Thread View: stl.general
18 messages
18 total messages
Started by Large Pox
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:17
Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Large Pox
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:17
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:17
130 lines
7334 bytes
7334 bytes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/business/18nocera.html?8dpc �Did they first bring up the bailout to you, or did you bring it up to them?� asked Congressman Edolphus Towns, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. �I prefer to use the word �rescue,� � replied Henry Paulson Jr., the former secretary of the Treasury. � It was Thursday morning, and Mr. Paulson was once again before Congress, as he had been so many times last fall, defending his actions during the financial crisis. This time the subject was the Bank of America�s $50 billion purchase last year of Merrill Lynch, which Mr. Towns�s committee had become almost bizarrely obsessed with. In the middle of all the important issues Congress is currently tackling, it has managed to devote three full days of hearings to this seven-month-old deal. Each hearing has had only one witness: the first to be grilled was Bank of America�s chief executive, Ken Lewis. Then came the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke. Thursday was Mr. Paulson�s turn on the hot seat. The questions, from both parties, were uniformly hostile. �Mr. Lewis, isn�t it true that ...� �Yes or no, Mr. Bernanke ...� �Isn�t that why you issued that threat, Mr. Paulson?� The congressmen claimed to be investigating the events of last December. You�ll recall that just weeks before the Bank of America deal with Merrill Lynch was supposed to be consummated � and after shareholders had approved it � Mr. Lewis suddenly got cold feet. With Merrill Lynch�s toxic assets rapidly deteriorating, Mr. Lewis called Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke to tell them he was thinking of pulling out of the deal. Terrified that this might set off renewed panic in the financial markets, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke persuaded Mr. Lewis to stick by the deal. Quietly, over the next few weeks, they agreed to lend Bank of America an additional $20 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help shore up the bank�s capital. (They also agreed to backstop some $118 billion in troubled assets � though that part of the deal was later abandoned.) The first time the world learned of the additional government assistance was when the bank made its quarterly financial disclosure in January 2009 � weeks after the deal had closed. To the congressmen at the hearings, something nefarious must have taken place during those negotiations. But what exactly? Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat from Ohio, told me that Mr. Lewis�s failure to inform shareholders was a �potential violation of securities law.� He felt that Mr. Lewis had gamed the banks� regulators to get more money. Mr. Towns, for his part, seemed to think that Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke should have fired Mr. Lewis as a condition of more bailout money � that the government had been too nice to an incompetent management. Republicans, meanwhile, felt that Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke had overreached, using intimidation and threats to force through a private transaction. And they all cited e-mail from the Fed that expressed skepticism at Mr. Lewis�s motives, and emphasized the need to keep things quiet for as long as possible. I had watched the first two hearings with a growing sense of bewilderment. It always seemed obvious to me that if the Bank of America-Merrill deal hadn�t gone through, Merrill Lynch would have been in a horrible position, akin to Lehman Brothers or the American International Group. The government very likely would have had to spend an awful lot more than $20 billion to save it. Surely, the end result was worth whatever arm-twisting and additional government aid was required. So why the anger? Why the suggestions of �cover-up� and �lies�? On Thursday, as I watched Mr. Paulson being castigated, it dawned on me. Seven months later, with the palpable fear of a financial collapse largely subsided, it really all boils down to how you view what happened last year. Was it, as Mr. Towns believes, a bailout of a handful of unworthy but too-big-to-fail institutions? Or was it, in the eyes of Mr. Paulson, a rescue of a teetering financial system? My vote is for the latter. � In retrospect, the events of last December have a kind of irrefutable logic. Mr. Lewis, scared by the mounting losses at Merrill, tells the government he is thinking of invoking the �material adverse event� clause in the contract to get out of it. Even though the clause is pretty airtight � among other things, it says that deteriorating assets are not enough to create a material adverse effect � it is still a useful weapon, and a common tactic. No matter what the actual wording, invoking it usually prompts litigation or a renegotiation of the terms, or both. Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke understand this, of course. But having just finished giving Citigroup another round of TARP aid, they fear that even a rumor that the Merrill deal is in trouble will set off a rerun of the awful events of last September, when the financial system melted down. They persuade Mr. Lewis to take one for the team. �They needed to say to Ken Lewis, �You haven�t had very good capital ratios, and we�ve looked the other way,� � said Nancy Bush, a prominent bank analyst. ��Now it is payback time. We�ve let you do deal after deal after deal. Now it�s time to take one on the chin.� � That appears to be exactly what happened. Instead of renegotiating the deal with Merrill Lynch, Mr. Lewis wound up renegotiating it with the federal government. Mr. Paulson helpfully pointed out that as Bank of America�s regulator, the Federal Reserve had the right to remove him and his management team from their jobs if it no longer trusted his judgment. I can almost picture Mr. Lewis gulping as he listened to �Hammerin� Hank� laying down the law. Seen in this light, virtually all the Congressional objections seem almost laughably na�ve. Mr. Lewis gamed the regulators? Hardly. Bank of America is paying 8 percent interest on the $20 billion. Unlike Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase, it lacks the financial wherewithal to pay it back. And accepting the extra money means it has now taken as much overall TARP money as Citigroup, the very symbol of a crippled bank. Plus, of course, it has to abide by strict executive compensation rules.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Robert of St Louis
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:01
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:01
6 lines
1810 bytes
1810 bytes
Bush was handed a SURPLUS, Pissed it all down the drain , then having to borrow money from China, for what? An invasion of another nation, that took 5,000 American lives and was a fiasco. Not a damned thing to show for our money and in debt up to our ass. Of course we all knew that when Obama walked into his office but there are more and more signs that things are slowly picking up.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Peace and Justice
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:36
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:36
13 lines
2033 bytes
2033 bytes
Robert of St Louis wrote: > Bush was handed a SURPLUS, Pissed it all down the drain , then having > to borrow money from China, for what? An invasion of another nation, > that took 5,000 American lives and was a fiasco. Not a damned thing to > show for our money and in debt up to our ass. Of course we all knew > that when Obama walked into his office but there are more and more > signs that things are slowly picking up. > Bush was handed a potential surplus, a paper generated surplus. You didn't like the war because your mon's tent got bombed and you dad's camel was killed. When Obama came to office the only things picking up are the national debt, unemployment rates, and taxes.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Peace and Justice
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:37
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:37
9 lines
1834 bytes
1834 bytes
Robert of St Louis wrote: > Bush was handed a SURPLUS, Pissed it all down the drain , then having > to borrow money from China, for what? An invasion of another nation, > that took 5,000 American lives and was a fiasco. Not a damned thing to > show for our money and in debt up to our ass. Of course we all knew > that when Obama walked into his office but there are more and more > signs that things are slowly picking up. > http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/was-obama-snubbed-by-russians/
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Robert of St Louis
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:12
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:12
5 lines
1826 bytes
1826 bytes
Oh and that's why the Republicans did not invite their own settting president to their own National Convention, nor "their" vice president. And that is why even some Republicas endorsed Obama and that is why you lost Republican senators all over the nation. Oh now I get it ! No problem there huh?
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Peace and Justice
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:38
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:38
11 lines
2036 bytes
2036 bytes
Robert of St Louis wrote: > Oh and that's why the Republicans did not invite their own settting > president to their own National Convention, nor "their" vice > president. And that is why even some Republicas endorsed Obama and > that is why you lost Republican senators all over the nation. Oh now > I get it ! No problem there huh? > We lost because the parasites now outnumber the producers. Parasites will vote for whomever promises them the most free stuff. That includes most of the minorities, and lazy whites. What are you going to do Robert, when the White people run out of money?
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: mr dude
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:07
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:07
12 lines
1820 bytes
1820 bytes
On Jul 19, 8:01 am, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bush was handed a SURPLUS, How fucking stupid are you????? Clinton NEVER had a surplus you fucking blind ignorant lemming!!!! Clinton last fiscal quarter national debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway Throw away your computer. You're too fucking stupid to own one!!
