What? I asked you if you understood the term inflation adjusted debt after you mocked NLXSK1 for mentioning it.
You never answered, instead you give a video and weak rambling reply to hide your ignorance on the subject, I mean C'MON.
Now Democrats Call To Delay Obamacare.
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
You never answered, instead you give a video and weak rambling reply to hide your ignorance on the subject, I mean C'MON.
A baseline based on inflation? LOL
Do you mean adding the inflation index to a baseline?
Stick to spell checking and petting kitty cats Buckie.
this response..your doing exactly what you're being accused of.
I don't think so schuylaar but nice try.
Then you weren't paying attention to what you quoted. It might have helped to read the post I responded to in addition to what I wrote.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
let's use your words, which refer to the same practice as my words: you pick a year and put other years' inflation adjusted amounts in terms of that year.
how is it possible, as you have claimed for it to be, for this to turn a deficit into a surplus, or a positive number into a negative number?
NLXSK first claimed it was possible, then you agreed with him that it was possible.
nevermind that not even kynes, who for all his racism, actually has a lick or two of intelligence, knows that such a thing is not possible. nevermind that i know it is not possible. nevermind that anyone with two brain cells knows that it is not possible.
tell me again how adjusting for inflation can turn positive amounts into negative amounts.
thanks in advance, patricia.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
obama would have just won more white states.
recall that obama kicked hillary's ass up and down in the top 10 whitest states, kiddo.
what is your obsession with black people "taking away" things you feel belong to white people, by the way?
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
If I was making 100k in 1980 and 110k in 2010, I've had a net increase of 10%, adjusted for inflation however....
I bet your mind is blown right now isn't it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
adjust 1980's salary to 2010 dollars: 264,000 or so
adjust 2010's salary to 2010 dollars: 110,000
conversely:
adjust 1980's salary to 1980 dollars: 100,000
adjust 2010's salary to 1980 dollars: 41, 567 or so
let's see what happens in each case.
264/110 = 2.4
100/41 = 2.4
OMFG you just proved what an idiot you are, not that you needed to after telling us that a consumption tax would really stick it to the rich.
you are dismissed.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
And you just proved what a lack of integrity you have. You asked to show how adjusting for inflation turns a positive into a negative. Your own math shows exactly how a 10% increase adjusted for inflation becomes an almost 60% decrease.
I'm afraid you can't be dismissed yet, in fact, you need to stay after class.
I said double the consumption tax on corporations, you conveniently leave that part out every time. If you have to lie to call someone a liar, it really doesn't accomplish what you think it does, other than maybe get a like from Cheesus.
Tell us what you think we should be doing about the chemical weapons in Libya?
Are you OK man? you seem upset.
I think you have me mixed up with someone else my friend, show me where I said this.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
might want to read again, apparently you reading compensation has failed you? (<---not actually a question)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, you stood behind NLXSK on this one, even though your fellow conservatives called you and him out for being wrong, and validated me.
When you look at my entire post, you can see I made no claim what so ever about inflation adjusted debt, adding the inflation index does not change percentages.
I clearly pointed out that the so called Clinton surplus was a myth and the result of borrowed monies from Social Security, hence, you fell for it,
BTW, no one called me out on a thing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no need to try and backtrack, it's all there for everyone to see.
paints a very clear picture that you can't weasel your way out of, rat.
yes, kynes did.
[h=1]The three best charts on how Clinton’s surpluses became Bush and Obama’s deficits[/h] By Ezra Klein, Published: September 5, 2012 at 7:19 pmE-mail the writer
There's a reason Bill Clinton is on the stage tonight. When he was president, America enjoyed a booming economy and surpluses (here are some charts). Since he left the White House, things haven't been quite as good.
But the story of why they haven't been quite as good is more complicated than "Clinton isn't around now." Here are three of the best analyses of what's happened to the federal budget since 2001. I've included the key paragraph and chart from each of them.
The Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative: "Between 2001 and 2011, about two-thirds (68 percent) of the $12.7 trillion growth in federal debt has been due to new legislation. Forty percent of this legislative growth was the result of tax cuts enacted after January 2001, and 60 percent resulted from spending increases. Technical and economic revisions combined caused about one quarter (27 percent) of the growth, and changes in other means of financing accounted for 6 percent.
E21: "Roughly half of the reason the surpluses never materialized is that federal spending was subsequently increased (over half of this total increase was concentrated in the three years of 2009-11). A little over one-quarter disappeared because of subsequent corrections to the 2001 projections. Less than one-quarter was due to tax relief of any kind – and only a little more than half of that small fraction is directly attributable to the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages."
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time."
All of these analyses are using data from the Congressional Budget Office, and all of them are telling the same basic story. But they explain it in slightly different ways.
All agree that the projections in 2001 were simply wrong. They didn't see that the tech bubble was about to pop, and they definitely didn't foresee the economy falling off a cliff in 2008. That alone accounts, in all the papers, for about a quarter of the deterioration.
The place where you see real differences is in how the papers account for the role of legislation and policy in piling up the debt.
Writing for E21, Charles Blahous ends by grouping all spending together and all tax cuts together. That deemphasizes the role of tax cuts.
At CBPP, Kathy Ruffing and Jim Horney break the spending apart, showing how much went to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much went to the stimulus, and so on. When built that way, the Bush tax cuts appear to be the single largest policy contributor the current deficits.
CBPP also projects the numbers forward into the next decade. Because the tax cuts continue to grow in size, but the stimulus and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan end, that further enlarges the role the tax cuts play in the expected deterioration of the budget.
All these analyses tell the same story in one key respect, however. The primary drivers of the debt predate Barack Obama. The post-9/11 wars and security build-up, the Bush tax cuts, and the 2001 and 2008 recessions simply began before Obama became president. You can blame him for extending the Bush tax cuts till 2012, or for the stimulus (though the stimulus would never have happened without the 2008 financial crisis), but the structural of deterioration came in the Bush years.
Of course, the real question in this election isn't who caused the deficits, but who has the best plan to retire them. For more on that, here's Obama's plan, and here's what Romney has promised. I say "has promised," as Romney's plan still lacks key details we need in order to say what he's actually going to do, and whether it's credible. Given what we know now, I'm skeptical.
Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.
- [h=5]How the government shutdown works
[/h]
Clinton ran budget surpluses for a few years and there was nothing mythical about that. Expectations for future surpluses, however, were pure fiction because they reflected the continuance of the tech bubble, which crashed and burned right as Clinton was leaving office. It doesn't sound like you're separating the two.
On Schuylaar's copy paste: I just want to point out that Obama and the Democrat-controlled congress could have permitted the Bush tax cuts to expire. They didn't. I'm very bothered by the Bush label there because it implies that Bush is responsible for that portion of the debt.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
I think you should take it easy on him. You know he isn't that good at math.
sorry bro, that's just not true.
Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to pay down the debt, there was no surplus.
See for yourself.
