Libs, where did all of Obama's borrowed money go?

[NYcarbineer]

According to the esteemed alchemists at the Heritage Foundation,

our national debt should be gone by now, thanks to Bush's 2001 tax cuts:

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan | The Heritage Foundation

You gotta read it. It's hilarious.

 

[rdean]

According to the esteemed alchemists at the Heritage Foundation,

our national debt should be gone by now, thanks to Bush's 2001 tax cuts:

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan | The Heritage Foundation

You gotta read it. It's hilarious.

You're right. That is absolutely hilarious. In fact, they say the Ryan Plan will being down unemployment to 2.8%. In our nations history, has unemployment ever been 2.8%?

That's the problem with "right wing think tanks". They "think" of something and make it policy. No data, no study, no common sense. They just "think" it. Then say, "It must be so because I just thought of it". And there you are, a "Thought" based on nothing at all. Now it's policy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to the esteemed alchemists at the Heritage Foundation,

our national debt should be gone by now, thanks to Bush's 2001 tax cuts:

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan | The Heritage Foundation

You gotta read it. It's hilarious.

You're right. That is absolutely hilarious. In fact, they say the Ryan Plan will being down unemployment to 2.8%. In our nations history, has unemployment ever been 2.8%?

That's the problem with "right wing think tanks". They "think" of something and make it policy. No data, no study, no common sense. They just "think" it. Then say, "It must be so because I just thought of it". And there you are, a "Thought" based on nothing at all. Now it's policy.

The thing is, that kind of 'logic' and calculation has been the 'science' behind all of the right's voodoo economics since the days of Reagan -

it's always been wrong it's never been close to being right, but it has a certain maddening indestructibility to it.

It's like one of those gag birthday candles, that you blow out for a second, and then it lights back up again.

 

[jeffrockit]

Do you have any idea how much a war costs and why?

Evidently not

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

The $5 trillion and the $3 trillion refer to the national debt under each President

Debt increased from $6 trillion to $11 trillion under Bush
$11 trillion to $14 trillion under Obama

Your link does not address the national debt

Great, so in 3 years Obama spent only 2 trillion less of what Bush spent in 8. At this pace, Obama will be a clear winner or loser as most see it, especially if, God forbid, he gets a 2nd term. if you are trying to make a positive point for Obama, you did not!

 

[JRK]

Do you have any idea how much a war costs and why?

Evidently not

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

The $5 trillion and the $3 trillion refer to the national debt under each President

Debt increased from $6 trillion to $11 trillion under Bush
$11 trillion to $14 trillion under Obama

Your link does not address the national debt

No my link addresses how much debt each presidents policies added to the debt
policies, not interest
not interest from debt inherited

 

[JRK]

The real question:

Libs, where did all of Obama's borrowed money go?

Don't forget, more than a third of that was "tax cuts". Didn't work for Bush, didn't work for Obama. Typical of Republicans failed economic strategies. But if you don't give in to a little Republican "failure", they fight everything.

What Republicans should be doing is asking their leadership:

Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) Held A Job Fair Where Nearly Half The 30 Organizations Received Stimulus Funds; Cantor Also Supported Using Stimulus Funds To Build A Washington To Richmond Rail.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Took Credit For $35 Million In Stimulus Highway Funds.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) Issued Pres Releases Bragging About Bringing Stimulus Jobs To His District.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Claimed Credit For Stimulus Grants In His District.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Claimed Credit For Highway Stimulus Funds He Voted Against.
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) Working To ‘Channel’ Recovery Act Funds To New Orleans.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Quietly Asked For Stimulus Funds For Her Constituents.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) Wrote Letters Asking For ‘Vital’ For His District.
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) Requested Army Secretary Use $8.4m in Stimulus Funds for Projects in Oklahoma.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) Praised $127.5 million in Stimulus Funds to Sacramento As a Solution To “Energy, Environmental and National Security Issues.”
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Praised Stimulus Funding For Local Courthouse.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) Wrote A Letter Stating ‘We Know’ A Stimulus Grant Would ‘Provide Jobs And Investment.’
(remember him? Apology to BP?)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) Demanded That The Obama Admin Shift Stimulus Money Back To PA Universities.
And a hundred more Republicans who voted against “Obama’s borrowed” money and begged for some of that money for their own states to create jobs and help the economy.
Love it when right wingers start these threads and have no clue what their leaders are doing.

And that's just a few of the Republicans who asked for and received stimulus money. You can find the other hundred here:

114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

How many repubs voted for the stimulus?
And when it comes to tax cuts there is no proof that is an expense
also GWB did not delegate where his tax cuts went, everyone got a cut, AND I MEAN EVERYONE
another thing, funding a local court house is not saving or creating 3 million jobs
that is not defined Success
THATS SPIN

 

[JRK]

Do you have any idea how much a war costs and why?

Evidently not

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your inaccurate link does not include Bush's OFF BUDGET deficit spending!!!!

How stupid do you have to be to think off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is not DEFICIT SPENDING!!!

In 2007 the lying BushWhacker was over $500 billion over budget, 2008 over $1 trillion over budget!!!! What does your link's phony chart show?????
For all 8 Bush Budgets he was $6,1 trillion over budget!!!!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Bull shit
what do you think the debt just was put in the closet?
The debt has intrest in it, i am talking policy you dumb ass
this information is from the CBO and the white house and does not include interest on debt inherited
or eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush deficit declined significantly until early September of 2008 when the global economic crisis began. Bush responded with TARP (the toxic asset recovery program). This was done because $550 billion was pulled out of our financial and investment systems in ONE hour on September 18, 2008. The situation was dire and there was no longer a firewall between the banks and the stock market. There was $40 trillion in outstanding Credit Default Swaps, and most of it turned out to be worthless. That’s more than the GDP of the entire United States for three years.
The Bush administration worked diligently to keep the American economy going. Many conservatives and libertarians were disappointed by TARP. They believed we should leave the economy alone and it would fix itself. The conservative magazine National Review did not agree and supported TARP as a necessary evil. The House Progressive Caucus was opposed but their prediction that it would fail, has not proven true.
TARP was necessary to save the economy from collapse. Letting the banks fail was not the right thing to do and it would have led to a Great Depression. TARP and all of the other government efforts in the fall of 2008 did unfreeze the credit markets. Every single credit indicator (LIBOR, TED spread, A2/P2 spread, intra-bank lending, etc) shows that the markets have significantly unfrozen. The major banks have now passed their stress tests, and they are able to raise capital through the public markets. The American economy survived without a depression. There was no wholesale meltdown of the U.S. banking system. The big banks did not fail.
The taxpayers could still lose $12 to $20 billion on the money given to AIG. That is disappointing, but it is big improvement from a few months ago. AIG received $182 billion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury.
Many thought the taxpayers were going to get stuck for over $100 billion, but AIG has been rapidly selling assets and the loss will be far less than what was once believed. The real outrage is that AIG lost $98 billion in 2008 but that did not stop them from paying large bonuses after they received the balout money.
President Obama went well beyond TARP with his $787 stimulus in February of 2009. The Stimulus bill includes tax cuts but they are not the type that spur the economy. The economic model of the stimulus bill assumes every $1 of government spending increases the economy by $1.60. By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. Not one House Republican voted for the final stimulus package, which is remarkable.
The moderates did not support it because it was too big, too porky, and hardly stimulative at all. It also wiped out many of Bill Clinton’s excellent welfare reform laws. We did see deficit reduction and economic growth in the late 1990′s.
Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress worked together. They agreed to restore a lower tax rate on capital gains and virtually eliminate capital gains taxes on owner-occupied housing. The galloping economy then reduced the deficit by a record level.
Another major factor was the “peace dividend” after the Cold War. Clinton however did not erase the debt. The national debt went up every single year. The Clinton surplus is also debatable. He took a vast amount of money out of Social Security in order to cover his budgets and give the appearance of reducing debt.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
I do not have an issue with debate
your making a fool out of your beliefs when you show desperation

 

[JRK]

Obama ($3 trillion)
Tax credits
Public Works projects
Teacher, Police and Firefighter salaries
Loans to Banks and Automakers

Bush ($5 trillion)
Two unfunded wars
$2 trillion in tax cuts
Medicare Part D

I did a bit of research. Obama in his first two years increased Debt Held By The Public more than Bush did during his entire eight years.

Over 8 years, Bush increased Federal Debt by $4.9T, $2T of that was Intragovernmental Holdings (i.e. borrowing from the SS Trust Fund). Bush increased Debt Held By The Public by $2.9T.

Over the first two years of his Presidency, Obama increased total debt by $3.5T. Only $300B of that was Intragovernmental. He increased Debt Held By The Public by $3.2T - more than over Bush's entire two terms, and over 1/3 of the entire cumulative historical balance.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds012011.pdf

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds012009.pdf

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds012001.pdf

Again, to CON$ intergovernmental DEBT is not DEBT, just as off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is not DEFICIT SPENDING.

Dude what are talking about?
the man has links to the treasury
what is off budget?

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog

 

[rdean]

The real question:

Libs, where did all of Obama's borrowed money go?

Don't forget, more than a third of that was "tax cuts". Didn't work for Bush, didn't work for Obama. Typical of Republicans failed economic strategies. But if you don't give in to a little Republican "failure", they fight everything.

What Republicans should be doing is asking their leadership:

Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) Held A Job Fair Where Nearly Half The 30 Organizations Received Stimulus Funds; Cantor Also Supported Using Stimulus Funds To Build A Washington To Richmond Rail.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Took Credit For $35 Million In Stimulus Highway Funds.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) Issued Pres Releases Bragging About Bringing Stimulus Jobs To His District.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Claimed Credit For Stimulus Grants In His District.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Claimed Credit For Highway Stimulus Funds He Voted Against.
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) Working To ‘Channel’ Recovery Act Funds To New Orleans.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Quietly Asked For Stimulus Funds For Her Constituents.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) Wrote Letters Asking For ‘Vital’ For His District.
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) Requested Army Secretary Use $8.4m in Stimulus Funds for Projects in Oklahoma.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) Praised $127.5 million in Stimulus Funds to Sacramento As a Solution To “Energy, Environmental and National Security Issues.”
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Praised Stimulus Funding For Local Courthouse.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) Wrote A Letter Stating ‘We Know’ A Stimulus Grant Would ‘Provide Jobs And Investment.’
(remember him? Apology to BP?)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) Demanded That The Obama Admin Shift Stimulus Money Back To PA Universities.
And a hundred more Republicans who voted against “Obama’s borrowed” money and begged for some of that money for their own states to create jobs and help the economy.
Love it when right wingers start these threads and have no clue what their leaders are doing.

And that's just a few of the Republicans who asked for and received stimulus money. You can find the other hundred here:

114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

How many repubs voted for the stimulus?
And when it comes to tax cuts there is no proof that is an expense
also GWB did not delegate where his tax cuts went, everyone got a cut, AND I MEAN EVERYONE
another thing, funding a local court house is not saving or creating 3 million jobs
that is not defined Success
THATS SPIN

Hilarious.

Some get's 100 bucks. Someone else gets 100,000, but they both got tax cuts so they must be equal. Of course, the guy getting the 100 bucks also can't get a student loan, because that money paid for the other guys 100,000, money the rich guy didn't even need.

Simply hilarious.

 

[JRK]

Do you have any idea how much a war costs and why?

Evidently not

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

From your "blog source":

TARP was necessary to save the economy from collapse. Letting the banks fail was not the right thing to do and it would have led to a Great Depression.

Hilarious. That was before Obama, and yet right wingers want to blame it on Obama. What about all those "tax cuts" and the millions of jobs they were supposed to "create"? Oops.

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
there is 7 million jobs it created from 03 (when the cuts took place)
its funny the job loss from 00-03 was 2 million
and with no other tool than tax cuts GWB save and created 7 million in the next 5 and a net increase of 5 million
It puts the failed 1.2 trillion dollar stimulus in clarity you cannot hid from

 

[JRK]

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

The $5 trillion and the $3 trillion refer to the national debt under each President

Debt increased from $6 trillion to $11 trillion under Bush
$11 trillion to $14 trillion under Obama

Your link does not address the national debt

Great, so in 3 years Obama spent only 2 trillion less of what Bush spent in 8. At this pace, Obama will be a clear winner or loser as most see it, especially if, God forbid, he gets a 2nd term. if you are trying to make a positive point for Obama, you did not!

GWB only spent 2.5 trillion dollars over budget in 8 years
that 5 trillion dollar number has interest from previous debt in it
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
its right there, black and white
Policies has Obama @ 3 trillion going on 4.5 in 3 years
GWB was @ 2.5 in 8

 

[rdean]

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

From your "blog source":

TARP was necessary to save the economy from collapse. Letting the banks fail was not the right thing to do and it would have led to a Great Depression.

Hilarious. That was before Obama, and yet right wingers want to blame it on Obama. What about all those "tax cuts" and the millions of jobs they were supposed to "create"? Oops.

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
there is 7 million jobs it created from 03 (when the cuts took place)
its funny the job loss from 00-03 was 2 million
and with no other tool than tax cuts GWB save and created 7 million in the next 5 and a net increase of 5 million
It puts the failed 1.2 trillion dollar stimulus in clarity you cannot hid from

I wouldn't want to post where those facts came from either. After all, it was just a couple of years ago. Not nearly long enough time to "rewrite" history.

 

[uscitizen]

Libs, where did all of Obama's borrowed money go?

Ohh about the same places as all of Bush's borrowed money went.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

From your "blog source":

TARP was necessary to save the economy from collapse. Letting the banks fail was not the right thing to do and it would have led to a Great Depression.

Hilarious. That was before Obama, and yet right wingers want to blame it on Obama. What about all those "tax cuts" and the millions of jobs they were supposed to "create"? Oops.

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
there is 7 million jobs it created from 03 (when the cuts took place)
its funny the job loss from 00-03 was 2 million
and with no other tool than tax cuts GWB save and created 7 million in the next 5 and a net increase of 5 million
It puts the failed 1.2 trillion dollar stimulus in clarity you cannot hid from

When are you going to prove that the tax cuts created the jobs?

 

[JScott]

Its one thing to have the largest deficit in the history of the United States govt
Its another for no-one to know where it went
I am serious Libs
if i was yawl I would be screaming

Im getting a bunch of money back for work I did to my house.

 

[edthecynic]

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog


your information is not accurate (the 5 trillion and 3 trillion)
this link provides accurate information
As far as the war goes
troops are here no matter as well as those things we use to support them
All i know is Iraq is done
in 2007 we where wide open in Iraq and was 150 billion over budget
its 1.5 trillion today

BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your inaccurate link does not include Bush's OFF BUDGET deficit spending!!!!

How stupid do you have to be to think off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is not DEFICIT SPENDING!!!

In 2007 the lying BushWhacker was over $500 billion over budget, 2008 over $1 trillion over budget!!!! What does your link's phony chart show?????
For all 8 Bush Budgets he was $6,1 trillion over budget!!!!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Bull shit
what do you think the debt just was put in the closet?
The debt has intrest in it, i am talking policy you dumb ass
this information is from the CBO and the white house and does not include interest on debt inherited
or eight years many liberals complained about the Bush deficit and praised the Clinton surplus. They had an excellent point, but overlooked many key factors. Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment which will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. He increased federal education spending 58% faster than inflation. He was also the first President to spend 3% of GDP on federal anti-poverty programs. For some reason the left wing is no longer talking about the deficit.
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.

That simply is not true as my link, which you obviously ignored, proves absolutely. The Heritage Foundation chart you refer to does NOT include any of the supplemental spending, nor the AMT tax adjustment, nor the medicare reimbursement, or disaster response costs.
Here are the real 8 year Bush budget numbers totaling $6.1 trillion in deficit spending, from the link you were too afraid to click on:

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Date - Dollar Amount

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

 

[edthecynic]

I did a bit of research. Obama in his first two years increased Debt Held By The Public more than Bush did during his entire eight years.

Over 8 years, Bush increased Federal Debt by $4.9T, $2T of that was Intragovernmental Holdings (i.e. borrowing from the SS Trust Fund). Bush increased Debt Held By The Public by $2.9T.

Over the first two years of his Presidency, Obama increased total debt by $3.5T. Only $300B of that was Intragovernmental. He increased Debt Held By The Public by $3.2T - more than over Bush's entire two terms, and over 1/3 of the entire cumulative historical balance.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds012011.pdf

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2009/opds012009.pdf

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds012001.pdf

Again, to CON$ intergovernmental DEBT is not DEBT, just as off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is not DEFICIT SPENDING.

Dude what are talking about?
the man has links to the treasury
what is off budget?http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/200...e-clinton-surplus-and-tarp-by-gregory-hilton/

And so do I! Here are the real numbers for the FULL debt from the exact same "treasury direct" source.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

 

[JRK]

The real question:

Libs, where did all of Obama's borrowed money go?

Don't forget, more than a third of that was "tax cuts". Didn't work for Bush, didn't work for Obama. Typical of Republicans failed economic strategies. But if you don't give in to a little Republican "failure", they fight everything.

