July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Friday, July 12: Philadelphia, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

What have Republicons ever done for America's middle class?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

325 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Pierpont:

How goddamn noble.

I am many things

It's one thing to support the Bush tax cuts based on forecasted surpluses that might not materialize. That was irresponsible enough. It's quite another to support the Bush tax cuts when YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THERE WAS A SURPLUS

You must have me confused with someone else.

But then, it's not like I'm talking to someone with either intelligence or principles. You're just another Free Lunch Right Winger who wants to steal from future taxpayers so you can party today.

Then you take that confusion, and completely make a jackass out of yourself. Fine asshattery.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Just because you're claiming numbers means nothing. That 1.12 number doesn't even appear on that page. Are we to guess how it was derived? Current dollars? Constant dollars? Just on-budget spending or unified? Or are you pulling numbers out of your butt?

I did ask if you could do Math. Ending expenditures dived by beginning expenditures give rate of increase.

And Newt's first budget is FY96, not 95

They took office in 95, Tthe first big budgetary conflict was in 95, Shutdown was in 95, and they would have controlled any and all supplemental bills for the year. If you do not like, feel free to do as you please.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Just because you're claiming numbers means nothing. That 1.12 number doesn't even appear on that page. Are we to guess how it was derived? Current dollars? Constant dollars? Just on-budget spending or unified? Or are you pulling numbers out of your butt?
I did ask if you could do Math. Ending expenditures dived by beginning expenditures give rate of increase.

Again YOUR failures and laziness are not my fault. I'm not going to run through all the permutations of budget numbers looking for what you claim exists... not that it's even relevant.

Where are your HARD NUMBERS that show the GOP cuts in the 90's were so instrumental in bringing about a Surplus that you may or may not believe existed. As I predicted, you're too goddamn lazy to actually go though CBO reports on those bills. You want to ASSERT there were sufficient GOP cuts without proving it... or putting it in the context with the Clinton revenue steamroller.

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:And Newt's first budget is FY96, not 95

They took office in 95, The first big budgetary conflict was in 95, Shutdown was in 95, and they would have controlled any and all supplemental bills for the year. If you do not like, feel free to do as you please.

So again no hard numbers? Of course not... just more assertions and empty claims. And the government shutdown came when? Not when Newt and his clowns came to power. The first shutdown came Nov 14, 95... WHEN WRITING THE FY96 BUDGET!!! Gee, isn't that what I said? Newt's first budget was FY96!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

Obviously you case is falling apart… not that you ever concede. You just run away.

According to Table 1.1 in THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, HISTORICAL TABLES the on-budget deficit at the end of FY95… Sept 30, 1996, was -226,367 BILLION. The true on-budget surplus arrives in FY99... by Sept 30, 1999.

Let's see your SPECIFIC FIGURES how Newt cut enough in FY96, FY97 and FY98, and FY99 to bridge that 226 BILLION deficit? The needed cuts would average out to about 56.5 BILLION a year for 4 years. Where in the outlay numbers do we see at least 56.5 BILLION a year in cuts? WE DON'T!! Nothing close. There's always an increase in spending over the year before. The deficit gap is bridged primarily WITH REVENUE. The Orwellian Right has an amusing claim here. I'll leave it to you to find.

As I said earlier, any GOP cuts would help balance the budget, but they were hardly instrumental. At best they sped the surplus up by one year. But the Tax Cuts of 97 almost pushed the surplus into FY2000. After all, that on-budget surplus was only 1.9 Billion in FY99.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote DRC:

It really would be interesting, maybe even exciting, to have an intelligent right winger here, but we have to deal with what shows up instead. If we could find one, we could apply for endangered species status for it.

ROTFLMAO.... you guys crack me up, Going back through the old threads, appears there was a time you guys had a habit of removing them.

Hey, plenty of Progressives have been banned here. As for nuking of posts, I only know of one case in my 5-6 years here... off and on.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

Where are your HARD NUMBERS that show the GOP cuts in the 90's were so instrumental in bringing about a Surplus that you may or may not believe existed. As I predicted, you're too goddamn lazy to actually go though CBO reports on those bills. You want to ASSERT there were sufficient GOP cuts without proving it... or putting it in the context with the Clinton revenue steamroller.

I showed you the numbers and how I did it, There are no rules that say I have to hold your hand. That 5 years had the lowest expenditure growth in the last half century which is the direct result of the GOP House. Your revenue growth has been matched at least once. Good revenue growth due to booming economy and fiscal conservative restraint on expenditures equals responsible governing. I lead you to the water, can't force you to drink.

The first shutdown came Nov 14, 95... WHEN WRITING THE FY96 BUDGET!!! Gee, isn't that what I said? Newt's first budget was FY96!!!

Do you know what the Federal fiscal years are?

Obviously you case is falling apart… not that you ever concede. You just run away.

to concede to stupidity would be stupid.

Let's see your SPECIFIC FIGURES how Newt cut enough in FY96, FY97 and FY98, and FY99 to bridge that 226 BILLION deficit?

You have the Numbers right in from of your face. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

As I have repeatedly said, Newt cut expenditure growth to ther lowest in <whenever> allowing revenues to exceed expenditures. It is not rocket science. I know you are trying to twist it into cuts... that just makes you an idiot.

You claim it just the revenues, yet the late 80's had the same revenue growth as the late 90's. But in the Late 80's expenditures exceeded the revenue growth. So it not just the Revenue growth.

No amounts of your contortions are going to change the numbers

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Where are your HARD NUMBERS that show the GOP cuts in the 90's were so instrumental in bringing about a Surplus that you may or may not believe existed. As I predicted, you're too goddamn lazy to actually go though CBO reports on those bills. You want to ASSERT there were sufficient GOP cuts without proving it... or putting it in the context with the Clinton revenue steamroller.
I showed you the numbers and how I did it, There are no rules that say I have to hold your hand.

So I have to assume you did pull the numbers from your butt because you did NOT say how you got that number. Just because YOU are ignorant about budget variables, doesn't mean the rest of us are. Now let me hold YOUR hand... I ask AGAIN... How was that 2.1 number derived? Did you use Current dollars? Constant dollars? Just on-budget spending or unified? Or, as I suspect, are you pulling numbers out of your butt?

Again... since you're clueless, Newt does NOT get credit for FY95. So your 5 year average of some numbers you refuse to define... is as arbitrary as it is meaningless. There are NO 5 year terms of office in Congress or the Whitehouse. And you also refused to present any other worthless numbers so we could compare for ourselves. Obviously the rigors of even making a half-ass argument are too great for you.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Obviously you case is falling apart… not that you ever concede. You just run away.

to concede to stupidity would be stupid.

Yup, it would be. But not as stupid as believing your laughable half-ass arguments represent some monopoly on truth.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:The first shutdown came Nov 14, 95... WHEN WRITING THE FY96 BUDGET!!! Gee, isn't that what I said? Newt's first budget was FY96!!!

Do you know what the Federal fiscal years are?

Gee... I give the correct info about fiscal years, you fudge Newt's budget cutting to include all of 1995... again with no proof but your empty claims, and you have the goddamn nerve to ask me if I know what a fiscal year is? Oh! I get it... you want me to explain it to you! Sorry, I don't have the patience.

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont: Let's see your SPECIFIC FIGURES how Newt cut enough in FY96, FY97 and FY98, and FY99 to bridge that 226 BILLION deficit?
You have the Numbers right in from of your face. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200As I have repeatedly said, Newt cut expenditure growth to ther lowest in <whenever> allowing revenues to exceed expenditures. It is not rocket science. I know you are trying to twist it into cuts... that just makes you an idiot. You claim it just the revenues, yet the late 80's had the same revenue growth as the late 90's. But in the Late 80's expenditures exceeded the revenue growth. So it not just the Revenue growth.
TRANSLATION: Just because YOU have no clue what you're babbling about doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Again you're just throwing numbers out and making empty claims, when in fact those numbers show there's NO way Newt could have cut 226 BILLION in spending to balance the budget. I've NEVER said the Clinton Surplus was ALL revenues. That you accuse me of this proves you're clueless what I've been writing. Newt MAY have slowed the rate of GROWTH in spending, and I've been clear Newt's cuts may have helped getting to a Surplus a bit early. But there are no actual CUTS in spending during the Newt years of FY96-FY99. Therefore any budget surplus could NOT have primarily been the result of spending cuts but of increased revenue. Again, you're too goddamn lazy to pour over CBO reports on GOP bills from the 90's so you hope you can fake it with bluff and bluster. But then this is the type of low IQ bulsh*t the Orwellian Right feeds you… and you believe it. So why wouldn't you expect the rest of us to also have self-sabotaged intellects!
Quote Cap:No amounts of your contortions are going to change the numbers
No contortions here. The numbers are what the numbers are. I respect them. They just don't prove any of your baseless claims. That's not my fault. Hey Fluffy, take some goddamn responsibility for your intellectual laziness and your idiotic arguments.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote polycarp2:

Has it ever occurred to anyone that what they are debating isn't even the problem? It does, however, make for great political theater. I expect we'll see a lot of budget talk in the upcoming campaigns.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

While we seem to be having a Hope and a prayer conservation on the other thread,

Do I sense you do not believe a government can not run efficiently enough to begin paying back the debt?

You want to know the main reason coservatives are against raising taxes. Becasue they NEVER go to where they should. It's wasted money.

poly replies: Probably when global debt exceeds global economic output, it won't be repaid. Can't give someone 11 apples when you only have 10 in the orchard.

Besides, the way our monetary system functions, if the national government paid it's debt in full, , the private sector would have to increase its debt to make up the difference or the monetary system collapses. The private sector is incapable of doing that.

. What your debating can't be solved within current structures. More debt will ultimately collapse it. Less debt will ultimately collapse it..Two centuries of maintaining a money supply through debt has pretty much run its course.

How the monetary system functions was explained in post 137. It isn't that difficult to grasp. I explained the basics...leaving out the problem of compounding interest over several centuries which is more difficult to explain easily .though I've explained it in previous postings. They were pretty long..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:

You claim it just the revenues, yet the late 80's had the same revenue growth as the late 90's. But in the Late 80's expenditures exceeded the revenue growth. So it not just the Revenue growth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only data you are citing are in this link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Doesn't this data count Social Security taxes collected and Social Security outlays?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Capital:

You claim it just the revenues, yet the late 80's had the same revenue growth as the late 90's. But in the Late 80's expenditures exceeded the revenue growth. So it not just the Revenue growth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only data you are citing are in this link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Doesn't this data count Social Security taxes collected and Social Security outlays?

I dont think so, it that were the case the late 90's numbers would be different.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote polycarp2:

How the monetary system functions was explained in post 137. It isn't that difficult to grasp. I explained the basics...leaving out the problem of compounding interest over several centuries which is more difficult to explain easily .though I've explained it in previous postings. They were pretty long..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

You and I have had that discussion before,

I would rather have the Economy constrict by removing the Federal money multiplier than have it collapse like Greece. If you a liberal who loves the social safety net, you should what to start paying off the debt, because a collapse would decimate the safety net instead of constrict it.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote chilidog:
Quote Capital:
You claim it just the revenues, yet the late 80's had the same revenue growth as the late 90's. But in the Late 80's expenditures exceeded the revenue growth. So it not just the Revenue growth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only data you are citing are in this link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Cap's MO is to find something on line then CLAIM it's undeniable proof he's correct about X, Y, or Z... yet never explain why. We saw this with his laughable claim the Framers intended the Bill Of Rights to apply to slaves, and we see this with his magic 2.1 number which he's REFUSED to explain how it's been derived at, why he used a 5 year sample when that doesn't correlate to any congressional or presidential term, or what the other numbers are in other 5 year samples he CLAIMS exists. He hides behind such baseless claims instead of answering direct, more relevant questions such as how Newt could be responsible for the Clinton Surplus when he didn't raise any revenue, but only cut taxes and spending between 95 and when the Surplus first appeared… and NONE of his cuts came close to eliminating a 226 Billion deficit at the end of FY95. Cap just compounds baseless claims atop baseless claims... in this case adding in Reagan's revenues... which, of course he does nothing to prove rose as fast as Clinton's. Not that such a claim means much since what's more relevant when it comes to revenue is not whether it ever grows, it almost always does except after massive tax cuts or recessions… but whether after changes in tax law (tax cut or hike) how it compares to revenue under PREVIOUS tax law. Revenues certainly rose in constant dollars under Bush2 in 06-07… but he was still hundreds of billions in deficits, and it never made up for SIX YEARS of LOWER revenues than Clinton's last year between 01 and 05. He then just redefines it all as a spending problem instead of a revenue problem… even if in constant dollars revenues the past now 11 YEARS have only exceeded Clinton's last year twice*… and even then only totaled about 140 billion. All those other NINE years, revenues have been BELOW Clinton's last year. Yup, no "revenue problem" here.

Cap is just another case of a self-sabotaged intellect who's convinced any lie, distortion or half-truth he or the Orwellian Right spews MUST be gospel.

