Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the had an 11b deficit if the debt grew by 11b.......
Nope, because the measure between budget surplus and deficit is not that straightforward, a point that has been made through out this thread. You can have budget surplus, and yet end up with more debt.
I also quoted earlier that appropriations are not accounted in budget but they get added into deficit. I used funding for Afghanistan and Iraq wars as an example. The war expense was not accounted for in the budgets so the trillion plus did not add to annual budget deficits, however they added to the national debt. Obama's first budget changed that (along with three other items, I can't recall that list now), and war funding is a part of the budget. So, the new deficits will include spending on the wars.
Nope, because the measure between budget surplus and deficit is not that straightforward, a point that has been made through out this thread. You can have budget surplus, and yet end up with more debt.
I also quoted earlier that appropriations are not accounted in budget but they get added into deficit. I used funding for Afghanistan and Iraq wars as an example. The war expense was not accounted for in the budgets so the trillion plus did not add to annual budget deficits, however they added to the national debt. Obama's first budget changed that (along with three other items, I can't recall that list now), and war funding is a part of the budget. So, the new deficits will include spending on the wars.
exactly
so bush's deficits were ACTUALLY LARGER
just as clintons 'surpluses' were ACTUALLY DEFICITS
its just the 'fuzzy' math of DC
fact is that our debt INCREASED during the ENTIRE clinton presidency (to include his last 3 years).....just as it has during bush, and as it is under obama so far
fact as you have so well proven,,there NEVER was a REAL surplus
People are falling hook line and sinker into the washington mouth pieces hands. They are playing games on all of you, and this one example is a perfect one. There are many more from both sides of the aisle.
We need to stop allowing this washington non-sense, smoke and mirrors sales pitches to the public, and we need to stop electing con-men to represent us.
just as clintons 'surpluses' were ACTUALLY DEFICITS
its just the 'fuzzy' math of DC
fact is that our debt INCREASED during the ENTIRE clinton presidency (to include his last 3 years).....just as it has during bush, and as it is under obama so far
fact as you have so well proven,,there NEVER was a REAL surplus
Actually, you can't call something as adding to budget deficit if it is never included in the budget. Budget deficits during Bush years would have been higher if war expense weren't excluded form the budget but paid for via appropriations. But they weren't. As a result, they only show up on debt, but not in deficits.
As for Clinton era surpluses, you might want to quote a non-partisan site that speaks about them not being surpluses then we will have something meaningful to discuss.
Actually, you can't call something as adding to budget deficit if it is never included in the budget. Budget deficits during Bush years would have been higher if war expense weren't excluded form the budget but paid for via appropriations. But they weren't. As a result, they only show up on debt, but not in deficits.
As for Clinton era surpluses, you might want to quote a non-partisan site that speaks about them not being surpluses then we will have something meaningful to discuss.
the fact is the "budget" is a GUESS of what you EXPECT to spend, and based on what you EXPECT to have INCOMING
Just as Here in Nassau county, they EXPECT the 'red light camera's" to bring in an INCOME of 12 million a year...they even put in the BUDGET the EXPECTED INCOME....what happens if those camera's only bring in 8 million..........a 4 million DEFICIT is what
if the BUDGET says we EXPECT 3 trillion to come in and we EXPECT 3 trillion to be spend, you have a ballance budget.......right???????
so what happens if the EXPECTED INCOME ends up being 2.5 trillion...and the EXPECTED spending comes out to be 3.1 trillion........a DEFICIT of .6 trillion......even though it was a BALLANCED budget, when WRITEN
Nope, because the measure between budget surplus and deficit is not that straightforward, a point that has been made through out this thread. You can have budget surplus, and yet end up with more debt.
I also quoted earlier that appropriations are not accounted in budget but they get added into deficit. I used funding for Afghanistan and Iraq wars as an example. The war expense was not accounted for in the budgets so the trillion plus did not add to annual budget deficits, however they added to the national debt. Obama's first budget changed that (along with three other items, I can't recall that list now), and war funding is a part of the budget. So, the new deficits will include spending on the wars.
I don't think you're quite right. Congress has to pass supplemental spending bills during the year in order to spend money not in the budget. Bush played budget tricks by not budgeting for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars so his projected deficits would not be that bad. I believe that retrospectively those expenditures are in the expenditure categories. Looking back you can see what was spent.
You can point out facts all day to these people, yet they will still cling to the "Clinton surplus" urban legend.
They do not want facts and cannot handle them. Better that they stick with the fairy tales, as told around the campfire by liberals, about the wonder and spectacle of liberal spending.
How do you reckon the CBO is a gang of liberals sitting around a campfire, etc.?
Actually, you can't call something as adding to budget deficit if it is never included in the budget. Budget deficits during Bush years would have been higher if war expense weren't excluded form the budget but paid for via appropriations. But they weren't. As a result, they only show up on debt, but not in deficits.
As for Clinton era surpluses, you might want to quote a non-partisan site that speaks about them not being surpluses then we will have something meaningful to discuss.
So let me get this straight.
If I make a personal budget, taking my total income and allocating money into each categorized expense. Then, about half way through the year, I have to spend 3000 more than my annual income allows because of a car repair. In your eyes, I am still "on budget" and the year can be deemed profitable?
How do you reckon the CBO is a gang of liberals sitting around a campfire, etc.?
Source it.
So we can tear it apart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
