Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZC izrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ


What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.

To relate this specifically to the debt-ceiling debate, we’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans. It’s convenient for whichever side isn’t in power, or wasn’t recently in power, to blame the debt ceiling on the other party. But it isn’t true.

[RBP]

Might as well lock this thread right now. :lol:

[FBD]

and yet despite all that, business are far more scared of Obama.

context is everything, you can slice and cross cut any which way to make stats say what the statistician wants to say (or, what ideology they want to display.)

I love how people try to use Bush's crazy departures from fiscal conservatism as some sort of indictment on conservative values :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Funny, I don't see the Obama tax cuts on his side....you know, the tax cuts that he extended?

Chart = :fail:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

and yet despite all that, business are far more scared of Obama.

context is everything, you can slice and cross cut any which way to make stats say what the statistician wants to say (or, what ideology they want to display.)

I love how people try to use Bush's crazy departures from fiscal conservatism as some sort of indictment on conservative values :lol:

I know, I have read your posts :dance:

[Arkady Renko]

at the end of the day it's kinda hypocritical for both parties to blame the other side because they all gave a shit about deficits and the soaring debt load for the last 30 or so years. Even Clinton who managed budget surplus several years in a row didn't do so because his administration was particularly responsible about cutting spending, but rather because the state raked in insane amounts of money during the bomm years in the late nineties. His administration should have used that momentum to pay back much more debt than they did.

[Muddy]

No side is better than the other... Im sorry fellas... :sad:

[Acid Trip]

at the end of the day it's kinda hypocritical for both parties to blame the other side because they all gave a shit about deficits and the soaring debt load for the last 30 or so years. Even Clinton who managed budget surplus several years in a row didn't do so because his administration was particularly responsible about cutting spending, but rather because the state raked in insane amounts of money during the bomm years in the late nineties. His administration should have used that momentum to pay back much more debt than they did.

:fail:

Clinton never actually had a surplus. Do your homework!

[FBD]

Myths, gotta love 'em! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

Not quite as BS as "saved or created," but...its ballpark :lol:

[Hal-9000]

Might as well lock this thread right now. :lol:

the voice of reason carries above all others...like beautiful music across the countryside :lol:

[Arkady Renko]

:fail:

Clinton never actually had a surplus. Do your homework!


Myths, gotta love 'em! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

Not quite as BS as "saved or created," but...its ballpark :lol:

it's highly debatable even if you look at the article by steiner. Obviously, he has a point about the intra-governmental holdings. Public finance is much more complicated than just the budget. But you can't seriously deny that under Clinton there were several fiscal years when the government achieved a BUDGET surplus. So at least one of the several areas of public finance was doing fairly well, highly problematic developments in other areas notwithstanding.

But unless I'm very much mistaken, it was not in Clinton's power to set up a complete overhaul of social security. That would have required an extensive legislative process, wouldn't it? So it's not exactly fair to blame Clinton for the deficit that social security made during his time at the helm.

So my point is: in the department clinton's administration had control over it did reasonably well even though it should have done a lot better still.

[Acid Trip]

it's highly debatable even if you look at the article by steiner. Obviously, he has a point about the intra-governmental holdings. Public finance is much more complicated than just the budget. But you can't seriously deny that under Clinton there were several fiscal years when the government achieved a BUDGET surplus. So at least one of the several areas of public finance was doing fairly well, highly problematic developments in other areas notwithstanding.

But unless I'm very much mistaken, it was not in Clinton's power to set up a complete overhaul of social security. That would have required an extensive legislative process, wouldn't it? So it's not exactly fair to blame Clinton for the deficit that social security made during his time at the helm.

So my point is: in the department clinton's administration had control over it did reasonably well even though it should have done a lot better still.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

The Treasury departments records don't show a single surplus during Clinton's presidency.

Fiscal
Year
Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's.

[Arkady Renko]

:fail:

Clinton never actually had a surplus. Do your homework!


Myths, gotta love 'em! (http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16)

Not quite as BS as "saved or created," but...its ballpark :lol:


http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

The Treasury departments records don't show a single surplus during Clinton's presidency.

Fiscal
Year
Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's.

you didn't read my post now, did you? Steiner himself states that there was a significant budget surplus under Clinton, but his point is that looking at the budget alone is a misleading oversimplification. Steiner neatly differentiates between public and national debt and does not dispute that public debt was reduced considerably with clinton at the helm while national debt kept increasing.

So saying that Clinton didn't achieve a surplus because in spite of the budget surplus the national debt rose is a reasonable take on things in principle, if you put it into the correct context and perspective.

There's another related article on Steiner's site where he points out that every single one of the last few presidents saw national debt soar more or less dramatically regardless of how well their administrations did budget-wise.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32

[Acid Trip]

you didn't read my post now, did you? Steiner himself states that there was a significant budget surplus under Clinton, but his point is that looking at the budget alone is a misleading oversimplification. Steiner neatly differentiates between public and national debt and does not dispute that public debt was reduced considerably with clinton at the helm while national debt kept increasing.

So saying that Clinton didn't achieve a surplus because in spite of the budget surplus the national debt rose is a reasonable take on things in principle, if you put it into the correct context and perspective.

There's another related article on Steiner's site where he points out that every single one of the last few presidents saw national debt soar more or less dramatically regardless of how well their administrations did budget-wise.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/32

Debt is debt. Shifting from one type of debt to another is a shell game. As seen below Clinton claimed a budget surplus of 62 billion for his presidency yet the national debt grew by over a trillion dollars. Those numbers don't add up and you know it.


