Clinton's $1.2 trillion debt. A fraudulent funny number
William Barwell
In article <opohja2...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
Andrew Hall <ah...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Karl Auerbach writes:
>
>
> Karl> Of course, we're already another trillion in debt from Bill Clinton's
> Karl> administration. And he did it in less than half the time! Now there's
> Karl> something to be proud of! But he had help from Congress, as well...
>
>But the Debt/GDP is only up a percent or so, while it went up
>almost 20% under each of Reagan and Bush. On a present dollar
>basis it is not as bad as before either.
>
At it's heighth, debt service reached it's peak of 21.5% in 1991.
Thanks to the Congressional/Bush budget deal of 1990 that went into effect
fiscal 1991, debt service dropped to 20.8 in fiscal 1993. 1994, Clinton's
first budget year, it was down to 20.3%. With the cuts in the defict since
then, I would rather strongly expect it is lower by now.
With GDP growing and debt service rate dropping, it stands to reason
Clinton's administration is doing better that Reagan or Bush in this
regard.
As far as I am concerned, only the three deficts from Clinton budget
years 1994-6 count 'against' him and that would be less that $500 billion,
and will probably be less than $600 billion in deficts when next year's
deficts are totalled up. The rest of this alledged $1.2 trilllion debt is
not his, but is left overs from Reagan/Bush. High debt service, and the
1993 $255 billion defict of Bush's last year.
Since Clinton will see a real reduction in rates of debt service, he
should get credit here.
I keep seeing this fake-o $1.2 trillion figure.
Where does it come from? Will some dittohead show us where and show us a
break down of all components of this number?
Is Bush's massive 1993 255.3 billion defict illicitly added in to
"Clinton's deficit" as I strongly suspect it is? If so, fraud!
You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is personally
responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you come
to place it all at Clinton's feet.
Something is obviously funny about your assertions and numbers.
Time to start digging into this and give it a well deserved full
debunking.
Let's put an end to these neocon lies, shall we?
Dittoheads, lay the full numbers out and let us see where you erred.
This number $1.2 trillion deficts is a fraud until it is justified with
hard evidence and numbers.
Pay me my $1000.00 Odell!
Welsher!
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Weed Eater (munch munch)
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <opohja2...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
: Andrew Hall <ah...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
: >>>>>> Karl Auerbach writes:
: >
: >
: > Karl> Of course, we're already another trillion in debt from Bill Clinton's
: > Karl> administration. And he did it in less than half the time! Now there's
: > Karl> something to be proud of! But he had help from Congress, as well...
: >
: >But the Debt/GDP is only up a percent or so, while it went up
: >almost 20% under each of Reagan and Bush. On a present dollar
: >basis it is not as bad as before either.
: >
:
: At it's heighth, debt service reached it's peak of 21.5% in 1991.
: Thanks to the Congressional/Bush budget deal of 1990 that went into effect
: fiscal 1991, debt service dropped to 20.8 in fiscal 1993. 1994, Clinton's
: first budget year, it was down to 20.3%. With the cuts in the defict since
: then, I would rather strongly expect it is lower by now.
: With GDP growing and debt service rate dropping, it stands to reason
: Clinton's administration is doing better that Reagan or Bush in this
: regard.
: As far as I am concerned, only the three deficts from Clinton budget
: years 1994-6 count 'against' him and that would be less that $500 billion,
: and will probably be less than $600 billion in deficts when next year's
This may be true on budget, but it is well over
this if you count trust funds and entitlements.
: deficts are totalled up. The rest of this alledged $1.2 trilllion debt is
: not his, but is left overs from Reagan/Bush. High debt service, and the
: 1993 $255 billion defict of Bush's last year.
In the 1994 and 1995 budgets, debt increased 570 billion. I am not going
to count 1996 until it is done, government estimates are usually weak.
: Since Clinton will see a real reduction in rates of debt service, he
: should get credit here.
What has he cut?
Only defense . Discretionary domestic spending is up 4.5% over inflation.
Taxation as a precentage of GDP is the highest ever.
The government numbers show the deficit rising again in 1997 due to
entitlements.
: I keep seeing this fake-o $1.2 trillion figure.
Never seen it sorry. The number for 2 years is just over 570 billion.
Maybe it uses the estimated numbers for the 4 years?
: Where does it come from? Will some dittohead show us where and show us a
William Barwell
In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
Weed Eater (munch munch) <weed...@netcom.com> wrote:
>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>: In article <opohja2...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
>: Andrew Hall <ah...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>: >>>>>> Karl Auerbach writes:
>: >
>: >
>: > Karl> Of course, we're already another trillion in debt from Bill Clinton's
>: > Karl> administration. And he did it in less than half the time! Now there's
>: > Karl> something to be proud of! But he had help from Congress, as well...
>: >
>: >But the Debt/GDP is only up a percent or so, while it went up
>: >almost 20% under each of Reagan and Bush. On a present dollar
>: >basis it is not as bad as before either.
>: >
>:
>: At it's heighth, debt service reached it's peak of 21.5% in 1991.
>: Thanks to the Congressional/Bush budget deal of 1990 that went into effect
>: fiscal 1991, debt service dropped to 20.8 in fiscal 1993. 1994, Clinton's
>: first budget year, it was down to 20.3%. With the cuts in the defict since
>: then, I would rather strongly expect it is lower by now.
>
>: With GDP growing and debt service rate dropping, it stands to reason
>: Clinton's administration is doing better that Reagan or Bush in this
>: regard.
>
>: As far as I am concerned, only the three deficts from Clinton budget
>: years 1994-6 count 'against' him and that would be less that $500 billion,
>: and will probably be less than $600 billion in deficts when next year's
>This may be true on budget, but it is well over
>this if you count trust funds and entitlements.
Sorry, but deficts is deficts. If a defict is $116 billion it is a
$116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
defict. The deficit is all deficts.
Clinton was handed a government badly out of whack with huge yearly
deficts and huge debt service. But he has managed to cut deficts down to
$116 billion.
Like I said, his first defict was $203 billion. His second I do not know
but I know it was not bigger than his first year by much so that is about
$500 billion total to date, and next year's will probably be smaller if
growth keeps going at this rate.
This is about $600 billions. About half the $1,200 billions being bandied
about. October 5th, we will have the official fiscal year total for 1996
and a 1997 prediction. But even if you arbitrarily toss in another
$200 billion in on top of my dinner napkin calculation, it is still only
$800 billion total, and nowhere NEAR this mystery $1,200 billion
number thrown around by so many Clinton haters.
I doubt SS and Medicare and Medicade will suddenly rise $200 billion in
1997. So I think we will see a total defict for Clinton's 4 budget years
that will be about $600 billion - $620 billion.
So 'trust funds and entitlements' does not work. We have some funny
numbers. Where did the come from?
>
>: deficts are totalled up. The rest of this alledged $1.2 trilllion debt is
>: not his, but is left overs from Reagan/Bush. High debt service, and the
>: 1993 $255 billion defict of Bush's last year.
>In the 1994 and 1995 budgets, debt increased 570 billion. I am not going
>to count 1996 until it is done, government estimates are usually weak.
>
What was the official deficit for 1995? It was $203.3 billion for 1994
according to official US Treasury figures.
I know the defict did not leap to $367 billion in 1995.
Something is funny here. Is your number including deficts AND debt
service?
Where did you get that figure and what exactly is it supposed to mean?
It cannot be deficts. So it must either be numbers for something else or
just plain wrong.
>: Since Clinton will see a real reduction in rates of debt service, he
>: should get credit here.
>What has he cut?
>Only defense . Discretionary domestic spending is up 4.5% over inflation.
>Taxation as a precentage of GDP is the highest ever.
>
Bullshit, this is a handwave. The question is, what was the deficts for
1994 - 6? Whether he cut this or that or whatever is of no importance to
the question, where did the obviously false number of $1.2 trillion come
from? Why are these numbers so obviously out of whack with the real
deficts so reported? Babbling about he only cut defense is not the point
here. Stick to the point please.
>The government numbers show the deficit rising again in 1997 due to
>entitlements.
>
Which numbers, where, cites? Proof, evidence? Why does this not seem to
jibe with a defict of $166 billion and $203 Billion reported to date.
1995 as I say, was surely not larger that 1994 so we have $500 billion.
No way is 1997 going to be $700 billion to yeild $1,200 billions.
Where does the $1.2 trillion number come from, what does it represent?
This is a funny number. It is not real. I have seen it a lot lately
parroted by neocon armchair economists. Where are they getting this
obvious nonsense? Some article in National Review? Rush? American
Standard? Spotlight?
>: I keep seeing this fake-o $1.2 trillion figure.
>Never seen it sorry. The number for 2 years is just over 570 billion.
>Maybe it uses the estimated numbers for the 4 years?
>
The numbers don't work. It cannot be.
>: Where does it come from? Will some dittohead show us where and show us a
>: break down of all components of this number?
>: Is Bush's massive 1993 255.3 billion defict illicitly added in to
>: "Clinton's deficit" as I strongly suspect it is? If so, fraud!
>: You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is personally
>: responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you come
>: to place it all at Clinton's feet.
>
>: Something is obviously funny about your assertions and numbers.
>: Time to start digging into this and give it a well deserved full
>: debunking.
>
>: Let's put an end to these neocon lies, shall we?
>: Dittoheads, lay the full numbers out and let us see where you erred.
>: This number $1.2 trillion deficts is a fraud until it is justified with
>: hard evidence and numbers.
>
>
(Recycled sig)
John Q. Public
William Barwell wrote:
>
> Sorry, but deficts is deficts. If a defict is $116 billion it is a
> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
The FY ends 9/30.
Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
month to go.
William Barwell
In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
John Q. Public <j...@pop.globaldialog.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but deficts is deficts. If a defict is $116 billion it is a
>> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
>> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
>> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
>
>
>Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
>
>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
>
>Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
>yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
>
>This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
>month to go.
Nope $116 billion is the number being reported as the
estimated defict to 1996.
Now, we have to reconcile these numbers.
Defict = $116 billion.
What do we mean by indebtedness?
What is the breakdown here?
We have several sets of numbers floating around and something is not
right.
And if Clinton is indeed using funny numbers, then did Reagan and Bush use
the same sort of funny numbers?
When I say Reagan's defict was $127.9 billion for 1982, this is teh number
usually used even by conservatives. It is from the US Treasury and is
total spending minus total revenues of al kinds.
The same source gives us the estimate of $116 billion. So something is
warped.
If the number others want to use is $237.5, fine, as long as we use
the same method of calculating Reagan and Bush's deficts.
Obviously, something is wrong and I can see where the Treasury got it's
deficts from seeing the breakdown as reported in the world almanac.
Seeing so many funny numbers floating around means I want to know how that
$237.5 billion is calculated. As I said, I can see where the Treasury
defict numbers come from.
These are the ones I will use until I have a better reason to use other
numbers and only when I have the same calculated deficts of Reagan and
Bush in the same manner to compare.
John Q. Public
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
> John Q. Public <j...@pop.globaldialog.com> wrote:
> >William Barwell wrote:
> >>
> >> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
> >> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
> >> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
> >
> >
> >Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
> >
> >National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
> >National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
> >
> >Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
> >yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
> >
> >This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
> >month to go.
>
> Nope $116 billion is the number being reported as the
> estimated defict to 1996.
> Now, we have to reconcile these numbers.
>
> Defict = $116 billion.
> What do we mean by indebtedness?
> What is the breakdown here?
>
> We have several sets of numbers floating around and something is not
> right.
>
> And if Clinton is indeed using funny numbers, then did Reagan and Bush use
> the same sort of funny numbers?
Reagan and Bush used funny numbers. Maybe the practice
has been "refined" somewhat by Clinton; maybe not.
The difference in what is reported to the public
and what is reported by the Department of Commerce is
that the Department of Commerce numbers don't "offset"
half the deficit by virtually stealing money that doesn't
exist from the Social Security Trust fund, and who knows
where else.
Americans are being lied to by our government with the
complicity of our media. Once one accepts that as a fact,
everything is suspect, as it should be.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
WRong! The debt increased by $276 billion in 1995. What makes you be
able to say that means the deficit was only $116? By ignoring entitlements.
: Clinton was handed a government badly out of whack with huge yearly
: deficts and huge debt service. But he has managed to cut deficts down to
: $116 billion.
: Like I said, his first defict was $203 billion. His second I do not know
: but I know it was not bigger than his first year by much so that is about
: $500 billion total to date, and next year's will probably be smaller if
: growth keeps going at this rate.
: This is about $600 billions. About half the $1,200 billions being bandied
: about. October 5th, we will have the official fiscal year total for 1996
: and a 1997 prediction. But even if you arbitrarily toss in another
: $200 billion in on top of my dinner napkin calculation, it is still only
: $800 billion total, and nowhere NEAR this mystery $1,200 billion
I never said the 1.2 trillion.
Yea Clinton only 800 billion.
I can see the ad now.
"8 years of Clinton will reduce the deficit by only increasing the debt
1,600,000,000"
: number thrown around by so many Clinton haters.
: I doubt SS and Medicare and Medicade will suddenly rise $200 billion in
: 1997. So I think we will see a total defict for Clinton's 4 budget years
: that will be about $600 billion - $620 billion.
But they are going up and not being attacked, leaving a projected debt of
over $6 trillion by 2000. Way to go Clinton protecting us from those
mean Republican deficit cuts.
: So 'trust funds and entitlements' does not work. We have some funny
: numbers. Where did the come from?
: >
: >: deficts are totalled up. The rest of this alledged $1.2 trilllion debt is
: >: not his, but is left overs from Reagan/Bush. High debt service, and the
: >: 1993 $255 billion defict of Bush's last year.
: >In the 1994 and 1995 budgets, debt increased 570 billion. I am not going
: >to count 1996 until it is done, government estimates are usually weak.
: >
: What was the official deficit for 1995? It was $203.3 billion for 1994
: according to official US Treasury figures.
According to the treasury department at year of 1995 the debt was 570
billion more than year end 1993.
: I know the defict did not leap to $367 billion in 1995.
: Something is funny here. Is your number including deficts AND debt
: service?
: Where did you get that figure and what exactly is it supposed to mean?
: It cannot be deficts. So it must either be numbers for something else or
: just plain wrong.
The deficit you keep quoting is on budget, just like Clinton does. It
does not count trust funds,. entitlements, or interest.
All of my numbers came from the department of commerce.
I will look up the exact numbers at work tomorrow if you want them.
: >: Since Clinton will see a real reduction in rates of debt service, he
: >: should get credit here.
: >What has he cut?
: >Only defense . Discretionary domestic spending is up 4.5% over inflation.
: >Taxation as a precentage of GDP is the highest ever.
: >
: Bullshit, this is a handwave.
: The question is, what was the deficts for
: 1994 - 6? Whether he cut this or that or whatever is of no importance to
: the question, where did the obviously false number of $1.2 trillion come
: from? Why are these numbers so obviously out of whack with the real
: deficts so reported? Babbling about he only cut defense is not the point
: here. Stick to the point please.
he swears he is cutting spending, but he is increasing it. We are
bringing in more tax revenue on a higher GDP, but we are not cutting
spending.
Every number I gave you is from the US government.
I will post the official deficits tomorrow for the years you asked for.
: >The government numbers show the deficit rising again in 1997 due to
: >entitlements.
: >
: Which numbers,
The US government and its own budget watch groups numbers.
: where, cites? Proof, evidence? Why does this not seem to
: jibe with a defict of $166 billion and $203 Billion reported to date.
: 1995 as I say, was surely not larger that 1994 so we have $500 billion.
: No way is 1997 going to be $700 billion to yeild $1,200 billions.
: Where does the $1.2 trillion number come from, what does it represent?
: This is a funny number. It is not real. I have seen it a lot lately
: parroted by neocon armchair economists. Where are they getting this
: obvious nonsense? Some article in National Review? Rush? American
: Standard? Spotlight?
: >: I keep seeing this fake-o $1.2 trillion figure.
: >Never seen it sorry. The number for 2 years is just over 570 billion.
: >Maybe it uses the estimated numbers for the 4 years?
: >
: The numbers don't work. It cannot be.
Then the government is lying because that is what it says it is, 570
billion for 2 years.
: >: Where does it come from? Will some dittohead show us where and show us a
: >: break down of all components of this number?
: >: Is Bush's massive 1993 255.3 billion defict illicitly added in to
: >: "Clinton's deficit" as I strongly suspect it is? If so, fraud!
: >: You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is personally
: >: responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you come
: >: to place it all at Clinton's feet.
: >
: >: Something is obviously funny about your assertions and numbers.
: >: Time to start digging into this and give it a well deserved full
: >: debunking.
: >
: >: Let's put an end to these neocon lies, shall we?
: >: Dittoheads, lay the full numbers out and let us see where you erred.
: >: This number $1.2 trillion deficts is a fraud until it is justified with
: >: hard evidence and numbers.
: >
: >
: (Recycled sig)
: >
John Q. Public
Garrett Johnson wrote:
>
>
> >This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
> >month to go.
>
> No Clinton is talking about the deficit.
The deficit, unadulterated by bullshit tricks, smoke
and mirrors, is twice what Clinton claims. That's what
the numbers say.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction of the decade: "The public will never believe the
innocence of the Clintons & their loyal staff." -- author unknown
abig...@inx.net
From the Sexual Harassment Complaint by Paula
Corbin Jones against William Jefferson Clinton,
as filed in Federal Court----
Let's "pick-up" with paragraph 7----
7. On May 8, 1991, the AIDC sponsored the
Third Annual Governor's Quality Management
Conference (hereafter "Conference"), which
was held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little
Rock, Arkansas. Clinton, then Governor of
Arkansas, delivered a speech at the
Conference on that day.
8. Also on that day, Jones worked at the
registration desk at the Conference along
with Pamela Blackard (hereafter "Blackard")
another AIDC employee.
9. A man approached the registration desk
and informed Jones and Blackard that he was
Trooper Danny Ferguson, Bill Clinton's
bodyguard. Defendant Ferguson was at that
time a law enforcement officer within the
ranks of the Arkansas State Police and
assigned to the Governor's Security Detail.
He was in street clothes and displayed a
firearm on his person. He made small talk
with Jones and Blackard and then left.
10. At approximately 2:30 p.m. on that
day, Ferguson reappeared at the registration
desk, delivered a piece of paper to Jones
with a four digit number written on it and
said: "The Governor would like to meet with
you" in this suite number. Plaintiff had
never met Defendant Clinton and saw him in
person for the first time at the Conference.
11. A three-way conversation followed
between Ferguson, Blackard and Jones about
what the Governor could want. Jones, who was
then a rank-and-file Arkansas state employee
being paid approximately $ 6.35 an hour,
thought it was an honor to be asked to meet
the Governor. Ferguson stated during the
conversation: "It's okay, we do this all the
time for the Governor."
12. Jones agreed to meet with the Governor
because she thought it might lead to an
enhanced employment opportunity with the
State. Blackard told Jones that she would
assume Plaintiff's duties at the registration
desk.
13. Trooper Ferguson then escorted Jones
to the floor of the hotel suite whose number
had been written on the slip of paper Trooper
Ferguson had given to Jones. The door was
slightly ajar when she arrived at the suite.
14. Jones knocked on the door frame and
Clinton answered. Plaintiff entered. Ferguson
remained outside.
15. The room was furnished as a business
suite, not for an overnight hotel guest. It
contained a couch and chairs, but no bed.
16. Clinton shook Jones' hand, invited her
in, and closed the door.
17. A few minutes of small talk ensued,
which included asking Jones about her job.
Clinton told Jones that Dave Harrington is
"my good friend." On May 8, 1991, David
Harrington was Director of the AIDC, having
been appointed to that post by Governor
Clinton. Harrington was Jones' ultimate
superior within the AIDC.
18. Clinton then took Jones' hand and
pulled her toward him, so that their bodies
were in close proximity.
19. Jones removed her hand from his and
retreated several feet.
20. However, Clinton approached Jones
again. He said: "I love the way your hair
flows down your back" and "I love your
curves." While saying these things, Clinton
put his hand on Plaintiff's leg and started
sliding it toward the hem of Plaintiff's
culottes. Clinton also bent down to attempt
to kiss Jones on the neck.
