Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: arce1988 on April 24, 2013, 01:56:12 PM
-
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/541379_238959472913861_716920823_n.jpg)
-
Money from a debt that doesn't need to be paid off. It will be easily erased/pardoned/paid through mysterious economic deals and programs when it needs to.
It's just called a debt to sustain credibility to the population. To keep up a front as a real live, free economic system with actions and consequences, or people will start lose interest and they can no longer be controlled.
In actuality everything is adjusted depending on what they want to do with human kind at any present moment. Right now it's purpose is LHC and developing space so there is a need for social stability, large economies and broad education/research to handle that.
-
Thank you Rami. I did NOT know that the LHC had ANY thing to do with this.
-
It's easy when you have unlimited credit. ;)
-
Yeah. You or me max out our credit card, they instantly cancel it. The USA just keeps increasing their limit. Does this make ANY sense to ANY one?
-
Liberals loooove debt.
-
Yeah. You or me max out our credit card, they instantly cancel it. The USA just keeps increasing their limit. Does this make ANY sense to ANY one?
Problem is when something doesn't make sense the majority of people just forget about it and go on their merry little ways.
-
Liberals loooove debt.
Indeed. For example, liberals Reagan and Bush II tripled and doubled the national debt, respectively.
-
Indeed. Liberals Reagan and Bush II tripled and doubled the national debt, respectively, for example.
Did you vote for Obama? What is your stance on guns?
-
Liberals loooove debt.
The only time the US was in budget surplus was under Clinton. Just facts.
-
The only time the US was in budget surplus was under Clinton. Just facts.
Bill Clinton says his administration paid down the debt
Share this story:
UPDATE: This version corrects the percentage by which Clinton overestimated the amount his administration paid down the public debt.
On the Sept. 19, 2010, edition of Meet the Press, former President Bill Clinton drew a contrast between his record on fiscal policy and those of the Republican presidents who preceded and succeeded him.
Asked about the fiscally conservative tea party movement, Clinton said, "Well, first of all, I think that a lot of the voters who are voting for the tea party candidates have really good impulses. That is, they believe that for years and years and years, the people with wealth and power or government power have done well and ordinary people have not. That's true. They believe those in the Republican Party, believe that they've talked a good game about balancing the budget, but the debt was quadrupled in the 12 years before I became president, and then we paid down the debt for four years, paid down $600 billion on the national debt, and then my budget was abandoned and they doubled the debt again."
After a reader sent us a blog post from NewsBusters, a conservative website, we were inspired to check Clinton's claim that during his tenure the U.S. "paid down the debt for four years -- paid down $600 billion on the national debt."
In the NewsBusters post, associate editor Noel Sheppard took issue with Clinton's portrayal. Pointing to the interactive federal debt calculator at TreasuryDirect.gov, he challenged readers to find any year in which the debt declined between Sept. 30, 1993, and Sept. 30, 2001 -- the years in which the Clinton Administration was directly responsible for putting together the budget.
"You can't, can you?" Sheppard wrote. "Want to know why? Well, because it never happened."
So who's right? It depends on what the definition of "national debt" is.
First, let's dispense with one common point of confusion. Every year, the federal government (or a business) either runs a surplus or a deficit. When there's a surplus, it means that more money came in than was spent; when there's a deficit, it means that more money was spent than came in.
Deficits are typically calculated on an annual basis. But if you add up all the past deficits (and subtract all the past surpluses), then the resulting figure, if it's negative, is the "debt." Unlike deficits, which start fresh every year, the debt is cumulative and continuous.
There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future.
The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the public debt will reach $9.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010. Add in the $4.5 trillion in debt held by the government, and you come up with a gross federal debt of $13.8 trillion.
Now let's look at Clinton's tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton's stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough.
So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that "we paid down the debt for four years," though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion -- which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997.
But what about gross federal debt? On this score, NewsBusters is correct: In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit.
So by one of these measures, Clinton is correct, and by another, he's wrong.
"The discrepancy between the two concepts of federal debt in these years occurred because of program surpluses and the rapid growth of reserves held by the various trust fund accounts, such as Social Security," said Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless. Social Security surpluses don't go into a "lock box" but are instead invested in government bonds; the proceeds of these purchases go into the general treasury, and when the bonds mature, the treasury is obligated to pay back the Social Security trust both principal and interest.
"The growth of these surpluses meant the rest of the federal government did not have to issue as much debt to the public," Burtless said. "In fact, the federal government paid off more of its old debt than it issued new debt to the public. Therefore, net federal debt held by the public declined."
