tiredofstupidpeo ple

Waycross, GA

#1997 Jan 10, 2013
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf...

A must read for Informed people with opinions.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#1998 Jan 10, 2013
tiredofstupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>If you gonna quote people back it up with a fact or two. Give a link to what you say. Left wing hack sites don't count.
Read and weep.

Typical ... Instead of paying off the debt having been handed huge surpluses, Republicans waste money on illegal wars, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for their rich buddies.

But hey, providing you these facts took all of 3 minutes. No wonder Fox Noise folks have no idea - 3 minutes of research - Wow.

10-YEAR ESTIMATE OF BUDGET SURPLUS SURGES ONCE MORE
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 29, 2000

The Clinton administration handed a parting gift to President-elect George W. Bush today, projecting that the federal budget surplus would swell substantially, to nearly $5 trillion, over the next decade.
Administration officials said they expected the surplus to total $4.996 trillion in the 10 years beginning with the start of the next fiscal year, on Oct. 1, 2001. That amounts to an increase of just over $800 billion from the administration's previous projection, of $4.193 trillion for the 10 years that started this October.
Although such long-range projections are subject to change with ups and downs in the economy and are not a tool of great precision, the new estimates give Mr. Bush more wiggle room in his efforts to convince Congress and the public that his tax cut proposal, valued at some $1.6 trillion over 10 years, is affordable.
Clearly aware that the figures would further intensify the pent-up Republican demand for tax cuts, President Clinton used the release of the new projections to make a case for using the surplus to eliminate the $3.4 trillion national debt faster.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr. Clinton said the debt could be paid off by 2009 or 2010, two years ahead of his previous estimate. And he said that staying a course of debt reduction would yield benefits to consumers and the economy in the form of lower interest rates and the flexibility to allocate tax revenue to more productive uses than paying interest on Treasury bonds.
The upbeat estimates Mr. Clinton is handing off to Mr. Bush stand in contrast to the bad news on the budget delivered to Mr. Clinton in late 1992 by the departing administration of Mr. Bush's father. As he prepared to take office, Mr. Clinton was informed that the budget deficits he was inheriting would be even worse than previously projected.
Now the surplus projections continue to rise despite the recent slowdown in the economy.
The administration did not release the economic growth assumptions it used in its calculations. Jack Lew, the White House budget director, said the assumptions were ''consistent with updates'' on economic conditions through last month, and continued the practice of assuming moderate growth rates.
In any case, much of the improvement came not from economic changes but from the change in the time frame covered by the projections. The new estimate drops the surplus projection for the current fiscal year and adds the much higher projection for 2011.
The new figures also incorporate the added government spending signed into law by Mr. Clinton this month after long negotiations with the Republican Congress.
They assume that spending will continue to increase in line with inflation, but do not include the costs of any big initiatives like the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare or the addition of private investment accounts to Social Security.
The administration's projections are to be followed next month by new surplus estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, whose figures are more typically used in turning proposals into legislation. The budget office is also likely to show the surplus rising hundreds of billions of dollars, probably to a level higher than the figure of nearly $5 trillion used by the White House today.
tiredofstupidpeo ple

Waycross, GA

#2000 Jan 10, 2013
An Opinion piece from a left wing hack at the New york times is all you got. You call that facts? Again Clinton left office with a Debt of 5.6 Trillion. What part of that do you not understand?
Numbers

Young Harris, GA

#2001 Jan 11, 2013
tiredofstupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
No the national debt was 4.4 Trillion when he came in and 5.6 Trillion when he left.
"Clinton's last four annual budgets had surpluses:
1998 $69 billion
1999 $125 billion
2000 $236 billion
2001 $128 billion

But they didn't 'leave' us a surplus; at the end of 2001 we were still $5.8 trillion in debt.

Debt added by the last five presidents' budgets:
Reagan (budgets submitted for years 1982 to 1989):$1.9 trillion
H. W. Bush (1990-1993):$1.5 trillion
Clinton (1994-2001):$1.4 trillion
W. Bush (2002-2009):$6.1 trillion
Obama (2010-2013)$5.7 trillion

Note that each president submits the budget for his successor's first year. If these figures were by years in office, W. Bush (2001-2008) would show 4.7 trillion and Obama 6.3 trillion."

Source; "Ask"
Certainty

Young Harris, GA

#2002 Jan 11, 2013
tiredofstupidpeople wrote:
<quoted text>
This question makes you look like a left wing nut. This country has the best armed forces in the world and they will do what ever it takes to protect each other and the USA. You would rather play nice with the ones who would kill you? "War is Hell"
You don't know Jack shit about war!

The US spends more on it's military than do the next thirteen nations COMBINED, including Russia and China, yet can not defeat an insurgency made up of an estimated 50 - 80,000 poorly armed, poorly equipped, poorly organized (supposedly) religious fanatics who have no intention of invading America. Instead, they're bleeding us to death, as they've been doing for the past decade, and the Army is powerless to stop them.

Other nations fear us, as well they should, but don't respect us, as we like to think they do. America is the bully, the war-monger!

