Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by drluv1

Yes still outraged, but the # has been reduced from about 120,000 in 2005 to about 2000 currently, screwing the taxpayer much less. The grip the defense lobby, and all lobbbyists, has on politicians of both sides, is a major reason our debt is out of control.

Yes. That is true. Bush bowed down to them, as has Obama. Both are complicit. Obama is not a better person. He just continued Bush's policies.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Yes, and drluv1, why don't you give us more information on how the Iraq War was an excuse to give over billions of tax dollars to the industrial war complex cronies like Haliburton, Lockheed Martin and Boeing? At least Obama did something good for the people, like get more of them covered with health insurance and create more jobs. What did Bush do but get more young men killed in the wars and create a huge deficit when there was a surplus at the time he stepped into office?

I feel sorry you posters that stoop so low as to cyber bully those that don't agree with you. I think it's great that other people come to this board with different points of view. That's what the board is all about. Sometimes I think the reason you GOP people get so mad is because you think there is some truth to what the other side thinks.

More soldiers have died in war under Obama than Bush. And Obamacare premiums and co-pays are becoming unaffordable. Bush was a disaster, agreed, but Obama has more blood on his hands. Both should be tried for crimes against humanity, and imprisoned for the rest of their lives.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by SassySue

As a reminder, don’t get the deficit twisted with the debt. They are only related, not the same.

Originally Posted by SassySue

Deficit and debt are two different things.

Originally Posted by SassySue

No, they ... obviously don't understand the difference between debt and deficit... One more time, DEFICIT IS NOT THE SAME AS DEBT.

Originally Posted by SassySue

Deficit is different than debt.

Thanks, Sassy! I think everyone finally got it!

Now let's move on to Lesson Two, shall we?

Can you explain the difference between debt and equity? Figure it out if you want to understand how capitalism works.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Thanks, Sassy! I think everyone finally got it!

A decrease in the amount of "deficit" is immaterial to the long term financial health of this country ... and can be as much because of "funny money" and "accounting shuffles" as anything else. The increase in debt is the indicator of the impact of deficit spending, plus the "cost" of funds.

The advantage of having a proven business man giving direction is he knows "cost" vs. "benefit" analysis, and understands the concept of controlled spending to reduce debt and increase surplus.

The underlying question is: How does government pay for services and debt?

Spending a lot of energy talking shit about who was responsible for it is a waste of time and detracts from the current reality. Trying to blame Bush for expenditures during Obaminable's administration is the type of "accounting" slight of hand that occurred in 1999 and 2000 that everyone raved about with Bill Clinton....

..... which BTW HillariousNoMore rejects!!!!! Which IS RELEVANT.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm

The BillClintonites who praise his "surplus" ignore the reality that the national debt increased during his presidency, including those years in which it is claimed "he" had a surplus.

So, if he had "surpluses" why wasn't the National Debt reduced?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

A decrease in the amount of "deficit" is immaterial to the long term financial health of this country ... and can be as much because of "funny money" and "accounting shuffles" as anything else. The increase in debt is the indicator of the impact of deficit spending, plus the "cost" of funds.

The advantage of having a proven business man giving direction is he knows "cost" vs. "benefit" analysis, and understands the concept of controlled spending to reduce debt and increase surplus.

The underlying question is: How does government pay for services and debt?

Spending a lot of energy talking shit about who was responsible for it is a waste of time and detracts from the current reality. Trying to blame Bush for expenditures during Obaminable's administration is the type of "accounting" slight of hand that occurred in 1999 and 2000 that everyone raved about with Bill Clinton....

..... which BTW HillariousNoMore rejects!!!!! Which IS RELEVANT.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm

The BillClintonites who praise his "surplus" ignore the reality that the national debt increased during his presidency, including those years in which it is claimed "he" had a surplus.

So, if he had "surpluses" why wasn't the National Debt reduced?

the surplus were "paper" surpluses written up to hide the deficits by double counting revenues.

it was just designed to make him look good.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

the surplus were "paper" surpluses written up to hide the deficits by double counting revenues.

it was just designed to make him look good.

Actually, beginning in January 2001 there were a series of Congressional hearings to "review" the "expenditures" in comparison with the Congressional "authorizations," and it was disclosed that the Clinton Administration had failed to make the expenditures authorized, which left problems that latter proved dangerous and deadly ..... specifically ... border security, airline safety, and inadequate personnel vehicles for the military.

If I recall correctly it was Lamar Smith who chaired the subcommittee.

Pre 911!

It was designed to catapult Gore in 2000 .... to carry on the fraud.

The BLS employment books were cooked, the economy was tanking in the Spring of 2000, and terrorism was on the rise!!! Sound familiar?

If I don't pay my bills this month, I'll have a "surplus" in my account!!!!