When Did Bush...

[Aimhigh2000]

Never said I was

Just what I heard. I couldn't tell ya the difference. I just heard that the new debt was in like 1.9 Trillion or something. I really have to pay attention to these screaming talk radio and tv people. I know that Rush is a constipated, I mean conservative, but honestly, I just watch my own bank account. Billion, Trillion, I am not really counting as long as I see my account going up......

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by FromTexas
Hint - THERE WAS NO TRUE SURPLUS (i.e. free money to spend)!

It was actually a projected surplus, not a real "bucks in the bank" surplus. Then the bottom fell out of the dotcom industry and the surplus never happened.

 

[Aimhigh2000]

From the Treasury Dept

The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

04/13/2004 $7,164,797,958,097.65


Current
Month
04/12/2004 $7,162,025,763,951.47
04/09/2004 $7,160,991,855,678.41
04/08/2004 $7,160,467,386,702.99
04/07/2004 $7,151,013,061,391.15
04/06/2004 $7,151,900,213,503.45
04/05/2004 $7,141,930,542,184.59
04/02/2004 $7,139,841,955,051.34
04/01/2004 $7,122,841,728,666.17


Prior
Months

03/31/2004 $7,131,067,950,647.32
02/27/2004 $7,091,943,110,094.84
01/30/2004 $7,009,234,605,728.06
12/31/2003 $7,001,312,247,818.28
11/28/2003 $6,925,065,499,881.34
10/31/2003 $6,872,675,839,106.67


Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00


SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
I really have to pay attention to these screaming talk radio and tv people.

With the internet, you don't have to do that. Whenever you hear John Kerry say he's going to create ten million jobs, go to www.census.gov and see what the population over 18 and under 65 is. Then go to the Dept. of Labor website and see what the unemployment rate is. What you'll find is that there are approximately 9 million unemployed adults in this country. Then take a look at your local newspaper, the Wash Post employment section or even our Help Wanted classifieds on here and look at all the jobs advertised.

Then ask yourself - if John Kerry creates 10 million jobs, who's going to fill them?

It's easy to cut through the spin in the digital age. And knowledge is power.

 

[FromTexas]

I don't listen to Rush because he is a windbag. I get my facts from watching and sorting through the filth. I don't even watch Fox. Not saying I don't ever, but I tend to see other news sources 90% of the time. I watch Fox when I want an express view only.

Actually, Vrai, Clinton did claim surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000. the ones projected for us (as huge surpluses) were on paper.

How did he do this? He counted the Social Security/Medicare surplus (which is called off-budget surplus). Those funds are social security and medicare funds that he borrowed (intergovernmental holdings debt) to pay of public debt. He just moved the money from one debt to the other so he could claim he is paying down debt (the debt most people look at - they do not look at total debt).

Essentially, the programs he claimed he was fixing, etc... he was borrowing from to make it look like he had a real surplus and no one was watching the shell game.

He claimed unified budget surpluses of $69 billion and $124 billion. However, all of that was Social Security surplus (since, even now, Social Security and Medicare draw in more money than they pay out). In 1998, the on-budget accounts were actually in deficit by $30 billion (thats what Congress and the President actually control). In 1999, they were about $1 billion in deficit. All those surpluses were from adding on that Social Security and Medicare money which has to be borrowed to be used since its still owed back for future generations.

We can't claim innocence though -- Clinton said we had this money and so sure enough, Congress and the President have spent it. However, Bush has admitted how much his debt is going up (both public and intergovernmental) and why -- He didn't call it a surplus. Its just owed more to the government than the public.

Some more fun -- first 3 years of Bush -
The economic environment also created this wonder - rapidly growing entitlements:
Income support entitlements grew a staggering 50% from 2000-2003 ($133.5 billion to $196.4 billion)
Medicaid entitlements grew approx 40% ($117.9 billion to $160.7 billion)
Less related to the economy but growing rapidly also were Social Security which gained $70 billion in that period and Medicare which gained approx $60 billion

There is the bulk of your spending growth. Between paying federal employees and entitlements, thats pretty much 70-80% of the budget. Employees get pay raises. Entitlements grow quickly from unemployment and lower salaries. Above is approx. $270 billion in spending growth and add in the $70 billion I conservatively paint to the economy (corporate and excise based taxes mostly - I conservatively painted all reduction in personal income taxes, the greatest area, as related to the tax cut -- although we all know thats not true) and you have $340 billion of negative change right there. Bush had approx $400 billion in deficits in those 3 years.

The above are pointed to as mostly uncontrollables (especially during slagging economic times) by a President. He had tried to limit salaries to civilian employees and Congress trumped him on that. However, for that part I am thankful. After all, I am coming there to work for the government. That is just personal bias though.

So -- I am happy for anyone to show how out of control his spending was when he was able to keep deficits to his spending around about $60 billion with all that was going on.

 

[FromTexas]

Re: From the Treasury Dept

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
The Debt To the Penny
Current Amount

Doesn't show anything different then what I stated. I just got info for the beginnings of their terms to set points (this date in the appropriate year) later.

By that one, if you count the yearly marks -- Clinton would have been 35.7% in debt to Bush's 26%. I did you a favor and used precise dates.

Not sure what your point was on pasting that.

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
With the internet, you don't have to do that. Whenever you hear John Kerry say he's going to create ten million jobs, go to www.census.gov and see what the population over 18 and under 65 is. Then go to the Dept. of Labor website and see what the unemployment rate is. What you'll find is that there are approximately 9 million unemployed adults in this country. Then take a look at your local newspaper, the Wash Post employment section or even our Help Wanted classifieds on here and look at all the jobs advertised.

Then ask yourself - if John Kerry creates 10 million jobs, who's going to fill them?

It's easy to cut through the spin in the digital age. And knowledge is power.

Well said Vrai. 10 million in job growth during his assumed presidency is actually below average for a recovering economy being handed to him based on working population and growth. Its like saying "During my time in office, 4 World Series will be held". The only thing that will make it not true is if something drastic happens.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
One more thing, and I didn't know this until a couple days ago: Jamie Gorelick, who is on the 9-11 committee, was Janet Reno's Deputy. She should be in front of the committee giving testimony, not on the committee. What screwball chose her for this duty???

YAY! Someone else agrees with me!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
What they're supposed to be doing is finding where the security breakdown occured, if in fact there was one at all. Sometimes you can't prevent tragedy, nor can you eliminate it in the future. Hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20.

If anyone takes the fall for this, it should be Clinton. He was the one that reduced intelligence funding and ignored the threats. He was the one that let our embassies and our WTC be attacked by Muslim extremists and didn't do a thing about it.

However, I'm willing to let him off the hook IF his fellow Democrats would just learn from the mistakes and admit that gutting the FBI and CIA isn't a good idea AND that we should smack the hell out of terrorists AND their benefactors.

Everyone makes mistakes and hopefully we learn from them. The Democrats don't appear to have learned a DAMNED thing, even though they lost their collective asses in the past two elections.

One more thing, and I didn't know this until a couple days ago: Jamie Gorelick, who is on the 9-11 committee, was Janet Reno's Deputy. She should be in front of the committee giving testimony, not on the committee. What screwball chose her for this duty???

If anyone takes the fall for this, it should be Clinton. He was the one that reduced intelligence funding and ignored the threats. He was the one that let our embassies and our WTC be attacked by Muslim extremists and didn't do a thing about it.

*Ahem* Would'nt this reduction in funding have to pass through the Congress or be written in his budget somewhere. Being that it had to be passed by Congress it had to be voted upon by REPUBLICANS.

 

[BuddyLee]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
If you want to rabble-rouse, take your lumps like a man and quit complaining about it.

I've spent 7 years on this forum waiting for a Democrat to come along and give me a good, factual argument.

Im here and im taking my lumps for whatever ignorance I may have. Im just not taking one side of things all the time.

I loathe both Bush and Kerry. Niether should be president. However, you have to live with what you've got.

 

[jlabsher]

It is always the same on this board, if your not a rabid republikan you MUST be a democrat. You cannot be anything else.

Reminds me of last year when I was one of the few on this board saying we shouldn't go to Iraq. I was called everything from an anti-american peacenik who should leave the country to a muslim loving ******. Reminds me of the 60's us-or-them attitudes, better dead than red, etc.

You won't find many open-minded types here, they are set in their ways with blinders on and proud of it. Straight party voting republicans the lot, and proud of it. If you dare question Herr Bush you are asking for trouble.

 

[jlabsher]

Originally posted by cariblue
You're a freakin' communist, aren't you? How dare you? I'm not a republican, but I am an american. That statement is an insult to the entire country, you POS.

See what I mean

 

[Larry Gude]

What a load of crap...

You won't find many open-minded types here, they are set in their ways with blinders on and proud of it. Straight party voting republicans the lot, and proud of it. If you dare question Herr Bush you are asking for trouble.

