Bush Debt vs Obama Debt...

[Vidi]

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

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

Just to fortify mine:

he beat the deficit NOT the debt.

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

To be honest, unless someone quotes Hannity, I have no idea what he says. Everytime I try to listen to him, his lying right wing partisan biased makes me want to punch someone in the liver.

 

[Vidi]

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

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

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

Fair enough.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying in this last post.

That being said, I found the article you posted misleading and a little loose with the facts. Therefore, as it was the only explanation of your position, I said so.

I do however find it interesting that you would accept his numbers when he sources ( poorly ) the Treasury department but you consider the CBO ( also a government agency ) to be, to use your word, "pukes"

Care to explain how one government agency has any more credibility than another? Or is it just the treasury numbers backs your position while the CBOs backs mine?

Like I said before though, it's nice to disagree with someone who is willing to back their shit up with links and data. It's far more interesting that way.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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

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

The blueprints and the budget that balanced the budget were passed before the GOP took control of congress

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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

The blueprints and the budget that balanced the budget were passed before the GOP took control of congress

No it wasn't. And the Republicans passed 4 budgets under Clinton, not one. They controlled the Congress from 96 on. They controlled the House from 94 as I recall.

 

[Si modo]

And, let's not forget that a lot of spending programs Obama and Congress enacted have not fully kicked in.

"The budget is unsustainable", just ask the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11579/06-30-ltbo.pdf

 

[007]

The kenyan has exploded spending and the deficit... it's as though he's intentionally trying to bankrupt America... which would be doing exactly what his puppet master soros has told him to do...

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...8&tbnw=157&start=0&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

 

[francoHFW]

The kenyan has exploded spending and the deficit... it's as though he's intentionally trying to bankrupt America... which would be doing exactly what his puppet master soros has told him to do...

Redirect Notice

That's EXACTLY the lie Hannity is telling. Thanks

 

[007]

The kenyan has exploded spending and the deficit... it's as though he's intentionally trying to bankrupt America... which would be doing exactly what his puppet master soros has told him to do...

Redirect Notice

That's EXACTLY the lie Hannity is telling. Thanks

Sorry chump... your bull shit doesn't get anywhere here. The truth is the truth, you'll just have to find a way to deal with it.

 

[sealybobo]

I love it how Bush didn't spend one dime on infrastructure spending the entire time he was in office, even though our bridges and roads were falling apart. And 8 years later Obama is going to be called a big spender when he does the work that is long overdue.

All the money Bush spent went to the top 1%

The money Obama is spending is going to all of us. Even the top 1% get a piece. But they hate it when they have to give the 99%ers anything.

 

[sealybobo]

And who knows what Bush's real numbers are. He hid his real numbers. Like, for example, Obama counts the war in his budget but Bush did not. Fair? Hardly.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Care

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

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

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

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

We should all recall who was holding the purse strings during the last 6 Clinton years as opposed to the last 2 years of Bush and the first 2 years of Obama... just sayin

 

[francoHFW]

That first red line is actually W's, Shytteheads. LOL

 

[Londoner]

Clinton was able to leave a surplus to Bush in part because his tax rate on the upper bracket was slightly higher.

The Bush tax cuts sent the nation into a crisis - intentionally so. It's called "Starve the Beast". The theory is that if you take away Washington's money, they will be forced to kill programs and cut spending, which will result in a lower tax burden on the upper income bracket, which owns all the politicians and funds all the elections.

FYI: very few people understand that the point of government spending was to stimulate middle class consumption, especially during downturns. Reagan said it wasn't necessary because the money would tickle down from the economic activity from the concentrated wealth on top. When it failed to trickle down - when the money got stuffed into speculative gimmicks, familial dynasties, and election donations - America quietly expanded credit to the middle class. This worked for 30 years until we broke the bank.

The voodoo eventually stops working.

 

[sealybobo]

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

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

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

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

We should all recall who was holding the purse strings during the last 6 Clinton years as opposed to the last 2 years of Bush and the first 2 years of Obama... just sayin

Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History?
Maybe not. It looks like Clinton's got him beat.

Graph measures per capita growth in government spending for the last seven presidents' first term in office. The graph tells a simple story. For all the talk you hear about Obama's historic spending spree, government spending actually hasn't increased so dramatically under this president. The stimulus was big, but it's over. And it has been replaced by a lot of austerity cuts.

I present to you the first three years in spending for three recent presidents: Barack Obama, George w Bush, and Ronald Reagan. Who spent more? It goes Reagan, Bush, Obama. It would seem that if Obama's a socialist, Ronald Reagan is Karl Marx.

It is really, truly time for the myth about Big Spender Obama to die. If anything, it is remarkable that, after a recession and a private sector implosion, the public sector expanded less under this administration than it did under Bush or Reagan, especially when you consider the government cuts made at the state and local levels.

Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History? - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

 

[Vidi]

I love it how Bush didn't spend one dime on infrastructure spending the entire time he was in office, even though our bridges and roads were falling apart. And 8 years later Obama is going to be called a big spender when he does the work that is long overdue.

All the money Bush spent went to the top 1%

The money Obama is spending is going to all of us. Even the top 1% get a piece. But they hate it when they have to give the 99%ers anything.

What I have found amusing is we have two really big problems in this country.

Lack of jobs, especially construction jobs

And...

Usually built to last 50 years, the average bridge in our country is now 43 years old.1 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, of the 600,905 bridges across the country as of December 2008, 72,868 (12.1%) were categorized as structurally deficient and 89,024 (14.8%) were categorized as functionally obsolete. From 2005–2008, the number of deficient (structurally deficient plus functionally obsolete) bridges in rural areas declined by 8,596. However, in urban areas during the same time frame, there was an increase of 2,817 deficient bridges.2 Put another way, in 2008 approximately one in four rural bridges were deficient, while one in three urban bridges were deficient. The urban impact is quite significant given the higher level of passenger and freight traffic.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges

Wouldn't it make sense to kill two birds with one stone? And just think of all the construction companies that would make a profit doing the work?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

What surplus?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

He is definitely better at spending OPM than Bush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

No surplus?

Then where did those $300 checks come from?

Your taxes, where do you think they came from?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The last time the US government had a surplus was when Eisenhower was president.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Care

I know, it doesn't count when the government borrows from itself to spend money because it doesn't actually owe that money to anyone. If it ever really gets bad the government can just pretend Social Security and Medicare don't exist, right?