America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece

I was going to respond with the fact that you conveniently ignored my earlier post to you, when I realized I had forgotten to quote you in said post. High horse deflated.

So here it is!!

 

And that investment continues to keep the economy going.

 

Let the free market take its course.
Stop with the regulations that are killing industry and small business
approved XL
pushed for drilling in ANWR
Released oil from the strategic reserve to help lower fuel prices
cut spending

I could go on and on. Any idiot can throw money at a problem. Leaders fix the problem by looking at what is wrong and fixing it.

 

Intra-government holdings have nothing to do with the deficit. Intra-government holdings are the amount of debt the US Govt owes to Govt agencies like SS and Govt pensions.

Did you notice that your link does not have the word "deficit" or "surplus" in it?

Would that maybe be yet another clue you are on the wrong track if you are looking for surplus and deficit information?

This is now the second page you have cited to support your claim there was no surplus under Clinton, and neither page has anything to do with the budget or even have the words surplus or deficit in them.

Once again, here is the official US Govt budget data from 2000. Reported by the Congressional Budget Office. And you can see it has the words "surplus" and "deficit" right there in the report, telling you exactly what they are:

Please have the author explain what intra-government debt has to do with a budget surplus or deficit.

Obviously you can't.

Yes they did. Tax revenues under Bush fell from 20.4% to 15%, the lowest in 6 decades.

Year - Revenues - % GDP
2000 2,025.2 20.4%
2001 1,991.2 19.4%
2002 1,853.2 17.4%
2003 1,782.3 16.0%
2004 1,880.1 15.9%
2005 2,153.9 17.1%
2006 2,406.7 18.0%
2007 2,567.7 18.3%
2008 2,523.6 17.7%
2009 2,104.6 15.1%

It doesn't refute it at all. I'd call that a dud.

Feel free to invite him here to discuss his views.

And so you should know better than to repeat a statement you now know is false.

16 million isn't "nearly 20 million".

I did refute it, and proved your data was wrong, but you continued posting false data like the 20 million job claim for Reagan.

If you cannot back up your numbers, they are baseless and you're continued us of them is simply dishonest.

Dude, we are going to stop this right now.

No, that is not what I said.

This is a waste of time with your constant lying about what I said. I say one thing and you turn around and lie about what I said and then I have to waste my time and go back and re-post what I said.

If you are going to be fundamentally dishonest like this a discussion is a waste of time. So post my statement verbitam, with a link, if you want to continue a discussion since you cannot be honest enough to charaterize it accurately.

 

No, a big chunk of it is just sitting in banks.

 

We tried that path in 2001-2009.

Wasn't that a lot of fun? Let's do it again!

 

The free market relies on consumer and corporate willingness to actually spend money to work. If this doesn't happen, the engine grinds to a halt - and if you know anything about cars, you know what it's like trying to restart a seized engine. Even if the "throwing money" tactic was for nothing more than to reassure the general public, that's a positive tactic. Read my post to Iriemon (#67) for more depth. Yes I recognize, I lean more towards Keynesian theory, but neither Keynes nor Hayek have been proven to be more accurate.

It was lack of regulation that caused this whole mess to happen in the get-go.[/quote]

I agree, but for different reasons, I suspect.

I've always found the Republican stance of "screw the future, we need to worry about now" fascinating. "Screw Medicaid, we need to lower taxes," "Screw social service, we shouldn't fund our old people," "screw the environment, we need a years worth of oil." I don't see how drilling in ANWR would have any substantial impact on the economy. Other than "throwing money at the problem" anyways.

This wouldn't have had a significant impact, and definitely not for any period of time. The volatility of oil prices we have experienced over the past year is proof of that. Oil prices, at the end of the day, don't have short term impacts on the price of fuel. Refinement, taxes, and profit have a much more substantial impact on the price of gasoline.

And which initiatives would you have liked to see him cut?

Which is great in theory. Unfortunately, the concept of politics nowadays is more like this: Any idiot can throw money at a problem. Leaders try to fix the problem by looking at what is wrong, submitting their plan to more politicians - who then have to represent their constituents (which rarely ever have the greater good in mind) - who choose whether the leader can try to fix the problem.

Ah politics.

 

You're free to backpedal, it won't change the fact that this was your statement

I posted a link to the Treasury page to prove this statement wrong. Debt is comprised of public debt and intra-governmental holdings. not "receipts and outlays" like you claim.

How am I off track? My first source explained why, in detail, Clinton did not have a surplus as we come to understand it today. Debt continued to increase when intra-governmetal holdings were factored into the analysis. The only way a surplus could be seen is if we isolate only the public debt, which is not how debt is analyzed now.

Of course, you refused to actually read the article and chose to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the source instead. Like I said, typical dishonest liberal debate tactic.

The first source I posted contains those terms multiple times. You would have known that if you read it.

And, as mentioned multiple times, those are based on only public debt numbers and they do not include intra-governmental holdings. That is the only way to reach Clinton's "surplus".

I already did, but you refused to read what you know refutes your argument.

Explain the flaw in that logic or concede. Your dancing act is getting old.

I said nothing about revenue as a percentage of GDP. Red herring.

So Krugman, the left's favorite Economist, isn't the authority on Economics anymore? I'll keep this in mind.

It is when you include his Vice President's time as President.

I have provided evidence that you continue to run away from, yet you talk about dishonesty. What a joke.

Here is what you said

So, once again, which of "Clinton's liberal policies" are responsible for "22 million jobs created"?

 

How big? What source?

Warren Buffett has said that cash is the worst investment to have. I highly doubt any super rich person has a huge chunk of his/her money sitting idle in the bank.

 

It was "pretty much" a function of his tax increase? How cute.

 

There is also the Congress to consider.

 

I disagree. It started with Clinton enforcing the CRA, which was largely ignored since the late 70's when it was signed. Clinton wanted more low income borrowers to apply for home loans and his Administration threatened banks who would not go along with the new rules. The result was a 25% increase year after year in subprime mortages, from 35 billion in 1993 to 330 billion in 2003.

There is no level of taxation we can implement to pay for the entitlement programs we currently have. They must be reformed. Our unfunded liabilities alone currently sit at 61.6 trillion dollars. The liberal solution seems to be "screw the future, we want to spend money now".

Those entitlement programs were going backrupt from 2008-2010, when there wasn't a single Republican branch of the Government.

I disagree. When oil prices spiked under Bush, he announced that he would lift the moratorium on domestic drilling operations. Speculators (those evil people), began betting that the price of oil would drop in the future, which led to a rapid sell off that ended up bringing gas prices back to $1.71 a gallon.

 

Why do you call it "cute"?

After the Clinton tax increase, revenues soared far more than even the solid economic growth conservatives assured us we wouldn't have because of the tax increase.

Without those additional revenues, there would have been no surplus.

 

Bankers have an odd-sounding problem these days: they are awash in cash. ...

Droves of consumers and businesses unnerved by the lurching markets have been taking their money out of risky investments and socking it away in bank accounts, where it does little to stimulate the economy. ...

Even as interest rates have fallen, bank deposits have grown at an impressive clip of almost 5 percent a year, according to Trepp, a financial research firm. This summer, as businesses and consumers withdrew their money from stocks, bonds and money market mutual funds because of fears about the debt crisis in Europe and another downturn in the United States, deposits surged to a record level of more than $8.9 trillion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/b...-they-cant-profitably-use.html?pagewanted=all

Banks are awash in trillions in idle cash from the wealthy that doesn't help the economy, while the economy stuggles for lack of spending while scores of millions struggle from lack of funds to pay their mortgages.

 

I haven't backpedalled at all.

Intra-government holdings are a form of debt. They are not surpluses or deficits.

I posted a link to the Treasury page to prove this statement wrong. Debt is comprised of public debt and intra-governmental holdings. not "receipts and outlays" like you claim.



How am I off track? My first source explained why, in detail, Clinton did not have a surplus as we come to understand it today. Debt continued to increase when intra-governmetal holdings were factored into the analysis. The only way a surplus could be seen is if we isolate only the public debt, which is not how debt is analyzed now.

Of course, you refused to actually read the article and chose to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the source instead. Like I said, typical dishonest liberal debate tactic.



The first source I posted contains those terms multiple times. You would have known that if you read it.



And, as mentioned multiple times, those are based on only public debt numbers and they do not include intra-governmental holdings. That is the only way to reach Clinton's "surplus".



I already did, but you refused to read what you know refutes your argument.



Explain the flaw in that logic or concede. Your dancing act is getting old.



I said nothing about revenue as a percentage of GDP. Red herring.



So Krugman, the left's favorite Economist, isn't the authority on Economics anymore? I'll keep this in mind.




It is when you include his Vice President's time as President.



I have provided evidence that you continue to run away from, yet you talk about dishonesty. What a joke.



Here is what you said



So, once again, which of "Clinton's liberal policies" are responsible for "22 million jobs created"?[/QUOTE]

 

Banks don't just have "the wealthy"'s money in reserve. It has everybody's money. You neglect (on purpose, I'm sure) that possibility that there is more money in reserve simply because the poor and middle-income households are saving more becuase of the bad economy and spending and investing less.

But continue on with the class warfare against the evil rich people.

It's funny that you complain about people bailing out of investments here, when you constantly brag about how great the stock market is doing because of Obama.

 

I haven't backpedalled at all.

Intra-government holdings are a form of debt. They are not surpluses or deficits.

False. You posted a link to a page on the debt. It said nothing about deficits or surpluses and had nothing to do with them.

Your first post explained no such thing and did not even have the word surplus or deficit on it, just the debt.

Clinton absolutely had a surplus, as understood by anyone except some nut in carolinaonline and those foolish enough to gullibly believe them.

False.

I read it. The idiot who wrote that article has no clue about what he's talking about.

Do you blindly believe everything you read?

The debt is not a surplus or deficit.

False.

Do you understand what debt is? Do you understand what a deficit or surplus is? Obviously you do not, or you would not continue to be citing pages relating to the debt which is not the surplus or deficit.

A debt is the cumulative amount of money owed.

A budget deficit or surplus is based on the difference between revenues and outlays.

This is basic macro economics.

I have showed you two different reliable sources proving that there were more revenues than outlays, and thus a surplus, in 2000, whether you include SS or not.

You have failed to show one reliable source proving there was no surplus in 2000. You've cited some unknown website by some unknown who obviously is clueless on government accounting. And then you've cited a Treasury Department page, and a Wiki page, neither of which even had the words deficit or surplus in them.

So if you want to be a smart ass, show us a reliable source proving there was no surplus, or concede.

No, the red herring is your reference to nomimal revenues as if that indicated something important. You have to compare monetary figures to a common benchmark, like GDP, or even inflation, over time, to compare them fairly.

Again, this is basic macroeconomics.

Feel free. Krugman can defend his own claims. I defend mine.

Bush is not Reagan.

False. I haven't run away from anything.

That is correct. I did not say "Clinton with his liberal policies are what caused 22 million jobs" as you falsely claimed.

I never said that.

Please quote verbatim my statement if you want me to respond.

 

Deficits add to the debt, surpluses subtract from the debt. You have yet to address the substance of the article I posted explaining why Clinton left W Bush with no surplus, despite the left-wing mythology on the matter.

 

He wouldn't have to. He was trying to bridge the divide by compromising with conservatives. Obviously that was a mistake since they've (*)(*)(*)(*)ed him every chance they get.

 

What softball?

You're "source" is some online rag which you have no idea what it is or the author's credentials on the subject. You don't know if he is an economist or has a background in macroeconomics or anything about him. It could be some guy making (*)(*)(*)(*) up for all you know.

I on the other hand, have cited both the Congressional Budget Office adn the Treasury Department proving there was a surplus in 2000.

I appreciate you'd rather believe any nutjob website so long as it supports your political position.

I choose to believe US Govt sources over some website you know nothing about.

Others can make up their own minds.

Because the debt is a measure of how much is borrowed, not budget receipts and outlays.

 

Because borrowing increases the debt and paying off loans decreases the debt irrespective of the deficit or surplus. If there was a budget surplus but the Govt borrows more money, the debt will go up. That doesn't mean there wasn't a surplus of revenues over outlays.

 

I posted a link on the debt to correct your faulty claim about what comprises the debt.

You didn't read the original post, and did you show how the analysis was incorrect.

You have yet to refute what the article stated, and continue to try and dismiss. Typical left-wing tactic when debate is not possible.

How is that false?

Explain.

No, do you?

The debt is the accumulation of surpluses and deficits.

Why?

I already provided a reliable source. You have yet to show how they are unreliable, and are too cowardly to debate the actual substance of the article. You maintain that the author is wrong, yet you've presented nothing to show how, aside from your own insistence. Sorry, I'm not convinced. I'll ask again, how is the author wrong? Where's your source stating that Clinton's "surplus" did include intra-governmental holdings?

No, I don't. I made the statement that the highest revenue ever occurred during W Bush's Presidency, and I was right. No President ever had that high of a revenue amount coming into the Government.

Good.

I didn't say he was. He did, however, carry on the same policies.

False. You have.

Explain how those two are different. I know leftists get stiffies for word games, but I'm curious on this one. Oh, and you still need to explain which specific policies.

 

The only way this country can survive another 4 years with Obama is if Republicans gain 13 seats in the Senate and 19 more in the House. Then Obama will be just an ornament.

 

Sure. And who has all the money?

Why do you think they are evil?

The only time I've ever said anything crediting Obama with the stock market is in reference to people who claim it went down because of him.

 

The only way this country can survive ios to get the obstructionists Republicans who are intent on (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up our economy out of the House.