America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece

The Bush Tax Cuts had nothing to do with the deficit that existed on September 28th, 2001, the last day of the Clinton budget. Try again.

 

Who said they did? I'm not analyzing the budget.

 

Because you love having such public debt, afterall you support a guy who added $5 T in less than 4 years. Thanks Obama!

 

That is absolutely false and you know it. You yourself pointed out that the Bush tax cut rebates in 2001 were $38 billion.

 

Fiscal years are important to your claim that Bush inherited a surplus. The fact that there was a deficit at the end of the fiscal year is a problem for you.

 

So? The deficit was over 130 billion for the year. Subtracting 38 billion wouldn't eliminate the deficit.

 

And I posted fiscal years proving he had a surplus from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office and the US Treasury Department.

 

False.

The deficit was 32 billion.

Anyone can verify it for themselves.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/HistoricalBudgetData.xls

 

No you didn't. The only "surplus" you showed was during the calendar year 2000, from Dec 31 1999 - Dec 31 - 2000.

 

I found a quarter on the ground. I'm 200k in debt, but thats a surplus baby! Woot!

 

Bald face lie from a guy who proved in this thread alone he is well practiced at it.

 

Good for you.

 

09/29/2000 - 5,674,178,209,886.86

09/28/2001 - 5,807,463,412,200.06

Difference = -133,285,202,313.20

Assuming 38 billion was due to the tax cut rebates, it would still put Clinton's spending for 2001 at a deficit to the tune of 95 billion. Bush had no access to a surplus to squander, despite your claim to the contrary.

 

It is right? Where's my medal?

 

Those are the FY numbers, direct from the Treasury site. Nothing you've posted so far shows a surplus existing at the end of September 2001.

 

Please quote where the US Treasury sayd those are deficits or surpluses.

Bald faced lie.

 

LOL, you got the quarter, didn't you?

 

I don't need to. The debt going up 133 billion because of increased intra-governmental debt during FY 2000 indicates that there was no surplus.

What have you posted that shows a surplus at the end of September 2001?

 

You cite the US Treasury Department for your figures and claim they show a deficit.

Where does the US Treasury Department say your numbers are a deficit?

It doesn't. That is why you have dodged that question several times now.

You're just making it up.

What a surprise.

The CBO website shows a total surplus in 2001.

But to prove my accusations that you were lying when you stated "The only "surplus" you showed was during the calendar year 2000, from Dec 31 1999 - Dec 31 - 2000" for the record, here's some links.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-debt-worse-than-greece-3.html#post1061276694

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-debt-worse-than-greece-4.html#post1061276804

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-debt-worse-than-greece-5.html#post1061276957

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-debt-worse-than-greece-8.html#post1061277347

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-debt-worse-than-greece-8.html#post1061277465

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...debt-worse-than-greece-11.html#post1061278013

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...debt-worse-than-greece-16.html#post1061279115

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...debt-worse-than-greece-20.html#post1061279426

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...debt-worse-than-greece-21.html#post1061280272

Every single one cites to either the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office or the US Treasury Department explicitly referring to deficits and surpluses and showing a surplus for 2000.

I'd expect a retraction of your false statement, if I thought I was dealing with a person of honor.

 

Your intentional obtuseness is clearly visible.

The fact that the total National Debt increased by over 130 billion during FY 2000 indicates that there was no surplus on September 28, 2001, the last day of Clinton's spending level.

It shows an "On-budget" surplus, which was overshadowed by a larger "off-budget" increase in intra-governmental debt, which wiped out any idea of a net surplus that could have been handed over to the next Administration.

Why would I retract anything if I'm right? The debt increased every year. There was no surplus. The CBO chart you keep posting shows that the SS surplus wiped away the on budget "surplus" that existed, creating a net deficit. You either don't understand, or you are playing games.

 

CRA is an often blamed - but wrong - cause of the decline. More than 50% of the subprime loans issued prior to 2008 were issued by independent mortgage companies that ARE NOT REGULATED BY CRA. Another 20-30% were issued by institutions that are only partially regulated by CRA. As of 2009, 55% of commercial loans were under water, and the CRA does not apply to commercial real estate debt.

