Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadowlord]

Kon, were you not alive or not old enough to remember Clinton's presidency? I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and I remember Clinton running a budget surplus for his last term or so, and that he left office with a budget surplus, I remember the media talking about it rather a lot, I remember the dot com bubble bursting (or the media's blabbering about it, anyhow), and I definitely remember 9/11, and what America was like before it, and the budget surplus turning into a deficit after President Bush got his hands on the ship of state, and the deficits skyrocketing due to Bush's wars and deficit spending on them, on tax cuts, etc. I also remember the sudden Republican opposition to deficit spending as soon as Bush had left office. It wasn't an issue for them before, but after 2008, it was a violation of their most closely held principles! We have always been at war with Eastasia Deficit Spending.

Considering that you've found a government website whose raw numbers have the appearance of disagreeing with history, I would posit that rather than those numbers being wrong, it is more likely that you are misunderstanding how they are supposed to be read (for example, perhaps the deficit as normally reported may not include interest, whereas the debt listed on that government website almost certainly includes debt accumulated as a result of interest payments).

[Kon]

Okay is this guy trollin?

Yeah.  Either make a sarcastic one liner or ignore him because you're not going to get any actual discussion out of him.

*Sarcasm Senses twitch*

Perhaps he's refering to Factistan, Where all sorts of facts are sold to whomever wants one to suit them.

I presented the Treasury Departments own numbers on the debt and showed how you can look up those numbers on the Treasury Dept's own web site. It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years. It is amusing that y'all are arguing that I am wrong to say there were no surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress and that there really were surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress. It is Congress who writes and passes the budgets, and the Republican's controlled both the House and the Senate for Clinton's last six years.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

Yes, there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

I presented the Treasury Departments own numbers on the debt and showed how you can look up those numbers on the Treasury Dept's own web site. It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years. It is amusing that y'all are arguing that I am wrong to say there were no surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress and that there really were surplusses under the Republican-controlled Congress. It is Congress who writes and passes the budgets, and the Republican's controlled both the House and the Senate for Clinton's last six years.

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

[GreatJustice]

Kon, were you not alive or not old enough to remember Clinton's presidency? I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and I remember Clinton running a budget surplus for his last term or so, and that he left office with a budget surplus, I remember the media talking about it rather a lot, I remember the dot com bubble bursting (or the media's blabbering about it, anyhow), and I definitely remember 9/11, and what America was like before it, and the budget surplus turning into a deficit after President Bush got his hands on the ship of state, and the deficits skyrocketing due to Bush's wars and deficit spending on them, on tax cuts, etc. I also remember the sudden Republican opposition to deficit spending as soon as Bush had left office. It wasn't an issue for them before, but after 2008, it was a violation of their most closely held principles! We have always been at war with Eastasia Deficit Spending.

Considering that you've found a government website whose raw numbers have the appearance of disagreeing with history, I would posit that rather than those numbers being wrong, it is more likely that you are misunderstanding how they are supposed to be read (for example, perhaps the deficit as normally reported may not include interest, whereas the debt listed on that government website almost certainly includes debt accumulated as a result of interest payments).

His views are somewhat contradictory, but his facts are correct. Overall government debt under Clinton didn't drop, it was just shifted around to give the appearance of a surplus. Certainly, deficit spending decreased at points, but not consistently and not steadily.

[Shadowlord]

[stuff]

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

He said the same thing three times, and "they came close to balancing the budget, but still had a deficit instead of a surplus" the other time, which is essentially the same thing. He wasn't contradicting himself.

His views are somewhat contradictory, but his facts are correct. Overall government debt under Clinton didn't drop, it was just shifted around to give the appearance of a surplus. Certainly, deficit spending decreased at points, but not consistently and not steadily.

Please explain (because "giving the appearance of a surplus" is an intriguing idea, and I would like to see your evidence).

[Bohandas]

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Definitely trolling. Two posts before that one he admitted that the debt did decrease.

[Leafsnail]

Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to welcome you to this debate.  The proposition: "This house believes that the fiscal deficit and debt worsened during the Clinton presidency".

I call upon the first speaker for the proposition to open the case.

Clinton didn't give us surpluses. The debt increased every year he was president.

I thank you for your comments.  I now call upon the opposition to outline their reasons for rejecting this statement.

there was a great improvement under Clinton. But, it is Congress who writes and passes the budgets. That is a fact. The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate during Clinton's last six years. That is a fact. Under the Republicans, Congress came very close to balancing the budget.

Thank you.  I now call upon the second speaker for the proposition to rebutt the points made by the opposition, and to close their case.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Good work.  I now ask the second speaker for the opposition to provide the closing remarks for his side.

It is not really that big a deal if there was a slight deficit or a slight surplus during those years.

Thank you all for your speeches.  Please wait while we decide the results.

[misko27]

Your own numbers demonstrate the deficit decreasing massively during Clinton's presidency. The debt itself will always go up if we aren't running a surplus to pay it due to interest. That's what a surplus is, not having a deficit.

What? The debt increased every year Clinton was president. There were no surplusses -- only deficits during Clinton's 8 years.

Okay is this guy trollin?

Definitely trolling. Two posts before that one he admitted that the debt did decrease.

Plus, he selectively choose to answer my ridiculous argument instead of the others.

[USEC_OFFICER]

[stuff]

Did you really just change your argument three times within the past 2 hours? Because from where I'm standing you seem to be saying that Clinton increased the debt during his presidency, and then turning around and saying that the Republican Congress created a surplus during those exact same years. So which one is it? Did Clinton increase the debt or did the Republican's create a surplus? I'm only asking because those two options are mutually exclusive.

He said the same thing three times, and "they came close to balancing the budget, but still had a deficit instead of a surplus" the other time, which is essentially the same thing. He wasn't contradicting himself.

Ah, I was misreading the second quote then. However part of his latest post does seems to indicate that there were surpluses. But that post also seems to be from a land where Bay12 is arguing that the Clinton years saw an increase in the deficit, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that his actual post was switched with one from an alternate dimension.

[Reelya]

I think what's more telling is that any bad aspect is laid at the feet of Bill Clinton, then as soon as you point out any good aspect, he trots out "The Congress controlled the deficit, not the president". And now that there's a Democrat again, and a Republican Congress: "The president controlled the deficit, not the Congress".

A massive decrease in the deficit under Clinton, is clearly only due to the Republicans controlling Congress. A massive increase in the deficit under Obama, is clearly only due to Obama, and has nothing to do with the Republicans controlling Congress.

Very convenient logic.

[Jervill]

Should we ask him how the deficit was doing under Reagan, just for kicks?

[Reelya]

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

[Kogan Loloklam]

I think I understand!

It's like this, Let's say I make $1000 a month. Let's then say I have to pay $990 a month in expenses.

With me so far? $1000 in, $990 out.
This is a surplus of $10

Now I decide to buy an xbox, at a whopping $200!

Well, I now have a deficit of $190.

Now I cannot claim to have a surplus, because I am carrying 190 dollars that month in debt.
Nor the next month, where I carry 180 dollars in debt.

So, no surplus for 18 more months. I think that is what he is trying to say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fucking Democrats, buying consoles and ruining everything for everyone.

[Kon]

That was the Democrats fault, because they controlled congress. Haven't you learnt that the fault always lies with whichever branch of government is currently controlled by the Democrats? And any good news is clearly due to whichever branch of government is controlled by the Republicans.

Reagan deficit - purely the fault of Democrats in congress.

Reagan tax cuts - purely due to Reagan's great thinking.
Reagan Arms buildup / outpacing the Soviets - also no thanks to congress and their deficit.

See how easy it is when you learn the correct way of thinking?

I would like to add that the Democrats took over both the House and the Senate at the beginning of Bush's 7th year. That's the year that Obama became a Senator. At that time unemplyment was low and budget deficits were low. Aroung the 9th month of Bush's 7th year, the stock market hit an all time high -- not a 52-week high or 10-year high -- but an all-time high. Since the stock market is supposed to predict the economy about 6-months in advance, the economy was looking very good when the Dems took over Congress. The huge deficits run up during Bush's last two years were done by a Democratically-controlled Congress of which Obama was a member. Obama voted for the budgets those two years and then accused Bush of running up the budget deficts. Just sayin'.