*source: Table 1.3

THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, HISTORICAL TABLES

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Capital:If you a liberal who loves the social safety net, you should what to start paying off the debt, because a collapse would decimate the safety net instead of constrict it.
Thanks for proving my point. As a Progressive I DO want to pay down debt, not just to preserve the safety net, but for moral reasons you Free Lunch Right wingers don't understand.

It's clear when the Right supports MORE irresponsible tax cuts even while we're 15 Trillion in debt… that they want to set in cement the theft now of $14 TRILLION we pissed away on ourselves the past 30 years that WE REFUSED TO PAY FOR. Of course the other half of this argument is that if paying down debt will strengthen programs like SS and Medicare, then increasing debt will WEAKEN them. Which is what I wrote about earlier. The far Right of the GOP has always loathed these programs but could never run on a platform on abolishing them. But they CAN win elections buying votes with irresponsible tax cuts, creating massive debt, then claiming they alone can SAVE these programs by cutting their budgets or privatizing them. That can't be done without creating a plausible narrative for their True Believers of why their clearly irresponsible fiscal policies make sense.Here's one of those lies now from 2000...

“The bottom line is clear: Governor Bush’s plan takes care of Social Security first, provides America’s working families with a tax break, and does it all within the context of a balanced budget,”
According to numbers released today by the Bush campaign, the Bush balanced budget provides:
¨ 62% of the surplus for Social Security and debt reduction.
¨ 27% of the surplus to reduce taxes.
¨
11% of the surplus for remaining budget expenses

source: http://romcache.tripod.com/bush2000.pdf

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Pierpont:

Cap's MO is to find something on line then CLAIM it's undeniable proof he's correct about X, Y, or Z... yet never explain why.

I did, it called growth of expenditures. I just didn't take into account I was talking to a short bus special. You can even use your numbers to figure out rate of growth.

and we see this with his magic 2.1 number which he's REFUSED to explain how it's been derived at, why he used a 5 year sample when that doesn't correlate to any congressional or presidential term, or what the other numbers are in other 5 year samples he CLAIMS exists.

<eye roll> 1.12 which is what you get dividing (1999) 1701.8 / (1995) 1515.8. Which is the reason for the supposed surplus

Chilidog. It does include SS.

He hides behind such baseless claims instead of answering direct, more relevant questions such as how Newt could be responsible for the Clinton Surplus when he didn't raise any revenue

Because he check expenditures. One does not need to Raise revenue, if they check expenditures. At this point I assume you have no accounting skills at all.

Revenues certainly rose in constant dollars under Bush2 in 06-07… but he was still hundreds of billions in deficits,

Could that be because they spent more than they brought in? As opposed to not spending more than you take in

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Cap's MO is to find something on line then CLAIM it's undeniable proof he's correct about X, Y, or Z... yet never explain why.
I did, it called growth of expenditures. I just didn't take into account I was talking to a short bus special. You can even use your numbers to figure out rate of growth.
Cap, you're a lying sack of bullcrap. I've asked you now 3-4 times to specify WHICH of at least FOUR possible ways to calculate growth in spending.... AND YOU HAVE REFUSED. Even now you're not stating which numbers you're using or why. Again IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ONE NUMBER OVER ANOTHER IS RELEVANT.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Revenues certainly rose in constant dollars under Bush2 in 06-07… but he was still hundreds of billions in deficits,
Could that be because they spent more than they brought in? As opposed to not spending more than you take in

Are there ANY intelligent Right wingers out there that haven't sabotaged their own intellects?
Gee... in your mind, if in constant dollars revenues in NINE of the past ELEVEN years have not exceeded 2000 levels, there's NO revenue problem, it's all spending?
You just love those Orwellian half-truths, don't you. Problem is you refuse to challenge this nonsense. We can't pay down debt unless we run a true ON-BUDGET SURPLUS. But the far Right sees any budget surplus as a threat to strategy of weakening or abolishing the safety net.
We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?
Repeat after me Einstein: DEBT CAN ONLY BE PAID DOWN BY EXCESS REVENUE. DEBT CAN NOT BE PAID DOWN WITH SPENDING CUTS.
Yet, do you think the spoiled rotten Free Lunch Right will tolerate ANY taxes without getting services when they actually believe now that they're overtaxed after enjoying a 14 TRILLION free lunch the past 30 years?
Your inability or refusal to see through the lies and half-truths of the far Right is not our problem.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Cap, you're a lying sack of bullcrap. I've asked you now 3-4 times to specify WHICH of at least FOUR possible ways to calculate growth in spending.... AND YOU HAVE REFUSED. Even now you're not stating which numbers you're using or why. Again IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ONE NUMBER OVER ANOTHER IS RELEVANT.

Post 139 "Compare 5 year expenditure growth, the period between 1995-1999 has the lowest expenditure growth ratio (1.12) compare to anything back though the 70’s."

Post 153 "I did ask if you could do Math. Ending expenditures divided by beginning expenditures gives rate of increase."

Post 166 "1.12 which is what you get dividing (1999) 1701.8 / (1995) 1515.8. Which is the reason for the supposed surplus"

No sense in calling you names.... to easy

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Are there ANY intelligent Right wingers out there that haven't sabotaged their own intellects?
Gee... in your mind, if in constant dollars revenues in NINE of the past ELEVEN years have not exceeded 2000 levels, there's NO revenue problem, it's all spending?
You just love those Orwellian half-truths, don't you. Problem is you refuse to challenge this nonsense. We can't pay down debt unless we run a true ON-BUDGET SURPLUS. But the far Right sees any budget surplus as a threat to strategy of weakening or abolishing the safety net.
We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?
Repeat after me Einstein: DEBT CAN ONLY BE PAID DOWN BY EXCESS REVENUE. DEBT CAN NOT BE PAID DOWN WITH SPENDING CUTS.
Yet, do you think the spoiled rotten Free Lunch Right will tolerate ANY taxes without getting services when they actually believe now that they're overtaxed after enjoying a 14 TRILLION free lunch the past 30 years?
Your inability or refusal to see through the lies and half-truths of the far Right is not our problem.

You conintually amaze and confound me. So I was curious, You keep saying "On-Budget Surplus" as if it means something different from what I am saying, You even BOLD it, making it sound so important.

Congressional definition of On-Budget Surplus

" the term “on-budget surplus” means with respect to a fiscal year, the amount by which receipts exceed outlays for all spending and receipt accounts of the United States Government that are designated as on-budget.”

Where revenue exceeds spending…. Nope, same thing

We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?

Than revenue would clearly exceed spending... dumbass.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Cap, you're a lying sack of bullcrap. I've asked you now 3-4 times to specify WHICH of at least FOUR possible ways to calculate growth in spending.... AND YOU HAVE REFUSED. Even now you're not stating which numbers you're using or why. Again IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK OR EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ONE NUMBER OVER ANOTHER IS RELEVANT.