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Billsey
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:32
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:32
19 lines
2304 bytes
2304 bytes
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:01 am, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bush was handed a SURPLUS,
>
> How fucking stupid are you?????
>
> Clinton NEVER had a surplus you fucking blind ignorant lemming!!!!
>
> Clinton last fiscal quarter national debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86
>
> http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
>
> Throw away your computer. You're too fucking stupid to own one!!
If you are trying to say that 5½ TRILLION dollars of debt came in only three
months then you should be throwing your computer away.
_______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.lulu.com/billsey
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Robert of St Louis
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:21
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:21
4 lines
1885 bytes
1885 bytes
Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when your great white heroes are robbing you blind.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Robert of St Louis
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:47
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:47
56 lines
4606 bytes
4606 bytes
====================================== George H.W. Bush added significantly to the debt and had a record deficit at the time of $293 billion in 1992. Bill Clinton, with the largest tax increase in history coupled with our most expansive eight-year economic growth, brought this record deficit down to zero in four years and then had four years of surplus. Enter George W. Bush and his $3 trillion tax cut for the rich and the cost of his illegal war. He doubled the debt in only eight years to almost $11 trillion. Were Republicans asleep during this period or just not interested in debt? It’s also necessary to make a distinction between good and bad debt. An affordable house mortgage can be good debt for a family. But a vacation home mortgage for a financially strapped family is bad debt — likewise for a nation. Reagan’s CIA had to know that the Soviet Union was near economic collapse and a large-scale defense buildup was unnecessary. But scare the public and bad debt becomes easy. The elder Bush continued the debt increase (although Iraq I was probably good debt) coupled with the ever-increasing bad debt for a continued defense buildup. We obviously need defense forces — but do we really need to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined? Clinton, a Democrat, reduced the debt for the first time in about 30 years. Then the junior Bush arrived with a projected $5 trillion surplus over the next decade which Clinton handed him on a silver platter. So what does he do? He not only squanders that but also doubles the debt — all unnecessary — and all bad debt. The Republicans have drowned us in debt in order to “starve the beast” so the government can’t help people in troubled times. That is their debt strategy. Now that George W. Bush has handed Barack Obama the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and a whopping debt that allows no maneuvering room, what can he do? He is forced to use a record deficit to rescue our financial system — the centerpiece of the economy. At least the stimulus money is staying in this country and is being used to help people during a crisis. True, we have to bring deficits under control and worry about inflation, but first things first. Obama clearly recognizes the debt issue. Hopefully he will be able to guide us through this extreme period. Will the Republicans help? I doubt it. For six months, they have been like little dogs yapping at the heels of Democrats trying to fix the problem for which Republicans are mostly responsible. At least they can now say the word “debt.” That is some progress. DAVID McLOUGHLIN ============================== Oh yeah.they are still looking for the Weapons of Mass Destruction and "we don't torture" handbook. ============================
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: softsofa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:01
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:01
13 lines
1666 bytes
1666 bytes
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert of St Louis
<free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest
>man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle
>class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when
>your great white heroes are robbing you blind.
Time for our great black heroes to get their turn.
[]softsofa[]
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Phxbrd
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:08
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:08
17 lines
1941 bytes
1941 bytes
"softsofa" <softsofa@comcast.net> wrote in message news:jof9655ftegrk9r399t2rm77r649phaot6@4ax.com... > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert of St Louis > <free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest >>man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle >>class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when >>your great white heroes are robbing you blind. > > Time for our great black heroes to get their turn. > No, it's time to stop couching anything in terms of race. That means ending Affirmative Action ASAP. It's time for equality.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: softsofa
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:01
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:01
24 lines
2157 bytes
2157 bytes
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:08:44 -0700, "Phxbrd"
<lesliesethhammond@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"softsofa" <softsofa@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:jof9655ftegrk9r399t2rm77r649phaot6@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert of St Louis
>> <free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest
>>>man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle
>>>class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when
>>>your great white heroes are robbing you blind.
>>
>> Time for our great black heroes to get their turn.
