Have You Heard?

[Nonphixion]

The US Economy is in crisis? "a fiscal cancer"

There is a net-byte sized internet based version of the I.O.U.S.A. Documentary on the US Economy.

YouTube Video

This is the 30-minute byte-sized version of that movie.

[Photon1001]

yes, the national debt is a very serious concern. I hear they had to take down the national debt clock for the second time recently, the first time being 8 years ago when the Clinton administration came so very close to balancing the budget, it wasn't as big a concern, and had Gore been elected (elected for real, anyway), we might just be on our way toward paying it off. Instead, this time, after 8 years of Bush, they're taking the clock down because they've run out of digits.

[HughRuss]

I thought this thread was going to say,
"The bird is the word."

You can imagine my disappointment.

[Angus_Aboot]

The Clinton administration did not come close to balancing the national debt, the chart even shows that.

[Photon1001]

So whats with that tiny little bar in 2000 there where the deficit was lower than it was anywhere else on the chart? Maybe you need to get your eyes checked..

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

So whats with that tiny little bar in 2000 there where the deficit was lower than it was anywhere else on the chart? Maybe you need to get your eyes checked..

According to the key of the graph, for the debt to decrease, the bar would have to go below the x-axis. Since it doesn't, it appears the debt increased by 18 billion in 2000.

[Photon1001]

Its still lower than anywhere else on the chart, and in fact, lower than a good many years before the chart starts. The deficit was on the decline too, which is why I said had Gore been elected, it might very well have gone below that line.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I thought this thread was going to say,
"The bird is the word."

You can imagine my disappointment.

Fucking Family Guy

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Its still lower than anywhere else on the chart, and in fact, lower than a good many years before the chart starts. The deficit was on the decline too, which is why I said had Gore been elected, it might very well have gone below that line.

I'm pretty sure those bars = compounding debt. So, in 2000, the debt INCREASED by 18 billion dollars. He didn't lower the debt, he lowered spending or adding to the debt. Like I said, for him to have lowered the national debt, the bar would be below the X-axis.

And do not make crystal ball assumptions. It's the exact same as saying "Had the John McCain palled around with a neo-nazi, the media would rip him apart" or anything to that effect. Crystal ball projections are only founded on conjecture, and not reality, nor fact.

As Aurelius would have it, let us not deal with what is unknowable, but what is here, now, with us, real.

[Photon1001]

^Did I say he paid down the national debt? Although he did create a public debt surplus, the total deficit was still in the red. None of this is in dispute, the point is that he came closer than ever to a surplus than any other president in modern history, and the deficit was on the decline unto Dubya jacked it up to previously unheard of record levels. Oh yeah, we really need more of that.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^Did I say he paid down the national debt? Although he did create a public debt surplus, the total deficit was still in the red. None of this is in dispute, the point is that he came closer than ever to a surplus than any other president in modern history, and the deficit was on the decline unto Dubya jacked it up to previously unheard of record levels. Oh yeah, we really need more of that.

You did mention he came close to balancing the budget, which he didn't. He decreased spending from 200some billion to 18 billion (ish), but still, 200+200+150+150+100+120+100+18 = increased debt. That's far from balancing the budget.

To balance off the debt, we'd need (at that time) some 6 trillion dollars. You cannot do that in even an 8 year time span, had Gore been elected. There's no way he would have balanced the national debt, nor would he have taken care of the deficit (which wasn't in dispute).

[Photon1001]

I said he could have eliminated the deficit, had the trend in the numbers under Clinton continued, which would have started us off in the right direction toward paying down the debt.

Seriously, do you really think those enormously high red bars in the Bush years were better?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

I said he could have eliminated the deficit, had the trend in the numbers under Clinton continued, which would have started us off in the right direction toward paying down the debt.

Seriously, do you really think those enormously high red bars in the Bush years were better?

False question, isn't germane to the point.

Do you know what the deficit is? The deficit is merely the amount per year the government spends more than its revenue. When Clinton took office, the first year he spent 200 billion more than the government took in. Likewise, when he left in 2000, he spent 18 billion more than what he took in. If the deficit is down, it means we add less to the national debt. If there is not deficit, that means we are simply not adding to the national debt, not necessarily paying it off.

The government's revenue is about 3 trillion dollars in taxes (2.5 from 2006 numbers). For there to be no deficit, there would have to be spending of just about 3 trillion dollars. However, that isn't the case, where the government tends to spend (in Clinton's years) 100-200 billion over that amount. To start paying off the national debt, the government would need to spend less than 3 trillion dollars each year for an extended amount of time. If we want to put that into perspective, to BALANCE THE BOOK (as you deemed it) the government would have to not spend a dime each year for 3.5 years. Not a single dime. The revenue money would go to paying off the national debt (and that would be a socialistic type idea anyway), and would take nearly the next president's first term.

