Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

[golani89]

<p>The defecit is not “ginormous”. Its not really hurting our economy and china will never come and collect on it, having their money in america helps them way too much. And the tax cuts that you hate so much are working</p>

[hereshoping]

<p><some work=“” for=“” gay-bashing=“” congressman=“” but=“” the=“” themselves=“” are=“” aware=“” of=“” aides’=“” orientation=“” and=“” accept=“” it=“” -=“” wierd!=“”></some></p>

<p>I wish people would stop falling for the big lie that being against gay marriage = gay bashing. Some 70-80% of the public oppose gay marriage. They are all “gay bashers”, huh? That would mean that many Democrats are gay bashers, since certainly some of that large number must be Democrats? Yet articles like this would want you to believe than only Republicans are gay bashers, due to their stance on gay marriage. It amazes me that people read propaganda pieces like this and just swallow them whole.</p>

[driver]

<p>Thank you Coureur. Do you remember which party controlled both houses of Congress then? We’ll go into how the federal budget surplus/deficit is calculated in the next lesson. Question for discussion now: Was the surplus cited by Clinton (and many Republicans) in 2000 actually the state of the federal budget for that fiscal year? Or was it simply the projected surplus for the fiscal year 2007, as required by statute? Did we actually have a “lovely surplus” in hand as AllMusic imagines? These things aren’t as simple as they seem. Enjoy your googling. This is good for you, and good for the Republic. Eat some [figurative, civic] vegetables for a change. Instead of all that sugary breakfast cereal.</p>

[simba]

<p>“Which democrat was that, and in which year did said democrat accomplish this feat?”</p>

<p>driver your favorite Clinton…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html[/url]”>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/[/url]”>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/[/url]”>http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[DRJ4]

<p>Just so we have some facts about the deficit, here is a link to the [deficit</a> as a percentage of GDP](<a href=“http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf]deficit”>http://www.house.gov/budget/msrslide4bgt071703.pdf) from 1978 through 2003, with projections for 2004-2008. (Sorry, I can’t reprint it because it’s a PDF graph.) </p>

<p>The actual 2006 deficit turned out to be 1/2-2/3 of the projected deficit. Either way, the actual deficit as a percentage of GDP is low compared to other periods (excluding, as Allmusic notes, the period from 1998-2002 - but it should also be noted that during this period there was a Republican-controlled Congress and no war).</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>So…$8 Trillion isn’t ginormous?</p>

<p>How about $10? $12T? At what number (giggle) will the debt be considered enormous by the apologists?</p>

[simba]

<p>“Did we actually have a “lovely surplus” in hand as AllMusic imagines?”</p>

<p>Unless my old and tired eyes are seeing black instead of red from those graphs, I would say yes.</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>The deficit is enormous if you want me to personally pay it off. As a percentage of national GDP, however, it is not enormous.</p>

<p>EDIT: Allmusic - Ditto re: gigantic and ginormous deficits. Are you a transformational grammar advocate?</p>

[driver]

<p>Simba is very late coming in with Coureur’s correct, but obvious answer. The other questions put forth in this symposium stand:

Was the surplus cited by Clinton (and many Republicans) in 2000 actually the state of the federal budget for that fiscal year? Or was it simply the projected surplus for the fiscal year 2007, as required by statute? Did we actually have a “lovely surplus” in hand as AllMusic imagines?

I see that AM is confusing deficit with national debt. Let’s stick with deficit for now, it’s difficult enough, then we’ll move on to national debt, and maybe have time to explain “signing statements” as a bonus if you’re quick studies.</p>

[calmom]

<p>

@Driver

Thank you Coureur. Do you remember which party controlled both houses of Congress then?

In 1993, when the deficit reduction plan was enacted, it was the Democrats:

In 1993, President Clinton and the Congress made another effort to cut the deficit. They enacted a five-year deficit reduction package of spending cuts and higher revenues. The law was designed to cut the accumulated deficits from 1994 to 1998 by about $500 billion. The new law extended the limits on discretionary spending and the "pay-as-you-go’’ rules.

<a href=“http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html[/url]”>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>For those of you who don’t seem to be able to remember back a mere 14 years, Clinton was elected on promises to make economic reforms (“it’s the economy, stupid”) and when he came to office his top priority was to make good on his promise – which included enacting initiatives that were not popular or well-received within his own party, such as welfare reform.</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>Calmom,</p>

<p>I agree that Clinton enacted some traditionally Republican economic reforms but I don’t think his top priority upon becoming President was economic reform. Maybe my memory is hazy after 14 years but I recall things like health care reform and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Anyway, it seems others remember his early years differently, too:</p>