Banks were impacted not by providing the bad loans, but by purchasing the companies that issued the bad loans (Countrywide), and by creating products that manipulated and misutilized these bad loans (CDOs). It became a substantial issue because there was little legislation in regards to requirements to provide these loans, and little oversight of the companies (AIG) that rated and validated these investment vehicles.

Legislation - or lack thereof - was a significant component of why 2008 happened. Otherwise why didn't the same bubble issue hit countries like Canada?

Because Bush and his administration made so many substantial changes to Social Security? Social Security underfunding has been a recognized issue since the mid 90's, so something that was an issue in 2001-2008 as well. Bush even ran on a platform which included changing social security, but didn't.
There are actually some fairly easy reforms - including the possibility of tax changes - that can improve the issues that exist in social security and these 'entitlement programs.' Increasing the tax rate is one. But so is changing the eligibility age, etc. Many ways other than the Republican "it's broke so lets just cut it" philosophy.

Actually gas didn't hit $1.71 a gallon until December 2008 - 2 months after the September/October collapse. Between July (when Bush lifted the drilling moratorium) and September, gas prices only fell from $4.11 to $3.68. Between September and November, they went from $3.68 to $170]. Even the decline between July and September could be attributed to demand more than speculation, as for months people had been buying smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, and driving less.

Even if ANWR drilling was permitted, it wouldn't have a substantial impact. It is expected to take up to a decade before the oil could start being extracted. Once pumping occurs, even at best estimates, there is only enough oil to replace dwindling supply for 10 years. Even then, the impact on actual gas prices will be negligible.
http://www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices
It would make much more sense to have the funds that would be put into ANWR into research to find less oil-dependent technology.

 

The stock market isn't evidence of the success of the government. If it is, then Clinton is indeed the best President ever, as the Dow Jones more than tripled during his two terms. In reality, the stock market is representative of the combined total of what people perceive the value of the underlying companies to be. The markets did so well between 1995 and 2000 because of the explosion of popularity of the internet, by people and as a platform of exchange.

 

Only because of your continued dodging. You continue to claim the US Treasury department shows there was a deficit in 2000, and then continued to dodge questions about where it actually says that.

You forgot the link. Are you dishonestly trying to imply this is from the US Treasury department you claim says there was a deficit when it is not?

Where does the Treasury Department say that?

Where does the Treasury Department say that?

You are not right. You can argue that both the Treasury Department and the CBO and the OMB and everyone else in the government is wrong when they say there was a surplus in 2000 because some RW blogger told you so.

But that is what they explicitly state, and I have posted links over and over to pages that explicitly state there was a surplus in FY2000. As I've proved for the whole board to see for themsleves.

So for you to assert that The only surplus I "showed was during the calendar year 2000, from Dec 31 1999 - Dec 31 - 2000" is a knowing, flat out lie.

An honorable person would retract that blatantly false assertion. I'm not expecting you to.

 

Thank god for legitimate legislation, huh?

 

So 50% of subprime loans were issued by lending facilities not regulated by CRA... what about the other half? Does it not make sense that those non-CRA facilities had to change their policies as well to stay competitive in the lending market? If a potential borrower has the option to go to a CRA regulated facility where they have a higher chance of securing a loan, and they require little to no money down for a down payment, why on Earth would they go to a non-CRA regulated facility?

Sub prime mortgage loans were increasing 25% per year while Clinton was in office, long before the repeal of Glass Stegall, which is often cited as the genesis of the housing collapse. The repeal was signed by Bill Clinton.

Did Canada actively push for non creditworthy people to apply for loans en masse? Did they sign legislation threatening banks that they would face penalties if a certain percentage of their loans didn't go towards certain demographics? The unfortunate side-effects of left-wing social engineering, with the best of intentions.

I've never said Bush wasn't culpable.

It will require major reforms. What level of taxation will pay for the 61.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we owe right now? Not to mention the current national debt?

Buying smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles wouldn't explain the rapid decrease in oil and gas prices within a 6 month period. That's a long term strategy. Unless everyone ran out and bought smaller cars at the same time, which I doubt happened. Bush's announcement created an almost immediate effect on the price of oil, as speculators bet on the price going down.

So what if it takes 10 years? In 10 years we will have more oil at our disposal. Meanwhile thousands of people could be put to work. What are the downsides of XL pipeline and ANWR?