Support NeoGAF

[norinrad21]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics/15debt.html

ASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - Less than a day after President Bush implied that Senator John Kerry lacked "fiscal sanity," the Bush administration said on Thursday that the federal government had hit the debt ceiling set by Congress and would have to borrow from the civil service retirement system until after the elections.

Federal operations are unlikely to be affected because Congress is certain to raise the debt limit in a lame-duck session in November. Congressional Republicans had wanted to avoid an embarrassing vote to raise the debt ceiling just a few weeks before Election Day.

Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that the federal government was about to breach the limit again and would be able to keep operating only if it started tapping money intended for the civil service retirement fund, the pension system for federal workers.

"Given current projections, it is imperative that the Congress take action to increase the debt limit by mid-November,'' Mr. Snow warned in a statement, declaring that his arsenal of financial tools "will be exhausted'' at that point.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

It's not just Bush though. Something like this is directly affected by how Clinton and Bush 1 ran the economy.

 

[Zaptruder]

Would you care to explain how? Show evidence too. kthxbye.

 

[happyfunball]

So, this overspending is caused by the way that Clinton balanced the budget...riiiiiiiiight

I've got some nice beachfront property in Ohio that you might be interested in

 

[Idle Will Kill]

So, this overspending is caused by the way that Clinton balanced the budget...riiiiiiiiight

I've got some nice beachfront property in Ohio that you might be interested in

I wish people would explain what they say. Instead, you wrote one sentence, then some followed up with some lame joke.

Ok, tell me how Clinton balanced the budget. I honestly would like to know. Is it true that during Clinton's administration, we actually had a surplus in the budget? What about the Bush 1 days, what did he do for the economy?

thanks.

 

[xsarien]

Is it true that during Clinton's administration, we actually had a surplus in the budget?

Yes.

 

[Drozmight]

It's not just Bush though. Something like this is directly affected by how Clinton and Bush 1 ran the economy.

Newsflash, the president doesn't run the economy.

 

[MrAngryFace]

President CAN do things that directly affect our economy too tho. He might not control it, but to pretend his administration has no sway is dumbfacestfu

 

[Idle Will Kill]

Does anyone have any numbers as far as the surplus and deficit created by Bush, Clinton, and W?

 

[Drozmight]

Somewhat, but I mean, the house makes the budget, not the president. He can veto the budget or not, but even if he does veto it, the house can over turn his veto with a 2/3 vote.

Edit - Bush's tax cuts effected the economy, but like all tax cuts, will only work in the short term and will raise prices in the long term.

 

[happyfunball]

IWK, you came in here like you had some idea of what you were talking with your retarded response.....its obvious that you have no knowledge of any of this....go do your homework

 

[robochimp]

He wants other people to do it for him

 

[ge-man]

Does anyone have any numbers as far as the surplus and deficit created by Bush, Clinton, and W?

I don't have concrete numbers, but I'm absolutely positive that Clinton balanced our budget and created a surplus. That was mostly used for our first refund check from the Bush administration.

 

[DarienA]

An article on balacing the budget and who did it:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html

I take no credit for whether the article is correct or not, just did a quick search and it popped up.

 

[Drozmight]

I think they should pass a law stating that if there is ever a surplus, it should be used to pay off some of the national debt. Paying that thing off would free up a lot of cash every year. I'm not sure how much, but a slice of the budget is set aside for interest payments.

 

[ge-man]

I think they should pass a law stating that if there is ever a surplus, it should be used to pay off some of the national debt. Paying that thing off would free up a lot of cash every year. I'm not sure how much, but a slice of the budget is set aside for interest payments.

I remember Kerry saying that they had the intent of using the surplus for social security.

Either way, there were far better things to spend the surplus on than a tax refund.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

IWK, you came in here like you had some idea of what you were talking with your retarded response.....its obvious that you have no knowledge of any of this....go do your homework

All I was implying is that totally crediting some aspect of the country entirely to the current admistration is wrong.

