% Increase In Debt By President

[S.J.]

U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

 

[Siete]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

I posted the wrong figures, my FACTS were 100% correct ... and yes. you're an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

I posted the wrong figures, my FACTS were 100% correct ... and yes. you're an idiot.

LOL!!!!! So figures arent facts anymore???
What a maroon! You are A list candidate for my Ignore list, for people who truly contribute nothing to a discussion.

 

[Faun]

We've added an average of roughly $1 trillion per year to the debt over the last 4 years. According to the numbers you posted, the Republican-led Congress is going to double that to $2 trillion per year.

Debt was 10T when Bush left office.
Debt is about 18T now, 6 years later.
Libs are bad at math!

I'll repeat myself since you failed miserably to address what I posted. SJ says the debt is going to increase by $2 trillion per year over the next two years. That's double the average over the previous 4 years. And of course, Congress creates all spending and of course, all spending bills originate in the House.

Now then, can you respond to that? Or are you going to again respond to someone else's post while replying to mine?

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

 

[Faun]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

Yes.

You just blew any credibility you miught have had.

As if you're the arbitrator of such things.

As usual, the forum jester cracks me up.

 

[Siete]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

I posted the wrong figures, my FACTS were 100% correct ... and yes. you're an idiot.

LOL!!!!! So figures arent facts anymore???
What a maroon! You are A list candidate for my Ignore list, for people who truly contribute nothing to a discussion.

the #'s I posted were 100% correct through 2012.. if they're not the facts then produce the correct #'s ...

I posted the wrong list. I said I posted the wrong list. I also said you're a moron ... 3 facts.

 

[Faun]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

I posted the wrong figures, my FACTS were 100% correct ... and yes. you're an idiot.

LOL!!!!! So figures arent facts anymore???
What a maroon! You are A list candidate for my Ignore list, for people who truly contribute nothing to a discussion.

Puh-lease, jester , if that were true, you'd put yourself on ignore.

 

[g5000]

I think it is a simple fact that every President runs a deficit. This stupid game of My President Makes Smaller Deficits Than Your President is beyond ridiculous.

We don't hold our federal elected politicians' feet to the fire. We just don't.

That is because no American is really in favor of a balanced budget. What Americans are all about is "gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it".

No one wants their particular government nipple removed from their mouth, which makes anyone who whines about deficits a raging hypocrite. That nipple might be what has been erroneously called an "Obamaphone", or it might be a tax deduction or credit or exemption. It might be a below market lease to drill or graze on federal land. It might be a grant to study the sex live of fruit flies. Whatever.

Americans want the nipple taken out of someone else's mouth, but not their own.

I just can't take anyone's criticisms of this President's or that President's deficit spending seriously. The only people who strike me as honest about the matter are Libertarians. Unfortunately, they have other faults which negate this one redeeming quality about them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Debt was 10T when Bush left office.
Debt is about 18T now, 6 years later.
Libs are bad at math!

I'll repeat myself since you failed miserably to address what I posted. SJ says the debt is going to increase by $2 trillion per year over the next two years. That's double the average over the previous 4 years. And of course, Congress creates all spending and of course, all spending bills originate in the House.

Now then, can you respond to that? Or are you going to again respond to someone else's post while replying to mine?

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

 

[The Rabbi]

yup, my bad ... my quote was up through 2012 ..

btw .. you're an idiot.

You had your facts wrong and I'm the idiot?

I posted the wrong figures, my FACTS were 100% correct ... and yes. you're an idiot.

LOL!!!!! So figures arent facts anymore???
What a maroon! You are A list candidate for my Ignore list, for people who truly contribute nothing to a discussion.

the #'s I posted were 100% correct through 2012.. if they're not the facts then produce the correct #'s ...

I posted the wrong list. I said I posted the wrong list. I also said you're a moron ... 3 facts.

You quoted 2012 figures as if they were 2014 figures. Were those 2014 figures? If not, then your facts were wrong. ANd you are the obvious moron here.

 

[Faun]

I'll repeat myself since you failed miserably to address what I posted. SJ says the debt is going to increase by $2 trillion per year over the next two years. That's double the average over the previous 4 years. And of course, Congress creates all spending and of course, all spending bills originate in the House.

Now then, can you respond to that? Or are you going to again respond to someone else's post while replying to mine?

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

That revenue chart displays exactly what I said. There was no need to repeat it.

Those deficits (until about 2010 or 2011) are mostly attributable to Bush and Republicans causing the housing markets to extreme levels until they burst, thus cratering the economy. Obama's spending to combat the Great Recession also contributed to them. Deficits since then have been falling due mostly to an increase in revenue, not a decrease in spending, which is what Congress controls. And revenue has been increasing mostly due to more people getting jobs, the economy improving, and the 2013 tax hike.

 

[The Rabbi]

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

That revenue chart displays exactly what I said. There was no need to repeat it.

Those deficits (until about 2010 or 2011) are mostly attributable to Bush and Republicans causing the housing markets to extreme levels until they burst, thus cratering the economy. Obama's spending to combat the Great Recession also contributed to them. Deficits since then have been falling due mostly to an increase in revenue, not a decrease in spending, which is what Congress controls. And revenue has been increasing mostly due to more people getting jobs, the economy improving, and the 2013 tax hike.

Like I said, you can't read a chart so why do I bother?

 

[Faun]

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

That revenue chart displays exactly what I said. There was no need to repeat it.

Those deficits (until about 2010 or 2011) are mostly attributable to Bush and Republicans causing the housing markets to extreme levels until they burst, thus cratering the economy. Obama's spending to combat the Great Recession also contributed to them. Deficits since then have been falling due mostly to an increase in revenue, not a decrease in spending, which is what Congress controls. And revenue has been increasing mostly due to more people getting jobs, the economy improving, and the 2013 tax hike.

Like I said, you can't read a chart so why do I bother?

Poor, demented, forum jester . The perspective I shared in post #144 emanated from that chart. All you did was post a chart which mirrored my comments.

 

[Siete]

I'll repeat myself since you failed miserably to address what I posted. SJ says the debt is going to increase by $2 trillion per year over the next two years. That's double the average over the previous 4 years. And of course, Congress creates all spending and of course, all spending bills originate in the House.

Now then, can you respond to that? Or are you going to again respond to someone else's post while replying to mine?

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

 

[Faun]

So Bush was responsible for the exploding deficit even after he left office but Congress creates all spending? Would you make up your mind here.

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

 

[The Rabbi]

Since spending isn't the only component of the deficit, I'll leave you to argue with your strawman all by yourself.

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

Thats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?

 

[Faun]

Moving those goalposts again?
Yes, we have the highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending pre-recession than ever.
WHose fault is this?

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

Thats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?

Already answered, forum jester

But I'll repeat if for ya since you're slow ....

Congress controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Capiche?

But let me guess ... if $4 trillion is added to the debt over the next two years amid growing revenues and Congressional spending -- you're going to blame Obama and not the Republican-led Congress, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not moving anything. Just pointing out how stupid you are if you think people are going to respond to your strawman arguments. As far as this claim of yours, it's rather baffling since looking at the Bush years shows the deficit increased during his early years as revenue decreased and then the deficit began to decrease during the middle of his presidency as revenues increased. So who knows where you dreamed up, "highest level of revenue to the governemnt, and a higher level of deficit spending?"

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

Thats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?

Already answered, forum jester

But I'll repeat if for ya since you're slow ....

Congress controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Capiche?

But let me guess ... if $4 trillion is added to the debt over the next two years amid growing revenues and Congressional spending -- you're going to blame Obama and not the Republican-led Congress, right?

So the blow out in spending under Bush was actually the Democrats' fault since they controlled Congress for some of that time, especially in the hyper-deficit recession years. Right?

 

[Faun]

Since you cant read a chart I dont know why I post this. BUt here. Here is revenue to the federal government:

You'll notice revenues increasing after 2009 and exceeding 2007's.
Here is the deficit picture:
Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $564 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

You'll notice Obama's deficits exceeding Bushs, except for the recession year of 2009.
So revenues are higher than ever and deficits are also higher than ever in a normal year.
Whose fault is this?

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

Thats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?

Already answered, forum jester

But I'll repeat if for ya since you're slow ....

Congress controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Capiche?

But let me guess ... if $4 trillion is added to the debt over the next two years amid growing revenues and Congressional spending -- you're going to blame Obama and not the Republican-led Congress, right?

So the blow out in spending under Bush was actually the Democrats' fault since they controlled Congress for some of that time, especially in the hyper-deficit recession years. Right?

Of course Democrats get the blame for spending us out of Bush Great Recession. For example, Bush asked for $700b to help save the economy. Obama then asked for an additional $550b to stimulate growth due to Bush's Great Recession. In both cases, Democrats passed it so of course they are credited with that spending. However, it isn't so myopic. That spending was an attempt to repair the economy which was cratered by Republican policies from years earlier.

 

[The Rabbi]

there you go again with the deficit thing ... can I explain the difference between federal deficit and national debt to you?

FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Bush Deficits
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln

see the trend here ?

going down, like you do.

And that decline is mostly attributable to a growing economy producing higher revenue. Spending is still near record highs. And again, it's Congress which controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Which brings me full circle to my initial point on this before the forum jester tried to deviate away from it since it implicates Republicans ... Another poster pointed out the debt is expected to increase by $4 trillion over the next two years ... that's $2 trillion per year or double the $1 trillion per year we've been averaging over the previous 4 years.

Since revenues are expected to continue increasing over the next two years that means spending is the main reason for adding $4 trillion in debt over the next two years ........

....... and which party controls the House, where ALL spending bills originate??

Thats my point jerk-off: Deficits are HIGHER now than in pre-recession Bush years, despite record revenue. If we have more revenue theoretically deficits ought to be LOWER, not HIGHER. Yet htey are HIGHER, Whose fault is this?

Already answered, forum jester

But I'll repeat if for ya since you're slow ....

Congress controls spending; though the president's contribution is approving such spending and sometimes even requesting it.

Capiche?

But let me guess ... if $4 trillion is added to the debt over the next two years amid growing revenues and Congressional spending -- you're going to blame Obama and not the Republican-led Congress, right?

So the blow out in spending under Bush was actually the Democrats' fault since they controlled Congress for some of that time, especially in the hyper-deficit recession years. Right?

Of course Democrats get the blame for spending us out of Bush Great Recession. For example, Bush asked for $700b to help save the economy. Obama then asked for an additional $550b to stimulate growth due to Bush's Great Recession. In both cases, Democrats passed it so of course they are credited with that spending. However, it isn't so myopic. That spending was an attempt to repair the economy which was cratered by Republican policies from years earlier.

Wow thats not revisionism.
For starters, Obama's Stimulus was about 1T. ANd it failed. And deficits have piled up unde rthe Democrats ever since, higher now than any time during the Bush years except 2009.