..
21. Jones exclaimed, "What are you doing?"
and escaped from Clinton's physical proximity
by walking away from him. Jones tried to
distract Clinton by chatting with him about
his wife. Jones later took a seat at the end
of the sofa nearest the door. Clinton asked
Jones: "Are you married?" She responded that
she had a regular boyfriend. Clinton then
approached the sofa and as he sat down he
lowered his trousers and underwear exposing
his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it."
..
24. Clinton, while fondling his penis
said: "Well, I don't want to make you do
anything you don't want to do." Clinton then
stood up and pulled up his pants and said:
"If you get in trouble for leaving work, have
Dave call me immediately and I'll take care
of it." As Jones left the room Clinton looked
sternly at Jones and said: "You are smart.
Let's keep this between ourselves."
..
30. When Ballentine met Plaintiff at the
reception area, she immediately asked Jones
what was wrong because Jones was visibly
upset and nervous. Plaintiff wanted to talk
about something that just happened and wanted
to discuss it someplace privately. Ballentine
and Jones went to a private area in the
office, and later outside. Jones then told
Ballentine what had happened with Clinton in
the hotel suite. According to Ballentine,
Jones told her that Clinton said as she left
the room, "I know you're a smart girl and I'm
sure you'll keep this to yourself."
..
35. Plaintiff continued to work at AIDC.
One of her duties was to deliver documents to
and from the Office of the Governor, as well
as other offices within the Arkansas State
Capitol complex. In or about June, 1991,
while Jones was performing this duty,
Ferguson saw her at the Governor's office and
said: "Bill wants your phone number.
Hillary's out of town often and Bill would
like to see you." Plaintiff refused to
provide her telephone number.
Garrett Johnson
In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
"John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>> Sorry, but deficts is deficts. If a defict is $116 billion it is a
>> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
>> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
>> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
>
>Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
>
>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
>
>Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
>yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
Actually this is a huge improvement over Bush. Don't believe me?
Take a look at the historical database for growth in federal debt.
In 1992 it was over $400 bilion. Lat year it was about $270 billion. This
year, even less. We are looking at a 40%+ drop in the growth of federal debt.
>This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
>month to go.
No Clinton is talking about the deficit. And that has declined by a great deal
as well.
-GJ
William Barwell
In article <524ruq$890...@ppp.hooked.net>,
Garrett Johnson <midt...@hooked.net> wrote:
>In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
> "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
>>William Barwell wrote:
>>> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
>>> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
>>> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
>>
>>Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
>>
>>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
>>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
>>
>>Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
>>yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
>
> Actually this is a huge improvement over Bush. Don't believe me?
>Take a look at the historical database for growth in federal debt.
> In 1992 it was over $400 bilion. Lat year it was about $270 billion. This
>year, even less. We are looking at a 40%+ drop in the growth of federal debt.
>
>>This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
>>month to go.
>
> No Clinton is talking about the deficit. And that has declined by a great deal
>as well.
>
>-GJ
Deficit for 1992 - $290.2 billion
So where did the $400 billion come from.
The US treasury measures all spending, all income and subtracts.
This leaves $290.2 billion.
Is that $400 billion deficts + debt service?
I keep seeing numbers in the papers and media using the treasury numbers
which is why I use these, then all of asudden, see these other numbers
being thrown around with no real source nor explanation of what they mean.
The treasury numbers in my almanac has three important components.
Net budget outlays less net receipts = deficts.
This year's budget outlay - net reciepts will be about $116 billion.
I still do not see where other people are claiming it is really
$200+ billions or how $290.2 billion all of a sudden is $400 billion.
Too many funny numbers. I ask fo rexplanations from teh Clinton haters
how they are claiming $200 billion + rather than the $116 billion and get
....no real answers.
I will consider teh U.S Treasury way, net outlays, - net reciepts = net
deficit the proper way to figure it. I have no idea what other numbers
mean despite repeated questions from the neocons as to where they are
getting these numbers and what they represent.
This years deficit will be about $116 billion. If anybody wants to
disagree, fine, show me why and where you are getting numbers and exactly
what they mean. Otherwise, forget it.
$400 billion? Where did THAT come from?
When people state that Reagan added $1.2 trillion to the national debt
in 8 years, this is the official U.S. Treasury number and uses the same
methodology as Clinton's 1996 $116 figure.
If people want to claim it was really more, fine, what is Reagan's net
deficts for 8 years using the same accounting method? If people want to
change yard sticks, fine, better be willing and able to explain your yard
stick and give me comparison numbers for Reagan and Bush before trying to
use non-U.S. Treasury yardsticks to inflate Clinton's deficts.
Still no explanation for the funny numbers being thrown around.
William Barwell
In article <3245F...@globaldialog.com>,
>>
>
>>
>> >This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
>> >month to go.
>>
>> No Clinton is talking about the deficit.
>
>
>and mirrors, is twice what Clinton claims. That's what
>the numbers say.
>
>
Bullshit. Where do these funny numbers come from. I ask and ask and get
no answer. $116 billion. Prove otherwise. I am using the official
U.S. Treasury way of figuring these things.
Net outlays, minus net reciepts = net deficits = estimated $199 billion
for fiscal 1996.
If you have another number, show why it differs from $116 billion and
from the US Treasury method. The U.S. Treasury gave us teh $1.2 trillion
debt figure for Reagan's 8 years. If you are using a different yardstick,
what was Reagan's total deficts using that yardstick? If you canot
expalin any of this, then it is funny numbers used only to inflate
Clinton's deficts for political rhetorical reasons and nothing more.
If you cannot or are not willing to discuss this issue, your funny numbers
are hearby rejected for the more usual and well used and common sense
U.S. Treasury numbers which are the numbers the media uses and has been
using for years.
Outlay - revenue = defict which is about $116 for fiscal 1996.
If you do not know where your numbers come from or what they mean they are
useless to you and me. If you don'tt know, I have no use for 'em.
$116 billion. That is it.
If you want to use another yardstick, then show me what Reagan's total
deficits for 8 years were using that yardstick. If you cannot, I reject
your funny numbers and yard stick.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <3245F...@globaldialog.com>,
: John Q. Public <j...@pop.globaldialog.com> wrote:
: >Garrett Johnson wrote:
: >>
: >
: >>
: >> >This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
: >> >month to go.
: >>
: >> No Clinton is talking about the deficit.
: >
: >
: >The deficit, unadulterated by bullshit tricks, smoke
: >and mirrors, is twice what Clinton claims. That's what
: >the numbers say.
: >
: >
: Bullshit. Where do these funny numbers come from. I ask and ask and get
: no answer. $116 billion. Prove otherwise. I am using the official
: U.S. Treasury way of figuring these things.
On budget 1995 deficit: 251.7 billion.
Source: Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act, page 14 of 1996 US Commerce
Department PDF for "the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996)
: Net outlays, minus net reciepts = net deficits = estimated $199 billion
: for fiscal 1996.
1996 estimated numbers:
onbudget deficit $258.8 billion, same source as above
Federal debt: 1995, 4.96 trillion
1996, 5.3 trillion
Increase over $300 billion in 1996
Same source, page 90
: If you have another number, show why it differs from $116 billion and
: from the US Treasury method. The U.S. Treasury gave us teh $1.2 trillion
: debt figure for Reagan's 8 years. If you are using a different yardstick,
: what was Reagan's total deficts using that yardstick? If you canot
: expalin any of this, then it is funny numbers used only to inflate
: Clinton's deficts for political rhetorical reasons and nothing more.
: If you cannot or are not willing to discuss this issue, your funny numbers
: are hearby rejected for the more usual and well used and common sense
: U.S. Treasury numbers which are the numbers the media uses and has been
: using for years.
I just gave you official government numbers.
: Outlay - revenue = defict which is about $116 for fiscal 1996.
Not according to the US Commerce Department, which does all the statistics
on the matter
: If you do not know where your numbers come from or what they mean they are
: useless to you and me. If you don'tt know, I have no use for 'em.
I just told you where they come from.
: $116 billion. That is it.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: In article <524ruq$890...@ppp.hooked.net>,
: Garrett Johnson <midt...@hooked.net> wrote:
: >In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
: > "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
: >>William Barwell wrote:
: >>> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
: >>> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
: >>> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
: >>The FY ends 9/30.
: >>Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
: >>
: >>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
: >>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
: >>
: >>Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
: >>yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
: >
: > Actually this is a huge improvement over Bush. Don't believe me?
: >Take a look at the historical database for growth in federal debt.
: > In 1992 it was over $400 bilion. Lat year it was about $270 billion. This
: >year, even less. We are looking at a 40%+ drop in the growth of federal debt.
: >>This is *twice* what Clinton claims, and he's only got one
: >>month to go.
: >
: >as well.
: >
: >-GJ
: Deficit for 1992 - $290.2 billion
: So where did the $400 billion come from.
: The US treasury measures all spending, all income and subtracts.
: This leaves $290.2 billion.
: Is that $400 billion deficts + debt service?
: I keep seeing numbers in the papers and media using the treasury numbers
: which is why I use these, then all of asudden, see these other numbers
: being thrown around with no real source nor explanation of what they mean.
: The treasury numbers in my almanac has three important components.
: Net budget outlays less net receipts = deficts.
: This year's budget outlay - net reciepts will be about $116 billion.
: I still do not see where other people are claiming it is really
: $200+ billions or how $290.2 billion all of a sudden is $400 billion.
: Too many funny numbers. I ask fo rexplanations from teh Clinton haters
: how they are claiming $200 billion + rather than the $116 billion and get
: ....no real answers.
I keep giving you real answers. 1995 the debt increased over 300
billion, p.90, the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, US Commerce
Department.
onbudget deficit, $251.7 billion in 1995, page 14 of the same document.
: I will consider teh U.S Treasury way, net outlays, - net reciepts = net
: deficit the proper way to figure it. I have no idea what other numbers
: mean despite repeated questions from the neocons as to where they are
: getting these numbers and what they represent.
: This years deficit will be about $116 billion. If anybody wants to
: disagree, fine, show me why and where you are getting numbers and exactly
: what they mean. Otherwise, forget it.
1996 estimated on-budget deficit 258 billion, same source.
Total deficit 196 billion after raiding SS. Increase in debt over 300
billion.
: $400 billion? Where did THAT come from?
: When people state that Reagan added $1.2 trillion to the national debt
: in 8 years, this is the official U.S. Treasury number and uses the same
: methodology as Clinton's 1996 $116 figure.
: If people want to claim it was really more, fine, what is Reagan's net
: deficts for 8 years using the same accounting method? If people want to
: change yard sticks, fine, better be willing and able to explain your yard
: stick and give me comparison numbers for Reagan and Bush before trying to
: use non-U.S. Treasury yardsticks to inflate Clinton's deficts.
You the budget history in the official US Budget, as I did.
: Still no explanation for the funny numbers being thrown around.
I just explained the very real, US government numbers.
John Q. Public
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <524ruq$890...@ppp.hooked.net>,
> Garrett Johnson <midt...@hooked.net> wrote:
> >In article <32448D...@globaldialog.com>,
> > "John Q. Public" <j...@globaldialog.com> wrote:
> >>William Barwell wrote:
> >>> $116 billion defict and not a penny more, entitlements or discretionary
> >>> spending, no matter what you call it are not something seperate from th3
> >>> defict. The deficit is all deficts.
> >>
The receipts are fudged.
Look for yourself:
John Q. Public
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <3245F...@globaldialog.com>,
> John Q. Public <j...@pop.globaldialog.com> wrote:
> >Garrett Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> >month to go.
> >>
> >> No Clinton is talking about the deficit.
> >
> >
> >and mirrors, is twice what Clinton claims. That's what
> >the numbers say.
> >
> >
>
> Bullshit. Where do these funny numbers come from.
Garrett Johnson
In article <opiv95s...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>> William Barwell writes:
[...]
> William> You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is
personally
> William> responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you
come
> William> to place it all at Clinton's feet.
>
>It is not all personally Clinton's fault, of course, but he has
>not done enough to slow down the rate of growth of it.
Actually he has done quite a bit in this regard. The growth in federal debt
has slowed from $400+ billion in 1992, to about $270 billion last year, and will
be lower this year.
> Of course,
>the American people do not really want that, or they would not
>vote for the politicians they elect.
That much is very true. Many Americans can't live without credit cards, so it
is little suprise that they don't expect their elected leaders to do otherwise.
-GJ
chris.holt
William Barwell wrote:
> >>The FY ends 9/30.
> >>Here are the numbers, from the Dept. of Commerce:
> >>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
> >>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
> >>Total increase in indebtedness, i.e., the
> >>yearly deficit, for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
> > Actually this is a huge improvement over Bush. Don't believe me?
> >Take a look at the historical database for growth in federal debt.
> > In 1992 it was over $400 bilion. Lat year it was about $270 billion. This
> >year, even less. We are looking at a 40%+ drop in the growth of federal debt.
> Deficit for 1992 - $290.2 billion
> So where did the $400 billion come from.
> The US treasury measures all spending, all income and subtracts.
> This leaves $290.2 billion.
> Is that $400 billion deficts + debt service?
No; the diffence between the deficit and the change in debt has to
do with off-budget items and funny accounting. Oddly enough, it
was mainly stimulated by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which was supposed
to rein in the deficit; since Congress couldn't manage under those
rules, things got weird. Andrew Hall could tell you better than I,
but here's a quote from
http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1990.html
(which suggests another way to deal with things):
-----
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Process
Prior to the fall 1990 reforms, the budget process was designed to work
roughly as follows:
Early in January the president would submit to Congress a budget for the
fiscal year beginning
October 1. By the time Congress would adjourn in the summer it would
pass bills and a budget
resolution specifying amounts to be appropriated to discretionary
spending programs and
changes to be made to rules for entitlement programs and taxes. In
mid-August the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) would determine whether the projected
deficit for the upcoming
fiscal year exceeded the GRH target by more than $10 billion. If it did,
automatic spending cuts
would be made according to a statutory formula to ensure that the
projected deficit met the target.
Then at some point Congress would raise the debt ceiling so that there
was authority to issue
additional debt to finance the projected deficit.
The GRH procedure was supposed to lead to balanced budgets and to
eliminate the government's
deficit financing bias by the use of rules. The procedure did not come
close to achieving its goal
and the original GRH targets had to be revised several times. In
addition, the process led to other
problems.
Rather than curbing the government's bias to excessively discount the
future, the GRH process
fed it. By focusing on the projected budget deficit in the approaching
fiscal year, the process
encouraged deficit financing, discouraged capital spending and made it
more attractive to delay
necessary expenditures.
Paradoxically, the GRH process made deficit financing easier by
encouraging the substitution of
gimmicks for real actions. The gimmicks included the exchanging of
assets, time-shifting of
payments, movement of expenditures off the budget and use of unrealistic
economic and
technical assumptions. Selling government assets, such as loans, for
cash resulted in budget
savings, even though all that occurred was the exchange of one asset for
another one of
comparable value. Time-shifting created one-time fictitious savings by
taking payments
scheduled for the approaching fiscal year and moving them into the
current fiscal year where they
were simply spilt milk, or into the following fiscal year where they
were not yet subject to a
sequester. For example, the government achieved savings in an
approaching fiscal year by taking
payments such as employees' pay and farm subsidies due out in late
September and delaying
them until early October of the following fiscal year. Then without
retribution, the government
was able to switch the payments back once the new fiscal year was
entered. Movement of
expenditures off-budget, such as was done for the U.S. Postal Service
and the Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC), produced budget savings by a stroke of the pen
without doing anything real.
Finally, projected deficits were reduced by use of optimistic economic
and technical assumptions
that overestimated tax revenue, underestimated interest expense and
understated the costs of
existing programs.
Just how extensively were these gimmicks used? Robert Reischauer,
director of the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), notes that the amount of permanent
deficit reduction
enacted in the GRH period averaged a bit less than in the pre-GRH period
of same duration:
"What is different about the two periods is the reliance on one-time
savings that became a feature
of the GRH period. ...In the pre-GRH period, these gimmicks occurred so
infrequently that
CBO did not keep systematic track of them. In the GRH era, fully half of
the apparent deficit
reduction has been achieved by such devices" (Reischauer, 1990).
Reischauer also notes that
under GRH the amount of budget savings in the president's budget
attributable to overly
optimistic economic and technical assumptions more than tripled.
-----
Karl Auerbach
In article <51vcr3$s...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
> In article <opohja2...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
> Andrew Hall <ah...@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>> Karl Auerbach writes:
> >
> >
> > Karl> Of course, we're already another trillion in debt from Bill
Clinton's
> > Karl> administration. And he did it in less than half the time! Now
there's
> > Karl> something to be proud of! But he had help from Congress, as well...
> >
> >But the Debt/GDP is only up a percent or so, while it went up
> >almost 20% under each of Reagan and Bush. On a present dollar
> >basis it is not as bad as before either.
> >
>
> At it's heighth, debt service reached it's peak of 21.5% in 1991.
> Thanks to the Congressional/Bush budget deal of 1990 that went into effect
> fiscal 1991, debt service dropped to 20.8 in fiscal 1993. 1994, Clinton's
> first budget year, it was down to 20.3%. With the cuts in the defict since
> then, I would rather strongly expect it is lower by now.
But off-budget debt peaked in 92 at approx $125 billion, and was above
$100 billion for 90 and 91. It went down to approx $85 billion by 94,
back up to about $115 billiion for 95, and projeciton sky rocket after
that. Off-budget debt is NOT considered when deficits are reported. Off
budget debt ONLY shows up when total debt is reported. It's slight of
hand, used by the government to claim they've reduced the deficts.
Playing games with the percentage of GDP only shows that growth was good
for those years were the percentage is "good," but poor growth for the
years when the percentage is "bad." It doesn't negate the simple fact that
debt is increasing, contiunues to increase, and is projected to increase
at alarming rates.
Is this suddenly good?
>
> With GDP growing and debt service rate dropping, it stands to reason
> Clinton's administration is doing better that Reagan or Bush in this
> regard.
Off-budget debt is a killer. Clinton didn't originate it, but he still
uses it. If you choose to ignore this little item, and concentrate soley
on this percentage idea, then do so. If for some reason the GDP goes
south, how are you going to feel about this new percentage.
Look, debt is not good. Some debt is acceptable for the short term, but
long term debt sucks up assets needed for growth, and needed to keep the
overall tax burden down.
>
> As far as I am concerned, only the three deficts from Clinton budget
> years 1994-6 count 'against' him and that would be less that $500 billion,
> and will probably be less than $600 billion in deficts when next year's
> deficts are totalled up. The rest of this alledged $1.2 trilllion debt is
> not his, but is left overs from Reagan/Bush. High debt service, and the
> 1993 $255 billion defict of Bush's last year.
Great! Then as far as you're concerned, Reagan's budget years didn't
start until 82 or so. So those debt increases over those years belong to
Carter? Cool, since they weren't so bad.
But I'm not defending Reagan or Bush. I hold them AND Congress AND Clinton
responsible for our current debt status. Totally non-partisan. The
deficits of the Ragan/Bush years were NOT their SOLE responsibility, since
they couldn't spend money not appropriated by Congress. Neither could/can
Clinton.
>
> Since Clinton will see a real reduction in rates of debt service, he
> should get credit here.
Clinton AND Congress, since one can't work without the other. That's the
point I've been trying to make.
But what is this BS about debt rates? Overall debt has increased from $4
trillion to $5.2 trillion, and this is OK since this "rate" is somehow
"low?" It's STILL a GD drain on our resources! Is that difficult to
understand?
One need only look at their own finances to see the inherent danger in
thinking that this low rate is somehow good. My current rate of debt is
meaningless if I loose my source of income next year, or if it gets
reduced for whatever reasons.
It's another attempt to make someone's president look good over anothers.
Personally, I don't give's a rat's posterior what the rate is. I care that
we have a staggering national debt that sucks us dry, and yet people want
to be so partisan so as to hide behind some silly rate figures.
>
> I keep seeing this fake-o $1.2 trillion figure.
> Where does it come from? Will some dittohead show us where and show us a
> break down of all components of this number?
