Trumps Economic Plan

[Guest]

equals disaster.

Trump’s Economic Plan Would Be a Disaster for the US Economy: Moody’s | The Fiscal Times (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/06/20/Trump-s-Economic-Plan-Would-Be-Disaster-US-Economy-Moody-s)

[Guest]

"Trump’s plan includes a deep cut to income taxes, which would primarily benefit the very wealthy, elimination of the inheritance tax, and the elimination of a tax on investments of the very wealthy."

I did the math. When you add up the collected wealth of all US Presidents in 2010 dollars it's much, much less than Trump. He's looking out for the little guy. sure

[Guest]

I'm open to any economic plan OTHER THAN Obama's. We've seen how that doubled the national debt. I doubt Trumps final debt would be $40 Trillion, so anything would be an improvement.

[Guest]

I'm open to any economic plan OTHER THAN Obama's. We've seen how that doubled the national debt. I doubt Trumps final debt would be $40 Trillion, so anything would be an improvement.When Clinton was president we had a surplus? Why?

[Guest]

When Clinton was president we had a surplus? Why?

Answer: Smaller government, less government spending and a larger tax base.

[Guest]

When Clinton was president we had a surplus? Why?

We did NOT have a surplus during Clinton's years. But, when the budget was looking good, it came from a Republican majority congress, if that says anything. But, there was no surplus, or the national debt would have been paid down. The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower, a Republican was president.

[Guest]

I'm open to any economic plan OTHER THAN Obama's. We've seen how that doubled the national debt. I doubt Trumps final debt would be $40 Trillion, so anything would be an improvement.

"I doubt Trumps final debt would be $40 Trillion"

You doubt, you are what I call an intelligent repub voter. Just go in and pull the all repub lever. You doubt, pathetic. Where did you fact check the "you doubt" LOL

[Guest]

We did NOT have a surplus during Clinton's years. But, when the budget was looking good, it came from a Republican majority congress, if that says anything. But, there was no surplus, or the national debt would have been paid down. The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower, a Republican was president.That's wrong. It was paid down during the Clinton Administration. Not to zero, but paid down.
Look it up.

[Guest]

That's wrong. It was paid down during the Clinton Administration. Not to zero, but paid down.
Look it up.

I DID look it up and it has not been paid down since Eisenhower. Apparently, you are too lazy to do your research or you would know better than to trust liberal talking points.

The national debt has not been paid down since 1957.

TreasuryDirect - Home (http://www.treasurydirect.gov)

[Guest]

I'm open to any economic plan OTHER THAN Obama's. We've seen how that doubled the national debt. I doubt Trumps final debt would be $40 Trillion, so anything would be an improvement.

When Clinton was president we had a surplus? Why?

Answer: Smaller government, less government spending and a larger tax base.

We did NOT have a surplus during Clinton's years. But, when the budget was looking good, it came from a Republican majority congress, if that says anything. But, there was no surplus, or the national debt would have been paid down. The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower, a Republican was president.

The REAL answer to Clinton's "budget miracle" was his looting of the SS trust fund. THAT is where the "extra" money came from to pay for everything. There was NO budget surplus, the federal debt went up EVERY year.

Stop believing the lies, the propaganda. The BEST thing you can do is turn off the TV and stop reading the newspapers. Lies and propaganda. And STOP voting for "their guys", the Ds and Rs.

[Guest]

I DID look it up and it has not been paid down since Eisenhower. Apparently, you are too lazy to do your research or you would know better than to trust liberal talking points.

The national debt has not been paid down since 1957.

TreasuryDirect - Home (http://www.treasurydirect.gov)It will take a little reading but here it is. I have posted this before.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)


"Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

[Guest]

It will take a little reading but here it is. I have posted this before.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)


"Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

Wrong! Since you are so adamant about this and refuse to do research, I have done the work for you. Below is GOVERNMENT figures showing the national debt during Clinton's years as president. Do you see ANY year where it went down? If not, then it was not paid down.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm)
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 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

[Guest]

Wrong! Since you are so adamant about this and refuse to do research, I have done the work for you.
I gave you a link. Can't you click on it and read it? It's got a chart. You could print it out on a black and white printer and color it in. Maybe stare at it all day.

[Guest]

It will take a little reading but here it is. I have posted this before.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)


"Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."

