Poll
14 votes (26.41%) | |||
5 votes (9.43%) | |||
3 votes (5.66%) | |||
11 votes (20.75%) | |||
1 vote (1.88%) | |||
10 votes (18.86%) | |||
3 votes (5.66%) | |||
3 votes (5.66%) | |||
2 votes (3.77%) | |||
1 vote (1.88%) |
53 members have voted
Quote: Dalex64Not necessarily. A simple example: you have a one million dollar budget surplus. You put it all in the bank, and use none of it to pay down the debt. You then borrow more money and spend it.
Budget surplus, rising debt.
That is pretty much what happened: they decided not to apply the surplus to paying down the debt.
The total national debt includes public debt and intragovernmental holdings. Intragovernmental holdings are typically when they borrow from Social Security, or the government borrowing from itself. What Clinton paid down was public debt but he did so by borrowing WAY more from Social Security.
I think we just said the same thing. I consider it smoke and mirrors and a proverbial line of BS. They added MORE RED INK, period. Meanwhile, the government news sources, the major media, all acted like Clinton was Mr. Fiscal Responsibility. Guess what. They lied.
Of course, if it's relativity that we're talking about, Bush and the republicans came in and made Clinton look like a conservative by contrast. Now Obama has thrown that all out the window and run up more red ink than all of them put together. And 2/3 of the members on this forum seem to think he walks on water. Meanwhile, the Bush Crime Family is going to vote for Hillary. THERE IS NO TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. IT'S ALL A FARCE. One group of people, behind the scenes, trying to destroy this country.
Quote: bobbartopMeanwhile, the Bush Crime Family is going to vote for Hillary. THERE IS NO TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. IT'S ALL A FARCE. One group of people, behind the scenes, trying to destroy this country.
It's impossible to get on the same page if you don't read books.Quote: rxwineWell, if the first step to solving problems is to get everyone on the same page, ya'll are never going to have any luck I'm afraid.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's impossible to get on the same page if you don't read books.
This guy generates so many red flags why he shouldn't be in charge of the most powerful country on Earth, it's scary.
What I found interesting is that the interest expense on the 5.6 trillion of debt back then was 360 billion. Now with 18+ trillion in debt and according to the 2015 report the interest expense on debt is 405 billion. Huh.
Quote: boymimboClinton had control only of the portion held by the public.
Doesn't the president put his signature on all expenditures? I'm asking. I don't know.
Quote: boymimboWhile Clinton can a surplus during those years mentioned, federal debt did go up due to intergovernmental holdings which represents liabilities such as pension funds and old age security. It's accounting. Clinton had control only of the portion held by the public.
What I found interesting is that the interest expense on the 5.6 trillion of debt back then was 360 billion. Now with 18+ trillion in debt and according to the 2015 report the interest expense on debt is 405 billion. Huh.
Lower interest rates.
The average rate of interest paid on the debt in 1999 was 6.36%, vs. 2.2% today.
Quote: TankoLower interest rates.
The average rate of interest paid on the debt in 1999 was 6.36%, vs. 2.2% today.
This is the real scary part...think what happens to our national debt & country's financial health when interest rates go back to their historical normal range. Fiscal responsibility and paying down the National Debt should be a much bigger theme in this Presidential cycle than it is...and we won't be able to tax the top 5% more to solve the entire problem. Spending cuts across the board are going to have to happen as well including Defense, Social Security & Medicare...it is going to be painful for everyone. Instead we spend the debate talking about spending more on infrastructure and creating jobs through more gov't spending...spending money we don't have...this is a lot more crazy than the fact that Trump has gotten this far in the election. The problem with Democracy is that everyone votes based on what is best for themselves & screw it if that isn't a sustainable path for the nation as a whole..."I am gonna get mine!"...and so here we are, a democracy that keeps those in power that provide the largest number of people and richest corporate donors satisfied they are getting their piece, while the country travels down a non-sustainable path of fiscal irresponsibility...because surprise surprise, we can't afford it all!
Quote: ParadigmThis is the real scary part...think what happens to our national debt & country's financial health when interest rates go back to their historical normal range. Fiscal responsibility and paying down the National Debt should be a much bigger theme in this Presidential cycle than it is...and we won't be able to tax the top 5% more to solve the entire problem. Spending cuts across the board are going to have to happen as well including Defense, Social Security & Medicare...it is going to be painful for everyone. Instead we spend the debate talking about spending more on infrastructure and creating jobs through more gov't spending...spending money we don't have...this is a lot more crazy than the fact that Trump has gotten this far in the election. The problem with Democracy is that everyone votes based on what is best for themselves & screw it if that isn't a sustainable path for the nation as a whole..."I am gonna get mine!"...and so here we are, a democracy that keeps those in power that provide the largest number of people and richest corporate donors satisfied they are getting their piece, while the country travels down a non-sustainable path of fiscal irresponsibility...because surprise surprise, we can't afford it all!
What form of government does better than a democracy? The problem isn't "I am gonna get mine." The problem is that lobbyists are still in the back pockets of politicians which completely disables the government to eschew political donations to do what is right and what their constituents ask for.
The problem is easy to solve but lawmakers won't do it. Just pass some strict anti-corruption laws and start unemploying lobbyists. No more NRA, tobacco, big pharma, or Planned Parenthood special interests. Just try to do what is right for your constituents based on the problems of the day. Governments who are not affected by lobbyists are good at creating long-term policies that help their people. America still somehow manages though.
Quote: rxwineWell, if the first step to solving problems is to get everyone on the same page, ya'll are never going to have any luck I'm afraid.
Actually, I've found that that isn't really necessary. There are such things as mutually compatible goals. Case in point: I have a number of conservative/Republican friends (yes! I haven't had to kill them all!) whose opinions I respect. They and I have grappled with one of the essential liberal vs. conservative conflicts: should there be such a thing as public welfare? An extreme statement of each side's position would be: C) the poor are lazy and stupid, and we just enable them by giving them food and medical care, and in the process, we cripple American business, and L) it's humane to make sure that people don't die for lack of food or medical care regardless of how "worthy" they may or may not be, and as far as costs go, we can just rape all the rich people.
Now, these are fundamentally opposing positions, and can't be reconciled. However, I have convinced some of those friends that redistributive programs actually help the rich, in that dead customers are not good customers. Keep the unworthy alive and kicking, and they'll buy the stuff you make and consume the services you provide. That more than makes up for the higher taxes the rich have to pay to support that system. Everybody wins. (At this point, I start talking about the economic multiplier effect, and everybody's eyes glaze over. Hey, you can only get so far :) )
If you keep in mind that for 99% of the country's inhabitants, all that matters is their rice bowls, the solution to ideological conflict presents itself. So if liberals want to convince conservatives of their positions, or vice versa for that matter, they have to couch those positions in terms of fuller rice bowls for everyone.
Quote: boymimboWhile Clinton can a surplus during those years mentioned, federal debt did go up due to intergovernmental holdings which represents liabilities such as pension funds and old age security. It's accounting. Clinton had control only of the portion held by the public.
What I found interesting is that the interest expense on the 5.6 trillion of debt back then was 360 billion. Now with 18+ trillion in debt and according to the 2015 report the interest expense on debt is 405 billion. Huh.
Yeah, that's a valid point, but how did Clinton ever have "control" of any portion of the federal debt, held by the public or otherwise? She wasn't connected to federal fiscal policy at any point in her political career.
This overall misperception of Clinton's career may be an infection deriving from Trump's accusing Hillary of having had a direct hand in and blame for all the world's problems in the last thirty years, including plagues, tsunamis, etc., but her role in national policy was only significant when she was secretary of state, and even then, she was part of the executive, not the legislative branch. When she was part of the legislative branch, she was only one of 100 senators. (The executive branch does not set fiscal policy.)
