Remember when?

[Jeff Young]

Head banging on wall.....

NO IT DOES NOT ALWAYS EXCEED TAX REVENUES. Clinton was President for 8 years. The first 5 he ran a deficit, the remainder a surplus. The "net" was addition to the debt. You understand the concept of "net" correct? I hope....

Here is a chart. I know you hate charts, but it would be good for you to look at this one. It is a list of the budget deficit OR SURPLUS each year since 1940. In a year in which there was a surplus, more tax revenue was taken in than the spending set forth in the budget/actually spent.

ALSO NOTE IT IS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION SINCE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO COMPARE DOLLARS ACROSS TIME.

If you don't get this one, you are hopeless. You are just flat out wrong. As wrong as wrong can be.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

The time period from January 2001 to Jan 2009 was Bush's presidency, inflation went up 22.75%. January 2009 to 2015 is Obama, inflation of 10.27%. Inflation should have affected Bush's debt more than twice as much as Obama's debt. Nice try on the spin though. The total inflation from 2001 to 2015 is 33.02% not 40%. "Step back from the calculator" You don't calculate your customer hours do you? Here comes Jay!

 

[Jeff Young]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

I give up.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

You still don't have a clue. January of 1996 the debt was 4.9 trillion, January 2001 debt was $5.7 trillion, a gain of $.8 trillion of Clintons total debt of $1.5 trillion. The $.8 trillion was spending in excess of tax revenues. The budgets were larger than the revenues. The $368 billion surplus that Bush "spent on hookers and coke" "sic" wasn't actually there, it was on paper, but with $.8 trillion of debt over that time period it was "smoke and mirrors". Hey Jay!

 

[Keith]

You're both wrong. It's the rest of the world that doesn't have a clue... mainly what your on about :shrug:

 

[Jeff Young]

You are denying that there have been something like 15 years of budget surpluses since 1940, which is a FACT.

You don't understand the concept of "net" -- meaning over a ten year period, if budget deficits exceed surplueses money gets added to the debt.

You don't understand the concept of inflation and the time value of money, and why you have to adjust dollar sums from one year for inflation to compare them to others.

You're one of those sheeple who shouldn't be voting that you complain about all the time.

Good grief.

 

[Jeff Young]

You're both wrong. It's the rest of the world that doesn't have a clue... mainly what your on about :shrug:

Well, that's a shame because on this one Al's wrong, and a dumbass. This isn't left right shit, this is basic math.

Sometimes you need to wade in an have an opinion other than "everyone sucks but me" Keith.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Numbers are numbers, you don't have any. And as usual you resort to name calling. You are wrong as usual, get used to it.

 

[Keith]

Well, that's a shame because on this one Al's wrong, and a dumbass. This isn't left right shit, this is basic math.

Sometimes you need to wade in an have an opinion other than "everyone sucks but me" Keith.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect someone who has trouble balancing his pension to understand the nuances of the United States budget deficit, and further, my only opinion currently is that you are being unnecessarily personally abusive to another member for absolutely no reason. Al clearly doesn't agree with you, so why don't you leave it at that?

 

[Ed Johnson]

Figures don't lie-but some liers sure can figure.

 

[Jeff Young]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to expect someone who has trouble balancing his pension to understand the nuances of the United States budget deficit, and further, my only opinion currently is that you are being unnecessarily personally abusive to another member for absolutely no reason. Al clearly doesn't agree with you, so why don't you leave it at that?

There's no need to make it that complicated. This is a simple issue of whether a surplus can exist, and if you need to look at inflation when evaluting the value of money over time.

Both sides have been "abusive" and I apologize for my side of that.

But once I again, I didn't come here and start trouble over something I don't understand.

 

[Jeff Young]

Numbers are numbers, you don't have any. And as usual you resort to name calling. You are wrong as usual, get used to it.

I've given you a list of every budget deficit and SURPLUS since 1940. You'd rather talk to Jay Leno or something.

 

[Randy V]

STOP the bickering and poking at one another...

Thank you...

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

This thread was started to point out that when Bush had a debt over 8 years of $4.9 trillion. Obama said he was unpatriotic. When Obama has $7.5 trillion over 7 years, what is he. That's it!

 

[Doug S.]

