America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has updated and refined a widely cited chart, laying out the origins of the country's current fiscal trajectory. And as before, the lion's share of the problem comes from ongoing George W. Bush-era policies -- particularly deficit-financed tax cuts, which eliminated Clinton-era surpluses and left the Treasury poised for a huge hit when the financial crisis and economic downturn further eroded federal revenues."

"By the end of the decade, CBPP projects that, on the current trajectory, the Bush tax cuts, exacerbated by the economic downturn, combined with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for the significant majority of public debt as a share of GDP."

"Without those factors, and without the need for stimulus measures under President Obama, CBPP projects that the debt-to-GDP ratio would have dropped under both Presidents Bush and Obama."

Here's the chart:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/CBPPpublicdebt.jpg

You had me @ talking points......


We really should have %75/90 tax rate. The feds know best and we shouldn't complain about "their" money.

Really, because historically when tax rates were lower it was problematic.

We've covered this again and again and again...

THERE

WAS

NEVER

ANY

SURPLUS

FROM

CLINTON'S

ADMINISTRATION

JUST


PROJECTIONS!!!!

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf

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.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

So is there some point you're trying to make?

The United States public debt is a measure of the obligations of the United States federal government and is presented by the United States Treasury in two components and one total:

* Debt Held by the Public, representing all federal securities held by institutions or individuals outside the United States Government;
* Intragovernmental Holdings, representing U.S. Treasury securities held in accounts which are administered by the United States Government, such as the OASI Trust fund administered by the Social Security Administration; and
* Total Public Debt Outstanding, which is the sum of the above components.

As of May 6, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding of the United States of America was $14.32 trillion and was approximately 98% of calendar year 2010's annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.66 trillion. Using 2010 figures, the total debt (96.3% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations.

I don't? That would be nice actually.

You played stupid when you started this thread. Federal budget deficits under Bush and Obama are easy to research. How's Obama doing?

The real issue with budget deficits is will the country get value from them and that depends on what we are borrowing the money for in the first place.

Obama isn't doing good at all. He renewed the Bush tax cuts for the top earners and that was a huge mistake, as that chart shows.

And no, the topic isn't stupid, right wing hack, it shows that the big complaints coming from Republicans about the debt is because of their policies and they are blaming Democrats. You know how the right wing likes to blame Democratic controlled houses for these things? Well, who is in charge of the House now and has been since Obama has been in office? Funny how now it's Obama's fault. The blame shifts to the closest Democrat.

I know Obama isn't perfect, I would just expect a little consistency once in a while. Too much to ask?

Steny Hoyer: “America is not broke”
Although the annual federal budget deficit is expected to hit $1.65 trillion this year and the national debt is already at $14.34 trillion, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said today he disagrees with House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) assessment that America is broke.
“America is not broke,” Hoyer said at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C.. “America has extraordinary resources and we can use those resources, both intellectual and financial, to get us to a place where we are again a fiscally sound nation, a fiscally balanced nation, and future generations are not at risk.”

checkmate...

wheel,

Rick...its the ying to the lefts yang obsession of Bushy.

Smile grandpa.

The chart doesn't show it was a huge mistake. What the chart shows is that tax cuts without corresponding cuts in government spending lead to a larger national debt. That is exactly what Bush did and Obama is still doing.

Truth hurts.

Now pile on more war, another ponzi scheme and you have OWEBAMA...The Kenyan King alone at the top of the pile with more debt then has ever been realized since the start of this nation...COMBINED!

Lefty forgets that you have to pass the bill (one written by the lobbyists!) to see what's inside of it. Forget reading and stuff...that's hard. No, just kick the can further down the road.

Sad game that we can no longer play. The band is going to want to be paid for the dances. The Devil is overdue.

Bush ran up 4.9 trillion.

Obama has run up 2.4.

So that is wrong.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds092009.pdf

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opdm042011.pdf

True, but taking into consideration the first post and the war and tax policies of the last administration as well as the horrendous economy inherited, we're lucky it's not more at this point.

LMFAO....


I have been around the CBO's site. They talk in circles, like Obama.

No ^ that means RICKMAVEN will actually read it correctly.

This is like arguing over the bar tab on the Titanic...

