Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction

Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction

+6
Markle
Hospital Bob
Floridatexan
TEOTWAWKI
2seaoat
boards of FL
10 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Guest


Guest

Why is Obama still running deficits with record tax collections in the history of the nation?

Guest


Guest

I don't agree with all the Republican issues either and would like to see some drastically reduced spending. However from my perspective the Republican party represents the lesser of two evils when it comes to government spending. I say this only because I don't see an independent who is a fiscal conservative being capable of competing against either party.

*****NULL FACE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Well man now it's my turn....You must enter a message when posting.

Guest


Guest

Might have something to do with posting a pic if that's what you're doing.

That guy can keep kicking and pounding on the cellar door though. I'm not even getting started yet.

*****NULL FACE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

Guest


Guest

by TEOTWAWKI Yesterday at 10:13 pm
Well man now it's my turn....You must enter a message when posting


Happened to me too

knothead

knothead

You can always post *****CREEPY GRIN*****

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."

Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.

You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.

Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!

As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.

What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:You can always post *****CREEPY GRIN*****

*****YOU CAN ALWAYS GO FUCK YOURSELF*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

Vikingwoman



knothead wrote:You can always post *****CREEPY GRIN*****

Better yet "I am a creepy pervert and wanna be serial killer."

Guest


Guest

Vikingwoman wrote:
knothead wrote:You can always post *****CREEPY GRIN*****

Better yet "I am a creepy pervert and wanna be serial killer."

There's no doubt in my mind that you are bitch. Countless examples on this forum of how you stalk others on and off the forum to make their lives miserable all because they pissed in your cornflakes over an issue discussed here. Wouldn't surprise me if you started doing it to Joani next.

*****YOU'RE A MINDLESS VENGEFUL BITCH*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

boards of FL

boards of FL

The Man Comes Around wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
The Man Comes Around wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."


The only reason the budget is starting to go down is because the House Of Representatives holds the purse strings. We all know which party controls the House. While the Senate is divided enough at this time to lack support for all the current presidents little projects like 'free community college for all', more subsidies for clean energy companies like Solyndra, bullet trains projects that cost ten times the amount of normal rail, etc, etc, etc...




Well which is it then?  Is the narrative that the budget is terrible because of Obama?  Or is the budget a success because of the House?

You republican apologists should probably get your bullshit narrative straight before participating in political discussions.

Both.

It was a disaster created by a Democratically controlled Congress that pushed ever increasing agendas to spend money on their special programs. Then was given free rein to spend when a Democratically controlled Executive branch came into power in 2008. Since the Democratic party is controlled by progressives... I'll blame it all on mentally challenged intellectual progressives, and progressivism, who wish to avoid blame at all costs just as your answer indicates.

*****BOARDS THE DICKLESS WONDER*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral



Your theory doesn't fit with reality. Bush inherited a government set up for perennial surplus. Republicans controlled the executive branch, the house, and senate when Bush took office; and they quickly turned those perennial surpluses into exploding deficits by way of three tax cuts, two elective wars, and a medicare prescription drug plan. Republicans were completely in control during the time in which we changed course from perennial surpluses to exploding deficits, and here you are trying to put all of that on the democratic congress which didn't arrive until 2007.

It makes perfect sense...if you haven't the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."

Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.

You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.

Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!

As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.

What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.



We have seen the most rapid rate of deficit reduction since WWII. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we're now projected at a $468 billion dollar deficit for 2015. Do you understand what the phrase 'cut the deficit' actually means? Because it appears as if you do not.

Which number is larger, Markle? Which number does the alligator eat?

$1.4 trillion or $468 billion?

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Not me... I would prefer no social programs... no foreign aid... a fraction of our military only to maintain readiness.

I'd run a surplus my first year no matter what the previous president had budgeted. See how that works?

I didn't think so.



This is akin to saying "I'd waive my magic wand and, *poof*, no more deficit!" or "I'd gather the worlds top scientists and have them create a deficit elimination button.  Then I would press the button and, *poof*, no more deficit!"

You're like the morbidly obese guy who, after meeting with the cardiologist who suggests you should lose a third of your body weight, saws your own leg off.  There!  Done!  I must have a healthy heart now!

