Sadler vs. Cruz - where does GMG stand on this one?

[FirefightnRick]

Just one?

The link - http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Ted_Cruz_Energy_+_Oil.htm

People who argue that climate change isn't real, or that man isn't a contributor, or that the cost of ameliorating climate change is too high nearly always are motivated not by science, but by economics, ideology, or politics. Science denial is a conservative trait.

You want more?

As for my age, I'm 61. I still can recognize that most of the folks at the Tea Party get-together I attended were 'old folks'. That's an observation, something you suggested I do, not an indictment.

Oh! Scrappy - I'm looking forward to that beer.

Your link has this statement at the top of the Contract of America page.

...."This page contains Congressional resolutions. Resolutions indicate the topics that legislators care about, but cannot legislate about...."

You do realize it's simply an agreement by those in office or running for office to vow to fight Obama's Cap And Tax Policies which will have a devastating affect on our economy if fully improvised?

Rick

[glick1980]

The Cinton Surplus Myth.

http://finance.townh...myth/page/full/

.."Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:..."

Rick

It is funny that this fellow thinks that a surplus can only be used to reduce the national debt. Do you really think the government has no operating cash and that all extra money goes to pay down the national debt? That is not the way it works. Is that a serious article or a joke?

[FirefightnRick]

It is funny that this fellow thinks that a surplus can only be used to reduce the national debt. Do you really think the government has no operating cash and that all extra money goes to pay down the national debt? That is not the way it works. Is that a serious article or a joke?

Not sure I see where he claims it ONLY can be used to reduce the debt?

...."When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the publicdebt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

..."Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute...."

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket. 

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public...."

Rick

[glick1980]

Not sure I see where he claims it ONLY can be used to reduce the debt?

"There Was a Surplus But It Wasn't Used to Pay Down The Debt

Some people claim that there was a surplus but it wasn't used to pay down the debt. They claim that one issue is whether or not you have a surplus and another issue is what you do with it; hence they also claim that you can have a surplus and not have the national debt go down.

However, this is not true."

You see goverment entities have these things called fund balances, a surplus would have gone into this fund balance and it does not have to be used to pay down debt. It is similar to retained earnings in private business. If the government had a surplus and spent it on anything else, that would be called an expenditure. The way this fellow talks of having extra money and having a surplus and then spending it and having a deficit proves that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. You can't have a surplus and a deficit in the same fund in the same year. It is one or the other. Horribly written article by someone that knows nothing about government finance.

[KRAM1]

Horribly written article by someone that knows nothing about government finance.

Indeed...much like many of those who post in this thread and THINK they know much about how government works in reality.

Pretty funny stuff sometimes...just like all those in the House, senate and White House who have probably never even read the U.S.Constitution!

Edit: so, based on the negativity here I guess we have a bunch of folks who think they are experts in this area.....good to know..carry on with the comedy...thanks for the fun.

Edited October 24, 2012 by KRAM1

[JayDub]

Truly, the worst part of my GoMeanGreen.com day...

[glick1980]

Indeed...much like many of those who post in this thread and THINK they know much about how government works in reality.

Pretty funny stuff sometimes...just like all those in the House, senate and White House who have probably never even read the U.S.Constitution!

10 years preparing budgets in government finance and writting a 300 page budget every year says I know how government works in reality.

[Coffee and TV]

The average unemployment rate under Reagan was 7.5% how is tha a lie? The national debt tripled under Reagan, increased from 26% of GDP to 41% of GDP, and the annual budget defecit more than quadrupled under Reagan from $56M to $237M. GDP did grow .27% more than under Carter, Ford, or Nixon. Reagan spent more, 22.4% of GDP, than the average of the last 40 years, 20.4%.

It's funny when people talk about how trickle down was this magical thing that created all these jobs in the 80's. Then you show them how many more jobs were created in the 70's...

[mattmartin817]

10 years preparing budgets in government finance and writting a 300 page budget every year says I know how government works in reality.

[FirefightnRick]

10 years preparing budgets in government finance and writting a 300 page budget every year says I know how government works in reality.

Win you some money dude. Couldn't hurt to try?

""The Clinton Surplus"

WIN $500!!!

!!! WIN $500 DOLLARS! Just prove there was an actual surplus! Email proof to contest@clintonsurplus.com !!!

WIN $500!!! "

http://clintonsurplus.com/

Rick

[UNT90]

Oh yeah, all those rich people that were going to be giving out all those jobs under Reagan didn't, and there was an unemployment rate of 7.5% during his presidency, a 1.1% increase in joblessness from Jimmy Carter....

First you post this, then...

The average unemployment rate under Reagan was 7.5% how is tha a lie?

This.

An obvious complete mischaracterization and a number clearly pulled straight from Wikipedia...

Reagan entrered office with 7.5 percent unemployment rate, 20.5% interest rates, and 12% inflation rate. Interest rates were kept high to combat inflation, which led to inflation falling to 5% by 1982, but also led to 10.8 percent unemployment rate at it's peak. From the bottom of that recession, and thanks due to inflation control and, yes, those ever so unpopular "tax cuts for the rich", the economy grew at a 5.6% rate the first three years after the bottom in 1982 and unemployment started a free fall that left it at 5.1% in the summer of 1988, the lowest it had been in 14 years. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide because of this recovery, which was well on its way in only 2 years from the bottom of a nasty recession.

Now, lets compare that with President Obama:

Pres. Obama was sworn when the economy was in recession, but the recession had reached bottom by the second quarter of 2009 before his “stimulus” took effect. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent in the 1982 recession, but only 10 percent in the 2009 recession. When Pres. Reagan reached the Oval Office the inflation rate was 12 percent. When Pres. Obama assumed office, the inflation rate was zero percent. Interest rates were also nominal when Pres. Obama took office.

Under Pres. Obama, the three years of economic growth from the bottom of the recession only averaged 2.2 percent, unemployment dropped by only 1.8 points, and inflation has increased by more than 2 full percentage points. Pres. Obama has also consistently missed his employment and growth targets. This with 3 1/2 years to fix the damn problem.

Don't even talk about debt, because Pres. Obama trumps Pres. Reagan by a mile.

Those are facts, my friend, not a political spin which you tried to apply to a President that isn't on your political team.

Edited October 24, 2012 by UNT90

[GreenBat]

First you post this, then...

This.

An obvious complete mischaracterization and a number clearly pulled straight from Wikipedia...

Reagan entrered office with 7.5 percent unemployment rate, 20.5% interest rates, and 12% inflation rate. Interest rates were kept high to combat inflation, which led to inflation falling to 5% by 1982, but also led to 10.8 percent unemployment rate at it's peak. From the bottom of that recession, and thanks due to inflation control and, yes, those ever so unpopular "tax cuts for the rich", the economy grew at a 5.6% rate the first three years after the bottom in 1982 and unemployment started a free fall that left it at 5.1% in the summer of 1988, the lowest it had been in 14 years. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide because of this recovery, which was well on its way in only 2 years from the bottom of a nasty recession.

Now, lets compare that with President Obama:

Pres. Obama was sworn when the economy was in recession, but the recession had reached bottom by the second quarter of 2009 before his “stimulus” took effect. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent in the 1982 recession, but only 10 percent in the 2009 recession. When Pres. Reagan reached the Oval Office the inflation rate was 12 percent. When Pres. Obama assumed office, the inflation rate was zero percent. Interest rates were also nominal.

Under Pres. Obama, the three years of economic growth from the bottom of the recession only averaged 2.2 percent, unemployment dropped by only 1.8 points, and inflation has increased by more than 2 full percentage points. Pres. Obama has also consistently missed his employment and growth targets. This with 3 1/2 years to fix the damn problem.

Don't even talk about debt, because Pres. Obama trumps Pres. Reagan by a mile.

Those are facts, my friend, not a political spin which you tried to apply to a President that isn't on your political team.

I doubt your facts because you offer none. Only an opinion from a someone that has to prove himself right. When if he had supporting facts he would post them.

Edited October 24, 2012 by GreenBat

[UNT90]

I doubt your facts because you offer none. Only an opinion from a someone that has to prove himself right. When if he had supporting facts he would post them.

Check the numbers yourself, my little liberal friend. They are dead on.

I know, denial is the strongest human emotion.

EDIT: I guess I could post lame articles from far right web sites, but, viewing it from the other side, that gets tiring...

Edited October 24, 2012 by UNT90

[GreenBat]

You want me to do your work for you? Let me return to your favorite.

:lolu: :lolu: :lolu: :lolu: :lolu:

Edited October 24, 2012 by GreenBat

[UNT90]

You want me to do your work for you? Let me return to your favorite.

:lolu: :lolu: :lolu: :lolu: :lolu:

I did my work.

I know, you liberals always are looking for the free ride and for someone else to do work fot you, but not this time, my friend.

[GreenBat]

I did my work.

I know, you liberals always are looking for the free ride and for someone else to do work fot you, but not this time, my friend.

My computer receieves an idtent error every time I read one of your post. I ask you for supporting documents to show the FACTS to prove your opinion. Liberal or conservative proof is required for something to be more than OPINION. But just like your presidential candidate, you don't believe in proof or facts.

[UNT90]

My computer receieves an idtent error every time I read one of your post. I ask you for supporting documents to show the FACTS to prove your opinion. Liberal or conservative proof is required for something to be more than OPINION. But just like your presidential candidate, you don't believe in proof or facts.

Why don't you check the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library website. I think you will find that for which you search.

It's obviously not from just one site, my little liberal friend. Funny, you make no bones about an off the cuff claim of 7.5% unemployment throughout Reagan's term with nothing to back up the claim, but when I give detailed info to dispute it, you want cites.

See, but it's a losing game with you, because even if I give you the cites, you will just dismiss them as far right wing sympathizers (even though one was the NYT).

If I'm wrong, prove it, big boy.

You won't, because I am not.

Still waiting to here from Glick.

Edited October 24, 2012 by UNT90

[glick1980]

Why don't you check the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library website. I think you will find that for which you search.

It's obviously not from just one site, my little liberal friend. Funny, you make no bones about an off the cuff claim of 7.5% unemployment throughout Reagan's term with nothing to back up the claim, but when I give detailed info to dispute it, you want cites.

See, but it's a losing game with you, because even if I give you the cites, you will just dismiss them as far right wing sympathizers (even though one was the NYT).

If I'm wrong, prove it, big boy.

You won't, because I am not.

Still waiting to here from Glick.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-national-unemployment-by-political-party-president/

Both Reagan and Obama came into a tough situation. If you look at the first term of both, the unemployment numbers looks very similar. Reagan reduced it .3% by November of '84, while unemployment under Obama is the same as when he took office with one month to go.

[UNT90]

http://www.truthfulp...arty-president/

Both Reagan and Obama came into a tough situation. If you look at the first term of both, the unemployment numbers looks very similar. Reagan reduced it .3% by November of '84, while unemployment under Obama is the same as when he took office with one month to go.

Yes, but Reagan also was faced with double digit interest rates and double digit inflation. He had all three of these problems on there way to being fixed by this time in the 1984 election cycle. I find this quote interesting:

"In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount.

And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election, averaging 300,000 new jobs a month from May to October."

From this article (to appease Greenbat):

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/04/news/economy/obama-reagan-recovery/index.htm

Now, keep in mind Reagan was faced with a much, much, much tougher set of circumstances than was Pres. Obama, and Reagan policies turned all three ugly heads of that recession monster around. Pres. Obama has yet to put a real dent in the one headed monster that he inherited.

Reagan deregulated, cut taxes, and got the hell outta the way. Pres. Obama has preached more government as the cure to all of our problems. It should be clear to any rational minded person which approach works and which doesn't.

[glick1980]

Yes, but Reagan also was faced with double digit interest rates and double digit inflation. He had all three of these problems on there way to being fixed by this time in the 1984 election cycle. I find this quote interesting:

"In April 1984, the economy added 363,000 jobs. In the first four months of 1984, employment growth hit 1,564,000. This year, the first four months have brought about half that amount.

And the Reagan recovery sustained its momentum through the election, averaging 300,000 new jobs a month from May to October."

From this article (to appease Greenbat):

http://money.cnn.com...overy/index.htm

Now, keep in mind Reagan was faced with a much, much, much tougher set of circumstances than was Pres. Obama, and Reagan policies turned all three ugly heads of that recession monster around. Pres. Obama has yet to put a real dent in the one headed monster that he inherited.

Reagan deregulated, cut taxes, and got the hell outta the way. Pres. Obama has preached more government as the cure to all of our problems. It should be clear to any rational minded person which approach works and which doesn't.

I don't think Reagan's circumstances were even close to what we are facing now. Housing, a huge industry, took a major hit at the end of GW Bush. Let's not forget that GW Bush deregulated, cut taxes and got the hell out of the way and we are where we are now because of it. Reagan's massive tax cuts in 1981 (ERTA) were followed by the largest tax increase in history in 1982 (TEFRA) that rescinded most of what he did in 1981 because it was going to lead to a dumpster fire. By the way TEFRA was created by a democrat, Pete Stark.

[KRAM1]

One GREAT thing that will happen after Nov. 6th no matter which candidate wins is that this thread will get shut down! Some of the stuff posted on here is just nutty...but, isn't politics great? Am sure lots of hearts and minds were changed by reading this thread. I do know that some folks must have a lot of free time on their hands...would be nice if some of those would actually find correct information.

Glad I have already voted...suggest everyone on here do the same...Deep and I voted for the "good guys"...suggest you do the same!

TASTY...you did promise to shut this thread down on Nov. 7th...right? Please tell me you did......PLEASE....

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

"Shared sacrifice" my ass. There's no law against Paul Sadler giving more to the government than he owes. Let him and all other "shared sacrifice" morons do so without coercing the government into making a grab into everyone else's pocket book. This guy Sadler is already chomping at the bit to spend other people's money, the crosseyed duckfart.

Paul Sadler is nothing but a halfass plaintiffs attorney who picks over what is left of the low-hanging fruit of asbestos litigation.

I don't register to vote anymore, but if I did, I'd vote for a dead buzzard's brown butthole before I voted for any "shared sacrifice" ninny like Sadler.

[forevereagle]

"Shared sacrifice" my ass. There's no law against Paul Sadler giving more to the government than he owes. Let him and all other "shared sacrifice" morons do so without coercing the government into making a grab into everyone else's pocket book. This guy Sadler is already chomping at the bit to spend other people's money, the crosseyed duckfart.

Paul Sadler is nothing but a halfass plaintiffs attorney who picks over what is left of the low-hanging fruit of asbestos litigation.

I don't register to vote anymore, but if I did, I'd vote for a dead buzzard's brown butthole before I voted for any "shared sacrifice" ninny like Sadler.

So, you don't like him? Let's not be ambiguous here.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

So, you don't like him? Let's not be ambiguous here.

I like him the same as I like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and all other "shared sacrificers" throughout history. They are buttholes.

They all have the same stupid, horse's ass assumption that we aren't already sacrificing. Everyone with a social security number is already "sacrificing." These holographic dickbrains don't serve any purpose but to rile up the lazy and ignorant.

A lemur with a frontal lobotomy would have more original governing ideas than stinkholes like Castro, Chavez, and Sadler. They're nothing but theives dressing themselves as do-gooders.

If any one of them so much as set foot on my front lawn, I'd hire a blind mule to come and kick them in the nuts. I'd sell tickets so that people could come and enjoy the spectacle of a blind mule kicking a socialist in the clusticles. And, that would be a good lesson in capitalism for them despite the hurt of their mule broke nadsack.

[KRAM1]

I don't register to vote anymore

I find this comment sad. I believe it is a duty for every citizen in a free nation to vote...lots of good men and women have died to protect this right......please reconsider this position and take your rightful position in this republic of ours, honor those who fought and died to protect this right and vote.

I know it's also your choice...another great thing about this republic of ours...but please....reconsider. Too late for the current election, but another will follow.