People the last GOP budget was 2007

[Maple]

And we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

This would be with the Iraq war wide open

JRK, it's important to have the facts behind you before you post, the Democrats had control of the congress and the senate as of Nov 2006, it was their responsibility to submit a budget not the GOP, the GOP could not pass one without the Democrats, it was totally in their hands as the congress and senate was under Democratic leadership.

It's Official: Democrats Take Over Both Houses Of Congress - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV

 

[Full-Auto]

And we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

This would be with the Iraq war wide open

I think it was the Democrats who were in control of congress at that time, they took it over in 2006, you might check your facts on this.

LOL LOONEY TUNES

The 2006 elections seat the new comers when?

 

[Full-Auto]

and we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

this would be with the iraq war wide open

jrk, it's important to have the facts behind you before you post, the democrats had control of the congress and the senate as of nov 2006, it was their responsibility to submit a budget not the gop, the gop could not pass one without the democrats, it was totally in their hands as the congress and senate was under democratic leadership.

it's official: Democrats take over both houses of congress - music, celebrity, artist news | mtv

lol the fiscal year ends in sept. Take a civics class.

 

[Maple]

Sorry JRK, I thought you were blaming the GOP for not submitting a budget by the title ofyour post, you knew it.

 

[JRK]

And we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

This would be with the Iraq war wide open

JRK, it's important to have the facts behind you before you post, the Democrats had control of the congress and the senate as of Nov 2006, it was their responsibility to submit a budget not the GOP, the GOP could not pass one without the Democrats, it was totally in their hands as the congress and senate was under Democratic leadership.

It's Official: Democrats Take Over Both Houses Of Congress - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV

Maple the 2007 budget was passed in 2006 as all budgets are suppose to be done, by the GOP, this would be the 109th congress
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JRK]

It sure is!!! Bush borrowed $500 billion in 2007 causing the national debt to rise by $500 billion. If all Bush borrowed was $162 billion the debt would not have risen $500 billion.

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

That is with interest added from over 200 years of debt
why are you liberals so desperate
your getting harmed as much from this mess as i am and by policy your numbers are a LIE

BULLSHIT!!! Any interest is from the trillions of debt run up by Reagan and Bush I and 6 years of Bush II reckless spending totaling over $3 trillion by 2007. So that is 18 years of CON$ervative borrow and spend policies.

So all of interest of the 7 trillion dollars of debt in the 20 years your talking about should be all of GWB fault?
and the GOP congress in the late 90s should get 0 credit?

 

[edthecynic]

That is with interest added from over 200 years of debt
why are you liberals so desperate
your getting harmed as much from this mess as i am and by policy your numbers are a LIE

BULLSHIT!!! Any interest is from the trillions of debt run up by Reagan and Bush I and 6 years of Bush II reckless spending totaling over $3 trillion by 2007. So that is 18 years of CON$ervative borrow and spend policies.

So all of interest of the 7 trillion dollars of debt in the 20 years your talking about should be all of GWB fault?
and the GOP congress in the late 90s should get 0 credit?

No, I didn't say that. I was pointing out that that 200 years interest was in reality mostly on the debt run up by 3 GOP presidents over a 20 year span. The other 180 years accumulates less than 1 trillion in debt. The GOP should get credit for most of the interest because they ran up most of the debt, but Bush should NOT get the FREE PASS on interest YOU gave him. As I pointed out, by 2007 Bush racked up over $3 trillion in debt and he was responsible for the interest on that $3 trillion in 2007!

 

[JRK]

BULLSHIT!!! Any interest is from the trillions of debt run up by Reagan and Bush I and 6 years of Bush II reckless spending totaling over $3 trillion by 2007. So that is 18 years of CON$ervative borrow and spend policies.

So all of interest of the 7 trillion dollars of debt in the 20 years your talking about should be all of GWB fault?
and the GOP congress in the late 90s should get 0 credit?

No, I didn't say that. I was pointing out that that 200 years interest was in reality mostly on the debt run up by 3 GOP presidents over a 20 year span. The other 180 years accumulates less than 1 trillion in debt. The GOP should get credit for most of the interest because they ran up most of the debt, but Bush should NOT get the FREE PASS on interest YOU gave him. As I pointed out, by 2007 Bush racked up over $3 trillion in debt and he was responsible for the interest on that $3 trillion in 2007!

