What is Digg?95 Comments
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -11/+39What the ***** are you talking about? Clinton had a budget SURPLUS when he was in office.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -16/+42Yes, it can't go down instantly. Right now, it's going down at a very good speed. This is nothing but a good thing. Let's hope that this trent continues.
- smfullman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32I think the national debt is more like $8.5 trillion: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Also, for a graph depicting debt over the last 50 years: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -26/+49Yeah.. "deficit this year is extraordinarily high rather than disastrously high"
- truspector, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34Actually Clinton balanced the budget before leaving office.
- neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -21/+38If only this related to the 7+ TRILLION debt.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+3823r:
>Lowering taxes works
Yes it does, it worked to turn the surplus into a deficit.
Now, three months from now, the government will quietly announce that in fact the deficit projection was off, just like they did with the unemployment numbers, the GDP growth numbers, and the number of casualties in August.
Counting on the morons to not remember. - thelandlady, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20there was a budget surplus projected over 5 yrs when Bush entered office. Then he gave away tax cuts...remember? Doesn't everyone remember the little check they got in the mail to help spur the economy?
In 2000 there was a balancec budget and if they kept making the cuts like they were, they would've had a surplus. They didn't make any cuts and actually added more spending. Now we have an even larger deficit.
How quickly we all forget.... - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16more sources... (since you asked)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
http://www.brookings.org/views/papers/orszag/20020829.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30602-2001Aug18
Don't believe everything you hear on Faux News, Frank. - chrisgac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Take a look at the history:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/budgetdeficit.htm
Which president has just left office in 2000 again? - ucg1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16During Clinton there was a surplus, during Bush we had a deficit. This graph shows how dramatic it was:
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif
The source of that graph is "Congressional Budget Office"
It 2001-present, but I think present was 2002 or 2003 at the time. - revthwack, on 10/12/2007, -16/+28Oh, there was once once, but then Bush got into office.
- tooslickvan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16I guess re borrowing a quarter of a trillion dollars each year is better than a third of a trillion dollars. Someone should send Bush a cookie.
And the Washington Post also deserves a cookie for spinning a quarter trillion dollar deficit into something positive. Notice the words the article uses: gusher of tax revenues, fell to xxx dollars, smallest amount of red ink. George Orwell would be proud. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I'm sure apologies from those who said Clinton did not have a surplus will be coming shortly, but did anybody notice anything else interesting about the budget/deficit list that chrisgac linked?
The worst deficits all came under Reagan, Ford, and Bush Sr, all Republicans. So much for fiscal conservatism. - diggumjonez, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Sept 27, 2000 - President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16This is the trade difference not to be confused with the national debt.
This is *****, as we are in the hole TRILLIONS! - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12this is not even accurate...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15632189.htm
http://www.startribune.com/484/story/709187.html
------- from the 2nd link:
"In practice, all the money Washington collects goes into the same pot and gets spent the same. On paper, we say we'll pay Social Security back later," said Brian Riedl, chief budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center.
So the deficit is actually about $437 billion, the CBO calculates -- the $260 billion official deficit plus the $177 billion borrowed from the trust fund. Since the money is "borrowed," it adds to the gross federal debt, which is expected to reach about $8.5 trillion by Jan. 1.
This is why New York investment bank Goldman Sachs & Co. issued a dour report Sept. 22 titled, "The U.S. Budget Outlook: No Lasting Improvement." - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -22/+30Wake me up when we start talking about how the *surplus* is the lowest it's been in X years.
(and I thought democrats were supposed to be the big spenders -- the hypocrisy of the system never ceases to amaze me) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20How about lowering taxes for the 98% of us that got mostly left out. ***** neos... think they are gop. Never seen a government bigger than under their freaken watch..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10actually the trade deficiet shouldnt be confused with the budget deficiet..
WE have so many economic markets that it sounds confusing.
Budget deficiet is how much more it costs to run the government, over what we budgeted it for. And they often steal from SS to make up for it.(we could actually reduce this by reducing the pay of our elected officials, and the number of staff they have, it is crazy we pay someone 30,000 just to open up presents for the pesident and of course entitlements, but i say trim the employee wages first)
Trade deficiet if the net difference between the dollars going out the country versus the dollars coming in.
The debt is the scarey part, this is what we actually owe. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The interest payments alone are scary.
- lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@Franksmith
I'd like to see some proof of that.
source? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Americans are so used to hearing about a budget deficit, it seems like good news when the deficit shrinks. However, if ever year of our lives we spent more money than we made, it would lead us to an inevitable financial disaster. We would lose everything eventually. So we need to see no deficit anymore... but rather a 'budget surplus'. Funny how you never hear of a U.S. budget surplus.... meaning we spend LESS money than our budget allowed. Spending less money would allow us to payoff some of that trillions in debt we have accumulated.
- Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Good Lord, to call this good news is to be happy to be asked when you stopped beating your spouse.