What Republicans should be doing is asking their leadership:

Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) Held A Job Fair Where Nearly Half The 30 Organizations Received Stimulus Funds; Cantor Also Supported Using Stimulus Funds To Build A Washington To Richmond Rail.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Took Credit For $35 Million In Stimulus Highway Funds.
Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) Issued Pres Releases Bragging About Bringing Stimulus Jobs To His District.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Claimed Credit For Stimulus Grants In His District.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Claimed Credit For Highway Stimulus Funds He Voted Against.
Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) Working To ‘Channel’ Recovery Act Funds To New Orleans.
Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) Quietly Asked For Stimulus Funds For Her Constituents.
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN) Wrote Letters Asking For ‘Vital’ For His District.
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) Requested Army Secretary Use $8.4m in Stimulus Funds for Projects in Oklahoma.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) Praised $127.5 million in Stimulus Funds to Sacramento As a Solution To “Energy, Environmental and National Security Issues.”
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Praised Stimulus Funding For Local Courthouse.
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) Wrote A Letter Stating ‘We Know’ A Stimulus Grant Would ‘Provide Jobs And Investment.’
(remember him? Apology to BP?)
Rep. Todd Platts (R-PA) Demanded That The Obama Admin Shift Stimulus Money Back To PA Universities.
And a hundred more Republicans who voted against “Obama’s borrowed” money and begged for some of that money for their own states to create jobs and help the economy.
Love it when right wingers start these threads and have no clue what their leaders are doing.

And that's just a few of the Republicans who asked for and received stimulus money. You can find the other hundred here:

114 Lawmakers Block Recovery While Taking Credit For Its Success

How many repubs voted for the stimulus?
And when it comes to tax cuts there is no proof that is an expense
also GWB did not delegate where his tax cuts went, everyone got a cut, AND I MEAN EVERYONE
another thing, funding a local court house is not saving or creating 3 million jobs
that is not defined Success
THATS SPIN

Hilarious.

Some get's 100 bucks. Someone else gets 100,000, but they both got tax cuts so they must be equal. Of course, the guy getting the 100 bucks also can't get a student loan, because that money paid for the other guys 100,000, money the rich guy didn't even need.

Simply hilarious.

You know what is hilarious?
Your upset about a person who pays 35,000.00 in in income tax for every 100,000.00 they earn is not enough
In addition
I do not make 100,000 a year and GWB tax rates allowed me to keep 3-5000 dollars more a year
thats classic middle class

 

[JRK]

Psst -- Nobody's going to revisit that horseshit again, pal. You can cling to it until your blankie shrinks to nothing, but the fact remains THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, which even George W. Bush himself admits to.

Thats not what he admitted to mam
By the way how do you feel about these remarks?
all of them prior o March 2003

Lets start with the UN

lix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."
how about some dems
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Why do idiots keep posting quotes from years and years ago? It was Bush who attacked Saddam. Bush. Bush and the Republicans. No one else. Before the smoking gun becomes a "mushroom cloud". WMDs. To "liberate" the Iraqi people (the least Bush could have done is wait until they asked. Guess not.) Republicans don't care what other people say now. Why quote, out of context, what was said years ago by people they call names? So very strange.

The Democrats controlled the senate in 2002
out of context?
And everything we said was there was there. It just was not in a form of loaded in a brand new scud missle

Iraq Uranium Canada - Hussein's uranium reaches Canada - Los Angeles Times

Hussein's uranium reaches Canada
July 06, 2008|From the Associated Press
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached this Canadian port Saturday, completing a secret U.S. operation that included an airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans.

The removal of about 550 tons of "yellowcake" -- the seed material for high-grade nuclear enrichment -- was a significant step toward closing the books on Hussein's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried that the cache would fall into the hands of insurgents or Shiites hoping to advance Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

 

[MaggieMae]

How many repubs voted for the stimulus?
And when it comes to tax cuts there is no proof that is an expense
also GWB did not delegate where his tax cuts went, everyone got a cut, AND I MEAN EVERYONE
another thing, funding a local court house is not saving or creating 3 million jobs
that is not defined Success
THATS SPIN

Hilarious.

Some get's 100 bucks. Someone else gets 100,000, but they both got tax cuts so they must be equal. Of course, the guy getting the 100 bucks also can't get a student loan, because that money paid for the other guys 100,000, money the rich guy didn't even need.

Simply hilarious.

You know what is hilarious?
Your upset about a person who pays 35,000.00 in in income tax for every 100,000.00 they earn is not enough
In addition
I do not make 100,000 a year and GWB tax rates allowed me to keep 3-5000 dollars more a year
thats classic middle class

Then you should be glad Obama and his Republican counterparts saved the tax breaks for you, too, at least for a couple of years. If he has his way, you'll continue to get that tax break but the upper income people will not.