Discussion: High Speed Rail

[dnno1]

The budget and national debt are two different things. You can pass a budget of 80 trillion and come in 70 trillion under and then tomg I will be teh thrifties.

Clinton's budgets did not add to the national debt. He produced a surplus. the increases are attributed to interest earned on the debt accrued by the Reagan and Bush (I) administrations.

 

[Paradoxium]

National debt? Nope

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

No one is arguing Bush and Reagan did not stink with fiscal conservatism but don't try to whitewash Clinton.

 

[dnno1]

National debt? Nope

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

No one is arguing Bush and Reagan did not stink with fiscal conservatism but don't try to whitewash Clinton.

Maybe you aren't, but chaester and Hippy Hunter certainly are. They are trying to say that most of the debt is Obama's (which isn't true).

Source: Gardena Valley Democratic Club

As for Clinton, the increases in the debt were going down each year until the national debt only increased by less than $18 billion in his final year as president.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Maybe you aren't, but chaester and Hippy Hunter certainly are. They are trying to say that most of the debt is Obama's (which isn't true).

Source: Gardena Valley Democratic Club

As for Clinton, the increases in the debt were going down each year until the national debt only increased by less than $18 billion in his final year as president.

I've never tried to paint Reagan and Bush as fiscal saviors while criticizing Obama of being fiscally irresponsible. And I've never said that most of the debt was Obama's. All of them are fiscally irresponsible and have contributed massively to the federal debt. This isn't a Democratic or a Republican problem.

You also have to take into account that Clinton had a Republican Congress to work with. Unlike Bush or Obama, Clinton was actually quite the politician who knew how to turn things around for his advantage. While Bush and Obama essentially refused to listen to the electorate, Clinton read the signs and worked with the Republican Congress to deliver what they wanted. He easily deserved re-election.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Had Regan and both Bushes not spent as much as they did, Bill Clinton's administration would have payed off the WWII debt and the debt from the following 7 administrations (up to and including Jimmy Carter) and we would have easily been able to handle this past economic downturn. We are currently a little over $14 trillion in debt. $12 trillion of it is from spending and interest on the debt from Regan and both Bushes alone. These are the administrations that said that deficits do not matter. Look were we are now.

How could Bill Clinton have paid off the debt incurred by both Bushes when one of them wasn't even in office yet?

 

[chaseter]

Oh poor dnno...here, this is off the government's site and not some DNC bar graph maker trying to show irrelevant points:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

So look who was right...me. The national debt increased under Clinton. Clinton added to the debt while he was president...nearly 2 trillion.

 

[chaseter]

dnno...look at the graph. You proved my point. The graph is title INCREASES IN NATIONAL DEBT. Clinton increased the national debt...haha. What were you thinking? AHAHAHAHA

 

[dnno1]

dnno...look at the graph. You proved my point. The graph is title INCREASES IN NATIONAL DEBT. Clinton increased the national debt...haha. What were you thinking? AHAHAHAHA

No, The debt was decreasing for each year that Clinton was president. Certainly you see the cost added on (which was the intrest on the debt) but as each year progressed the net amount was less. that means that spending was under control and something was being paid down. It it wasn't it would be going in the other direction.

 

[dnno1]

Oh poor dnno...here, this is off the government's site and not some DNC bar graph maker trying to show irrelevant points:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm


So look who was right...me. The national debt increased under Clinton. Clinton added to the debt while he was president...nearly 2 trillion.

Um... the amounts are going down. That means that the debt is being paid off. Clinton was not adding to the debt otherwise the total at the end of 1999 would be greater than the total at the begining of 1993.

 

[Paradoxium]

If you look at the data on intragovernmental holdings during the Clinton tenure you notice a surge in it. To make it simple for everyone he was borrowing way more from stuff like Social Security to pay down public debt (common trend in government until recently). Thus you get the look of federal budget (projected) surplus, despite an increase in the overall national debt.

So put it in even more simple terms, Clinton took a Visa to repay the debt off his Master Card by rolling over it. Visa being Social Security and Master Card being public debt.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, The debt was decreasing for each year that Clinton was president. Certainly you see the cost added on (which was the intrest on the debt) but as each year progressed the net amount was less. that means that spending was under control and something was being paid down. It it wasn't it would be going in the other direction.

Ummmm.....no. If you actually read the graph, it says increases in national debt. It does not mean that Clinton paid it down. Your graph says that the national debt increased under Clinton, just not as much as it did under other Presidents, or in the case of W. Bush, nowhere near the amount he increased it by. With your logic, there were certain years that W. Bush paid down the debt, when that clearly was not the case. The values reflected in that graph does not reflect the value of the National Debt of year XXXX, just the values of how much it increased that year.

EDIT: Also, if the graph said that Clinton did decrease the National Debt, the graph would show negative values instead of positive ones. If the graph showed negative values then that would mean that Clinton paid down the National Debt because the graph is flat out called "INCREASES in National Debt." The keyword here is "INCREASES."

 

[chaseter]

Um... the amounts are going down. That means that the debt is being paid off. Clinton was not adding to the debt otherwise the total at the end of 1999 would be greater than the total at the begining of 1993.

Are you serious. Look at the number at 1993 - 4.4 trillion and look at the number at 1999 - 5.6 trillion. Clinton increased the national debt nearly 2 trillion.

 

[Paradoxium]

Wait a second, did dnno1 just debunk himself by accident? t:

 

[Kelly]

I'm still speechless over that graph.....so I don't know.

 

[dnno1]

How could Bill Clinton have paid off the debt incurred by both Bushes when one of them wasn't even in office yet?

If the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 was still being followed after 2000 and George W. Bush had not given tax cuts to the wealthy in addition to geting us involved in a phony war (or if Al Gore had been President instead), we would have paid off the WWII debt by 2008 according to some.

 

[dnno1]

Wait a second, did dnno1 just debunk himself by accident? t:

No, you are not reading the chart correctly. Bill Clinton was paying down on the debt. This is why the annual balance on the National Debt was lower each year that he was in office.

 

[hippie_hunter]

No, you are not reading the chart correctly. Bill Clinton was paying down on the debt. This is why the annual balance on the National Debt was lower each year that he was in office.

With your thinking, Gerald Ford paid down the debt from $493 billion to $84 billion in his first year in office and yet it says "New Record." That is because those values are not the value of the National Debt, they are the values of how much the National Debt increased that year. Ford didn't decrease the National Debt to $84 billion, that year the National Debt increased by $84 billion. And the next year it increased by $77 billion.

Also, the National Debt wasn't at $1.017 trillion in 2008, it was in the tens of trillions of dollars.

 

[Handsome Rob]

No, you are not reading the chart correctly. Bill Clinton was paying down on the debt. This is why the annual balance on the National Debt was lower each year that he was in office.

No. YOU are reading it wrong, and this statement proves it. That chart doesn't show the overall National Debt balance each year. It shows the annual deficit each year, each of which has a cumulative effect on the overall National Debt.

The smallest national debt increase during the Clinton years on your chart was $18 billion in 2000. That meant that between Jan 1 and December 31, the overall national debt increased by $18 billion . . . according to your chart. So, if the national debt were $5 Trillion on Jan 1 of 2000, it would be $5.018 Trillion on Dec 31 of 2000. That's an INCREASE in the National Debt, not a "paying down."

Your chart only shows that the National Debt didn't increase as much under the Clinton years, but it still increased. By your reasoning, Ronald Reagan paid down on the National Debt between 85 and 86. According to that chart, however, the National Debt increased $283 billion in 85 and another $179 billion in 86, for a cumulative $462 billion increase in the National Debt over the two year period. No "paying down."

EXAMPLE:
Annual Deficit 19##: $5 million under Republican President X
Annual Deficit 19##: $3 million under Democrat President Y

National Debt Increase: $8 million.

And you seriously expect us to buy that Democrat President Y reduced or "paid down" on the National Debt?

 

[chaseter]

Read the title of your graph dnno!

Increases in National Debt

They all increased the national debt, some just increased it more than others.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 was still being followed after 2000 and George W. Bush had not given tax cuts to the wealthy in addition to geting us involved in a phony war (or if Al Gore had been President instead), we would have paid off the WWII debt by 2008 according to some.

No we wouldn't have considering that the debt continued to rise under Clinton.

 

[8wid]

The DesertXpress media event was a dud. Trouble for high-speed rail?

 

[8wid]

High-speed rail gains popularity in China

 

[Kelly]

Of course it gains popularity...

1. China feels like it has been overshadowed by Japan for decades....
2. Their infrastructure is not ready for an influx of automobiles, therefore rail is more practical...

 

[8wid]

California Considers New (Old) Route for High-Speed Rail

 

[8wid]

Blowback: Mend, don't end, California's bullet-train program