Active Users:1182 Time:22/11/2024 08:43:32 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Yeah, lets fact check Skeeve the Great Send a noteboard - 14/04/2011 05:43:34 PM

Yes, that is crap, during the Clinton/GOP congress years [congress is, ya know, a little bit involved in making budgets] we ran a 1.9 billion surplus in '99 and 86.4 billion in 2000... we also ran a deficit ever other year, most of those years the deficit exceeded the combined surplus of the last one each... I don't believe 2/8ths is 'almost all'



Ok. Let's see some publications. Quick search in google reveals the following:
1) http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=16683&printerfriendlyvers=1
First, the most important fiscal aspect of the eight years during which Bill Clinton was president will be that it was the time the federal budget went from being perpetually in deficit to constantly in surplus. (For purposes of this series of columns, the Clinton era is defined as fiscal years 1994-2001 and is obviously based on a number of assumptions about the final results for fiscal 2000-2001.) While a surplus has now come to be expected, the fact that it happened not once but for five consecutive years (fiscal years 1998-2002) and is projected to keep on happening after Clinton leaves office makes it exceptionally noteworthy

2) http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion (Skeeve: not 89 billion as you claim), making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Like our American athletes in Sydney, we've been breaking records and have come a long way."In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998


...


Yes it is <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/node/68094">from 2007 data</a> but the tax rates are the same, yes? Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.


Why are you arguing about percentage using Bush era numbers and from right wing shills to boot? It's like me arguing about contraceptions using Vatican as a source to back me up.
I would love to see numbers from Clinton era.
This message last edited by Skeeve the Great on 14/04/2011 at 05:44:50 PM
Reply to message
How can anyone seriously support Obama's budget proposals? Tom - 14/04/2011 02:49:30 PM 1088 Views
I agree with your overall point but I do question one of your facts random thoughts - 14/04/2011 03:25:25 PM 576 Views
Using IRS data for 2008: (most recent year for which data is available) Macharius - 14/04/2011 03:45:20 PM 594 Views
those numbers sem high. What is your source? *NM* random thoughts - 14/04/2011 05:05:26 PM 230 Views
You didn't interpret the spreadsheet correctly. I'm positive of that. Tom - 14/04/2011 06:08:39 PM 459 Views
I'm gonna have to jump on board the wagon with that being a bad figure, got some others Isaac - 14/04/2011 07:33:14 PM 626 Views
Some other income data for historical perspective, again CBO Isaac - 14/04/2011 07:45:13 PM 565 Views
Data: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in31mt.xls *NM* Macharius - 14/04/2011 08:32:42 PM 237 Views
That's a breakdown of who modifies their returns and how it affects revenue. Tom - 14/04/2011 09:15:21 PM 451 Views
I see. Well, nevermind then. *NM* Macharius - 15/04/2011 01:37:13 PM 227 Views
I believe you are questioning one of my definitions, not one of my facts. Tom - 14/04/2011 04:36:35 PM 509 Views
No matter how you define it I think it would be hard to call the top 5% middle class random thoughts - 14/04/2011 05:03:33 PM 522 Views
A family making $150,000 is not middle class? Tom - 14/04/2011 06:07:07 PM 530 Views
reading what you said again random thoughts - 14/04/2011 06:37:54 PM 495 Views
What a load of crap! Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 03:49:29 PM 672 Views
Yes, your response is a load of crap. Tom - 14/04/2011 04:55:20 PM 571 Views
Re: Yes, your response is a load of crap. Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 05:13:14 PM 653 Views
This is our first war without a tax increase. Tom - 14/04/2011 06:05:43 PM 574 Views
"Artful Dodgers" Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 06:30:58 PM 514 Views
Not giving me the information I need Tom - 14/04/2011 09:33:36 PM 500 Views
Er, check facts Isaac - 14/04/2011 05:04:02 PM 700 Views
Yeah, lets fact check Skeeve the Great - 14/04/2011 05:43:34 PM 553 Views
You understand you're actually supposed to cite data for a fact check right? Isaac - 14/04/2011 06:38:22 PM 715 Views
I'm not sure thats entirely right MalkierKnight - 14/04/2011 05:51:18 PM 731 Views
You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? Tom - 14/04/2011 05:56:08 PM 509 Views
Re: You basically just said what I said. How am I not right? MalkierKnight - 15/04/2011 02:48:07 AM 627 Views
A response Roland00 - 14/04/2011 06:33:49 PM 628 Views
I only have one thing to ask. callandor1000 - 15/04/2011 02:36:07 PM 484 Views
What about the farm subsidies and the military? Vivien - 15/04/2011 04:54:54 PM 542 Views
Re: What about the farm subsidies and the military? Skeeve the Great - 15/04/2011 08:21:16 PM 506 Views
Cutting the military isn't enough Roland00 - 16/04/2011 04:27:11 AM 482 Views
Defense is 60% of the discretionary budget as well, so it's more like 26% overall. Just sayin'. *NM* Ghavrel - 16/04/2011 04:53:30 AM 242 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes