ADVERTISEMENT

What is the number one thing you want the next president to focus on?

What is the number one thing you want the next president to focus on?

  • Crossing party lines--make sincere efforts to mend fences

    Votes: 14 17.7%
  • Climate Change

    Votes: 18 22.8%
  • Deficit

    Votes: 8 10.1%
  • Foreign policy

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Aging U.S. Infrastructure--bridges, roads, buildings, etc.

    Votes: 7 8.9%
  • Health Care!

    Votes: 7 8.9%
  • Military

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • Economy

    Votes: 10 12.7%
  • Other (explain in comments)

    Votes: 12 15.2%

  • Total voters
    79
Climate Change. Nothing else will matter if our crops are wiped out in the MidWest, the coasts are underwater in the East, and droughts are literally burning down the West.
Respectfully, I disagree. The goal is laudable, but, the largest contributor to climate change is our military. The Dept. of Defense is ExxonMobil's largest customer. The military leaves sites toxic wherever they drop anchor. Having over 800 bases in 150 countries just exacerbates the problem. $1 Trillion a year is unsustainable.

In addition, Zbig Brzezinski said his goal was to induce the Soviets into a long drawn-out war in Afghanistan so they would have their Vietnam and break them financially. It worked. He should've looked in the mirror before his passing. It is having the same affect in the US today. Trillions$$$$$$$ in debt that will be shouldered by our children. Killing the death economy 1st will show profound results in climate change and allow us to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
 
No, I’m not.
The deficit is how much they borrow in a given year, the debt is the accumulated deficits.
There were deficits every single year of Clinton’s presidency. The total debt went up every single year he was President.
Don’t trust me, check for yourself:

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

I also think you’re crediting the wrong person for the declining deficits.
After Gingrich took control of the House the growth of government spending was significantly curtailed.
Do you think there were any years where the Clinton requested less total spending than Congress ultimately passed?
IIRC, wasn't Greenspan printing a lot of money which gave them unexpectedly higher revenues that were not baked in? I could be wrong.
 
Crossing party lines to try to get things done can help a lot of those issues....assuming both sides deal in good faith.

You're right, but unfortunately that is a fairy tale as long as Mitch McConnell and the "Cult of Trump" of House Republicans are in office.
 
IIRC, wasn't Greenspan printing a lot of money which gave them unexpectedly higher revenues that were not baked in? I could be wrong.

Yes, the Tech bubble followed Greenspan’s cuts.
That bubble started to pop as Bush was taking office.
Then they saved us with the Housing bubble, like Krugman suggested...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nat Algren
No, I’m not.
The deficit is how much they borrow in a given year, the debt is the accumulated deficits.
There were deficits every single year of Clinton’s presidency. The total debt went up every single year he was President.
Don’t trust me, check for yourself:

https://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

I also think you’re crediting the wrong person for the declining deficits.
After Gingrich took control of the House the growth of government spending was significantly curtailed.
Do you think there were any years where the Clinton requested less total spending than Congress ultimately passed?
Declining deficits you say? I win.
 
You wrote, “Then you should have supported Hillary. She balanced the budget once before.”

I just proved to you that was an incorrect statement.
Spin away.
No need. We all know Clinton presided over a budget surplus. And the point was Clinton was the correct choice for a budget hawk. I win this. Go play.

FederalDeficit1.jpg
 
No need. We all know Clinton presided over a budget surplus. And the point was Clinton was the correct choice for a budget hawk. I win this. Go play.

FederalDeficit1.jpg

Now go that Treasury link I provided and show us the y-o-y total debt ‘98-‘01.
Does it match your fake graph?
 
Now go that Treasury link I provided and show us the y-o-y total debt ‘98-‘01.
Does it match your fake graph?
Talk about spin. You learned well from Trump. Just call any facts you don’t like, fake. I think we’re done. You managed to prove Hillary was the deficit hawk. Good job.
 
