Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 What is the Deficit? : The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. —US Senate Budget Committee This year, FY 2014, the federal government in its budget estimated that the deficit will be $649 billion. Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers Obama Deficits FY 2015*: $564 billion FY 2014*: $649 billion FY 2013: $680 billion FY 2012: $1,087 billion FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2010: $1,294 billion Bush Deficits FY 2009†: $1,413 billion FY 2008: $458 billion FY 2007: $161 billion FY 2006: $248 billion FY 2005: $318 billion for more years click here Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. Note: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Wait a minute Big Girl- that info is from the Senate Budget Committee and you ALREADY STATED that you did not accept anything that they put out. If you earn 100,000 per year and spend 105,000, your "deficit" is $5000. If you borrow 400,000 you still owe the 400,000 plus interest . If you have a $5000 annual deficit, you simply add that to the 400,000 that you owe plus the accumulated interest. If you could find a way to get a raise to, perhaps, $106,000, you could, theoretically pay $1000 per year toward your debt which would still not reduce the debt as the interest costs exceed $1000. Additionally, you would have to pay your "fair share" of taxes on that $6000 dollar raise thus forcing your debt to continue to increase until such time as the lenders demand payment and you are forced to file bankruptcy. It happened in Greece. I guess the other way out is to claim how unfair America is and that someone "owes" you a way out of the mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PN-G bamatex Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 I've heard this argument about a thousand times, and every time it involves the same assinine assertion. This all hinges on FY 2009. Democrats love to blame Bush for the FY 2009 deficit since the FY 2009 budget was passed in September of 2008, at the end of Bush's last term. The problem with that is, the FY 2009 budget passed by Congress and signed by President Bush only had a deficit of roughly $460 Billion attached to it, not the $1.4 Trillion you see listed above. What accounts for the disparity? Try the trillion dollar bailout passed in February, 2009, a month into President Obama's first term and four months into FY 2009. So, essentially, Democrats want to pin a deficit on Bush that he didn't sign off on, in a fiscal year he only administrated the first three months of, when the reality is that five sevenths of the deficit and three quarters of the fiscal year fall squarely on the shoulders of Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Wait a minute Big Girl- that info is from the Senate Budget Committee and you ALREADY STATED that you did not accept anything that they put out. If you earn 100,000 per year and spend 105,000, your "deficit" is $5000. If you borrow 400,000 you still owe the 400,000 plus interest . If you have a $5000 annual deficit, you simply add that to the 400,000 that you owe plus the accumulated interest. If you could find a way to get a raise to, perhaps, $106,000, you could, theoretically pay $1000 per year toward your debt which would still not reduce the debt as the interest costs exceed $1000. Additionally, you would have to pay your "fair share" of taxes on that $6000 dollar raise thus forcing your debt to continue to increase until such time as the lenders demand payment and you are forced to file bankruptcy. It happened in Greece. I guess the other way out is to claim how unfair America is and that someone "owes" you a way out of the mess. senate budget committee not the republican senate budget committee. That was the source of the article you posted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 I've heard this argument about a thousand times, and every time it involves the same assinine assertion. This all hinges on FY 2009. Democrats love to blame Bush for the FY 2009 deficit since the FY 2009 budget was passed in September of 2008, at the end of Bush's last term. The problem with that is, the FY 2009 budget passed by Congress and signed by President Bush only had a deficit of roughly $460 Billion attached to it, not the $1.4 Trillion you see listed above. What accounts for the disparity? Try the trillion dollar bailout passed in February, 2009, a month into President Obama's first term and four months into FY 2009. So, essentially, Democrats want to pin a deficit on Bush that he didn't sign off on, in a fiscal year he only administrated the first three months of, when the reality is that five sevenths of the deficit and three quarters of the fiscal year fall squarely on the shoulders of Obama. the calculate it the same way for all presidents. Why should Bush be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 They Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 What about the 2 "wars" that was not counted toward Bush's deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 1, 2014 Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 I think it is called cherry picking. As PNG-Bama stated, a rare financial crisis caused a single year to be particularly high and Bush is given credit for the full year in your illustration even though he President for only a very small part of it. If LeBron scores 10 point tonight during a season that he averages about 25, it will have been a bad night. Using your illustration, if he scores 15 tomorrow night ( still very sub par) you can get out the pom poms and cheer wildly that he increased his scoring by 50% over the last game. If you average the deficits on an annual basis by each President, there is very little difference between them ( even giving credit to Bush for the full year when it was particularly high) Now that we have handled that, please answer this question. During his original campaign, Mr. Obama complained loudly that the debt level under Mr. Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Now that it is 70% higher than the figure about which Mr. Obama complained, why is that not MORE irresponsible and MORE unpatriotic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 I think it is called cherry picking. As PNG-Bama stated, a rare financial crisis caused a single year to be particularly high and Bush is given credit for the full year in your illustration even though he President for only a very small part of it. If LeBron scores 10 point tonight during a season that he averages about 25, it will have been a bad night. Using your illustration, if he scores 15 tomorrow night ( still very sub par) you can get out the pom poms and cheer wildly that he increased his scoring by 50% over the last game. If you average the deficits on an annual basis by each President, there is very little difference between them ( even giving credit to Bush for the full year when it was particularly high) Now that we have handled that, please answer this question. During his original campaign, Mr. Obama complained loudly that the debt level under Mr. Bush was irresponsible and unpatriotic. Now that it is 70% higher than the figure about which Mr. Obama complained, why is that not MORE irresponsible and MORE unpatriotic? I disagree. Answer my wuestion, what about the two wars that were not included in bush's deficit? Please explain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2014 Question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Bunch of cynical people. Thats why nobody like yall..LOL!! Always crying and whining about how the government don't work. Yall whine as much as much yall say the people on welfare (supposedly) whine about the government. We live in the same system created over 200 years ago with added additional laws that make our lives easier. Example, Universal Health Care :D But we know yall just a bunch of frustrated biddies with underlying problems that run deeper than economics ;) Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Bunch of cynical people. Thats why nobody like yall..LOL!! Always crying and whining about how the government don't work. Yall whine as much as much yall say the people on welfare (supposedly) whine about the government. We live in the same system created over 200 years ago with added additional laws that make our lives easier. Example, Universal Health Care :D But we know yall just a bunch of frustrated biddies with underlying problems that run deeper than economics ;) Race card alert! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AledoBearcatsCO2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 I just want to say, to be a Democrat you would have to be crazy. What about redistribution and raising minimum wage to $15 sounds good? Congratulations, cost us so many jobs. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Race card alert! DOUBLE race card alert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Race card alert! Where did I mention race? Did I specifically bring up race? Did I make a subtle comment about one's race? Mr. Buddy Garrity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Where did I mention race? Did I specifically bring up race? Did I make a subtle comment about one's race? But we know yall just a bunch of frustrated biddies with underlying problems that run deeper than economics. ;) ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PN-G bamatex Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 the calculate it the same way for all presidents. Why should Bush be any different? No, they don't. Different surveys use different methods. They do the same thing for other statistics inherent in the usual assessment of presidential efficacy as well. For instance, some surveys will show Clinton's job numbers slightly above Reagan's, while others will show Reagan's well above Clinton's. Those surveys hinge on where you put the first year of each president's administration; some scholars believe it's more accurate to give that first year to the previous president, based on a belief that each new president's policies haven't really had enough time to have an effect in that first year. But, for the sake of argument, we'll assume you're right and that all studies of fiscal prudence allot president's only the budgets passed within their terms, and no budgets that were already in effect when they took office. Even then, FY 2009 should still be attributed to the Obama administration because of the special circumstance that is the 2009 bailout, which more than tripled the projected deficit for that fiscal year all on its own, a month after President Bush left office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 No, they don't. Different surveys use different methods. They do the same thing for other statistics inherent in the usual assessment of presidential efficacy as well. For instance, some surveys will show Clinton's job numbers slightly above Reagan's, while others will show Reagan's well above Clinton's. Those surveys hinge on where you put the first year of each president's administration; some scholars believe it's more accurate to give that first year to the previous president, based on a belief that each new president's policies haven't really had enough time to have an effect in that first year. what about the two unfunded wars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 what about the two unfunded wars? ROFLMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 All your democratic saviors voted to fund those wars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 They were not counted towards bush's deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The National Debt is 70% higher than it was when Bush left office. Good luck spinning that to something favorable. You can spend your next 6 months on google and consult progress.org all you want, but you cant change the ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL FACT that our national debt has never been anywhere close to this high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big girl Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 The National Debt is 70% higher than it was when Bush left office. Good luck spinning that to something favorable. You can spend your next 6 months on google and consult progress.org all you want, but you cant change the ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL FACT that our national debt has never been anywhere close to this high. yeah right according to whom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PN-G bamatex Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 what about the two unfunded wars? What do you mean, what about them? All operations under the Global War on Terrorism would be counted within the fiscal year in which they took place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 According to anyone who has the brains to look up the debt in 2008 vs the debt now. If you can research and tell us all that happened during the Reagan years, it should be real easy to look at the debt levels. Stop challenging it. Google cant refute it. Thinkprogress.org cant refute it. You cant refute it. Find another topic. This one is NO CONTEST. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.