Post 139 "Compare 5 year expenditure growth, the period between 1995-1999 has the lowest expenditure growth ratio (1.12) compare to anything back though the 70’s."
Post 153 "I did ask if you could do Math. Ending expenditures divided by beginning expenditures gives rate of increase."
Post 166 "1.12 which is what you get dividing (1999) 1701.8 / (1995) 1515.8. Which is the reason for the supposed surplus"
No sense in calling you names.... to easy
TRANSLATION... only in your last post do you actually say what numbers you used, but AGAIN refused to say WHY one of at least 4 ways to measure expenditure growth is relevant... and in the end it DISPROVES your claim that GOP spending cuts were responsible for the Clinton Surplus which you may or may not believe existed. Your worthless exercise FAILS to show how with CONSTANT GROWTH in expenditures all through the 90's, that the GOP could bridge that 226 BILLION deficit at the end of FY95 to get to an on-budget surplus by FY99 with spending cuts alone. And if you can't prove those spending cuts were instrumental in getting to a surplus, we're left with Clinton's own spending cuts and REVENUES, as the cause. In the end, the GOP could not stand having a surplus... and Newt tried to sabotage it as early as 98 and 99... and Bush drove a stake into the Surplus by 2001

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

TRANSLATION... only in your last post do you actually say what numbers you used, but AGAIN refused to say WHY one of at least 4 ways to measure expenditure growth is relevant... and in the end it DISPROVES your claim that GOP spending cuts were responsible for the Clinton Surplus which you may or may not believe existed. Your worthless exercise FAILS to show how with CONSTANT GROWTH in expenditures all through the 90's, that the GOP could cut that 226 BILLION deficit at the end of FY95 to get to an on-budget surplus by FY99 with spending cuts alone.

My fault, Apparently you CAN"T do math. I gave you too much credit as a functional adult trying to do 4 grade math. In the future I'll use crayons and stuff animals to communicate to you.

If you apply this new found 4th grade math, you could answer your own question. Rate of revenue increase doubled the rate of expenditure increases. Meaning we took in more than we spent.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:You conintually amaze and confound me. So I was curious, You keep saying "On-Budget Surplus" as if it means something different from what I am saying, You even BOLD it, making it sound so important.

Congressional definition of On-Budget Surplus

" the term “on-budget surplus” means with respect to a fiscal year, the amount by which receipts exceed outlays for all spending and receipt accounts of the United States Government that are designated as on-budget.”

Who the hell even knows what you're saying when you clearly don't. Let's paint with a broad brush. The UNIFIED budget includes ALL federal revenues and spending... including OFF-budget trust funds like SS. We've routinely BORROWED from these off-budget accounts to pay for ON-budget spending because they've been running surpluses and it's required by law.
Using the unified budget numbers if we BORROW $200 billion internally from the a surplus in off-budget accounts, and use it to cover a $200 billion deficit on the on-budget side, then we have a UNIFIED balanced budget, even if we have to pay back that $200 billion at some point. That's the intergovernmental debt. If ON-budget revenues rise or spending is cut to cover ALL on-budget expenses and the on-budget side is balanced, then that off-budget surplus of $200 billion isn't needed and it can be used to pay down public debt. In this case the public debt decreases even as the intergovernmental debt increases. Which raises the other issue you can't grasp... that budgets are closely related to but not dollar for dollar synchronized with the national debt... the combination of intergovernmental and public debt.

How is this relevant to anything? It's because we KNEW back in 2000 that we needed to be running an on-budget surplus not just to pay down the then 6 Trillion in debt, but because in about 20 years… now 8 years from now, the baby boomer surplus in the Social Security trust fund would end and they'd have to start cashing in those IOUs. Those IOUs could only be paid by on-budget accounts. If we continued to run massive deficits then, or massive debt… there'd be pressure to sabotage SS spending rather than confront the problems of overspending/low revenues on the on-budget side. Bush RAN on paying down debt to protect SS. Yet he and the GOP to this day are determined to sabotage debt paydown because they KNOW it will weaken SS. They can't admit this, but they can and have created a plausible narrative to conceal what they're doing. What is it? Obviously every Right wing lie, distortion, and half-truth you believe.

Sometimes you have to ignore the rationalizations and look at the underlying intent and implications.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?
Than revenue would clearly exceed spending... dumbass.
Your level of cluelessness is off the charts. WE WERE AT A SURPLUS BACK IN 2000. What did the Right say then? The surplus "PROVED" we're overtaxed... and it was OUR money. The tax cut psychos on the Right will not tolerate a surplus and sabotaged it as soon as they could. They believe DEBT is their best political weapon to dismantle government. Norquist was quite honest about this in a 60 Minutes interview. They want to cut government spending down to about 8% GDP... to where it was before the New Deal. They want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, environmental and worker safety enforcement... just about everything on the list in the first post to this thread. RIGHT WINGERS CAN NOT RUN ON THAT PLATFORM. So they're doing it by the backdoor. They can't do it without creating necessary preconditions… a public that buys into the smokescreen. Congrats Brainiac… they've conned you into rolling back the 20th century and working against your best interests.

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/rolling-back-20th-century

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:TRANSLATION... only in your last post do you actually say what numbers you used, but AGAIN refused to say WHY one of at least 4 ways to measure expenditure growth is relevant... and in the end it DISPROVES your claim that GOP spending cuts were responsible for the Clinton Surplus which you may or may not believe existed. Your worthless exercise FAILS to show how with CONSTANT GROWTH in expenditures all through the 90's, that the GOP could cut that 226 BILLION deficit at the end of FY95 to get to an on-budget surplus by FY99 with spending cuts alone.

My fault, Apparently you CAN"T do math. I gave you too much credit as a functional adult trying to do 4 grade math. In the future I'll use crayons and stuff animals to communicate to you.

If you apply this new found 4th grade math, you could answer your own question. Rate of revenue increase doubled the rate of expenditure increases. Meaning we took in more than we spent.

Gee... so you can't prove your Orwellian assertion that constantly rising spending under Newt can ELIMINATE a 226 BILLION deficit, so as always you just CLAIM it's true. And now you're agreeing with me that it was excess REVENUE that created the Clinton Surplus. Yet you're still posturing that you're correct: Newt was responsible for the Clinton Surplus and I don't understand math? ROTFLMAO

Are there any, ANY, ANY non-braindead Right wingers out there?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Who the hell even knows what you're saying when you clearly don't. Let's paint with a broad brush.


I know... just a knuckle dragging Con.