Wiping all things Trump from the public domain. Reversing EOs, firing every single person in the government who enabled Trump no matter what the position. And lastly arresting him on Trumped up charges of terrorism and sending him to Gitmo and somehow losing him.
Other than that not much else
 
Wiping all things Trump from the public domain. Reversing EOs, firing every single person in the government who enabled Trump no matter what the position. And lastly arresting him on Trumped up charges of terrorism and sending him to Gitmo and somehow losing him.
Other than that not much else
Or just make him live with FBNBB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Talk about spin. You learned well from Trump. Just call any facts you don’t like, fake. I think we’re done. You managed to prove Hillary was the deficit hawk. Good job.

I supplied you a link to info on the debt level provided by the US Treasury Department.
Do you think there is a better source for that info?
Can you provide any data to support the graph you found on the web?
Or do you just believe whatever you find agreeable?

As to whether or not the White House deserves credit for the decline in the deficit you need to look at the budgets submitted by the President and what was passed by Congress.
Which year(s) did Clinton request less than what Congress authorized?
 
Withdrawing troops from nearly everywhere, and refocusing the military mission. That's a combination of foreign policy and military.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Not lying about every damn thing that passes thru his/her lips. Maybe being a more mumble, honest person. Not being an asshole at every opportunity. Saving narcissism for “off camera” moments.....showing the American people a little integrity. Maybe showing some compassion for folks who have less than you.

Defending the Orange Turd means you are defending him. He is a catastrophe. He has eliminated everyone in his administration having intelligence and balls to advise him. Most positions of importance are "acting" to avoid congressional scrutiny. He has stripped the government of the depth of scientific and technical expertise crucial for some of the most basic safety and operational functions.

His foolish appointments include a holder of a degree in animal husbandry to oversee the Department of Energy, which includes our nuclear programs.

He lies to the extent reality has no meaning. Lies are compounded within sentences. No business would tolerate an employee with these impulses and constant errors and miscues. At any level.

The wingers blame the media and the left for bias and abusive treatment. I've never brought this up, or is I have, I've forgotten, but I asked a congressperson's opinion of the Orange Turd. The response was the Republicans think he is a fool and dangerous. There was no reason for the congressperson to be dishonest.

This does not even get to his legal and criminal issues. Defend him because you have to defend him. Keep in mind you shouldn't have to defend a POTUS
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
It is Super Tuesday, we are on the edge of a global pandemic, equity markets continue to plummet despite a desperation 1/2 point interest rate cut, and 20+ died from a tornado in Nashville overnight. But foxnews.com once again leads with a story about Hillary Clinton, so I guess I would fall in line and prioritize doing something about her.
 
It is Super Tuesday, we are on the edge of a global pandemic, equity markets continue to plummet despite a desperation 1/2 point interest rate cut, and 20+ died from a tornado in Nashville overnight. But foxnews.com once again leads with a story about Hillary Clinton, so I guess I would fall in line and prioritize doing something about her.
She must have had a strong showing tonight, I guess? ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I supplied you a link to info on the debt level provided by the US Treasury Department.
Do you think there is a better source for that info?
Can you provide any data to support the graph you found on the web?
Or do you just believe whatever you find agreeable?

As to whether or not the White House deserves credit for the decline in the deficit you need to look at the budgets submitted by the President and what was passed by Congress.
Which year(s) did Clinton request less than what Congress authorized?
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



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.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Replacing the incompetent and sometimes dishonest Trump people with people who will do their jobs to the best of their abilities. (No manipulating of information to make political points or put Americans at risk.)
That is some funny sh..
 
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



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.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
You’re an educator, perhaps you’ll have better luck than I.
 
There needs to be a full accounting of everything that has taken place during this administration. The reason why Republicans get in office and then run roughshod over law and order is they are never held accountable for the actions they take while in office. We need to find out exactly how much damage has been done and then hold those people responsible accountable for what they did.

Second, we need Constitutional reforms. WIthout them, I don't see how our government lasts another generation. We can't continue as a country the way things are set up right now.

I will be shocked if either of those two things happen, especially the 2nd one.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT