Quote:
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?