Democrats Can't Be Serious.Now They Are Concerned Over The Debt And Deficit? Laughable?

[edthecynic]

Notice the Right will not say the national debt went down one year under Clinton!

As you know, there is a perfectly good reason. The DEBT NEVER DECREASED UNDER former President Bill Clinton. The DEFICIT decreased due to the fact that Social Security and Medicare payments are included in those figures.

Please note:

End of Fiscal Year Debt (9/30, in billions)
1993 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,411
1994 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,693
1995 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,974
1996 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,225
1997 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,413
1998 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,526
1999 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,656
2000 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,674

See How the U.S. Debt Tripled Since 9/11

And here it is again, the dishonest Right know that fiscal years are the correct way to compare budgets, and they use them for Clinton without exception, but the hypocrites also dishonestly use calendar years exclusively to compare Obama's budgets to Bush's.

 

[bripat9643]

It is true that the deficit (not debt) began to decrease after that, thanks to sequester. How do you spell sequester?...R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n c-o-n-t-r-o-l-l-e-d H-o-u-s-e.

But that is not how the worthless lying scum Republicans spelled it!!!

When the GOP thought the sequester would cripple the economy they linked it to Obama, but now that it worked out very well they are trying to steal the credit for it!.

When did Republicans ever claim the sequester would cripple the economy? Dumbass Dims were the ones making that claim, asshole.

Oh come on! If the America-hating GOP thought the sequester was good for the economy they would NOT be calling it the "obamaquester."

Sure they would. The Dims were constantly complaining about it so the Pubbies wanted to make sure the public knew who was responsible for it.

 

[edthecynic]

A bigly $30 trillion debt is okay if Trump does it!

Let's see, that be a 50% increase as opposed to petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's increase of 100%. That's the way Progressives work, isn't it?

And there we see the obvious dishonesty yet again, after YOU argued that Clinton never reduced the national debt in any year by using fiscal years, here YOU are dishonestly using calendar years to claim Obama doubled the national debt. Using fiscal years for Obama the debt went from $12 trillion to $20 trillion, not the $24 trillion needed for a 100% increase!!!!

That is the way dishonest hypocritical Regressives work, isn't it!

 

[edthecynic]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

How then did the DEBT rise $10 TRILLION over EIGHT YEARS?

It didn't. That is why it is a lie. If the GOP National Debt rose by $10 trillion it would be $22 trillion by now. It isn't!!!

 

[edthecynic]

It is true that the deficit (not debt) began to decrease after that, thanks to sequester. How do you spell sequester?...R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n c-o-n-t-r-o-l-l-e-d H-o-u-s-e.

But that is not how the worthless lying scum Republicans spelled it!!!

When the GOP thought the sequester would cripple the economy they linked it to Obama, but now that it worked out very well they are trying to steal the credit for it!.

When did Republicans ever claim the sequester would cripple the economy? Dumbass Dims were the ones making that claim, asshole.

Oh come on! If the America-hating GOP thought the sequester was good for the economy they would NOT be calling it the "obamaquester."

Sure they would. The Dims were constantly complaining about it so the Pubbies wanted to make sure the public knew who was responsible for it.

Let me get this straight, the GOP thought the sequester would be good for the economy so they wanted everyone to know it was an idea of the Democratic Party.

 

[Markle]

So there's absolutely no way to argue Trump would have gotten more votes than Hillary had the popular vote won the election.

Also, no reason other than the utter desperation of Progressives such as yourself.

Get over it. YOU LOST! All your whining is not going to change a thing.

 

[Markle]

Having said that.....it didn't lead to a better rounded candidate. America is a bitterly divided nation, and the system also works better when the population is informed. We are not informed. And people vote for their team despite that the person they voted for does not, at all, represent them.

Petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama worked diligently, and intently to divide this country more than any other time in modern history. A terrible legacy for anyone much less a president.

 

[leftwinger]

A bigly $30 trillion debt is okay if Trump does it!

Let's see, that be a 50% increase as opposed to petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's increase of 100%. That's the way Progressives work, isn't it?

And there we see the obvious dishonesty yet again, after YOU argued that Clinton never reduced the national debt in any year by using fiscal years, here YOU are dishonestly using calendar years to claim Obama doubled the national debt. Using fiscal years for Obama the debt went from $12 trillion to $20 trillion, not the $24 trillion needed for a 100% increase!!!!

That is the way dishonest hypocritical Regressives work, isn't it!

TARP charged in GWB final year but paid back during Obama years with interest. TARP to "fix" the mortgage meltdown caused by GOVT policies. No one went go jail under BO for granting bad loans. They all went to Martha's vineyard together to celebrate. The SEC watched porn while Madoff embezzeled. We need bigger GOVT. More beaurecrats please.

 

[leftwinger]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

How then did the DEBT rise $10 TRILLION over EIGHT YEARS?

It didn't. That is why it is a lie. If the GOP National Debt rose by $10 trillion it would be $22 trillion by now. It isn't!!!

Agreed. It won't hit $22T by end of BO final fiscal yr. Congratulations!

 

[Dragonlady]

The BIG bucks are in defense spending but no conservative will cut defense spending - the military industrial complex will see to that. Entitlements are things voters PAID for, hence they are "entitled" to the benefit. SS is an entitlement. Food stamps, welfare, and corporate bailouts are NOT.

Wow, you are one confused character.

Apparently, you are unaware of the rapidly deteriorating situation in North Korea along with the entire Middle East. North Korea a situation passed along by several administrations and the Middle East on the shoulders of petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Then you have the fact that our current bombers are technically described as antiques and our nuclear weapons are from the 60's and 70's. Drastically outdated and in critical need of being modernized.

No entitlements are being cut. Your livelihood is safe.

I don't live in the US, I receive NOTHING from the US government.

You are spending your children's future on the military and you refuse to pay for it. You are currently spending more than the next 9 highest spending nations COMBINED, and 8 of those 9 are your ALLIES.


You want to buy all of those fancy toys and bombs - PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF. Stop kicking the can down the road on your military insanity.

 

[Markle]

Trump claimed he could PAY OFF the national debt in 8 years, which meant not running up a $10 trillion deficit, but creating a $20 trillion surplus.

Frivolous campaign rhetoric.

Unlike:

 

[Markle]

And here it is again, the dishonest Right know that fiscal years are the correct way to compare budgets, and they use them for Clinton without exception, but the hypocrites also dishonestly use calendar years exclusively to compare Obama's budgets to Bush's.

In case you did not notice. My figures, with the source and link, ARE FISCAL YEARS.

As you know, there is a perfectly good reason. The DEBT NEVER DECREASED UNDER former President Bill Clinton. The DEFICIT decreased due to the fact that Social Security and Medicare payments are included in those figures.

Please note:

End of Fiscal Year Debt (9/30, in billions)
1993 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,411
1994 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,693
1995 . . . . . . . . . . .$4,974
1996 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,225
1997 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,413
1998 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,526
1999 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,656
2000 . . . . . . . . . . .$5,674

See How the U.S. Debt Tripled Since 9/11

 

[Markle]

Then you have the fact that our current bombers are technically described as antiques and our nuclear weapons are from the 60's and 70's. Drastically outdated and in critical need of being modernized.

Strangely the only technology we have to reach the moon is also from the 1960's., the fastest manned aircraft is from the 1960's,

I included my post. Please show me when I said anything about space exploration, virtually halted for the past eight years while petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama had NASA looking for non-existent global warming and creating good will with the Muslims. Also, please show us where I mentioned anything about our fastest aircraft and you also neglected the fact that our nuclear arsenal is dangerously outdated.

The B-52, our current heavy bomber was designed in the 1940's and went into service in 1955. My guess is that you'd be a bit uncomfortable getting onto an airliner, built over 60 years ago for a flight to say Austraila.

 

[Markle]

A bigly $30 trillion debt is okay if Trump does it!

Let's see, that be a 50% increase as opposed to petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's increase of 100%. That's the way Progressives work, isn't it?

And there we see the obvious dishonesty yet again, after YOU argued that Clinton never reduced the national debt in any year by using fiscal years, here YOU are dishonestly using calendar years to claim Obama doubled the national debt. Using fiscal years for Obama the debt went from $12 trillion to $20 trillion, not the $24 trillion needed for a 100% increase!!!!

That is the way dishonest hypocritical Regressives work, isn't it!

There was never a 2009 budget signed until March of 2009 when it was signed by petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama. NOT included was the $1 TRILLION failed stimulus.

For your comfort, if you wish to use fiscal years for President Obama, we have to wait until October 1, 2017, don't we? Otherwise, you're only using seven years of debt by Obama instead of eight. Cute trick!