To those who cling to the belief that Clinton had a surplus, please review the official surpluses for the Clinton years (FY1994-FY2001). The sum of the claimed surpluses in the last four years actually exceeds the sum of the claimed deficits in the first four years. The result is that if we believe the official CBO deficit/surplus reports, the overall balance of Clinton's presidency was a net surplus of $62.904 billion. Yet during Clinton's presidency the national debt actually increased by 1 trillion 395 billion 974 million dollars. Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?

Still waiting on your explanation.

[FBD]

keep holding your breath man, one wont be forthcoming, at least not an honest one, since they dont exist

[Arkady Renko]

I already gave one, he just wouldn't acknowledge it. Budget is an established benchmark for fiscal policies, and as long as you take it for what it actually is, one important factor among several in public finance, I fail to see what's wrong with the statement that Clinton's administration registered budget surplus several years running. It's not unreasonable to measure an administration by its impact on budget figures because that's the part of public finance that the government has the most direct influence on.

BTW, Acid Trip, I did not appreciate your attempt to belittle my initial post, not least because it's clearly you who doesn't understand the topic we're discussing and who quite clearly didn't even understand the articles you quoted as reference for you erroneous statements.

[Jezter]

Can't we all just agree that the USA is fucked?

[FBD]

I already gave one, he just wouldn't acknowledge it. Budget is an established benchmark for fiscal policies, and as long as you take it for what it actually is, one important factor among several in public finance, I fail to see what's wrong with the statement that Clinton's administration registered budget surplus several years running. It's not unreasonable to measure an administration by its impact on budget figures because that's the part of public finance that the government has the most direct influence on.

BTW, Acid Trip, I did not appreciate your attempt to belittle my initial post, not least because it's clearly you who doesn't understand the topic we're discussing and who quite clearly didn't even understand the articles you quoted as reference for you erroneous statements.

The point was that it only looked that way because of creative arrangements of numbers.

[Acid Trip]

The point was that it only looked that way because of creative arrangements of numbers.

As I said it's a shell game.

[Muddy]

Can't we all just agree that the USA is fucked?


The United States of America is the greatest country in the world.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

but for how long

[FBD]

you'll have to wait until next november for that answer

[PorkChopSandwiches]

do you believe a change in management can fix the problems we have?

[AntZ]

do you believe a change in management can fix the problems we have?

Say a Republican takes over and there is no majority with the house and senate, there will just be stand offs, class warfare and those staged uprisings like what happened in Wisconsin! Nothing will ever be fixed, just listen to all the statements Pelosi has made in the last few days. The worst is yet to come!

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Its going to take a major overhaul to fix the fuck we are in

[Teh One Who Knocks]

but for how long

December 21st, 2012 :tup:

[Hal-9000]

The United States of America is the greatest country in the world.

Right next to Canada :rolleyes:








1812 muthafcuker don't forget it!!! :dance:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Back when England attacked us? We remember that :thumbsup:

[Hal-9000]

That's odd, you give the thumbsup to someone attacking your country? ok.......


If you read the true history, yes there were Brits and a Canadian contingent as well.Since we were the 'same' at the time,
there's no reason to try and segregate the two to make it somewhat better for your ego :lol:

We marched and won...get past it, we have :dance: (btw, we didn't really burn the Whitehouse down, that was from an errant cigarette..)

[Muddy]

*kills Hal*











































































with love

[DemonGeminiX]

December 21st, 2012 :tup:

:tinfoil:

[Hal-9000]

I think the States is a great country...and that they'll weather this storm like any other :thumbsup:

I just hate some of the inhabitants :lol:

[Muddy]

I think the States is a great country...and that they'll weather this storm like any other :thumbsup:

I just hate some of the inhabitants :lol:


Me too... Believe me... Me too..

[Hal-9000]

I've touched on this before.The world treats the USA like they're lepers with HIV fucking every other country in the ass.
When in reality, over the decades, the States has given oodles of help military and aid-wise to other places.. and without
asking much in return.

Now some countries are trying to crucify the States because of their financial problems (Russia for one..) when they should
maybe consider the history of the country and try to help a bro (or back the fuck off ) in their time of need if possible.

If Canada was to get hit with a huge natural disaster I know one thing - USA will be there with water, transportation and some sort of temp shelter.
I for one will say THANK YOU.

[Muddy]

You're very kind to mention such things Hal...

[Hal-9000]

:oops:

I'm a little emotional today....no water at work, no poop and no drink...

If one country can bring themselves back from the brink of financial ruin, it's youse :thumbsup:

[FBD]

do you believe a change in management can fix the problems we have?

Rs will need to keep the house, take the senate, and the presidency, then we'll have some sort of chance to scale it back....way the frig back...

I really cant see Obama getting reelected. And having Harry Reid block anything sane from reaching the senate floor has got to go also.

Like deep's said a million times, we want more than what we're willing to pay for as a whole, its well past time to scale things back to what we're willing to pay for instead of giving Session after Session a relative blank check.

...wait and see what kind of corrupt-a-wish happens with the bill that got sent up - like Rush said about it - this was an entire waste of time because the democrats, like crack addicts, do not see that they're got a problem. A big problem. A big spending problem. Republicans do also, by and large, but at least there's a faction demanding fiscal sanity. Democrats have no such hopes - like racist as fug Jesse Jackson said, "democrats ARE the party of big government."

Which is the last freakin thing this country needs.