Republicans LIE, my taxes have gone down under Obama. (poll, claims, jobs)
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.
What on gods earth is your last posting about except an obvious attempt to change the subject..
You went from your taxes went down, FALSE
To surpluses under Clinton, FALSE
To now American blaming Bush as if it matters because most of americans are uneducated... If you think we had surpluses, think Presidents control budgets, its no wonder you dont know who is to blame and have no clue how $650B in new taxes will be passed onto the consumers...
Dont know what year the deficit went down from the list above? I expect you to reply with links to buying Girl Scout Cookies next in yet another attempt to change the subject!!
All your doing by reposting the same worthless chart is ignoring reality and proving you cant read.. The CBO numbers include BORROWED funds, which does NOT create surpluses.. If you borrow from your mortgage $100K, and put the $100K in the bank, did you MAKE $100K this year? Answer NO.. You simply MOVED money to make it appear you had more..
Lets try this again with the ACTUAL DOLLAR TOTALS OF THE DEBT since you dont seem to understand basic math..
Direct from the US TREASURY OFFICE.. This is the total outstanding debt at the end of the fiscal year..
09/30/1999 -5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 -5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 -5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 -5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 -4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 -4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 -4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 -4,064,620,655,521.66
WHAT YEAR ABOVE WENT DOWN? I've asked, you've avoided now NUMEROUS times.. I guess you cant answer because you dont have a clue.
Its not borrowed $$, borrowed $$ is included in outlays. Its actually due to interest on the debt that grows. That doesn't change the fact we had a surplus from 1998-2001.
What on gods earth is your last posting about except an obvious attempt to change the subject..
You went from your taxes went down, FALSE
To surpluses under Clinton, FALSE
To now American blaming Bush as if it matters because most of americans are uneducated... If you think we had surpluses, think Presidents control budgets, its no wonder you dont know who is to blame and have no clue how $650B in new taxes will be passed onto the consumers...
Dont know what year the deficit went down from the list above? I expect you to reply with links to buying Girl Scout Cookies next in yet another attempt to change the subject!!
Here's another one of many charts I've already posted...
Lawmakers, including Republicans who have been in Washington for decades, are extremely concerned this year with the nation’s budget deficit. Part of that concern is driven by the tea party movement, which emphasizes fiscal discipline. For most Republicans and tea partiers the problem is largely the “out of control spending” unleashed by the Obama administration. The reality is that the Obama-era spending isn’t the problem. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities begs Americans to look at the numbers. “We should not mistake the causes of our predicament,” write Kathy Ruffing and James Horney in a report on the deficit and economic recovery.
The authors made a chart worth (more than) 1000 words.
If we are to end the budget crisis, say Ruffing and Horney, we have to reckon with the fact that the deficit is not due to any Obama one-off programs like the stimulus. The deficit and the continuing upward trajectory of the deficit is due to the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those three factors, the authors write, “explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”
Its not borrowed $$, borrowed $$ is included in outlays. Its actually due to interest on the debt that grows. That doesn't change the fact we had a surplus from 1998-2001.
WRONG.. God, where did some of you guys get your education from.
Its not included in the outlay until it gets PAID BACK.. years later under FUTURE presidents...
Here's another one of many charts I've already posted...
Another chart which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. What, no link to girlscout cookies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475
Lawmakers, including Republicans who have been in Washington for decades, are extremely concerned this year with the nation’s budget deficit. Part of that concern is driven by the tea party movement, which emphasizes fiscal discipline. For most Republicans and tea partiers the problem is largely the “out of control spending” unleashed by the Obama administration. The reality is that the Obama-era spending isn’t the problem. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities begs Americans to look at the numbers. “We should not mistake the causes of our predicament,” write Kathy Ruffing and James Horney in a report on the deficit and economic recovery.
The authors made a chart worth (more than) 1000 words.
If we are to end the budget crisis, say Ruffing and Horney, we have to reckon with the fact that the deficit is not due to any Obama one-off programs like the stimulus. The deficit and the continuing upward trajectory of the deficit is due to the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those three factors, the authors write, “explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.”
Surprise, another change of topic..
Again.. the TREASUREY DEPARTMENT SAYS THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.. Are you telling me the NATIONAL ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT doesnt know where the money is and all of these "authors" somehow understand federal budgets more than the department that controls the federal debt?
WHAT YEARS DID THE NATIONAL DEBT GO DOWN UNDER CLINTON? ITS A SIMPLE QUESTION.. One you keep avoiding..
Another chart which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. What, no link to girlscout cookies?
Surprise, another change of topic..
Again.. the TREASUREY DEPARTMENT SAYS THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.. Are you telling me the NATIONAL ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT doesnt know where the money is and all of these "authors" somehow understand federal budgets more than the department that controls the federal debt?
WHAT YEARS DID THE NATIONAL DEBT GO DOWN UNDER CLINTON? ITS A SIMPLE QUESTION.. One you keep avoiding..
The debt was paid in 1998... Surplus until 2001... a fact you keep trying to spin and avoid...
Another chart which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. What, no link to girlscout cookies?
Surprise, another change of topic..
Again.. the TREASUREY DEPARTMENT SAYS THERE WAS NO SURPLUS.. Are you telling me the NATIONAL ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT doesnt know where the money is and all of these "authors" somehow understand federal budgets more than the department that controls the federal debt?
WHAT YEARS DID THE NATIONAL DEBT GO DOWN UNDER CLINTON? ITS A SIMPLE QUESTION.. One you keep avoiding..
Thats because of interest. Surplus every year from 98 to 2001, according to Whitehouse.gov.
The debt was paid in 1998... Surplus until 2001... a fact you keep trying to spin and avoid...
Then why did the debt go up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
Thats because of interest. Surplus every year from 98 to 2001, according to Whitehouse.gov.
So Bush also had surpluses then because Bushs deficits were running $250B in 2007, and the interest on the national debt is over $500B a year?
Seriously, keep proving you guys dont have a clue and bought the same old line..
FACT: The surplus was on paper because they BORROWED more than they spent, which created MORE money in the bank then was there the year before.. But that is NOT a surplus.. You cant borrow money and claim your rich now.. But thats what Clinton did.. How many times does this need explained to you? I even linked you right to the Treasury Department to back it up.. Are you telling me the Treasury Department doesnt know how much debt we have and YOU do?
So Bush also had surpluses then because Bushs deficits were running $250B in 2007, and the interest on the national debt is over $500B a year?
Seriously, keep proving you guys dont have a clue and bought the same old line..
FACT: The surplus was on paper because they BORROWED more than they spent, which created MORE money in the bank then was there the year before.. But that is NOT a surplus.. You cant borrow money and claim your rich now.. But thats what Clinton did.. How many times does this need explained to you? I even linked you right to the Treasury Department to back it up.. Are you telling me the Treasury Department doesnt know how much debt we have and YOU do?
Your chart conveniently only shows up until 1999... how about 2000 - 2001?...
Nope.. no surpluses there either.. Are you getting close to admitting there was no surplus, or just looking to change the subject to years under Bush?
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.
