2007 budget, 150 k from even. 2009 1.5 trillion, what happened liberals?

[sinister59]

Same for 2010 and more for 2011
GWB got tarp in his 2008 budget
Iraq was wide open in 2007
its done 2010

can someone explain to me why we cannot live off of the 2007 budget?

those ae repig years in power
up until 09 ,
bush raised the debt a trillion in just 1 term then went nuts on his last .

what happen neo-cons ?

but really why 07 / why not 98 ? under the dems we had prosperity .
with Obama we will again .

08 was GWB last budget
he would not sign the one for 09
we also know that 09 had the "stimulus" added to it as well as 1/2 of tarp that was not used like Bush used his 350 billion

I am asking a serious question
Reagan
Bush-1
Clinton and Bush 2 kept us in the game and we got really close to turning the worm in 07

its to late now
and what did it get us?

really
first I posted 08 was a bush year and 07 it was a turn around ? that I didn't know bush was still spending , he was incharge , there was no regulation of the banking industry and blolune note were still being given out .

what did we get in o9 / a turn around , fought teeth and nail by repigs but still unto the pigs got back in power , yet they still are the party of no .

oh ya your right bush and 350 billion ? is that what you think bush spent / not even on homeland security , not to mention the war in iraq cost more then that .

the tarp was necessary , and the stimulus was as well .

and bush mad it all necessary .
so trickle down on you

 

[NYcarbineer]

Same for 2010 and more for 2011
GWB got tarp in his 2008 budget
Iraq was wide open in 2007
its done 2010

can someone explain to me why we cannot live off of the 2007 budget?

Revenues were 18.5% of GDP in 2007. They're 14.9% now. In raw numbers, adjusted for inflation, revenues are down about 22%.

At 2007 spending, and 2009 revenues, you'd have a deficit of 800 billion.



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[8537]

K's...B's...T's...no biggie.

So what happened? The economy crashed, revenues plummeted, both administration spent money to prop up the economy, taxes were cut and automatic stabilizers got far more expensive.

But of course, this has been explained to the OP numerous times...

I thought the revenues plummeted also
they increased from 07-09 allot

No, they didn't. Why are you using preliminary 2007 estimates? Try using current actuals instead of predictives from four years ago:

Real figures:

2007: 2568M
2008: 2524M
2009: 2105M

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

But of course, I pointed this out to you before. You just can't let facts get in the way of a good screed.

 

[JRK]

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1)
By John Brinsley - October 11, 2007 12:46 EDT

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record and spending rose at the slowest pace in George W. Bush's presidency.

The deficit narrowed to $162.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the third straight annual decline and lowest since $158 billion in 2002, the Treasury Department said today in Washington.

BULLSHIT!!!!!
Bush had a deficit of over half a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2007. The other $338 billion in deficit spending was OFF BUDGET. That's Right, 2/3 of Bush's deficit spending was off budget!!!!!!!

Only CON$ are stupid enough to believe that off budget DEFICIT SPENDING is not DEFICIT SPENDING!

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

I you want to add interest your not going to like Obama's numbers even more

 

[JRK]

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1)
By John Brinsley - October 11, 2007 12:46 EDT

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record and spending rose at the slowest pace in George W. Bush's presidency.

The deficit narrowed to $162.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the third straight annual decline and lowest since $158 billion in 2002, the Treasury Department said today in Washington.

Total spending rose 2.8 percent for the year, compared with an average annual increase of 6.8 percent since 2001, the year Bush took office. Revenue in 2007 increased 6.7 percent, helping to reduce the annual budget gap more than one-third from $248.2 billion last year.

``This year's budget results demonstrate the remarkable strength of the U.S. economy,'' Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement. ``We must keep taxes low and restrain federal spending.''

For the month of September, the government posted a surplus of $111.6 billion, almost double the $56.2 billion surplus from the same month in 2006, the Treasury said.

Economists expected the annual shortfall to total $162.5 billion, according to the median of eight estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 5 predicted a $161 billion shortfall.

White House budget chief Jim Nussle predicted last week a 2007 budget deficit of between $165 billion and $170 billion. The administration in July predicted a $205 billion shortfall.

Profit Taxes

Corporate tax receipts grew by 4.6 percent during the 12- month period, a fraction of the 39 percent pace on average in the past three years.

Slowing growth in tax revenue from corporate income may stem from weaker profits, Bank of America Securities LLC said this week, and slower economic growth may threaten Bush's goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

``The real question is how long is this expansion going to Last,'' said Richard Kogan, senior fellow and budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington. ``The rate of growth in corporate tax receipts could be one of many leading indicators of a slowdown or a recession.''

Spending totaled $2.731 trillion for the fiscal year, compared with revenue of $2.568 trillion. While both figures were records, they fell short of White House projections. In July, Bush's budget office forecast 2007 revenue of $2.574 billion and spending of $2.779 billion.

Military Spending

Do you guys post this stuff w/o really knowing the truth or do you simply keep the lie rolling?

A Texas-size Whopper | FactCheck.org

It’s true that deficits have grown under Obama, but not even close to as much as Hensarling claimed. The simple fact is that Obama inherited a federal deficit of $1.2 trillion on the day he was sworn in last year. Barely two weeks earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular "Budget and Economic Outlook" document, stating:

CBO, Jan. 2009: The federal fiscal situation in 2009 will be dramatically worse than it was in 2008. Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place (that is, not accounting for any new legislation), CBO estimates that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, more than two and a half times the size of last year’s.

That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.

Don't you guys know that Bush never placed the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget? So, whatever you've been brainwashed to believe was the deficit in 2007, add that year's cost of Iraq and Afghanistan (plus interest since he borrowed the money) to your figure and you get much closer to reality.

BULL SHIT ASS HOLE
YOUR WHATS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009
SO DID GWB ADD THE OTHER 0.15 TRILLION? IS THAT WHAT YOUR SAYING?
YOU WANT THE TRUTH ABOUT DEFICIT
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE CBO
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
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.

 

[JRK]

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1)
By John Brinsley - October 11, 2007 12:46 EDT

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record and spending rose at the slowest pace in George W. Bush's presidency.

The deficit narrowed to $162.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the third straight annual decline and lowest since $158 billion in 2002, the Treasury Department said today in Washington.

Total spending rose 2.8 percent for the year, compared with an average annual increase of 6.8 percent since 2001, the year Bush took office. Revenue in 2007 increased 6.7 percent, helping to reduce the annual budget gap more than one-third from $248.2 billion last year.

``This year's budget results demonstrate the remarkable strength of the U.S. economy,'' Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement. ``We must keep taxes low and restrain federal spending.''

For the month of September, the government posted a surplus of $111.6 billion, almost double the $56.2 billion surplus from the same month in 2006, the Treasury said.

Economists expected the annual shortfall to total $162.5 billion, according to the median of eight estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 5 predicted a $161 billion shortfall.

White House budget chief Jim Nussle predicted last week a 2007 budget deficit of between $165 billion and $170 billion. The administration in July predicted a $205 billion shortfall.

Profit Taxes

Corporate tax receipts grew by 4.6 percent during the 12- month period, a fraction of the 39 percent pace on average in the past three years.

Slowing growth in tax revenue from corporate income may stem from weaker profits, Bank of America Securities LLC said this week, and slower economic growth may threaten Bush's goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

``The real question is how long is this expansion going to Last,'' said Richard Kogan, senior fellow and budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington. ``The rate of growth in corporate tax receipts could be one of many leading indicators of a slowdown or a recession.''

Spending totaled $2.731 trillion for the fiscal year, compared with revenue of $2.568 trillion. While both figures were records, they fell short of White House projections. In July, Bush's budget office forecast 2007 revenue of $2.574 billion and spending of $2.779 billion.

Military Spending

Hmmmm....I don't see the costs of the Iraq invasion/occupation/surge or the Afganistan invasion in there anywhere?

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

 

[JRK]

K's...B's...T's...no biggie.

So what happened? The economy crashed, revenues plummeted, both administration spent money to prop up the economy, taxes were cut and automatic stabilizers got far more expensive.

But of course, this has been explained to the OP numerous times...

I thought the revenues plummeted also
they increased from 07-09 allot

No, they didn't. Why are you using preliminary 2007 estimates? Try using current actuals instead of predictives from four years ago:

It looks as though I am not correct
I will keep looking in the Us treasury web site
It also show clearly spending went up 800 billion
and it went up 700 billion the next
And correct me if I am wrong but up until Gas going from 2.00 a gallon to 4.00 a gallon inflation was not a problem


Real figures:

2007: 2568M
2008: 2524M
2009: 2105M

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

But of course, I pointed this out to you before. You just can't let facts get in the way of a good screed.

your link is not correct, or is no better than mine
I have allot of trust in a left wing groups numbers
I am looking in the US treasury right now
I will find it, if I am wrong I will admit it
your still 1 trillion off, even if my link is wrong
(Obama is)
I have no reason to use in accurate information
it does me harm in an event in which I need no nor disre un true help
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

So, JRK....why don't YOU tell us what happened?

Sure
Its a path to change the very government that R. Reagan
Bush-1
Clinton
and Bush 2
spent the last 30 years building
thru 2 attacks on the WTC
the cold war
both Iraqi wars
etc...

its to take smaller and to make bigger
Its to mover more of my wealth and give it to those who do not work
some need help
some do not

Its not just the re distribution of wealth
its fuel
its a 50 year dream come true
it was to never let a good crises go to waste

to me it is never personal
I have paid taxes under all of them and Clinton got me for the most
Obama wants to go back there but has nothing to offer in trade or budget
he wants it all, and you guys are helping him get there

I will pay 20,000 in federal instead of 15
that means in 5 years thats a new car
10 a small house
20 allot of jobs with your help that will be killed and I will have brought home 100,000 less in income
someone else will get and you will say its not enough
I want to thank you for that

 

[8537]

I thought the revenues plummeted also
they increased from 07-09 allot

No, they didn't. Why are you using preliminary 2007 estimates? Try using current actuals instead of predictives from four years ago:

Real figures:

2007: 2568M
2008: 2524M
2009: 2105M

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

But of course, I pointed this out to you before. You just can't let facts get in the way of a good screed.

your link is not correct, or is no better than mine
]

Holy shit.

Nevermind. You are completely incorrigible in your beliefs. Never let facts get in the way.

 

[8537]

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1) - Bloomberg

U.S. 2007 Budget Deficit Falls to $163 Billion (Update1)
By John Brinsley - October 11, 2007 12:46 EDT

Oct. 11 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government posted the smallest budget deficit in five years as tax revenue reached a record and spending rose at the slowest pace in George W. Bush's presidency.

The deficit narrowed to $162.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the third straight annual decline and lowest since $158 billion in 2002, the Treasury Department said today in Washington.

Total spending rose 2.8 percent for the year, compared with an average annual increase of 6.8 percent since 2001, the year Bush took office. Revenue in 2007 increased 6.7 percent, helping to reduce the annual budget gap more than one-third from $248.2 billion last year.

``This year's budget results demonstrate the remarkable strength of the U.S. economy,'' Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement. ``We must keep taxes low and restrain federal spending.''

For the month of September, the government posted a surplus of $111.6 billion, almost double the $56.2 billion surplus from the same month in 2006, the Treasury said.

Economists expected the annual shortfall to total $162.5 billion, according to the median of eight estimates in a Bloomberg News survey. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 5 predicted a $161 billion shortfall.

White House budget chief Jim Nussle predicted last week a 2007 budget deficit of between $165 billion and $170 billion. The administration in July predicted a $205 billion shortfall.

Profit Taxes

Corporate tax receipts grew by 4.6 percent during the 12- month period, a fraction of the 39 percent pace on average in the past three years.

Slowing growth in tax revenue from corporate income may stem from weaker profits, Bank of America Securities LLC said this week, and slower economic growth may threaten Bush's goal of balancing the budget by 2012.

``The real question is how long is this expansion going to Last,'' said Richard Kogan, senior fellow and budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group in Washington. ``The rate of growth in corporate tax receipts could be one of many leading indicators of a slowdown or a recession.''

Spending totaled $2.731 trillion for the fiscal year, compared with revenue of $2.568 trillion. While both figures were records, they fell short of White House projections. In July, Bush's budget office forecast 2007 revenue of $2.574 billion and spending of $2.779 billion.

Military Spending

Do you guys post this stuff w/o really knowing the truth or do you simply keep the lie rolling?

A Texas-size Whopper | FactCheck.org

It’s true that deficits have grown under Obama, but not even close to as much as Hensarling claimed. The simple fact is that Obama inherited a federal deficit of $1.2 trillion on the day he was sworn in last year. Barely two weeks earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular "Budget and Economic Outlook" document, stating:

CBO, Jan. 2009: The federal fiscal situation in 2009 will be dramatically worse than it was in 2008. Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place (that is, not accounting for any new legislation), CBO estimates that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, more than two and a half times the size of last year’s.

