Saturday, November 5, 2011
Kennedy Challenged Him For a Reason
Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man. And, no, not everything bad that happened during his time in office was totally his fault. But the facts are the facts, folks. Jimmy Carter's Presidency was NOT a successful one. I mean, just take a look at the economic numbers, for Christ. By January, 1980, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, the inflation rate was 13.9%, and the prime interest rate was pushing 16% (and, please, keep in mind, this is only the rate that the "good" customers get and even this went up to 20% by April of 1980). Add to that the long gas lines, the Iranian hostage situation, the botched attempt to free the hostages and, yeah, you can really see why Mr. Carter's face will never, ever, EVER, appear on Mount Rushmore..........................................................................................P.S. Obviously Mr. Carter deserves a lot of credit for his brokering of a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. That, folks, was probably his greatest accomplishment as President. That, and he also deserves a lot of credit for some of his post Presidential initiatives; Habitat for Humanity, in particular.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
61 comments:
Kennedy thought he could win.
Carter became president at a crappy time to become president. Not that that would have made a difference. But the hostages got home safely and he brokered the only mideast peace deal ever. Doubt anyone else could have done any better.
The liberal Democrat, Eugene McCarthy, endorsed Reagan. His rationale was the fact that Mr. Carter proved impotent to stop inflation......I myself voted for Anderson (actually campaigned for the guy with the campus chaplain).
Presidents are judged by the climate they inherit. It is part of the game and a true strategist would consider it when he runs.
Is Obama Jimmy Carter in black face?
Obama would have made the Iranians pay for the hostage taking Rusty. He's ordered drones and missions into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden and other terrorists. He's ordered pirates killed. That asshole in Yemen he had killed and plenty of others.
Obama inherited a mess left solely by a republican administration. Carter's was by the mistrust left by Nixon and OPEC.
Economic strategy is totally different now.
Truth said: "That asshole in Yemen he had killed and plenty of others."
The guy in Yemen was a US citizen, so some have big problems with us sending in a drone to take him out.
However, he's had years to turn himself in, but he insisted instead on committing atrocities. So this one was no more "murder" than it is murder when the police snipers shoot a bank robber who has killed several hostages and is just about to commit more.
----------------
Truth said: "Obama inherited a mess left solely by a republican administration."
And by himself and his own allies. For example, Senator Obama approved the massive TARP bailout which made the debt so much worse.
According the the Treasury Department, the long term cost of TARP will be $48 billion, hardly a big debt maker.
The treasury department figures can be interesting. They show no Clinton budget surplus at all.
Jimmy Carter would have been elected to a second term if not for Reagan's treason (his negotiating with the Iranians to hold the hostages to after the election). Apparently the voters at the time (who were largely supporting Carter until Reagan's October Surprise cost him the election) didn't view him as a "failure".
Personally I view Carter as the best president of my lifetime.
That's true, dmarks. "Off budget" items do not show up in the budget, but are accounted for in the debt figures. If you want to see a big difference, look at Bush's budget figures versus the his debt figures. His wars were "off-budget".
dmarks: The treasury department figures can be interesting. They show no Clinton budget surplus at all.
dmarks lies. Clinton ran a budget surplus. The national debt continued to rise, but that was because of interest on the national debt ran up by Reagan and bush the elder (and, if Clinton had gotten a third term, he would have begun to pay that down as well).
But, as far as Clinton's budgets are concerned, he took in more money then he spent. Anyone who suggests otherwise (by making Clinton responsible for Reagan's debts) is a dirty liar.
WD said: "[Reagan] negotiating with the Iranians to hold the hostages to after the election"
That's another urban legend. There's no evidence Reagan did this, therefore no treason. Wikipedia puts this fiction in its place, alongside the Illuminati wild claims as a "conspiracy theory", not anything that actually occured, and not actually treason. Those who believe this to be "True' are just like those who believe Obama to be born in Kenya.