>No, it's time to stop couching anything in terms of race. That means ending
>Affirmative Action ASAP. It's time for equality.
Policies that use race as a basis for decisions are racist.
[]softsofa[]
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: mr dude
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:57
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:57
50 lines
3897 bytes
3897 bytes
On Jul 20, 12:47 pm, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Clinton, with the largest tax increase in history coupled with > our most expansive eight-year economic growth, brought this record > deficit down to zero in four years and then had four years of > surplus. As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration. Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus. So why do they say he had a surplus? As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors. Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Phxbrd
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:20
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:20
27 lines
2330 bytes
2330 bytes
"softsofa" <softsofa@comcast.net> wrote in message news:v7j9651jjc19g6107nno5r5p86vc1bamu8@4ax.com... > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:08:44 -0700, "Phxbrd" > <lesliesethhammond@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >>"softsofa" <softsofa@comcast.net> wrote in message >>news:jof9655ftegrk9r399t2rm77r649phaot6@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:21:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert of St Louis >>> <free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest >>>>man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle >>>>class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when >>>>your great white heroes are robbing you blind. >>> >>> Time for our great black heroes to get their turn. > >>No, it's time to stop couching anything in terms of race. That means >>ending >>Affirmative Action ASAP. It's time for equality. > > Policies that use race as a basis for decisions are racist. > Obviously.
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Peace and Justice
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:29
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:29
73 lines
4952 bytes
4952 bytes
Robert of St Louis wrote: > Why do you think that whites are the only one with money? The richest > man in the world is from Mexico. There is a much larger black middle > class. You guys hide behind the mask of being conservative, when > your great white heroes are robbing you blind. > 1. If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? 2. If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? 3. If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? 4. If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? 5. If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved? 6. If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to �Cinco de Cuatro� in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? 7. If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word /advice/ would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and /potato_e_/ as �proof� of what a dunce he is? 8. If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on �Earth Day�, would you have concluded he�s a hypocrite? 9. If George W. Bush�s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually �get� what happened on 9-11? 10. If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? 11. If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? 12. If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? 13. If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? 14. If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? 15. If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan�s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? 16. If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? So, tell me again, what is it about President Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Peace and Justice
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:30
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:30
67 lines
4565 bytes
4565 bytes
1. If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? 2. If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? 3. If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved? 4. If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? 5. If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved? 6. If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to �Cinco de Cuatro� in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? 7. If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word /advice/ would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and /potato_e_/ as �proof� of what a dunce he is? 8. If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on �Earth Day�, would you have concluded he�s a hypocrite? 9. If George W. Bush�s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually �get� what happened on 9-11? 10. If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? 11. If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? 12. If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? 13. If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? 14. If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? 15. If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan�s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? 16. If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? So, tell me again, what is it about President Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months
Re: Looking Back in Anger at the Democrat Caused Financial Crisis
Author: Hope for the Heartless
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:36
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:36
35 lines
2781 bytes
2781 bytes
In article
<b0bf4e48-d802-4ce9-a5b6-426af850b9a7@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu" <fosterfla@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:01�am, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bush was handed a SURPLUS,
>
> How fucking stupid are you?????
>
> Clinton NEVER had a surplus you fucking blind ignorant lemming!!!!
>
> Clinton last fiscal quarter national debt was $5,674,178,209,886.86
If you get more in revenue than you spend in a given year, that's
referred to as a surplus. Most of that debt was accumulated during
the Reagan and 1st Bush administrations.
In billions of dollars:
Year Revenue Expenditure
1998 1721.8 1652.6
1999 1827.5 1701.9
2000 2025.2 1788.8
It's true this is not the whole picture. It's possible for interest on
the national debt to cause total debt to increase, even when you
have a surplus.
Also most figures for "national debt" include money that the Treasury
owes to the Social Security Administration. It's funny money because
the federal government is both the creditor and the debtor. But the
Treasury Department counts it because it represents spending that the
government has committed to doing in the future -- unless Congress
decides otherwise. So it's on the balance sheet as a liability.
The actual public debt at the end of FY2000 was $3409.8 B.
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads