10 cheapest BEST cities to live.... and to run a mfr'g bidniss??

Page 3 of 7  


I do not watch Fox. And do not pay any attention to economic news on TV. Some of the newpapers are much better for in depth stories on the economy.
As far as Debbie Schultz..........I hardly consider the Chair of the Democratic National Committee to be a balanced source of news. Do you really think I am stupid enough to believe any congress person is an unbiased source of economic news?
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@krl.org" wrote:

2010 is so last year...
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:16:03 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

I expect you will believe whatever you want to believe plain and simple. If you blame the current administration for where the US is now and not the ones that really are to blame then that has because you are simply a fool.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf
"The traditional pattern of running large
deficits only in times of war or economic
downturns was broken during much of the
1980s. In 1982, large permanent tax cuts
were enacted. Moreover, these were accompanied
by substantial increases in defense
spending. Although reductions
were made
to nondefense spending, they were not of
sufficient size to offset the impact on the
deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206
billion were incurred between 1983 and
1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits
increased debt held by the public from
$789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1
percent of GDP) in 1992.
After peaking at $290 billion in 1992,
deficits declined each year, dropping to a
level of $22 billion in 1997. In 1998, the
Nation recorded its first budget surplus
($69.3 billion) since 1969. As a percent of
GDP, the budget bottom line went from a
deficit of 4.7 percent in 1992 to a surplus
of 0.8 percent in 1998, increasing to a 2.4
percent surplus in 2000."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:25:09 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"

Reagan.
Clinton
Thank you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Your welcome
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in deficit. In fairness to Mr. C, this wasn't anything he cooked up, that bookkeeping system had been the same since the 80s. Also, the surplus topped out and was back into deficit even with the creative bookkeeping by before GW's first budget.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically there was indeed a surplus at that time.
It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed at a historical low point when Bush took over.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus" when the national debt *increased*.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no reflection.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

He is not lying. It is a fact that The Federal govt for a couple years in the 90's took more money from the economy in revenues than it put back into the economy in outlays.
Some good reading on the role of treasury securities in the economy: This is a good explanation of how the US dollar originates from either directly from the fed or from treasury securities. http://tinyurl.com/3wksr5s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The National Debt continued to increase. That is *NOT* a balanced budget.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

I carefully avoided the words that have you confused.
In the 90's there were a couple years that the govt took more money out of the economy in revenue than it put back in spending.
That is an indisputable fact. And it is the more relavent fact.
The national debt and federal trust funds are a fiction. They both could disappear in an instant by simply enacting law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They can get rid of the national debt by enacting a law? How would that work.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You obviously don't understand simple math.

Wrong.
No it is not. It's a damned lie.

The national debt is certainly not fiction.

The whole government could disappear in an instant by "simply enacting law". What a clueless dickwad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

1999 Federal receipts    1,827.5     Federal outlays     1,701.8
Do the math.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

[...]
2011 US cumulative debt = 14.8 trillion
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the discussion was about how the total debt had been declining under Clinton, not about whether Bush caused it to begin rising again.
( the RED line )
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/Government-Debt-Graphic/39255812/1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thus the statement "There was but it was largely accounting.(g)

It isn't a matter of semantics, though. It is the major reason that we are going to have major problems with SS coming soon. It is a little incongruous, though for the GOP to suggest that it was some kind of slight of hand on Clinton's part. While it was slight of hand, it was a bipartisan slight of hand that had gone on for years. The funny part of the Clinton surplus is he largely has the GOP to thank for it. They worked against Mr. C's baser instincts and stopped him from enacting en total that really big tax increase he wanted in '91 or '92. THat would have cut the expansion off aborning. The other interesting thing is he was a spectator on this (as are most presidents, Pres. O included). . It happened largely because of the Greenspan/Gates expansion. Greenspan because he kept rates low and money flowing and Gates as a proxy for the spectactular productivity gains we saw from the computerization of commerce. I would also like to point out that the biggest increases came AFTER tax cuts, specifically the cap gains tax cut.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The reason it was "cooked" was that all of a sudden only part of the budget mattered. Chest pounding about one column, while ignoring the one next to it is what was "new". The "national debt" includes the SS "trust fund" - both the assets *and* the liabilities. Ignoring the liabilities is how they got morons to believe the "balanced budget" nonsense.
The "deficit" is the first derivative of the "debt". The derivative (deficit) *CANNOT* be negative while debt is still growing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Everyone knows Clinton did what no republican could ever do. Bush squandered everything and turned the economy upside down. Clinton created jobs and Bush lost everything. You can fool yourself but you will never be able to change the facts. Clinton is still the "President of the World" and Bush will always be a hated war criminal.
Must really suck to be you Gumby.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.