And I never said I was an expert on any of this. And hey, after reading this thread and reading the links posted, I actually am doing my "homework" and learning something. That's why I come to this message board. Apparently you only come here to make lame jokes and call people retards. But hey, that's how you want to use this message board, you can use it however you want.

 

[BigGreenMat]

There should be some sort of guideline saying that unless some great emergency develops(ie WW2) that no more than 3 consecutive years can run a deficit. It is funny that that article talks about the deficit by George 1 in his last year was Mt. Everest at 290 billion. I guess George W. Bush really is trying to get back to the moon with his spending considering his deficits have run near 500 billion.

 

[Drozmight]

A lot of times the numbers in newspapers don't take inflation into account. I remember a couple years ago, in an econ class we were talking about inflation and the newspapers claiming the gas prices were the highest ever. When we did all the calculations and research we found that technically they were, but when you took inflation into account some year in the 80's has the highest ever. Were were looking at the national average gas price.

So I guess this deficit could be the biggest, but I donno.

Edit - It sounds freakishly large though, haha.

 

[Idontknow]

I remember Kerry saying that they had the intent of using the surplus for social security.

Either way, there were far better things to spend the surplus on than a tax refund.

That so called surplus eventually got the economy in a downward spiral, because of the fact that money that should have been circulating through the economy, was sitting in the treasury. Having a surplus is not good, it means the taxpayers were overcharged. They deserve to get some of that money back.

 

[LizardKing]

Graph from the Bush Video game. Informative game that is.

The numbers....

1988 - 155 Billion Deficit
1989 - 152 Billion Deficit
1990 - 221 Billion Deficit
1991 - 269 Billion Deficit
1992 - 290 Billion Deficit
1993 - 255 Billion Deficit
1994 - 203 Billion Deficit
1995 - 163 Billion Deficit
1996 - 107 Billion Deficit
1997 - 21 Billion Deficit
1998 - 69 Billion Surplus
1999 - 125 Billion Surplus
2000 - 236 Billion Surplus
2001 - 127 Billion Surplus
2002 - 157 Billion Deficit
2003 - 374 Billion Deficit
2004 - 413 Billion Deficit




Source for years 1988-2002. (Pg. 26 of the .pdf doc)



(source for 2003)
source for 2004 numbers

 

[Drozmight]

The government got an interest free loan.

 

[BigGreenMat]

That so called surplus eventually got the economy in a downward spiral, because of the fact that money that should have been circulating through the economy, was sitting in the treasury. Having a surplus is not good, it means the taxpayers were overcharged. They deserve to get some of that money back.

Is that so? You really think the surplus had ANYTHING to do with the economy going down? The economy went down because of overenthusiastic investors tossing money at ideas that would never ever have a chance to get money back. Basically leading to a black hole of investment that affected investment in sound ventures not only by taking dollars at the time of investment, but creating an atmosphere of extreme caution that led to far less investment in the future. Consumer spending NEVER dropped under clinton or bush. In fact only recently, *after* all these tax cuts have people actually slowed their spending. So don't give me some crap that a surplus leads to a slowed economy.

Also what you have to realize is that a surplus will lead to lowered taxes because with the debt burden eased less interest needs to paid out and less taxation will be necessary to cover said burden. One could point to our debt burden and direct link that to tax levels in that it takes nearly 300 billion a year (might be more now that GWB has ballooned the deficit) to simply pay the interest we owe. So please think your responses through a bit.

 

[Triumph]

The current state of the economy is not 100% Dubya's fault- a lot of it has to do with stupid investors in the bull market of the mid/late 90's who were buying up any random tech stock like crazed monkeys. This caused the stocks to be overvalued and the bubble had to burst eventually. It did right before the 2000 election.

However, to imply that Bush isn't responsible for the Federal government's budget woes is ignorance. His tax cuts, first in the middle of a recession and then in the middle of a war, are economically indefensible. They make no sense. With earnings down, revenues from taxes are going to do down. Further decreasing that revenue by slashing taxes is not the way to fix the budget deficit problem. It's simple arithmetic that I'm not surprised is beyond the Bush administration, either that or they know and just don't give a fuck.

Of course, it all goes back to the goals and aims of the administration. They don't really mind if the federal government becomes insolvent. When one of the officials in your administration says that the goal is to starve the beast until it's small enough to drown in a bath tub, well maybe you should pay attention if you want to have access in the future to programs like medicare, medicaid and social security. American citizens are, to a large degree, clueless about what is really going on.

Four more years! Four more years!

 

[Saint Cornelius]

why do you all hate America

 

[Hawksley]

I hope the bank declines to increase your credit limit. Tee hee!

 

[Triumph]

why do you all hate America

The terrorists hate freedom. They hate liberty.

 

[AirBrian]

BigGreenMat and Raoul Duke hit it dead on. The recession was not GWB's fault by any means. There were several indicators that were pointing to a recession as early as late-1998. Most economic analysts agree the downturn started in mid- to late-1999 and fully burst in 2000.

Clinton did not take any proactive measures to help prevent the recession (although arguably there's little he could have done in a short amount of time) and while Bush has made things better in the short-term, it could be much worse in the long-term. The deficit will catch up and we will pay for it either by inflation or interest rates. (Reminds me of the long, high period of inflation in the 80's.)

But it needs to restated that the president has only a minor influence on our economy. Greenspan has more economic influence than the president. WorldCom (and even Enron) had more to do with the recession than Clinton or Bush.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The mammoth deficit is all Bush's fault. We were heading for a recession, but it was exacerbated by the tax cuts coupled to increased spending. You can't place that blame anywhere else but at GWB's footstep. Without the tax cuts, we'd have more money to work with, and wouldn't be looking at multiple years of half-trillion dollar deficits. Understand that the Iraq bill hasn't fully come in yet. That $87B is only the tip of the iceberg. Congress has postponed the shitstorm until after the election. Whoever returns to office is looking at a fiscal crisis.

The Newshour did an awesome story the other day about the national debt and Social Security. Apparently there was a trust fund setup a long time ago to help pay for SS. Well, they showed the file cabinet where this trust fund (intended to pay for all the baby boomers *snicker*) was held. It's full of lots of files alright, all IOUs. Ever see an IOU made out for $10 billion? Well, imagine filling a big file cabinet with all of those. I can't believe the government is run this way. Our government's cooked the books big time. We're trying to deny our financial problems like Japan did for so long, and when it comes falling down, we're going to eat shit in a big way. Social Security and Medicare will collapse. Those of us paying now have no chance at all of getting it, and we've gotta try and save what money is left over for our own retirement plans which might be in jeopardy due to the shakey state of the economy. People get mad at Enron and Worldcom for fucking up and losing their investments, but this is a million times bigger than that, and the financial windfall date has been moved up significantly under Bush. We're talking a looming trillion dollar deficit (yes, I believe it will happen in the next couple of years) and AFAIK, $10 trillion dollars worth of baby booming retirements coming up in the next decade. We are fucked. Pull the ripcord, it's time to bail out of this sinking ship. Raising the debt ceiling again??? Give me a fucking break, this is government corruption, b/c none of those politicians are going to suffer from this. PEACE.

 

[Lambtron]

The terrorists hate freedom. They hate liberty.

Shhhh. Don't tell Canada!

 

[Flynn]

Clinton shouldn't get all of the credit for balancing the budget. It truly was a bi-partisan Congressional project.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Having a surplus is not good, it means the taxpayers were overcharged. They deserve to get some of that money back.

If they were undercharged previously, at some point they must be overcharged to make up for it before balance can be reached.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Clinton shouldn't get all of the credit for balancing the budget. It truly was a bi-partisan Congressional project.

Actually, you do realize clinton had to stonewall congress to getting his budget passed. And when i say stonewall, i mean the federal government shut down.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

The mammoth deficit is all Bush's fault. We were heading for a recession, but it was exacerbated by the tax cuts coupled to increased spending. You can't place that blame anywhere else but at GWB's footstep. Without the tax cuts, we'd have more money to work with, and wouldn't be looking at multiple years of half-trillion dollar deficits. Understand that the Iraq bill hasn't fully come in yet. That $87B is only the tip of the iceberg. Congress has postponed the shitstorm until after the election. Whoever returns to office is looking at a fiscal crisis.

The Newshour did an awesome story the other day about the national debt and Social Security. Apparently there was a trust fund setup a long time ago to help pay for SS. Well, they showed the file cabinet where this trust fund (intended to pay for all the baby boomers *snicker*) was held. It's full of lots of files alright, all IOUs. Ever see an IOU made out for $10 billion? Well, imagine filling a big file cabinet with all of those. I can't believe the government is run this way. Our government's cooked the books big time. We're trying to deny our financial problems like Japan did for so long, and when it comes falling down, we're going to eat shit in a big way. Social Security and Medicare will collapse. Those of us paying now have no chance at all of getting it, and we've gotta try and save what money is left over for our own retirement plans which might be in jeopardy due to the shakey state of the economy. People get mad at Enron and Worldcom for fucking up and losing their investments, but this is a million times bigger than that, and the financial windfall date has been moved up significantly under Bush. We're talking a looming trillion dollar deficit (yes, I believe it will happen in the next couple of years) and AFAIK, $10 trillion dollars worth of baby booming retirements coming up in the next decade. We are fucked. Pull the ripcord, it's time to bail out of this sinking ship. Raising the debt ceiling again??? Give me a fucking break, this is government corruption, b/c none of those politicians are going to suffer from this. PEACE.

The deficit created by Bush though is just one tiny piece of the economic shit storm we have got ourselves into. So as I was saying in my first post, saying that Bush has "sucked America" dry is not very accurate.

I think I become more disillusioned every day by politics. It just all seems so corrupt to me.

 

[3rdman]

So as I was saying in my first post, saying that Bush has "sucked America" dry is not very accurate.

Actually its very acurate. He had a record surplus going into office and has manged to piss it all away. To add to that disgrace, he gave the richest people in our country an incredible tax cut which, if it had remained in place, would have minimized the defiect to a reasonable degree. Add to that, he opened up all types of tax loopholes and laws that allows companies to do whatever they want in exporting our jobs while minimizing their tax burden...that burden is now held up by us - the middle class. Lastly, lets not forget the black hole that is Iraq....120 billion dollars and counting.

 

[Nerevar]

Clinton shouldn't get all of the credit for balancing the budget. It truly was a bi-partisan Congressional project.

You want a balanced budget? Elect a republican congress and a democratic president. Historically, this has proven to be the most effective way to limit governmental spending. Of course, the best way to see spending spiral out of control is a one-party government, kind of like what we have right now.

Keep in mind, Bush is the first president in ages to increase spending AND decrease taxes at the same time - and the only one ever to do that during a recession. The man has absolutely no right to lecture anyone on fiscal responsibility.

 

[videogamer]

The President can direct congress to write a certain kind of budget. Not only that, Bush, as the popular leader of his party, should be able to get much of what he wants in the budget.

Also, there is the possibility of items being budgeted for-and not being spent. For instance, National Eye Institute money has been increasing about 7%, but for whatever reason, it is significantly more difficult to obtain grants. A suspicion running around is that the money isn't being spent... instead it's being used to help "balance" the budget or used elsewhere in the government.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

 

[happyfunball]

Its the opposite.....the poor WILL put the money back into the economy by spending every bit they have on necessities

The rich tend to NOT do this, the majority of the money they receive from these tax benefits will go straight to the bank

 

[Idontknow]

Increasing taxes on the rich, hurts the poor more than it does the rich. The rich will just make adjustments and the tax burden will eventually trickle down to the poor.

