Printable View
Amusing. Since I don't agree with your revisionist history an alternative view must be "revisionist".Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I guess you believe asset bubbles have nothing to do with monetary policy and that a government agency which itself is allowed to borrow at government rates and pursue its own profit by buying up property debt securities had nothing to do with our present predicament.
Not really. I didn't claim my view to be necessarily correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I know what I believe. I want to hear what's your take on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Well, there you go. An asset bubble created by excess credit creation due to an overly easy monetary policy as well as due to the GSEs and their private gain/social loss arrangement.
You left out the cratering of trust due to the extreme lack of transparency in finance, and the exploitation of this opacity by firms to take on risk beyond all bounds of fiduciary responsibility, but that's a pretty good nutshell.
Well, see, we actually agree. WH appended basically my other concern, which I think would have been preventable or at least mitigated with government intervention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
In a way, we completely underestimated the greed of some of these corps, and this is something I would like to see addressed, before they fall again, and we are told one more time that we need to bail them out because they're too big to fall.
Bullshit. You are changing your story because I proved you wrong. You were referring to it all along as a budget surplus. That means dollars. Not percents.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
When you use inflation adjusted dollars, you are using ratio's, changing each data point. A ratio is a percentage. Mathematically similar!
If you had ever said as a percentage, or as inflation adjusted dollars, I wold have agreed.
I use to respect you. Now you're just a another libtard liar.
Yes, I understand graphs. Do you understand "surplus?" Do you understand "balance?" Do you understand you are trying to change the argument. Well guess what.
Yes, spending goes up and down as a percentage of GNP and GDP when the GNP and GDP do not make linear changes with inflation! This is such a simple mathematical concept, do you realize how fucking bad you are insulting my intelligence?
After I pointed out being I meant the reconciled budget and that I can budget my monthly spending, and not follow it, you continued on your same course. It wasn't until you found the chart as a percentage that you changed your wording. I even provided debt data that clearly showed I meant dollars. Not percents.
Do you budget your household income based on percentages, or real money?
I never denied those graphs of inflation adjusted dollars or by GDP. I am in 100% agreement with the shape of them as public debt. However, they are not gross debt numbers as I have pointed out. Gross debt graph of debt vs. GDP:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...sDebtvsGNP.jpg
Look at my graph vs. the one you supplied. Mine is from the same data I linked earlier. Yours is public debt only, not gross debt. It can also be plotted from that link if you don't believe me. Here it is:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...cDebtvsGNP.jpg
Now in the other graph, I stopped at 2007 because that's where the reconciled data ends. This one, I included 2008 and 2009 estimated data, which is not factually correct for either my graph or yours. Subject to interpretation and politically motivated guesses. Yours probably included the initial bailout and mine probably doesn't.
Also, bad form for not specifying the debt type used. Gross debt is what counts.
It's asinine to pretend the value of the dollar to be static throughout the years. If you truly believe that to be the case, then I'll be happy to purchase your home for $300. After all, there was a time where that many dollars bought you a property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I just claimed we had a balanced budget and even a surplus. I was correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I see how this works. You posted useless numbers, and I called you out for it. Now, I'm a liar. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Absolutely. A surplus is when your income exceeds your expenses. A balanced budget is when you plan to spend only as much as your income allows. How is it that I changed the argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I presented two graphs. One against GDP, one against raw dollars adjusted for inflation. In both cases the debt took a nose down during the Clinton years. I'm sorry if you can't seem to grasp that. It's not me insulting your intelligence, it's just you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sure, you posted meaningless numbers. Using dollar amounts without adjusting them to their value in time is basically useless. You simply can't pretend $100 dollars were worth the same in 1990 and now. I'm sorry, that's just retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Real money, adjusted to it's current value in time. Or do you budget your household income based on the value of the dollar in 1845?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Excuse me? I posted two graphs, and each include both gross and non-gross curves. The point being, no matter which one you pick, they both indicate a reduction of debt in the Clinton years, which was my point all along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Furthermore, because I'm fairly sure you didn't even bother to read the article I linked, if you were to calculate the income vs expenses during that period using an accrued accounting model (like most corps do) you would STILL come up with a surplus.
