National Debt now over 7 Trillion/ Under Clinton it was 5.7 and going down

[trumad]

Here's an old piece from May of 2000 indicating that Clinton was making payments towards the debt and bringing it down.... Oh how times have changed!

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.

In a written statement, Clinton said the $216 billion payment represented the largest debt paydown in American history, and he said that the federal government's long-term debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than projected to be when he first took office.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

[Crewleader]

1. This needs to be a big reminder in campaigning....

right along with the jobs going overseas...the republican's agenda taking care of corporations with spending and cheap labor.

For the powerful not the people...as Al Gore has said.

All this spending with Bush, and the amount, even as many in his own party concerned and will vote against him...he's not even thinking of the future grandchildren stuck paying for it since his own grandkids will be OK with their bank accounts being heavy.

Hi Trumad...:hi:

[Brotherjohn]

2. "It's your money."

All through the 2000 campaign, Bush argued that, with a huge surplus, we should give it back to the people in the form of tax breaks.

The refrain went: "It's YOUR money." All the while conveniently ignoring the fact that "It's our DEBT, too."

The Dems should turn this one on Bush this time, running ads which say something like:

"In the three years prior to George W. Bush taking office, the budget was in surplus, and we shrank the National Debt by 355 billion dollars, because we were being responsible and paying off our national debt. Then George W. Bush said, instead of paying off OUR debt, we should put this money towards tax cuts because:" (taped quote of Bush saying) "It's your money."

(narrator continues) "Since George W. Bush has taken office, the national debt has ballooned by 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS!"

"Plus $355 billion, or minus $1.3 TRILLION? Hey, it's your money!"

(one could depict stacks of money coming and going into a safe, coming out at the end; with "money" burning and a tape-looped quote from Bush saying "It's your money... your money... your money...")

[ex_jew]

3. I'm wondering if 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS

even if spelled in caps, means much to anybody these days. Most people I know (including myself) are struggling with previously unimaginable levels of debt. It's obvious we'll never pay it off. So what's another 1.3 trillion ? Not saying it's a good thing, just more of a sign that large numbers of dollars (beyond maybe $20) don't really matter like you'd think they would. What did Dirksen say - a trillion here and a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money. Or maybe not. Maybe these large amounts are inherently unreal.

[diamond14]

4. bush* 'deficit' and 'job creation' in easy-to-understand graphics

thanks to Bartcop
http://www.bartcop.com


please send these graphs everywhere
but, give credit to Bartcop....thanks...

[Intelsucks]

5. Isn't there a giant elephant in the room called September 11, 2001?

I'm not taking up for Bush, or anybody here, but didn't 9-11 have quite a financial impact on this nation? It was only the largest scale terrorist attack in history. It's kind of difficult to marginalize it.

I'm from the camp that the economic situation is cyclical for the most part, and that no President, Dem or Repub can claim responsibility for a good or bad economic atmosphere.

[Brotherjohn]

6. But even the government's own analyses have shown that the tax cuts...

...are responsible for the lion's share of the deficits.

I forget the actual group(s)... one may have been the White House's own Office of Management & Budget. Anyone?

It's very clear that the deficits, while they may have been exacerbated by the terrorist attacks of 9-11, were primarily enlarged by the tax cuts, defense spending, homeland security, etc. 9/11 didn't cost us $1.3 trillion dollars; unless you count decisions made by the Bush administration based partially on 9-11 (like Iraq, Afghanistan, Homeland Security, record military budgets). But then those were CHOICES MADE by the Bush administration, and not unavoidable economic impacts.

While one may argue the necessity of these things (though I can't for the life of me figure how Star Wars II will defend against box-cutters), simple math dictates that less money in and more money out means greater deficits.

[diamond14]

7. no, there have been several reports on the economic impact

of 9/11...and it was very little....other than NY, many Americans felt no impact...towns like Omaha or Peoria were not affected....

economically, if you look at the total loss of TWO buildings and an airplane...overall it is very little compared to the BIGGER economy of America...bush* has been slinging the "9/11 caused a recession" LIE too long...hopefully Kerry will confront him on it....


the much bigger economic impacts were from bush* decisions AFTER the 9/11 damage....like TWO expensive wars....and

you could argue that there were bigger economic impacts from the bush* crazy and expensive Homeland Security Department, which increased the size of Federal expenditures and shifted funds....

you could also argue that the bush* taxpayer-funded BRIBES to the 9/11 families were totally uncalled for (some families have refused to take the bribes)....that absurd expenditure was only to protect the criminal himself, bush*

especially if you take out the bush* crazy decisions to spend OUR money....the actual economic impact of losing TWO buildings and an airplane is very little on the BIG economy of America....

[Brotherjohn]

8. There is also nothing cyclical about the job creation stats (posted above)

Extend that graph back to the beginning of the last century, and you'll find that Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover (you remember, the Great Depression?) to experience a net loss of jobs during his term.

There is absolutely nothing cyclical about that. From a jobs perspective, Bush's term is a huge anamoly. It stands out like a big wart on the last century of America's economic health.

[Brotherjohn]

9. Another point: look at the graph above of the Clinton year's...

...and what happened to the deficit.

Now, Clinton raised taxes, and it did NOT damage the economy and therefore result in drops in revenue as conservatives argued it would. They even argued, before Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote to pass Clinton's first budget, that this budget would bankrupt the government.

This budget, in fact, lowered the annual deficit from $300B to $110B... and all by itself, before Repubs in Congress ever passed a single spending bill after they gained control of Congress.

Now, with Bush's massive tax cuts, the deficit is balooning... and again, the government admits that tax cuts are the biggest single contributor to this.

So tax cuts DO affect the deficit. Your analogy of the "elephant in the room" applies more to the tax cuts than anything else.

[Intelsucks]

10. If 9-11 had so little impact, then why do the charts show

everything going to hell in a hand basket in 2001?

[Brotherjohn]

11. Oh please! Even if one believes the Bush lie...

... that the recession began before his term, EVERYONE KNOWS we were in a recession well before 9-11.

(This contention, BTW, IS unquestionably a lie. The definition of a recession -- that it starts after two consecutive terms of decline in the GDP -- states that the recession began in March 2001.)

Besides which, you're ignoring the REAL elephant in the room again. BUSH CUT TAXES, and drastically, in 2001! He even made some tax cuts retroactive.

Again, it's simple (not fuzzy) math. Less income means lower numbers, unless you're cutting spending to match (which we weren't). Those numbers, government income and government spending, DIRECTLY impact the deficit graphs above.

[Intelsucks]

14. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

Maybe I'm not giving the Bush tax cuts enough weight, but I don't think you're giving 9-11 enough weight either. In the environment where I reside, 9-11 seemed to cause 2 solid years of nothing but doom and gloom... All triggered on that day.

I wouldn't expect any president Dem or Repub to be able to fix this situation with any ease whatsoever.

[Brotherjohn]

16. Read this.

http://www.cbpp.org/1-26-04bud.htm

We may have to agree to disagree, but look at it this way. We KNOW the amount that the tax cuts decrease revenues... in 2004 for example, $264 Billion (and the deficit is ~$500B).

As to the effects of 9/11, or if tax cuts affect jobs creation, etc, which may indirectly affect the deficit... that is all conjecture.

As for your contention that we were in "2 solid years of gloom and doom" after 9/11, well, I don't want to suggest that Bush's constant scare tactics had anything to do with that, but...

Of course, 9/11 had an affect on the economy. But every nonpartisan analysis of the matter (including the government's) indicate that the tax cuts had a much greater effect.

[trumad]

17. There is solid evidence that 9/11 is minimal impact

regarding the deficit. There is solid evidence that the tax breaks and repuke spending is having a huge impact on the deficit. Why is that not sinking through to you?

[BillZBubb]

15. Things went to hell in 2001 BEFORE 9-11

Check the NBER web site. The initial Bush* recession started in March of 2001. It ended in November of 2001--just two months after 9-11. How you can claim 9-11 caused a recession that started in March is beyond me. The effects of 9-11 were minimal and quickly overcome by the economy. Look at the GDP numbers.

Things started going bad early in 2001 for several reasons. First, Greenspan hiked the hell out of interest rates in 2000 to slow the economy to help Bush* get elected. He's always done that to help his fellow Repugs. The high interest rates weakened the economy.

Then, Bush* got in and submitted his first budget. It was a disaster, a return to the failed Reagan policies and everyone with any economic sense knew it. That caused businesses to rethink investment plans. The economy sagged from then on.

Now the Fed has lowered rates to rock bottom and the Repugs are pumping the economy with borrowed money to get enough growth in GDP to get Chimpy elected. Once interest rates have to increase and the government has trouble borrowing billions upon billions, the economy is in for BIG trouble.

[BillZBubb]

12. The 9-11 impact on the economy was marginal

First, the economy got back to it's former activity level within 3 months after 9-11. The impact of 9-11 on the federal deficit was miniscule compared to the revenue lost by Bush*s tax cuts to his wealthy patrons.

The right wing has a phony alibi for everything, this is no different. The 9-11 claim just doesn't fly when you look at the GDP numbers.

Second, you are totally wrong about whether a president can impact economic conditions. The president effectively controls the fiscal policy of the country. In our case, the U.S. budget is about 20% of GDP--that is a huge lever. The president also has significant say over trade issues. In addition, the president's fiscal policies influence the actions of the Federal Reserve in monetary policy--another huge factor in economic performance.

Repug economic policies almost always result in slower GDP growth than Democratic policies. This has nothing to do with cycles and everything to do with fiscal policy.

[Brotherjohn]

13. Well, it has everything to do with cycles... ELECTION cycles, that is.

I agree completely with your post. I remember when Clinton's first budget passed, despite the gloom and doom forecasts of Repubs.

The very day after, and consistently from then on, the stock market surged. Not that this was due solely to Clinton's budget, but it had an impact. Consumer confidence also increased. Jobs began to grow.

Analysts at the time said this confidence by both investors and consumers was due largely to the fact that we were getting our financial house in order; even if that was just perception at the time (it turned out to be true, as the deficits began to shrink).

Of course presidents have an impact on the economy! It is simply not in the interest of Republicans to admit that, because the impact of Republican presidents is usually negative, whereas that of Democratic presidents is usually positive.