UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> GWB: Worst Economic Leadership?


3/24/08 1:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16749
1-What does surpluses and deficits have to with anything? 2-Clinton had a actual surplus one year. And a slim one at that. By some measurements it was a slight deficit. All the rest of Clinton "surpluses" were projections. 3-The CBO cannot add 2+2 and get 4. Let alone project anything with any accuracy.
3/24/08 1:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
walsh23
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7425
1. You think that running in the red bodes well for the future? We'll have to make it up eventually with increased taxes unless the economy really turns around. Or do you think that we should constantly carry a debt load? 2. Source? 3. Provide a better source then.
3/24/08 2:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16750
1-I have gone over this many times before. You hae to look at the bigger picture. Is the debt service burdensome? What are the assets that the debt has bought and what are they worth? Of course less is better than more, but the numbers by themselves don't tell you a whole lot. There is really no reason to try to make it up. If we can fine, if we can't it won't hurt either. As long as the economy is growing, the deficit becomes less important. 2-There are numerous sources that have gone over the numbers. The Clintons were very good at touting for themselves. The govt cooks its books every year. Without the Social Security surplus, there was one year that came close to breaking even during the Clinton years. Depending on who is doing the numbers, it was either a slight surplus or a slight defict. 3-There are numerous private secotr think tanks that project in a more realistic way. The CBO uses static projecting methods and are never right. I started working in a Trading Room in 1980 and in all than time the CBO has never been right on projecting deficits and surpluses.
3/24/08 2:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
walsh23
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7426
Interesting. Thanks.
3/24/08 2:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16751
The Bureau of the Public Debt.

 

9/30/1987 Reagan/Democrat Congress

$2,350,276,890,953.00

9/30/1988 Reagan/Democrat Congress

$2,602,337,712,041.16   +$252,060,821,088.16

9/30/1989 Bush/Democrat Congress

$2,857,430,960,187.32   +$255,093,248146.16

9/30/1990 Bush/Democrat Congress

$3,233,313,451,777.25   +$375,882,491,589.93

9/30/1991 Bush/Democrat Congress

$3,665,303,351,697.03   +$431,989,899,919.78

9/30/1992 Bush/Democrat Congress

$4,064,620,655,521.66   +$399,317,303,824.63

9/30/1993 Clinton/Democrat Congress

$4,411,488,883,139.38   +$346,868,227,617.72

9/30/1994 Clinton/Democrat Congress

$4,692,749,910,013.32   +$281,261,026,873.94

9/30/1995 Clinton/Republican Congress

$4,973,982,900,709.39   +$281,232,990,696.07

9/30/1996 Clinton/Republican Congress

$5,224,810,939,135.73   +$250,828,038,426.34

9/30/1997 Clinton/Republican Congress

$5,413,146,011,397.34   +$188,335,072,261.61

9/30/1998 Clinton/Republican Congress

$5,526,193,008,897.62   +$113,046,997,500.28

9/30/1999 Clinton/Republican Congress

$5,656,270,901,615.43   +$130,077,892,717.81

9/30/2000 Clinton/Republican Congress

$5,674,178,209,886.86   +$17,907,308,271.43

9/30/2001 Bush/Republican Congress

$5,807,463,412,200.06   +$133,285,202,313.20

9/30/2002 Bush/Republican Congress 

$6,228,235,965,597.16   +$420,772,553,397.10

9/30/2003 Bush/Republican Congress

$6,783,231,062,743.62   +$554,995,097,146.46

9/30/2004 Bush/Republican Congress

$7,379,052,696,330.32   +$595,821,633,586.70

3/08/2005 Bush/Republican Congress

$7,746,290,500,431.39   +$367,237,804,101.07

As you can see the Public Debt increased every year.

