The People

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Originally Posted by repman
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Where do you get this crap? Really? Do you just make up whatever sounds good to suit your argument? Gee, let's see . . . Roman Republic - 500 years, Roman Empire - 300 years, Greece - 1000 years, Egyptians - over 3000 years, Babylonians - 800 years, Olmecs - 1200 years, Phrygians and Lydians - 1100 years, Carthage - 650 years, Indus Valley - 1000 years, Sumerian - 1200 years. Need I go on? Have I left out any of the world's greatest civilizations? Here's a handy chart to help you out with your history of civilization.


The easiest way to do this is to look at the chinese dynasties. Their dynasties were all very similar in the way they grew to power and the way they lost their power, and also they didn't have much foreign interference until the early 20th century. Each dynasty lasted around 200 years, with some lasting only 50 and others spanning over 400. That puts the average state's life span at about 200 years.

This means that it every 200 years (about) a country/civilization will go through a dramatic change. The Greek's had it with the persian invasions; when the defeated the persians it ushered in a new era of peace. The Romans went through different periods: the republic, the triumvirates, and then the dictators. Rome overcame the republics struggles with Carthage, and also overcame the problems with having triumvirates and changed their political system again to totalitarianism, which eventually lead to their downfall.

While some civilizations last for long periods of time, others fade quite quickly. On average, every 200 years a civilization goes through a turning point, which it either overcomes or submits to.
 
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus.

Repman, please stop. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and it just sounds foolish. The yearly National Budget and the total National Debt are two completely different things that you are trying to conflate together. Clinton is correctly credited with balancing the yearly budget, and in fact creating a yearly budget surplus. At the time, the debate was whether it would be better to use that surplus to pay down some of the National Debt, or to give it back to the people with tax cuts. I remember specifically Alan Greenspan recommending tax cuts over paying down the debt. He was concerned about the effect on bond markets if U.S. Treasuries became scarce (since U.S. debt is considered the Gold Standard in the world of debt markets).

Since you bring up the National Debt, it is interesting to note that during Clinton's two terms, the National Debt as a percentage of GDP actually DROPPED, while during Bush's reign it spiked 20%! Source
 
What do State Pension plans have to do with the federal budget deficit? You are confusing your issues here. But as I said earlier, I agree with you that unions are pretty useless these days.And I would say that you still have failed to make that case.

"The public sector- on a local, state and federal level is killing the private sector."

This was the quote, by me, to which you responsed, "exactly how so". I think you are confusing the issue. The article you linked to doesn't compare similar jobs in public vs private sector. As the article stated, government has a cap on salaries while the private sector doesn't. Should someone such as Bill Gates cap the income of some of his best employees, when he is the one who took a risk and started a business that now has grown to employ thousands of workers? The only time public sector pay falls off is when comparing the very highest skill positions. The article also states that the data is collected by a, "panel of union officials, labor relations and government pay experts". No reason for them to try to fudge the numbers, particulary right before a big election, is there?

Private business are holding onto some surplus money at the moment. Who can blame them? With cap and trade, health care, and the talk of more regulations in the future, there is plenty of reasons for them to be skiddish about what the future might hold for the balance sheets. Hopefully, the republicans now controlling the house will at least temper some of those nerves.
 
Repman, please stop. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and it just sounds foolish. The yearly National Budget and the total National Debt are two completely different things that you are trying to conflate together. Clinton is correctly credited with balancing the yearly budget, and in fact creating a yearly budget surplus. At the time, the debate was whether it would be better to use that surplus to pay down some of the National Debt, or to give it back to the people with tax cuts. I remember specifically Alan Greenspan recommending tax cuts over paying down the debt. He was concerned about the effect on bond markets if U.S. Treasuries became scarce (since U.S. debt is considered the Gold Standard in the world of debt markets).

Since you bring up the National Debt, it is interesting to note that during Clinton's two terms, the National Debt as a percentage of GDP actually DROPPED, while during Bush's reign it spiked 20%! Source

Since this article has become a popular reference for people debunking the myth of the Clinton surplus, I have seen a number of responses made by those that cannot seem to accept the fact that there was never a surplus. Some of those responses are listed here and I explain why the responses are invalid.