 

[Markle]

I don't live in the US, I receive NOTHING from the US government.

Now that petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama has left office, you receive WORLD LEADERSHIP AND ORDER. Does your country pay for that service or are you a freeloader?

 

[Dragonlady]

Trump's ego is so YUGE that his trillion dollar deficits will look really tiny.

A bigly $30 trillion debt is okay if Trump does it!

Apparently you had no problem with Obama increasing the debt by $10 billion, so why would you object if Trump does the same?

Economics 101 - you don't increase taxes in a recession. You inject capital as a stimulus - in other words, you spend - to prime the jobs pump. Republicans didn't want Obama to do that because THEY WANTED HIM TO FAIL - their own words. They didn't want him to have any successes to run on so that he would be a one-term President.

After the recession ends, you can gradually reduce and eliminate that deficit, but if you cut too quickly (which Stephen Harper did in Canada in the run up to the last election), you risk putting the country back into recession, which is EXACTLY what happened with Harper's Conservatives. He was desperate to tell Canadians he had eliminated the deficit so he cut too fast, and pushed the country into a brief recession, which ended after he lost the election.

Now is NOT the time for deficit spending. Now is the time to increase taxes, eliminate the deficit, and get the country back on a sound financial footing. Instead of wasting still more money on the military, you would be well advised to invest in infrastructure, education and research - for the next generation of jobs.

American insistence on the biggest most powerful army that ever was will bankrupt your nation and destroy it just like it has every economy since the Romans.

 

[Markle]

American insistence on the biggest most powerful army that ever was will bankrupt your nation and destroy it just like it has every economy since the Romans.

Insofar as you're a citizen of Canada, you are a freeloader on the United States protecting your behind along with all the other Free Countries in the world. Enjoy the free ride.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the waiting list to see a specialist in good ol' Canada!

 

[danielpalos]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

How then did the DEBT rise $10 TRILLION over EIGHT YEARS?

It didn't. That is why it is a lie. If the GOP National Debt rose by $10 trillion it would be $22 trillion by now. It isn't!!!

Agreed. It won't hit $22T by end of BO final fiscal yr. Congratulations!

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[18] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[19] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.[17][19][20]

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[21][22] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[23][24] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".[25]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

can you explain why the one percent, need any form of tax break?

 

[Faun]

Aww, you poor thing. You really believe that's the reason for the reduction in the deficit.

How could it NOT be reduced after petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama ran it up to over $1.4 TRILLION for several years?


Thursday, January 19, 2017
Spending Details page. To Recap:

People naturally assume that the annual Deficit is the total that the Federal government borrows each year. Actually this is not so. The Deficit is simply the difference between Federal Outlays and Federal
Receipts. Usually, the Feds borrow a lot more than the official Deficit.

Other Borrowings = (Increase in Federal Debt) - (Official Deficit)

Perhaps this will be of help to you.

Yes, that does help. With spending decreasing by only about $85b in FY2013, it helps show the other half trillion dollars in decrease of the deficit came from an increase in revenue.

Thanks, Obama!

 

[leftwinger]

The deficit was over an average of $1 trillion for each year of the Obama administration.

LIAR!

How then did the DEBT rise $10 TRILLION over EIGHT YEARS?

It didn't. That is why it is a lie. If the GOP National Debt rose by $10 trillion it would be $22 trillion by now. It isn't!!!

Agreed. It won't hit $22T by end of BO final fiscal yr. Congratulations!

In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[18] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 43%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[19] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 35% to 37%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 88%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.[17][19][20]

According to PolitiFact and others, in 2011 the 400 wealthiest Americans "have more wealth than half of all Americans combined."[21][22] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a "substantial head start".[23][24] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, "over 60 percent" of the Forbes richest 400 Americans "grew up in substantial privilege".[25]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

can you explain why the one percent, need any form of tax break?

I'm no expert but since "47%" pay zero FED income Tax........if you are going to charge the "payees" less the 1% are paying, thereby affected.

The theory is the 1% do most of the investments, loans, risks, start companies.......they will juice things up rather than slow bloated GOVT taking it.

Two big booms might be 15% corporate tax and one-time lower fee to bring back overseas earnings. The rest of cuts will put more money into avg Joe's hands each week.....to spend.

Too difficult to post on tablet keyboard and add links. I leave it to experts.