It's all about power and profits for the military/industrial complex!
Bored

Blairsville, GA

#2003 Jan 11, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Read and weep.
Typical ... Instead of paying off the debt having been handed huge surpluses, Republicans waste money on illegal wars, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for their rich buddies.
But hey, providing you these facts took all of 3 minutes. No wonder Fox Noise folks have no idea - 3 minutes of research - Wow.
10-YEAR ESTIMATE OF BUDGET SURPLUS SURGES ONCE MORE
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 29, 2000
The Clinton administration handed a parting gift to President-elect George W. Bush today, projecting that the federal budget surplus would swell substantially, to nearly $5 trillion, over the next decade.
Administration officials said they expected the surplus to total $4.996 trillion in the 10 years beginning with the start of the next fiscal year, on Oct. 1, 2001. That amounts to an increase of just over $800 billion from the administration's previous projection, of $4.193 trillion for the 10 years that started this October.
Although such long-range projections are subject to change with ups and downs in the economy and are not a tool of great precision, the new estimates give Mr. Bush more wiggle room in his efforts to convince Congress and the public that his tax cut proposal, valued at some $1.6 trillion over 10 years, is affordable.
Clearly aware that the figures would further intensify the pent-up Republican demand for tax cuts, President Clinton used the release of the new projections to make a case for using the surplus to eliminate the $3.4 trillion national debt faster.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr. Clinton said the debt could be paid off by 2009 or 2010, two years ahead of his previous estimate. And he said that staying a course of debt reduction would yield benefits to consumers and the economy in the form of lower interest rates and the flexibility to allocate tax revenue to more productive uses than paying interest on Treasury bonds.
The upbeat estimates Mr. Clinton is handing off to Mr. Bush stand in contrast to the bad news on the budget delivered to Mr. Clinton in late 1992 by the departing administration of Mr. Bush's father. As he prepared to take office, Mr. Clinton was informed that the budget deficits he was inheriting would be even worse than previously projected.
Now the surplus projections continue to rise despite the recent slowdown in the economy.
The administration did not release the economic growth assumptions it used in its calculations. Jack Lew, the White House budget director, said the assumptions were ''consistent with updates'' on economic conditions through last month, and continued the practice of assuming moderate growth rates.
In any case, much of the improvement came not from economic changes but from the change in the time frame covered by the projections. The new estimate drops the surplus projection for the current fiscal year and adds the much higher projection for 2011.
The new figures also incorporate the added government spending signed into law by Mr. Clinton this month after long negotiations with the Republican Congress.
They assume that spending will continue to increase in line with inflation, but do not include the costs of any big initiatives like the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare or the addition of private investment accounts to Social Security.
The administration's projections are to be followed next month by new surplus estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, whose figures are more typically used in turning proposals into legislation. The budget office is also likely to show the surplus rising hundreds of billions of dollars, probably to a level higher than the figure of nearly $5 trillion used by the White House today.
Boring-Boring-Boring.
Same oh crap-same oh crap-same oh crap.
A feeble mind-a feeble mind-a feeble mind.
Locked in a rut-locked in a rut-locked in a rut.
A crazed spirit gone amuck-a crazed spirit gone amuck-a crazed spirit gone amuck.

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Dallas, GA

#2004 Jan 11, 2013
NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Imagine that!
Wondering

Tallapoosa, GA

#2005 Jan 11, 2013
Clinton admin decree started the housing problem which brought down the banks which caused the downturn in the economy you cannot blame the bushes. It is the give me attitude in society that is the problem. As a nation so many people want something for nothing. Well something has to come from somewhere

“Marble Man”

Since: Jul 11

Dallas, GA

#2006 Jan 11, 2013
Bill Clinton Supports NRA Proposal.

Clinton unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for COPS in School, a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers.
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#2007 Jan 11, 2013
tiredofstupidpeople wrote:
An Opinion piece from a left wing hack at the New york times is all you got. You call that facts? Again Clinton left office with a Debt of 5.6 Trillion. What part of that do you not understand?
Here's more- wait - I know, the Weekly Standard is also making up numbers.

Let me know if you still want to pretend Bush's own claimed debt of $10.6 Trillion is a lie.

Wait - Bush must be lying about his own budge too - well he was - his debt didn't include the $2 Trillion he was spending on illegal wars.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt
by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
January 25, 201112:41 PM
partner content from:
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year...
Informed Opinion

Naples, FL

#2008 Jan 11, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>Here's more- wait - I know, the Weekly Standard is also making up numbers.

Let me know if you still want to pretend Bush's own claimed debt of $10.6 Trillion is a lie.

Wait - Bush must be lying about his own budge too - well he was - his debt didn't include the $2 Trillion he was spending on illegal wars.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt
by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
January 25, 201112:41 PM
partner content from:
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year...
And some more.

Now here after stating the facts, the author offers opinion that makes a heck of a lot of sense.

