I already mentioned intragovernment debt and FYI the debt that other governments hold is part of the debt counted as public debt where intragovernmental debt is not
All this talk about about nominal income tax vs. as a percent of GDP misses the key issue of the impact of rising receipts. I’d say a fairer measure of income tax is as a percent of income for those making under $125,000 per year.
(A)
You can INCLUDE the debt that “government owes to itself” when you write your scares or screeds.
You can EXCLUDE the debt that “government owes to itself” when you write your scares or screeds. Many prefer this: After all, any interest or principal paid is paid back to the government itself!
Either approach is legitimate.
But be consistent. It is NOT legitimate to exclude the intragovernmental debt when that serves a particular scare or screed, but then turn around — in the very same post — and include that debt if that best serves a scare or screed.
So … The Federal Debt Held by the Public decreased during the Clinton Presidency. Agreed?
(B)
If your salary increases from $50,000 to $100,000 while your mortgage cost increases from $5000 to $6000, has your mortgage burden improved or gotten worse? Most would agree that it has improved.
(C)
So, with these preliminaries out of the way, kindly examine this graph:
Since it takes a year for tax policies to take effect, let’s define the 8-year Clinton term as Q1 1994 to Q1 2002. Looking at the graph, see that Federal debt (with intragovernmental debt excluded) declined by a whopping amount: 48.3% to 31.9% !
Moreover, even with intragovernmental debt included, debt declined 63.7% to 56.7%.
Oh. BTW: Your synopsis ignored the most important reason for the reversal of the 1993 Democrat-Clinton debt reduction program during the 2000’s — the Cheney-Rove tax cuts (primarily for the rich).
He also raised taxes and the economy liked his monetary policies. Economic cycles happen - a president shouldn’t get blamed for an economy in which too many investors run in. A president should get blamed for his legislation, tax policies, treasury policies, and the people he hires.
Hmmm, I’m noticing a theme. Funny that you again fail to mention tax policies, particularly the idiotic tax policy of George W Bush in which you cut taxes during a time of exploding military spending, a mistake compounded further by his Medicare “choice” gimmicks. But you’re right on one thing: there were Democrats who could have objected but went along for the ride.
He did sign it at the end of his two terms, yes, and I agree that he bears some responsibility for doing so, but that alone did not cause the Great Recession. In any event, generally speaking, Bill Clinton was arguably the most fiscally responsible president we’ve had over the last half century.
We’ve had the discussion many times on the Dope. Many Dopers want to believe that the taxpayer isn’t on the hook for the trust fund, because the government has promised to pay the trust fund back with interest - with money they get from the taxpayer. The government took money from the taxpayer, put it into one fund, took it out and spent it, and replaced it with a promise to take more money from the taxpayer, and then spend that too.
By law, the SSTI is carried on the government books as a debt, and properly so.
Clinton took office, and almost his first act was an attempt to increase the deficit by $16B. He claimed it was because we were in a recession, which we weren’t. The GOP in Congress managed to block this. Some years later, the GOP took control of both Houses of Congress, and balanced the budget and produced a surplus. Clinton vetoed this twice, and signed the bill when it was clear his veto was going to be overridden and he wanted to steal the credit, which credulous liberals have been attempting to do ever since.
The general rule of thumb on the SDMB is that nothing bad is ever the fault of a Democrat, and nothing good is ever the fault of a Republican. All evidence to the contrary doesn’t count.
the rule observed from outside is more like the partisans of each side each will never ever admit that their side is not less than the purest goodest ever, and will work into their comments whiny comment on how mean the other side is to them, while insulting the other side.
I clicked out of curiosity and, to no surprise, every syllable I’ve quoted is a fiction. You do not have a cite for any of this. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed (with Zero Republican votes) just a few months into Clinton’s first term. Had you been able to click the graph linked above you’d have seen the deficit begin falling almost immediately as that Act took effect.
Yes, there was a very healthy economy during the Clinton administration, driven largely by investment and new technologies, which led to increased government revenue.
However,…
We have a healthy economy right now and deficits are climbing. It took more than that during the '90s to bring the deficit down. It still took discipline to keep spending in check and to not give in to the temptation for tax cuts. People think the good times will last forever, but that’s exactly when you need to put something away for a rainy day. We’d all love to throw ourselves a big party; grown-ups pay the bills, first.
And every time any Democrat suggests raising taxes, even to the level they were at during the Clinton years, Republicans respond that they will drive down investment and innovation and hurt the economy. But that’s exactly the sort of booming economy we had under Clinton. Republicans speak of the economy under Clinton as if it was a fluke, and he just got lucky that it happened under his watch. So which is it; can we have a healthy economy and willing investors under higher tax rates (we can, and did), and does government have an impact on the economy or is it just happenstance?
There was a great political satire in Great Britain some years ago. I still remember one character explaining a situation by saying “the less you plan to do about something, the more you must talk about it.” I see no clearer example than Republicans and “fiscal responsibility”. They’ve yammered on about it for my whole political life. Some people still believe it, but the few Republicans who have tried to do anything about it have been pilloried for it.
During the golden years they seem to long for, the highest marginal tax rate on income was 91%. 91%! I don’t think anyone advocates taxes that high anymore, but it’s absurd that they long for the booming economies of the 50s and 60s and then claim that if the highest tax rate is 38% rather than 35% no one will have any incentive to work and the economy will crash. By their own paradoxical, unthinking standards, the economic boom in the golden age was during a time of socialist oppression on business and a war on rich people.
I haven’t read the rest of this thread yet, but feel pretty confident this is one of the stupidest things anyone has said in it (or any thread, for that matter).
The level of financial illiteracy in this country is staggering.
Clinton did take office, did attempt to increase the deficit by $16B, the GOP did block it, Clinton did claim it was because we were in a recession, we were not in a recession, and the GOP did take over Congress and balance the budget and produce a surplus. Clinton’s submitted budgets had $200B deficits as far as the eye can see. I have cited all of this in the past, and there is no need to re-cite it.
Reality is what doesn’t change when you don’t believe in it.
What happened to that Republican party? Under Bush and now Trump, there is no semblance of fiscal discipline. There’s a lot of talk when a Democrat like Obama is in office. But the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. Guys like Paul Ryan talk about budget deficits and debt destroying the country. But then he’s party to an unnecessary tax cut which adds to the debt. The entire persona of the GOP being fiscal hawks is based on a pack of lies.