President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Rick]

WTF? What does this have to do with anything?

Find me one uncorrupted Administration and I'll find you an Ohio State coach with integrity.

Anyway, it's Quayle's fault.

I'd leave Quayle out of this, he's dumber than you are.

Potato or Potatoe. It's not that bigga deal is it?

SW isn't dumb. He's a pretty smart dude.

[SF-Dano]

..June Jobs Report: the Ugly, the Ugly and the Ugly
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-g ... 11747.html

By Daniel Gross | Contrary Indicator – 2 hours 32 minutes ago
....tweet31EmailPrint.....If Hollywood were to make a film about the June jobs report, it would be called The Ugly, The Ugly and The Ugly.

Typically, the monthly jobs report contains some good news, some bad news and some ugly news. And optimism had been building over the June figure, in part because alternate methods of measurement had indicated higher jobs growth. TrimTabs earlier this week said its data indicated the economy added 171,000 new jobs in June, while ADP on Thursday suggested 157,000 private-sector jobs had been added in the month. Add in the slight decline in unemployment claims, falling gas taxes and good preliminary news on retail sales, and there was some hope that the soft patch of April and May was over.

This morning's ugly, ugly, ugly jobs figure throws a large bucket of ice-cold water on that thesis.

The Ugly #1. The headline number showed that a mere 18,000 payroll jobs were added in June. As Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture frequently points out, when you're working off a base of 130 million or so, a gain of 18,000 (or a loss of 18,000) is statistically meaningless. The numbers show that the conservative recovery continues, with the private sector adding jobs and the public sector cutting them. The services, mining, and leisure and hospitality sectors all added jobs. In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs. But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year. It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.

The Ugly #2. The unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2 percent. Payroll jobs figures are calculated from the establishment survey (calling up companies and asking them how many they employ). The unemployment rate is derived from the BLS's household survey (calling up people and asking them if they've been working). Sometimes the two surveys tell divergent stories. Not this month. The unemployment rose to 9.2 percent. The number would have been worse had the labor force not declined in June by about 250,000 people. Virtually every component of the household survey — the labor force participation rate, the number of people reporting themselves to be employed, the number of people *not* in the labor force — moved in the wrong direction last month.

Ugly #3. The trend is not our friend. The monthly jobs are revised in each of the two months following the original report. And the trend over much of the past year has been for the figures to be revised upward. In hindsight, during this recovery, BLS has tended to discover more jobs. But in June that trend seems to have reversed. Looking back, BLS is now concluding that there were fewer jobs added in previous months than originally thought. April's figure was revised from a gain of 232,000 to a gain of 217,000, and the May gain of 54,000 was revised to a gain of 25,000. Add it up, and BLS is telling us there are about 44,000 fewer payroll jobs out there than it thought.

This is just one month, and we should be careful not to read too much into a single data point. But this report really stinks. It is a significant problem for President Obama, for any incumbent, for the U.S. stock market and for consumer-based business. The outstanding feature of the past two years has been the big disconnect between the rapid recovery in the capital markets and the much slower recovery in the labor markets. Put another away, companies have shown that they can massively increase profitability without having to add significantly to their payrolls. Part of this is because U.S. companies have proven to be remarkably adept at boosting productivity — doing more with less labor or the same amount of labor. And part of it has to do with the fact that, with each passing month, U.S. companies — especially large ones — are getting a larger share of their sales from overseas. Some of that comes in the form of exports, which helps support employment. But a lot of it comes in the form of sales of goods and services that are produced outside our borders.

Despite the ugly, ugly, ugly jobs figure, the U.S. expansion is still intact. Macroeconomic Advisers is standing by its call that the pace of growth will pick up in the second half of the year. From industrial production to retail sales, there are signs that demand is continuing to grow. At some point, companies will have to break down and hire people in significant numbers. This report suggests we haven't yet reached that point.

Daniel Gross is economics editor at Yahoo! Finance.

[slucero]

..June Jobs Report: the Ugly, the Ugly and the Ugly
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-g ... 11747.html

By Daniel Gross | Contrary Indicator – 2 hours 32 minutes ago
....tweet31EmailPrint.....If Hollywood were to make a film about the June jobs report, it would be called The Ugly, The Ugly and The Ugly.

Typically, the monthly jobs report contains some good news, some bad news and some ugly news. And optimism had been building over the June figure, in part because alternate methods of measurement had indicated higher jobs growth. TrimTabs earlier this week said its data indicated the economy added 171,000 new jobs in June, while ADP on Thursday suggested 157,000 private-sector jobs had been added in the month. Add in the slight decline in unemployment claims, falling gas taxes and good preliminary news on retail sales, and there was some hope that the soft patch of April and May was over.

This morning's ugly, ugly, ugly jobs figure throws a large bucket of ice-cold water on that thesis.

The Ugly #1. The headline number showed that a mere 18,000 payroll jobs were added in June. As Barry Ritholtz of the Big Picture frequently points out, when you're working off a base of 130 million or so, a gain of 18,000 (or a loss of 18,000) is statistically meaningless. The numbers show that the conservative recovery continues, with the private sector adding jobs and the public sector cutting them. The services, mining, and leisure and hospitality sectors all added jobs. In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs. But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year. It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.

The Ugly #2. The unemployment rate ticked up to 9.2 percent. Payroll jobs figures are calculated from the establishment survey (calling up companies and asking them how many they employ). The unemployment rate is derived from the BLS's household survey (calling up people and asking them if they've been working). Sometimes the two surveys tell divergent stories. Not this month. The unemployment rose to 9.2 percent. The number would have been worse had the labor force not declined in June by about 250,000 people. Virtually every component of the household survey — the labor force participation rate, the number of people reporting themselves to be employed, the number of people *not* in the labor force — moved in the wrong direction last month.

Ugly #3. The trend is not our friend. The monthly jobs are revised in each of the two months following the original report. And the trend over much of the past year has been for the figures to be revised upward. In hindsight, during this recovery, BLS has tended to discover more jobs. But in June that trend seems to have reversed. Looking back, BLS is now concluding that there were fewer jobs added in previous months than originally thought. April's figure was revised from a gain of 232,000 to a gain of 217,000, and the May gain of 54,000 was revised to a gain of 25,000. Add it up, and BLS is telling us there are about 44,000 fewer payroll jobs out there than it thought.

This is just one month, and we should be careful not to read too much into a single data point. But this report really stinks. It is a significant problem for President Obama, for any incumbent, for the U.S. stock market and for consumer-based business. The outstanding feature of the past two years has been the big disconnect between the rapid recovery in the capital markets and the much slower recovery in the labor markets. Put another away, companies have shown that they can massively increase profitability without having to add significantly to their payrolls. Part of this is because U.S. companies have proven to be remarkably adept at boosting productivity — doing more with less labor or the same amount of labor. And part of it has to do with the fact that, with each passing month, U.S. companies — especially large ones — are getting a larger share of their sales from overseas. Some of that comes in the form of exports, which helps support employment. But a lot of it comes in the form of sales of goods and services that are produced outside our borders.

Despite the ugly, ugly, ugly jobs figure, the U.S. expansion is still intact. Macroeconomic Advisers is standing by its call that the pace of growth will pick up in the second half of the year. From industrial production to retail sales, there are signs that demand is continuing to grow. At some point, companies will have to break down and hire people in significant numbers. This report suggests we haven't yet reached that point.

Daniel Gross is economics editor at Yahoo! Finance.

and yet this "economics editor" fails to state the single largest reason the capital markets have done so well, and the DOW has kept rising, which has nothing to do with the economy at all.

It's due to Federal Reserve intervention... meaning:

The Fed printing (virtual) money... by keeping it's lending rate at 0%... so the banks (not Joe Consumer) can borrow at 0% and play the markets by buying stocks, or bonds via their in house trading desks, all with money they've borrowed at 0%... WHICH ironically is how banks got over leveraged and the economy crashed in the FIRST PLACE... and a practice (bank trading desks) that was made illegal by Congress in 1933 (after the '29 crash) only to be repealed, by Congress in 1999, and was EXEMPTED from the recent Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

ZIRP - (Zero Interest Rate Policy) was the Feds 1st shot at turning the economy - IT FAILED
QE - (Quantitative Easing) - was the Feds 2nd shot at turning the economy - IT HAS ALSO FAILED


"jobless recovery" is a very accurate term. Recovery in the markets. Jobless in the economy.

[slucero]

instead of actually cutting, Congress is doing their part... dreaming up ways to take more...

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-boiling-frog-alert-congress-wants-automatic-wage-deductions-pay-down-debt

Boiling Frog Alert: Congress Wants Automatic Wage Deductions To Pay Down The Debt:

HR 2411, the “Reduce America’s Debt Now Act of 2011: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:h2411:

Folks… you just can’t make this stuff up.

On July 6th, just two days ago, at least a dozen busybody Congressmen sponsored the introduction of HR 2411, the “Reduce America’s Debt Now Act of 2011.” They always come up with fantastic names for these pieces of legislation… and rest assured, the better/more patriotic the name, the more ominous the bill. This one follows the pattern.

HR 2411 states that every worker in America should be able to voluntarily have a portion of his/her wages automatically withheld and sent directly to the Treasury Department for the purposes of paying down the federal debt.

“Every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages any amounts so elected, and shall pay such amounts over to the Secretary of the Treasury…”

That’s right. Uncle Sam is so broke that he wants to give all the good little Americans out there the opportunity to contribute an even greater portion of their paychecks to finance government largess.

Desperate? Hmmm…. Don’t worry, it gets better.

Obviously, if an employee feels so compelled and should elect to have a portion of his/her paycheck withheld, the onus of responsibility is now on the employer to make it happen. The employer has to do all the paperwork, withhold the money, send the payment to the Treasury, maintain the account records, and probably submit to all kinds of new filing requirements.

You can imagine that, if passed, the bill will result in a host of new IRS regulations, complete with a battery of penalties for employers who don’t fill out the paperwork properly, submit filings on time, or make some administrative mistake.

Think about it: if a small business owner has one single employee who is dumb enough to think that it’s his patriotic duty to pay down the debt and decides to contribute $1/month, that owner will have the responsibility for all kinds of new forms and filings, plus submit to new ‘debt reduction audits.’

But don’t worry, it gets even better.

So let’s say there are millions of sheep out there who elect to donate a portion of their toil and sweat so that the Chinese and big financial institutions don’t have to worry about an American default. How does Congress plan on rewarding its most patriotic citizens? By sticking it to them on their taxes, of course.

HR 2411 stipulates that any contribution made to the Treasury in order to pay down the federal debt IS NOT TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

“The [Treasury] Secretary shall include. . . a reasonably conspicuous statement that any amounts deducted and withheld from wages. . . are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes.”

Imagine this scenario: You make $100,000/year. In a fit of complete insanity, you decide that you want to withhold your entire annual salary to pay down the debt. Hey, you can always move in with mom for the next year, right?

Well guess what– Uncle Sam will gladly take your money… and then STILL expect you to pay taxes on the $100,000 that you earned, so you’d have to come out of pocket with an additional $40,000 or so.

Don’t worry, though. The Social Security and Medicare wages are reduced by the amount that you withhold, making you only liable for state and federal taxes. Seems like a good deal, eh comrades?

There are so many things utterly wrong with his piece of legislation, it’s hard to know where to begin other than by saying that such intellectual and philosophical perversion is only capable of springing from unprincipled sociopaths whose sole capability is the destruction of value.

There’s a great quote from Atlas Shrugged that comes to mind which sums this all up:

“[W]hen you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.”

We’ve discussed the story of the boiling frog so many times before– a frog, when put into a pot of water and slowly brought to a boil, doesn’t realize that he’s in danger until its too late. I think the boiling frog just got a little hotter.

Have you hit your breaking point yet?

[Seven Wishes2]

Whose idea was that? No way in hell that even gets through committee. Fucking politicians.

As it stands now, 4 in 5 Americans want to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and want big corporations to pay a higher share of their record profits in taxes, both in order to reduce the deficit.

So what, might you ask, does the crystal ball say? Apparently Obama, who couldn't smell a political can't-lose situation if it was Meat Loaf's sockless foot after a 3 hour show in leather boots and he was a truffle-sniffing pig, is working on a "compromise" that would LOWER the corporate tax rates (making the very rich that much richer), while maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the rich, AND slashing Medicare and Medicaid.

They're all a bunch of ignorant douche bags. Fuck 'em ll.

[RedWingFan]

As it stands now, 4 in 5 Americans want to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and want big corporations to pay a higher share of their record profits in taxes, both in order to reduce the deficit.

You're hilarious!!!

[conversationpc]

As it stands now, 4 in 5 Americans want to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and want big corporations to pay a higher share of their record profits in taxes, both in order to reduce the deficit.

You're hilarious!!!

I know a ton of Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians and I don't believe for a minute that anywhere near 80% of the people are in favor of taxes being raised. I agree with Scott...You're hilarious!

[RedWingFan]

As it stands now, 4 in 5 Americans want to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and want big corporations to pay a higher share of their record profits in taxes, both in order to reduce the deficit.

You're hilarious!!!

I know a ton of Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians and I don't believe for a minute that anywhere near 80% of the people are in favor of taxes being raised. I agree with Scott...You're hilarious!

That must have been from the same poll that had Obama ahead in Texas and Alaska.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06 ... nd-alaska/

[Seven Wishes2]

Sorry to rain on your collective parade of ignorance, RWF.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/2-24-28-11.pdf

HUGE sample, VERY comprehensive poll with very simple questions.

The GOP is FUCKED if they keep pushing on this. Fucked.

More than four in five Americans want the rich to pay their fair share again. And more than two in three want to kill the Bush tax cuts. That's MORE than TWO in THREE. You can't even get two out of three people to agree that Boehner's farts stink.

Only THREE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION believes cutting Medicare and Medicaid is an acceptible way to reduce the defiit. That's THREE PERCENT. THREE.

The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: On whether or not they approve increasing taxes on millionaires, 81% of Americans polled said “yes” versus 17% that said no. On whether they would support phasing out the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000, 68% of respondents said “yes” versus 29% that said no.

SIXTY PERCENT of REPUBLICANS!!! want tax increases on millionaires. REPUBLICANS!

That felt good. Again:

The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed otherwise. On whether or not they approve increasing taxes on millionaires, 81% of Americans polled said “yes” versus 17% that said no. On whether they would support phasing out the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000, 68% of respondents said “yes” versus 29% that said no.

Moreover according to a recent Forbes poll, Americans believe that corporations are “not" paying their fair share of taxes”, 56% believe they are not, 22% say they are paying the proper amount, only 11% believe they are paying their fair share, 11% had no answer. In a follow-up question, when asked what they thought corporations are doing with their tax breaks, 61% say that they are using the tax breaks to “pay bonuses and dividends”, 23% say they are reinvesting in the business, and only 4% believe that they are using it to create jobs, 12% don’t know.

[RedWingFan]

Sorry to rain on your collective parade of ignorance, RWF.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/___Politics_Today_Stories_Teases/2-24-28-11.pdf

HUGE sample, VERY comprehensive poll with very simple questions.

The GOP is FUCKED if they keep pushing on this. Fucked.

More than four in five Americans want the rich to pay their fair share again. And more than two in three want to kill the Bush tax cuts. That's MORE than TWO in THREE. You can't even get two out of three people to agree that Boehner's farts stink.

Only THREE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION believes cutting Medicare and Medicaid is an acceptible way to reduce the defiit. That's THREE PERCENT. THREE.

The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: On whether or not they approve increasing taxes on millionaires, 81% of Americans polled said “yes” versus 17% that said no. On whether they would support phasing out the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000, 68% of respondents said “yes” versus 29% that said no.

That felt good. Again:

The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed otherwise. On whether or not they approve increasing taxes on millionaires, 81% of Americans polled said “yes” versus 17% that said no. On whether they would support phasing out the Bush tax cuts on those making over $250,000, 68% of respondents said “yes” versus 29% that said no.

Moreover according to a recent Forbes poll, Americans believe that corporations are “not" paying their fair share of taxes”, 56% believe they are not, 22% say they are paying the proper amount, only 11% believe they are paying their fair share, 11% had no answer. In a follow-up question, when asked what they thought corporations are doing with their tax breaks, 61% say that they are using the tax breaks to “pay bonuses and dividends”, 23% say they are reinvesting in the business, and only 4% believe that they are using it to create jobs, 12% don’t know.

You're the one that's ignorant. Bush's tax cuts were across the board. You stating 80% of American's support repealing Bush's tax cuts, means repealing everyone's tax cuts. You're such a dupe. I honestly feel sorry for you.

[Seven Wishes2]

Wow. Of all the lame, diversionary comebacks I could have anticipated from you, some non-existant bullshit semantic technicality would not have been it.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000. THAT is what the poll is about; that's what I'm talking about.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE, RWF. Nice try, but you get an "F" this time. "F minus". You know damned well what I was referring to and what the poll means.

RESPOND TO THE POLL. Do it. Try.

The GOP is FUCKED if they don't drop this.

RWF...Lamest. Response. Ever.

[RedWingFan]

Wow. Of all the lame, diversionary comebacks I could have anticipated from you, some non-existant bullshit semantic technicality would not have been it.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000. THAT is what the poll is about; that's what I'm talking about.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE, RWF. Nice try, but you get an "F" this time. "F minus". You know damned well what I was referring to and what the poll means.

RESPOND TO THE POLL. Do it. Try.

The GOP is FUCKED if they don't drop this.

Go back and read you initial post. You said nothing about $250,000. You said 80% supported repealing the Bush tax cuts. The ones that provided relief to every working American. The one even Obama caved to and extended because he knew they'd hit the middle and lower class as well.

Find a poll where 80% of Americans want the Bush tax cuts repealed like you said!!!! You're such a fool. It makes me feel so much better reading how the GOP is in trouble seeing how you're wrong all the time.

Wait here it is. Where is the part about the $250k?

Speaking of "diversionary tactics" the post you were responding to was the Obama Administration and giving guns to illegal immigrant criminals. And you swerve into Bush tax cuts!!!:lol:

Whose idea was that? No way in hell that even gets through committee. Fucking politicians.

As it stands now, 4 in 5 Americans want to roll back the Bush tax cuts, and want big corporations to pay a higher share of their record profits in taxes, both in order to reduce the deficit.

So what, might you ask, does the crystal ball say? Apparently Obama, who couldn't smell a political can't-lose situation if it was Meat Loaf's sockless foot after a 3 hour show in leather boots and he was a truffle-sniffing pig, is working on a "compromise" that would LOWER the corporate tax rates (making the very rich that much richer), while maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the rich, AND slashing Medicare and Medicaid.

They're all a bunch of ignorant douche bags. Fuck 'em ll.

[Seven Wishes2]

You irretrievably stupid motherfucker!

You're not reading - you're diverting.

EIGHTY ONE PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS WANT MILLIONAIRES TO PAY MORE TAXES.

SEVEN IN TEN WANT THOSE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 TO PAY MORE TAXES.

THREE IN ONE HUNDRED WANT CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Nothing I wrote or posted says ANYTHING else.

Nice try.

ADDRESS THE FACTS.

Republicans are FUCKED if they insist on cutting Medicare or Medicaid and DOUBLE FUCKED if they don't agree to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.

Stop baiting and switching and ADDRESS THE ACTUAL FACTS IN THE ACTUAL POLL, dumbass.

And I was responding to the 15 prior posts to the ONE you made. Everyone else in the world knows that I was referring to the Medicare and taxes poll.

Boy, do you look stupid.

[conversationpc]

You irretrievably stupid motherfucker!

You're not reading - you're diverting.

EIGHTY ONE PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS WANT MILLIONAIRES TO PAY MORE TAXES.

SEVEN IN TEN WANT THOSE MAKING MORE THAN $250,000 TO PAY MORE TAXES.

THREE IN ONE HUNDRED WANT CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.

Nothing I wrote or posted says ANYTHING else.

Nice try.

ADDRESS THE FACTS.

Republicans are FUCKED if they insist on cutting Medicare or Medicaid and DOUBLE FUCKED if they don't agree to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.

Stop baiting and switching and ADDRESS THE ACTUAL FACTS IN THE ACTUAL POLL, dumbass.

And I was responding to the 15 prior posts to the ONE you made. Everyone else in the world knows that I was referring to the Medicare and taxes poll.

Boy, do you look stupid.

Only dummies want people making $250,000+ to pay more taxes simply because they make more money. Most of those folks are small business owners, the ones we rely on to provide more jobs, that will have their own taxes raised. Those folks have to report their business income as their own and they already pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the average American.

[Seven Wishes2]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.

I guess a vast majority of economists and more than 80 percent of the country are stupid, eh, Dave? And I suppose Clinton almost took us to the poor house, what with the lowest unemployment rate in decades and that annoying budget surplus.

Completely untrue.

Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate that only 3 percent of small businesses would be subject to the higher tax, and many studies of previous tax increases suggest that it would have minimal impact on hiring.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/smallbusiness/18smallbiz.html?src=busln

[Monker]

It doesn't make any difference.

People don't REALLY want to balance the budget. If any politician was SERIOUS about it, they would raise the taxes, cut the defense budget, rework entitlements so who can afford it do not get all or maybe no benefits at all.

No politician will suggest doing ALL of that because he would never get elected. Well, maybe Ron Paul - but, as I said, he'll never get elected.

the deficit is just a wedge issue to be used by the party out of power in not so good economic times. It's nothing but scare tactics to put the other side on the defense.

[slucero]

What's annoying about that surplus is that it never existed... the Clinton surplus is at best an accounting trick.

from here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:



So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year.

What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years.

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

[donnaplease]

I love it when liberals tell "the rich" that "they should pay their fair share of taxes". If it's true that the bottom half of Americans pay no income tax at all, then how can whatever they are paying not be a "fair" share? I understand they may have more ability to pay than those with lower incomes, but wouldn't a "fair share" include everyone contributing something? I guess that's why I think a flat tax rate would be the only "fair" way to do it.

There have always been "the haves and the have nots" and they will continue to exist. We have to stop stereotyping and vilifying them for their good fortune. However... I do agree that they are getting some perks that the rest of us aren't getting. The jet tax break really bugs me. I'm sure there are lots more of those perks that should be repealed.

[Seven Wishes2]

Whatever.

The debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product decreased from 66.1% under Bush Sr. to 56.4% after Clinton left office.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

Dumbya promptly increased the debt by $4 trillion thanks to his wars and tax cuts for the wealthy - and debt as a percentage of the GDP soared to an unprecedented 85% when that louse left office.

Also, the public debt went from 47% when Clinton took office DOWN to 36% when he left.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/etc/ednote.html

Try again.

[S2M]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

[steveo777]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

[slucero]

Whatever.

The debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product decreased from 66.1% under Bush Sr. to 56.4% after Clinton left office.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

Dumbya promptly increased the debt by $4 trillion thanks to his wars and tax cuts for the wealthy - and debt as a percentage of the GDP soared to an unprecedented 85% when that louse left office.

ok.. but that's a bit of a strawman argument there... I wasn't talking about Debt/GDP....

Also, the public debt went from 47% when Clinton took office DOWN to 36% when he left.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/etc/ednote.html

Try again.