Remember: the war is off-budget. Borrowing from Social Security is off-budget. I think even the appropriations for Katrina relief were off-budget. - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"dugg down for requesting a source.....?"
dugg down for lying without a source. - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9to put those numbers in perspective...
reported deficit: $260 billion -- $870 per man/woman/child
actual deficit: $437 billion -- $1,460 per man/woman/child
(that's just for this ONE YEAR)
national debt: $8.5 trillion -- $28,500 per man/woman/child
per capita median income: $25,036 (2005) - Klaumbaz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Clinton's Surplus:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
not 1, but 2 of them mentioned in the article. - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wow, and here I was thinking it was common knowledge.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Middle:
>Now be honest with yourself. You don't think that a war going on in addition to bloated pork spending has anything to do with the deficit? Get real.
Both the Republican bloated spending and the Republican "war time tax cuts" have contributed to the Republican deficit. - inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@parker
maybe you should double check your facts before you make condescending corrections. - altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Unfortunately this doesn't count any of the money being spent in Iraq or Afghanistan. So guess what...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6wow it helps to be correct before accusing someone that they cant read. ANd especially if you choose to call them names.
and does it really sound like mbalionel is bush bashing... man the bush supporters are tender. I mean geez dude. - FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So misleading. The current budget doesn't account for the future expansion of social security, medicare and the drug benefit. Most of the money politicians are spending today won't be on the books for years.
Todays deficit is like looking at your checking account. It doesn't factor all the money you've racked on your credit card. Just because you have money in your checking account doesn't mean that you're on solid financial footing. - pmathews, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9More Bush propaganda. You have to realize that this number isn't actually following standard business accounting practices.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -30/+33lowest in 4 years??
WOw it hasnt been this low since... errr since the first 4 years of the bush administration...
is this something to be proud of?
TO me this is like a Christmas sale, 50% off but too bad they had raised the prices by 250% in november
and since only the lowest in 4 years... does that mean it was actually even lower at some point during this administration? - indiggent, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11There is no such thing as a budget surplus. All government agencies will spend every last penny so that they can justify getting the same or more next year. And this is from the efforts of govt. employees, not Dems and Reps. Get off the blame game and try influencing your civil servants, otherwise known as your next door neighbors if you want to see change.
- mbalionel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What they aren't telling you is that the uptick in tax receipts is due to a large increase in corporate profits. So, if you look at it this way: Bush's tax cuts reduced the taxes on corporations and the richest Americans. However, if tax receipts from corporations are up, then it logically follows that it is because corporate profits are at an all time high. How else do you explain record tax receipts from a lower tax rate? The Laffer Curve applies but it cannot fully account for these record receipts.
- DrinkingNyquil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yes, good old Reagan.
He agreed to the $165 billion bailout of social security, dramatically increasing payroll taxes on employees and employers and taxed Social Security benefits on upper-income recipients.
One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. He considered the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--as "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.
Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business.
All told, Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.
In his second term the Tax Reform Act of 1986 imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history, raising corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closing corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.
Need I continue? - WarPirate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Im wondering why someone dugg this down...Im a hardcore conservative but this is a legitimate source and should be no reason for diggin it down.
However you will take note that Bush also had surpluses too and if the truth be known we all know that the current economic state is generally caused by the administration from the previous term. - inkyblue2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5nope, the article is talking about the budget deficit.
not to downplay the other part of your comment-- the huge debt number. nothing like the national debt clock to cheer a fellow up:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ - smfullman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6BTW notice that second one is debt as a % of GDP, not total debt
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Makes Al Gore's "lock box" sound a little less like "fuzzy math" and more like common sense, doesn't it?
You know, considering how much the Republicans hate tax and spend Democrats, budget deficits have increased under Republicans since Nixon and have either remained steady or decreased under Democrats since Truman. Aren't you people tired of being lied to and lying to yourselves?
http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bush_deficit_graphic.gif - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Hey little neo-cons: Mod me down.
But that bell you'll be hearing in November?
It tolls for thee. - waynechng, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why is this news when there wasn't a deficit, but a surplus, 6 years ago?
Also, the cost of the war in Iraq is not tallied into the budget deficit so the numbers are inaccurate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5it must not tinkle all the way down to me.,, It sure seems to go to stock holders as dividend increases
- BCPneumatics, on 02/11/2009, -0/+1indiggent: "There is no such thing as a budget surplus"
Tell that to Bill.
http://www.maybelogic.org/maybequarterly/03/Bush%2 ... - CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Clinton no doubt benefited from Reaganomics... as Bush benefited from... Berger? Kirkpatrick? Monica MIssiles?
- growler1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@mbalionel
Thank you for pointing that out. It *does* indeed seem odd that by slashing taxes, the government gets more tax revenue.
Thanks for having the cojones and smarts to say that, amidst the little neo-cons' smokescreen. - BCPneumatics, on 02/11/2009, -0/+1Democrats prove better at this than Republicans.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/0 ...
(Klaumbaz's link, not mine.) - urbandistrict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4From the very same article...
"Still, the long-term deficit picture is bleak.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit for the current budget year will rise to $286 billion. Over the next decade, the office forecasts that the deficit will total $1.76 trillion."
Also note that today's budget is DOUBLE of that of Clinton's budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_%28United_States%29
I love how 3rd grade math and crafty speech works on you people. Baa aaa ah.
Please stop voting you are ruining my country. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
