This is simply weird. I don't know how your business is structured or if you own the buildings you operate out of, but what you're saying suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and finance.
As a lender I would look at a business according to their year-to-year profits. I wouldn't say they didn't have a surplus if their annual income didn't exceed their long-term debts. I would say they had a surplus if their annual income exceeded their expenses, including the debt service on that long-term debt.
If we operated on your principles, commerce all over the world would grind to an immediate halt. Very few businesses have an annual income that exceeds their long-term debt.
I don't know how much more clearly I can make this point, but what you're saying could not possibly make less sense unless you got unicorns involved.
What you don't understand is this - there's a difference between future obligations and current/past obligations.
My current (and past) obligations are all paid for. My future obligations aren't a debt because they haven't come due yet. I can pay every one of my bills right now and still have money on the bank. If I was a the U.S. government my debt would be zero.
Our national debt of 14 trillion doesn't even include future obligations, only money we've already spent, so your comparison doesn't make any sense. If it included future obligations (money we're legally committed to spending) the number would be anywhere form 80 to 120 trillion, not 14 trillion.
Oh, and in 2001, the year Clinton left us with a 40 billion 'surplus'? The national debt increased by 133 billion:
This is simply weird. I don't know how your business is structured or if you own the buildings you operate out of, but what you're saying suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and finance.
As a lender I would look at a business according to their year-to-year profits. I wouldn't say they didn't have a surplus if their annual income didn't exceed their long-term debts. I would say they had a surplus if their annual income exceeded their expenses, including the debt service on that long-term debt.
If we operated on your principles, commerce all over the world would grind to an immediate halt. Very few businesses have an annual income that exceeds their long-term debt.
I don't know how much more clearly I can make this point, but what you're saying could not possibly make less sense unless you got unicorns involved.
What you don't understand is this - there's a difference between future obligations and current/past obligations.
My current (and past) obligations are all paid for. My future obligations aren't a debt because they haven't come due yet. I can pay every one of my bills right now and still have money on the bank. If I was a the U.S. government my debt would be zero.
Our national debt of 14 trillion doesn't even include future obligations, only money we've already spent, so your comparison doesn't make any sense. If it included future obligations (money we're legally committed to spending) the number would be anywhere form 80 to 120 trillion, not 14 trillion.
Oh, and in 2001, the year Clinton left us with a 40 billion 'surplus'? The national debt increased by 133 billion:
So, despite your claims otherwise, the overall debt did increase.
As a lender, how would you feel about lending money to a corporation that did this (or far worse) for the last hundred years or so?
If your current and past obligations are all paid for you're a very unusual business owner. If you don't have any mortgaged/leveraged assets then congratulations to you, but there are very few businesses in that situation.
As a lender I'd feel just fine about lending money to any business that was showing an ability to pay its debts on a long-term basis. Most lenders would. That's why the US never had a problem securing credit and (unless the Republicans go entirely crazy in the current budget talks) still doesn't.
If we had a sane Congress we'd raise taxes and slice the deficit in half but unfortunately we don't have a sane Congress right now. So it goes.
horse, even if we set aside the surplus no surplus whatever; which president was worse if we're just considering debt?
like nomore said, the main thing here is which president's policies were more detrimentall? look where we were when clinton left as compared to bush.
aside from the debt, i think it's funny that the big controversy with clinton was the monica lewinsky thing. he'll always be remembered for that. with bush it's things like torture, preemptive war, the end of habeas corpus, his outstanding job with the response to katrina,(a horse dealer was an excellent choice for leading the nation's emergency management agency), the precipitous decline of our economy, etc.
There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
Bill Clinton
This to me is The Big Lie. The fact that the liberal wing of the dem party overwhelmingly swallows this nationalist mythology is scary.
After all this time I don't know which kook niche you call your own. You could be a Naderite, a LaRouchie, a Paultard, a Scientologist... nothing would really surprise me. You could be a remnant of Lenora Fulani's bunch of misfits, or Bo Gritz's gofer. I really don't know, because you never really say anything.
Your notion of Clinton as some sort of devoted nationalist is some funny shit, though. Yeah, that's him all over.
There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.
Bill Clinton
This to me is The Big Lie. The fact that the liberal wing of the dem party overwhelmingly swallows this nationalist mythology is scary.
After all this time I don't know which kook niche you call your own. You could be a Naderite, a LaRouchie, a Paultard, a Scientologist... nothing would really surprise me. You could be a remnant of Lenora Fulani's bunch of misfits, or Bo Gritz's gofer. I really don't know, because you never really say anything.
And what are you? A MOR democrat? You do the liberal democrat thing pretty well, but once anything goes beyond that paradigm, off you go with the personal taunts that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I can't understand how anyone could take a look outside their window, and think that what SportCasual is saying is some "kook" shit.
Comments
What you don't understand is this - there's a difference between future obligations and current/past obligations.
My current (and past) obligations are all paid for. My future obligations aren't a debt because they haven't come due yet. I can pay every one of my bills right now and still have money on the bank. If I was a the U.S. government my debt would be zero.
Our national debt of 14 trillion doesn't even include future obligations, only money we've already spent, so your comparison doesn't make any sense. If it included future obligations (money we're legally committed to spending) the number would be anywhere form 80 to 120 trillion, not 14 trillion.
Oh, and in 2001, the year Clinton left us with a 40 billion 'surplus'? The national debt increased by 133 billion:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
So, despite your claims otherwise, the overall debt did increase.
As a lender, how would you feel about lending money to a corporation that did this (or far worse) for the last hundred years or so?
If your current and past obligations are all paid for you're a very unusual business owner. If you don't have any mortgaged/leveraged assets then congratulations to you, but there are very few businesses in that situation.
As a lender I'd feel just fine about lending money to any business that was showing an ability to pay its debts on a long-term basis. Most lenders would. That's why the US never had a problem securing credit and (unless the Republicans go entirely crazy in the current budget talks) still doesn't.
If we had a sane Congress we'd raise taxes and slice the deficit in half but unfortunately we don't have a sane Congress right now. So it goes.
like nomore said, the main thing here is which president's policies were more detrimentall? look where we were when clinton left as compared to bush.
aside from the debt, i think it's funny that the big controversy with clinton was the monica lewinsky thing. he'll always be remembered for that. with bush it's things like torture, preemptive war, the end of habeas corpus, his outstanding job with the response to katrina,(a horse dealer was an excellent choice for leading the nation's emergency management agency), the precipitous decline of our economy, etc.
this right here^
and tax cuts for the super rich are always necessary. everybody acts like those people are made of money or something.
Well, I've answered that question twice already, but I can answer it a third time - Bush was far worse.
That may or may not be the main thing, but it wasn't the topic I was addressing. I was discussing some of the various ways debt is measured.
and if anyone can detail to me how this clinton "surplus" was remotely sustainable, plz do so
This to me is The Big Lie. The fact that the liberal wing of the dem party overwhelmingly swallows this nationalist mythology is scary.
After all this time I don't know which kook niche you call your own. You could be a Naderite, a LaRouchie, a Paultard, a Scientologist... nothing would really surprise me. You could be a remnant of Lenora Fulani's bunch of misfits, or Bo Gritz's gofer. I really don't know, because you never really say anything.
Your notion of Clinton as some sort of devoted nationalist is some funny shit, though. Yeah, that's him all over.
And what are you? A MOR democrat? You do the liberal democrat thing pretty well, but once anything goes beyond that paradigm, off you go with the personal taunts that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I can't understand how anyone could take a look outside their window, and think that what SportCasual is saying is some "kook" shit.
http://blogs.forbes.com/afontevecchia/2011/07/13/bernanke-fights-ron-paul-in-congress-golds-not-money/