So, is there any reason to prefer any single measurement? On this question, we couldn't find a clear consensus.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in a 2009 report that government-held debt, such as the Social Security trust fund, "has no direct, immediate impact on the economy. Instead, it simply represents credits to the various government accounts that can be redeemed as necessary to authorize payments for benefits or other expenses." By contrast, CBO wrote, "long-term projections of federal debt held by the public, measured relative to the size of the economy, provide useful yardsticks for assessing the sustainability of fiscal policies."
James Horney, of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that most key studies of the debt in recent years have focused on public debt. Horney gets support from a leading conservative, Dan Mitchell of the libertarian Cato Institute. Public debt, Mitchell said, "is the key variable since it measures the amount of money the government is draining from private capital markets, or adding, in the case of surpluses. Government spending grew very slowly during the Clinton years, just 2.9 percent annually between 1994 and 1998. This was a very good accomplishment, and Bill Clinton, and the GOP Congress, should be proud. If we could do the same thing now, we could balance the budget in about 10 years and make all the tax cuts permanent."
At the same time, economists on both the left and the right told us that they consider both measures acceptable yardsticks. "Both are reasonable measures," said liberal economist Dean Baker. "People most often do use the publicly held debt number, so I don't think Clinton can be blamed for using the standard figure. Of course it is not wrong to point out what happened with the gross debt, either."
For his part, Sheppard, the NewsBusters blogger, stood by his decision to base his post on gross federal debt.
"If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt -- meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve -- we didn't actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn't decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That's not retiring debt. That's just shifting it from one lender to another."
We see merit in using both public debt and gross debt, so we are reluctant to declare that Clinton is definitively right or definitively wrong in citing statistics supported by the public debt figure. Clinton's phrasing -- talking about "the debt" and "the national debt" -- strikes us as vague enough to refer to either the public debt or the gross federal debt.
So we are left with a statement that's correct using one measurement and incorrect using another measurement. In addition, Clinton overestimated by about one-third the dollar amount by which the public debt declined from its peak during his term, though he also correctly characterized the changes in the debt under Republican presidents. So on balance, we rule Clinton's statement Half True.
-
In the NewsBusters post, associate editor Noel Sheppard took issue with Clinton's portrayal. Pointing to the interactive federal debt calculator at TreasuryDirect.gov, he challenged readers to find ANY year in which the debt declined between Sept. 30th, 1993, and Sept. 30th, 2001 -- the years in which the Clinton Administration was directly responsible for putting together the budget.
"You CAN'T, can you?" Sheppard wrote. "Want to know WHY? Well, because it NEVER happened."
-
The only time the US was in budget surplus was under Clinton. Just facts.
Funny how Clinton gets the credit these days for something his Republican Congress forced into legislation. And the whole Clinton surplus story is rather fictitious. Part of which was just outlined above.
-
Obama high on cock again. :D
-
Funny how Clinton gets the credit these days for something his Republican Congress forced into legislation. And the whole Clinton surplus story is rather fictitious. Part of which was just outlined above.
It doesn't change the fact that republicans for the most part are mentally inept.
-
Yeah. You or me max out our credit card, they instantly cancel it. The USA just keeps increasing their limit. Does this make ANY sense to ANY one?
-
The only time the US was in budget surplus was under Clinton. Just facts.
Because he used Social Security funds to balance the budget. You may want to read up on it. Bunch of lying and bullshitting. How's stealing our SS funds balancing the budget? Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And funny thing is Clinton will be long dead by the time it becomes a real issue. That's how these whores are getting away with it. They know the problem is too far in the future so they can fuck up right now. But somewhere in the future Clinton's descendants will pay the price.
-
It doesn't change the fact that republicans for the most part are mentally inept.
You're a moron.
-
Robbing Peter to pay Paul
^
Business Model of the USA
-
Indeed. For example, liberals Reagan and Bush II tripled and doubled the national debt, respectively.
Nothing compared to this these assholes. Don't het even think about getting on your lib bs with Reagan, you will lose. Obama has purposely done more damage than any president put together. Dudes a complete joke and not to be taken seriously....like all libs.
-
housing sales are doing great compared to last year
unemployment is better compare to last year
stock market better compared to last year
-
housing sales are doing great compared to last year
unemployment is better compare to last year
stock market better compared to last year
It's a cycle. Nothing spectacular. It would have turned around with or with the current band of morons.
-
You're a moron.
Touch a nerve?
-
Noone on earth has any solution so they simply keep going ahead until it breaks, as simple as that. It's the same everywhere in all countries. No politics want to be in office when it explodes so they just do their best to avoid the drama. But make no mistake, it's going to crash.
-
housing sales are doing great compared to last year
unemployment is better compare to last year
stock market better compared to last year
You are stupid. Absolutely all data and numbers are manipulated, fake. The sheeple will only know the extent of the damage once it's too late.
-
Did you vote for Obama? What is your stance on guns?
I voted for Obama twice. I think there should be certain basic, federal guidelines for gun policy in the states similar to the latest bill but that besides these rudiments the issue should be devolved to states such that they can choose whatever level of strictness consistent with the 2nd Amendment they please.
Nothing compared to this these assholes. Don't het even think about getting on your lib bs with Reagan, you will lose. Obama has purposely done more damage than any president put together. Dudes a complete joke and not to be taken seriously....like all libs.
I won the last time we argued about it -- what would be different now? The fact is that your vaunted Republican heroes meet your definition of 'liberal,' fiscally speaking. If you want to be logically consistent, you'll castigate them alongside the Democratic bogeymen occupying half the real estate in your almond-sized brain. If you don't want to be logically consistent, conversing with you is folly unless one is collecting empirical psychological data on how cognitive disorders can curtail, or even disable, a person's ability to think.
-
Noone on earth has any solution so they simply keep going ahead until it breaks, as simple as that. It's the same everywhere in all countries. No politics want to be in office when it explodes so they just do their best to avoid the drama. But make no mistake, it's going to crash.
^this
-
Listen to Uber. He is NOT wrong.
-
Hope we make it though this uncertain times.
I'm prepared for the worst... at the same time curious on how it will go down.
-
I voted for Obama twice. I think there should be certain basic, federal guidelines for gun policy in the states similar to the latest bill but that besides these rudiments the issue should be devolved to states such that they can choose whatever level of strictness consistent with the 2nd Amendment they please.
I won the last time we argued about it -- what would be different now? The fact is that your vaunted Republican heroes meet your definition of 'liberal,' fiscally speaking. If you want to be logically consistent, you'll castigate them alongside the Democratic bogeymen occupying half the real estate in your almond-sized brain. If you don't want to be logically consistent, conversing with you is folly unless one is collecting empirical psychological data on how cognitive disorders can curtail, or even disable, a person's ability to think.
Do you own any greyhounds? Like to cook and garden in your spare time?
-
I voted for Obama twice. I think there should be certain basic, federal guidelines for gun policy in the states similar to the latest bill but that besides these rudiments the issue should be devolved to states such that they can choose whatever level of strictness consistent with the 2nd Amendment they please.
I won the last time we argued about it -- what would be different now? The fact is that your vaunted Republican heroes meet your definition of 'liberal,' fiscally speaking. If you want to be logically consistent, you'll castigate them alongside the Democratic bogeymen occupying half the real estate in your almond-sized brain. If you don't want to be logically consistent, conversing with you is folly unless one is collecting empirical psychological data on how cognitive disorders can curtail, or even disable, a person's ability to think.
You still can't answer clearly WHY you voted for him..twice. Are you socialist? Are you marxist? maybe communist? Are you under the delusion that borrowing over and over again at higher interest rate, having our credit downgraded, sympathizing with terrorists us a good thing? Please elaborate on this, you think your smart, I have NEVER been able to get a clear answer from a liberal on this. The lack of commonsense is disturbing.
-
I voted for Obama twice. I think there should be certain basic, federal guidelines for gun policy in the states similar to the latest bill but that besides these rudiments the issue should be devolved to states such that they can choose whatever level of strictness consistent with the 2nd Amendment they please.
I won the last time we argued about it -- what would be different now? The fact is that your vaunted Republican heroes meet your definition of 'liberal,' fiscally speaking. If you want to be logically consistent, you'll castigate them alongside the Democratic bogeymen occupying half the real estate in your almond-sized brain. If you don't want to be logically consistent, conversing with you is folly unless one is collecting empirical psychological data on how cognitive disorders can curtail, or even disable, a person's ability to think.
Yeah? Lets compare Reagans term to this shitheads. Think about that, pull some obscure numbers from some lib sites that couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it.
-
I voted for Obama twice. I think there should be certain basic, federal guidelines for gun policy in the states similar to the latest bill but that besides these rudiments the issue should be devolved to states such that they can choose whatever level of strictness consistent with the 2nd Amendment they please.
I won the last time we argued about it -- what would be different now? The fact is that your vaunted Republican heroes meet your definition of 'liberal,' fiscally speaking. If you want to be logically consistent, you'll castigate them alongside the Democratic bogeymen occupying half the real estate in your almond-sized brain. If you don't want to be logically consistent, conversing with you is folly unless one is collecting empirical psychological data on how cognitive disorders can curtail, or even disable, a person's ability to think.