Adjusting the National Debt for Inflation or as % of GDP

A common tactic used by those that cling to the myth of the Clinton surplus seems to be showing a bar graph of the total national debt adjusted for inflation, or depicted as a percentage of GDP. When you adjust for inflation or show the debt as a percentage of GDP, it looks like the national debt went down for a year or two under Clinton. However, that does not mean Clinton had a surplus, it simply means inflation was increasing faster than the national debt or the economy was expanding faster than the national debt. That does not change the fact that Clinton never had a surplus.

Explained another way, adjusting the national debt for inflation is valid for comparing the debt load of the federal government but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the federal government had a surplus a given year. If you spend more than you take in in a given year, you have a deficit even if your relative debt load went down because of inflation. Explained numerically, let's say you owe $50,000, earn $30,000, and spend $31,000 (debt load=50,000/30,000=167%)--that leaves you with a deficit of $1000 so that the following year you owe $51,000. The next year inflation is 5% so you now earn $31,500 and spend $32,550 with a deficit of $1,050. $31,500 in earnings with a $51,000 debt is a 162% debt load--so your relative debt load went down thanks entirely to inflation but you still had a deficit of $1,050 that year and your debt continued to grow.

It wouldn't be accurate to claim that you had a surplus because your debt load went down even though you spent more than you earned. That's what people are saying when they try to adjust the national debt for inflation to claim a surplus.

The bottom line is that the national debt going down as adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP is a valid metric for evaluating the debt load of the government but it says nothing about whether or not there was a surplus. If the total national debt went up, there was a deficit. Those that think a decrease in the debt load of the federal government as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for inflation is equivalent to a same-year surplus don't understand the definitions and purposes of each of these terms.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) vs. These "Partisan" Numbers

Another common response to the above explanation of the myth of the Clinton surplus is that the budget surpluses are based on the numbers produced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Indeed if you access the CBO's "historic budget data" document , on the fist page you will see that 1998 shows a surplus of $69 billion, 1999 shows $126 billion, 2000 shows $236 billion--the same surpluses claimed by Clinton and CNN in the article mentioned at the top of this page.

However, further analysis of the document should make it very clear that important information is missing from the CBO document--specifically focusing on the last two columns of the table on page 1. If you take the $3,772.3 billion debt held by the public at the end of 1997 and subtract the "total" $69.3 billion surplus stated for 1998, you would expect to see the debt go down by 69.3 billion to $3,703 billion. Instead, the debt indicated for 1998 is $3,721.1 billion--suggesting a surplus of only $51.2 billion. This alone should tell you that the CBO numbers aren't telling the whole story because they don't add up--and the story they aren't telling is intragovernmental holdings.

The reality is that the federal government and politicians use a form of accounting that would get most accountants thrown in jail. As USA Today wrote in 2007 , special rules used by the federal government allowed it to report a $248 billion deficit in 2006 rather than $1.3 trillion if it had used corporate-style accounting.

While the CBO may be non-partisan, that does not mean the CBO is non-political nor that their numbers are honest or transparent.


Update 4/26/2009: Please read this note where President Obama, too, is trying to get certain government expenditures not "counted" in the official CBO deficit even though they'll cost billions of dollars and increase the national debt. As this paragraph has explained, CBO numbers are not to be trusted as an accurate reflection of reality.


The fact remains that the total national debt, as explained above, is the only real measure of what we owe. We can discuss the meaning of the different columns of the CBO documents and what they do and don't include, and we can argue about the accounting tricks that the federal government uses for political reasons. But the fact remains that the Bureau of the Public Debt is responsible for the daily reporting of the total national debt. Regardless of how politicians play with the budget numbers, the current national debt reported by the Bureau of the Public Debt is what we owe. If, at the end of each year, we owe more than we did the previous year, politicians can call it a surplus until the cows come home--but the fact remains that we owed more money than we did the previous year. Playing accounting and political games to call it a "surplus" doesn't change the fact that we're even more in debt than we were the year before.

