Bush Debt vs Obama Debt...

[ClosedCaption]

I just heard Hannity say the old line that Obama has put us into debt in a shorter time than Bush has. Which is true except the fact that Bush burned through the entire surplus THEN spent us into debt. Obama didnt spend a surplus. How much was the surplus spending and debt spending combined?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There was no surplus from Clinton. I agree Bush was a fiscal fucking nightmare, along with being a liberty grabbing fucktard. Obama is just a more articulate and perhaps more cautious version of the same power drunken fucktard Bush was.

 

[Vidi]

There was no surplus from Clinton. I agree Bush was a fiscal fucking nightmare, along with being a liberty grabbing fucktard. Obama is just a more articulate and perhaps more cautious version of the same power drunken fucktard Bush was.

Both sides get this so wrong.

There was a BUDGET surplus left behind by Clinton, but the DEBT was still there. Hence the rebate checks Bush sent out rather than using it to pay debt or as Clinton said at his final SOTU address," Save Social Security first."

I used my check to buy my first DVD player, the Sixth Sense and The Matrix on DVD.

PS Hannity is a paid shill for the Koch Borthers. 1.3 million a year. Of course, Rush gets 2 mill a year from them, so hannity is a cheap date by comparison.

 

[Mr Natural]

There was no surplus from Clinton. I agree Bush was a fiscal fucking nightmare, along with being a liberty grabbing fucktard. Obama is just a more articulate and perhaps more cautious version of the same power drunken fucktard Bush was.

No surplus?

Then where did those $300 checks come from?

 

[Si modo]

I just heard Hannity say the old line that Obama has put us into debt in a shorter time than Bush has. Which is true except the fact that Bush burned through the entire surplus THEN spent us into debt. Obama didnt spend a surplus. How much was the surplus spending and debt spending combined?

Yet, Obama spends more.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not going to explain this situation out. Clinton did not leave a surplus. It's a myth perpetuated to keep you swimming in a circle and I am NO Bush Supporter. Stroke, ya'll. Stroke.

 

[Vidi]

I'm not going to explain this situation out. Clinton did not leave a surplus. It's a myth perpetuated to keep you swimming in a circle and I am NO Bush Supporter. Stroke, ya'll. Stroke.

If you cant explain your position ( which is cleary wrong ) then you have forfieted your position havent you?

Just to fortify mine:

he beat the deficit NOT the debt.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm not going to explain this situation out. Clinton did not leave a surplus. It's a myth perpetuated to keep you swimming in a circle and I am NO Bush Supporter. Stroke, ya'll. Stroke.

If you cant explain your position ( which is cleary wrong ) then you have forfieted your position havent you?

Just to fortify mine:

he beat the deficit NOT the debt.

So let me get this straight...Bush spent over 600 billion but Hannity is only counting after Bush spent over 200 billion? Is that right?

 

[Rocko]

I just heard Hannity say the old line that Obama has put us into debt in a shorter time than Bush has. Which is true except the fact that Bush burned through the entire surplus THEN spent us into debt. Obama didnt spend a surplus. How much was the surplus spending and debt spending combined?

so what are you trying to say....Obama spent less than Boooosh?

 

[Care4all]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

I think you and the author of the article you posted does not understand our total "debt" nor our "deficit"

The national debt is comprised of the Public Debt, and Intragovernmental Debt....the combination of the the two is the National Debt. The Public debt is what we have borrowed from others, like other countries who have bought our securities etc...I think we owe the most to countries like China and Saudi Arabia etc....this is the Public debt.

The intragovernmental debt is money the government has borrowed from things like social Security surplus.

the 'deficit' or surplus is a term used strictly for the yearly "Budget" spending....did government revenues collected for the year, exceed the gvt budget spending? If they took in more revenue than than what they spent, then it was a Budget Surplus. If the government took in revenues LESS THAN it spent then it was a Budget Deficit.

all revenues from income taxes and excise taxes and corporate taxes etc, AND the surplus monies from Social Security are accounted for in these budget revenues collected by the treasury....(on paper only).

The Public debt is what Clinton did reduce by $360 billion, not the "national" debt.... and he did have a SURPLUS in the budget process his last 3 years, most all of it coming from the surplus social security revenues.


What he did, was he took the social security fund surplus revenue and paid off the Public Debt, the debt we owed as a country to other countries etc...by doing this, we are less at risk in the long term for these other countries to ask us to "pay up". the SS surplus monies used to pay down the public debt, were BORROWED from Social Security, which raised what we owed OURSELVES, (the intragovernmental debt) and REDUCED what we owed others, (the Public debt)

so even though we did run a budget surplus, the NATIONAL DEBT, the debt of BOTH public and Inragvtmntal debt, did not go down, EVEN THOUGH WE RAN A SURPLUS in the budget Process....but what Clinton did, by using the SS surplus to pay down what we owed OTHERS, was a very financially sound move to do, it was A GOOD THING...

verses what the gvt did under President bush and under President Obama, which is taking the SS surplus revenues in the budget, and spending them on what income taxes etc revenues should be paying for....so the gvt is borrowing the social Security Surplus revenue to pay for more spending, and not to pay down what we owe Saudi Arabia etc....