3/24/08 2:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
89 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18683
As long as we're throwing anecdotal evidence around, 95% of my personal contributions to my 401k this year have been wiped out by the market tanking.
3/24/08 3:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MadisonBJJ
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5600
I'll tell you this, he has rewrote the term conservative. Barrygoldwater would have called him a liberal by his standards.........especially when it comes to GWB's monetary policies!
3/24/08 3:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08 03:34 PM
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 7731
"As you can see the Public Debt increased every year." Why is that? Unable to balance the budget and increasing interest rate payments on the debt. Clinton ran the economy as a fiscal conservative. Republicans, intead of being fiscally conservative are spending your country slowly into oblivion of debt. The debt will be paid off by: higher taxes and/or less gov spending. One needs to run surpluses (like Clinton) and put those towards paying off the debt.
3/24/08 3:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08 04:53 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16752
Once again, Clinton did not run surpluses. The bulk of what was called the Clinton "surpluses" were projections for the future. Projections that were meaningless.
3/24/08 4:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
89 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18684
"Clinton did not run surpluses. The bulk of what was called the Clinton "supluses" were projections for the future." These two sentences are a tad contradictory.
3/24/08 4:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16754
Umm, no they are not.
3/24/08 4:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
liquifaction
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/12/2008
Posts: 1854

The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000--more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American.

because the average american doesn't make 1M a year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I guess because they make good money "they" should not get anything back?

3/24/08 4:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
89 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18685
"Umm, no they are not." First you say Clinton didn't run a surplus. Then you say "most" of his surpluses were just projections. You don't see how that doesn't make sense?
3/24/08 4:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
e. kaye
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 16756
Tomato Can-putting quotes around a word has a certain meaning, n'est-ce pas?
3/24/08 5:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
lelo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2483
"I got out in 1988 and was a private for about 3 months. Served in an elite unit that would not allow flunkies like you." the local bowling alley has an elite bowling team as well. and your point?
3/24/08 5:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
89 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18688
"Tomato Can-putting quotes around a word has a certain meaning, n'est- ce pas?" Are you saying that "the bulk of" and "most of" are not synonymous?
3/24/08 6:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 7738
e.kaye, you are very confused. unfortunately, i doubt there is anybody in this world that can set you straight. it is akin to me talking to somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1110165.stm Bill Clinton's economic legacy: "Mr Clinton also leaves the legacy of a huge and growing budget surplus, the product of years of bitter battles between Republicans and Democrats." "The booming economy and strict controls over government spending has meant that Mr Clinton also leaves office with the public finances in their strongest shape for decades"
3/24/08 6:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
fanat
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 06/06/2002
Posts: 3267
"e.kaye, you are very confused. unfortunately, i doubt there is anybody in this world that can set you straight." lol. If there is one guy I listen to on OG regarding economics it's e.kaye. This guy probably forgot more about world of finance than most of us knew.
3/24/08 6:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 12/25/2005
Posts: 7740
^LOL He is quite wrong. Go look it yourself.
3/24/08 7:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HEMAN
19 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 15843
U want to use the BBC as a source for economics?
3/24/08 7:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
smac1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 03/06/2006
Posts: 11430
Yes - Entreri has listed someone's quote who says Clinton was great. What more proof could you want?
3/24/08 7:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
HEMAN
19 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 15844
smac1 I stand corrected then LOL.
3/24/08 7:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
cp31
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/10/2003
Posts: 6266
3/24/08 7:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gregbrady
48 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/09/2002
Posts: 1113
Did you just put Reagan in the same category as Washington and Roosevelt? LOL Reagan was mediocre and was also responsible for the "soft" image we acquired in the eyes of Islamists when he didn't respond to the Marines being bombed in Lebanon. Bush is in the same category as Carter right now and will be worse depending on how Iraq goes.
3/24/08 7:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
gnpsince1990
4 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Mar-08
Member Since: 01/25/2008
Posts: 377
elite unit? I thought you were a NAVAL RESERVIST. hAS THE STORY CHANGED AGAIN

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.