McCain promises to balance budget

[ptif219]

This will be very hard with congress if the dems are in the majority.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11553.html

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) plans to promise on Monday that he will balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by curbing wasteful spending and overhauling entitlement programs, including Social Security, his advisers told Politico.

The vow to take on Social Security puts McCain in a political danger zone that thwarted President Bush after he named it the top domestic priority of his second term.

McCain is making the pledge at the beginning of a week when both presidential candidates plan to devote their events to the economy, the top issue in poll after poll as voters struggle to keep their jobs and fill their gas tanks.

“In the long-term, the only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,” the McCain campaign says in a policy paper to be released Monday.

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction

[Drocket]

I hereby promise to grow wings and fly. My promise is infinitely more likely to happen than McCain's, as I at least know what wings are, which is far more than can be said of McCain and the budget.

[Drocket]

And I just have to point out the sheer idiocy of this section:

“The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction

Ignoring the fantasy that we're going to win in Iraq - if the costs were financed with deficit spending, then ending the war is, AT MOST, going to stop that particular portion of deficit spending. No magical money is going to appear to pay off the previous debt. Its like saying that I charge $100 to my credit card every month, but now I'm going to stop that and instead use that $100 to pay off my credit card debt. I don't HAVE $100. I NEVER had $100. All I have is that I'm no longer accumulating $100 in new debt each month.

Fucking morons.

[ECW]

McCain intends to privatize Social Security and cutback other programs as well as eliminate all earmarks to reach that goal. When the American people find out that this would be the McCain plan, he'll sink like a rock in a pond. Good luck with that. Been there. Done that. Failed at it with Bush.

[Drocket]

McCain intends to privatize Social Security and cutback other programs as well as eliminate all earmarks to reach that goal

Even this is absolute BS in terms of balancing the budget, though. Privatizing SS doesn't save a dime - it simply means that SS money coming in goes into the stock market (which, as everyone knows, is a guaranteed investment because the stock market never, EVER goes down) instead of government bonds. Which means that a few hundred billion a year in SS surplus that's factored into the government's budget now suddenly no longer exists, INCREASING the deficit (not really, but since Reagan started fudging the numbers to hide his debt, it looks that way.) Even beyond that, the best-case-scenario for privatizing SS involved a 2-4 trillion dollar outlay to kick things off (with other estimates going up to $10 trillion.) So privatizing SS does squat, in terms of balancing the budget.

Eliminating earmarks penny-ante stuff. For the whining that goes on about them, they are in reality ridiculously small. And even then, all an earmark is is a directive for the appropriate department to fund a particular project. A lot of the money that earmarks are earmarks fund would likely be funded anyway. There's some projects like the bridge to nowhere that are pure waste, but most of them are worthwhile projects. Eliminating earmarks would save a few piddly billion, and guarantee that the federal budget is actually less managed than it is now.

The 500 billion pound elephant in the room is, of course, our obscene military budget, but nobody, especially not McCain, will dare touch that sacred cow. Which leaves some misc. poverty relief programs, some education programs, some farm programs, the transportation department, and the like. If ALL of them were to be cut, they'd roughly balance the budget - and it'll never happen because our country would grind to a halt and the public would never stand for it.

Which ultimately leaves only one question: Is McCain actually stupid enough to believe his own positions, or is he lying?

[ECW]

If he's going to be like Bush, then he's lying.

If he's a maverick, then he's stupid.

Either way...

[tecoyah]

It took Clinton six years to begin seeing minor budget adjustments that some consider a balancing, and this was with a far smaller pile of red tape. Considering the economy, and war spending the claim by McCain (who himself said he does not understand economics), is so unlikely I consider it insulting to say it with a straight face.

[Deadshot]

End the War, that might help balance it...but of course he's the GOP candidate.

[micfranklin]

Why not just privatize social security, at least that way people can save for their own futures rather than depend on a spend-happy government who will eat up SS.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Whats new.... bi-partisan professional politicians have been lying for decades to get the sheeple to vote for them, based on soubdbytes.