This thread was started to point out that when Bush had a debt over 8 years of $4.9 trillion. Obama said he was unpatriotic. When Obama has $7.5 trillion over 7 years, what is he. That's it!

OK...so not to throw fuel on the fire, but as I understand it the "buying power" of those $4.9 Trillion that Bush added to the deficit could have been greater than the buying power of those $7.5 Trillion Obama added?

Is that what adjusting for inflation and indexing to the GDP is telling us?

If that's so...then it seems that the IMPACT of the budget deficit under Bush would have had a more disastrous impact on each American than the budget deficit under Obama...or, perhaps, I just don't understand. If so, please call Jay, I want to talk to him!!!!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

OK...so not to throw fuel on the fire, but as I understand it the "buying power" of those $4.9 Trillion that Bush added to the deficit could have been greater than the buying power of those $7.5 Trillion Obama added?

Is that what adjusting for inflation and indexing to the GDP is telling us?

If that's so...then it seems that the IMPACT of the budget deficit under Bush would have had a more disastrous impact on each American than the budget deficit under Obama...or, perhaps, I just don't understand. If so, please call Jay, I want to talk to him!!!!

Cheers!

Doug

This is it, as a courtesy to you Doug. It doesn't work. The inflation over 8 years with Bush is more than double that of Obama, 22.75% Bush 10.27% Obama. So if anything the Bush amount was inflated more. With Bush the debt average yearly increase was $.61 trillion. With Obama the yearly average increase is $1.07 trillion. The Great Punpkin will not affect this, it is what it is.

 

[Steve]

Uh, no crap. You don't have to explain to me the difference between deficit (calculated on a yearly basis and added to the debt) and the debt (the total we owe.

The point from my link is that Republican Presidents -- with St. Reagan the worst -- have added far more debt as a percentage of GDP (which is the ONLY way to compare across eras) than Democrats. And Bush added more than Obama.

Obama has reduced the deficit to manageable levels as a percentage of GDP. As a result, GDP has grown faster than the debt, and debt as a percentage of GDP has gone down.

Clinton had a surplus the last few years in office. He handed that off to Bush, who blew it on Medicare expansion and two wars.

You need to (a) learn more about how these things work and (b) realize that despite their flaws, history, numbers, facts and stuff show that Democrats are better for the debt and deficit than Republicans since WWII.

Now, why is that? Well, it's pretty simple:

1. Republicans believe in teh naive and frankly stupid idea that cutting tax rates at levels far below the laffer curve will increase revenues. They don't.

2. They then couple lower tax rates with increased spending on the military (Reagan), or wars and Medicare (Bush I and II).

The result? More deficit, more debt.

Jeff, you're doing a great job of subterfuge and deflecting. Your love for Obama blinds your objectivity.

To be fair, Bush did a crappy job of keeping the government's financial house in order. Ultimately, it was the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that blew any hope of balancing the budget. The dot.com bubble burst and the hit the economy took just as 9/11 approached didn't help either. Interestingly, Medicare Part D actually does a pretty good job sticking to it's budget. It's actually 50% below what the CBO projected in 2013. Part A and B are a disaster and, when the CBO projects costs, usually run 100+% overbudget at 10 years out. I was against Part D as it made no sense to add to Medicare when Part A and B can't control costs (all the while reimbursing physicians below their cost of doing business!). Having said that, it seems to have been a worthwhile and reasonable addition to Medicare that did not exacerbate the debt/deficit to the degree you imply.

The bottom line is that Obama will have added more to the national debt than all previous presidents combined by the time he leaves office. That's a horrific distinction. He got his tax increase in 2013 but never did cut spending (which is the classic criticism of democrats: tax and spend...and spend...and spend).

You can't reasonably defend this nor can you use the "but but but Reagan did this...." argument. Just be a man and own it. It's not a good thing and the fact that our debt as a percent of GDP is better than much of Europe and Japan is certainly nothing to be proud of nor does it mean we're not in deep shit

 

[Jack]

Well, I remember when gasoline was .37 cents per gallon.

 

[Doug S.]

I bought my first tank of gas @ 15.9 cents per gallon. Must have been about 1964.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Charlie Farley]

Ok, go on....
You're gonna tell me you've kept all your receipts since then...
lol.