I know it is confusing and seems complicated, but it really is not...if you spend some time on it.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

I think you and the author of the article you posted does not understand our total "debt" nor our "deficit"

The national debt is comprised of the Public Debt, and Intragovernmental Debt....the combination of the the two is the National Debt. The Public debt is what we have borrowed from others, like other countries who have bought our securities etc...I think we owe the most to countries like China and Saudi Arabia etc....this is the Public debt.

The intragovernmental debt is money the government has borrowed from things like social Security surplus.

the 'deficit' or surplus is a term used strictly for the yearly "Budget" spending....did government revenues collected for the year, exceed the gvt budget spending? If they took in more revenue than than what they spent, then it was a Budget Surplus. If the government took in revenues LESS THAN it spent then it was a Budget Deficit.

all revenues from income taxes and excise taxes and corporate taxes etc, AND the surplus monies from Social Security are accounted for in these budget revenues collected by the treasury....(on paper only).

The Public debt is what Clinton did reduce by $360 billion, not the "national" debt.... and he did have a SURPLUS in the budget process his last 3 years, most all of it coming from the surplus social security revenues.


What he did, was he took the social security fund surplus revenue and paid off the Public Debt, the debt we owed as a country to other countries etc...by doing this, we are less at risk in the long term for these other countries to ask us to "pay up". the SS surplus monies used to pay down the public debt, were BORROWED from Social Security, which raised what we owed OURSELVES, (the intragovernmental debt) and REDUCED what we owed others, (the Public debt)

so even though we did run a budget surplus, the NATIONAL DEBT, the debt of BOTH public and Inragvtmntal debt, did not go down, EVEN THOUGH WE RAN A SURPLUS in the budget Process....but what Clinton did, by using the SS surplus to pay down what we owed OTHERS, was a very financially sound move to do, it was A GOOD THING...

verses what the gvt did under President bush and under President Obama, which is taking the SS surplus revenues in the budget, and spending them on what income taxes etc revenues should be paying for....so the gvt is borrowing the social Security Surplus revenue to pay for more spending, and not to pay down what we owe Saudi Arabia etc....

I know it is confusing and seems complicated, but it really is not...if you spend some time on it.

Care

And yet Obama HAS spent more then Bush did in 8 years in 4. Or are you going to deny that?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

I think you and the author of the article you posted does not understand our total "debt" nor our "deficit"

The national debt is comprised of the Public Debt, and Intragovernmental Debt....the combination of the the two is the National Debt. The Public debt is what we have borrowed from others, like other countries who have bought our securities etc...I think we owe the most to countries like China and Saudi Arabia etc....this is the Public debt.

The intragovernmental debt is money the government has borrowed from things like social Security surplus.

the 'deficit' or surplus is a term used strictly for the yearly "Budget" spending....did government revenues collected for the year, exceed the gvt budget spending? If they took in more revenue than than what they spent, then it was a Budget Surplus. If the government took in revenues LESS THAN it spent then it was a Budget Deficit.

all revenues from income taxes and excise taxes and corporate taxes etc, AND the surplus monies from Social Security are accounted for in these budget revenues collected by the treasury....(on paper only).

The Public debt is what Clinton did reduce by $360 billion, not the "national" debt.... and he did have a SURPLUS in the budget process his last 3 years, most all of it coming from the surplus social security revenues.


What he did, was he took the social security fund surplus revenue and paid off the Public Debt, the debt we owed as a country to other countries etc...by doing this, we are less at risk in the long term for these other countries to ask us to "pay up". the SS surplus monies used to pay down the public debt, were BORROWED from Social Security, which raised what we owed OURSELVES, (the intragovernmental debt) and REDUCED what we owed others, (the Public debt)

so even though we did run a budget surplus, the NATIONAL DEBT, the debt of BOTH public and Inragvtmntal debt, did not go down, EVEN THOUGH WE RAN A SURPLUS in the budget Process....but what Clinton did, by using the SS surplus to pay down what we owed OTHERS, was a very financially sound move to do, it was A GOOD THING...

verses what the gvt did under President bush and under President Obama, which is taking the SS surplus revenues in the budget, and spending them on what income taxes etc revenues should be paying for....so the gvt is borrowing the social Security Surplus revenue to pay for more spending, and not to pay down what we owe Saudi Arabia etc....

I know it is confusing and seems complicated, but it really is not...if you spend some time on it.

Care

You're right, it isn't. Is this your capability of a full detailed rebuttal? Thought so.

There was no federal budget surplus from Clinton. Not counting items does not make them nonexistent. Jeebus, we're fucked.

 

[Care4all]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

I think you and the author of the article you posted does not understand our total "debt" nor our "deficit"

The national debt is comprised of the Public Debt, and Intragovernmental Debt....the combination of the the two is the National Debt. The Public debt is what we have borrowed from others, like other countries who have bought our securities etc...I think we owe the most to countries like China and Saudi Arabia etc....this is the Public debt.

The intragovernmental debt is money the government has borrowed from things like social Security surplus.

the 'deficit' or surplus is a term used strictly for the yearly "Budget" spending....did government revenues collected for the year, exceed the gvt budget spending? If they took in more revenue than than what they spent, then it was a Budget Surplus. If the government took in revenues LESS THAN it spent then it was a Budget Deficit.

all revenues from income taxes and excise taxes and corporate taxes etc, AND the surplus monies from Social Security are accounted for in these budget revenues collected by the treasury....(on paper only).

The Public debt is what Clinton did reduce by $360 billion, not the "national" debt.... and he did have a SURPLUS in the budget process his last 3 years, most all of it coming from the surplus social security revenues.


What he did, was he took the social security fund surplus revenue and paid off the Public Debt, the debt we owed as a country to other countries etc...by doing this, we are less at risk in the long term for these other countries to ask us to "pay up". the SS surplus monies used to pay down the public debt, were BORROWED from Social Security, which raised what we owed OURSELVES, (the intragovernmental debt) and REDUCED what we owed others, (the Public debt)

so even though we did run a budget surplus, the NATIONAL DEBT, the debt of BOTH public and Inragvtmntal debt, did not go down, EVEN THOUGH WE RAN A SURPLUS in the budget Process....but what Clinton did, by using the SS surplus to pay down what we owed OTHERS, was a very financially sound move to do, it was A GOOD THING...

verses what the gvt did under President bush and under President Obama, which is taking the SS surplus revenues in the budget, and spending them on what income taxes etc revenues should be paying for....so the gvt is borrowing the social Security Surplus revenue to pay for more spending, and not to pay down what we owe Saudi Arabia etc....

I know it is confusing and seems complicated, but it really is not...if you spend some time on it.

Care

You're right, it isn't. Is this your capability of a full detailed rebuttal? Thought so.

There was no federal budget surplus from Clinton. Not counting items does not make them nonexistent. Jeebus, we're fucked.

I'm sorry you fail to understand the process and the terms...a deficit relates to the budget alone....the national debt is a separate entity.

Under any term, we DID run a BUDGET SURPLUS under clinton with how the law defines it, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it....we still had our ''national debt'' increase....they do not relate to eachother on the level you seem to think they do....we can have years and years of budget surpluses and still add to the National debt...that's a fact of life and it IS the way it is set up by law, and has been set up for decades now....

 

[starcraftzzz]

I just heard Hannity say the old line that Obama has put us into debt in a shorter time than Bush has. Which is true except the fact that Bush burned through the entire surplus THEN spent us into debt. Obama didnt spend a surplus. How much was the surplus spending and debt spending combined?

This is because Hanity can't do math. Bushes last budget year recorded a deficit above 1.4trillion, Obamas first and last budget years had deficits 1-3hundred billion less then Bushes last

 

[The T]

I'm not going to explain this situation out. Clinton did not leave a surplus. It's a myth perpetuated to keep you swimming in a circle and I am NO Bush Supporter. Stroke, ya'll. Stroke.

If you cant explain your position ( which is cleary wrong ) then you have forfieted your position havent you?

Just to fortify mine:

he beat the deficit NOT the debt.

And your chart wouldn't have happened IF Clinton wasn't forced to do alot he had not interest in doing...

 

[Trajan]

I'm not going to explain this situation out. Clinton did not leave a surplus. It's a myth perpetuated to keep you swimming in a circle and I am NO Bush Supporter. Stroke, ya'll. Stroke.

correct, he basically balanced budgets with *gasp* a republican congress....

 

[Vidi]

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

Here is a good interpretation of my position. Your graph was made by the same pukes that are trying to get you to buy their bag of dog shit. Congrats.

It's interesting that both you and Mr Steiner fail to understand the difference between debt and deficit. Mr Steiner unfortunately failed to provide adequate links to his actual source material. His "it's as simple as " clicking this link doesn't lead to the numbers he claims are fact.

Nice try though. I will give you props for at least sourcing your incorrect views.

The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.

Http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

 

[Trajan]

here I'll make it easy- you have a CC with 50K in debt. you balance your yearly books via income etc. but you still have the CC debt....

now, we can talk liabilities and thats were Car4alls comments come in.

its like having a ghost CC with debt as well.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The difference between debt and deficit is one leads to the other. Would you like to guess at the order?

What you fail at is economic reality. If we run deficits as a country, we must borrow, at this point and really since 1971 (at least) against ourselves for repayment later. That is called debt.

The auther is mostly correct and the discrepancies are of another debate. I did not say his analysis was end-all. I said it was a good interpretation of my thoughts.