But thanks for posting an entirely useless post. Nothing that I don't know, and clearly the puzzle piece for you to finally understand where this "surplus" came from and why it's not really a Surplus.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

In the larger picture of this thread theme, arguing about the surplus/deficit and which neoliberal administration did what misses the point. Capital has posed "lower taxes and deregulation" as his positive Republicon contributions to the Middle Class. Clinton offered neocon lite rather than a confrontation with the ideology. I find the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid" useful as pathology, but not as an answer to the "free market" ideology of the Right or Reagan's abandonment of social consciousness for "unleashing market forces."

The points being addressed most recently on the "Ron Paul" thread are about the insufficiency of "economic man" and the futility of making money the measure of our human enterprise. Critics of the economic reductionism of human life make the point that what happens to people and society is the bottom line, not what happens to money or "economics." Defending the economy at the expense of social disaster is wrong-headed, period.

This is why my criticism of 'austerity' is that it only defends money but lets people and society go to hell. It puts symbol over substance and continues to assault on humanity in the name of some reduction of what it is to be human to an economic factor. For political officials to think that bank accounts are more important than intact neighborhoods and access to the basic needs of human life is to be beguiled by economics instead of politically responsible. For "fiduciary responsibility" to be allowed to trump "social responsibility" is also morally bankrupt.

Clearly, in the evidence of our society, lowering taxes on the top end of income and wealth has not created a general prosperity. The deregulation of corporations has not found a market solution leading to the general welfare. We have instead a huge disparity between a wealthy few and and the rest struggling to pay bills without the means to do so. It is not because people are buying more than they can afford; it is that they cannot afford what is necessary and which was accessible before the Neocons went on their rampage.

The Democrats have not championed nor done anything Progressive or counter to the "free market" neocon ideology for a long time. I think they have advocated a more useful approach to debt than the Right has, but it does not address the fact that somewhere, sometime, the broken money system will have to be recaculated or even redealt to account for social, human, ecological realities. Above all, this will mean rethinking reality in human and ecological reality instead of economic reductionism.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Who the hell even knows what you're saying when you clearly don't. Let's paint with a broad brush.

I know... just a knuckle dragging Con.
We finally agree on something. I think you really need to look in the mirror someday and reflect on the damage you've done to your intellect by buying into the lies, distortions, and half-truths of the Orwellian Right. You're clearly unaware that you believe the fiscal equivalent that black = white.

To think that ANYONE could come here post after post claiming constantly INCREASED spending under Newt brought about the Clinton Surplus through spending cuts is shocking. The same with your claim depressed revenues for nine of the past 11 years is proof there's no revenue problem. And even when you finally realized it had to be increased REVENUES from the Clinton tax hikes primarily responsible for the Clinton Surplus, you made reducing the deficit and getting to a surplus... and then paying down debt, sound undesirable if done in this manner.

Quote Cap:But thanks for posting an entirely useless post. Nothing that I don't know, and clearly the puzzle piece for you to finally understand where this "surplus" came from and why it's not really a Surplus.
Yup... part of your MO... to CLAIM you're all-knowing and always correct despite your utter failure to prove any assertion or that you have a clue about any topic you jump into.
Last part of your MO: time to scamper off as you did in the Second Amendment thread. But not before more bluff and bluster.
See ya later Fluffy.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?
Than revenue would clearly exceed spending... dumbass.
Your level of cluelessness is off the charts. WE WERE AT A SURPLUS BACK IN 2000. What did the Right say then? The surplus "PROVED" we're overtaxed... and it was OUR money. The tax cut psychos on the Right will not tolerate a surplus and sabotaged it as soon as they could. They believe DEBT is their best political weapon to dismantle government. Norquist was quite honest about this in a 60 Minutes interview. They want to cut government spending down to about 8% GDP... to where it was before the New Deal. They want to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, environmental and worker safety enforcement... just about everything on the list in the first post to this thread. RIGHT WINGERS CAN NOT RUN ON THAT PLATFORM. So they're doing it by the backdoor. They can't do it without creating necessary preconditions… a public that buys into the smokescreen. Congrats Brainiac… they've conned you into rolling back the 20th century and working against your best interests.

http://www.thenation.com/print/article/rolling-back-20th-century

Blah Blah Blah..... pointless post.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

As I pointed out above, but you want to debate rather than discuss.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

As I pointed out above, but you want to debate rather than discuss.

Yea... that must be it. Couldn't be that this discussion has devolved into a ridiculous exercise of Obstinence. But at least I now know that he understands what I’ve been saying, or he wouldn’t have tried to change the subject.

Yes, discussions are impossible when one party refuses to accept the basic facts of what is being discussed. But you probably already knew that. At least I make a easy political target for you to attack..

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:Yes, discussions are impossible when one party refuses to accept the basic facts of what is being discussed. But you probably already knew that. At least I make a easy political target for you to attack..
Don't flatter yourself Spanky.
You're an easy target NOT because you present any intelligent defense of Right wing... or far Right values. You're an easy target because you present UNintelligent defenses of the Right, irrational and half-baked arguments, irrelevant facts that don't prove anything, and yet you believe you have some monopoly on truth when you clearly have no use for it. You're quite satisfied with the ILLUSION of truth. The combination just makes you obnoxious... which I can certainly can be too. I get impatient because I don't suffer Orwellian fools gladly... especially useful idiots who unwittingly are aiding in destruction of our nation.

Quote Cap:But at least I now know that he understands what I’ve been saying, or he wouldn’t have tried to change the subject.

As for changing the subject… who did that? The record is here for all to see. You're just into the bluff and bluster stage of your MO. You CAN'T prove the impossible no matter how many times you post the same empty assertions like...

Quote Cap:

Blah Blah Blah..... pointless post.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

As for changing the subject… who did that? The record is here for all to see. You CAN'T prove the impossible no matter how many times you post the same empty assertions.

Except I did prove it, you failed to accpet as it conflicts with your dogma. So you talk about other things, hoping nobody will notice. I noticed, I'm guessing at least DRC notices also, he's strangely silent on the subject. I've made the Pitch, Proved the Numbers, Showed you graph's.... and you spin like a top.

We'll just chalk that up to confirmation bias on my part that the Left hates facts. sounds like a plan

Just for prosperity

http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalanceasofGDP1.JPG

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:

We could slash spending today to ZERO and, say, keep the irresponsible Bush tax cuts, and THEN WHAT?

Than revenue would clearly exceed spending... dumbass.

I know you need to avoid this question by your vacuous response below. So I repeat: WE WERE AT A BUDGET SURPLUS BACK IN 2000. Bush ran on PRESERVING THE SURPLUS AND PAYING DOWN DEBT.