Think I said that....

from here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:



So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year.

What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt --notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years.

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

[Monker]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

And, unless you include Capital Gains as 'income' (which it should be, IMO), the 'rich' can still get a HUGE tax break over the poor who are not investing in the markets.

[Monker]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Except for those who can afford to buy their expensive goods out of the country. Why not just buy that Mercedes in Canada and drive it back to the US if you can save so much on taxes? In fact, what is to stop any smart person from buying everything the can thru the Internet and having it shipped to the US, tax free? And, it will affect the states income which comes so much from sales taxes. If you take a 8% state tax and then add another 8% federal tax, the middle income is going to be screwed.

The federal sales tax is an idea that only a fool of a politician would support.

[Seven Wishes2]

And, oh...how they danced...the little people of Stonehenge.

[Monker]

Whatever.

The debt as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product decreased from 66.1% under Bush Sr. to 56.4% after Clinton left office.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11766

Dumbya promptly increased the debt by $4 trillion thanks to his wars and tax cuts for the wealthy - and debt as a percentage of the GDP soared to an unprecedented 85% when that louse left office.

ok.. but that's a bit of a strawman argument there... I wasn't talking about Debt/GDP....

Also, the public debt went from 47% when Clinton took office DOWN to 36% when he left.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/etc/ednote.html

Try again.

Think I said that....

from here: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:



So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year.

What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt --notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years.

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

What Clinton did was benefit from a good economy and didn't fuck it up.

What Bush did was take a stalled economy and fucked it up by doing nothing for it but lowering taxes - which does NOT work in the long term. He took a mediocre situation and turned into a horrid one by pacifying the public with tax cuts and ignoring the real issues.

[S2M]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Lower income people will buy even less goods and services that way. Less money going into the economy. I don't think that will work. I'm in favor of flat tax %.

You underestimate consumer psychology. And before you reply to a topic make sure you are learned about it. The low income people you refer to will be given a 'pre-bate'...The government isn't entitled to any income tax....with the way people spend, revenue will be collected, and when that up and coming movie star or actress wants that new mansion - tack on another 23%. Can't beat that. The Flat Tax Palestine in comparison...

[steveo777]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Except for those who can afford to buy their expensive goods out of the country. Why not just buy that Mercedes in Canada and drive it back to the US if you can save so much on taxes? In fact, what is to stop any smart person from buying everything the can thru the Internet and having it shipped to the US, tax free? And, it will affect the states income which comes so much from sales taxes. If you take a 8% state tax and then add another 8% federal tax, the middle income is going to be screwed.

The federal sales tax is an idea that only a fool of a politician would support.

And people trying to skirt taxes by buying out of country will just cause government to get bigger to police all that activity. Sales tax idea fails on the drawing board.

[conversationpc]

The Flat Tax is still an income tax, and therefore unacceptable. The Fair Tax is the way to go. A national sales tax would collect taxes from ALL those who currently pay no taxes: illegals, drug dealers, and businesses that hide in the tax code.

Except for those who can afford to buy their expensive goods out of the country. Why not just buy that Mercedes in Canada and drive it back to the US if you can save so much on taxes? In fact, what is to stop any smart person from buying everything the can thru the Internet and having it shipped to the US, tax free? And, it will affect the states income which comes so much from sales taxes. If you take a 8% state tax and then add another 8% federal tax, the middle income is going to be screwed.

The federal sales tax is an idea that only a fool of a politician would support.

And people trying to skirt taxes by buying out of country will just cause government to get bigger to police all that activity. Sales tax idea fails on the drawing board.

That happens already but would actually be less likely with something like the fair tax since, overall, prices would be more likely to remain about where they would be now considering all other federal taxes would have to go away to institute the fair tax in the first place.

[S2M]

Easily fixed if you raise taxes and tariffs on imported goods, and start taxing items bought on internet....and by the way....the Fair Tax replaces ANY and all existing taxes...coupled with repealing the 16th amendment - will solve the financial woes of the country....