------------
WD said: "dmarks lies. Clinton ran a budget surplus."
Actually, I am referring to Obama's own Treasury Department and its figures.
"The national debt continued to rise, but that was because of interest on the national debt ran up by Reagan and bush the elder"
And by Clinton, who chose to run up the debt by $1.6 more trillion, instead of reducing it. And yes you are right about this. The interest on the debt was part of the reason there was no Clinton surplus. The problem is, WD, that paying interest is part of the income and outgo of the government (or a family, or a business). You can't just wish it away. It is part of spending, and if there is more spending than income, there's a deficit.
And Clinton ran up nothing but deficits. Like his predecessors and those who came after him.
"and, if Clinton had gotten a third term, he would have begun to pay that down as well"
He did not pay down the debt, and only increased it. Based on his first two terms, one can reasonably project that he would have added another $0.8 trillion to it.
"But, as far as Clinton's budgets are concerned, he took in more money then he spent."
According to the Treasure Department's figured on the Clin ton years, every year he was in office the Federal government spent a lot more than it took in. Every single year.
"Anyone who suggests otherwise (by making Clinton responsible for Reagan's debts) is a dirty liar."
No. Clinton is responsible for his own constant 8 years of deficit spending, to a total of more than $1.5 trillion dollars.
These two pages, here and here are from the Treasury Department and dispel any idea that there was a Clinton surplus, or the flat-out lie that "he took in more money then he spent.
The cold hard financial figures show the debt always going up on Clinton's watch.
There is a difference between the budget and the debt. If you look at the budget ONLY, Clinton had a surplus as shown in Table 1.3 from here.
However, the total debt continued to increase as shown in Table 7.1 from the same source.
You gentlemen are talking apples and oranges. One is talking budget and the other is talking debt. Sorry, two different (but related) things.
"Carter became president at a crappy time to become president."
I think we just heard a preview of the Obama defense. It wasn't his fault! Any president would've had the same slow recovery and the same high unemployment! Brilliant!
dmarks: [Regan's October surprise is] ...another urban legend. There's no evidence Reagan did this... Those who believe this to be True are just like those who believe Obama to be born in Kenya.
No, Reagan's October Surprise and Obama having been born in Kenya have nothing to do with one another. Reagan's October Surprise has been proven to be factual, while Obama being born in Kenya is a lie that has been debunked.
dmarks: These two pages... from the Treasury Department and dispel any idea that there was a Clinton surplus, or the flat-out lie that he took in more money then he spent.
No they don't. There is a difference between a yearly budget and the national debt. Factcheck.org debunks dmarks' flat out lie regarding the Clinton surpluses here.
Heathen Republican: I think we just heard a preview of the Obama defense. It wasn't his fault! Any president would've had the same slow recovery and the same high unemployment! Brilliant!
The sputtering economy is primarily bush's and the obstructionist Republican Congress' fault. Brilliant? No, just the truth.
Jerry: The debt is the accumulation of the deficit from each budget.
--------------
WD said: "No, Reagan's October Surprise and Obama having been born in Kenya have nothing to do with one another."
Both are non-factual, relegated to the status of myth, false claim, or 'conspiracy theory'. They have a lot in common. They are both fake political stories without basis cooked up to discredit opposing politicians.
From Wikipedia:
"Government debt, the accumulated amount of deficit
this page:
"So each year's deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,
it's called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt."
And this page:
"The National Debt, on the other hand, is the accumulation of all the Budget Deficits for every year"
I've found many more. All of them fit with what I am saying. None of them back up the claim of WD and others that the debt and deficit are not directly related in this fashion.
In all of Clinton's years, as shown in the actual Treasury department numbers, the debt went UP. According to the actual relationship between the debt and deficit (see above) this is just one indicator that Clinton had no surplus in any year.
WD, I am not "lying" that there was no Clinton surplus. I am merely reporting what Obama's own Treasury Department shows. Where the rubber hits the road, the debt does not go down in any year (evidence of a surplus). Just solid red ink. This isn't from Rush Limbaugh. Or Sean Hannity. It's from the Obama Administration.
------------
WD said: "The sputtering economy is primarily bush's and the obstructionist Republican Congress' fault. Brilliant? No, just the truth."
Well, it was Bush's fault on Jan 20, 2009 and before. After this, Obama took over. And he chose policies that increased unemployment by 20% and the national debt by 50%. And his policies have kept the economy sputtering.
And for two of these years; the years in which Obama made things the worst, there was no "obstructionist Republican congress". The President and his party controlled both houses of Congress.
dmarks,
Explain the differences between the two tables I referenced in an earlier post.
WD,I'm sure you watched LSU/Bama last night...what a game..it was all you and I hoped for...just smashing!
dmarks: I am not "lying" that there was no Clinton surplus. I am merely reporting what Obama's own Treasury Department shows.
Factcheck.org debunked your claim of no Clinton surplus (see my previous comment for the link). You are not "merely reporting what Obama's own Treasury Department shows", because the Treasury dept under Obama isn't reporting this. I looked at the pages you linked to... nowhere on any of these pages does it show Clinton did not run a budget surplus. You ARE lying.
dmarks: [Obama] chose policies that increased unemployment by 20% and the national debt by 50%. And his policies have kept the economy sputtering.
Incorrect. Obama did not "choose" to keep unemployment high, nor did he choose to increase the national debt. The Republicans chose this by refusing to pass a jobs bill and by refusing to allow the bush tax cuts to expire.
Rusty: I'm sure you watched LSU/Bama last night... what a game.. it was all you and I hoped for... just smashing!
I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know who "LSU" or "Bama" are... although if I had to guess I'd say the university of somewhere versus the university of Alabama in a basketball game.
I don't know what "LS" is. It isn't a state abbreviation, so I give up. Maybe Rusty is playing a joke by making up fake team names. In any case, I really don't care.
Wd said: "nowhere on any of these pages does it show Clinton did not run a budget surplus. You ARE lying."
Actually, check again. The pages show the debt going up each year (a situation which resulted from constant yearly budget deficits).
"Obama did not "choose" to keep unemployment high, nor did he choose to increase the national debt. The Republicans chose this by refusing to pass a jobs bill and by refusing to allow the bush tax cuts to expire."
The Republicans were not in a position to block anything.
We had this debate before and I believed that I had settled it before (both sides being partly right). Evidently not. But just for a refresher, this, from a previous post............"Here are the numbers, folks. Interpret them however you wish. But, yes/rest assured, these in fact ARE the numbers. a) In 1998, the public debt went down 55.8 billion. b) In 1999, it went down 97.8 billion. c) In 2000, it went down 230.8 billion. d) And in 2001, it went down 66.0 billion.............e) In 1998, intergovernmental holdings went up 168.9 billion. f) In 1999, they went up 227.8 billion. g) In 2000, they went up 248.7 billion. h) And in 2001, they went up 199.3 billion.............i) In 1998, the TOTAL national debt went up 113.0 billion. j) In 1999, it went up 130.1 billion. k) In 2000, it went up 17.9 billion. l) And in 2001, it went up 133.3 billion...........................................................................................So, did we (i.e., Clinton and the Republican Congress) run a surplus for those four straight years? Or was it a deficit? I don't know. I guess, folks, that it all depends on what your definition of surplus/is is..................................................................................................P.S. As far as that Politifact article which seems to support the belief that Clinton in fact did run surpluses, it was incomplete. Yes, it acknowledges the fact that some of the surplus came from Social Security borrowing. BUT, it also fails to note that there were many OTHER trust funds that government raided during those years; the Unemployment Trust, the Civil Service Retirement Trust, various transportation trusts, etc.. Those also contributed to the TOTAL national debt....Just for clarification, folks."............So, there it is, folks. Yes, the government DID run a surplus for those 4 years. BUT, it was only able to do so because it raided various trust funds. Make sense?
