Jon Stewart thinks that Clinton's surplus eliminated the National Debt

[One_Tycoon]

And this is who our youth listens to. All these years of covering politics and doesn't know the difference between Debt and Deficits....that a guy like O'reilly had to correct him.

[Drunken Cat]

I like Jon Stewart, but he does know/understand fuck all about economics. It's always been obvious from when I use to watch his show. He's a good comedian, and is intelligent and a decent social commentator, but not when it comes to economics. If he would've known what he's talking about he could've certainly creamed O'Reilly on this point, but as the video title says he knocked himself out for Bill O'Reilly.

I didn't know they had a debate. Will have to track the video down.

[Drunken Cat]

In fact, Stewart's point wasn't entirely wrong, but he got it mixed up (I'm sure because someone else told it to him and he never really understood). What he might've been attempting to get at was the projection that if the Clinton surplus would've been maintained the deficit would've been eliminated.

But, this point is also counter-factual. The budget surplus/deficits are also very affected by macroeconomic conditions. When times are good, tax revenues are higher. This was basically what created the Clinton surplus. It is also probably the most problematic circumstance with respect to the currently rising debt.

[Jam Jars]

**** Jon Stewart. Rod Stewart rules.

[Miburo]

A comedian and a TV personality/pundit. Yeah, these two are a much more qualified alternative to typical politicians

[LeG00N]

I'm not very knowledgeable myself but when I watched Jon Stewart make a fool out of himself I cringed. He looked so stupid.....


Bill O won the debate IMO

[Drunken Cat]

A comedian and a TV personality/pundit. Yeah, these two are a much more qualified alternative to typical politicians

Yeah, it's pretty funny and sort of a sad commentary on the circus that American elections have become. Surely, the entire concept stems from that time however many years ago when Jon Stewart appeared on O'Reilly's show. Anything to make a buck.

There was also the so-called "3rd party debate" recently as well. I think it was on C-Span. I'm sure people paid a lot more attention to this though.

I'll still give it a watch though, for the lols if nothing else.

[One_Tycoon]

I like Jon Stewart, but he does know/understand fuck all about economics. It's always been obvious from when I use to watch his show. He's a good comedian, and is intelligent and a decent social commentator, but not when it comes to economics. If he would've known what he's talking about he could've certainly creamed O'Reilly on this point, but as the video title says he knocked himself out for Bill O'Reilly.

I didn't know they had a debate. Will have to track the video down.

I don't think so. His ideology is wrong to begin with, then you get the terminologies wrong...implying that Clinton's surplus eliminated the entire National Debt and that Bush racked up 10 trillion during his two terms...and it's game over.

Now he may be able to "cream" O'reilly because that guy is a dunce himself but at least he leans the right direction and had the whereabouts to stop Stewart and correct him. A lot of Liberals use this kind of talk and it passes right over peoples heads. And they get applauded for it.

[Drunken Cat]

I don't think so. His ideology is wrong to begin with, then you get the terminologies wrong...implying that Clinton's surplus eliminated the entire National Debt and that Bush racked up 10 trillion during his two terms...and it's game over.

Now he may be able to "cream" O'reilly because that guy is a dunce himself but at least he leans the right direction and had the whereabouts to stop Stewart and correct him. A lot of Liberals use this kind of talk and it passes right over peoples heads. And they get applauded for it.

I'll address the substantive points a little. Basically, I already agreed with the substantive matter in this post.

And as much as I dislike O'Reilly, I also agree on that point as well (it was good of O'Reilly to correct him).

O'Reilly could've been creamed. As far as the broader issue, I also think the entire perspective O'Reilly represented is wrong. I'd like to say that I would enjoy hearing an honest scholarly commentary on the matter supporting the view represented by O'Reilly. However, I am not sure where one would be found, and the Heritage Foundation and other rightwing think tanks don't qualify as 'honest'.

[One_Tycoon]

In fact, Stewart's point wasn't entirely wrong, but he got it mixed up (I'm sure because someone else told it to him and he never really understood). What he might've been attempting to get at was the projection that if the Clinton surplus would've been maintained the deficit would've been eliminated.

But, this point is also counter-factual. The budget surplus/deficits are also very affected by macroeconomic conditions. When times are good, tax revenues are higher. This was basically what created the Clinton surplus. It is also probably the most problematic circumstance with respect to the currently rising debt.

Well that's certainly the best case scenario if one were to spin it. Of course someone of Stewart's ilk would spin it even further and credit the higher taxes on the rich during the Clinton years, for the "good times"....which as you said had nothing to do with the low unemployment rate. It's the "Good Times" themselves from the Free Market, that gave them the revenue to balance budgets. The higher taxes on the rich was just icing on the cake....which the Democrats use to this day as a way to get us back to a 90's Economy.

And I disagree with your last sentence. It's not the most problematic thing. The problematic thing is SPENDING and BIG GOVT, which are getting in the way of the "good times" anyway. We've had "good times" all throughout history, and the majority of those good times happened when we had a much smaller Government to begin with... and true Capitalism reigned supreme. We've since then abused those "good times" in the Private Sector, and used it to increase Government spending because we could get away with it. Well... time has caught up and it's now time to get off of the "Mixed Economy" where the private sector pays for a bloated public sector, and get back to pure Capitalism Economy...without the yearly Trillion dollar spending.

Bush did the right thing in cutting taxes, what he did wrong was not cutting spending to accommodate those tax cuts. That's where he failed and discredited the good name of "Fiscal Conservatism". To the point that those who are actually serious about shrinking Govt. have to call themselves Libertarians, just to not be linked to Bush style Conservatism.