We, as a group, are rather well read, watch more than one news show and also boast a fair number of people with real world experience in foreign lands.

Topics from left leaning sources are on the daily menu around here. You want a bunch of lock step robots, there's plenty of other places including the 'progessive' DU which states in the friggin rules "NO OTHER OPINONS WELCOME".

I think of this site, politcally, as a basketball game and the admitted right leaning majority are Moses Malone or Shaq, standing in the lane. You wanna get to the hoop?

DON'T BRING NO WEAK AZZ SH!T DOWN HERE

Make a point and make a good one and save the 'must be a Democrat' stuff. Some of the better arguments in here come from Democrats. Some of the weaker arguments as well.

The constant use of Hitler allusions illustrates you don't know jack about him or his chosen ones.

W is surrounded by competence, experience and yes, people smarter than he. THAT is intelligent.

Hitler, like Clinton, was surrounded by enablers. Niether man and his self proffessed genius could stand up to strength and conviction in those they worked with.

There is only one President at a time in this country and they should be challenged and hammered relentlessly DURING the decision making process.

Once we set a course, then we all pull together. There's another election coming and whomever is next deserves the same support in fact if not in spirit.

 

[SamSpade]

"It is always the same on this board, if your not a rabid republikan you MUST be a democrat. You cannot be anything else. "

Please, put a sock in it. I'm a conservative Democrat. There's all types on here. Too many liberals I deal with really really can't stand to listen to opposing views, they have to resort to insults and name-calling. Just make your case.

"Reminds me of last year when I was one of the few on this board saying we shouldn't go to Iraq. I was called everything from an anti-american peacenik who should leave the country to a muslim loving ******."

Really? Those posts shouldn't be hard to find. Who said that?

"Reminds me of the 60's us-or-them attitudes, better dead than red, etc. "

And that was BAD because......?

You know, it's not as though most of us didn't go through adolescence rebelling against the establishment and expressing our anger at the misbehavior of our nation, through the years, around the world. It's not as though we've always shouted "my country, right or wrong" all our lives but experienced that time in our youth where we learned that the US ain't always so wonderful. Most conservatives I know of were at least a little liberal at one time in their lives.

You know, closed mindedness can be found anywhere on the political spectrum. It's not uncommon to find people who fault the United States as a general rule. I can't understand it, really. I fully recognize that as a nation, our actions aren't always saintly, but I'm not fool enough to think the actions and opinions of the other nations of the world are *either*. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that, on the world stage, the US is always the bad guy, and that our friends in Europe or Asia are these altruistic ethical saints. They're not.

When I say I don't understand it, it's because people who are among the "fault the US" first type actually claim that being critical of the US IS their expression of patriotism. What I don't find with these guys, is balance. They're like movie critics who hate ALL movies - their input is valueless, because you know it will only ever be bad. So it is with the hate US first crowd - they SAY they're showing patriotism by being critical, but it's always the same thing. I mean, if I showed my support for my friends, family or loved ones the way that some show their "patriotism" - well, who could fault them for kicking me in the azz?

"You won't find many open-minded types here, they are set in their ways with blinders on and proud of it."

Haven't seen a change of heart in you either, on any subject. Makes me wonder why you come at all. But I have to ask - why is it SO IMPORTANT to you, to discredit the opinions of others here? Why not just discuss the issues, and let people judge for themselves?

" Straight party voting republicans the lot, and proud of it. If you dare question Herr Bush you are asking for trouble."

NOW you're just being silly. You're either lying or joking, because you should know better.

 

[sleuth]

Originally posted by SamSpade
All the stuff SamSpade said, except the part about being a conservative democrat.

And the part about questioning Herr Bush? Nothing wrong with it. We did it several times in this post, starting with Kain.

And Vrai is our star when it comes to this. She has regularly said that Bush could/should be a lot tougher than he is, and that she has issues with some of his policies.

I have issues with his policies. I would call myself a moderate/liberal republican; I have big problems with some of Bush's policies toward our environment and toward his stand on an amendment banning gay marriage, among others.

I've had my mind changed many times on this board, after becoming better educated about certain issues. I've never seen the same of you, though.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oh yeah, because Kerry's so much stronger than Bush.

Bush.... Weak? Get off the crack pipe...

Look at what he does, not what he says......

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by FromTexas
I don't listen to Rush because he is a windbag. I get my facts from watching and sorting through the filth. I don't even watch Fox. Not saying I don't ever, but I tend to see other news sources 90% of the time. I watch Fox when I want an express view only.

Actually, Vrai, Clinton did claim surpluses in 1998, 1999, 2000. the ones projected for us (as huge surpluses) were on paper.

How did he do this? He counted the Social Security/Medicare surplus (which is called off-budget surplus). Those funds are social security and medicare funds that he borrowed (intergovernmental holdings debt) to pay of public debt. He just moved the money from one debt to the other so he could claim he is paying down debt (the debt most people look at - they do not look at total debt).

Essentially, the programs he claimed he was fixing, etc... he was borrowing from to make it look like he had a real surplus and no one was watching the shell game.

He claimed unified budget surpluses of $69 billion and $124 billion. However, all of that was Social Security surplus (since, even now, Social Security and Medicare draw in more money than they pay out). In 1998, the on-budget accounts were actually in deficit by $30 billion (thats what Congress and the President actually control). In 1999, they were about $1 billion in deficit. All those surpluses were from adding on that Social Security and Medicare money which has to be borrowed to be used since its still owed back for future generations.

We can't claim innocence though -- Clinton said we had this money and so sure enough, Congress and the President have spent it. However, Bush has admitted how much his debt is going up (both public and intergovernmental) and why -- He didn't call it a surplus. Its just owed more to the government than the public.

Some more fun -- first 3 years of Bush -
The economic environment also created this wonder - rapidly growing entitlements:
Income support entitlements grew a staggering 50% from 2000-2003 ($133.5 billion to $196.4 billion)
Medicaid entitlements grew approx 40% ($117.9 billion to $160.7 billion)
Less related to the economy but growing rapidly also were Social Security which gained $70 billion in that period and Medicare which gained approx $60 billion

There is the bulk of your spending growth. Between paying federal employees and entitlements, thats pretty much 70-80% of the budget. Employees get pay raises. Entitlements grow quickly from unemployment and lower salaries. Above is approx. $270 billion in spending growth and add in the $70 billion I conservatively paint to the economy (corporate and excise based taxes mostly - I conservatively painted all reduction in personal income taxes, the greatest area, as related to the tax cut -- although we all know thats not true) and you have $340 billion of negative change right there. Bush had approx $400 billion in deficits in those 3 years.

The above are pointed to as mostly uncontrollables (especially during slagging economic times) by a President. He had tried to limit salaries to civilian employees and Congress trumped him on that. However, for that part I am thankful. After all, I am coming there to work for the government. That is just personal bias though.

So -- I am happy for anyone to show how out of control his spending was when he was able to keep deficits to his spending around about $60 billion with all that was going on.

ever heard of the baby boom generation.... they are at or nearing retirement... hence the increase in entitlements...

 

[FromTexas]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
ever heard of the baby boom generation.... they are at or nearing retirement... hence the increase in entitlements...

Do you read, CEO?

The economic environment also created this wonder - rapidly growing entitlements:
Income support entitlements grew a staggering 50% from 2000-2003 ($133.5 billion to $196.4 billion)
Medicaid entitlements grew approx 40% ($117.9 billion to $160.7 billion)
Less related to the economy but growing rapidly also were Social Security which gained $70 billion in that period and Medicare which gained approx $60 billion

And the end point of the argument was that a majority of this growth is due entitlements, something out of Presidential control. Therefore, when the figures are worked, the majority of what causes the deficits is nothing Bush could have reduced.

Medicaid and Income Support growth comes from the economy, not the baby boomers. The economy also has an effect on quick increases in social security since some people end up out of jobs and apply at 62 or 63 instead of waiting for their increased amount at 65.

And, technically, if you want to consider the baby boom generation, they don't really begin to start retiring for another couple of years and then hit the big boom about 8-12 years from now. The baby boom generation began between 1942-1946.

That would make them 62 (earliest chance to apply for reduced Social Security) from this year to 2008. Most would apply at 65-67, depending on when they were born.

 

[tlatchaw]

Which means we can expect a stock market "correction" in about 5-8 years that will make 1929 look mild by comparison. Think about all the baby boomers adjusting their 401Ks to more conservative income producing modes. The trick will be to plan for it and ride that wave when it comes.

I recommend taking stock in depends and metamucil.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by tlatchaw
Which means we can expect a stock market "correction" in about 5-8 years that will make 1929 look mild by comparison. Think about all the baby boomers adjusting their 401Ks to more conservative income producing modes. The trick will be to plan for it and ride that wave when it comes.

I recommend taking stock in depends and metamucil.

You're not with the program, tlatchaw! Don't you know that as a good, loyal Democrat or Republican, you're supposed to blame every problem in the world on Bush or Clinton?