Oh, and, wd, Carter got bounced for a whole host of reasons (not just because of the hostage situation) - namely, the ones that I've listed; 7.1% unemployment, 13.9%!!! inflation, and 16-18% interest rates. And, really, how old were you when Carter was President? The fact that you indicate him the best leads me to think that you couldn't have been very old....and probably never had to wait in one of those gas lines.
This, from the wikipedia source provided by dmarks............"The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,[18] who claimed to be a CIA agent.[19]"............Hm, let's see now, who should I believe, Lee Hamilton, one of the finest public servants of the last 30 years, or wd, a man whose propensity toward hyperbole is damned borderline legendary? Gee, that's a tough one, huh, people?
dmarks: Actually, check again. The pages show the debt going up each year (a situation which resulted from constant yearly budget deficits).
I am not going to check again. Once was enough. The pages do not show that Clinton ran "constant yearly budget deficits" because he didn't. The national debt continued to go up, but that was IN SPITE of Clinton running surpluses (due to interest on the debt). The links you provided don't prove what you say they do.
Will: We had this debate before and I believed that I had settled it before (both sides being partly right). Evidently not.
Evidently not, indeed. You did not "settle" it before. Only the side that acknowledges the fact the Clinton administration ran surpluses is right.
Will: did we (i.e., Clinton and the Republican Congress) run a surplus for those four straight years? Or was it a deficit?
Clinton ran surpluses in his second term -- the Republican congress had nothing to do with it. They OPPOSED the Clinton tax hikes (the tax hikes that created the surpluses).
Will: ...it was only able to do so because it raided various trust funds. Make sense?
Nope. That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would the Clinton Administration be "raiding" trust funds when they were running surpluses? It doesn't make any sense. In any case, they didn't do anything that other administrations haven't done before or since.
Will: The House of Representatives' 1993 report concluded "there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran".
The "investigation" was a sham designed to sweep Reagan's treason under the rug. Also, I never said that people should take my word over Lee Hamilton's... which is why I provided a link to the truth as uncovered by investigative journalist Robert Parry.
(What comes next: dmarks accuses Robert Parry of being an anti-Semite who favors ethnic cleansing for Israel... or something else that is equally horrible).
If we use "government investigations" as the defining basis for legal behavior, no one would ever be convicted. "Government investigations" are for the purpose of protecting the guilty and covering up illegal behavior. Politicians protect their own first and foremost.
Heathen,
I think we just heard a preview of the Obama defense. It wasn't his fault! Any president would've had the same slow recovery and the same high unemployment! Brilliant!
Is it your contention that this defense is inaccurate or just that it is illogical?
I knew that you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, wd, but I thought that maybe you'd be capable of basic math. Again, slowly, the PUBLIC debt went down 55.8 billion in 1998 (for example). But intergovernmental holdings went UP 168.9 billion. 168.9 - 55.8 = 113. Get it now? The TOTAL debt went up 113 billion in 1998. Ergo, it really wasn't a surplus in the strictest sense of the term.
And what exactly are you saying here, wd, that Lee Hamilton, one of the most respected public figures in recent memory, a person who's respected by both sides of the aisle, is covering somehow for Ronald Reagan? Of course there are people out there spouting idiocy like this (Consortium News - oh, yeah, that's a real winner, I hear that they're trying to hire Anderson Cooper)!! My God, dude, you could probably find something out there that somehow connects Reagan to the Tate-Labianca murders, for Christ.
I also evidently have to remind you again about basic epistemology - namely, that you CANNOT infer causality from correlational analysis. Just because 2 things happen to occur in close proximity (in this case tax increases in 1993 and budget "surpluses" in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001) to each other, doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other. A lot of things happened in the 90, INCLUDING intense budget negotiations between Erskine Bowles and Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich (back when Mr. Gingrich was more or less sane). Those could have been factors as well.