During the Clinton years, the total national debt increased every year. Only in Washington D.C. would that somehow be considered a "surplus."

There was a Surplus Not Counting Interest and "Off-Budget" Items

It is sometimes claimed that there was a surplus but the national debt didn't go down because of interest payments on the existing debt, or because of "off-budget" items. Anyone that makes this claim is just buying into twisted Washington accounting games that are convenient for their argument.

The reality is that "off-budget" items and interest payments on the debt are real government expenditures just like any other. Off-budget items are declared as such by the stroke of a pen specifically for political reasons but it does not change the fact that they are part of government expenses.

To demonstrate the fallacy of this argument, consider this: We have a budget surplus right now, too, if we declare the department of Health and Human Services to be "off-budget." After all, Congress and the president can do that with the stroke of a pen. Presto, we now have a surplus!

Of course, we wouldn't really have a surplus. And neither did Clinton. It's just a matter of saying that some expenses don't "count" even though they do.

There Was a Surplus But It Wasn't Used to Pay Down The Debt

Some people claim that there was a surplus but it wasn't used to pay down the debt. They claim that one issue is whether or not you have a surplus and another issue is what you do with it; hence they also claim that you can have a surplus and not have the national debt go down.

However, this is not true.

If there was a surplus and it wasn't used to pay down the debt, then that means it was spent--which means even if there could have been a surplus, it evaporated the moment it was spent. During the Clinton years, not only was it spent--the government borrowed even more! Every year!

It's like earning $30k in a year and only having $29k in expenses--so you have a $1000 surplus. To celebrate, you then go out and spend $2000 on a new LCD TV. All the sudden you earned $30k and spent $31k and what originally looked like a $1000 surplus is now a $1000 deficit and you're even further in debt. You almost had your financial house in order but then you went out and spent the "extra" money rather than saving it or paying off some of your existing debt.

In short, if the government had a surplus and spent it on anything other than paying down the national debt, there was no longer a surplus the moment the money was spent on something else.

Comparing National Debt on January 1st

Some have responded by saying that Clinton had a surplus and paid down the debt because, when they compare the national debt from one January 1st to the next, the debt does show a decrease. This may be an honest mistake, but the government's fiscal year is from October 1st through September 30th. All government and budgetary activities are based on that fiscal year so it is necessary to do debt comparisons using that same fiscal year. As a result, all comparisons should be made either on September 30th or October 1st... not January 1st.

FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article here

The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False

Some people have claimed that the link I provided (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) is an illegitimate or fraudulent site that provides false numbers. I don't know where that accusation comes from or why people think that, but I've seen at least some comments that criticize the link because it doesn't point to http://www.ustreas.gov/. To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:


Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.ustreas.gov/

Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/

Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."

This takes you to the link I originally provided: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

The assertion that my article points people to a fraudulent website is incorrect. I am providing a direct link to the U.S. Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, National Debt to the Penny website. This is the official website that the U.S. government provides which allows the public to track the debt.
 
I find it very telling that those who gave the president the highest approval ratings were those with a college or post-graduate education, and those who gave him the lowest ratings were those with only a high school education or less. This tells me that the conservatives do a very good job of pushing their messages of fear and hate to the uneducated.

A funny quote I like seems to sum this up

As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing.
 
The easiest way to do this is to look at the chinese dynasties.

Ah, so now you are going from "world's greatest civilizations" to "Chinese dynasties." Nice distinction, there. China actually represents the oldest CONTINUOUS Civilization in the world, with 4000 years of history and still going. It's "dynasties" actually represent different ruling parties and time periods of one continuous and ongoing civilization. You might want to recognize that distinction next time you make the argument that all the "world's greatest civilizations" lasted an average of 200 years.

Most Chinese dynasties actually ended because of corruption in the government, combined with a famine caused by some natural disaster, which resulted in civil war among competing factions. I would say that this is most likely one of the more obvious threats we face in this country, too (rather than the whole "socialism" vs. "capitalism" thing). But, of course, global warming doesn't exist, it is just a made-up phenomena, and industry should be able to continue to spew out whatever they want into the atmosphere with no regulation.
 
