- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
This is a good sign that the presidency will stay in the hands of the Democrats in 2016. Nevertheless, Obama has had a pretty mixed record. He's probably one of our best presidents, which says something about the low standards set by previous presidents.
Well, sure, if we ignore the fact that Clinton had set us on a course of debt reduction with 4 straight years of surpluses just before Bush came in and he and the republicans immediately destroyed with massive tax giveaways to the rich. It also ignores the fact that although the first two years of Obama's presidency continued with trillion dollar deficits (in the midst of at least the second worst economic collapse in this country's history) deficits have dropped faster than at any time since WWII (when tax rates had the highest bracket at 90 percent). Republicans have successfully blocked almost every effort to use the tax system (as was done in the post-war period) to correct those deficits which could have put the country on long term fiscal stability. No. The two parties are not at all equal on this issue despite that simplistic urge of so many to make that claim.
Here are the budget numbers for Clinton budgets (FY1994-2001, numbers are billions; a "-" sign indicates budget surpluses):
1994 203.18
1995 163.95
1996 107.43
1997 21.89
1998 -69.27
1999 -125.61
2000 -236.24
2001 -128.23
Here's the source: Government Spending MultiYear Download for United States 1994-2020 - Federal State Local
Here's the result of the arithmetic (rounding to the billion): $85 Net surplus for his 8 years in office. The reason the debt continued to go up was the fact that interest on the debt continued to add to the previously created debt, all but $300B, was from the Reagan tax cuts and profligate spending. No doubt you will refuse to believe any of these hard, cold facts but that doesn't change anything.
LOL, now that is funny and that makes Gruber proud. By what standards?
As a human being with personal opinions, I judge Obama and all other politicians by my own personal standards.
Seriously though, what kind of question is that?
Then you judge by those liberal standards that Gruber was talking about, thinking with your heart and not your brain. Actual results matter and Obama is making Jimmy Carter look good. You made the statement that Obama was one of our greatest Presidents so the logical question is by what standards?
You're making sweeping generalizations based on no evidence whatsoever. Don't try to pretend that there's a "correct" opinion about Obama (or a correct opinion about anything, for that matter).
You made a statement that you cannot back up showing that you think only with your heart and results don't matter. I provide actual data that is verifiable and what you do is post your opinions based upon your feelings
All of what you've stated is true. Obama has made significant progress in other areas: the stimulus package was an essential part of recovery from the recession, amnesty for illegal immigrants was a much needed humanitarian solution, ending the Iraq War was an improvement over Bush, while it wasn't the ideal reform, ACA was a huge improvement over our previous antiquated healthcare system, his foreign policy towards Cuba is the first rational approach in decades, he's the first president in favor of equal marriage rights for gays, he's in favor of free community college, actually holds a sane position on marijuana and scaling back the drug war in general, and would've been a lot more productive if not for congressional gridlock. His foreign policy in general, including a lack of respect for civil liberties, is one of his largest flaws, but overall, he's been one of our most productive presidents.
I elaborated on my position earlier in the thread if you didn't read it:
Just as I thought you have no idea what you are talking about and results don't matter. I am not going there again but if the Obama record was so good he wouldn't have lost the Congress. The stimulus was a disaster and with that stimulus the recovery was the worst in history and as a result he has added 7.6 trillion to the debt. The U-6 rate is still 10.8% but to a liberal that is a success? He didn't end the Iraq War the Status of Forces Agreement in November 2008 did, but what Obama did was lose the peace or are conditions better in Iraq today than they were when Obama took office? ACA? LOL, ok, just like a socialist that has no problem spending someone else's money. Is that what you were taught growing up that it was ok to take money from someone else for your own personal responsibility issues? I could go on but that is nothing but a waste of time as nothing is going to change your mind including the 18.2 trillion dollar debt
I cannot believe how naïve, gullible, poorly informed and such low standards/expectations liberals are. I guess I will never understand people like you
Interesting how you ignore reality as usual, budget numbers are irrelevant as it is spending that counts, budget spending AND intergovt. holdings. You really need a civics class
However, we're just rehashing the same old points of the past 7 years since Obama was elected, so there's really no point in continuing here.
I gave you the link to the Treasury data so would you please point out the four straight years of Clinton surpluses? Thanks
Only in the liberal world where people like you buy the Obama narrative.
Talk about biased ignorance. Democrats had control of the Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 and what exactly did we get? Trillions added to the debt, 16 million unemployed/discouraged, stagnant GDP.
You were sure it was not going to go down, which you claiming you have a crystal ball.
Here are the budget numbers for Clinton budgets (FY1994-2001, numbers are billions; a "-" sign indicates budget surpluses):
1994 203.18
1995 163.95
1996 107.43
1997 21.89
1998 -69.27
1999 -125.61
2000 -236.24
2001 -128.23
Here's the source: Government Spending MultiYear Download for United States 1994-2020 - Federal State Local
Here's the result of the arithmetic (rounding to the billion): $85 Net surplus for his 8 years in office. The reason the debt continued to go up was the fact that interest on the debt continued to add to the previously created debt, all but $300B, was from the Reagan tax cuts and profligate spending. No doubt you will refuse to believe any of these hard, cold facts but that doesn't change anything.
You just dig in on the ignorance with each one of your responses, con. A sensible person would stop digging but I think we can count on you to keep digging. I didn't give you "budget numbers." I gave you actual deficit/surplus numbers. But, of course, you're so desperate you have to try to throw any crap up and hope that it sticks. I'd return the insult about civic class but actually you need to start all over at the beginning of elementary school to have a chance at understanding anything (not to mention get your mind wiped clean of all the rightwing sewage you've filled it with over the years).
I knew you wouldn't accept the data even from a very conservative source because to do so would destroy the mythology you've accepted. Here's the actual historical CBO data of deficits/surpluses for the last 4 years of Clinton's presidency (apologies if the columns don't line up neatly; this happens a lot when spread sheet documents get copied and pasted):
Table H-1.
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public Since 1974
Revenue Outlays
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8
Numbers represent billions. Because I know arithmetic is not your thing, I'll do it for you: 1998, $69.2B surplus; 1999, $125.7B surplus; 2000, $236.2B surplus; 2001, $128.3B surplus.
Here's a link to the source even though I know you will never go to it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-breakout-AppendixH.pdf It's on page 156
Like I said before, I'm more than happy to keep humiliating you as long as you want to keep being humiliated. You seem to need it.
So now your calling the Treasury's numbers (that you misused) the "Obama narrative." You're now chasing your own tail and I couldn't be enjoying it more.
Don't be surprised when Con tells you Clinton had no surplus and never had a balanced budget. They use an accounting trick to "prove" it too. You see when a govt. agency like Social security has a surplus it is transferred into T-bills and appears to add to the debt. It's does not it is a SURPLUS but it makes it appear that the debt went up every year under Clinton if you pick the right govt. chart. No matter how many times you call them on it they just can't resist using it. We will see just how shameless Con is this time.
Don't be surprised when Con tells you Clinton had no surplus and never had a balanced budget.
Yes, you gave me what you perceive as the actual budget and deficit numbers but I gave you the Treasury data and link which you ignored.
In order to have a surplus you have to have more revenue than spending so when you post 2 trillion in revenue and claim it was a surplus then obviously that would be the Surplus for the year off the budget.
Here again you demonstrate your lack of understanding of even the terms you're using much less even the least grasp of how the budget functions. If you had even the least bit of interest in educating yourself you'd have been able to do so at Christopher Chantrill's website ( usgovernmentspending.com ) which explains why budget surpluses don't necessarily show up as debt reduction. But, as I've said before, you're one of the uneducable types so rife in the rightwing. It is impossible to teach anything to those people even if the teacher is one of their own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?