Dittohead? Sorry, don't listen to Limbaugh. But your effete prejudices
are indeed revealing as to your motives. Can't carry on a discussion
without resorting to name-calling?
Fake-o? It's not too difficult to figure out. Simple math, not
complicated at all by any nuances of "new math." The debt at the end of
Bush's term was approx $4 trillion. Debt today is at approx $5.2 trillion.
A simple subtraction results in (drum roll please)..... $1.2 TRILLION!
TA-DA!
> Is Bush's massive 1993 255.3 billion defict illicitly added in to
> "Clinton's deficit" as I strongly suspect it is? If so, fraud!
Just like the Carter debt you all heap on Reagan? Cool. We'll give you
the benifit of the doubt. The debt is only up approx $ 1 trillion for
Clinton. ANd in only THREE years, no less. The man IS an over-achiever!
Gosh, I feel so much better already. Happy days are here again!
> You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is personally
> responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you come
> to place it all at Clinton's feet.
Who said it was? Actually, according to Democrat logic, it HAS to be
Clinton's responsibility. Democrats insist that the debt increase of the
80s was the sole responsibility of Reagan and Bush, and who wants to go
against the wisdom of Democrats?
Knowledgable people, who don't have an axe to grind, realize that
Government spending is not the sole perogative of the President OR
Congress. If it was, Clinton could have simply ignored Congress last year
and written the budget he wanted, or Congress could have ignored the
President and written the budget they wanted. But one needs the other, for
the most part, or Congress must have the necessarty votes to override a
presidential veto.
I'm blaming presidents (plural) AND Congress' (plural) for our current
debt situation. I would like to see others do the same and quit the
constant harraungs against Reagan/Bush. I don't expect to see it,
however...
>
> Something is obviously funny about your assertions and numbers.
> Time to start digging into this and give it a well deserved full
> debunking.
Go for it. I got my numbers from www.nationaldebt.com. But my assertions,
as you put it, are simply that deficits and debts are the reponsibility of
both branches of Geovernment: Executive and Legislative. If you wish to
debunk that, have fun.
>
> Let's put an end to these neocon lies, shall we?
Why? The same set of lies worked for neolibs as they blamed the 80s debts
on Reagan and Bush. You can't have it both ways (though Clinton's penchant
for landing on both sides of an issue would be interesting, but painfull,
to watch in this discussion). Pick a position and stick with it. If it
was Regans' and Bush's faults for the 80s debt, then it's Clinton's fault
for the increase I sighted.
Not that I beleive it. I know where the responsibility lies: Government.
> Dittoheads, lay the full numbers out and let us see where you erred.
Well, I layed out my numbers, and gave you a reference for the source, and
if dittoheads want to join in, they can. The author of the web page sites
Clinton's own 96 budget as a source for many of these numbers.
I still wonder why you have to resort to this name-calling. It doesn't
lend anything to the discussion, or your credibility.
> This number $1.2 trillion deficts is a fraud until it is justified with
> hard evidence and numbers.
It's $1.2 trillion in debt, not deficit. Tallying only the reported
deificts results in a somewhat rosier (if one could even use that word
without puking) picture, and results in a lower number for accumulated
"debt." The real debt takes into account ALL over-spending, both the
reported deficits and the un-reported off-budget items. The rose suddenlt
turns into a thistle.
Do the math. It's quite simple. I'll even lend you my calculator, if you
need it.
Karl
--
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great!
You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform
everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be
sufficient enough."
The Law, F. Bastiat
Paraphrased from somone on a.c-e.c.ww:
Reagan (with Alzheimer's) remembers more than the current WH staff!
Opinions expressed in this post are mine, all mine!
George
This is the kind of pornography which turns on members of the Christian
Coalition and Right-thinking Republicans:
In article <3245E7...@inx.net>
Wayne Mann
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>In article <opiv95s...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>>> William Barwell writes:
>[...]
>> William> You guys that throw this lie number around as if Clinton is
>personally
>> William> responsible for all of $1.2 trillion in debt should show us how you
>come
>> William> to place it all at Clinton's feet.
>>
>>It is not all personally Clinton's fault, of course, but he has
>>not done enough to slow down the rate of growth of it.
> Actually he has done quite a bit in this regard. The growth in federal debt
>has slowed from $400+ billion in 1992, to about $270 billion last year, and will
>be lower this year.
>> Of course,
>>the American people do not really want that, or they would not
>>vote for the politicians they elect.
> That much is very true. Many Americans can't live without credit cards, so it
>is little suprise that they don't expect their elected leaders to do otherwise.
>-GJ
Here are the real numbers.
Year President Real Deficit
1992 Bush $340B
1993 Bush $300B
1994 Clinton $258B
1995 Clinton $251B
\\/ayne //\ann
Hillary commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents
"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our
papers. We are the president."
James B. Stewart - Blood Sport:
James R. Olson, jr.
wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
-> Here are the real numbers.
->Year President Real Deficit
->1992 Bush $340B
->1993 Bush $300B
->1994 Clinton $258B
->1995 Clinton $251B
Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
themselves.
JimmyO
The possible origin of Wayne Mann's rhetorical philosophy:
"Vilify, vilify. Some of it will always stick."
--Pierre-Augustin Beaumarchais, quoted in TPD 2-31
Weed Eater (munch munch)
James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
: -> Here are the real numbers.
: ->Year President Real Deficit
: ->1992 Bush $340B
: ->1993 Bush $300B
: ->1994 Clinton $258B
: ->1995 Clinton $251B
: Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
: published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
: we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
The US Department of Commerce.
The numbers above come from the US Fiscal Budget for Year 1996.
: I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
: but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
: themselves.
THey are clearly published by the government in its own budget.
I found them by searching the web.
: JimmyO
Paul Havemann
George (EDW...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU) sez:
: This is the kind of pornography which turns on members of the Christian
: Coalition and Right-thinking Republicans:
:
: In article <3245E7...@inx.net>
: abig...@inx.net writes:
: >From the Sexual Harassment Complaint by Paula
: >Corbin Jones against William Jefferson Clinton,
: >as filed in Federal Court----
Well, what turns you on is your business, George... but not
too many people care. ;}
James R. Olson, jr.
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
->>>>>> James R Olson, writes:
-> James> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
-> -> Here are the real numbers.
-> -> Year President Real Deficit
-> -> 1992 Bush $340B
-> -> 1993 Bush $300B
-> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
-> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
-> James> Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
-> James> published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
-> James> we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
-> James> I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
-> James> but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
-> James> themselves.
->It is funny that the numbers are identical and somewhat
->different than those provided by the Treasury and by
->the Concord Coalition. However, the basic message,
->that debt creation has not slowed nearly as much as
->the reported deficit is true. It is the debt that we
->have to pay interest on, and its changes are what is
->important.
Just noticed this... why is Bush getting credit for '93, and why
doesn't the chart go back before '92?
Help to launch the future from
http://www.apollo-society.org/apollo
The Apollo Launch Pad
Garrett Johnson
In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
>: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>: -> Here are the real numbers.
>: ->Year President Real Deficit
>
>: ->1992 Bush $340B
>: ->1993 Bush $300B
>: ->1994 Clinton $258B
>: ->1995 Clinton $251B
>The US Department of Commerce.
>The numbers above come from the US Fiscal Budget for Year 1996.
They differ from both the OMB and the CBO. And, of course, every newspaper
in the country. So unless you can come up with something better, I have to
chalk this up to another "usenet fact".
-GJ
Weed Eater (munch munch)
Garrett Johnson (midt...@hooked.net) wrote:
: In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
Oh come on. Every number myself and Andrew Hall (who actually wrote the
numbers you quote) have given comes directly from the US Government,
either the Department of Commerce (which holds the budget records) or the
department of Treasury (which finances the debt).
These numbers are calcualated by the Clintn administration and they are
fact. Check out the US budget for fiscal 1996 on the US department of
commerce web page. Or choose to believe what the press tells you.
: -GJ
Karl Auerbach
In article <52d6bb$p...@mochi.lava.net>, jha...@lava.net (James R. Olson,
jr.) wrote:
> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>
>
>
> -> Here are the real numbers.
>
> ->Year President Real Deficit
>
> ->1992 Bush $340B
> ->1993 Bush $300B
> ->1994 Clinton $258B
> ->1995 Clinton $251B
>
>
>
> Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
> published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
> we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
It's called research. You know, that thing you do when you chuck partisan
drivel and attempt to discover the truth, based on numbers rather than
"feelings."
He probably searched the web, a relatively new invention that allows the
user to conduct research in a somewhat easy manner. I did the same thing,
and found the same numbers. Why? Becasue I couldn't figure out why the
debt "clock" in NYC was reporting a $5.2 trillion debt, up from approx $
trillion for Bush, while Clinton and his sycophnats went on and on and on
about his reducing the deficits to new lows.
Turns out the lows only applied to how far they would stoop to get Clinton
re-elected.
There's also very little name calling at web sites. You can "log on," do
your research, and don't have to listen to someone who is obviously too
busy yelling "loon" to actually do any research for themselves.
>
> I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
> but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
> themselves.
Well, we do know better than to sit back and spout partisan drivel when
it's a simple matter to open a program, type http:// [etc.] , and get to a
web site that has actual numbers. Then, since the math is obviously so
difficult, we can then enter the numbers into a calculator and let IT do
the math. It's really not that difficult. Try it some time.
Weed Eater (munch munch)
: ->>>>>> James R Olson, writes:
: -> James> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
: -> -> Here are the real numbers.
: -> -> Year President Real Deficit
: -> -> 1992 Bush $340B
: -> -> 1993 Bush $300B
: -> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
: -> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
: -> James> Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
: -> James> published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
: -> James> we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
: -> James> I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
: -> James> but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
: -> James> themselves.
: ->It is funny that the numbers are identical and somewhat
: ->different than those provided by the Treasury and by
: ->the Concord Coalition. However, the basic message,
: ->that debt creation has not slowed nearly as much as
: ->the reported deficit is true. It is the debt that we
: ->have to pay interest on, and its changes are what is
: ->important.
: Just noticed this... why is Bush getting credit for '93, and why
: doesn't the chart go back before '92?
Because Bush, not Clinton, did the 1993 budget.
This is standard process by economists.
As to the second question, maybe Andrew got tired of typing and figured
you might have the barins to go get them yourself??
:
: Help to launch the future from
Garrett Johnson
Uh, I just visited the Department of Commerce Web Page, the one that these
numbers are supposedly from, and these weren't the numbers in the deficit
catagory of that page. Nor the numbers that the link to the OMB had either. Nor
the number that the CBO link provided. Nor any newspaper that I've seen.
I've done the math for the growth in the deficit over these years. And this
isn't it either. The growth in the deficit from the _official_ numbers says
about a 45% drop.
So where the Hell _did_ you get these numbers?
-GJ
Life's a Hillary
Record low interterest rates and S&L selloff. Clinton is out of control!
The phoney deficit is creative accountoning. It's the National Debt stupid.
_________________________________________________________________
The Public Debt of the United States, to the penny.
Current
Month Amount
--------------------------------------------
09/26/1996 $5,198,325,061,997.28
09/25/1996 $5,198,780,826,934.47
09/24/1996 $5,195,854,879,174.22
09/23/1996 $5,192,406,060,962.74
09/20/1996 $5,191,241,550,309.43
09/19/1996 $5,190,460,235,894.57
09/18/1996 $5,193,856,710,104.18
09/17/1996 $5,190,807,990,011.88
09/16/1996 $5,217,327,143,659.08
09/13/1996 $5,217,304,758,895.91
09/12/1996 $5,216,902,015,633.76
09/11/1996 $5,219,273,550,936.86
09/10/1996 $5,217,211,394,956.03
09/09/1996 $5,214,144,675,542.25
09/06/1996 $5,220,377,655,156.41
09/05/1996 $5,225,564,391,083.90
09/04/1996 $5,228,998,407,724.89
09/03/1996 $5,226,657,169,759.06
Prior
Months
---------------------------------------------
08/30/1996 $5,208,303,439,417.93
07/31/1996 $5,188,888,625,925.87
06/28/1996 $5,161,075,688,140.93
05/31/1996 $5,128,508,504,892.80
04/30/1996 $5,102,048,827,234.22
03/29/1996 $5,117,786,366,014.56
02/29/1996 $5,017,040,703,255.02
01/31/1996 $4,987,436,358,165.20
12/29/1995 $4,988,664,979,014.54
11/30/1995 $4,989,329,926,644.31
10/31/1995 $4,985,262,110,021.06
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
Prior
Years
---------------------------------------------
12/30/1994 $4,800,149,946,143.75
12/31/1993 $4,535,687,054,406.14
12/31/1992 $4,177,009,244,468.77
12/31/1991 $3,801,698,272,862.02
12/31/1990 $3,364,820,230,276.86
12/29/1989 $2,952,994,244,624.71
12/30/1988 $2,684,391,916,571.41
12/31/1987 $2,431,715,264,976.86
12/31/1986 $2,214,834,532,586.43
12/31/1985 $1,945,941,616,459.88
* [1]Go to Public Debt's Home Page
[INLINE]
Updated September 27, 1996
[2]|Treasury Home Page| [3]|Treasury Bureaus|
References
1. http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/pubdebt/pubdebt.html
2. http://www.ustreas.gov/Welcome.html
3. http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/bureaus.html
--
Visit the Clinton Chicago Bull: Parody Sound page
http://www.cnct.com/~bshr/Bull.html
Files now zipped, for d/l compatability.
Updated 9/28/96
Weed Eater (munch munch)
Garrett Johnson (midt...@hooked.net) wrote:
: In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
These numbers are from the US Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, BUDG96H.PDF on
the US Department of Commerce web page. The deficit numbers come from
the overview, which I believe is chapter 1. The debt increase numbers
come from the Federal Debt chapter which lists every year and the debt
for that year.
You may be looking at the total deficit. This uses a trick where Socisal
Security trust fund money is used to reduce the deficit on paper.
However, it cannot be used to reduce the debt. This is why the onbudget
deficit and the debt are the important numbers.
I will look up the web address for you Monday. Just look at the
official US budget, you will find these numbers.
: -GJ
James R. Olson, jr.
weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
->James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
->: ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
->: ->>>>>> James R Olson, writes:
->: -> James> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
->: -> -> Here are the real numbers.
->: -> -> Year President Real Deficit
->: -> -> 1992 Bush $340B
->: -> -> 1993 Bush $300B
->: -> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
->: -> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
->: -> James> Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
->: -> James> published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at once
->: -> James> we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new figures.
->: -> James> I know it's been claimed that they are official government figures,
->: -> James> but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
->: -> James> themselves.
->: ->It is funny that the numbers are identical and somewhat
->: ->different than those provided by the Treasury and by
->: ->the Concord Coalition. However, the basic message,
->: ->that debt creation has not slowed nearly as much as
->: ->the reported deficit is true. It is the debt that we
->: ->have to pay interest on, and its changes are what is
->: ->important.
->: Just noticed this... why is Bush getting credit for '93, and why
->: doesn't the chart go back before '92?
->Because Bush, not Clinton, did the 1993 budget.
->This is standard process by economists.
->As to the second question, maybe Andrew got tired of typing and figured
->you might have the barins to go get them yourself??
Those are Wayne's numbers, I don't know where he got them (that's why
I asked), Hall says that Clinton should get 3/4 of the credit for '93.
If someone put these numbers together honestly, why did they choose
that particular segment to show? Could it be that earlier years
looked worse? We don't know, because we don't know where the numbers
came from, but we do know that the people who are presenting them have
a very BIG axe to grind, and that they have demonstrated no qualms
about cooking numbers in the past.
Sorry if my barins aren't up to your standard.
JimmyO
Why are there no MLMs preying on liberals?
jim sanders
In article <DyCKp...@hshuna.hsh.com>, pa...@hshuna.hsh.com (Paul Havemann) wrote:
>George (EDW...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU) sez:
>: This is the kind of pornography which turns on members of the Christian
>: Coalition and Right-thinking Republicans:
>:
>: In article <3245E7...@inx.net>
>: abig...@inx.net writes:
>: >From the Sexual Harassment Complaint by Paula
>: >Corbin Jones against William Jefferson Clinton,
>: >as filed in Federal Court----
>
>too many people care. ;}
>
though. It used to mean something. Maybe it will again someday 8^(.
Wayne Mann
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
> weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
>>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
>>: ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>: ->>>>>> James R Olson, writes:
>>: -> James> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>>: -> -> Here are the real numbers.
>>
>>: -> -> Year President Real Deficit
>>
>>: -> -> 1992 Bush $340B
>>: -> -> 1993 Bush $300B
>>: -> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
>>: -> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
>>
>>: -> James> Anyone have any idea who fed the loons these numbers? Were they
>>: -> James> published in the American Spectator? It seems odd that all at
>once
>>: -> James> we've got a bunch of "conservatives" spouting the same new
>figures.
>>
>>: -> James> I know it's been claimed that they are official government
>figures,
>>: -> James> but I doubt if any of these guys could manage to add them up
>>: -> James> themselves.
>>
>>: ->It is funny that the numbers are identical and somewhat
>>: ->different than those provided by the Treasury and by
>>: ->the Concord Coalition. However, the basic message,
>>: ->that debt creation has not slowed nearly as much as
>>: ->the reported deficit is true. It is the debt that we
>>: ->have to pay interest on, and its changes are what is
>>: ->important.
> Uh, I just visited the Department of Commerce Web Page, the one that these
>numbers are supposedly from, and these weren't the numbers in the deficit
>catagory of that page. Nor the numbers that the link to the OMB had either. Nor
>the number that the CBO link provided. Nor any newspaper that I've seen.
> I've done the math for the growth in the deficit over these years. And this
>isn't it either. The growth in the deficit from the _official_ numbers says
>about a 45% drop.
> So where the Hell _did_ you get these numbers?
>-GJ
The Public Debt of the United States, to the penny.
Month Amount
--------------------------------------------
08/31/1996 $5,208,303,000,000.00***
06/06/1996 $5,139,284,273,926.72
06/05/1996 $5,141,669,992,686.17
06/04/1996 $5,139,963,594,008.65
06/03/1996 $5,136,903,015,098.32
05/31/1996 $5,128,508,504,892.80
04/30/1996 $5,102,048,827,234.22
03/29/1996 $5,117,786,366,014.56
02/29/1996 $5,017,040,703,255.02
01/31/1996 $4,987,436,358,165.20
12/29/1995 $4,988,664,979,014.54
11/30/1995 $4,989,329,926,644.31
10/31/1995 $4,985,262,110,021.06
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
08/31/1995 $4,970,755,679,060.21***Subtract from
above and the debt for year is $237,547,000,000.00 for the
last fiscal year for Clinton.
07/31/1995 $4,960,151,653,142.55
06/30/1995 $4,951,372,092,079.13
05/31/1995 $4,903,925,978,763.93
04/28/1995 $4,852,327,350,096.60
03/31/1995 $4,864,115,841,256.92
02/28/1995 $4,854,297,850,590.37
Prior
---------------------------------------------
12/30/1994 $4,800,149,946,143.75
12/31/1993 $4,535,687,054,406.14
12/31/1992 $4,177,009,244,468.77
12/31/1991 $3,801,698,272,862.02
12/31/1990 $3,364,820,230,276.86
12/29/1989 $2,952,994,244,624.71
12/30/1988 $2,684,391,916,571.41
12/31/1987 $2,431,715,264,976.86
12/31/1986 $2,214,834,532,586.43
12/31/1985 $1,945,941,616,459.88
Years
\\/ayne //\ann
"The President has kept all of the promises he
intended to keep."
- George Stephanopolous on "Larry King Live"
- 2/16/96
Wayne Mann
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
> weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
>>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
>>: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>>: -> Here are the real numbers.
>>: ->Year President Real Deficit
>>
>>: ->1992 Bush $340B
>>: ->1993 Bush $300B
>>: ->1994 Clinton $258B
>>: ->1995 Clinton $251B
>>The US Department of Commerce.
>>The numbers above come from the US Fiscal Budget for Year 1996.
> They differ from both the OMB and the CBO. And, of course, every newspaper
>in the country. So unless you can come up with something better, I have to
>chalk this up to another "usenet fact".
>-GJ
It is VERY SIMPLE, even you should be able to understand.
If you take the DEBT at the start of the year and subtract
it from the DEBT at the end of the year, you find out what
the REAL deficet is, and NOT the micky mouse numbers Clinton
throws around. Take as an example:
96 deficit
National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
yearly deficit,
for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
So that means when Clinton says $130 Billion or whatever
number he uses today, you can see it is really about $240
Billion. He just uses the excess paid in for Social
Security over what is paid out and afew other smaller trust
funds that take in more than they pay out to hide the real
deficit. That is why, for example, the Airports are still
using Radar that uses Vacuum Tubes, rather than State of the
art Radar, because the Congress and the Presidents of BOTH
parties have not spent the money for the new radar's so they
can use the money to hide the size of the real deficit.
The same thing when Clinton claims to have added 100,000
police offocers, he is out and out lying. Even Janet Reno
could only come up with the number 17,000 total and most of
them are in National Parks, and again for example, the
Floroda Keys protecting the enviroment. Or how about that
lie about Clinton reducing the number of government
employees by 250,000? It is a lie, of course. These
reductions were put into law when Bush was president because
of reduction is size of the military and the closing of the
S&L property desposal agency. This was all put into law
while Bush was president, Clinton did NOT have anything to
do with it.
Of course Clinton is a pathological liar, but that is still
no excuse for the lies he tells everyday. He tells more
lies in a few days, than all the presidents before him in
their entire lives combined. Like Georgie boy said about
Clinton, "He has kept all the promises he intended to keep."
Wayne Mann
Karl_A...@out.trw.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
>Is this suddenly good?
>Karl
Federal government receipts, as a percentage of our
economy (GDP), stays remarkably constant,
NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES
TO THE TAX CODE.
Receipts as
Year % of GDP
------------ -------------
1956......... 17.9
1957......... 18.3
1958......... 17.8
1959......... 16.5
1960......... 18.3
1961......... 18.3
1962......... 18.0
1963......... 18.2
1964......... 18.0
1965......... 17.4
1966......... 17.8
1967......... 18.8
1968......... 18.1
1969......... 20.2
1970......... 19.6
1971......... 17.8
1972......... 18.1
1973......... 18.1
1974......... 18.8
1975......... 18.5
1976......... 17.7
1977......... 18.5
1978......... 18.5
1979......... 19.1
1980......... 19.6
1981......... 20.2
1982......... 19.8
1983......... 18.1
1984......... 18.0
1986......... 18.2
1987......... 19.2
1988......... 18.9
1989......... 19.2
1990......... 18.8
1991......... 18.6
1992......... 18.4
1993......... 18.4
1994......... 19.0
1995......... 19.2
1996 est. . 19.1
During the last 40 years, the tax code has changed
dramatically. Tax rates have fluctuated wildly. For
the past 40 years, through all their schemes and scams,
through high and low tax rates, the amount of receipts
that the federal government brings in has stayed
remarkably constant as a percentage of GDP--when you
chart the above data, it comes out looking almost like a
flat line. The reason for this is because people's
behavior,
especially regarding things that affect their pocketbook, is
not static...it is extremely dynamic.
Besides completely ignoring the fact that FICA taxes
were raised almost 25% in 1982, and that a lot of
exemptions and deductions were eliminated or reduced in
the 80's, and that taxes on long-term gains were raised in
1987, the "tax cuts caused 80's deficits" crowd base their
faulty notions on static revenue models, which are, given
the above data, a joke.
Now, since tax rates are impotent as far as being a direct
correlator of government reciepts, what, you may ask, is
a strong correlator of how much money the federal
government will bring in? The answer is, the size and
growth rate of the economy...period. In fact, it is an
almost exact correlation over time.
This is why, From FY1979 (Ending Sept. 30, 1979)
through FY1989 (Ending Sept. 30, 1989), receipts at the
federal level grew an average of 7.8% a year, for a total
of 214%. The economy, during this same exact time
period, grew by an average rate of 7.85% a year, for a
total of 213%.
The REAL reason for the deficits of the 1980's is because
congress, being historically constrained by the growth rate
in the economy, as to how much they can grow federal
reciepts by, increased outlays during the period above by
an average of 8.53% a year, for a total of 227%. They
circumvented the macroeconomic constraints inherent in
tax policy by running deficits beyond the average 7.8% a
year, or 214% total, that receipts grew by.
Just for grins, let's see how well static models hold up
to the tax increases of the 1990's. For the period
representing FY1989 (Ending Sept. 30, 1989) through
FY1995 (Ending Sept. 30, 1995), receipts grew by an
average of 5.25% a year, or 136% total. What? You
mean that after we INCREASED taxes, the rate of
growth for receipts actually slowed? Huhhhh? You
know why receipts have grown by the above amounts?
Because the economy (being the best correlator of
receipts) has grown by an average of 5.23% a year, or
136% total. You see, all tax increases ever do over
the longer run (more than a year for all you liberal
economists out there) is change peoples behavior and
consequently, retard economic growth. When you take
into account the part of the economic growth that has
been inflationary in the 1990's, we are seeing the
WORST economic growth for any decade since the
Great Depression.
In closing, although the tax code has proven to be
a historically impotent tool for directly impacting
government reciepts, it has proven to be a historically
potent tool in it's ability to impact people's behavior,
which impacts the economy (either negatively or
positively), which consequently and directly (as I have
shown) impacts government reciepts. It is really beyond
me why Western Civilization continues to stupidly make
redistribution and the creation of tax liabilities, as
opposed to economic growth, the central focus of it's
tax policies. To expect people and governments to learn
from the same stupid mistakes that governments keep
making over and over and over and over, in the six
thousand years of recorded history that governments
have been taxing their citizens, is probably asking too
much though.
>--
>"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great!
>You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform
>everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be
>sufficient enough."
> The Law, F. Bastiat
>Paraphrased from somone on a.c-e.c.ww:
>Reagan (with Alzheimer's) remembers more than the current WH staff!
>Opinions expressed in this post are mine, all mine!
Joe B. Clark
Life's a Hillary wrote:
>
> Record low interterest rates and S&L selloff. Clinton is out of control!
> The phoney deficit is creative accountoning. It's the National Debt stupid.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
>
> 04/30/1996 $5,102,048,827,234.22
> 03/29/1996 $5,117,786,366,014.56
> 02/29/1996 $5,017,040,703,255.02
> 01/31/1996 $4,987,436,358,165.20
> 12/29/1995 $4,988,664,979,014.54
> 11/30/1995 $4,989,329,926,644.31
> 10/31/1995 $4,985,262,110,021.06
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
>
> Years
> ---------------------------------------------
> 12/30/1994 $4,800,149,946,143.75
> 12/31/1993 $4,535,687,054,406.14
> 12/31/1992 $4,177,009,244,468.77
> 12/31/1991 $3,801,698,272,862.02
> 12/31/1990 $3,364,820,230,276.86
> 12/29/1989 $2,952,994,244,624.71
> 12/30/1988 $2,684,391,916,571.41
> 12/31/1987 $2,431,715,264,976.86
> 12/31/1986 $2,214,834,532,586.43
> 12/31/1985 $1,945,941,616,459.88
>
>
> [INLINE]
> Updated September 27, 1996
> [2]|Treasury Home Page| [3]|Treasury Bureaus|
>
> References
>
> 1. http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/pubdebt/pubdebt.html
> 2. http://www.ustreas.gov/Welcome.html
> 3. http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/bureaus.html
>
> --
> Visit the Clinton Chicago Bull: Parody Sound page
> http://www.cnct.com/~bshr/Bull.html
> Files now zipped, for d/l compatability.
> Updated 9/28/96
LISTEN STUPID!!!!
The 1.2 trillion debt is mostly interest on the loans and spending
incurred during the 12 year Reagan-Bush regime!!!!!!!
If you are going to quote statistics, please put them in perspective by
placing the blame where it justly belongs. It'll take 20 years to pay
off Reagan's debt alone.
Anyway, who says that the US budget has to be balanced----mine never nas
been! Has yours?????
Garrett Johnson
In article <opg2452...@remus.cs.uml.edu>,
ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>> Wayne Mann writes:
> Wayne> Here are the real numbers.
> Wayne> Year President Real Deficit
>
> Wayne> 1992 Bush $340B
> Wayne> 1993 Bush $300B
> Wayne> 1994 Clinton $258B
> Wayne> 1995 Clinton $251B
>
>Here are the fiscal year numbers from the Concord Coalition
>numbers. They are different, but tell basically the same story.
>
>Year President Change
> In Debt
>
>1992 Bush 403.6 Billion
>1993 Bush/Clinton* 349.3
>1994 Clinton 292.3
>1995 Clinton 277.3
And these are the exact same numbers that the OMB and CBO have on-line.
I'll accept these numbers because these are what I've seen backed up.
[...]
-GJ
Garrett Johnson
In article <52kf1n$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>>In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
>> weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
>>>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
>>>: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>>>: -> Here are the real numbers.
>
>>>: ->Year President Real Deficit
>>>: ->1992 Bush $340B
>>>: ->1993 Bush $300B
>>>: ->1994 Clinton $258B
>>>: ->1995 Clinton $251B
>
>>>The US Department of Commerce.
>>>The numbers above come from the US Fiscal Budget for Year 1996.
>
>> They differ from both the OMB and the CBO. And, of course, every newspaper
>>in the country. So unless you can come up with something better, I have to
>>chalk this up to another "usenet fact".
> It is VERY SIMPLE, even you should be able to understand.
>If you take the DEBT at the start of the year and subtract
>it from the DEBT at the end of the year, you find out what
>the REAL deficet is, and NOT the micky mouse numbers Clinton
>throws around.
Guess what? That is exactly what I did. And that is exactly what I
look for when I visited the OMB and CBO Web Sites. Both their numbers match
each other, and that isn't what is posted above.
> Take as an example:
>
>96 deficit
>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
>
>yearly deficit,
> for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
Good thing your profession isn't being an economist. You forgot inflation
knucklehead.
> So that means when Clinton says $130 Billion or whatever
>number he uses today,
When it comes to making decieving numbers out of the deficit, Clinton has
nothing on Bush and Reagan. They wrote the book on it. Clinton is just carrying
on the tradition.
> you can see it is really about $240
>Billion. He just uses the excess paid in for Social
>Security over what is paid out and afew other smaller trust
>funds that take in more than they pay out to hide the real
>deficit.
Yep. Reagan was the first to use that method on a large scale. That is
why Reagan raised SS taxes in the 80's, while cutting income taxes. That way
he could mortgage Social Security, raise regressive taxes that hit the poor
harder because they only tax the first $60,000 of wages, while still calling
himself a "tax cutter".
> Or how about that
>lie about Clinton reducing the number of government
>employees by 250,000? It is a lie, of course. These
>reductions were put into law when Bush was president because
>of reduction is size of the military and the closing of the
>S&L property desposal agency. This was all put into law
>while Bush was president, Clinton did NOT have anything to
>do with it.
Fact #1) The number of employees _has_ gone down by that amount, so by
definition, it is NOT a lie.
Fact #2) The S&L agency never employed a significant number of people, so
this is a moot point.
Fact #3) While many of the military reductions _were_ part of law under Bush,
civilian agency employment by the federal government has declined
significantly under Clinton as well.
> Of course Clinton is a pathological liar, but that is still
>no excuse for the lies he tells everyday.
[rest of blah, blah, blah deleted]
-GJ
Garrett Johnson
In article <52kf1i$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,[...]
>>>: -> -> Here are the real numbers.
>>>: -> -> Year President Real Deficit
>>>
>>>: -> -> 1992 Bush $340B
>>>: -> -> 1993 Bush $300B
>>>: -> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
>>>: -> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
[...]
>> Uh, I just visited the Department of Commerce Web Page, the one that these
>>numbers are supposedly from, and these weren't the numbers in the deficit
>>catagory of that page. Nor the numbers that the link to the OMB had either.
Nor
>>the number that the CBO link provided. Nor any newspaper that I've seen.
>
>> I've done the math for the growth in the deficit over these years. And this
>>isn't it either. The growth in the deficit from the _official_ numbers says
>>about a 45% drop.
>> So where the Hell _did_ you get these numbers?
>The Public Debt of the United States, to the penny.
In nominal numbers. These numbers are not adjusted for inflation.
> Month Amount
> --------------------------------------------
> 08/31/1996 $5,208,303,000,000.00***
[middle numbers snipped]
> 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
> 08/31/1995 $4,970,755,679,060.21***Subtract from
>above and the debt for year is $237,547,000,000.00 for the
>last fiscal year for Clinton.
-GJ
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>>In article <weedeatrD...@netcom.com>,
>> weed...@netcom.com (Weed Eater (munch munch)) wrote:
>>>James R. Olson, jr. (jha...@lava.net) wrote:
>>>: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) claims:
>>>: -> Here are the real numbers.
>>>: ->Year President Real Deficit
>>>
>>>: ->1992 Bush $340B
>>>: ->1993 Bush $300B
>>>: ->1994 Clinton $258B
>>>: ->1995 Clinton $251B
>>>The US Department of Commerce.
>>>The numbers above come from the US Fiscal Budget for Year 1996.
>> They differ from both the OMB and the CBO. And, of course, every newspaper
>>in the country. So unless you can come up with something better, I have to
>>chalk this up to another "usenet fact".
>>-GJ
> It is VERY SIMPLE, even you should be able to understand.
>If you take the DEBT at the start of the year and subtract
>it from the DEBT at the end of the year, you find out what
>the REAL deficet is, and NOT the micky mouse numbers Clinton
>throws around. Take as an example:
>96 deficit
>National indebtedness at 8/31/95: $4,970,756,000,000
>National indebtedness at 8/31/96: $5,208,303,000,000
>yearly deficit,
> for the year ending 8/31/96: $237,547,000,000.
the rpukes were the ones that were real good at putting items off the
budget to conceal the damage being done by the senile fool in his
REIGN OF TERROR(1980-1988).
> So that means when Clinton says $130 Billion or whatever
>number he uses today, you can see it is really about $240
>Billion. He just uses the excess paid in for Social
>Security over what is paid out and afew other smaller trust
yup just following the lead of the repukes.
>funds that take in more than they pay out to hide the real
>deficit. That is why, for example, the Airports are still
>using Radar that uses Vacuum Tubes, rather than State of the
>art Radar, because the Congress and the Presidents of BOTH
oh. I've heard of a few of those new radar installations have already
happened. The press reported massive problems with the new systems.
Perhaps that is why they are not fully installing them today.
>parties have not spent the money for the new radar's so they
>can use the money to hide the size of the real deficit.
> The same thing when Clinton claims to have added 100,000
>police offocers, he is out and out lying. Even Janet Reno
>could only come up with the number 17,000 total and most of
yup and the dumb repukes are trying to eliminate the entrie program.
>them are in National Parks, and again for example, the
>Floroda Keys protecting the enviroment. Or how about that
>lie about Clinton reducing the number of government
>employees by 250,000? It is a lie, of course. These
>reductions were put into law when Bush was president because
wrong again the press was reporting that the repukes were reinstating
military bases that had been slated for closer
>of reduction is size of the military and the closing of the
>S&L property desposal agency. This was all put into law
The S&L problems is just another example in a long list of the
failures of the repukes.
>while Bush was president, Clinton did NOT have anything to
>do with it.
> Of course Clinton is a pathological liar, but that is still
>no excuse for the lies he tells everyday. He tells more
>lies in a few days, than all the presidents before him in
no he can't top the senile fool.
>their entire lives combined. Like Georgie boy said about
>Clinton, "He has kept all the promises he intended to keep."
Weed Eater (munch munch)
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com (user...@prairie.lakes.com) wrote:
: wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
: >midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
: >>-GJ
Great so when our country is in shambles one day because we used faulty
numbers and refused to do anything about it, President Clinton can say
"But I did not do anything that was not done before me." Does that make
it right? Is that leadership?
The point is Clinton is not heading us towards a balanced budget and
certainly not towards stopping the debt increase.
: >funds that take in more than they pay out to hide the real
: >deficit. That is why, for example, the Airports are still
: >using Radar that uses Vacuum Tubes, rather than State of the
: >art Radar, because the Congress and the Presidents of BOTH
: oh. I've heard of a few of those new radar installations have already
: happened. The press reported massive problems with the new systems.
: Perhaps that is why they are not fully installing them today.
: >parties have not spent the money for the new radar's so they
: >can use the money to hide the size of the real deficit.
: > The same thing when Clinton claims to have added 100,000
: >police offocers, he is out and out lying. Even Janet Reno
: >could only come up with the number 17,000 total and most of
: yup and the dumb repukes are trying to eliminate the entrie program.
Bcause it is not doing what it was supposed to do.
They want to replace it with non-restrictive block grants. But you always
think the federal government is better at choosing where to spend $$.
: >them are in National Parks, and again for example, the
: >Floroda Keys protecting the enviroment. Or how about that
: >lie about Clinton reducing the number of government
: >employees by 250,000? It is a lie, of course. These
: >reductions were put into law when Bush was president because
: wrong again the press was reporting that the repukes were reinstating
: military bases that had been slated for closer
First what he said was that the military closings were done by Bush which
is fact. Secondly, what some repulbicans wants does not make party
platform. The official republican platform does not have bases
reopening, nor does Bob Dole.
: >of reduction is size of the military and the closing of the
Wayne Mann
>: >midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>: >>-GJ
Forget it Weedeater, you can't use facts and logic with
idiots like this person. ANyone that lies like he has here
and uses phrases like repukes, is just some asshole childish
idiot and is not worth wasting time over. Maybe someday
they will grow up, but I doubt it. Not only are they
ignorant of facts, they lie about facts they do know.
ANyone that lies like this is despicable and childish.
Wayne Mann
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>-GJ
I don't give a rats ass whether you will except them or not.
They are facts. That is all that matters.
Wayne Mann
midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>In article <52kf1i$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> wdm...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Mann) wrote:
>>midt...@hooked.net (Garrett Johnson) wrote:
>[...]
>>>>: -> -> Here are the real numbers.
>>>>: -> -> Year President Real Deficit
>>>>
>>>>: -> -> 1992 Bush $340B
>>>>: -> -> 1993 Bush $300B
>>>>: -> -> 1994 Clinton $258B
>>>>: -> -> 1995 Clinton $251B
>[...]
>>> Uh, I just visited the Department of Commerce Web Page, the one that these
>>>numbers are supposedly from, and these weren't the numbers in the deficit
>>>catagory of that page. Nor the numbers that the link to the OMB had either.
>Nor
>>>the number that the CBO link provided. Nor any newspaper that I've seen.
>>
>>> I've done the math for the growth in the deficit over these years. And this
>>>isn't it either. The growth in the deficit from the _official_ numbers says
>>>about a 45% drop.
>>> So where the Hell _did_ you get these numbers?
>>The Public Debt of the United States, to the penny.
> In nominal numbers. These numbers are not adjusted for inflation.
Damn, YOU are dumb or just full of it. You do NOT adjust
for inflation when talking about real dollars when you are
referring to the national debt. How anyone could be so
ignorant is beyond me, or is just a liar, whichever the case
it is stupid!
Garrett Johnson
In article <52r9nr$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
>> ah...@cs.uml.edu (Andrew Hall) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wayne Mann writes:
>>> Wayne> Here are the real numbers.
>>> Wayne> Year President Real Deficit
>>>
>>> Wayne> 1992 Bush $340B
>>> Wayne> 1993 Bush $300B
>>> Wayne> 1994 Clinton $258B
>>> Wayne> 1995 Clinton $251B
>>>
>>>Here are the fiscal year numbers from the Concord Coalition
>>>numbers. They are different, but tell basically the same story.
>>>
>>>Year President Change
>>> In Debt
>>>
>>>1992 Bush 403.6 Billion
>>>1993 Bush/Clinton* 349.3
>>>1994 Clinton 292.3
>>>1995 Clinton 277.3
>
>> And these are the exact same numbers that the OMB and CBO have on-line.
>>I'll accept these numbers because these are what I've seen backed up.
>>[...]
>
>They are facts. That is all that matters.
Facts that are backing up are more convincing than "facts" that aren't backed
up.
-GJ
BTW, thanks for the rats ass, but I have my quota