Civilizations rise from the ashes like phoenix and crash to the same fate, some sooner, others in considerable time but crash they will eventually. It may appear incongruous but a rational view would be that a highly evolved society would have the best means to perpetuate its further evolution indefinitely in terms of advantage it has in material wealth and intellectual might. Yet, when the fall comes it comes sometimes rapidly as with the British Empire and sometimes societies decay slowly like decline of the great Moguls and the Ottomans.

The beginning is mostly spurred by individuals with enterprise and then a self-sustaining system comes into being where material wealth pushes state’s might and might of the state spurs generation of more material wealth. Early trajectory has efficient use of both wealth of the state and its power to expand into newer horizons. As a civilization prospers and reaches a threshold, it’s people begin to shed tendencies of xenophobia; there is a definite drift towards liberal environment and relaxing of guard. The apparent chasm between their might and that of there nearest adversary instills in them an extreme sense of invincibility, making them callous towards their security. A weakening of threat perception blunts their response, while a mammoth bureaucracy takes over the state apparatus. The elite of the society begin to dream of unrealistic but grand projects to leave behind in history their footprints, completely oblivious to reality.

The rise of civilizations also brings with it unprecedented prosperity and with prosperity the people as well as the state becomes very liberal in attitude. We have written records, which suggest that in the period of the Gupta dynasty, felony like treason too was taken lightly. The great opulence de-motivates large portion of society and a general degeneration of society begins. In absence of worthwhile challenges coupled with liberal environment, the society drifts rapidly towards what is considered seedier aspect of life.

While on the fringes are less developed and disadvantaged societies seething in intense jealousy and suffering from insecurities engendered by a big brother’s whims. The extreme deprivation makes them tough and inventive. The easy affluence of their neighbor motivates them to excel. They are always looking out for opportunities. Their own misfortune and a deprived lifestyle makes them ruthless and xenophobic and highly charged to grab the opportunity that comes their way.

The fall of a society often begins from within. Now a degenerated and directionless population looking for thrills explores and plays all sorts of games. The liberal environment allows them to recklessly stretch the limits of safe behavior with no fear of reprimand. The same attributes that helped the rise of civilization also lead to its downfall i.e. whereas the resources were used efficiently in the beginning are in the end grossly misrutilized. People begin to castigate their own society. In such monotonous excitement seeking society, any failed, dissatisfied person could seed the down fall of society, while an eager and vengeful neighbor ever willing to fish in the troubled water quickly moves in and occupies the vacuum. Most shocking scenario turns out to be the near fatal inertia of a mighty war machine completely bogged down in its own bureaucratic mire, while a puny enemy systematically slaughters the mighty force.

This article pretty much sums it up there is nothing new under the sun it has happened over and over throughout history .
 
Last edited:
Since this article has become a popular reference for people debunking the myth of the Clinton surplus, I have seen a number of responses made by those that cannot seem to accept the fact that there was never a surplus.

OK, you seem completely baffled by the concept that Clinton produced a YEARLY BUDGET with a surplus (in other words, one which had money left over to pay down the National Debt instead of adding to it) and was the only President to do so in quite a long time.

Second, if you really want to look at the Gross National Debt numbers by themselves, let's examine them. When Clinton took Office, the National Debt was barely over $4 trillion, and when he left it was still under $6 trillion. When Bush took Office, the debt was just under $6 trillion, and when he left it was a staggering $11 trillion! And for six of the eight years of his presidency, we had a "conservative" republican Congress! Kind of defeats your argument that conservatives are all about fiscal responsibility.

This Chart is instructive. Notice how the debt spiked tremendously during the presidencies of Reagan and Bush 1. Notice how it began to level off during the end of Clinton's term. Notice how it spiked again, incredibly so, during Bush 2. And yes, it has continued to spike in Obama's first two years, in large part because of the economic catastrophe left him by his predecessor. Once the economy recovers and the tax cuts expire, I expect it will start to level off again.
 
This article pretty much sums it up there is nothing new under the sun it has happened over and over throughout history .