Nothing new here, more lies to attempt to get in office..... status quo.

[ptif219]

It took Clinton six years to begin seeing minor budget adjustments that some consider a balancing, and this was with a far smaller pile of red tape. Considering the economy, and war spending the claim by McCain (who himself said he does not understand economics), is so unlikely I consider it insulting to say it with a straight face.

You mean like the third largest increase in taxes in the history of this country?Then he cut the military almost in half.

[ptif219]

End the War, that might help balance it...but of course he's the GOP candidate.

Seems to me Obama took McCains plan last week when he said he would talk with generals before withdrawing.

[heyjude]

Bill Clinton did not cut the military. George Bush I did that. The Republicans just like to claim it was Clinton since the cuts took place after he became president. A Bush family trait is passing things on to the next sucker.

Obama is not only waffling on withdrawing the troops from Iraq, he has said he will increase the number of troops as the armed forces are not large enough to sustain our needs, and that he will increase the military budget. Good luck all of you Obama supporters.

[Deadshot]

The key words in that sentence are "...before withdrawing." Not "...after saying that we will probably be in Iraq for the next 100 years.", as McCain has said.

[heyjude]

The key words in that sentence are "...before withdrawing." Not "...after saying that we will probably be in Iraq for the next 100 years.", as McCain has said.

And exactly what do you think Obama will do when they tell him it can't be done safely, or that Iraq will become a dependent nation of Iran? Obama has said his withdrawal won't be done without insuring those things. The military says we can't do it right now. Why would that change with Obama's election.

Remember the speech Obama gave about flipping on taking public financing? How serious and honest he sounded. He will sound the same when he says, "sorry, I can't withdraw the troops now."

[Deadshot]

I think Obama will make withdrawing an important part of his policy, and not simply compounding an error, which even McCain admits the prosecution of the war was, that Bush is still gun-ho for.

Jude, I don't want to pull out tomorrow, but I also don't want my kids or grandkids or ANYONE else's there for the next 100 years. McCain believes in what Bush is doing, and believed in the idea of what Bush was doing, Obama believes in niether, hence my belief that we will get out quicker with Obama over McCain.

[ptif219]

Bill Clinton did not cut the military. George Bush I did that. The Republicans just like to claim it was Clinton since the cuts took place after he became president. A Bush family trait is passing things on to the next sucker.

Obama is not only waffling on withdrawing the troops from Iraq, he has said he will increase the number of troops as the armed forces are not large enough to sustain our needs, and that he will increase the military budget. Good luck all of you Obama supporters.

Not true Clinton did cut.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/260/


The two Republicans are correct that military forces were reduced significantly under Clinton. The active-duty military totaled 1.8-million at the start of his presidency in 1993 and declined to 1.4-million in 2000. They are also correct that the naval fleet shrank dramatically. The Navy had 454 ships in 1993, but as vessels were retired and not replaced, the fleet was down to 341 by 2000

[Truth_and_Power]

And I just have to point out the sheer idiocy of this section:



Ignoring the fantasy that we're going to win in Iraq - if the costs were financed with deficit spending, then ending the war is, AT MOST, going to stop that particular portion of deficit spending. No magical money is going to appear to pay off the previous debt. Its like saying that I charge $100 to my credit card every month, but now I'm going to stop that and instead use that $100 to pay off my credit card debt. I don't HAVE $100. I NEVER had $100. All I have is that I'm no longer accumulating $100 in new debt each month.

Fucking morons.

LOL, I'm glad someone else saw this. I was quite amused myself.

McCain's VP:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:DK16EOJ0nrQJ::http://www.miznertitle.com/Pics/calculator.jpg

[NIOSA]

The budget could be balanced, states do it. Of course congress would have to quit the pork barrell goody bag as well as actually spend on what's needed only for this country as a whole, not a corn field in Iowa nor a gold plated toilet seat in Kuwait.

[bishop]

wow... a politician making promises during the campaign.. what a surprise!

i wonder, though.. mccain has made promises and so too has obama. i wonder just out many idiots out there actually believe either of them.

[potter]

Why not just privatize social security, at least that way people can save for their own futures rather than depend on a spend-happy government who will eat up SS.


I saved for my future like a good American and the folks on wall street have managed to gamble away almost a third of it.

We all can't be stock brokers just like we can't all be computer technicians or doctors. To ask everyone to play the market (gamble with their savings) like professionals is unreasonable. I would predict many more losers than winners.

[Deadshot]

I saved for my future like a good American and the folks on wall street have managed to gamble away almost a third of it.

We all can't be stock brokers just like we can't all be computer technicians or doctors. To ask everyone to play the market (gamble with their savings) like professionals is unreasonable. I would predict many more losers than winners.

Agreed. Any intelligent person would take the guaranteed money over the money that could be lost.

[Truth_and_Power]

Agreed. Any intelligent person would take the guaranteed money over the money that could be lost.

Any intelligent person would do as you do? If you work from that assumption, fascism should work out great!

[ptif219]

Notice the libs ignore the fact McCain has always said get rid of pork.All that matters is the left's distorted view of Iraq.

[potter]

Notice the libs ignore the fact McCain has always said get rid of pork. All that matters is the left's distorted view of Iraq.


I imagine the conflict will come from "what is pork" :thumbsup:

Everyone has a different idea and none of them are wrong or right.

BTW...who's to say the rights view of Iraq isn't distorted?

[Deadshot]

Any intelligent person would do as you do? If you work from that assumption, fascism should work out great!

Well I'm not akin to fascism, and never said I was.

But the fact is that your investments today, the Dow's down 117 and is currently within 250 points of a what it was in 2006, your investments would be suffereing tremendously. SS is guaranteed money with a guaranteed return. Piggy backing on potter's statement, I'm simply pointing out that any intelligent person would take the guaranteed money versus the risky money.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well I'm not akin to fascism, and never said I was.

But the fact is that your investments today, the Dow's down 117 and is currently within 250 points of a what it was in 2006, your investments would be suffereing tremendously. SS is guaranteed money with a guaranteed return. Piggy backing on potter's statement, I'm simply pointing out that any intelligent person would take the guaranteed money versus the risky money.

1. Over the long-term the stock market has risen faster than any available guaranteed investment.
2. Retirement is a long-term goal.
3. Social Security carries the risk of not existing or paying less in the future, as well as the risk of not paying to your descendents at all if you expire before collecting.

Based on those three points, I would choose to invest it myself.

Integrating the third assumption that I, myself, am an intelligent person... I have disproven your theorem.

LOL.

If you do manage to prove your theorem in future posts in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could also prove that:
No intelligent person would root for the Atlanta Falcons
and
No intelligent person would dislike Ice Cream

[Deadshot]

1. Over the long-term the stock market has risen faster than any available guaranteed investment.

Depending on when one cashes in, cashing in and retiring now would be bad. I would also point out that SS takes and pools ALL of our money. Many would not be, or could not be, fiscally responsible enough to continually invest their money. Loss of job, divorce, illness, accident, etc. that money would be used.

2. Retirement is a long-term goal.

Duh. So is SS.

3. Social Security carries the risk of not existing or paying less in the future, as well as the risk of not paying to your descendents at all if you expire before collecting.

As does ANY investment.

Based on those three points, I would choose to invest it myself.

Integrating the third assumption that I, myself, am an intelligent person... I have disproven your theorem.

LOL.

If you do manage to prove your theorem in future posts in this thread, I would appreciate it if you could also prove that:
No intelligent person would root for the Atlanta Falcons
and
No intelligent person would dislike Ice Cream

I will admit that saying ALL intelligent people would be wrong. Let me say MOST intelligent people, ergo I don't have to include you in my theorem. :wink:

[Truth_and_Power]

I will admit that saying ALL intelligent people would be wrong. Let me say MOST intelligent people, ergo I don't have to include you in my theorem. :wink:

Your conclusion only makes sense if you assume that intelligent people are unable to be fiscally responsible.