What did the GOP do then? They SABOTAGED the surplus to prevent debt paydown. It was their CHOICE to have a massive tax hike instead of paying down debt. They placed no conditions on that tax cut… like if the surplus disappears, so does the tax cut. They used the surplus to justify a tax cut then when that pretense disappeared, THEY PASSED MORE AND MORE TAX CUTS then even now where we're $15 trillion in debt they insist tax cuts we never could afford MUST BE NEVER BE TOUCHED??? In fact some of the nuttier of the Tax Cut Psychos want even MORE tax cuts.

So in your Orwellian world, passing tax cuts when we're already $6 TRILLION in debt, then passing at least 3 MORE rounds of tax cuts when the surplus is all gone is what you consider fiscally responsible policy? And should we get to a surplus via the Right's spending cuts, you're saying that we can trust these traitors to NEVER AGAIN sabotage the fiscal health of government with more tax cuts?

Sorry Einstein, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE. They have been exposed as dangerous and irresponsibe yet you're in utter denial of what the far Right ADMITS it wants to do.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

I know you need to avoid this question by your vacuous response below. So I repeat: WE WERE AT A BUDGET SURPLUS BACK IN 2000. Bush ran on PRESERVING THE SURPLUS AND PAYING DOWN DEBT.

What you can't seem to figure out of your own accord, is that were are talking about Newt, Clinton and the Second Clinton Term. So why the Fuck would I want to talk about Bush.

There was No surplus, in 2000 the Federal government went $17.91 Billion in the Hole. By all accounting standards that is a deficit

What did the GOP do then? They SABOTAGED the surplus to prevent debt paydown. It was their CHOICE to have a massive tax hike instead of paying down debt.

I guess you must have forgotten that little event call the Dot Com Bubble. Idiot. Meaning Had nobody done anything, The forcasted Surplus would have NEVER materialized, becuase the Booming economy that spurred the increased revenues magically and suddenly went away.

See how this works, Not one word from you about what we were talking about…. Just keep moving the goal post…. Someday I sure that will work for you.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Sorry Einstein, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE. They have been exposed as dangerous and irresponsibe yet you're in utter denial of what the far Right ADMITS it wants to do.

Did you by chance forget the premise of the Conversation?

That the GOP House runs a better Federal government than the DEM House. Since the DEMS are responsible for nearly the Entire Federal Debt. Because among intelligent people, Presidents can't spend money and DEMS have no backbone and can't say No.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:As for changing the subject… who did that? The record is here for all to see. You CAN'T prove the impossible no matter how many times you post the same empty assertions.
Except I did prove it, you failed to accpet as it conflicts with your dogma.

Sorry Cap, repeating discredited nonsense doesn't make it more true.
Your claim that who controls the House MUST be credited with the effects of fiscal policy SOUNDS plausible, but as has already been explained and demonstrated, it's NOT true. Your ignorance of how our system works is not proof of anything except ignorance.

Again, for new readers... Cap wants to give Newt credit for the Clinton Surplus because Newt headed the House and Cap claims Newt cut spending enough to create that surplus. Anything beyond that Cap consider invalid. This suits his simplistic black and white world... Dems bad, GOP good. He refuses to see any nuance and you reject anything that conflicts with his fairy tale.

I'm not a Democrat or a partisan. I'm willing to give Newt some credit on the margins. But he should NOT be credited with revenues the he and the GOP opposed: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll406.xml

And Newt should NOT be credited with getting us to a surplus with spending cuts BECAUSE HE NEVER REALLY CUT TOTAL SPENDING. Spending ROSE every year under Newt.
So to give Newt the credit for the Surplus, you've pounced on the lamest explanation in history... that he cut the RATE of spending. Fine... you haven't proven it mattered or that your methodology is valid. All we have is you magic 2.1 number which fails to provide ANY useful data such as how much in absolute dollars Newt cut! Despite my hope you'd look into CBO reports from the Newt era to see how little his cuts mattered, you again proved me correct that you're just too goddamn lazy to do any real research.

Anyone with an above room temp IQ knows INCREASED spending can never bridge a 226 BILLION DEFICIT through spending cuts alone.
What got us the Clinton Surplus was mainly REVENUE. The mind boggles to see someone repeatedly reject all evidence and insist his fairy tale version of history is true. But then the Right loves that Orwellian Math... like LESS revenue after an irresponsible GOP tax cut = a revenue boom. And no revenue counts after a responsible Dem tax hike.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Nice.... finally coming around to accepting the reality to the point of giving him some credit. Amazing.

To clear up some of your obviouis fabercations, I never claimed he cut spending, I said he cut the rate of spending. I provable by the your own numbers if you were to take the time.

No he shouldn't be credited with the Increased revenues, Niether should the DEMS, Even your CBO report put most of the Revenue gains on the Booming 90's economy. (plus 41 Dems, voted against it also). He is however credited with not taking this increased reveunes ahd doing what the Dems wanted to do and spend our way to prosperity and deeper in debt. Becuase Dems have ABSOLUTELY NO Fiscal restraint.

It's 1.12 for the 6th time. Dumbass

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Quote Capital:Nice.... finally coming around to accepting the reality to the point of giving him some credit. Amazing.
Unlike you I'm not a partisan. As I've said REPEATEDLY, cutting spending helped get to a surplus. But Newt NEVER cut spending enough to make much of a difference. The Surplus was coming... and as soon as it did, Newt was pushing for a big tax cut to prevent it.

Quote Capital:To clear up some of your obviouis fabercations, I never claimed he cut spending, I said he cut the rate of spending. I provable by the your own numbers if you were to take the time.
obviouis fabercations? We're not mind readers Einstein. Get a goddamn spellchecker.

And all you have is your magic 1.2 number. Sorry for getting it wrong but IT PROVES NOTHING. When it comes to hard numbers to PROVE Newt's efforts could bridge that 226 BILLION deficit at the beginning of FY96, YOU'VE PROVIDED NO NUMBERS.... only more baseless assertions.

Quote Capital:No he shouldn't be credited with the Increased revenues, Niether should the DEMS, Even your CBO report put most of the Revenue gains on the Booming 90's economy.
You're worst than an idiot... you truly are braindead. AGAIN.... The ONLY reason the CBO did the report WAS GAGE THE EFFECTS OF THE CLINTON TAX BILL. Those higher tax rates ARE THE BASE ASSUMPTION BUILT INTO THE STUDY. The CBO critiques itself NOT because it got the new tax rate wrong, BUT BECAUSE THEY UNDERESTIMATED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. AGAIN, as Bush2 proved in 06-07... if the tax rate is too LOW, it will FAIL to capture enough revenue. So OF COURSE Clinton and the Dems get the credit for passing the 1993 bill against almost universal GOP opposition. But As a mindless partisan, you NEED to deprived them of that credit.

