U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,415 posts, read 12,132,346 times
Reputation: 4535

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
a budget is projections. not actual spending. I could budget to have tons of money in the bank this year if only I ignore that I have to borrow against my properties and the debt it would create to do so.. Thats what Clinton did, and you're applauding him for it which has me wondering where you learned accounting from
Our nation has budgeted this way since 1932. So the point you are making is moot. im also not applauding him for it im pointing out a fact that you didnt understand in in turn claimed that i was wrong when in fact i was right as were the others claiming such. You not liking the way the accounting is does does not make it any less true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:51 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,686,466 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
No, he didnt, President Obama is only responsible for about 400 billion or that year.

The revenue for that year came in at 600 billion less than expected (2.7 trillion down to 2.1), that is where you are getting the 1 trillion dollar number from( 600 billion plus 400 billion) and that is why you are so mistaken. It actually isnt a partisan thing, you just didnt look closely at the numbers, no biggy, now you know.
Oh please. here is one spending bill for the year signed by Obama that was $1.1 trillion alone.. and there are 13 different ones

Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending bill into law - Boston.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:53 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,686,466 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Our nation has budgeted this way since 1932. So the point you are making is moot. im also not applauding him for it im pointing out a fact that you didnt understand in in turn claimed that i was wrong when in fact i was right as were the others claiming such. You not liking the way the accounting is does does not make it any less true.
I'm not saying there is a flaw in the budget process, I'm saying one would be stupid to claim that budgets resulted in surpluses that didnt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:55 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,111,647 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHouse9 View Post
You should be looking at the fact that he is a big spender as it will affect tthis country for a long time. All that spending without the revenue has an impact. Hasn't spent enough? Seriously? We spend too much on studies for robotic squirrels and garbage that our government has no business being involved with. I for one am glad he has been obstructed considdering the fact that he has proven himself to be completely inept. Start caring as it affects everyone!!
"It will affect this country for a long time"

Most of this post is meaningless platitudes. Go ahead and focus on the made-up robotic squirrels that cost us a whole $3.62. The rest of us will look at the trillions that were pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like I said, he hasn't spent enough. Job growth in this country is tepid because demand is low. Right now the only way to get demand really going is for the government to spend.

It's a different philosophy in economics and governance. You believe we can cut our way to greatness. I don't buy into that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:57 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,686,466 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
"It will affect this country for a long time"

Most of this post is meaningless platitudes. Go ahead and focus on the made-up robotic squirrels that cost us a whole $3.62. The rest of us will look at the trillions that were pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like I said, he hasn't spent enough. Job growth in this country is tepid because demand is low. Right now the only way to get demand really going is for the government to spend.

It's a different philosophy in economics and governance. You believe we can cut our way to greatness. I don't buy into that.
When government takes money out of the economy to spend, this means the private sector has no money to stimulate. Unless you have figured out a way to defy all economic knowledge known to mankind and explain how the same dollar can be spent multiple times simultaniously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,415 posts, read 12,132,346 times
Reputation: 4535
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Oh please. here is one spending bill for the year signed by Obama that was $1.1 trillion alone.. and there are 13 different ones

Obama signs $1.1 trillion spending bill into law - Boston.com
money that was already approved and budgeted for. Another problem with your argument .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:01 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,686,466 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
money that was already approved and budgeted for. Another problem with your argument .
Presidents are under no obligation to accept spending proposals from previous administrations nor Congress. Are you claiming that Obama was incompetent to do his own budgets?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
24,415 posts, read 12,132,346 times
Reputation: 4535
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I'm not saying there is a flaw in the budget process, I'm saying one would be stupid to claim that budgets resulted in surpluses that didnt.
i would agree, that is why i said you need to learn the difference between the budget surplus, which only includes the money you have and are expected to borrow.. and the rest. It isnt one in the same and you are claiming it is which is why you are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:02 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,111,647 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
When government takes money out of the economy to spend, this means the private sector has no money to stimulate. Unless you have figured out a way to defy all economic knowledge known to mankind and explain how the same dollar can be spent multiple times simultaniously.
In case you haven't noticed, corporate profits are at record levels. So why won't those companies stimulate? Why? Should they just start hiring workers out of the goodness of their hearts? When the private sector either cannot or will not induce demand, then the government has to do it.

I'll give you an example. My dad works for a very small company. They are doing well, they're very busy and productivity is very high. As a result, my dad works about 48 hours a week. However, the owner is a tightwad and won't hire more help because he doesn't want to pay for it. Now let's say you give him a tax cut under the theory that he'll hire someone. Let's be generous and say $20,000 (which would be huge for this small company). What do you think the owner's going to do with that money? Take one good guess where that $20k will wind up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 03:04 PM
 
69,360 posts, read 56,686,466 times
Reputation: 9370
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
i would agree, that is why i said you need to learn the difference between the budget surplus, which only includes the money you have and are expected to borrow.. and the rest. It isnt one in the same and you are claiming it is which is why you are wrong.
I'm very well aware of the difference clearly you have no basic 101 knowledge of accounting because projections and budgets dont equal results EVER..

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top