Portugal is junk

Hey shhh, it's not junk. I'm going there in about 3 weeks! Algarve that is.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

When Clinton left office, the US had a surplus. Hard to believe now, isn't it? Thank the "War on everything" that the US waged during the last 10 years. Bring every US troop home from the ME right now and see how fast the Republicans don't make a deal on the debt. As Bill Clinton adivised Obama, "Don't blink." But I bet he does anyway.

 

I don't understand how the Clinton/Dem supporters get to keep on making this claim.

The myth of the Clinton Surplus.

[Fixed the URL; had an extra http:// - BTA]

 

Your link did not work, Snook. Where ever the link goes, I hope it is accurate cuz you know I will look closely at it.

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html

 

Just another of the lies that democrats hope, that if they repeat it enough, people will believe it. What a sad little group.



If you aren't a socialist at twenty, you don't have a heart.
If you aren't a conservative at forty, you don't have a brain.

 

Thanks BTA. Feel free to look over the link as everything on it is linked to the US Treasury. Basically what it proves/says is that you can't claim to be running a surplus when the debt is increasing. Clinton basically borrowed money to give the illusion that the government was running at a surplus. It is very similar to saying that you have increased your net worth when you earn $10 but have conveniently forgotten that you charged $100 at the mall.

It is a brilliant piece of statesmanship as so many people consider the Clinton Surplus as a fact. Who was it that said if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth?

EDIT: I've been ninjaed!

 

Two, things, though. First, when is the fiscal year measured from? The National Treasury website does show a lower total debt at 01.01. 2001 (5,723 Trillion USD) than at January 3rd. 2000 (5,751 Trillion USD) .

Second, I think it is possible to run a surplus (as in, negative deficit) in the budget and yet increase the debt. If you look at the debt differences and budget surplus/deficit for pretty much every year, you can see a discrepancy. I'm not perfectly sure how it happens (the service fees of the present debt, possibly), but it's technically quite possible Clinton was running a surplus in the budget. Considering how often it happens, it's still something to celebrate. Even if there are some minor increases in the debt, they are more than offset by the GDP growth.

It may be far closer to the truth than the "all tax cuts increase revenues" one, perhaps, but it hasn't stopped spreading either due to a "sad little group" presenting it as Gospel day and night. Seriously, most economists find it BS - even Bush's former economic adviser - Greg Mankiw - writes in his textbooks that tax cuts can at most offset some of the lost revenue due to what you gain from the higher growth (presuming, of course, you do get higher growth, which depends on what taxes are cut, other factors, etc).

 

Funny story. Neither does anyone else really.

No one has any idea what will happen if Greece collapses since no one knows who owes the debt. That's why we (read: Germany) keep bailing them out because there's no knowing how much we'd be forced to finance our own banking system to prevent it from falling and how costly the financial chaos that would follow could become. Especially if it led to mass defaulting around Europe.

Regarding Clinton debt. Borrowing from intergovernmental holdings is still by far better than borrowing from China since it does not increase your sovereign debt. While it might not exactly be a long term solution it's certainly an improvement from the current situation.

No matter how you look at it the fundamentals of the US economy were a LOT healthier during the Clinton era than they are now. Now you have a spiraling debt and a crashing current account, which as a combination should be unsustainable even in the medium run. Luckily for the US the faith in the US debt and its economy has been able to sustain so far. I shudder to even think what would happen if the US ever defaulted on its debt.

 

Well, if we want to relate it back to a personal level, a lot of people owe way more than their annual salary on their mortgage alone. (And I'm not talking about people who never should have been granted mortgages to begin with. Lots of people who are paying their mortgages owe two to three times their annual salary. Add in car loans and student loans, and I be a lot of people owe several time more what they make in the year. I know it's not completely accurate to compare annual income to GDP, but the similarity is that unless all your loans come due at once, having more debt than income isn't necessarily all bad.

You aren't seriously arguing that Clinton was part of the problem, are you? Adjusted for inflation the two presidents primarily responsible for the current US debt are Bush II and Reagan, and it's not even close after that.

 

True, this is a serious problem. On the other hand, I'm somewhat doubtful on how the ratings agencies do their work. Are the indicators they follow really effective in allowing accurate predictions, or is it just some pet theory and "gut feeling" they follow?

 

First off, let me set you straight, rg - I'm not a Democrat. The party is just not iberal enough for me.

Quite often both Democrats and Republicans fight over who should get credit for the surplus in 1999, since 1999 Congress was a Republican majority, and they often claim to have forced Clinton to accept their budget. That said, Clinton claimed that he paid down 600 billion in debt during his time as president. The actual amount was 452 billion dollars according to Politifact who looked at the Newsbuster's claim, upon which Snook is obviously basing his comments [I based mine on the Budget Office, which was in the link I posted].

I didn't need Snook's link because I was able to research this issue this morning to discover where the center of this debate came from.

Is anyone really surprised?

However, Newsbusters used somethng a little different for their claim:

But regardless, here is an important point made by a conservative and liberal economist:

Note that this is an instance in which someone gave credit to both Clinton and the GOP. So this is a fair debate in which both sides can honestly lay claim to their points. But there are a few points that cannot be debated given this closer look at the issue:

First, there is no "myth" as was claimed on one post, since a little bit of research would have revealed that either side could be right depending on how one wanted to view the definition of "debt." Claiming it was a "myth" was an incorrect statement and a bit misleading.

Second was the false accusation that there was a "lying" and "sad little group," which made the claim about Clinton. That was not just false, but foolish. I guess the best excuse for being too lazy to uncover the facts of an issue is to just throw around pointless accusations. It's more than a little disappointing.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...linton-says-his-administration-paid-down-deb/

More foolishness?

 

Sorry Chandos tR, the actual debt went up. No spinning of this will result in any other truth.
Second, I did not know or think you were/are a democrat, it is just that this is a myth perpetrated by democrats. Personally, IMHO, both the democratic AND republican parties are full of idiots & sad little men(some of whom are women).

As for the quote at the end of my statement, why is it to understand?
At 20 you are ruled by your heart & the desire to help everybody. Over the next 2 decades you find out the truth about the world & realise that 1) you can't help everybody & 2) you wouldn't even if you could as a lot of those people are scum.
So at 40 you have come to realise that the great ideas you advocated at 20 weren't so great after all.

Hope that clears things up for ya.

 

The actual debt went slightly up most of the time in absolute terms; although as I mentioned before it actually decreased in the astronomic year 2000. In relative terms - as a percentage of the GDP - it decreased throughout most of his second term, as it tended to decrease until the 80s. In the end, Clinton was right, according to at least some metrics. If he touted his accomplishment - well, it's more than what other presidents in the last, say, 40 years have accomplished. Guy deserved some bragging rights (and, frankly, any blowjobs he might have gotten while in office).

So Churchill stated, supposedly. Nice saying, but why should we bow down and agree just because Famous Figure X allegedly said so?

 

Evidence please.

That's right, Shaman. Politifact proved that point. For some to continue to claim that it is a "myth" is incorrect, especially without any evidence.

I certainly appreciate the effort. Because I want to see where you are coming from and upon what evidence you are basing your conculsions. But to call me a "liar" was not helpful. As Politifact has pointed out, Bill Clinton has a degree of credibility regarding his claim. And this:

Seems to me that Clinton's claim is hardly a "myth." It appears he has the solution to the topic of thread, at least in the opinion of some people who have looked closely at this problem. Myth? You may disagree, but that does NOT make it a myth.

Edit: I have a little more time now:

I wanted to expand on that point. I believe they are actually very clever. But they are self-serving and know how to take care of themselves, to a large extent. Nevertheless, I have been impressed by Bill Clinton, because while he is self-serving, he is clever enough to know how to help others at the same time. That takes talent, IMO. Besides, the guy is brilliant, and that counts for something.

 

From the link by The Great Snook:

Show me a single year were the debt actually decreased or the deficit turned positive. Sorry can't have a surplus while it is still in the negative.

How about showing where I called You a liar. If you take offense at someone saying a particular group is lying, It sounds like you are identifying yourself as said group.

 

Because you lumped me in with that group. Sorry out of time. I will respond later....

---------- Added 0 hours, 26 minutes and 9 seconds later... ----------

Ok, I'm back. Sorry, rg. It's feeding time at the zoo. I was in the middle of cooking dinner for my three kids.

Regarding your point - There are two ways of looking at the numbers you posted. AND in the link I posted, Politicifact addressed your point. There are two different ways of looking at the numbers, and they clearly demonstrated where the confusion was regarding this issue. If you have not read the link, I suggest you do so, no matter how painful it may be to discover that all those - both Dems and Repubs, who take credit for the 1990s fiscal policy have been in claiming that there was a budget surplus. Really, none of them are lying; it's all a matter of how one reads the numbers and what the agenda is. And don't think for a moment that the people who used Snook's link did not have an agenda as well. Nevertheless, Politifact addressed that same link in its article.

The more salient point is that Clinton's [and the Republican Congress] approach worked far better than what we have now.

 

As shown by the numbers I posted, they paid down on the deficit(& never got it paid off) but they never got the nat'l debt to be lower than the year before. So NO surplus. No where. no time.

 

Again, if you read the link, it depends upon HOW you define the debt. You can really help yourself by reading the link.