It's a short ride - save some money

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter schwarzchildradius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Money Short
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the economic implications of government surpluses and deficits, particularly in relation to political parties and their fiscal policies. Participants explore historical data, calculations, and differing interpretations of economic reports, with a focus on the period surrounding the Clinton administration and its aftermath.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that the Republicans will be evicted from the White House by 2004, attributing this to their handling of the deficit and job growth promises.
  • Another participant critiques the use of hyperbole in discussing economic figures, suggesting that more precise language would avoid embarrassment in defending claims.
  • A calculation is presented estimating that $5 trillion would equate to 250 million man-years of labor, questioning the coherence of the initial claim regarding economic impact.
  • Discussion includes the assertion that the government could have distributed surplus funds to citizens rather than benefiting the wealthy, highlighting a perceived inequity in fiscal policy.
  • One participant disputes the existence of a surplus since the Johnson years, arguing that entitlements have been growing rapidly since then.
  • The Congressional Budget Office's reports of surpluses from 1997 to 2000 are mentioned, though their validity is questioned by another participant.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of reported surpluses, with skepticism expressed towards the credibility of political sources.
  • A participant notes that the maximum surplus during Clinton's presidency was around $50 billion, suggesting that long-term projections of surpluses and deficits are meaningless.
  • There is mention of economic recession at the end of Clinton's term, with a suggestion that Bush had influence over the economy prior to taking office.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the existence and implications of government surpluses and deficits, with no consensus reached on the accuracy of reported figures or the interpretation of economic data.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to long-term projections and the credibility of economic reports, indicating potential limitations in the data being analyzed and the assumptions underlying various claims.

schwarzchildradius
The Republicans are going down! By 2004 they will be evicted from the white-house, but not without taking 5 trillion hard-earned minimum-wage-overtime dollars with them. Will the Public finally learn that Deficit-Republicans are just blowing smoke up their orifaces when they promise job growth and victory despite the testament of those whose job it is to find facts?
Who knows. It is yours to decide.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"5T?" in "minimum wage overtime?" When engaging in hyperbole, it is best to stick to round numbers, 10T, and furnish as few details as possible (delete the "hwmwo") to avoid the embarassment of defending a very tenuous set of assertions.
 
Quick calculation: $5,000,000,000,000 / $10/hr / 2000hr/yr = 250,000,000 man-years of labor. That would be just about everyone in the country working an EXTRA full-time job for one year.

Not sure if that was the point or not.

Frankly schwarz, that post didn't make a whole lot of sense. Usually you're more coherent than that.
 
well, in any case, the surplus was in the trillions, the deficit is in the low trillions, that's still a lot of dough no matter how you divide it up. With the surplus that was squandered, the gov't could've given every man woman and child about 20 grand, or equivalent property. That seems more fair than just giving it to the already rich to me.
 
"Surplus?" Not since the Johnson years --- and the entitlements have been growing faster than anything else in the world ever since.
 
The congressional Budget Office has reported a surplus from 1997- 2000
 
"Reported" surpluses, may, or may not, be real --- Washington sources, donkey or elephant, are about as believable as "Donde's pi." Trillions? Nerp.
 
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
well, in any case, the surplus was in the trillions, the deficit is in the low trillions...
Both of those numbers are long term projections, ie. MEANINGLESS. The maximum surplus seen in a year during Clinton's term was something like $50 billion. And over his entire term we still ran a deficit.
The congressional Budget Office has reported a surplus from 1997- 2000
So you're saying that Clinton ran a deficit for the other 4 years of his term...

Economists also say that the economy was in recession when Clinton left office - but then I have heard that with his extrordinary influence, Bush was already in complete control of the economy for several months before the election.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
31K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K