why not?
The shifting of paperwork is a lie to the opublic. Each of those years, the national debt increased. If it was balanced, the debt would have maintained even, or been reduced.
No, this was the time of CMP and the Y2K scare driving worldwide industry. Liberals can say all they want it was because of the budget, but it wasn't. Revenues were only so high because the economy was better than normal.
"Each of those years, the national debt increased. If it was balanced, the debt would have maintained even, or been reduced."
You can't be serious.
If the budget is in balance, how does the debt increase then?
*hint* interest for starters.
The first misconception is that the US economy is anything like a household economy. That fallacy is present at least once in this thread.
The second misconception is that the US is going to "bankrupt" or be unable to pay it's obligations.
As things stands, the only two concerns the US economy has going forward are:
A) Inflation, due to the population having too much money to spend (we're not there)
B) Abusing and losing it's position as the world's reserve currency (doubtful at this stage)
Anything else right now is political pandering. There's no "burden of debt" left to our children, etc.
Oh, he is serious. We had this discussion already, he just doesn't know basic accounting.
Says the guy with zero credibility.The first misconception is that the US economy is anything like a household economy. That fallacy is present at least once in this thread.
The second misconception is that the US is going to "bankrupt" or be unable to pay it's obligations.
As things stands, the only two concerns the US economy has going forward are:
A) Inflation, due to the population having too much money to spend (we're not there)
B) Abusing and losing it's position as the world's reserve currency (doubtful at this stage)
Anything else right now is political pandering. There's no "burden of debt" left to our children
Oh I see...
Do you not consider interest as part of your monthly household budget?
Do you keep spending, keeping interest off the books?
Wake up and smell reality. Stop being addicted to that Hopium.
Here are the debt numbers from table 7.1:
Year $Billions
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
2001 5,769,881
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744
2008 9,986,082
2009 11,875,851
2010 13,528,807
2011 14,764,222
Who is that guy?
No comment on the economics side?
No, you really don't see. We already had this discussion and you got schooled on it.
Feel free to bump that thread.
Dude, I have a lot of comments but you are so delusional that I don't feel like wasting my time on you. We can't continue to have a geometric expansion of debt with a relatively flat GDP. The ONLY choice will be to monetize the debt and you honestly don't think that will blow the dollar and create inflation? Like I said, delusional.
If you want to hide behind a second set of books like criminals, be my guest. I was not schooled on it though. Facts are facts. the debt increased under president Clinton, so any claim he had a balanced budget is a fraud. You always consider future liabilities. The only way to actually spend less is to manipulate all the debt to be due outside a given window, yet you then blame the debt under president Bush on him.
Table 1.1 indicates two years of spending very slightly less than revenues. Only $88 billion. The four years claimed ore from borrowing from SS excesses those years. you can manipulate your interest however you want, but that all it is. manipulation. It doesn't change the facts.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-15-2012 at 03:36 PM.
Aparently some posters present in this thread have never heard of or don't know the definition of a hyperbole.
Furthermore, some ppl are oblivious to the fact that we are under the worst economic situation since the great depression. We have never had such a large disparity in distribution of wealth, and are on a clear path to bankrupcy. The country has no industry and college graduates are doomed. Some ppl think just printing more money and bailing corporations out will miraculously take us out of this mess.
Probably these are the same ppl that thought real estate value was going to keep on going up, and up and up.
Last edited by cheguevara; 02-15-2012 at 03:44 PM.
Why would the US need to monetize the debt?
I'm here. And the thread you got schooled on is still there.
ElNono...
Are you going to hold on to the misconception that "off budget" items are included in "budget items" to balance it?
Now think about where you are going without the debt increase. You are now agreeing the the Clinton administration shifted their spending into the Bush administration.
So you agree that the government is nothing like a household economy?Aparently some posters present in this thread have never heard of or don't know the definition of a hyperbole.
Furthermore, some ppl are oblivious to the fact that we are under the worst economic situation since the great depression. We have never had such a large disparity in distribution of wealth, and are on a clear path to bankrupcy. The country has no industry and college graduates are doomed. Some ppl think just printing more money and bailing corporations out will miraculously take us out of this mess.
Probably these are the same ppl that thought real estate value was going to keep on going up, and up and up.
I'm not holding on to anything. Even your Bush Jr accepted the fact the received a budget surplus. And the fact is that public debt did indeed go down.
So we agree the government is nothing like a household economy...
quoting someone with made up responses = very infantile. El Che is glad to have a serious discussion when you stop reaching for straws. Cheers.this from the guy that post face palm responses instead of actually addressing the question.
The government can "create" and "destroy" money whenever it wishes and it doesn't have to "print" it either.
lol Ferraris
If the Clinton administration actually spend less money than revenues received, because the debt increased, he gave the debt to Bush.
I posted that because you are going on a tangent about the government being a household and not knowing the definition of hyperbole
The government can "create" and "destroy" money whenever it wishes and it doesn't have to "print" it either.
lol Ferraris
stick to the topic. Do we have a revenue issue or spending or both?
try to stick to the topic and try not to go on silly tangents due to your misunderstanding of the english language. Just a piece of advice from your friend El Che. Cheers buddy
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