While you are right, Will, that correlation does not infer causality, it is interesting that over the last 80 years (not just 1993), that economic growth correlates with the top marginal tax rate, with the maximum growth occurring with a rate of 60% to 70%.
If, in fact, economic growth was greater with lower tax rates, we would see the opposite. It is extremely unlikely that over the last 80 years, there was something else that limited economic growth when the taxes were lowered, but not when they were raised.
"over the last 80 years (not just 1993), that economic growth correlates with the top marginal tax rate"
interesting Jerry. i'd very much like to see that chart. Where would I find that?
Read my reference, HR.
Sorry Jerry. Not sure how I missed that the first time.
No problem. Kimel has a whole series of posts on this subject at Angry Bear.
Will said: "Ergo, it really wasn't a surplus in the strictest sense of the term."
Are you actually implying that radical notion that if you spend more than you take in, there's no surplus???
Will said: "I also evidently have to remind you again about basic epistemology - namely, that you CANNOT infer causality from correlational analysis. Just because 2 things happen to occur in close proximity (in this case tax increases in 1993 and budget "surpluses" in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001) to each other, doesn't necessarily mean that one causes the other."
Let me see if I have this right Will?
It seems you are attempting to make the case that increased revenues do not tend to cause budget surpluses, is that correct?
So by your logic would I be correct to assume that spending more than you bring in doesnt cause bankruptcy, smoking doesnt cause cancer, drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and getting behind the wheel doesnt cause car crashes, and jumping in the ocean with a 200 pound cement block chained to you doesnt cause drowning and shooting someone point blank with a 44 Magnum doesnt cause death?
Edgar,
Let me give you an example of what Will is saying.
I can say with a very high degree of certainty that virtually all cocaine addicts drank milk as a child. Are you willing to infer from that statement that drinking milk causes cocaine addiction? I'm not.
Are YOU willing to CLAIM that increased revenues dont cause budget surpluses because if you are then that claim is as ridiculous as those other statements I posted.
To say increased revenues above and beyond your budget arent correlated surpluses is as absurb as saying spending significantly more than you bring in year after year isnt correlated with bankruptcy.
Please do tell though what does bring about budget surpluses, just dont say tax cuts because the facts clearly debunk that lie as Jerry et al have posted the cult and mythology of tax cuts is over.
Nice try with the false milk and cocaine analogy though, sounds like you might have done a little too much cocaine sonny:)
Will: ...Lee Hamilton, one of the most respected public figures in recent memory, a person who's respected by both sides of the aisle, is covering somehow for Ronald Reagan?
The purpose of the "investigation" was predetermined. It was to find the Reagan campaign innocent. I'm saying Lee Hamilton knew that.
Jerry was right when he said, "Government investigations are for the purpose of protecting the guilty and covering up illegal behavior. Politicians protect their own first and foremost".
Also, while you may respect Moderation (duh), I do not.
Will: I knew that you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed, wd, but I thought that maybe you'd be capable of basic math.
I can't be any stupider then the folks at Factcheck.org, and they're professional fact checkers. At least I'm not dumb enough to think various tax rates that aren't applied to a person's entire income should all be added up when determining if someone is being taxed too much.
Will: Those could have been factors as well.
In my opinion they probably had the opposite effect. That is, the Clinton tax hikes had a beneficial effect DESPITE the spending cuts (and the negative effects on the economy they likely had). What this shows, in my opinion, is that Clinton didn't raise taxes enough.
Will I think you and several other bloggers are confused, the only other possibility is that some of you are deliberately attempting to mislead us, however at this point since I am fairly new here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are confused.
There is a clear difference between the budget and the National Debt. Will.
The Budget is the spending plan that is approved for each fiscal year, when the Budget is less than incoming tax revenues we have a surplus regardless of what the National Debt is or any other off budget emergency items approved during the year or interest on the previous National Debt.
To put in in simple terms Clinton was one of the few presidents over the last 7 decades to run surpluses and the only president to run back to back surpluses in the last 50 years and yet for some reason you seem to want to marginalize that instead of giving credit where credit is due.
Conflating a Budget Surplus with an increasing National Debt is just plain wrong. Clinton deserves great credit for being the only President over the last 50 years with back to back surpluses. this brought down interest rates and allowed unrivaled growth and prosperity to the 99% of Americans. Clinton deserves to be commended for making the politically hard decisions of putting out fiscally responsible budgets that produced surpluses, not falsely blamed for the huge deficits and the interest due on the National Debt that Reagan and others ran up before him, or on off budget spending for hurricane relief or any other off budget emergencies that might have come up.
Jerry, it is pointless to compare tax rates across history. Yes, the rates were 90% under Ike and 70% under Kennedy but there were also infinitely more loopholes and deductions back then. It wasn't until the BIPARTISAN and REVENUE NEUTRAL Tax Reform Act of 1986 that they started getting rid of some of that bullshit. What happened was that the top rates went from 50% to 28% but the people paid just as much in taxes as they did prior. So a 70% top rate prior to that act would be about a 40% top rate now (which is ironically where I myself would put it).
The relationship between taxation and revenue is a complicated one, Edgar. While my strong suspicion is that, yes, revenues probably did go up because of the tax increases of 1993, you also have to realize that, except for the 1930s, revenues went up literally EVERY SINGLE DECADE for the past century or so. They went up because the economy naturally gets stronger over time; population growth, improved technologies, etc.. So, you see what I'm saying, a whole host of other intervening variables could have been at play here?
Will said: "Jerry, it is pointless to compare tax rates across history. Yes, the rates were 90% under Ike and 70% under Kennedy but there were also infinitely more loopholes and deductions back then. It wasn't until the BIPARTISAN and REVENUE NEUTRAL Tax Reform Act of 1986 that they started getting rid of some of that bullshit."
Funny with many billionaires paying around 15% it would appear that the "BIPARTISAN and REVENUE NEUTRAL Tax Reform Act of 1986" didnt get rid of too many of those BS loopoles.
That, and did you know that total revenues to the Federal government were 1.78 trillion in 2003, and that they went up to 2.57 trillion in 2007, and that that was a 44% increase, the largest 4 year increase in American history, and that all of this happened after President Bush DECREASED TAXES. I mean, yeah, he screwed it all up by waging a couple of unnecessary wars and by pushing through a huge unpaid for entitlement program but, at least according to the Treasury Department, revenues went up markedly between 2003 and 2007. You see what I'm saying here, it's complicated?
Edgar, just for the record, I am IN FAVOR of eliminating the special consideration for Capital Gains (as is the Bowles-Simpson proposal) AND reducing the cap on mortgage interest deductions from a million to $500,000 - two proposals that will cause the wealthy to pay significantly more in taxes.
Will said: "The relationship between taxation and revenue is a complicated one, Edgar. While my strong suspicion is that, yes, revenues probably did go up because of the tax increases of 1993....."
So let me get this straight Will if you were to get a second job in order to bring in more money, then your "strong suspicion" would be that your revenue would go up:)
It would seem that 2 issues are at play here Will:
1) For some strange reason you dont want to give President Clinton any credit for having the political courage to raise taxes which brought in more revenue thus creating budget surpluses, lower interest rates and economic prosperity for EVERYONE not just the top 1%.
2) You dont seem to want to admit that raising taxes brings in more revenue and creates surpluses.
And I'm not trying to mislead anybody and I'm not confused. Here are the numbers again. The PUBLIC debt DID go down 55.8 billion in 1998. But intergovernmental holdings went up 168.8 billion. This caused the TOTAL debt to go UP 113 billion. The only reason that the surpluses showed was because the government raided various trust funds.......And this isn't a knock on Clinton. I like Clinton (and his pay as you go approach) and would love to have the opportunity to vote for the guy again. But these in fact are the numbers.
Will said: And I'm not trying to mislead anybody and I'm not confused. Here are the numbers again. The PUBLIC debt DID go down 55.8 billion in 1998. But intergovernmental holdings went up 168.8 billion. This caused the TOTAL debt to go UP 113 billion. The only reason that the surpluses showed was because the government raided various trust funds."
Sorry Will I'm not trying to insult you here but apparently you are confused if you are trying to conflating a "BUDGET SURPLUS" with the National Debt, those are two completely separate and distinct things. President Clinton deserves great credit for being the only President over the last 50 years with back to back budget surpluses. this brought down interest rates and allowed unrivaled growth and prosperity to the 99% of Americans.
Its a clear fact that President Clinton had multiple Budget Surpluses, I find it curious that you seem to be trying to marginalize those achievements by claiming that the total National Debt he inherited went up due to extraneous factors outside of the budget process such as interest on the debt he inherited from previous presidents or unforseen national disasters etc...
It would have been a more meaningful "surplus" had the government not raided all of those trust funds. Nearly a 169 billion dollars, stealing from Peter to pay Paul is a whole hell of a lot of fudging.
You find it curious? Who in the hell are you?......I'm not trying to marginalize anybody (I'm sure that Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich probably wouldn't appreciate me pointing this out, either). I'm just pointing out the fact that, when you borrow from government trust funds in order to create a surplus, it really isn't all that accurate of a surplus. What in the hell part of that don't you understand?
And I give President Clinton a lot of credit. I have said many times (here and elsewhere) that the dude was a good President and that I would be more than happy to vote for him if he could run again.............As for the other point. You want me to say that increasing taxes inevitably/de facto/ALWAYS increases revenue? I can't do that, man. I mean, if that was the case, we could just raise the top rates to 99% and be literally swimming in revenue. There is obviously a point of diminishing returns. Hell, dude, even Jerry admits to that one.
Will said: "I'm just pointing out the fact that, when you borrow from government trust funds in order to create a surplus, it really isn't all that accurate of a surplus. What in the hell part of that don't you understand?"
President Clinton used the same accounting policies every other president has used Will, and by those accounting standards he had a Budget Surplus, thats a simple fact.
While I whole heartedly agree with you that we should not be using the SS Trust Fund for other purposes it is just not true to make it appear that President Clinton used dishonest accounting trickery to "manufacture" a phony surplus when he used the very same accounting standards every other president used to create a legitimate surplus that he should be commended for.
Yes Will there is a point of diminishing returns which is why when we cut taxes from 90% to 70% and from 70% to 45% we did see increases in revenue just like when we raised taxes from 28% to 39.6% we also saw increases in revenue.
Problem is many of the tax cut cult kool aid drinkers truly believe that if you cut taxes to 10% or even 2% it increases revenue to the treasury which is absurb. Just as it is absurb to think if one glass of alcohol a day is healthy 40 glasses a day must be healthier.
Its good to see you do believe in fairness and diminishing returns because binary 2 dimensional thinking are critical and necessary to solve our national problems.
Will for a Budget Surplus all you need are for tax revenues to be greater than your budget. thats it period.
It has nothing to do with the National Debt or the standard accounting practice of raiding the trust fund.
Like I said being disciplined enough and politically courageous enough to consistently put out budgets that are less than incoming tax revenues is extremely rare and deserves to be recognized and praised not marginalized by casting false aspersions on those achievements.
I'm not accusing Mr. Clinton of dishonesty. I'm just saying that this whole "is it a surplus or is it not a surplus" argument purely depends upon how you look at it. If you look at it strictly in terms of the Public debt, then, yes, it was a surplus. If, however, you look at it in terms of the Total debt (as dmarks is apparently doing here), then, clearly, it wasn't. That's all. Nothing more.
Post a Comment