<p>

@AmericanPresident.org

</p>

<p>Midway through his first term in office, Clinton’s reelection prospects were dim, given the stunning victory of Republicans in the 1994 off-year elections. For the first time in forty years, both houses of Congress were controlled by Republican lawmakers. And almost everyone blamed Clinton. His campaign promise to reform the nation’s health care system was soundly defeated. His controversial executive order lifting the ban against homosexuals in the military enraged conservatives and failted to generate significant public support. Clinton’s work on behalf of the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) split the Democrats, many of whom feared the loss of jobs to Mexico and Canada.</p>

<p>Additionally, a barrage of political and personal scandals plagued the Clinton administration in its first term. The most damaging issue surrounded charges that the Clintons had illegally profited from their involvement with a failed savings and loan that had dealings in Arkansas real estate on the Whitewater River. Charges swirled fast and furious, specifically linking the White House to a cover-up of the Whitewater affair and the suicide of Vincent Foster, a top White House aide and close friend of Hillary Clinton. Moreover, the administration was negatively affected by allegations of suspicious commodity dealings by the First Lady (she had turned a $1,000 investment in commodities into a $100,000 profit), and the rumored sexual escapades of President Clinton while governor of Arkansas (including allegations that he had sexually harassed an Arkansas state employee, Paula Corbin Jones).

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/biography/campaignsandelections.common.shtml[/url]”>http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/biography/campaignsandelections.common.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Allmusic]

<p>Driver, I expect nothing less than your rather sanctimonious and patronizing attitude towards anyone who doesn’t toe your party line. However, some of us can understand…and even DISCUSS…issues simultaneously.</p>

<p>DRJ, I am quite the grammatician, but do like word play, even onomotopia.</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>By the way, if we’re going to thank anyone for deficit reduction initiatives, we should thank Ross Perot.</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>Allmusic,</p>

<p>I, too, enjoy an occasional onomatopoeia. Care to join me in a bowl of Rice Krispies (or alternatively an Alka-Seltzer) as we listen to Bobby Darren’s Splish Splash I Was Taking a Bath?</p>

[driver]

<p>Discuss away, AM–it would be a welcome change–I grow tired of mere breeziness. DrJ, you are absolutely right about Perot…he’s the one who inspired me to attempt to understand the federal budget process.</p>

<p>The quick answer to my question is that the 2000 “lovely” surplus that we had was a projection, based on Congressional Budget Office numbers, as required by law, 7 years in advance (I think the requirement is now 10 years). So, when all those politicians of both parties proclaimed a "surplus’ they were talking about a projected guestimate ca. next year. And arguing about how to spend it. Lovely.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Driver, we had a real surplus in 2000. The Bush administration squandered it and ran us into a series of deficits, based on smoke and mirror aguments about future projected surpluses. We have wasted a significant portion of our economy’s ability to shoulder debt on the Reagan, Bush and Bush Adminstrations self-serving pimping of the economy, so if we should encounter a real economic crisis we now have one hand tied behind our back. Another shameful waste of our children’s security for short-term profit.</p>

[DRJ4]

<p>I agree with Driver that there isn’t a pile of money sitting in the Treasury when the US government shows a budgetary surplus. Here’s an [url=<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/27/retirement/surplus/]article[/url”>Social Security: Getting back $1.5 trillion - Dec. 27, 2004]article[/url</a>] that addresses how government surpluses work in the context of Social Security.</p>

[kluge]

<p>DRJ4 - That’s absolutely true, which is why arguing that the national debt as a percentage of GDP is not excessive is foolish. When the social security tax surplus disappears real money is going to have to come from somewhere to both fund the regular budget and float the social security obligations as well. That’s why the shameless squandering of our debt capacity in times of no real economic crisis is so appalling</p>

<p>However, the Clinton Administration actually did achieve an on-budget surplus on top of the social security surplus. Virtually the entire current national debt was created during Republican Adminstrations - with no compelling need. In future years we’re going to be straight-up screwed as we try to handle current crises while paying off the Reagan/Bush/Bush debt.</p>

[driver]

<p>No, there have been nothing but projections of a budget surplus based on out-year estimates. And you can’t show otherwise. That’s how our budgeting process works.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Uh, Driver, here - I’ll let the OMB explain it to you:

In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969. In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $124 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.6 trillion at the end of 1999. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President’s budget proposals, the Federal debt held by the public would be fully paid back by 2013.</p>

<p>Put simply, a surplus occurs when revenues exceed spending in any year–just as a deficit occurs when spending exceeds revenues. Generally, to finance past deficits, the Treasury has borrowed money. With certain exceptions, the debt is the sum total of our deficits, minus our surpluses, over the years.

<a href=“http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html[/url]”>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide04.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I understand that after you’ve been subjected to non-stop Republican spin reality might be kind of hard to recognize, but those are the facts: The national debt actually declined during the second Clinton Administration. All that progress was wiped out under Bush, of course.</p>