You obviously do not know the difference between the budget and the national debt, even after you read it and copied it to your post.
Anyone can make a budget. It's just figures on a piece of paper. You either stay within your budget or you don't. The national debt is how much money the government OWES.
Example:

Let's say, I owe $400 in credit card debt. I decide that I will budget my earnings and not borrow anymore on my credit card. I manage not to use my credit card for a year but I still owe money on my debt because I did not have enough left over after paying my bills to pay down on the loan. That means, I made a balanced budget but did not pay down on my household credit debt. Paying the interest on my credit card, does not pay the debt off. If, on the other hand, I find that I can not survive on my the budget of my earnings and have to borrow to survive, I have a budget deficit. Because I have to pay out more money than I take in.

The national debt is how much money we owe, and it has gone up every year since Eisenhower. That means that America has spent more money than it has taken in by revenues, or the interest rate that we have accumulated during the year added on to the total national debt. Either way, the national debt has NOT been paid down if it has gone up every year.

I don't know how you do your math, but if I have the numbers from the Treasury, then that pretty much proves my point.

[Guest]

I gave you a link. Can't you click on it and read it? It's got a chart. You could print it out on a black and white printer and color it in. Maybe stare at it all day.

I read you article, and it does NOT prove your statement. The difference is apples and oranges. Your article is about the budget and my statement is about the national debt. It is not my problem that you do not know the difference. I realize that some folks never had a civics class or American government course in their education, but I can't make it any simpler for you.

[Guest]

You obviously do not know the difference between the budget and the national debt, even after you read it and copied it to your post.
Anyone can make a budget. It's just figures on a piece of paper. You either stay within your budget or you don't. The national debt is how much money the government OWES.
Example:

Let's say, I owe $400 in credit card debt. I decide that I will budget my earnings and not borrow anymore on my credit card. I manage not to use my credit card for a year but I still owe money on my debt because I did not have enough left over after paying my bills to pay down on the loan. That means, I made a balanced budget but did not pay down on my household credit debt. Paying the interest on my credit card, does not pay the debt off. If, on the other hand, I find that I can not survive on my the budget of my earnings and have to borrow to survive, I have a budget deficit. Because I have to pay out more money than I take in.

The national debt is how much money we owe, and it has gone up every year since Eisenhower. That means that America has spent more money than it has taken in by revenues, or the interest rate that we have accumulated during the year added on to the total national debt. Either way, the national debt has NOT been paid down if it has gone up every year.

I don't know how you do your math, but if I have the numbers from the Treasury, then that pretty much proves my point.Did you read the entire link I posted? yes or no

[Guest]

I copied and pasted to make it easier for you. But you need to go to the site to see the chart.
I've wasted too much time with you already.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008


1.4K
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
– Brooks Jackson
Sources

Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

[Guest]

I copied and pasted to make it easier for you. But you need to go to the site to see the chart.
I've wasted too much time with you already.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008


1.4K
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
– Brooks Jackson
Sources

Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

Are you retarded, or do you just have a learning disability?
I gave you direct information from the gov treasury and you still don't get it. Your information is about the Budget, not the national debt. Are you really that dense that you can't see the difference? Or are you some kind of liberal troll attempting to divert from the subject?

Tell me which year that you want to argue in the Government's figures that I posted. You do see that I actually posted the national debt by year, for the years that Clinton was in office, right? Do you see ANY year where the national debt went down from the preceding year? A budget does not mean anything. Anyone can make up a budget. Obama didn't even have one for how many years?

[Guest]

Are you retarded, or do you just have a learning disability?
I gave you direct information from the gov treasury and you still don't get it. Your information is about the Budget, not the national debt. Are you really that dense that you can't see the difference? Or are you some kind of liberal troll attempting to divert from the subject?

Tell me which year that you want to argue in the Government's figures that I posted. You do see that I actually posted the national debt by year, for the years that Clinton was in office, right? Do you see ANY year where the national debt went down from the preceding year? A budget does not mean anything. Anyone can make up a budget. Obama didn't even have one for how many years?try again

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Are you the same person who can't figure out what a felon. I feel like I'm wasting my time.

[Guest]

try again

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Are you the same person who can't figure out what a felon. I feel like I'm wasting my time.

Like I said before, you are reading someone's opinion. I gave you facts and figures. If you can't add and subtract, blame your teachers. If you have a problem with my figures, then blame your government, the treasury. You still haven't shown me an error in my figures. So, be a petulant child and stomp your feet, but it won't change the figures. Your information does not come from the gov. It comes from a guy that thinks he knows it all. I am not taking one person's figures at face value. I am using the government's figures. I posted them above, so if you can't figure it out, then that is your problem. No wonder you believe everything that Hillary tells you. I've seen other blond women brighter than you.

[Guest]

Which one of these numbers do you find fault with? I copied them directly from the gov website. Do you see anywhere in those figures where the debt went down? That means that it was not paid down.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 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

[Guest]

Like I said before, you are reading someone's opinion. I gave you facts and figures. If you can't add and subtract, blame your teachers. If you have a problem with my figures, then blame your government, the treasury. You still haven't shown me an error in my figures. So, be a petulant child and stomp your feet, but it won't change the figures. Your information does not come from the gov. It comes from a guy that thinks he knows it all. I am not taking one person's figures at face value. I am using the government's figures. I posted them above, so if you can't figure it out, then that is your problem. No wonder you believe everything that Hillary tells you. I've seen other blond women brighter than you.I couldn't understand this at all. Would you mind rewriting it? I've got time.

[Guest]

We did NOT have a surplus during Clinton's years. But, when the budget was looking good, it came from a Republican majority congress, if that says anything. But, there was no surplus, or the national debt would have been paid down. The national debt has not been paid down since Eisenhower, a Republican was president.
Let's be fair. Clinton gets no credit for budget that looks pretty good, because it came from a Republican majority Congress. So why does Obama get the blame for a budget that looks bad?

[Guest]

Let's be fair. Clinton gets no credit for budget that looks pretty good, because it came from a Republican majority Congress. So why does Obama get the blame for a budget that looks bad?

How many years did Obama go without a budget? Did he ever have one when he had a Democrat majority?

Clinton DOES get credit for a good budget. And he should give the credit to the Republicans that did it for him, including Gingrich.

I never said Clinton had a bad budget. I just corrected the poster that said Clinton had a surplus and paid down on the national debt. According to the Treasury, Clinton did NOT pay down the national debt.

[Guest]

Clinton stole from the SS fund to get the money he spent.

He NEVER had a yearly surplus.

[Guest]

There seems to be a discussion gap regarding budgets between Democrats Clinton and Obama. How did the eight years in between play out?

[Guest]

There seems to be a discussion gap regarding budgets between Democrats Clinton and Obama. How did the eight years in between play out?

That's probably because you are the one that raised the question regarding both Clinton and Obama. The only one to raise the question regarding the lack of discussion during the intervening years is you. So, that is probably why no one else discussed it. It wasn't a topic of discussion.

[Guest]

It will take a little reading but here it is. I have posted this before.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/)


"Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased."
You seem to have a good understanding of this subject so could you explain what happens to deficiet and debt when Social Security trust funds are so-called cashed to pay benefits. There are no assets and I understand the borrowed funds are already included in debt. The money being paid out will be real so where will it come from and how is it accounted for. There has to be more borrowing somewhere, or spending cuts, or tax increase?
Thanks

[Guest]

Clinton stole from the SS fund to get the money he spent.

He NEVER had a yearly surplus.
Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


same link

[Guest]

You seem to have a good understanding of this subject so could you explain what happens to deficiet and debt when Social Security trust funds are so-called cashed to pay benefits. There are no assets and I understand the borrowed funds are already included in debt. The money being paid out will be real so where will it come from and how is it accounted for. There has to be more borrowing somewhere, or spending cuts, or tax increase?
ThanksI only know what I find online. I do research. I don't make it up.

It's a good question. Research this out and get back to us.

[Guest]

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


same link

You have not provided any gov figures to back up your statement that Clinton had a surplus. On the other hand, I have provided actual figures that prove that Clinton NEVER paid down the national debt and that it did in fact go up every year. You talk like that idiot Oblunder and probably really believe your own lies, like him. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt. Anyone can write a budget that shows a surplus. And Clinton never had a surplus, by the way. There is no proof at the Treasury website. So provide a link other than some article by some tard or go back to your campaigning for your criminal, Chillary.

[Guest]

The annual budget is filled with so much redundancy from its previous year that to claim any cuts is a bold face lie. Spending is one of George W's sins but next to Obama he was a piker.

To spend so much time on Bill Clinton's affect on our deficit or debt is a waste of time because a) it would not have been done but was because of a Republican Congress b) the progressives have shifted so far left now that such a comparison of Clinton's years is a waste of time.

The focus in my humble view should be Trump v Hillary v Democratic v Republican Congress

We continue to grow as a debtor nation thanks to Obama and his gang. We witness in Europe and Latin America where one nation after another has fallen because of their socialist agenda and yet the only economic plan that seems o get any real play is the one that tells people that they are entitled to free stuff. PM Thacher
said it best "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money." Like a majority of voters I do not see either of the party's nominees as the best this nation can offer but by a clear margin Trump stands heads above Hillary especially since he will not be beholding to the globalist that are running this nation and others.
Perhaps with Trump the average guy has a chance to make a decent living and attain some decent savings

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The annual budget is filled with so much redundancy from its previous year that to claim any cuts is a bold face lie. Spending is one of George W's sins but next to Obama he was a piker.

To spend so much time on Bill Clinton's affect on our deficit or debt is a waste of time because a) it would not have been done but was because of a Republican Congress b) the progressives have shifted so far left now that such a comparison of Clinton's years is a waste of time.

The focus in my humble view should be Trump v Hillary v Democratic v Republican Congress

We continue to grow as a debtor nation thanks to Obama and his gang. We witness in Europe and Latin America where one nation after another has fallen because of their socialist agenda and yet the only economic plan that seems o get any real play is the one that tells people that they are entitled to free stuff. PM Thacher
said it best "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money." Like a majority of voters I do not see either of the party's nominees as the best this nation can offer but by a clear margin Trump stands heads above Hillary especially since he will not be beholding to the globalist that are running this nation and others.
Perhaps with Trump the average guy has a chance to make a decent living and attain some decent savings

Personal Best Regards:

:agree:

[Guest]

You seem to have a good understanding of this subject so could you explain what happens to deficiet and debt when Social Security trust funds are so-called cashed to pay benefits. There are no assets and I understand the borrowed funds are already included in debt. The money being paid out will be real so where will it come from and how is it accounted for. There has to be more borrowing somewhere, or spending cuts, or tax increase?
Thanks

They spend more than they take in EVERY year. They robbed the SS "trust fund" until there was nothing left to take. So now they just borrow...OVER $1.5 TRILLION each year. That's $1,500,000,000,000 EVERY year.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.


same link

No, there was NO yearly surplus. That's the media telling lies again. Turn the TV off, throw away the newspapers, they're all propaganda. We've spent more than we get for MANY years. It keeps adding up.

[Guest]

http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

[Guest]

he National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street
Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.

World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.

After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically. But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt. Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.

The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above. By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had. Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)

Why did he do it?
So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt ..........
[to read the rest follow the link] National Debt Graph by President - zFacts (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html)

To see the chart follow this link:
http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png

Try not to get angry.

[Guest]

I don't think they are capable of reading the chart. And since it contradicts their preconceived notions, they'll say the information is a lie.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds i.e. Social Security for example (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. To put it simply, the money on hand increased during Clinton's tenure, but since the government owes the social security fund for future needs, accounting shows a national debt increase (as opposed to the public debt).

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves – they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth – we experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

[Guest]

I don't think they are capable of reading the chart. And since it contradicts their preconceived notions, they'll say the information is a lie.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds i.e. Social Security for example (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. To put it simply, the money on hand increased during Clinton's tenure, but since the government owes the social security fund for future needs, accounting shows a national debt increase (as opposed to the public debt).

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves – they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth – we experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

You ignore fact.
Bush had deficits in the billions, versus Obama's trillions. - Fact.
Bush had no unemployment until the last two years of his second term, Democrat controlled congress. - fact.
Bush saw what was happening with Dodd/Frank and asked for an audit of Fanny/Freddy on at least three occasions and Barney refused. The mortgage bubble burst, didn't it? And which party was responsible for Dodd/Frank?

Clinton did not pay down on the national debt or it would reflect a lower number on the Treasury figures above. - fact.

If you wish to listen to left wing pundits telling you lies and refuse to look at facts, then revel in your ignorance.

I gave you a link to TreasuryDirect.gov and you still refuse to believe statistics over liberal pundit articles. Have it your way, but you really shouldn't comment when it just shows how stupid you are for ignoring facts.

[Guest]

I don't think they are capable of reading the chart. And since it contradicts their preconceived notions, they'll say the information is a lie.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds i.e. Social Security for example (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. To put it simply, the money on hand increased during Clinton's tenure, but since the government owes the social security fund for future needs, accounting shows a national debt increase (as opposed to the public debt).

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves – they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth – we experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Not related to the tax cuts. If you don't know that, then you are on the wrong forum. And did Obama raise the taxes for the lower 47% or even the middle class? If Bushes tax cuts were so bad, then why didn't he? Are you brain dead?

[Guest]

You missed the whole point of my post. Wow, you're dumber than I thought. No wonder you are a Trump supporter.

[Guest]

You missed the whole point of my post. Wow, you're dumber than I thought. No wonder you are a Trump supporter.

Says a supporter of a mass murderer. You live in denial.