100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Republican Hypocrisy | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
FY1997
Public Debt: $3.789667T Intergov. : $1.623478T Gross Debt : $5.413146T FY1998 (Claimed Surplus: -$69.2B) Public Debt: $3.733864T -$55.8B Intergov. : $1.792328T +$168.9B Gross Debt : $5.526193T +$113B FY1999 (Claimed Surplus: -$122.7B) Public Debt: $3.636104T -$97.8B Intergov. : $2.020166T +$227.8B Gross Debt : $5.656270T +$130.1B FY2000 (Climed Surplus: -$230.0B) Public Debt: $3.405303T -$230.8B Intergov. : $2.268874T +$248.7B Gross Debt : $5.674178T +$17.9B +/- values in terms of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I wasn't so tired right now...I know numbers and understand what drivin, andrew and invictus are saying...so with that i will just say...GO GUYS!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
War is right. There is a difference between gross debt and public debt. Gross debt includes the albatross of social security. 2000 was the only year under Clinton that the federal debt decreased. in 93 it rose by 6%. 94 4.6%, 95 3.4%, 96 3.0%, 97 1.7%, 98 1.0%, 99 .08%... it's andrew, actually lol to add to this, in 2000 IIRC the public debt fell slightly but it was more than offset by the increase in intergovernmental holdings. The federal gross debt has not fallen since Andrew Jackson. Ahhh, yes, Andrew Jackson. The ONLY president to EVER balance our budget. In fact he wiped out our national debt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to be redundant. But Clinton left office with the largest surplus in history and (Junior)Bush left office with the largest deficit(and debt) in history. What am I missing here? The fact there never was a surplus in the first place. EDIT graph didn't translate so well... Damn, I wish there was a plain english way to explain this so I understand it. Why is it that when Clinton was in office, my life was far easier? I could pay all my bills on time and had no financial issues, yet when there is a republican in office I struggle? Just explain that simply to me, leaving this current administration out of it, because I don't know what's going to happen yet.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop it you guys. There's a big difference between deficit and debt.
Clinton left office with a surplus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh, yes, Andrew Jackson. The ONLY president to EVER balance our budget. In fact he wiped out our national debt. Why would that be so significant when back then you could buy a whole meal for a penny? I realize it might be a stupid question, upfront. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boo! Good to see ya. And some common sense along with ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 04/09/09 08:35 PM
|
|
Ahhh, yes, Andrew Jackson. The ONLY president to EVER balance our budget. In fact he wiped out our national debt. Why would that be so significant when back then you could buy a whole meal for a penny? I realize it might be a stupid question, upfront. It's not. I just like him for this. He had good $$ sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop it you guys. There's a big difference between deficit and debt. Clinton left office with a surplus. No he didn't. The deficit is related to the national debt. He had no surplus that you speak of. The surplus would be the budget. If he had extra money after paying the bills and expenses, there would be no increase in debt. Correct me if i'm wrong. If he borrowed money from other programs to pay expenses and skipped the payments on his national debt that may explain why he mentioned a surplus. In which case, i would be worse of if this administration did that. Don't ask a question unless you want to hear the answer. Andrew gave you the long professional version of the answer, and i gave you the more simplified version. There was no actual surplus. The numbers were crunched in such a way that he could claim it. Provide information showing a true surplus and where the money came from. We will get to the bottom of this if we truely must. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 04/09/09 08:43 PM
|
|
FY1997 Public Debt: $3.789667T Intergov. : $1.623478T Gross Debt : $5.413146T FY1998 (Claimed Surplus: -$69.2B) Public Debt: $3.733864T -$55.8B Intergov. : $1.792328T +$168.9B Gross Debt : $5.526193T +$113B FY1999 (Claimed Surplus: -$122.7B) Public Debt: $3.636104T -$97.8B Intergov. : $2.020166T +$227.8B Gross Debt : $5.656270T +$130.1B FY2000 (Climed Surplus: -$230.0B) Public Debt: $3.405303T -$230.8B Intergov. : $2.268874T +$248.7B Gross Debt : $5.674178T +$17.9B +/- values in terms of debt 
It is a complicated business. Crunching numbers. You need to understand the whole process before you can understand your question. Unfortunately without understanding, people ask these questions, then become insulted or shocked from the answer he or she receives... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.
But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But still. Why did the Republicans(fiscal conservatives), allow the budget to go the other way? Please. Tell me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Thu 04/09/09 09:07 PM
|
|
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html Oh, how I do remember those days. People had more money in their pockets then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But still. Why did the Republicans(fiscal conservatives), allow the budget to go the other way? Please. Tell me. Neoconservatives, not fiscal conservatives. There are only a handful of uncorrupt, fiscal conservative members when taking into account both parties. Neoconservatives hide behind conservative principals but do nothing of the sort. All administrations in the last 100 years have led this country in the same direction. Although JFK tried to change it... That tells me the ones supposedly in power are not actually in charge. So, to put it simply it's irrelivant who is president. We spend more each year. The budget is never TRUELY balanced unless our national debt stops increasing. Every administration has had,andstill hasthe same foreign policy, and relatively the same budget and debt increases. So i answer again, because most of the republican and democratic party is bought and paid for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Thu 04/09/09 09:08 PM
|
|
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html Oh, how I do remember those days. People had more money in their pockets. And we would all have more money if we could embezzle it from other places and stop paying our bills... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But still. Why did the Republicans(fiscal conservatives), allow the budget to go the other way? Please. Tell me. Neoconservatives, not fiscal conservatives. There are only a handful of uncorrupt, fiscal conservative members when taking into account both parties. Neoconservatives hide behind conservative principals but do nothing of the sort. All administrations in the last 100 years have led this country in the same direction. Although JFK tried to change it... That tells me the ones supposedly in power are not actually in charge. So, to put it simply it's irrelivant who is president. We spend more each year. The budget is never TRUELY balanced unless our national debt stops increasing. Every administration has had,andstill hasthe same foreign policy, and relatively the same budget and debt increases. So i answer again, because most of the republican and democratic party is bought and paid for. I got to give it to you, driven. You are a fair man. You do look at both sides. But it's indisputable that we had a budget surplus under Clinton. And the question here(for about the 3rd time) is how did Republicans, the party of fiscal conservatism, allow us to have the largest deficits in history? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html Oh, how I do remember those days. People had more money in their pockets. And we would all have more money if we could embezzle it from other places and stop paying our bills... Umm...why would I want to do that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html Oh, how I do remember those days. People had more money in their pockets. And we would all have more money if we could embezzle it from other places and stop paying our bills... Umm...why would I want to do that? Because that's what politicians do to get numbers to work in their favor....lol We all had more money back then due to a technology boom that occured in the 90's. That is the short and simple answer. It's nothing Bush sr did, and it was nothing Clinton did. The economy itself does better when it reaches an area such as industrialization or this technology boom. It is a natural increase in resourses and jobs. Problem is the technology boom slowed down, and now we are seeing the system we created begin to fall apart because it didn't properly adjust for it. Get what i am saying? Had nothing to do with market regulation, higher taxes, or anything of the sort... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was Regan and the first Bush fiscally conservative because I struggled with their administration too, and believe me I am not a big spender and never was.
So to me republican = hard times for the average person. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But still. Why did the Republicans(fiscal conservatives), allow the budget to go the other way? Please. Tell me. Neoconservatives, not fiscal conservatives. There are only a handful of uncorrupt, fiscal conservative members when taking into account both parties. Neoconservatives hide behind conservative principals but do nothing of the sort. All administrations in the last 100 years have led this country in the same direction. Although JFK tried to change it... That tells me the ones supposedly in power are not actually in charge. So, to put it simply it's irrelivant who is president. We spend more each year. The budget is never TRUELY balanced unless our national debt stops increasing. Every administration has had,andstill hasthe same foreign policy, and relatively the same budget and debt increases. So i answer again, because most of the republican and democratic party is bought and paid for. I got to give it to you, driven. You are a fair man. You do look at both sides. But it's indisputable that we had a budget surplus under Clinton. And the question here(for about the 3rd time) is how did Republicans, the party of fiscal conservatism, allow us to have the largest deficits in history? I thank you for noticing as i at least try to remain unbiased. Ok, to be more specific, there was A LOT of money lost due to accountibility "problems". In september of 2001 there was a report of roughly 2.5 trillion dollars going unaccounted for in the Pentagon. What i find ironic is the fact that not many people realized this as 9/11 occured right after the fact. Then there was the invasionof Afganistan followed shortly bythe invasion of Iraq that was all to be apart of this "War on Terror". Since then our foreign policy sucked up more money than before, while at the same time much of it was still unaccounted for. So, you have the end of the technology boom, a few trillion going missing, and the start of two major conflicts. This would partially explain the deficit increase i would think... Unfortunately a combination of pressure on the middle east, and inflation due to our printing/borrowing of money, cause things such as oil prices skyrocket. This combined with hurricane Katrina, and im sure some price gouging as well. This slows down the natural spending of money, which puts evenmore strain on the economic system. Of course there are many, MANY, other moving parts i haven't mentioned yet, i;m sure these are all contributing factors to a very large situation. |
|
|
|
|
