Treasury Department's numbers do. Yet Figure F3 of the site I gave you... http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf Lists the following as revenues... Revenues by Major Source, 1970 to 2009, in Billions of Dollars Individual Income tax Corporate Income tax Social Insurance Tax Excise Tax Estate and Gift Taxes Custom Duties Miscellaneous Receipts Where are the added sources of revenue from extra Debt?

Owner59 -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:06:57 PM)
One should take into account that bush put most of the money spent/wasted in Iraq, off the books. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Where are the added sources of revenue from extra Debt? The use of borrowed money from intragovernment funds to pay off public debt. That borrowed money is still an obligation that needs paid back.

tazzygirl -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:13:55 PM)
Nope... They show a surplus before the intragovernment funds come into play.

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:17:18 PM)
No, they're just not showing the intragovernmental borrowing. That "Revenues" column already includes it in it's total, nicely hidden.

Fellow -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:23:18 PM)
quote: partisan?? Using the CBO figures is partisan??? Treasury figures are partisan? WTFF, but your resource is shivers da trufe? There is war spending in Bush column, where is Obama war spending?

tazzygirl -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:24:09 PM)
That "Revenues" column already includes it in it's total, nicely hidden Yet you haven't shown me where its "nicely hidden".

Lucylastic -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: partisan?? Using the CBO figures is partisan??? Treasury figures are partisan? WTFF, but your resource is shivers da trufe? There is war spending in Bush column, where is Obama war spending? Did you miss the defense column????IM sposing its in that figure so.... now whats partisan???

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl That "Revenues" column already includes it in it's total, nicely hidden Yet you haven't shown me where its "nicely hidden". Well, you already know that SS tax is included in the Revenue column, as you said above. What happens is (and I'm cut/pasting some of this because others have already explained it quite well): Social Security is legally required to use all its surpluses to buy U.S. Government securities. From Social Security's standpoint, it has a multi-trillion dollar reserve in the form of U.S. Government securities. When the Social Security system starts to falter due to insufficient contributions to pay for all the benefits of retiring baby-boomers, it will start cashing those securities and will expect the U.S. Government to pay it back, with interest. The problem is, the government doesn't have the money. The money has already been spent--in part, effectively, to pay down the public debt under Clinton. The CBO doesn't mention that part though, it just tosses SS money as part of the "Revenue" column for use in regular government operations.

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow quote: partisan?? Using the CBO figures is partisan??? Treasury figures are partisan? WTFF, but your resource is shivers da trufe? There is war spending in Bush column, where is Obama war spending? Did you miss the defense column????IM sposing its in that figure so.... now whats partisan??? It's not though, he does have a point there. The total cost for those wars listed under Bush do include the ongoing wars under Obama. Still, Obama's part in that is small compared to Bush's part, but it's one minor inaccuracy to the chart.

tazzygirl -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:40:55 PM)
Table F9 outlay 1999 900.0

MasterBurg -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:41:58 PM)
The thing is that if republicans are reality challenged, what does that make a democrat who falsely makes the claim that tax cuts are a "Cost"? I personally believe that we will continue on our downward trend until and unless we all have a nice deep honest debate about the downsides of Democrat Policy.

servantforuse -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:42:30 PM)
To quote Obama's pal the rev. Wright, 'our chickens have come home to roost'.

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:43:44 PM)
Also, looking further at the CBO's numbers, look a the "Surplus" for 1998, it shows 69.3 billion. So if that's the actual surplus, looking at the 1997 debt of $3,772.3 billion and apply it, you would think the new debt would be $3,703 billion...instead the CBO shows a debt of $3,721.1 billion, indicating a "surplus" of only $51.2 billion. That there should be enough to tell you the CBO isn't telling the full story. The indisputable fact still remains: During the Clinton years, the total national debt increased every year. Only in Washington D.C. would that somehow be considered a "surplus."

Lucylastic -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:43:49 PM)
Id like a link then please, because the first graph does have a column with the figure in "the black", so please feel free to provide the figures stating otherwise. As its the only column in the black(126 billion), its marked "savings" it has to be there for a reason.

starphase -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse To quote Obama's pal the rev. Wright, 'our chickens have come home to roost'. Can we sell those chickens to pay off some of our debt?

Owner59 -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBurg The thing is that if republicans are reality challenged, what does that make a democrat who falsely makes the claim that tax cuts are a "Cost"? I personally believe that we will continue on our downward trend until and unless we all have a nice deep honest debate about the downsides of Democrat Policy. Tax cuts are a cost. They have to be offset with other moneys. We`ve had enough of the fuzzy math and make pretend.

Raiikun -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:51:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Id like a link then please, because the first graph does have a column with the figure in "the black", so please feel free to provide the figures stating otherwise. What I was referring to, is the chart shows the cost of war under the Bush column as $1.469 trillion. There are varying sites with varying estimates, but this one for instance: http://costofwar.com/en/ shows a cost of 1.2 trillion from 2001 until now. And since Obama has seemingly been glad to continue those military operations, it does seem a little unfair to include the entire number in the Bush column.

Lucylastic -> RE: How the Deficit Got This Big???? (9/14/2011 6:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBurg The thing is that if republicans are reality challenged, what does that make a democrat who falsely makes the claim that tax cuts are a "Cost"? I personally believe that we will continue on our downward trend until and unless we all have a nice deep honest debate about the downsides of Democrat Policy. first we have to find some honest republicans. They are in extremely short supply on this part of board. VERY short supply

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875