Sorry Pickles, you lost your argument before you even began simply because you had a built in disavantage: your claims were idiotic... and NO amount of lipstick could pretty up that pig. But feel free to keep up your bluff and bluster. I know you need to save face. I'm packing for a day trip.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote polycarp2:

How the monetary system functions was explained in post 137. It isn't that difficult to grasp. I explained the basics...leaving out the problem of compounding interest over several centuries which is more difficult to explain easily .though I've explained it in previous postings. They were pretty long..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

You and I have had that discussion before,

I would rather have the Economy constrict by removing the Federal money multiplier than have it collapse like Greece. If you a liberal who loves the social safety net, you should what to start paying off the debt, because a collapse would decimate the safety net instead of constrict it.

Government functions differently than a household or a business. If government paid off the debt, it would shrink the circulating money supply by using existing money within the money supply to do so,That's where the tax revenues paid out of the existing money supply would go. It would disappear into financial paper and bank vaults.. In order to prevent a collapse of the monetary system, private borrowers would have to make up the difference with increased borrowing or the circulating money supply would disappear. We'd end up using private barter currencies like they were forced to do in Argentina. . The official currency vanished.

The money supply is already shrinking...a prime factor in Depressions. .When there is idle economic capacity as now, national governments can simply create and spend money into existence to utilize it. It needn't borrow a penney. Households and business can't create money to take up economic slack without borrowing it into existence through fractional reserve banking. . National governments can.

The Constitution gives government the authority to either create and spend money into existence, or to borrow it into existence depending on which method the economic circumstances indicate. The Founding Fathers weren't twits. We should stop pretending they were.

I didn't set up this wacked out monetary system that relies on continually expanding debt to avoid collapse...but we seem to be stuck with it.....for now.

Pay off all debt, and the montetary system collapes. Keep borrowing to keep it afloat, and a ceiling is reached where it can't be repaid. The monetary system collapses. It's a Catch 22 of a very, very flawed monetary system.

All you're doing is debating which way we should go to have a monetary collapse...with more debt, or by paying it off..

After 200 years of the folly, we've reached a dead end. We'll either revamp our monetary system, or repudiate the debt and start from scratch if we want to keep it, or go into a pit.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Please do not take my unwillingness to debate this trivia with proving your point, Capital. I have said that I do not find the issue between Neocon heavy and Neocon Lite addressing the issue of what the Republicons have (not) done to benefit the Middle Class. I still find them totally without merit and your citing "tax cuts" and "deregulation" to be absurd. I think Clinton wasted his opportunity and was trashed by a very ugly bunch of impeachers; but that was just the warmup act for their disloyal opposition to Obama.

Check out the People's Budget for something that would help the Middle Class.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Capital:
Quote Pierpont:Sorry Einstein, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE. They have been exposed as dangerous and irresponsible yet you're in utter denial of what the far Right ADMITS it wants to do.

Did you by chance forget the premise of the Conversation?

That the GOP House runs a better Federal government than the DEM House. Since the DEMS are responsible for nearly the Entire Federal Debt. Because among intelligent people, Presidents can't spend money and DEMS have no backbone and can't say No.

Let me guess... you found an Orwellian Right magic chart that "proves" the Dems are responsible for most of the national debt? Gee, I bet your magic chart mysteriously absolves the GOP from all their grotesque fiscal irresponsibility these past 30 years.

Isn't living a fantasy life just grand!!!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote chilidog:...I do recall the conservatives that year squealing that "the government took too much of my money! give it back!" They thought it was a surplus. And they credited the Congress.

The Orwellian Right exists to justify the fiscal irresponsibility of the Right... hoping that increasing debt will undermine programs the far Right's always opposed. The Orwellian Right can NEVER credit anything good to tax hikes... no matter how much they correct for irresponsible tax cuts. For those tax cuts they'll bend over backwards to invent benefits... even as the debt increases… a debt they'll never take responsibility for. Just read Cap's posts and you'll see that the far Right's investment in a propaganda industry has paid off.

And given the number of such self-sabotaged intellects buying into such nonsense, we do need to fear for our future.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote DRC:Please do not take my unwillingness to debate this trivia with proving your point, Capital.
Given that one of the Right's key strategic objectives is to create as much debt as they can then use it as a pretense to undermine if not abolish all those Democratic programs they've always loathed, this discussion might be boring and Cap's nonsense self-evident, but the key issues here are hardly trivial. We DO need to confront and expose the Right's strategy and educate the public about their true agenda.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I understand the two Santas, and I appreciate your persistence, but the thread is about something more profound than this derailing, and that is what I want to make the issue. In some regard, the whole "it's the stupid economy" meme plays into their game of confusion and deflection. We can't get a big picture economic debate either. All we get is who did what in the past Neocon game, and I do not want to have Dollar Bill Clinton as my champion. Ask Robert Reich.

If you will notice, I have only made "Capital" my target, so while I appreciate your efforts, I hope you will understand why I want the topic of the thread addressed instead of having everyone who reads these posts have to research the fine print of statistics. Peace.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mauiman58:

DRC, we do not hate democracy, but we do hate the hypocracy of elected officials who are using tax dollars for the sole purpose of buying themselves votes.

What? Did the republicons enact election finance reform while I was away? Are elections publicly funded now? Do tax dollars pay for elections and not corporate bribes?

Your cynical, conservative notion that enacting policies that serve people is "buying votes" but actually giving unlimited anonymous political contributions isn't, is hilarious. You want to talk about hypocrisy, let's look at conservatives who simultaneously wave the American flag while actively fighting against the very American foundational idea of "WE the people".

They have the gall to declare that they actually care about the poor when actually all they care about is the poor people's votes. They set up programs that will work for 2-4 years (until their next election) and then are a total finacial disaster long term (see Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as prime examples).

See Republican wars as a prime example. See the "Star Wars" project for a prime example. See deregulation and wealth worship as our real, long-term disasters.

Look at the State of Illinois, and coutries of Greece and Italy as prime examples of what happens when the liberals get their way.

I was going to go to Greece or Italy, but Illinois is so nice this time of year.I fail to see the equivalency. I guess I wasn't aware that the state of Illinois was also bilked by American banksters and credit reporting agency fraud.

How clever of republitards to set up the mechanisms of disaster and then blame the victims for the crime. You guys do a lot of that. It's quite devious.

Wonderful goverment programs, but wait, how are we going to pay for all these goverment giveaways? Oooooops, we have to cut back and/or eliminate a lot of this spending. And then there is rioting in the streets because those who get the handouts now are helpless to help themselves.

