Reply With Quote
What is this 'bottom line' that you speak of?
Who was the last president that did good in this abstract 'bottom line'?
That does not matter. The bottom line matters.
Maybe you lib s buy into the headlines. Smart people use the bottom line.
What is this 'bottom line' that you speak of?
Who was the last president that did good in this abstract 'bottom line'?
The increase or decrease of the debt.
Nixon.
So it's not just a 'lib ' problem...
And I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the debt also go down during Carter's government?
Also, what measure are you using? Actual debt number or debt/GDP?
The reason I ask is that according to this the debt did go up during Nixon's presidency if you're just taking debt amount, and not debt/GDP.
Nixon????
Damn, that's funny.
Nixon was lucky I think. I'll bet he had an actual surplus because the demorats stopped funding the Vietnam war.
Our congress has been corrupt for decades. maybe as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing new except now it seems to be a race of which party is more corrupt. I would say the demonrats are leaving the republicans in their dust in that department.
Nice attempt to deflect from the facts...Our congress has been corrupt for decades. maybe as long as it's been in existence. There is nothing new except now it seems to be a race of which party is more corrupt. I would say the demonrats are leaving the republicans in their dust in that department.
Deflection from what facts?
Nixon was the last president to have an actual debt reduction.
No it didn't. The last time was I think fiscal 1969.
I've posted the government link before. Do you forget that easily?
Actual dollars.
During Nixon's one good year on revenue, revenue exceeded all spending and interest on the debt, thus the actual debt actually went down.
Let me reiterate... This bottom line thingie... it's not just a 'lib ' problem...
So this is over a single year, not an actual term...
Nixon was just President when the budgeted net reduction occurred...that's like saying that Reagan defeated the Soviet Union because he was President when the U.S.S.R collapsed...
I didn't say during his presidency in the sense of from start to finish. I'm talking about one fiscal year.
Spin it how ever you want. The national debt actually went down during one year under the Nixion administration.
Correct.
y
Fact CheckThe 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.
So your argument is that 3 years of deficits, but a single year of surplus makes a person smart... OK.
BTW, you do agree this is not just a 'lib ' problem, right?
Of course not. There's no way WC's black/white manicheanism could ever be untrue. There's no neutral color to be had...
...unless, of course, WC lacks a ready excuse for being caught out in error.
(In which case, the whole universe is transformed into the night in which all cows are gray.)
Why do you make such a stupid assumption? I only pointed out the FACT that the last time in our history we had an actual surplus was during the Nixon administration. I never attributed it to his actions.
I wish you would stop with you partisan jumps to conclusions.
So...
You're being an idiot today also?
I didn't assume anything. I actually was applying the rules you spelled out:
Actually, I'm the one pointing out this has nothing to do with any singular party, as you originally suggested. Your admission that Nixon was the last guy to see a reduction in debt simply reinforces the notion.
More spin....
The National Debt — Where Did it Come From?
ZFactsIn 1981, the country had just elected Reagan to cure the "all-time-high, Trillion-Dollar debt." But compared with the size of the American economy, the debt was at its lowest point in fifty years (see graph). Reagan was duped by the "supply siders" and his "greatest disappointment" was adding $1.6 trillion to the debt.
The new zFacts slide show (info page, PDF) tells the amazing story of how supply siders have used the Republican Party to add $9.2 trillion to the debt and are now using the fear of that debt to derail the recovery.
The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see do ented here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
.jpg)