I'll agree with that, but that was not the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Technically, you were right. I immediately pointed out that those were planned spending, but the budget wasn't followed. Also that I used reconciled numbers. A budget itself is meaningless. Do you always follow your monthly household budget? You continued to argue as if what I said was meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Not useless, we were just talking about two different sets of numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I explained that early on in our arguments. You either missed it or ignored it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I grasp them perfectly well, and g=have used the same arguments myself in the past. You fail to grasp that we were talking about two different numbers, in fact, you changed your argument midstream and pretended you didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm not disagree with that. Just that you changed your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Yes, brain fart on my part. You never specified gross/non-gross before the graphs. You first used real numbers, not adjusted for inflation. You are really making me pissed by changing your argument. The link you supplied for your argument had this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/...Deficit(1).jpg
Thius graph very closely reflects the excel chart I linked in one of its columns. It is not inflation adjusted. Then you claim it's not valid without being inflation adjusted.
Come on now, Get real. Make your your mind.
Then why didn't you make such a statement as soon as I made it clear I was using non-inflation numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Get over it. My argument has not change. I agree with your changed argument. It's still not right to have deficit spending in current non inflated dollars during a good economy without war. The real debt should be paid down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I don't think there's any ambiguity there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
There was no real projected surplus. It was a number game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I agree that as a percentage, it did go down. Do you agree that in actual non-adjusted dollars, it never went down for more than 20 years?
That's all I want to know.
Currency inflates over time. Will you agree that non-adjusted dollars are not *actual*, but in fact counterfactual dollars?
LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
That's how I feel about our money all the time.
I'm not disagreeing with ElNono's revised point. I agree with it entirely. I'm just pissed that he doesn't have the integrity to admit we were talking about two different things at first.
You guys were on the same topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
His numbers reflect something closer to reality. Yours were chosen tendentiously, to back up your bullshit.
No, there was no actual surplus. There was a budgeted surplus, not counting the fact it was borrowing from SS, etc. A real budget surplus never happened, and if a surplus was budgeted, that never happened either. My argument was the simple fact that no surplus happened, because we had deficit spending, and increased debt. Is that so hard to comprehend?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I agree those numbers are more realistic. However, that was not the argument! Did I ever say otherwise? Would you please stop assuming you know what I think?
But we weren't. I posted the quotes of what we were talking about, and then you went off the tangent and started posting phony numbers to back up your crap. Then I called out your phony numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Don't be mad. You just are being unrealistic, that's all.
Excuse me...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Here's what happened.
You said:
"We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus."
I said:
"Then why was there a deficit?"
You said:
What deficit? LINK
I did the research. Those numbers were not inflation adjusted. Here is the link for an excel file:
CBO Historical Budget Data; part of file:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...09CBOExcel.jpg
Compare the numbers in the red ovals with those of your link, and graph:
http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/...Deficit(1).jpg
Open the excel file and carefully link at the different tabs.
It is speaking of dollars not adjusted for inflation. I simply used a chart from the GPO, the real numbers, instead of from the CBO (fake congressional number) like you did.
I showed there was no surplus in dollars.
You maintained otherwise.
You changed your story to inflation adjusted after providing a link with data from non-inflation adjusted numbers.
What the hell am I suppose to believe?
All I see from you is lack of integrity. You will not admit those facts.
Those numbers clearly show a positive value during the Clinton years, thus a surplus. That's the polar opposite from running a deficit.
If your gripe is that such surplus was not used to pay off public debt, then I can't help you.
However, my point stands. We had a balanced budget and a projected surplus.
Projected surplus numbers are meaningless. Again, I can lay out a plan to save $2,000 a month. That doesn't mean I will follow that plan. In fact, I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You missed a point I just made. Your numbers are CBO numbers. You also missed a point I made early on. That I can budget one amount and spend another. I was specific from the start asking why there was a deficit. You said there wasn't. I show you real, hard data, and you give me meaningless CBO data.
Your link is not accurate numbers to begin with. CBO numbers rarely are. They come out of congress, and have political motivation behind them!
The GPO has the real numbers. The CBO numbers can be used for propaganda.
Want more good data? Use GAO numbers. Read this:
FINANCIAL AUDIT
Bureau of the Public Debt’s Fiscal Years
2008 and 2007 Schedules of Federal Debt
They have a historical debt chart:
http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...to2008debt.jpg
Remember what started this.
I asked why was there a deficit under president Clinton. (every year) 2000 was close to a surplus. Only a $23,177 million (.041%) increase in gross debt.
Surpluses and deficits are in dollars. Not inflation adjusted dollars.