Who's Responsible For the Debt

[Bama_Dawg]

Ever wonder how we went from an $846 billion surplus to a $1.2 trillion deficit?

Barf.

 

[cbi1972]

I blame everyone who keeps voting in politicians that buy votes with promises of things the government will provide to them.

It is a well-known phenomenon that there is a general disdain for politicians in overall, but a perception that one's own politicians are better than the others.

Combine that set of perceptions with the prevailing "what have you done for me lately" attitude, an entitlement mentality, and a misguided faith in government's ability to solve problems, and one of the results is crushing government debt. The other is more and more parasites depending on fewer and fewer producers.

This will all end, one way or another, either through reform, revolution, or global war.

 

[Mamacalled]

Again, the surpluses were never there. The CBO changed their accounting practices to come up with those numbers. If they used the old practices the surplus would not have been. Add to the fact that they based much of their predictions on the best possible scenarios which did not pan out. The recession that developed because of the dot com bubble came along and then 9/11. Seems as though people conveniently forgot about the effects of those two events on the economy.
I will add, I love how the Dems like to use this to justify tripling the deficit in just 100 days.
Can you provide the link because I would love to see who wrote this piece that conveniently leaves out some pertinent facts, mainly the fact that the stock market burst before 2001. That tax revenues were up, etc.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I blame everyone who keeps voting in politicians that buy votes with promises of things the government will provide to them.

It is a well-known phenomenon that there is a general disdain for politicians in overall, but a perception that one's own politicians are better than the others.

Combine that set of perceptions with the prevailing "what have you done for me lately" attitude, an entitlement mentality, and a misguided faith in government's ability to solve problems, and one of the results is crushing government debt. The other is more and more parasites depending on fewer and fewer producers.

This will all end, one way or another, either through reform, revolution, or global war.

Well said.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

It is my fault. I bought too many margarita makers. I have a plan to fix it though.

 

[Bama Reb]

I blame everyone who keeps voting in politicians that buy votes with promises of things the government will provide to them.

It is a well-known phenomenon that there is a general disdain for politicians in overall, but a perception that one's own politicians are better than the others.

Combine that set of perceptions with the prevailing "what have you done for me lately" attitude, an entitlement mentality, and a misguided faith in government's ability to solve problems, and one of the results is crushing government debt. The other is more and more parasites depending on fewer and fewer producers.

This will all end, one way or another, either through reform, revolution, or global war.

Here's a solution. Make each one sign a contract that if they fail in the performance of their jobs, their contract can be "bought out", similar to what we have with coaches.
Heck, most all of them are just in it for the money, anyway. :biggrin:

 

[swoop10]

It is my fault. I bought too many margarita makers. I have a plan to fix it though.

If you bought too many that means you have extras, so would you mind putting me on a welfare program.

 

[Mamacalled]

O.k. I found the author of this lack of facts piece. It Andrew Sullivan, far from an unbiased source. No wonder that he leaves facts out that would have any blame placed on Clinton.
Do I think that CLinton is entirely at fault? No. Do I think that Bush is free of fault? No. But to let you know where this guy is coming from, here is a piece written by the source
Organizing for America | Edie's Blog: McCain's Integrity by Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

 

[Bama_Dawg]

Again, the surpluses were never there. The CBO changed their accounting practices to come up with those numbers. If they used the old practices the surplus would not have been. Add to the fact that they based much of their predictions on the best possible scenarios which did not pan out. The recession that developed because of the dot com bubble came along and then 9/11. Seems as though people conveniently forgot about the effects of those two events on the economy.
I will add, I love how the Dems like to use this to justify tripling the deficit in just 100 days.
Can you provide the link because I would love to see who wrote this piece that conveniently leaves out some pertinent facts, mainly the fact that the stock market burst before 2001. That tax revenues were up, etc.

Found it here:

How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created | The Big Picture

You say the graphic leaves out the fact that the stock market burst before 2001. But doesn't it mention that explicitly? (i.e. the paragraph in the upper lefthand corner: "but the 2000 stock market crash")

I'm interested to hear more about the surplus never existing. Feel free to link us there. Or cut & paste.