And I do agree with the basic tenet of that article. As they say, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. As an aside, I would ask that when you quote other sources, could you please at least place them in quotations (or use the forum tools to put them in a quote box) and cite to your source. Otherwise, it appears that you are just plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as your own. It wasn't apparent that you were quoting another article until the very last sentence of a very long post. And you never provided any credit to the original author. Also, by not citing your sources, you are denying others the opportunity to verify the validity of your data.
 
[! Kind of defeats your argument that conservatives are all about fiscal responsibility.
I am baffled!! I never said that Conservatives are all about fiscal responsibility to the contrary I think both Dems. and Repub. are both spending at rates we cannot sustain for the long term.


What I am saying is that some see it only one way that one party or the other are to blame I think we need to stop the mad spending on both sides.
 
And I do agree with the basic tenet of that article. As they say, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. As an aside, I would ask that when you quote other sources, could you please at least place them in quotations (or use the forum tools to put them in a quote box) and cite to your source. Otherwise, it appears that you are just plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as your own. It wasn't apparent that you were quoting another article until the very last sentence of a very long post. And you never provided any credit to the original author. Also, by not citing your sources, you are denying others the opportunity to verify the validity of your data.

Point taken it was not my intent to mislead anyone I will make sure I cite the original source
 
Last edited:
From a somewhat distorted / speculative perspective, I wonder how this country would have reacted if the stimulus funding did not occur and we were now in the second great depression?

And I suppose there are those who would say that the stimulus funding did not prevent such an occurrence. I, for one, have heard a sufficient amount of evidence to indicate this would not have been the case.

It's also interesting that Federal intervention appears to have saved the USA auto industry and the government will get all the money back plus some.

And regarding health care, the OBM has projected that, in the end, the health care reform bill will end up saving taxpayers dollars.

Oh well, my 2 cents.

GG
 
I really try to be respectful when discussing things.

If you want to disagree, fine but I really resent your haha cynical BS.

You are a prime example as to why this country cannot have any meaningful discourse to resolve issues.

Assuming your statement is accurate, I've occasionally used my HELOC and credit cards to pay off other debt because it was time sensitive. I suspect other folks have done the same thing. It doesn't relieve me from eventually paying off all my debts.

So what?

GG

PS: So I assume Hocky, that you would be willing to let GM and other associated manufacturing entities go bankrupt and live with the local (USA) and international repercussions of such an event. Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Assuming your statement is accurate, I've occasionally used my HELOC and credit cards to pay off other debt because it was time sensitive. I suspect other folks have done the same thing. It doesn't relieve me from eventually paying off all my debts.

So what?

GG

PS: So I assume Hocky, that you would be willing to let GM and other associated manufacturing entities go bankrupt and live with the local (USA) and international repercussions of such an event. Is that correct?

GM has not built any sort of momentum to pay back loans despite having deceptively advertised that they've paid the government back. The so what is that they want people to think that the money is getting paid back, but it isn't. The bailouts didn't save the USA auto industry. Ford saved themselves sans bailout money and GM / Chrysler may end up just taking a longer time to get out of the door.

Should we have let them go bankrupt? Maybe, maybe not. I understand all of the reasons that we "had to." Hell, the company I work for would be directly hit by Chrysler's failure. Either way, I think that we're just delaying the inevitable.
 
I assume you know that supportive industries, those who provide parts, etc., are dependent on volume.

If Ford was the "last man standing", what effect would it have on all the businesses and communities, outside of Michigan, that support the current big (small) 3.

I would think your State is somewhat dependent on the auto industry.

GG
 
Finally, a voice of reason . . . for BOTH political parties:

Analysis: Deficit panel pushes Dems, GOP

The leaders of the deficit commission are baldly calling out the budget myths of both political parties, challenging lawmakers to engage in the "adult conversation" they say they want.

Their plan — mixing painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare with big tax increases — has no chance of enactment as written, certainly not as a whole. But the commission's high profile will make it harder for Republicans and Democrats to simply keep reciting their tax and spending talking points without acknowledging the real sacrifices that progress against government deficits would demand.

But will they listen? Not likely.
 
Back
Top