[Deadshot]

Have you seen the mortage crisis' in the news? You read the papers and watch the news about people being terminated and not having any money in the bank or over their heads in their houses? How 'bout reading the finacial times about people who tap into their 401k's?

C'mon Truth, what do you do to those people who are financially irresponsible? Leave them to their own stupidity? That's why we started Social Security, too many elderly people had nothing at retirement and died in abject poverty.

[NortheastCynic]

McCain's going to balance the budget, eh.

:madlaugh:
:madlaugh:
:madlaugh:

What possible reason would I have to believe that any Democrat or Republican will do this?

Laughable, absolutely laughable.

And you know, to be fair, it isn't all because of gov't mismanagement, corruption, etc. The American electorate, due in large part to ignorance, essentially asks for a deficit. They want their money, they want their programs...but they don't want to pay high taxes. That's a great way to create a deficit.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

Have you seen the mortage crisis' in the news? You read the papers and watch the news about people being terminated and not having any money in the bank or over their heads in their houses? How 'bout reading the finacial times about people who tap into their 401k's?

C'mon Truth, what do you do to those people who are financially irresponsible? Leave them to their own stupidity? That's why we started Social Security, too many elderly people had nothing at retirement and died in abject poverty.

Maybe they should make it illegal to withdraw from 401k's, and force a minimum contribution level. It would still avoid the government having control over my retirement funds. Frankly I trust wallstreet over the bunch of crooks in washington, and that's saying a lot.

[NortheastCynic]

Delete...I posted this on the wrong thread. Yay for me.

[Deadshot]

Maybe they should make it illegal to withdraw from 401k's, and force a minimum contribution level. It would still avoid the government having control over my retirement funds. Frankly I trust wallstreet over the bunch of crooks in washington, and that's saying a lot.


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...plain and simple.

[Truth_and_Power]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...plain and simple.

Spock doesn't speak to the solution I raised, however.

[potter]

Maybe they should make it illegal to withdraw from 401k's, and force a minimum contribution level. It would still avoid the government having control over my retirement funds. Frankly I trust wallstreet over the bunch of crooks in washington, and that's saying a lot.


Yea, I need the government to have more control over my life than they already do.......

[Truth_and_Power]

Yea, I need the government to have more control over my life than they already do.......

If your money went into a 401k you couldn't withdraw from rather than a social security trust fund that the government can steal from each and every budget year, that would be less control not more.

[potter]

If your money went into a 401k you couldn't withdraw from rather than a social security trust fund that the government can steal from each and every budget year, that would be less control not more.

I can't withdraw from my 401K now unless I want an automatic 35% loss.

But you're point is strong....:thumbsup:

[ECW]

McCain's going to balance the budget, eh.

:madlaugh:
:madlaugh:
:madlaugh:

What possible reason would I have to believe that any Democrat or Republican will do this?

Laughable, absolutely laughable.

Am I wrong here in remembering that Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget but ran a surplus that the GOP somehow thought the government should not do and raided the treasury through their "tax cuts" which put us in the deep shit we are in today? You can hang that "fiscal irresponsible" tag on the GOP but the Democrats enforced pay-as-you-go which kept spending in check but the GOP tossed it out as soon as they stole the WH in 2000.

[GhostintheMachine]

The Budget According to McCain: Part I

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress balanced the budget for the first time in several decades. This doesn't alter the fact that the history of economic restraint that [i]both parties have is nothing resembling anything that can be even loosely considered 'fiscally responsible'. Both parties have a history of fiscal irresponsibility and there is nothing that leads me to believe that that will change in the immediate future.

-NC

[Deadshot]

Yes, Bill Clinton and his Republican Congress balanced the budget for the first time in several decades. This doesn't alter the fact that the history of economic restraint that [i]both parties have is nothing resembling anything that can be even loosely considered 'fiscally responsible'. Both parties have a history of fiscal irresponsibility and there is nothing that leads me to believe that that will change in the immediate future.

-NC

You know what the difference is? The GOP's latest efforts that have put us into debt has the money going to people overseas, and not our citizens. In the past the GOP's spending practices have gone to the rich and corporations, as they have somewhat this time, but now - due to the war - it's also to our allies, but not us.

Argue about whether it's a hand out or a hand up all you want, for the most part DEM's fiscal foibles have at least gone to Americans and the worst off among us.

That's one of the reasons I'm proud to be a DEM!

[NortheastCynic]

Ri-ight. No corporatism among Dems...None. Zero.

-NC

[Deadshot]

I didn't say there was NO comparrison, I simply pointed out that once you get past the sameness, and that sameness may be 90% or better, when we're talking about BILLIONS of dollars - every percentage point is a fortune - there is a vast difference between the two parties. In the last 8 years, beyond enriching corporations and helping the rich, BILLIONS of dollars a DAY going overseas the GOP has shown where there alliance is. DEMS, again you can call it a hand out or hand up, but either way DEMS are giving the money to American citizens, not corporate welfare and enriching the rich.

That's quite a difference.

[NortheastCynic]

Ah, so both sides are class warfare soldiers. The GOP fights for corporations [which employ the rich, evidently, and only the rich :rolleyes:] and the Dems fight for 'the people' [whoever the hell they are].

Seems pretty clear cut to me, Vote Obama in 2008 :rolleyes:

-NC

[ptif219]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...plain and simple.

Only in the liberals agenda

[ptif219]

Am I wrong here in remembering that Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget but ran a surplus that the GOP somehow thought the government should not do and raided the treasury through their "tax cuts" which put us in the deep shit we are in today? You can hang that "fiscal irresponsible" tag on the GOP but the Democrats enforced pay-as-you-go which kept spending in check but the GOP tossed it out as soon as they stole the WH in 2000.

Only on paper

[Elrathin]

Only on paper

And in reality, or did god tell you otherwise? lol

[ptif219]

You know what the difference is? The GOP's latest efforts that have put us into debt has the money going to people overseas, and not our citizens. In the past the GOP's spending practices have gone to the rich and corporations, as they have somewhat this time, but now - due to the war - it's also to our allies, but not us.

Argue about whether it's a hand out or a hand up all you want, for the most part DEM's fiscal foibles have at least gone to Americans and the worst off among us.

That's one of the reasons I'm proud to be a DEM!

You mean like this Obama bill.

http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/united_nations/news.php?q=1210170368
This is just in from Sen. Coburn's office. Obama has authored a bill, and it is now in the Senate, to give the UN .7% of our GNP to be used to feed hungry 3rd worlders, AND to use UN force to disarm you and me and all gun owners. No one in the media has brought this to the attention of the general sheeple out here

[ptif219]

And in reality, or did god tell you otherwise? lol

The surplus was on paper only it was projected.

[Drocket]

The surplus was on paper only it was projected.

The US had a $69 billion surplus in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000. (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/368978847_9f70bfd9c3_o.gif) Try again.

[ptif219]

The US had a $69 billion surplus in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000. (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/368978847_9f70bfd9c3_o.gif) Try again.

So then there was no deficit.

Read this and tell me about the surplus.


http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

[PostmodernProphet]

So then there was no deficit.

there was an annual surplus, there was still a national debt....

[ptif219]

there was an annual surplus, there was still a national debt....

How can you have a surplus and grow the deficit?

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

[Drocket]

So then there was no deficit.

Um, yeah, that's kind of what I said. Of course, the numbers aren't quite as high when you include off-budget emergency allocations (hurricanes and other natural disasters.) That's one of the reasons why the government needs to run a surplus all the time - to be prepared for events that can't be planned for.

[potter]

there was an annual surplus, there was still a national debt....


Yup..and it was being paid down. In fact it was projected to have been paid off in 10 years, or, 2 years from now if we'd stayed on the responsible "democratic" course.....

416 billion a year we would have had to cut taxes with. Would have made Bush's tax cuts look like pocket change.

[ptif219]

Um, yeah, that's kind of what I said. Of course, the numbers aren't quite as high when you include off-budget emergency allocations (hurricanes and other natural disasters.) That's one of the reasons why the government needs to run a surplus all the time - to be prepared for events that can't be planned for.

Read my link the surplus is a farce.

[ptif219]

Yup..and it was being paid down. In fact it was projected to have been paid off in 10 years, or, 2 years from now if we'd stayed on the responsible "democratic" course.....

416 billion a year we would have had to cut taxes with. Would have made Bush's tax cuts look like pocket change.

Read my link.Fom 1998 to 2000 the national debt increased.How is there a surplus and yet the national debt increases?

[Drocket]

Read my link the surplus is a farce.

Allow me to quote what I already said:

Of course, the numbers aren't quite as high when you include off-budget emergency allocations (hurricanes and other natural disasters.) That's one of the reasons why the government needs to run a surplus all the time - to be prepared for events that can't be planned for.

[ptif219]

Allow me to quote what I already said:

If the national debt grew there was no surplus.It is a liberal lie.

[Drocket]

There was a BUDGET SURPLUS. That doesn't include off-budget spending. Regardless, I really don't know how this is supposed to help the Republicans - perhaps you're saying that because Clinton had a tiny, marginal debt, its perfectly OK for Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave? Or that this somehow makes McCain's "plan" not entirely insane?

No matter how you slice it, it comes down to the same thing: Clinton did a great job, and the Republicans totally and completely fucked things up.

[ptif219]

There was a BUDGET SURPLUS. That doesn't include off-budget spending. Regardless, I really don't know how this is supposed to help the Republicans - perhaps you're saying that because Clinton had a tiny, marginal debt, its perfectly OK for Bush to spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave? Or that this somehow makes McCain's "plan" not entirely insane?

No matter how you slice it, it comes down to the same thing: Clinton did a great job, and the Republicans totally and completely fucked things up.

You can't claim a surplus when national debt goes up.

[ECW]

You can't claim a surplus when national debt goes up.

They are not the same thing.

The debt can go up if none of the surplus goes to pay down the principal debt or all of the interest. The interest keeps increasing unless you pay down the
principal which cannot be reduced if the surplus is not big enough to make a dent in what is owed. So, yes, you can claim a surplus and the debt can still go up.

elementary.

And Mccain is not going to be able to do either one, pay down the debt or run a surplus.

[Deadshot]

Hmmm...Bush has helped foreigners with BILLIONS of $$$ a day; helped corporations increase their bottom line - all the while they are laying off more people, sending more jobs overseas; and he's cut taxes for the rich on an unpressidented scale...and McCain has said nothing against Bush's economic decisions and he's going to balance the budget :madlaugh: :madlaugh: Are you serious?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Summation of the argument.....

Bush did.....
Clinton did.....
Bush did....
Clinton did.....
Bush didn't....
Clinton didn't.....

Clinton did it, thats why Bush did it.....
Bush did it, thats where Clinton got the idea.....

Reps are great....
No, dems are great....

:sick: :dizzy: :unreal:

[Deadshot]

Hmmm, summary of Ozzy's argument, ignore the fact that Clinton's years in office grew the economy, yet fail to recognize that we are within 200 points of being back where we were in 2006 on the Stock Market, yet fail to see it's Bush's fault...

How's that working with Bush's popularity numbers?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Deadshot said:
Hmmm, summary of Ozzy's argument, ignore the fact that Clinton's years in office grew the economy, yet fail to recognize that we are within 200 points of being back where we were in 2006 on the Stock Market, yet fail to see it's Bush's fault...

Firstly, you obviously don't know much about economics.
Secondly, Where have I praised Bush? Liar.

Deadshot said:
How's that working with Bush's popularity numbers?

How would I know, I don't support the traitor?

[Deadshot]

Firstly, you obviously don't know much about economics.

Really, can you show me where we are better off economically now then we were two years ago? You do realize that a collapsing housing market, lower worth for the dollar, record high gas prices and a bearish market are not positve signs. These things did not happen during the Clinton Presidency.

Secondly, Where have I praised Bush? Liar.

Where did I say that you did? Liar.



How would I know, I don't support the traitor?

yet you attempt to tear down Clinton on economic issues which is, quite simply, a lie. Clinton had nowhere near the economic problems that the Bush White House is facing, hence your Clinton/Bush comparrison was FUBAR, and I was just pointing it out.

[ptif219]

They are not the same thing.

The debt can go up if none of the surplus goes to pay down the principal debt or all of the interest. The interest keeps increasing unless you pay down the
principal which cannot be reduced if the surplus is not big enough to make a dent in what is owed. So, yes, you can claim a surplus and the debt can still go up.

elementary.

And Mccain is not going to be able to do either one, pay down the debt or run a surplus.

If the debt goes up there is no surplus.If there is a surplus then everything is paid for and the debt will not increase.Again the surplus was on paper only and it was phoney economics.

[potter]

Summation of the argument.....

Bush did.....
Clinton did.....
Bush did....
Clinton did.....
Bush didn't....
Clinton didn't.....

Clinton did it, thats why Bush did it.....
Bush did it, thats where Clinton got the idea.....

Reps are great....
No, dems are great....

:sick: :dizzy: :unreal:

I think it's a standard form you fill out with any political argument.... :peace:

[potter]

If the debt goes up there is no surplus.If there is a surplus then everything is paid for and the debt will not increase.Again the surplus was on paper only and it was phoney economics.


I have a feeling howefver that if a republican had been it office it would not have been "phoney economics"

But then a republican CIC has never had a surplus...has he?

[ptif219]

I have a feeling howefver that if a republican had been it office it would not have been "phoney economics"

But then a republican CIC has never had a surplus...has he?

This would not have happened with a democrat congress.Look at Reagan.


The republicans had a hand in keeping spending down.Also remember 2 things that helped cause this.The third largest increase in taxes in our history and the gutting of the militaty that Clinton did.

But there is no surplus if the debt goes up.

[potter]

Unfortunately the only reason we need such a big military is because we make enemies faster than we can kill them off.. the military industrial complex has ensured that formula since WWII

[NortheastCynic]

But there is no surplus if the debt goes up.There's not one bit of economic theory I have ever heard to back up this claim.

The budget deficit is just that, a budget deficit. The national debt is not a budget item, it is a separate entity.

I don't like Clinton. I think he's a criminal [not just perjury, that was kid stuff compared to his other deeds]. I think he was a bad President. But to state that there wasn't a surplus during his Administration is absurd.

-NC

[ptif219]

There's not one bit of economic theory I have ever heard to back up this claim.

The budget deficit is just that, a budget deficit. The national debt is not a budget item, it is a separate entity.

I don't like Clinton. I think he's a criminal [not just perjury, that was kid stuff compared to his other deeds]. I think he was a bad President. But to state that there wasn't a surplus during his Administration is absurd.

-NC

If there is a surplus how does debt go up.The surplus should pay all expenditures.Hence the debt stays the same or goes down.If there is a surplus and debt goes up then there really is no surplus just someone cooking the books.

[NortheastCynic]

I sympathize with your concerns regarding the debt, Ptif, but technically it isn't a budget item and therefor is independent of the budget and does not add to, nor reduce the deficit. It's a technicality, but again, strictly speaking, you can have both a surplus and a national debt.

-NC

[ptif219]

I sympathize with your concerns regarding the debt, Ptif, but technically it isn't a budget item and therefor is independent of the budget and does not add to, nor reduce the deficit. It's a technicality, but again, strictly speaking, you can have both a surplus and a national debt.

-NC

The point is if there is a surplus then how does the national debt go up.How can there be a surplus and yet things are not paid causing the national debt to go up.Again it is cooked books and on paper only.