 

[RammerJammer14]

O.k. I found the author of this lack of facts piece. It Andrew Sullivan, far from an unbiased source. No wonder that he leaves facts out that would have any blame placed on Clinton.
Do I think that CLinton is entirely at fault? No. Do I think that Bush is free of fault? No. But to let you know where this guy is coming from, here is a piece written by the source
Organizing for America | Edie's Blog: McCain's Integrity by Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

:rofl: This guy is as objective as they come!

 

[Bama_Dawg]

O.k. I found the author of this lack of facts piece. It Andrew Sullivan, far from an unbiased source. No wonder that he leaves facts out that would have any blame placed on Clinton.
Do I think that CLinton is entirely at fault? No. Do I think that Bush is free of fault? No. But to let you know where this guy is coming from, here is a piece written by the source
Organizing for America | Edie's Blog: McCain's Integrity by Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

Are you sure Andrew Sullivan is the source?

As for the "lack of facts," I'm a little confused. What additional facts do you think should be included? And do you dispute any of the figures already in the graph?

 

[Mamacalled]

Are you sure Andrew Sullivan is the source?

As for the "lack of facts," I'm a little confused. What additional facts do you think should be included? And do you dispute any of the figures already in the graph?

Yes, if you click the link below the brief it will take you to his full article on the Atlantic.

The recession started before the election and was one of the main points in Bush's campaign. Seems that most forget that fact. Facts were also that the surplus was predicted to occur in 2009 and only if everything went well. This was also after the CBO changed their accounting principles which took short term debt that would have to be refinanced off the books.
Don't get me wrong, I have long criticized BUsh about his spending programs and he is not free of blame. I am just making the point that Clinton shares blame also. Now, Obama tripled the debt in just 6 months.
Both parties are guilty.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I was doing my internship at an investment bank in summer 2000. The market was tanking in spite of all the ongoing feel good stories in the non financial press. Everyone in the financial industry new a recession was coming, even if it didn't become clear to main street until the following Spring.

 

[cbi1972]

I'm interested to hear more about the surplus never existing. Feel free to link us there. Or cut & paste.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

[table omitted]

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

 

[Bamaro]

The facts speak for themselves. The deficits increased horrendously during the 20 reaganonics years and began to be paid down during the Slick Willie years. You cant blindly cut taxes unless you understand where you are on the Laffer curve UNLESS you are willing to cut spending too if needed.
We had a nearly 30 year stretch beginning around 1980 where there was no reason to not have an overall balanced budget. We cant blame todays deficits on BO, yet.

 

[cbi1972]

The facts speak for themselves. The deficits increased horrendously during the 20 reaganonics years and began to be paid down during the Slick Willie years. You cant blindly cut taxes unless you understand where you are on the Laffer curve UNLESS you are willing to cut spending too if needed.
We had a nearly 30 year stretch beginning around 1980 where there was no reason to not have an overall balanced budget. We cant blame todays deficits on BO, yet.

The facts contradict your belief.
Borrowing from Social Security did not reduce debt.
Reducing deficits did not create surplus.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Apparently, Reagan. You see, he should have raised taxes. :rofl:

 

[gmart74]

i thought reagan had a demo majority congress most of his years as president. if it is a pres with his same party in power in congress, then there is no ambiguity as to where to put the blame. however with opposite parties in congress and the whitehouse, the situation becomes much more murky.

 

[Bamaro]

i thought reagan had a demo majority congress most of his years as president. if it is a pres with his same party in power in congress, then there is no ambiguity as to where to put the blame. however with opposite parties in congress and the whitehouse, the situation becomes much more murky.

He could have vetoed any spending bills.

 

[Katzword]

Screw economics. Have ya'll seen this Bear Bryant play yet? I need to get on that.

Clay Travis had a pretty funny take on it over at fanhouse.

Roll Tide!