You don't even understand fundamentals of civics and government, much less economics or policy.  All I can say is that if we were to cut government spending as drastically as you suggest you would have during 2009, we could very well still be in the grips of economic depression that such an ignorant policy would have wrought.

PkrBum on economic policy: I'd make the economy grow at 10%!

PkrBum on foreign policy: I'd implement world peace!

PkrBum on energy policy: I'd make infinite energy!

PkrBum on defense policy: I'd hire all of the good guys from the Marvel Comic Universe!

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:And yet, the National Debt Clock keeps spinning - now at over $18 Trillion.  Actually, that's $18,300,000,000,000.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The DEFICIT is an ANNUAL thing.  

The DEBT is with us for potentially DECADES.




Obama has no control over what he inherits.  No president in history has ever been asked to clean up a fiscal situation structured to bleed $1.4 trillion annually  outside of Obama.  

It really doesn't matter who got elected in 2008 and 2012.  We would have seen debt clinb regardless.  All that we can ask is that the situation be cleaned up, and that is precisely what is happening.  

You're like the guy who complains about water damage after the fire department stops your house from burning down.

Can you lay out any realistic scenario in which a president inherits a $1.4 trillion deficit and debt doesn't increase?

Clearly, you need to do some research on the difference between an ANNUAL DEFICIT and the NATIONAL DEBT.  When President Obama was elected the DEBT was $10T. Now it's over $18T.  You do the math.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."

Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.

You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.

Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!

As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.

What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.



We have seen the most rapid rate of deficit reduction since WWII.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we're now projected at a $468 billion dollar deficit for 2015.  Do you understand what the phrase 'cut the deficit' actually means?  Because it appears as if you do not.

Which number is larger, Markle?  Which number does the alligator eat?

$1.4 trillion or $468 billion?

As you know, and love to live in denial, is the FACT that Nancy Pelosi prevented the 2009 budget from ever being brought to a vote. Semi-retired President Obama signed that budget in March of 2009 after adding a TRILLION DOLLARS to it in February with his failed Stimulus.

The last budget of President Bush was 2008 and reached $454,798,000,000. Still less than the last budget of President Obama. After six and a half years, he has yet to reach the highest deficit of President Bush.

You are a delightful foil!

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
The Man Comes Around wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
The Man Comes Around wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."


The only reason the budget is starting to go down is because the House Of Representatives holds the purse strings. We all know which party controls the House. While the Senate is divided enough at this time to lack support for all the current presidents little projects like 'free community college for all', more subsidies for clean energy companies like Solyndra, bullet trains projects that cost ten times the amount of normal rail, etc, etc, etc...




Well which is it then?  Is the narrative that the budget is terrible because of Obama?  Or is the budget a success because of the House?

You republican apologists should probably get your bullshit narrative straight before participating in political discussions.

Both.

It was a disaster created by a Democratically controlled Congress that pushed ever increasing agendas to spend money on their special programs. Then was given free rein to spend when a Democratically controlled Executive branch came into power in 2008. Since the Democratic party is controlled by progressives... I'll blame it all on mentally challenged intellectual progressives, and progressivism, who wish to avoid blame at all costs just as your answer indicates.

*****BOARDS THE DICKLESS WONDER*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral



Your theory doesn't fit with reality.  Bush inherited a government set up for perennial surplus.  Republicans controlled the executive branch, the house, and senate when Bush took office; and they quickly turned those perennial surpluses into exploding deficits by way of three tax cuts, two elective wars, and a medicare prescription drug plan.  Republicans were completely in control during the time in which we changed course from perennial surpluses to exploding deficits, and here you are trying to put all of that on the democratic congress which didn't arrive until 2007.

It makes perfect sense...if you haven't the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.


I didn't say the Republicans were martyrs... However the Democratic progressives continued the rape of the US taxpayer with even more vigor once they came into power.

Bush left office after only adding $4 trillion to the national debt which was at $10 trillion when he left. The national debt is now at nearly $18.5 trillion making the current administrations contribution about $8.5 trillion. More than double what that of Bush's whole eight years in office. Looking at Pkr's chart it's pretty obvious we need another government shutdown since it's only since the Republicans who control the House, for the last two years BTW, that the deficit hasn't been over one trillion dollars a year.

The fucking numbers speak for themselves.

*****ANY HORSE CAN DO THE MATH IT TAKES A PROGRESSIVE INTELLECTUAL TO FUCK IT UP*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

boards of FL

boards of FL

colaguy wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:And yet, the National Debt Clock keeps spinning - now at over $18 Trillion.  Actually, that's $18,300,000,000,000.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The DEFICIT is an ANNUAL thing.  

The DEBT is with us for potentially DECADES.




Obama has no control over what he inherits.  No president in history has ever been asked to clean up a fiscal situation structured to bleed $1.4 trillion annually  outside of Obama.  

It really doesn't matter who got elected in 2008 and 2012.  We would have seen debt clinb regardless.  All that we can ask is that the situation be cleaned up, and that is precisely what is happening.  

You're like the guy who complains about water damage after the fire department stops your house from burning down.

Can you lay out any realistic scenario in which a president inherits a $1.4 trillion deficit and debt doesn't increase?

Clearly, you need to do some research on the difference between an ANNUAL DEFICIT and the NATIONAL DEBT.  When President Obama was elected the DEBT was $10T. Now it's over $18T.  You do the math.


Yes, and we have been through this many times. I'll try explaining this to you again. A president has no control over the budget situation that he inherits. If a president inherits a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit from the previous president....well....it therefore follows that the debt will increase by $1.4 trillion during his first year in office. Common sense would tell us to assign that debt the the previous administration since it is their budget and their economy. You disagree with conventional wisdom and common sense there. Moving forward from there, it's not as if we can erase a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit over night or even in one fiscal year, so it therefore follows that the debt will continue to increase as the new president works to reduce the deficit. All a president can do is work to improve upon the deficit that he inherits. If a president inherits a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit, of course debt will increase. The most brilliant fiscal genius could have been elected in 2008 and we still would have seen debt explode because...again...a president has no control over the deficit that he inherits, and debt is a function of the deficit that he inherits.

This is a fairly straightforward concept though you seem to struggle with it as if its neuroscience.

boards of FL

boards of FL

Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Pfft... bush2 left about half of the bailout to obama and then obama tacked on another 250b stimulus.

It's amazing how much you can ignore to believe what you wish so desperately to believe...  that's useful idiotism fer ya.


You just tried to sweep Bush II's worst budget year into the Obama column and now you're throwing out phrases like "useful idiotism."  

Bush inherited perenniel surpluses and turned that into a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we have since seen that slashed by nearly 70%.  And here you are suggesting that Bush II was better in terms of fiscal management while throwing out terms such as "useful idiotism."

I would argue that your post represents the height of "useful idiotism."

Your desperate effort to revise history is getting old.

You seem to forget semi-retired President Obama signed the largest economic stimulus ($831 BILLION) in February 2009.

Saying that President Obama cut the deficit is as useful as teats on a bull!

As you well know too, there was never, ever a surplus during the years of President Clinton.

What appeared to be a surplus was the SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE withholdings which are now deposited into the general fund.



We have seen the most rapid rate of deficit reduction since WWII.  Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit and we're now projected at a $468 billion dollar deficit for 2015.  Do you understand what the phrase 'cut the deficit' actually means?  Because it appears as if you do not.

Which number is larger, Markle?  Which number does the alligator eat?

$1.4 trillion or $468 billion?

As you know, and love to live in denial, is the FACT that Nancy Pelosi prevented the 2009 budget from ever being brought to a vote.  Semi-retired President Obama signed that budget in March of 2009 after adding a TRILLION DOLLARS to it in February with his failed Stimulus.

The last budget of President Bush was 2008 and reached $454,798,000,000.  Still less than the last budget of President Obama.  After six and a half years, he has yet to reach the highest deficit of President Bush.

You are a delightful foil!



You are objectively wrong.  Seriously.  You're trying to argue against and objective fact here. You're correct insofar as when the budget was singed into law. You're wrong insofar as Bush's last budget was 2008. Bush's last budget was the 2009 budget. This is a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

As you know,  merkel ,  it was barney frank who ruined the country. Bill O'Reilly told you that and whatever Bill O'Reilly says is a fact. Why do you keep blaming the semi-retired cowh for all of it.  As you know,  you are lying.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

colaguy wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
colaguy wrote:And yet, the National Debt Clock keeps spinning - now at over $18 Trillion.  Actually, that's $18,300,000,000,000.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The DEFICIT is an ANNUAL thing.  

The DEBT is with us for potentially DECADES.




Obama has no control over what he inherits.  No president in history has ever been asked to clean up a fiscal situation structured to bleed $1.4 trillion annually  outside of Obama.  

It really doesn't matter who got elected in 2008 and 2012.  We would have seen debt clinb regardless.  All that we can ask is that the situation be cleaned up, and that is precisely what is happening.  

You're like the guy who complains about water damage after the fire department stops your house from burning down.

Can you lay out any realistic scenario in which a president inherits a $1.4 trillion deficit and debt doesn't increase?

Clearly, you need to do some research on the difference between an ANNUAL DEFICIT and the NATIONAL DEBT.  When President Obama was elected the DEBT was $10T. Now it's over $18T.  You do the math.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=0

How the Deficit Got This Big

By TERESA TRITCH JULY 23, 2011

With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions.

Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-
defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole.

The first graph shows the difference between budget projections and budget reality.

Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction - Page 2 24editorial_graph1

In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies. But every year starting in 2002, the budget fell into deficit. In January 2009, just before President Obama took office, the budget office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 and deficits in subsequent years, based on continuing Mr. Bush’s policies and the effects of recession. Mr. Obama’s policies in 2009 and 2010, including the stimulus package, added to the deficits in those years but are largely temporary.

The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.

Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction - Page 2 24editorial_graph2

Budget estimates that didn’t foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama’s policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much.

A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.

In future decades, when rising health costs with an aging population hit the budget in full force, deficits are projected to be far deeper than they are now. Effective health care reform, and a willingness to pay more taxes, will be the biggest factors in controlling those deficits.

***********

To see the graphs, go to the link and click on the top 2 links to the right of the article. The links within the article no longer work.

Guest


Guest

18.5T-10T= 8.5T Obama added to debt so far... likely to have doubled it before he leaves office.

Congratulations comrades

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction - Page 2 US-national-debt-GDP-graph

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Because of "voodoo economics", the combined contributions of Reagan, Bush and Bush to the current national debt are $13.5 trillion.



"...So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?
My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

Why this matters
Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did. To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.

So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor. The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.

When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP..."

***************

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:18.5T-10T= 8.5T Obama added to debt so far... likely to have doubled it before he leaves office.

Congratulations comrades


New debt is a function of annual budget deficits. Obama inherited a $1.4 trillion dollar annual budget deficit.

1 + 1 = ...?

You clearly don't know your ass from fiscal policy. Why comment on it at all?

2seaoat



Pk is intelligent, but he has some issues with the truth about how the debt was added and who was responsible.  I think Tex has displayed an irrefutable graph as to who is responsible for most of our national debt.  I am a life long Republican who voted for Ronald Reagan and believed he was a great man.  He was, but in International Relations.  His failed economic policies have caused irreparable damage to this country, and changed the very fabric of America.  It will take a generation of slowly returning tax rates and working on increasing the median income index for Average Americans.  Why he thinks this failure is not responsible for the debt is like a twenty something kid with a part time job making pizzas going out and buying a new car, and then cutting his hours he works, and putting things on the credit card.   His parents suggest he work more hours, or get a new job, and sell the car and get a more affordable vehicle.  PK would come into the situation and blame the parents as being responsible for the debt.  It does not make much sense....but he does it over and over again.

Guest


Guest

When y'all take the extreme position that obama holds no responsibility... don't expect to begin a reasonable dialogue.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Latest 2015 Budget Estimates Point to a Sixth Consecutive Year of Deficit Reduction

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum