PDA

View Full Version : United States of Debt ...


Blitzburgh
06-29-2007, 06:36 PM
Our debt and the presidents responsible for it ....

Wow, GOP Presidents have been an absolute nightmare for our country ..... sick stuff, but the truth must be told. Took Clinton 6 years just to get the freight train to start slowing down from the two previous administrations. Now look what "W" is doing ..... sick, sick, sick ...


Don't shoot the messenger .... :coffee:



http://web.whittier.edu/academic/math/jmiller/United%20States%20National%20Debt_files/usdebt1.gif

revefsreleets
06-29-2007, 07:15 PM
Hmmmm. Seems to be an upward trend here that started 40 years ago, and was only slowed by a bubble ( dot.com ) economy that burst right around 2000.

Well, the only thing I think you can hope for (and pray for, since you stir up so much shit) is that a Democratic President elected in '08 reverses this trend. Unfortunately for you, it ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to watch the spin!

SteelCityMan786
06-29-2007, 07:17 PM
Hmmmm. Seems to be an upward trend here that started 40 years ago, and was only slowed by a bubble ( dot.com ) economy that burst right around 2000.

Well, the only thing I think you can hope for (and pray for, since you stir up so much shit) is that a Democratic President elected in '08 reverses this trend. Unfortunately for you, it ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to watch the spin!

Not if Hilary is president. The only Democrat I can see winning the presidency is Barack Obama

If it's Rudy or John from the Republican Party, we'll see a change.

83-Steelers-43
06-29-2007, 07:18 PM
This guy is on a roll.

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 07:22 PM
Hmmmm. Seems to be an upward trend here that started 40 years ago, and was only slowed by a bubble ( dot.com ) economy that burst right around 2000.

Well, the only thing I think you can hope for (and pray for, since you stir up so much shit) is that a Democratic President elected in '08 reverses this trend. Unfortunately for you, it ain't gonna happen. But it's fun to watch the spin!but wasnt clintons specialty in college economy and politics? just because its an upward trend does that mean every president should just say "f--- it its an upward trend so nothing is gonna stop it"?

didnt clinton actually have a childhood and lifelong focus to entering politics and addressing problems such as these, as opposed to being an actor or owning a baseball team?

i think youre selling our previos democratic president a bit short.

but hey, were going to hell in a handbasket of debt anyways....

(if you dont look at the pink elephant in the room it ALWAYS goes away)

blaming the dot.com bubble burst on clinton is hilarious. werent the majority of the holders of those shares who were "pumping and dumping" them wealthy republicans?

revefsreleets
06-29-2007, 07:53 PM
blaming the dot.com bubble burst on clinton is hilarious. werent the majority of the holders of those shares who were "pumping and dumping" them wealthy republicans?

I'm on no way blaming the bubble burst on him. I'm just correctly pointing out that he rode a wave that was not of his creation that also ended under his watch.

As for pumping and dumping, I'd be interested to see a source on that one. Most of the people who made most of the money were just accidental tourists who were lucky enough to take the trip.

tony hipchest
06-29-2007, 09:43 PM
Most of the people who made most of the money were just accidental tourists who were lucky enough to take the trip.lucky accidental tourists? :toofunny: sources for that must flood the net for that one :rolleyes:.

sounds more like the "suckers" those stocks were dumped off to.

the "accidental tourist" was being fed "hold for the long haul" while being told daytrading was an evil "risk and gamble" doomed to lose out on the next days big gain. LOL. even with earnings/ share were at 150-200:1 the "tourists" were being told "the market will catch up! "hold, hold, hold!"

the internet stock craze was the biggest case of "pump and dump" never prosecuted.

anyways, pointing out that the internet craze ended under clintons watch is about as constructive as correctly pointing out that 9-11 happened under bush's watch. regardless, the chart posted above doesnt lie DESPITE under whose watch it finally began to cease its exponential growth...

study the chart. shit sure did start to hit the fan between '80 and '92. i wonder if "trickle down" economics had anything to do with it. i wonder if the same ones to benefit from "trickle down" economics (enron and tyco executives?) were the same ones to benefit from the dot.com bust :hunch:

Crushzilla
06-30-2007, 12:54 AM
According to some sources the debt looks worse than it is. With a widening world economy the current national debt is actually less severe than the one we had accrued during the second World War.

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

There is an obvious trend in Republican Presidents and the rising debt. In their defense, it is very hard to balance the budget with one hand preparing to launch missiles. It's also hard to do such tasks when you are in bed so often... with as many big businesses as possible. :coffee:

I can't cut this administration any slack. It has been a f***ing travesty.

:help:

revefsreleets
06-30-2007, 06:45 AM
What about the trade deficit?

http://www.safehaven.com/article-2875.htm

Or the fact that Clinton balanced the budget in spite of his own attempts not to?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deficit+delusions-a018614099

Finally, the rest of my points laid out more eloquently by a WSJ Op/Ed writer

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005409

SteelCityMan786
06-30-2007, 10:23 AM
What about the trade deficit?

http://www.safehaven.com/article-2875.htm

Or the fact that Clinton balanced the budget in spite of his own attempts not to?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deficit+delusions-a018614099

Finally, the rest of my points laid out more eloquently by a WSJ Op/Ed writer

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005409

then why did the deficit get worse for Clinton as it has for every president listed in the graph?

Livinginthe past
06-30-2007, 11:29 AM
then why did the deficit get worse for Clinton as it has for every president listed in the graph?

I think you misunderstanding revefsreleets point.

He is giving Clinton his fair share of blame (some might say he is a rabid Republican, not me though - I wouldn't say that at all)

SteelCityMan786
06-30-2007, 01:56 PM
I think you misunderstanding revefsreleets point.

He is giving Clinton his fair share of blame (some might say he is a rabid Republican, not me though - I wouldn't say that at all)

True,

He's the typical Liberal Democrat.

GBMelBlount
06-30-2007, 10:51 PM
interesting blitz

revefsreleets
07-01-2007, 05:47 PM
Disconcerting, to say the least. Reading skills continue to diminish, I guess.

GBMelBlount
07-01-2007, 10:17 PM
If you look at the spending on the late 60's programs as a percentage of GNP, S.S., Medicare, Medicaid, etc. after 1970, you will find they are a greater increase in the percentage of GNP than the deficit has been. What that means is if the democratic programs were never initiated, our debt may never have increased at all. So, comparing the deficit to the years before these democrat programs were initiated to 70's to now is comparing apples and oranges.

“It took Clinton six years to fix it”……actually,
One could ask how the heck they could claim surpluses while piling on more debt? Answer: Clinton siphoned-off the surplus from trust funds & spent it on non-pension stuff, they did not count that in their budget, then claimed they ‘want to save social security first’ as they drained the trust fund in the late 90’s—all this is fully described in the very sobering “Trust Fund Report.”

As far as Bush II, yes, he does spend like a drunken sailor. Inheriting a recession, 911, his response & the increased recession due to 911 even further hurt the economy. I’m sure you’re glad to know I won’t be voting for him in 2008!

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 10:27 PM
if i were an alien from another planet, looking at that chart for the 1st time, there are 2 things i could easilly surmise from the simple mathematical figures it represents.

-it is exponential

-the ONLY time it tapered off was during the time of clinton.

SteelersMongol
07-01-2007, 10:31 PM
I see that the two Bushes kind of made it worse, but it looks to me as it started way long ago from the Reagan era. I'm mean if the Clinton was that good how come it didn't decrease? He's got to share the load as well.

GBMelBlount
07-01-2007, 10:36 PM
if i were an alien from another planet, looking at that chart for the 1st time, there are 2 things i could easilly surmise from the simple mathematical figures it represents.

-it is exponential

-the ONLY time it tapered off was during the time of clinton.

If I were an alien with these two charts....and no other info, I would too.

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 10:51 PM
I see that the two Bushes kind of made it worse, but it looks to me as it started way long ago from the Reagan era. I'm mean if the Clinton was that good how come it didn't decrease? He's got to share the load as well.there is simply no man alive who can make that chart decrease in a period of 8 years. were talking about trillions of dollars. the fact that that chart was tapered off should be viewed as an accomplishment in itself. one of the big tickets clinton ran on (and was schooled in) was balancing the budget.

as many years as it took for that chart to reach its heights is the minimal ammount of time we could ever expect (or even hope for) to bring back down to earth.

the sad thing is, if i were told we were gonna invade iraq for the sake of taking control of their oil revenues to bring us out of debt, i could atleast understand. instead we have increased our debt and will see nothing in return. good luck to the U.S. in forcing the rest of the middle east (and china) into becoming a democracy like our young, 231 year old nation.

GBMelBlount
07-01-2007, 11:01 PM
Again, clinton late 90's - All cash surpluses in trust funds were siphoned- off and spent on non-trust items.
In the early 2000s the nation admitted to running deficits - huge deficits on his watch. See the trust fund report...(for the 2nd time.)

tony hipchest
07-01-2007, 11:22 PM
i dont think we were ever out of debt. the budget was just balanced by not incurring any new debt.

clinton knew the budget must be balanced 1st before we could even think of getting out of trillions of dollars of debt. (baby steps). i dont think he ever claimed that he could build rome in a day. any of his supporters who claimed we had no debt to pay off either were blind or talking about "new debt" and misrepresenting the facts.

from a monetary point of view the chart in this thread speaks pretty clearly.

SteelersMongol
07-01-2007, 11:30 PM
... the budget must be balanced 1st before we could even think of getting out of trillions of dollars of debt ...

from a monetary point of view the chart in this thread speaks pretty clearly.

I see your point. Thanks man. :computer:

SteelCityMan786
07-02-2007, 07:48 AM
i dont think we were ever out of debt. the budget was just balanced by not incurring any new debt.

clinton knew the budget must be balanced 1st before we could even think of getting out of trillions of dollars of debt. (baby steps). i dont think he ever claimed that he could build rome in a day. any of his supporters who claimed we had no debt to pay off either were blind or talking about "new debt" and misrepresenting the facts.

from a monetary point of view the chart in this thread speaks pretty clearly.

I couldn't agree more.

However, if you want the deficit to go away(faster) you're going to need to do surplus spending. Leave some money for other important projects. It will help.

GBMelBlount
07-02-2007, 08:55 PM
i dont think we were ever out of debt. the budget was just balanced by not incurring any new debt.

clinton knew the budget must be balanced 1st before we could even think of getting out of trillions of dollars of debt. (baby steps). i dont think he ever claimed that he could build rome in a day. any of his supporters who claimed we had no debt to pay off either were blind or talking about "new debt" and misrepresenting the facts.

from a monetary point of view the chart in this thread speaks pretty clearly.

it's a correlation, nothing more.

In the late 90's, the balanced budget proposal was written & introduced by the newly elected majority republicans. Clinton acquiesced & signed then took all of the credit. It appears that the AMAZING tech boom & subsequent tax revenue may be the major contributor to the short term surplus situation. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see what Clinton did to create the surplus situation.

P.S. - republicans have actually raided S.S. trust fund before & after Clinton. It's a shame.

SteelCityMan786
07-02-2007, 09:38 PM
LMAO, it's a correlation, nothing more.

In the late 90's, the balanced budget proposal was introduced, written & negotiated by the newly elected majority republicans. Clinton only acquiesced & signed then took all of the credit. Also, if you read the trust fund raid, it is democrats & republicans that raided it, apparently noone cares enough to read. However, it is obvious that the AMAZING tech boom & subsequent tax revenue created the surplus situation. If I'm wrong, show me exactly what Clinton did to create the surplus situation INSTANTANEOUSLY.......

I never remember him contributing anything to that.

GBMelBlount
07-03-2007, 08:24 AM
it's a correlation, nothing more.

In the late 90's, the balanced budget proposal was written & introduced by the newly elected majority republicans. Clinton acquiesced & signed then took all of the credit. It appears that the AMAZING tech boom & subsequent tax revenue may be the major contributor to the short term surplus situation. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see what Clinton did to create the surplus situation.

P.S. - republicans have actually raided S.S. trust fund before & after Clinton. It's a shame.

Regardless, the deficit is out of control & is on course to destroy this country in the next 50 - 75 years if not corrected.

As far as Clinton personally. He is brilliant, communicates masterfully & did some good things for this country. I hope our future presidents have some of these attributes.

revefsreleets
07-03-2007, 04:22 PM
No. No. NO!
Clinton tried as hard as he could to put this nation trillions of dollars in debt (albeit for a noble cause- health care), but he failed in many ways. I hate to have to post parts of the whole articles that I posted links to that clearly most didn't bother to read, but, hey, ain't it your right as an American to just yell your opinion really loudly and often, whether you are informed or not?

-- In February 1993 President Clinton announces his new Administration's first economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The spending package is later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally irresponsible.

-- In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his $250-billion tax hike -- which New York Sen. Pat Moynihan accurately describes as "the largest tax increase in world history." It passes both houses of Congress without a single Republican vote. The package contains approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes.

-- In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat the bi-partisan Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut federal spending and the deficit by $90 billion over five years.

-- In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil "ClintonCare." The proposed hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy would add at least $75 billion to the deficit over the next six years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
-- In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal Democrats in Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure supported by 75 per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a little too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions about this Administration: "The President is against simply balancing the budget."

-- In October 1994 the President signs into law his $30-billion "crime bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a vast array of new social programs" including federally funded exotic-dance classes, sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball leagues. The cost of the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic House of Representatives rejects the original version as too expensive.

-- In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for $12 trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits for as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder blasts the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is projected to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it will, for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget."

-- In March 1995 Clinton again helps torpedo the Balanced Budget Amendment -- this time by strong-arming five Democratic senators, who had campaigned as champions of the amendment -- to flip-flop and vote no.

-- In June 1995, under pressure from the GOP Congress, Bill Clinton submits a new, revised budget proposal. It still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.

-- In July 1995 the Clinton White House begins its successful "Medi-scare" strategy to undermine public support for a GOP plan to rein in stampeding Medicare costs. Even the Washington Post editorializes that the Clinton Administration has become a gang of "medagogues." On Medicare and Medicaid, the White House is "engaged in an irresponsible campaign based on distortion and fear."

-- In October 1995 Bill Clinton confirms what most of the public is already painfully aware of: "I raised your taxes too much."

-- In December 1995 Bill Clinton vetoes the historic balanced-budget legislation enacted by the Republican Congress --listing 82 reasons why it cuts too much spending. He complains of cuts in everything from foreign aid to corporate welfare.

-- Later that month Bill Clinton releases his unprecedented third and then fourth budget proposals of the year. But they still don't balance the budget.

-- In February 1996 Bill Clinton releases a $1.65-trillion 1997 budget that calls for $360 billion in added spending, or $3,100 per American household, over the next seven years. Then with a straight face he tells the nation that "the era of big government is over." Oh, and the proposal still doesn't balance the budget by 2002.

-- In April 1996 Clinton signs the GOP budget after the Republicans capitulate to his demands and add back some $10 billion of deficit spending.

Hines0wnz
07-06-2007, 05:16 PM
The only thing Clinton accomplished was to undermine the military and set this country up for failure in the future. He dazzled everyone with his wit, charm and personality while double dealing and selling away secrets overseas. Once people can get over their crush on the worthless windbag then maybe they will understand. Then again, they wont because the failings of Bush only accentuate the love for Slick Willie. Disgusting.