Quote: RogerKintThe "elites" have figured out that debt is irrelevant. As long as our military industrial complex can defend the pertro dollar we can enslave the world because they are FORCED to buy our debt no matter how absurd it is. Two trillion, 90 trillion doesn't matter.
And I think I've already mentioned the mind control rays being beamed at us from Zebulon Five. We are being tricked into mass consumption of Quarter Pounders and french fries, all of which contain the secret chemical that will gradually turn us into robot slaves of our alien overlords.
What, you didn't think McDonald's was run by HUMANS, did you?
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYeah, that's a valid point, but how did Clinton ever have "control" of any portion of the federal debt, held by the public or otherwise? She wasn't connected to federal fiscal policy at any point in her political career.
This overall misperception of Clinton's career may be an infection deriving from Trump's accusing Hillary of having had a direct hand in and blame for all the world's problems in the last thirty years, including plagues, tsunamis, etc., but her role in national policy was only significant when she was secretary of state, and even then, she was part of the executive, not the legislative branch. When she was part of the legislative branch, she was only one of 100 senators. (The executive branch does not set fiscal policy.)
I was talking about Bill.
Quote: realDonaldTrumpI won the debate if you decide without watching the totally one-sided "spin" that followed. This despite the really bad microphone.
This man is totally divorced from reality. Even his supporters are becoming uncomfortable by how unhinged he's been this week after getting beaten in the debate by a woman.
All this talk about the microphone - he's setting up himself to drop out of the 2nd debate because it's "rigged."
If you want a career politician that has prepared her whole life to lie and be two faced and speak tactically, then Clinton won.
Quote: jjjooogggI don't keep up with the debate.
Common tactic by Trump surrogates/supporters/defenders.
"I didn't see/hear/read the debate/his racist comments/his awful tweet. So I can't comment."
Paul Ryan does that all the time to avoid having to defend him.
Marco Rubio claims he didn't see the debate.
It's always a lie.
Quote: boymimboWhat form of government does better than a democracy?
Just about everything. And that's why we are not a democracy. The word does not exist in the Constitution nor the constitutions of any of the 50 states. The Founders wrote at length about the dangers of democracy and what a horrible thing it is. And that's why they gave us a republic. I learned that in 7th grade. It's about the ONLY thing I did learn in school.
Quote: boymimboI was talking about Bill.
Oh that's rich. Mr. Know-it-all thought it was Hillary we were talking about. Be sure to remind him when he gets out of jail in six days. If he doesn't squeeze through the bars earlier than that again. He's a slippery little devil.
Quote: WizardJoe, you were supposed to be on suspension. I guess I forgot to click "ban." See you on Oct 6.
Somebody should bake a cake, we could have a little coming home party for Joe.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikAnd I think I've already mentioned the mind control rays being beamed at us from Zebulon Five. We are being tricked into mass consumption of Quarter Pounders and french fries, all of which contain the secret chemical that will gradually turn us into robot slaves of our alien overlords.
What, you didn't think McDonald's was run by HUMANS, did you?
Well, well, well you called me stupid then blocked me but now you're responding to one of my posts. It's a festivus miracle!
Our world is not a planet and there are no other distant planets so no need for tinfoil.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYeah, that's a valid point, but how did Clinton ever have "control" of any portion of the federal debt, held by the public or otherwise? She wasn't connected to federal fiscal policy at any point in her political career.
This overall misperception of Clinton's career may be an infection deriving from Trump's accusing Hillary of having had a direct hand in and blame for all the world's problems in the last thirty years, including plagues, tsunamis, etc., but her role in national policy was only significant when she was secretary of state, and even then, she was part of the executive, not the legislative branch. When she was part of the legislative branch, she was only one of 100 senators. (The executive branch does not set fiscal policy.)
Interest rates.
If the rates go to zero, we can borrow unlimited money.