Also, be sure to elabotate as to why terrorists are able to get jobs as professors even after getting convicted and doing time...with felonies. Please, we are all waiting.
-
When China decides not to loan us anymore money watch our government collapse. We have to spend only what we take in. What is so confusing about that? China only lends us money because their economy relies on the US buying their goods.
Clinton had a Republican congress that refused to waste money and Clinton gets the credit. The economy was going good under Bush II until both houses in Congress went Democratic toward the last two years and ruined the banks by putting Frank/Dodd in charge with crazy spending by the Democratic congress. Then Bush is blamed. Obama had both houses democrat. He could have got anything he wanted yet he didn't and accomplished nothing. Now congress is now divided.
-
The devaulation of the USA dollar by the US administration wipes out any wealth recovery in a global sense. Some countries recently started to consider trading gold instead of US dollar, then the powers that be behind the US fed manipulate the pricethe gold price negatively, strong monetary forces at play in the world at the moment, nothing is real or safe property commodities anything, they can devalue anything, tough market to try and anticipate grow or hold wealth in.
-
I'm stocking up on thongs and oil just in case. ;D :-*
-
It's a cycle. Nothing spectacular. It would have turned around with or with the current band of morons.
100%
-
You are stupid. Absolutely all data and numbers are manipulated, fake. The sheeple will only know the extent of the damage once it's too late.
are you saying all the financial statements made by the top 1000 public companies in the usa is also false? In most cases they show an increase in sales and profit margins and balance sheets are healthy.
Some of the smartest investors are unloading gold (GS etc), buffett makes fun of investing in gold.
You have 2 choices, contiue waiting for the other shoe to drop and all the while live in misery or embrace the major financial comeback (yes it wont last forever but for now enjoy it, profit off it) and be happy.
To many people keep refreshing garbage conspiracy sites, remember, those sites are making good money off you the real sheep buying into every baloney they post, they are doing well.
-
what are the other choices, let everything default?
-
Some countries recently started to consider trading gold instead of US dollar, then the powers that be behind the US fed manipulate the pricethe gold price negatively, strong monetary forces at play in the world at the moment, nothing is real or safe property commodities anything, they can devalue anything, tough market to try and anticipate grow or hold wealth in.
^
I noticed that. The USA makes Gold drop just so the Dollar can stay alive. This is pure bull shit.
-
WHY NOT just go Bankrupt and start the slate (clean slate) from fresh all over again?
-
WHY NOT just go Bankrupt and start the slate (clean slate) from fresh all over again?
Bankrupt is probably just an American thing. You really think all of the countries that we owe money to, are just going to drop it? Maybe its time to spread sum democracy? :D
-
Why not give every one a fresh start? Sounds a lot better than having zillion dollar debt limit
-
What do you get when you cross Zimbabwe with Greece? The future US economy. ;D
-
;D
-
The USA has no intention of paying back the debt, we are seeing the beginning of the end of paper currencies, don't stress they have a while to go yet, but we are well on our way to what Gorbechov predicted when he brought down the iron curtain, Capitalism will eventually become socialism, and in truth it is, corporate controlled central governments is just a better version than the Soviet model.
-
Why not give every one a fresh start? Sounds a lot better than having zillion dollar debt limit
fresh starts happen...at the price of millions of deaths.
-
You still can't answer clearly WHY you voted for him..twice.
I can, do, and would be happy to in conversation. I don't feel like typing up a manifesto for you, however. In any case, for a single individual voting doesn't affect the outcome, so my votes were cast more for aesthetic and practical reasons than any delusions about changing the country.
Are you socialist? Are you marxist? maybe communist?
No, no, and no.
Are you under the delusion that borrowing over and over again at higher interest rate, having our credit downgraded, sympathizing with terrorists us a good thing?
Items 1 and 3 haven't happened, so I'm not sure of their relevance to the discussion. Item 2 went down as most experts thought: the credit downgrade had no perceptible impact on USG finances.
Please elaborate on this, you think your smart, I have NEVER been able to get a clear answer from a liberal on this.
I'm center-right like most Democrats (though I don't formally affiliate with any party), so I'm not sure why you're bringing up liberals here. There are a variety of places to visit/live around the world which will give you a glimpse of genuine liberals in power -- you might learn something by contrasting these places with so-called liberals in the US. but that would involve a bit of effort, a little more difficulty than regurgitating vomit from moneyed interests and/or deluded ideologues whose agendas you apparently aren't even cognizant of, for the most part.
-
So how are they going to kill millions or even billions? War? Disease? Poison?