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.
And for the first four years the Democrats controlled Congress and it could credibly be argued that they still control it now. President Bush spent way too much money but this President has taken spending to unbelievable levels.
I suggest that before people make claims about numbers they actually look at the numbers.
It cannot be "credibly argued." For much of the Bush Admin, the House, Senate and White House was controlled by the GOP. Note, the BIG drop in spending during the years the GOP controlled the entire government? Me neither.
Clintons surplus was a sham. He borrowed money from social security to pay down public debt. I thought everyone knew this by now, but maybe those partisan blinders are thick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
I did not know this.
Is this why SS is bankrupt?
I was always told they take our SS out of our paychecks, invest it for our future when we later take it back out with the accrued interest it earned so it was a balanced thing. I never understood why all the SS monies disappeared. And now people think taking SS is a form of welfare.
Was it only Clinton who stole our SS money, or did other presidents do this also?
You did not know this because it's not especially true. Social Security is revenue to the government and it always has been, not anything different during the Clinton Admin.
When the government receives this money, it issues special bonds to the SSA, which are instruments backed by the government and accumulate interest. Social Security is not bankrupt -- as evident by the fact that it runs a surplus.
Perhaps the claim that Clinton didn't run a surplus can be explained to you here.
The deficit is not the DEBT which will be approaching 20 TRILLION by the time President Obama hits the exit door. You apparently do not understand the difference. Go back and take Econ. 101.
Amazes me how many on the left DO NOT know this......they can point out a misspelled/used word though. Is school not teaching this or only bookkeepers know this?
Amazes me how many on the left DO NOT know this......they can point out a misspelled/used word though. Is school not teaching this or only bookkeepers know this?
I am on the left and I know this. I also think that the original poster knew it too.
The major point is that when the deficit grows at or lower than GDP growth, the debt is not ballooning as debt hawks claim. I also notice how the amount of $20 trillion is thrown around, as it that is the debt now. No, it isn't. When the debt is $20 trillion -- a few years in the future, GDP is projected to be higher than $20 trillion, which means the debt:GDP ratio will actually be falling. It really is time to calm the debt hysteria.
I also note the hypocrisy. When debt was really expanding beyond GDP under Bush, the GOP members were silent. Now, that Obama is president and spending is flat, the deficit hawks circle for prey. The debt mainly rose during the great recession because revenue sharply fell and automatic safety net programs kicked in. End of story. It wasn't Obama going on a spending spree.
On misspelled words, I see lots of that here from conservatives too. I tend to ignore them. These are forum posts, not thesis'.
Your own chart shows that Obama increased the deficit by $1T. So now he decreased it by $1T.
i.e. Nothing accomplished except for $8T wasted.
Sorry. You claim is economic illiteracy.
First, that "$8 trillion wasted," was money that if it wasn't spent would have driven the nation into a depression. But what was that $8 trillion? It was what government has been spending money on all along -- mainly, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense and interest on the debt.
Second, I don't see how you blame Obama for "increasing the deficit by $1T." By January 7, 2009 -- before Obama was President, the forecast was a $1.2 trillion deficit. See below:
More great news about a benefit to this country from President Obama's presidency.
Remember, Republican Bush was given a SURPLUS by Democrat Clinton and turned it into a RECORD DEFICIT. Had our great President Obama not been obstructed by Republicans in Congress, we likely would be enjoying another surplus.
From the hard right wing Koch Brothers controlled website Treasury Direct (it's a dot gov) we find records for our Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Now, if we hat a "SURPLUS" on any Clinton year as you claim the outstanding dollar amount would have dropped.
Where did it drop? What year do you see a drop in the debt which would have happened even if we had one penny of surplus?
This oft repeated lie about the Clinton SURPLUS makes me sick. It's a lie spread by liars!
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.
Had our great President Obama not been obstructed by Republicans in Congress, we likely would be enjoying another surplus.