<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Would Obama Get Rewarded For Deficit Reduction?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/</link>
	<description>Ground zero for all things political in Delaware</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:45:41 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cassandra_m</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157819</link>
		<dc:creator>cassandra_m</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157819</guid>
		<description>And the ratio is a routine expression of he debt capacity of this economy.  By the same token, what you see in the BushCo numbers is proof positive that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.  But I digress -- the public debt decreased under the last 4 years of the Clinton presidency.  Alan Greenspan started buying back 30 year bonds (expensive borrowing) at a pretty astounding rate -- and stopped issuing them altogether (first year of BushCo)since surpluses were still projected and the interest rates were low.

The public debt plus Social Security obligations (since SS monies go right to the General Fund)went up during the last Clinton term because SS was bringing in more money since the economy was doing so well.  Efforts to separate out the SS funds and keep them separate from the General Fund (remember the lockbox?) were killed by Congressional Republicans who didn&#039;t want to face the new accounting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the ratio is a routine expression of he debt capacity of this economy.  By the same token, what you see in the BushCo numbers is proof positive that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.  But I digress &#8212; the public debt decreased under the last 4 years of the Clinton presidency.  Alan Greenspan started buying back 30 year bonds (expensive borrowing) at a pretty astounding rate &#8212; and stopped issuing them altogether (first year of BushCo)since surpluses were still projected and the interest rates were low.</p>
<p>The public debt plus Social Security obligations (since SS monies go right to the General Fund)went up during the last Clinton term because SS was bringing in more money since the economy was doing so well.  Efforts to separate out the SS funds and keep them separate from the General Fund (remember the lockbox?) were killed by Congressional Republicans who didn&#8217;t want to face the new accounting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lizard</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157813</link>
		<dc:creator>lizard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157813</guid>
		<description>For the benefit of the educable, I will try.

The graph at the link above shows the ratio of National Debt to GDP.

The slope of the graph turns negative durring the Clinton administration. It does this  because the denominator grew faster than the numerator. IE GDP grew faster (remember the tech buble) than national debt.

what it does not show is the dollar value of the national debt.

Decade over decade, the national debt has increased each decade since 1930.

There is some  debate as to whether the total dollar debt actually decline in one year, 1998.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the benefit of the educable, I will try.</p>
<p>The graph at the link above shows the ratio of National Debt to GDP.</p>
<p>The slope of the graph turns negative durring the Clinton administration. It does this  because the denominator grew faster than the numerator. IE GDP grew faster (remember the tech buble) than national debt.</p>
<p>what it does not show is the dollar value of the national debt.</p>
<p>Decade over decade, the national debt has increased each decade since 1930.</p>
<p>There is some  debate as to whether the total dollar debt actually decline in one year, 1998.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cassandra_m</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157812</link>
		<dc:creator>cassandra_m</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157812</guid>
		<description>Translation:  RICO has spent all day looking for something to debunk this and can&#039;t.

So he is here making pretend that a whole bunch of people whose livelihoods depend upon math won&#039;t notice that he can&#039;t present any alternate data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Translation:  RICO has spent all day looking for something to debunk this and can&#8217;t.</p>
<p>So he is here making pretend that a whole bunch of people whose livelihoods depend upon math won&#8217;t notice that he can&#8217;t present any alternate data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lizard</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157811</link>
		<dc:creator>lizard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157811</guid>
		<description>I knew I&#039;d get a laugh if I followed cassy&#039;s link.

I&#039;d try to explain the graph to you, but it requires math and that would send you into screams of &quot;talking points&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I knew I&#8217;d get a laugh if I followed cassy&#8217;s link.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d try to explain the graph to you, but it requires math and that would send you into screams of &#8220;talking points&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157746</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157746</guid>
		<description>Why would I misspell dividends and stick in a bunch of hyphens?

Lizard you are a d-o-p-e.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would I misspell dividends and stick in a bunch of hyphens?</p>
<p>Lizard you are a d-o-p-e.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lizard</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157744</link>
		<dc:creator>lizard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157744</guid>
		<description>Anon, you are half right, Focus on short term results is a problem in corporate america, but the tax rate in capital gains is not a cause.

also, only libs are mind readers so for the rest of us, when you mean dividends you need to type d-i-v-d-e-n-d-s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anon, you are half right, Focus on short term results is a problem in corporate america, but the tax rate in capital gains is not a cause.</p>
<p>also, only libs are mind readers so for the rest of us, when you mean dividends you need to type d-i-v-d-e-n-d-s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cassandra_m</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157742</link>
		<dc:creator>cassandra_m</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:31:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157742</guid>
		<description>RICO here hasn&#039;t got any facts again (which puts him in the company of Delusional David) but he would be quite wrong about debt reduction under Clinton.  

The &lt;a href=&quot;http://zfacts.com/p/318.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;National Debt did shrink under Clinton&lt;/a&gt; and rose again after the BushCo tax cuts, the wars he didn&#039;t pay for and Medicare Part D.

It is well past time that you people come to terms with the fact that the deficits and a decent part of the current debt being financed is due to structural deficits created by BushCo and cheered on by you morans as he was breaking the economy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RICO here hasn&#8217;t got any facts again (which puts him in the company of Delusional David) but he would be quite wrong about debt reduction under Clinton.  </p>
<p>The <a href="http://zfacts.com/p/318.html" rel="nofollow">National Debt did shrink under Clinton</a> and rose again after the BushCo tax cuts, the wars he didn&#8217;t pay for and Medicare Part D.</p>
<p>It is well past time that you people come to terms with the fact that the deficits and a decent part of the current debt being financed is due to structural deficits created by BushCo and cheered on by you morans as he was breaking the economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157739</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157739</guid>
		<description>Liz I was talking about dividends, which do not need to be held in order to receive that enormous tax break. Do try to keep up. 

But 15% capital gains doesn&#039;t help corporations think long-term either; one year is not that long to kite your company along until you can cash out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liz I was talking about dividends, which do not need to be held in order to receive that enormous tax break. Do try to keep up. </p>
<p>But 15% capital gains doesn&#8217;t help corporations think long-term either; one year is not that long to kite your company along until you can cash out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lizard</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157738</link>
		<dc:creator>lizard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157738</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.&quot;


except that the lower capital gaines rate only aplies to Long Term Gains, ie: investments held for more than a year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.&#8221;</p>
<p>except that the lower capital gaines rate only aplies to Long Term Gains, ie: investments held for more than a year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lizard</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157736</link>
		<dc:creator>lizard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157736</guid>
		<description>One problem with Enron Paul Krugman&#039;s premise is that most people don&#039;t know the difference between &quot;deficit&quot; and &quot;National Debt&quot;.


&quot;Bill Clinton lowered the deficit and the size of government. Most of what people think they know comes down to their party affiliation, not facts. &quot;

sentence 2 is proved in sentence one. The deficit shrank to zero and then the budget went into surplus. The National Debt did not shrink as the surplus did not exceed the interest load on the debt. And the Government grew each year by an amount greater than inflation + population growth. The total Fed Empolyee head count did go down, through shrinking the military and greater use of outsourcing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem with Enron Paul Krugman&#8217;s premise is that most people don&#8217;t know the difference between &#8220;deficit&#8221; and &#8220;National Debt&#8221;.</p>
<p>&#8220;Bill Clinton lowered the deficit and the size of government. Most of what people think they know comes down to their party affiliation, not facts. &#8221;</p>
<p>sentence 2 is proved in sentence one. The deficit shrank to zero and then the budget went into surplus. The National Debt did not shrink as the surplus did not exceed the interest load on the debt. And the Government grew each year by an amount greater than inflation + population growth. The total Fed Empolyee head count did go down, through shrinking the military and greater use of outsourcing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon2</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157734</link>
		<dc:creator>anon2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157734</guid>
		<description>The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.

EXACTLY.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.</p>
<p>EXACTLY.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157733</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157733</guid>
		<description>We will have to claw back the money from the people who benefited from the distortions of the Bush economy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We will have to claw back the money from the people who benefited from the distortions of the Bush economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Republican David</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157732</link>
		<dc:creator>Republican David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157732</guid>
		<description>Rewarded for cutting the deficit?  You mean after he tripled it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rewarded for cutting the deficit?  You mean after he tripled it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157730</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:39:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157730</guid>
		<description>By the way, that Obama plan was &lt;a href=&quot;http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876400087343173.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;quoted from the WSJ in 2008&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, that Obama plan was <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876400087343173.html" rel="nofollow">quoted from the WSJ in 2008</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/02/would-obama-get-rewarded-for-deficit-reduction/#comment-157729</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delawareliberal.net/?p=30828#comment-157729</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;* Let the BushCo tax cuts expire&lt;/i&gt;

Unfortunately Obama promised to leave the biggest Bush tax cuts for the rich mostly undisturbed:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Sen. Obama outlined a plan Thursday to raise tax rates on capital gains &lt;b&gt;and dividend income&lt;/b&gt; from 15% to 20% for individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Sounds like a hefty increase, until you remember that before Bush, dividends were taxed as regular income with a top marginal rate of 39%.

The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>* Let the BushCo tax cuts expire</i></p>
<p>Unfortunately Obama promised to leave the biggest Bush tax cuts for the rich mostly undisturbed:</p>
<blockquote><p>Sen. Obama outlined a plan Thursday to raise tax rates on capital gains <b>and dividend income</b> from 15% to 20% for individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sounds like a hefty increase, until you remember that before Bush, dividends were taxed as regular income with a top marginal rate of 39%.</p>
<p>The Bush dividend cut was especially pernicious since it fueled most of the short-term thinking on Wall Street.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