To extend that, let's say the next several presidents chose not to spend more than 3 trillion, choosing rather to spend say, 2.5 trillion. That's .5 trillion less each year, which would take 21 years of consecutive spending to do.

Clinton didn't come close to balancing the budget, Gore wouldn't have either. Even with a meager 500 billion less in spending, it would take 21 years of carrying out that plan in order to pay off what our debt is now. Our projected debt after Bush is about 11 trillion dollars, not adjusted for inflation. So, with the federal government's revenues the way they are now (about 3 trillion), and keeping with our same model of spending 500 billion less, it would take another 23 years to accomplish that goal.

To illustrate how Clinton DIDN'T Balance the books, and how Gore wouldn't have been able to either, here's a basic graph:



As you can see, government spending increased drastically from '83-2000, leveling off in that year (just about). Had the bars started to retreat, they would still need to cover 5.5 trillion dollars worth of territory, which would take 11 years. That would take a two-term president and 3/4 of another president's term (with hopefully the same policy) in order just to pay off the debt. To get a surplus, the debt needs to be 0, while still decreasing spending and maintaining +s on the balance books.

U.S. Treasury - Office of Performance Budgeting - FY 2006
U.S. National Debt Clock
What is the yearly total revenue of the U.S. government? - Yahoo! Answers
FSU Editorial: "Who Do We Owe and How Much?" by Dollardaze 07/18/2007
Online NewsHour: Summary of Steve Forbes' Flat Tax Plan

[Photon1001]

So, we shouldn't try to pay down the debt, or even decrease the deficit, because it would take a long time? And Clinton had almost leveled it off, what makes you so sure, the downward trend in spending wouldn't have continued, creating an actual surplus in total national debt, instead of just a surplus in public debt. (and a bell-shaped curve back downward in your chart at the end of Clinton's term, instead of that awful spike there under Bush) And there really is no need to be questioning my understanding of economics, either, please, its really kind of offensive.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

So, we shouldn't try to pay down the debt, or even decrease the deficit, because it would take a long time?

Where are you extrapolating this?

Your original contention that Clinton came close to leveling the budget. He didn't, that's what I was explaining.

Originally Posted by Photon1001

And Clinton had almost leveled it off, what makes you so sure, the downward trend in spending wouldn't have continued, creating an actual surplus in total national debt, instead of just a surplus in public debt.

Clinton leveled off the deficit. His last year, all he did was add 18 billion to the debt. I did the math, and I said even by spending 500 billion less, it would take 11 years in order to whittle it down to 0. 11 years is more than 1 president's term, even if he's two term. It would take 2 two-term presidents following the same spend-less policy in order to even derive "even," 12 years in order to claim a surplus.

Keep in mind, 500 billion in less spending is A LOT to cut. In reality, I can see some president spending 100-200 billion less. If that were the case, with the national debt it was in 2000, it would take 27.5 years. Now it would take 52.5 years, and that's with the debt it is today. At the end of Bush's term, it should be ~11.7 trillion dollars. In that event, it would take 58.5 years, with a cut in spending of 200 billion per year. Even with 500 billion in cuts, it would take 23.4, and 1 trillion in cuts, it would take 12 years.

Originally Posted by Photon1001

And there really is no need to be questioning my understanding of economics, either, please, its really kind of offensive.

You're passing off deficit as debt. That needs to be pointed out.

[Photon1001]

^No, I'm not and I never said I was, in fact I repeatedly made that clear, and I said he came closer than the others, you can see that even from your own chart. And what's with your arguments about how we shouldn't even try to pay down the debt, because its would take 20 years or 50 years or whatever. Are you serious, do you really think we should just keep racking up the country's credit card as fast as possible?

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^No, I'm not and I never said I was, in fact I repeatedly made that clear, and I said he came closer than the others, you can see that even from your own chart. And what's with your arguments about how we shouldn't even try to pay down the debt, because its would take 20 years or 50 years or whatever. Are you serious, do you really think we should just keep racking up the country's credit card as fast as possible?

So, where did I say "We shouldn't pay it off"?

[Photon1001]

And I'll explain something else, its not possible to go instantly from spend, spend, spend, to a balanced budget or a surplus. There's a shit-ton of bureaucracy that has to be dealt with, it took Clinton years to get the deficit to only 18 billion, which, sure sounds like a lot of money, but to the bureaucratic government and the lying Republicans who claim to want to shrink it, but never do, that's chump-change. 18 Billion dollars is very close to zero, in governmental terms, and whole hell of a lot closer than Bush's $1,000,000,000,000+ added in just this last year alone, which isn't even over yet.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I thought this thread was going to say,
"The bird is the word."

You can imagine my disappointment.

Everybody's heard that the bird is the word.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

I thought this thread was going to say,
"The bird is the word."

You can imagine my disappointment.

werd i too, was disappointed