That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.

Don't you guys know that Bush never placed the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget? So, whatever you've been brainwashed to believe was the deficit in 2007, add that year's cost of Iraq and Afghanistan (plus interest since he borrowed the money) to your figure and you get much closer to reality.

TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009

once again, let's not have facts get in the way of a perfectly good screed.

TARP did not add 35OB to the deficit in 2009, nor did the stimulus.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Same for 2010 and more for 2011
GWB got tarp in his 2008 budget
Iraq was wide open in 2007
its done 2010

can someone explain to me why we cannot live off of the 2007 budget?

those ae repig years in power
up until 09 ,
bush raised the debt a trillion in just 1 term then went nuts on his last .

what happen neo-cons ?

but really why 07 / why not 98 ? under the dems we had prosperity .
with Obama we will again .

I want what this clown is smoking!

Talk about dumbing down prosperity... $5 gas, 35,000,000+ unemployed, inflation, 12,000,000,000,000+ in debt, on the brink of credit status downgrade... yep.. happy days are here Obama-style!

 

[JRK]

Do you guys post this stuff w/o really knowing the truth or do you simply keep the lie rolling?

A Texas-size Whopper | FactCheck.org



Don't you guys know that Bush never placed the costs for Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget? So, whatever you've been brainwashed to believe was the deficit in 2007, add that year's cost of Iraq and Afghanistan (plus interest since he borrowed the money) to your figure and you get much closer to reality.

TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009

once again, let's not have facts get in the way of a perfectly good screed.

TARP did not add 35OB to the deficit in 2009, nor did the stimulus.

Facts?

I ask the question my friend
I can safely say this
where ever it is and I do not care whose links you use
Its a mess we do not need
its 800 billion in 09
its 700 billion more in 10 using your numbers
Thats numbers with no interest
and no tax payer rebates across the board, as W did in 2008
Yes the stimulus and some tax breaks in it
none for me or any of the working people I know
one other smart ass
If you spent your time trying to resolve issues, issues that Obama has brought on to us, owning up to them and simply stating you support taking more of the working persons wealth for what ever reason
I could respect you
GWB tried to keep a tax rate for the working people we could afford
You dis agree with that by trying to compare a 163 billion dollar deficit with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit, by claiming a short-fall of revenues caused it

OBAMA blowed that out of the water in weeks after he was elected and added 1 trillion dollars to the deficit
And then with your help told this nation he could pay for his health care bill by saving 500 billion dollars from Medicare
where does that 500 billion dollar shortfall land?

During a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget.

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.”

The Obama administration and HHS have been criticized previously for double-counting. In a report last summer, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.



Read more: Obamacare Cost | HHS Director Admits Double Counting Funds | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
I dont care if its in the next 50 years the stimulus and his use of tarp is debt

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought the revenues plummeted also
they increased from 07-09 allot

No, they didn't. Why are you using preliminary 2007 estimates? Try using current actuals instead of predictives from four years ago:

It looks as though I am not correct
I will keep looking in the Us treasury web site
It also show clearly spending went up 800 billion
and it went up 700 billion the next
And correct me if I am wrong but up until Gas going from 2.00 a gallon to 4.00 a gallon inflation was not a problem


Real figures:

2007: 2568M
2008: 2524M
2009: 2105M

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf

But of course, I pointed this out to you before. You just can't let facts get in the way of a good screed.

your link is not correct, or is no better than mine
I have allot of trust in a left wing groups numbers
I am looking in the US treasury right now
I will find it, if I am wrong I will admit it
your still 1 trillion off, even if my link is wrong
(Obama is)
I have no reason to use in accurate information
it does me harm in an event in which I need no nor disre un true help
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revenues were DOWN 2007 vs. 2009. Period. I posted the link.

 

[8537]

TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009

once again, let's not have facts get in the way of a perfectly good screed.

TARP did not add 35OB to the deficit in 2009, nor did the stimulus.

Facts?

I ask the question my friend

While you asked a question, you also stated a "fact" that is simply wrong. much like your factual budget figures that are actually projections.

You said that TARP and stimulus added 1.35T to the 2009 deficit. That is factually incorrect.

You're either ignorant of that fact or perpetuating a lie.

If you spent your time trying to resolve issues, issues that Obama has brought on to us, owning up to them and simply stating you support taking more of the working persons wealth for what ever reason
I could respect you

if you quit simply making shit up and ignoring actual facts, I could respect you.

 

[JRK]

once again, let's not have facts get in the way of a perfectly good screed.

TARP did not add 35OB to the deficit in 2009, nor did the stimulus.

Facts?

I ask the question my friend

While you asked a question, you also stated a "fact" that is simply wrong. much like your factual budget figures that are actually projections.

You said that TARP and stimulus added 1.35T to the 2009 deficit. That is factually incorrect.

You're either ignorant of that fact or perpetuating a lie.

If you spent your time trying to resolve issues, issues that Obama has brought on to us, owning up to them and simply stating you support taking more of the working persons wealth for what ever reason
I could respect you

if you quit simply making shit up and ignoring actual facts, I could respect you.

What did I make up
the links I decided to use?
that the stimulus and the way that Obama used his 350 billion of tarp will not add to the deficit?
you Liberals create an event that never takes place to ignore the facts
and as far as the revenues go
When I find that information on the US treasury web site
I will use that number
I noticed you made no comment on where that 500 billion counted twice will end up either

I ask again
what did I make up?

 

[8537]

Facts?

I ask the question my friend

While you asked a question, you also stated a "fact" that is simply wrong. much like your factual budget figures that are actually projections.

You said that TARP and stimulus added 1.35T to the 2009 deficit. That is factually incorrect.

You're either ignorant of that fact or perpetuating a lie.

If you spent your time trying to resolve issues, issues that Obama has brought on to us, owning up to them and simply stating you support taking more of the working persons wealth for what ever reason
I could respect you

if you quit simply making shit up and ignoring actual facts, I could respect you.

What did I make up

That TARP and the stimulus added 1.35T to the deficit in 2009.

you Liberals create an event that never takes place to ignore the facts
and as far as the revenues go
When I find that information on the US treasury web site
I will use that number

Where do you think the CBO got their figures from? Hint: not a projection.

 

[JRK]

While you asked a question, you also stated a "fact" that is simply wrong. much like your factual budget figures that are actually projections.

You said that TARP and stimulus added 1.35T to the 2009 deficit. That is factually incorrect.

You're either ignorant of that fact or perpetuating a lie.




if you quit simply making shit up and ignoring actual facts, I could respect you.

What did I make up

That TARP and the stimulus added 1.35T to the deficit in 2009.

you Liberals create an event that never takes place to ignore the facts
and as far as the revenues go
When I find that information on the US treasury web site
I will use that number

Where do you think the CBO got their figures from? Hint: not a projection.

I did not say they did
You know your all about arguing and none about expressing your beliefs
why is that?
Why does a liberal do that?
Is this the same CBO that scored Obama care with Medicare?
Where does that "cost' show up?

 

[8537]

What did I make up

That TARP and the stimulus added 1.35T to the deficit in 2009.

you Liberals create an event that never takes place to ignore the facts
and as far as the revenues go
When I find that information on the US treasury web site
I will use that number

Where do you think the CBO got their figures from? Hint: not a projection.

I did not say they did

ORLY?

TO START WITH WHERE DID THE 800 BILLION DOLLAR STIMULUS AND THE 350 BILLION DOLLAR TARP THAT OBAMA GOT IN 09 GO?
THATS 1.35 TRILLION DOLLARS IN A DEFICIT YEAR OF 1.5, 2009

So when you claim that TARP and the Stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit, you're not claiming that TARP and the stimulus accounted for 1.35 of the 1.5T 2009 deficit?

You know your all about arguing and none about expressing your beliefs
why is that?

Because I let reality get in the way of my beliefs. You clearly do not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What did I make up

That TARP and the stimulus added 1.35T to the deficit in 2009.

you Liberals create an event that never takes place to ignore the facts
and as far as the revenues go
When I find that information on the US treasury web site
I will use that number

Where do you think the CBO got their figures from? Hint: not a projection.

I did not say they did
You know your all about arguing and none about expressing your beliefs
why is that?
Why does a liberal do that?
Is this the same CBO that scored Obama care with Medicare?
Where does that "cost' show up?

How much did the stimulus package cost?

 

[digger]

What happened? The recession, of course.

Why was no one asking where the surplus went during Bush's presidency? Because in 2002, deficits did not matter.