No he is resp for the interest on less than 2 trillion
I will give you that
2 wars
9-11
Enron
7 major hurricanes
new govt agencies due to 09-11
and his Medicare reform

Take away 9-11 and the 2 wars and GWB has some years of a balanced budget

2009 is included in that 3 trillion also
Several things contributed to the difference in the projected deficit and the actual deficit of 2009. The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, with $242 billion of that being spent in that year. Also, in March of 2009, congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, along with a $60 billion automotive manufacturer bailout, $8 billion for s-chip expansion, and $3 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program. All of these spending measures were unforeseen, and led the U.S., at that time, to the largest budget deficit in its history.

these are all Obama add ons for 2009

 

[edthecynic]

So all of interest of the 7 trillion dollars of debt in the 20 years your talking about should be all of GWB fault?
and the GOP congress in the late 90s should get 0 credit?

No, I didn't say that. I was pointing out that that 200 years interest was in reality mostly on the debt run up by 3 GOP presidents over a 20 year span. The other 180 years accumulates less than 1 trillion in debt. The GOP should get credit for most of the interest because they ran up most of the debt, but Bush should NOT get the FREE PASS on interest YOU gave him. As I pointed out, by 2007 Bush racked up over $3 trillion in debt and he was responsible for the interest on that $3 trillion in 2007!

No he is resp for the interest on less than 2 trillion
I will give you that
2 wars
9-11
Enron
7 major hurricanes
new govt agencies due to 09-11
and his Medicare reform

Take away 9-11 and the 2 wars and GWB has some years of a balanced budget

2009 is included in that 3 trillion also
Several things contributed to the difference in the projected deficit and the actual deficit of 2009. The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, with $242 billion of that being spent in that year. Also, in March of 2009, congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, along with a $60 billion automotive manufacturer bailout, $8 billion for s-chip expansion, and $3 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program. All of these spending measures were unforeseen, and led the U.S., at that time, to the largest budget deficit in its history.

these are all Obama add ons for 2009

BULLSHIT!!!

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

It sure looks like $3.2 trillion for 2007 and $6.1 trillion for 2009, except, of course with your GOP fuzzy math!

Now if you are going to back out things, when you back out the interest on the GOP debt, Bush's 2 wars, Bush's part D medicare, and all the stimulus stuff Obama had to pass to save the economy from Bush's destruction, Obama is running a surplus.

 

[JRK]

No, I didn't say that. I was pointing out that that 200 years interest was in reality mostly on the debt run up by 3 GOP presidents over a 20 year span. The other 180 years accumulates less than 1 trillion in debt. The GOP should get credit for most of the interest because they ran up most of the debt, but Bush should NOT get the FREE PASS on interest YOU gave him. As I pointed out, by 2007 Bush racked up over $3 trillion in debt and he was responsible for the interest on that $3 trillion in 2007!

No he is resp for the interest on less than 2 trillion
I will give you that
2 wars
9-11
Enron
7 major hurricanes
new govt agencies due to 09-11
and his Medicare reform

Take away 9-11 and the 2 wars and GWB has some years of a balanced budget

2009 is included in that 3 trillion also
Several things contributed to the difference in the projected deficit and the actual deficit of 2009. The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, with $242 billion of that being spent in that year. Also, in March of 2009, congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, along with a $60 billion automotive manufacturer bailout, $8 billion for s-chip expansion, and $3 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program. All of these spending measures were unforeseen, and led the U.S., at that time, to the largest budget deficit in its history.

these are all Obama add ons for 2009

BULLSHIT!!!

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

It sure looks like $3.2 trillion for 2007 and $6.1 trillion for 2009, except, of course with your GOP fuzzy math!

Now if you are going to back out things, when you back out the interest on the GOP debt, Bush's 2 wars, Bush's part D medicare, and all the stimulus stuff Obama had to pass to save the economy from Bush's destruction, Obama is running a surplus.

You are such an idiot
you keep adding the interest on monies he inherited
look, you can keep lying and no-one cares
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures

 

[JRK]

No he is resp for the interest on less than 2 trillion
I will give you that
2 wars
9-11
Enron
7 major hurricanes
new govt agencies due to 09-11
and his Medicare reform

Take away 9-11 and the 2 wars and GWB has some years of a balanced budget

2009 is included in that 3 trillion also
Several things contributed to the difference in the projected deficit and the actual deficit of 2009. The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, with $242 billion of that being spent in that year. Also, in March of 2009, congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, along with a $60 billion automotive manufacturer bailout, $8 billion for s-chip expansion, and $3 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program. All of these spending measures were unforeseen, and led the U.S., at that time, to the largest budget deficit in its history.

these are all Obama add ons for 2009

BULLSHIT!!!

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

It sure looks like $3.2 trillion for 2007 and $6.1 trillion for 2009, except, of course with your GOP fuzzy math!

Now if you are going to back out things, when you back out the interest on the GOP debt, Bush's 2 wars, Bush's part D medicare, and all the stimulus stuff Obama had to pass to save the economy from Bush's destruction, Obama is running a surplus.

You are such an idiot
you keep adding the interest on monies he inherited
look, you can keep lying and no-one cares
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures

One other item
calling me an ass-hole does not help you make your point either
If you want to add the interest that each president would have been considered his do you think it makes Obama or Clinton look any better?

Do not Forget, there was no Clinton surplus, there was a GOP congress surplus that he signed
Dud you need to get a life and chill out. Obama's failed presidency is harming your faimly as much as anyones

 

[auditor0007]

And we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

This would be with the Iraq war wide open

and remember the Iraq war was off the budget, recall the supplemental spending bills for the war?
After reviewing the other posts I guess some do not realize that?

No, they just don't want to bring it up because they know it changes the big picture. Then they go onto ignore the fact that when the housing bubble burst taking the economy with it, that the extremely low tax rates they passed under Bush created a massive drop in revenues. In fact, the drop in revenues was the largest drop in revenues ever seen by the federal government in our entire modern history. And we still have not recovered from that, not to mention that the loss in revenue actually is continuing to grow as revenue stays flat even while GDP is growing, so the we have actually lost revenue every year for the last three years.

When you step back and really take a good look at it, it becomes almost laughable that they defend this and continue to want to give big business all the subsidies they can find while wanting to dismantle as many safety nets as possible at a time when Americans need those the most. It truly becomes mind boggling.

 

[JRK]

And we came within 162 billion dollars of breaking even for the year, we call a balanced budget

This would be with the Iraq war wide open

and remember the Iraq war was off the budget, recall the supplemental spending bills for the war?
After reviewing the other posts I guess some do not realize that?

No, they just don't want to bring it up because they know it changes the big picture. Then they go onto ignore the fact that when the housing bubble burst taking the economy with it, that the extremely low tax rates they passed under Bush created a massive drop in revenues. In fact, the drop in revenues was the largest drop in revenues ever seen by the federal government in our entire modern history. And we still have not recovered from that, not to mention that the loss in revenue actually is continuing to grow as revenue stays flat even while GDP is growing, so the we have actually lost revenue every year for the last three years.

When you step back and really take a good look at it, it becomes almost laughable that they defend this and continue to want to give big business all the subsidies they can find while wanting to dismantle as many safety nets as possible at a time when Americans need those the most. It truly becomes mind boggling.

your comment about revenue is a lie
please stop doing that
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is why you all ways use a link

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

 

[auditor0007]

and remember the Iraq war was off the budget, recall the supplemental spending bills for the war?
After reviewing the other posts I guess some do not realize that?

No, they just don't want to bring it up because they know it changes the big picture. Then they go onto ignore the fact that when the housing bubble burst taking the economy with it, that the extremely low tax rates they passed under Bush created a massive drop in revenues. In fact, the drop in revenues was the largest drop in revenues ever seen by the federal government in our entire modern history. And we still have not recovered from that, not to mention that the loss in revenue actually is continuing to grow as revenue stays flat even while GDP is growing, so the we have actually lost revenue every year for the last three years.

When you step back and really take a good look at it, it becomes almost laughable that they defend this and continue to want to give big business all the subsidies they can find while wanting to dismantle as many safety nets as possible at a time when Americans need those the most. It truly becomes mind boggling.

your comment about revenue is a lie
please stop doing that
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is why you all ways use a link

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

So you are saying that revenue has been increasing for the last three years? You may want to rethink that one.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

[JRK]

No, they just don't want to bring it up because they know it changes the big picture. Then they go onto ignore the fact that when the housing bubble burst taking the economy with it, that the extremely low tax rates they passed under Bush created a massive drop in revenues. In fact, the drop in revenues was the largest drop in revenues ever seen by the federal government in our entire modern history. And we still have not recovered from that, not to mention that the loss in revenue actually is continuing to grow as revenue stays flat even while GDP is growing, so the we have actually lost revenue every year for the last three years.

When you step back and really take a good look at it, it becomes almost laughable that they defend this and continue to want to give big business all the subsidies they can find while wanting to dismantle as many safety nets as possible at a time when Americans need those the most. It truly becomes mind boggling.

your comment about revenue is a lie
please stop doing that
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is why you all ways use a link

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

So you are saying that revenue has been increasing for the last three years? You may want to rethink that one.

No you claimed that the bush tax cuts caused the loss in revenue
1) 2007 was 162 billion within a balanced
2) the link was provided to show you the revenues before and after
I mean no dis respect but it is that simple
Loss revenue came from 6 million fewer people working in 2011 than in 2008

 

[edthecynic]

No he is resp for the interest on less than 2 trillion
I will give you that
2 wars
9-11
Enron
7 major hurricanes
new govt agencies due to 09-11
and his Medicare reform

Take away 9-11 and the 2 wars and GWB has some years of a balanced budget

2009 is included in that 3 trillion also
Several things contributed to the difference in the projected deficit and the actual deficit of 2009. The $787 billion stimulus bill was passed in 2009, with $242 billion of that being spent in that year. Also, in March of 2009, congress passed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill, along with a $60 billion automotive manufacturer bailout, $8 billion for s-chip expansion, and $3 billion for the cash-for-clunkers program. All of these spending measures were unforeseen, and led the U.S., at that time, to the largest budget deficit in its history.

these are all Obama add ons for 2009

BULLSHIT!!!

09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06

It sure looks like $3.2 trillion for 2007 and $6.1 trillion for 2009, except, of course with your GOP fuzzy math!

Now if you are going to back out things, when you back out the interest on the GOP debt, Bush's 2 wars, Bush's part D medicare, and all the stimulus stuff Obama had to pass to save the economy from Bush's destruction, Obama is running a surplus.

You are such an idiot
you keep adding the interest on monies he inherited
look, you can keep lying and no-one cares
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures

The Truth about Obama's Budget Deficits, in Pictures

No I didn't, I specifically pointed out that you excluded the interest on the debt Bush added. You tried to claim the debt Bush added was half the amount he actually added.

And you keep posting already discredited "pictures" of a dishonest comparison of CBO deficit numbers that used 2 different accounting methods. The 4 Bush accounting gimmicks he used to make his deficits appear smaller than they actually were were eliminated in 2009.

That is why honest people compare the change in the national debt from year to year to calculate the true yearly deficit, because the same debt calculations are used each and every year! If you notice, starting 2009 the yearly deficits match very closely with the increase in total debt but the Bush deficits are less than half the change in total debt.

 

[auditor0007]

your comment about revenue is a lie
please stop doing that
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is why you all ways use a link

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

So you are saying that revenue has been increasing for the last three years? You may want to rethink that one.

No you claimed that the bush tax cuts caused the loss in revenue
1) 2007 was 162 billion within a balanced
2) the link was provided to show you the revenues before and after
I mean no dis respect but it is that simple
Loss revenue came from 6 million fewer people working in 2011 than in 2008

No shit Sherlock. The reason the drop in revenue was so massive is due to the fact the rates were brought down too much. Even when the economy was running decent, Bush still had deficits due to his own tax cuts. When the economy sunk, they became exponentially larger. Damn, it ain't rocket science.

 

[edthecynic]

your comment about revenue is a lie
please stop doing that
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is why you all ways use a link

Brian Riedl: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth - WSJ.com

So you are saying that revenue has been increasing for the last three years? You may want to rethink that one.

No you claimed that the bush tax cuts caused the loss in revenue
1) 2007 was 162 billion within a balanced
2) the link was provided to show you the revenues before and after
I mean no dis respect but it is that simple
Loss revenue came from 6 million fewer people working in 2011 than in 2008

No matter how many times you parrot that crap, Bush still borrowed $500 billion in 2007 to cover his overspending!
TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[JRK]

So you are saying that revenue has been increasing for the last three years? You may want to rethink that one.

No you claimed that the bush tax cuts caused the loss in revenue
1) 2007 was 162 billion within a balanced
2) the link was provided to show you the revenues before and after
I mean no dis respect but it is that simple
Loss revenue came from 6 million fewer people working in 2011 than in 2008

No matter how many times you parrot that crap, Bush still borrowed $500 billion in 2007 to cover his overspending!
TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

What does the total national debt have to do with what GWB spent to run this country in 2007
2007 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he national debt increase during a given year is not the same as the "total budget" deficit commonly reported. The U.S. federal government collected $2.52 trillion in FY2008, while budgeted spending was $2.98 trillion, generating a total deficit of $459 billion.[51] However, during FY2008 the national debt increased by $1,017 billion, much more than the $459 billion deficit figure. This means actual expenditure was closer to $3.5 trillion (the $2.52 trillion in collections, all of which was spent, plus $1.0 trillion debt increase). The national debt represents the outstanding obligations of the government at any given time, comprising both public and intra-governmental debt. Differences between the annual total deficit and annual change in the national debt include the treatment of the surplus Social Security payroll tax revenues (which increase the debt but not the deficit), supplemental appropriations for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and earmarks.
These differences can make it more challenging to determine how much the government actually spends relative to tax revenues. The increase in the national debt during a given year is a helpful measure to determine this amount. From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average. For the first time in FY 2008, the U.S. added $1 trillion to the national debt as the effects of a severe global financial crisis became apparent. Debt increases rose to $1.88 trillion in 2009 and $1.65 trillion in 2010 as the crisis continued.[52] In relative terms, from 2003-2007 the government spent roughly $1.20 for each $1.00 it collected in taxes. This increased to $1.40 in FY2008 and $1.90 in FY2009.