 

[AirBrian]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

Here's who pays taxes for the discussion:

Top 01% pays 33.71% of all income taxes
Top 05% pays 53.80% of all income taxes
Top 10% pays 65.73% of all income taxes
Top 25% pays 83.90% of all income taxes
Top 50% pays 96.50% of all income taxes

IRS link:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/02in01ts.xls

(The percentages are in the last section of the last table.)

Other useful links regarding taxes:

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/index.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/index.html

 

[Saint Cornelius]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

You know what's corrupt? Asking these kind of questions when you clearly have an agenda.

If I told you what your "friend" said is wrong, you wouldn't believe me anyways. What's the point?

 

[Idle Will Kill]

holy crap man, what?

For the record, I strongly dislike Bush, I'm a liberal, and I'm probably gonna vote for Kerry.

Maybe that clears some things up.

 

[Triumph]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

False. If the past 3 years haven't proven that, I don't know what the fuck will.

Look, if you give someone with already incredible wealth MORE incredible wealth, odds are they're not gonna run out and buy another yacht or some shit. It just goes into Paris' inheritance fund.

Put it this way. If you give 100 millionaires 50 million dollars, what do you think they're going to do with it? Invest it at best. Pocket it most likely. But what if you give 100 million middle class citizens 50 bucks each? It's gonna get spent. Spent on material goods and services, and the money will eventually find it's way back into the pockets of the rich through profits anyhow.

If you're friend tries to tell you that giving the rich tax breaks allows all the rich business owners to expand their businesses and create new jobs, ask him to please explain to you why 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost since Bush took office and gave rich America all these wonderful tax cuts. The money is being pocketed.

Giving the rich a tax break is idiotic. Giving the middle class a tax break is good intentioned, but probably won't really make that much of a difference.

 

[Hitokage]

holy crap man, what?

For the record, I strongly dislike Bush, I'm a liberal, and I'm probably gonna vote for Kerry.

Maybe that clears some things up.

Doesn't matter. You're still offering an incredibly uninformed viewpoint. Do not forget that this isn't a simple matter of surpluses or deficits, there's also the massive debt that has been stockpiling, and we pay interest on that debt every year. When we had a surplus, that was our opportunity to shore up the government's finances, but it was the republicans who said "fuck the debt, give us tax cuts"[paraphrase]... and two years ago it was Cheney who said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"[actual quote]. The idea that the current Republican party is fiscally responsible is utterly absurd, and is one of the primary reasons I no longer support them.

 

[maharg]

Top 01% pays 33.71% of all income taxes
Top 05% pays 53.80% of all income taxes
Top 10% pays 65.73% of all income taxes
Top 25% pays 83.90% of all income taxes
Top 50% pays 96.50% of all income taxes

Er, lets put this in a more meaningful format.
Top 01%, 33.71%
Top 01-05%, 20.09%
Top 05-10%, 11.93%
Top 10-25%, 18.17%
Top 25-50%, 12.6%

It'd be interesting to know how these map to population segments. Even like this it's not exactly a lot of useful information, because it's not segmented evenly.

 

[Bizarro Sun Yat-sen]

while Bush has made things better in the short-term, it could be much worse in the long-term.

The long term could be sooner than you think. Mark my words, we WILL go back into recession sometime next year.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

Doesn't matter. You're still offering an incredibly uninformed viewpoint.

which viewpoint? The one about Bush not being totally responsible for the deficit?

 

[Triumph]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

This would be the incredibly uninformed viewpoint you are offering up. By proxy, but you are offering it up nonetheless.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

well I wasn't offering it as my own. My friend mentioned that to me the other day, and I just wanted to see what you guys thought about it, because I didn't really know how to respond to it.