What an utterly ignorant, self serving, assessment of the problems in Europe. How in the hell does the housing bubble, derivatives and mortgage backed securities not enter into your calculations?

Even the DEMOCRAT govenor of Illinois has stated the party is over and these have to be cutbacks. And the bitching and moaning has just begun. The Republicans never would have allowed it to get to this point.

That's right. At first moaning, the republicans would release the storm troopers to re-establish order. Then, the crowd of hungry black people would be marched into the nearest compound where they can resume their conservative-led training in the agricultural arts, where they left off 150 years ago.

Let private charities, not tax dollars support the poor.

Let people support people. Let the ass holes who hoard money and bribe our representatives give it up or have it taken.

Let the free market decide which business survive and which ones fail.

Why not just let Santa Clause decide? He's as real as the "free market".

And let the free market set prices.

Even if that means we have to pay slave wages to keep up.

Any intervention into the free market by the goverment is a disaster more often than not.

LOL. Governments create markets, dude. They are not naturally existing.

Your comment is as ignorant as if you had said, intervention by doctors in the medical treatment of patients is a disaster more often than not.

You say Solyndra is not typical? Why was that company unable to raise money from the capital markets? Because the capital markets recognized that it was not a business that was going to survive. And you state that the goverment is in a position to know better than the finacial markets which businesses are going to survive and which ones won't! You have got to be kidding me! What planet do you live on?

The capital markets are looking for a quick fix, not an investment in this country. The money changers are not interested in supporting us, they want to USE us. To treat that as acceptable economic darwinism is to deny your humanity. But you're not from this planet any way are you?

I'm sure that your planet has an evil plan to conquer and enslave humanity. You guys have tried it many times. May I call you "overlord"?

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote chilidog:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only data you are citing are in this link:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Doesn't this data count Social Security taxes collected and Social Security outlays?

I dont think so, it that were the case the late 90's numbers would be different.

Chilidog. It does include SS.

I don't doubt the validity of this data, but I don't think it's meaningful to use it to judge which periods the government governed "better" or "worse."

Ditto with the chart that appears to rely on the same data:

http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalancea...

For example: As I understand, GDP is measured by Wages + Profits + Net Interest + Government Purchases - Taxes (or something like that.) GDP does not count transfer payments, and Social Security Benefits are transfer payments. I might be wrong about that, but it makes sense - if we legislated to pay every SS recipient $100k a year GDP would be wildy overstated. So to me it doesn't make sense to show an increase in debt which includes SS payments as a percentage of GDP that does not include SS payments...

Another reason to segregate SS taxes and SS payments from the rest of the budget, is that every Congress/President does not do anything about SS. They certainly CAN, and they probably SHOULD, but we all know they DON'T. So allocating a big chunk of taxes and spending to one Congress/Administration when those policies were established 4, 8, 12 years prior isn't really meaningful, IMO.

I'm just guessing, but I'm going to guess that SS taxes and SS payments were much smaller relative to other economic activity in the 1940's then they were in the 2000's.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

I don't doubt the validity of this data, but I don't think it's meaningful to use it to judge which periods the government governed "better" or "worse."

Ditto with the chart that appears to rely on the same data:

http://images.quickblogcast.com/3/9/1/7/6/177752-167193/USBudgetBalancea...

For example: As I understand, GDP is measured by Wages + Profits + Net Interest + Government Purchases - Taxes (or something like that.) GDP does not count transfer payments, and Social Security Benefits are transfer payments. I might be wrong about that, but it makes sense - if we legislated to pay every SS recipient $100k a year GDP would be wildy overstated. So to me it doesn't make sense to show an increase in debt which includes SS payments as a percentage of GDP that does not include SS payments...

Another reason to segregate SS taxes and SS payments from the rest of the budget, is that every Congress/President does not do anything about SS. They certainly CAN, and they probably SHOULD, but we all know they DON'T. So allocating a big chunk of taxes and spending to one Congress/Administration when those policies were established 4, 8, 12 years prior isn't really meaningful, IMO.

I'm just guessing, but I'm going to guess that SS taxes and SS payments were much smaller relative to other economic activity in the 1940's then they were in the 2000's.

When I said it includes SS, I meant it included just the Profits/deficits of SS. Not the whole numbers. The vast majority of the "surplus" came from the Transfer of revenue from SS to the Treasury via Bonds. As denoted by the law. The myth of the Clinton surplus is that only quoted "Public Debt" and not total Debt. They purposely left out intergovernmental debt which rose higher than the Surplus..

The GDP is just a nice looking graph. But essentially no matter how you figure it. The late 90's under the GOP house slowed the growth of spending and was fiscally responsible as head of the House of Representatives. I'd be more than happy to challenge anybody who believes otherwise. At some point I might even venture into the early 2000's but that get mired in recessions/war spending.

If you have a better matrix on comparing those responsible for the Fiscal Health of the country, I’m open to hear it. As long as it does start with “The President”, all that does is attempt to absolve those who are constitutional responsible.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Does this add to the discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVo3nbLYC0

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Please do not take my unwillingness to debate this trivia with proving your point, Capital. I have said that I do not find the issue between Neocon heavy and Neocon Lite addressing the issue of what the Republicons have (not) done to benefit the Middle Class. I still find them totally without merit and your citing "tax cuts" and "deregulation" to be absurd. I think Clinton wasted his opportunity and was trashed by a very ugly bunch of impeachers; but that was just the warmup act for their disloyal opposition to Obama.

Check out the People's Budget for something that would help the Middle Class.

Well, some people my define what you do as trolling threads... Just saying

Clinton committed Purjury, Probably in your book, Purjury ranks far below political rhetoric of the Right on the things that bother you. Most likely you have no sense ofl the problem it creates in the Country when the President of the United States/ Commandeer and Chief/ Top police officer/ and all round symbol of freedom and American supremcy outright Lies under oath and right to your face. I'm sure that just compliments the hypocritical selective punishment mentality of The left. Bush "lied" (not really) and the left wants him up on UN War Crimes, Clinton commits Purgury and it just about sex. And you wonder why the left is the laughing stock of the country.

Check out the People's Budget for something that would help the Middle Class.

That is debatable.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote chilidog:

Does this add to the discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dVo3nbLYC0

Not for me, But sure takes me back to a easier and carefree time,

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

How Do We Take Back the Military From the Billionaire Owned Military Industrial Complex?

Thom plus logo Democrats (Bernie & Lee) in the senate proposed legislation saying what the Constitution already says: that Trump can't go to war with Iran without congressional authorization. Every Republican on the committee, except Rand Paul, voted against it.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system