I agree with you there Fuzz 100%. Neither party seems to know how to balance a check book. Washington, and most of the state governments as well, need to start acting responsibly or we're gonna turn into Zimbabwe before too long.

Gonna?



Are you implying that we're going to repay the debt?


That's NOT going to happen.



Everyone is going to play kick the can. Each time the can gets kicked further and further.


The interest on the debt is totally unsustainable.

Owebama could've really been a leader and brought the Hope and Change. What did he do? He brought no new leadership to the table. He loaded up with interest groups and lobbyists like he PROMISED he wouldn't. He went on a spending bender the likes this nation has NEVER seen. He sure talked a lot about Bush being bad, but in the end...he was worse. He continued EVERYTHING he railed against. He became the problem and not the agent of Change he swore he would be. The out of control spending was what misaligned me from GW. He was spending like a drunken sailor on Fleet Week...actually that's wrong. Sailors have to have some sort of reign. They will be punished if the acted like Owebama and Bush. Within days of being sworn in we got to see him in action and it wasn't pretty. More bailouts...buyouts and giveaways to the unions that helped get him elected.

Makes me want to vomit.


Does everyone know what the barbarians found when they finally reached Rome?


America...look in the mirror.

Let's put it in perspective.

Hmmm...something we can all relate to.

I know...our own lives.

We get married and have kids.

We have to buy a house. Don't have to but it sure is nice to have your OWN place. Most newlyweds can't afford a home right out of the gate so they take out a loan!

We used to be able to write of the loan on our taxes. That was taken away.

Gotta get to work everyday and the old car that mom and dad gave us back in college is looking like a scrap heap on rims. Get a new car...take out a loan.

Okay...so now we have 2 loans that are pretty huge on the books that are hitting the ledger. I didn't even mention the utilities, groceries, furniture, repairs that these 2 will have to have sooner or later.

Are you allowed to say...buy the neighbors house and take a loan out for that too? Why not! They suck and you want the space, right? Buy it. After all you and the missus deserve it!

She needs her own car. She's not going to drive a used car. NOOOOOO! Not your Queen. Can't quite swing it though what with buying the neighbors house and all...lease it! That will fit what's left of the check and wht the heck it's new!

Now Queenie decides that she wants a bigger home and wants more kids. You sell what you have to buy a bigger home...play along...I know most of you are bored to tears with this experiment but I'll wrap it up soon...now you have a bigger place and are upside down with it because you never paid off a thing. The car isn't new and under warranty anymore and it's time to trade hers in. OOOPS...you're not getting jack squat for here because it was leased! Guess you have to lease again...they didn't see ya coming did they?! Now everything is more expensive and let's face it you're not making a ton more. Unless you're dealing ass or grass you have to find a way to pay for it all or they're coming to shut down your American Dream.

Who's shutting down DC?

They're getting away with what you personally can't. We've become accustomed to letting it ride on credit. Credit isn't good anymore and the Fed has the printing press. It's win-win time for them. They've devalued your money, afforded you your great bash and promised you'd be taken care of cradle to grave. It's a lie. A lie that you knew all along but there was still beer in the kegger.

Now, what will you do to stop the madness?

Is it time to act like adults and eliminate the people that put us in this place?

Is it time to fees up that the party is over?

Is it time to put responsible people into positions of power instead of Mr. Perfect Hair or Mr. SMiley Teeth?


Yeah.


I'm all ears and waiting for the answers.

I KNOW what some of them are.

I'm waiting for the people still playing the alphabet soup games to wake the hell up. The D's and R's and I's got you where you are. You can continue to act like a gaggle of ostriches or man up and tighten the belt.

Sometimes it's okay to have less. It's still yours.

Remember Freedom? It's disappearing every damn day.

Oh you can keep printing...but the value goes down with each QE.

PS: The US Dollar isn't backed by anything but a wink and a prayer.

So, what is gold's intrinsic value?

If there was a terrible world-wide depression and scarcity, how much food could one get for their gold?

I am not demeaning the value of gold as an investment or hedge, but seriously how much of it can you eat?

Robert...seriously look into buying "dimes".

They're small enough to barter without being on the hook to take a whole dollar coin apart for.

You don't eat the gold.

You use it to buy because it's a solid recognized commodity.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it's offensive to drunken sailors to compare their spending to that of Congress. At least the drunken sailors were spending their own money.