ZFacts ..... January 11, 2012. Republicans blame the "Democratic Congress" for their debt increases. The trouble is that Congress was only Democratic 8 out of the 20 years, and in those 8 years, on average, Congress passed smaller budgets than the Republican presidents requested. The specifics are all right here: It Was the Republicans.
So, let's add up the debt under Reagan and the Bushes. We can't blame Reagan for the debt's increase until his first budget took effect, October 1, 1981. Then, for 12 years until Sept. 30, 1993, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Later, George W. Bush took over.
Under Reagan and Bush:$3.4 Trillion increase in the debt.
Under George W. Bush:$6.1 Trillion.[1]
Total:$9.5 Trillion.(without counting interest)
But wait, there's interest on that debt ... continued below the graph.

The debt went up during Clinton's years only because of $2.2 Trillion interest on the Reagan-Bush debt. Otherwise Clinton would have paid off most the remaining WWII debt. G.W.Bush got sand-bagged by Reagan.
Just like a mortgage, the debt incurs interest, so the Reagan-Bush-I debt grew during the Clinton years. The average debt interest rate in those years was about 6.5%, which would increase it over 50% without compounding, but with compound interest the total debt – including interest – increased by $2.2 trillion.
Total Republican debt from above:$9.5 trillion
Interest on Reagan-Bush debt under Clinton:$2.2 trillion
Interest on $11.7 trillion after G. W. Bush:$0.3 trillion
(detailed calculation)
Grand Total Reagan-Bushes Debt:$12 trillion (as of Sept. 30, 2010).
If the Republicans had not run up this $12 trillion debt, we could easily have pulled out of the Great Recession.
tiredofstupidpeo ple

Waycross, GA

#2010 Jan 11, 2013
From The same article: How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year -- or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
tiredofstupidpeo ple

Waycross, GA

#2012 Jan 11, 2013
Zfacts...Steven Stoft Leftwinger from Berkley yea his OPINION really matters.
Miss Smith

Young Harris, GA

#2013 Jan 11, 2013
And just to remind you, CONGRESS provided them with every cent of the money (ABs) to spend on THEIR budget.
Columbus Native

Oklahoma City, OK

#2014 Jan 11, 2013
It's still nce to talk all these political situations while there is no republican in the Whitehouse. So they continue all these predictions, possibilities, what ifs ETC. It's just a damn good feeling that we independents overpowered the NAZI republican party. Yes I am very proud and thankful romney did'nt get his 2 trillion dollar rip-off navy buid-up budget thru. Now as I have said before all republicans stick your heads up your butts and jump. You might have a very slight chance of being in power again but it will be a long comforting 4 years before all of we non-republicans have to worry about that. Thats a lot of champaign, cold beer and bourbon. These 3 will go down much easier having this crucial knowledge in mind.
Libertarian

Kingsland, GA

#2015 Jan 11, 2013
Both the Republicans and Democrats represent only the top one percent: i.e. Wall Street Cooperation Crooks.

The only difference is the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans and do a better job of hiding the facts.
jeb stuart

Crescent, GA

#2016 Jan 11, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Both the Republicans and Democrats represent only the top one percent: i.e. Wall Street Cooperation Crooks.
The only difference is the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans and do a better job of hiding the facts.
why don't you make yourself useful.go rob a bank or something.
jeb stuart

Savannah, GA

#2017 Jan 11, 2013
i guess my comment was a little mean i owe futher explanation.i really don't object to third or more party candidates,if they have a realistic chance of wining.but it just seems to me that'more often than not',they cause more harm than good.florida in 2000,being the latest example.i just think we need a system that ensures we elect someone(whatever party)that the majority of americans support.looking back in history,doing the opposite usually leads to some sort of calamity(i.e.1860).if we do want a multi-party system,then maybe we should do like the bcs in college football has chosen to do.that is to have some sort of run-off/playoff to finally get to the two top teams/candidates.at least we would have a mandate,of sorts.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#2018 Jan 11, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Both the Republicans and Democrats represent only the top one percent: i.e. Wall Street Cooperation Crooks.

The only difference is the Democrats are smarter than the Republicans and do a better job of hiding the facts.
Agrees, with exception I believe Republicans are better T concealing their true agenda but end result is the same, both parties represent Wall Street, not Main Street.
Informed Opinion

Lehigh Acres, FL

#2019 Jan 11, 2013
tiredofstupidpeople wrote:
From The same article: How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year -- or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.
Wait... Aren't you the one who said this was a useless opinion piece when it proved that Bush managed to turn a $300 Billion Dollar budget surplus into a $1.6 Trillion Dollar deficit, and left a $10.6 Trillion Dollar debt to Obama ?

I understand, those pesky facts that demonstrate the facts I presented were true, you now admit are accurate, as long as there are parts of the article that attack Obama.

Hey, if that's all it takes for you to admit the facts, that's OK with me.

Welcome to Planet Earth

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Decatur Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Any H outside the bluffs ? 1 hr Kfluff 2
Here 1 hr Boring 26
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 1 hr Kfluff 19,393
Five Reasons Why Obama Is A Good President (Jun '11) 2 hr Halloween mask 2016 8,406
H hookup 2 hr Halloween mask 2016 11
Brookwood High on alert after threatening emails 7 hr Bootz50 1
Shots fired at high school football game in Atl... 7 hr LeRoy 2

Decatur News Video

Decatur Dating
Find my Match

Decatur Jobs

Decatur People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Decatur News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Decatur

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]