DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

That's questionable.

We need to remember that the fed. gov't. doesn't operate as a business, or even a household, in that the federal gov't. operates/runs 2 sets of books, even 3.

I know Clinton is given credit for a balanced budget, and even a surplus, but this link shows why: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Paying down "public" debt sounds fantastic. But when it's done at the expense of gov't. debt, it's a wash. After all, gov't. debt and public debt are: debt.

Now, Clinton did benefit from the housing boom, the .com boom, and things, economically, were better, but he never balanced a budget, let alone leave a surplus. (unless you want to do funny math. Which, granted, the fed. gov't. does)

Here, this article explains it much better. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-paid-down-deb/


It's somewhat akin to a person paying on a car loan, but he's using his home equity loan to make the payments on the car.

At the end of each year he can say "I'm paying down my car loan. See? I owe less on the car now than I did a year ago." That's a true statement.

But he forgets to explain that "my home equity loan went up". So, his total debt has stayed the same, maybe even increased.


If it comes from the gov't. concerning numbers, there's 12 ways to look at things and if they tell us it's rosy, expect to get pummeled.

Another good explanation: http://www.davemanuel.com/2012/09/06/why...-surplus-years/



Also, just to keep in mind, (and this isn't aimed at you, personally), but when we're "told" what the national debt is, that number doesn't include unfunded future obligations. (liabilities)

For everyone, google "Dave Walker, comptroller general" and read what he has said. And for the record, he was the comptroller under republicans AND democrats. Make sure you're sitting down when you read.

Here's one article. If people have been reading the other links, notice in this one Walker talks about "off balance sheet obligations."

In inflation adjusted dollars, W ran a deficit in the $300-500 Billion per year range... His deficit in 2008 was $511 billion... in 2009, it tripled to $1.5 trillion and was over a trillion for 4 or 5 years... now it's back down to about $500 billion... so Obama gets a ton of credit for getting it back to where it was when he took office?

And yes, Clinton ran a surplus for a few years near the end of his presidency... but unless somebody recreates the tech boom, that's not going to happen again. Especially if we are paying for everybody's healthcare and everybody's college tuition and providing all of the social services to citizens and non-citizens, etc.. etc...

I have to disagree 100 percent with you on that one bro. People, business, government should ALWAYS be prepared for the worst. Be ready for a emergency.

keep puffing up because your deluded if you think any president has control over the budjet. all he can do is offer suggestions and veto what he don't like.

it wasn't until republicans took over the congress that the brakes on spending were applied and deficit spending was reduced. It was the same during clinton's time. Soon as Dem's got the house back things went to hell again.

Correct, that was W's budget for fiscal year 2009, not Obama's. The 2009 fiscal budget was passed before O took office.

To reign it back in almost $1T over the past few years is trending in the right direction, if nothing else.

W took a reasonable budget and turned it into a $1.5T deficit.

W is BY FAR the worst leader this country has ever had. 7 years later, he still is making Obama look good by comparison.

Obama promised to do that,, he didn't succeed. He carries blame for that, but so do those that blocked it. Some members of congress on corp. Payroll (under the table), Lobbys, PAC's etc.

I can't stand companies that sit there and tell us about how great AMerica is and then don't do their part to help pay for it.

IN corporate America, Greed wins out over being patriotic.

Just to be fair ....

The Republicans lost control of the Congress, and the Democrats took control for the 2009 budget. (one of the few years in the past decade with an actual budget passed)

If you look at the deficit numbers prior to that year, and the numbers for that year's budget, they are quite striking.

Further, Bush and the Democrats passed that massive $1 trillion "rescue" bill, that was added onto the 2009 budget, IIRC.

With these factors in mind, and with ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would hope that the budget deficits would shrink. They should shrink significantly.

That's sound advice for businesses and people. However, Governments aren't ran like businesses or people. There's a reason only 5 countries are living debt free and there's a reason they're all small. It doesn't make sense. You're stealing from the American people when you do that. If you're going to tax them, tax them for a reason.

We once had extra money built up in Social Security but the Government stole it.
Fannie May and Freddie Mac once had vast fortunes but the Government wrote IOU's against that money until it was gone.

Now Fannie and Freddie are broke and Social Security is looked at like a handout when we paid into it by force, all our lives.

They steal our money every damn day already and leave us deeper in debt. You all cry about global warming everyday but you ignore the amount of debt we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.

As our children and grandchildren scrounge for potatoes in the Leftist future, at least they will have clean air to breath.

The article from 4 1/2 years ago is no longer relevant as Obama is still in office and you should know that.

the deficit has been declining significantly over the past 4 years.

Hey, you elected Ronny to get you lower taxes in the first place. You have no one to blame except yourself.

I'd rather they "steal our money" for things they need rather than they steal our money because they want to look at it inside a room as it slowly decays in value.

There's a reason that only 5 countries have a surplus. Because it's dumb and unnecessary for us. Those 5 countries are extremely small and don't have the same way to generate revenue like we do. Would you really be down for the U.S. to cut programs and raise taxes not to pay off a debt, but to get a surplus? You say the government wants money, but you want to give them money that they don't even need? Ridiculous.

There are only five country's who are not in debt because there are a lot of stupid governments out there. just like there are a lot of stupid people out there. The government needs to stop wasting money and giving away money to other countries, and using money to pay off the entire debt we are in instead of WAISTING money paying interest is not ridiculous bro it's smart.

Let's just put it this way, if businesses could run like governments could, they would.

Businesses are smart. The govt, not so much.

If businesses ran like our government they would be out of business not long after they opened because nobody would use them. Yet we as Americans put up with this crap

Exactly why I said, "if business could run like the government, they would."

Why would a business want to carry insurmountable debt?

So how do we force the govt become smarter? They have no accountability. It's always...elect the dummy from the left, or elect the dummy from the right. But nothing ever changes.

Because the government has perks and can maneuver their debt a lot better? It surprises me that with so many business majors and leaders that are in Washington, people still don't think they know what they're doing. The government's debt and personal/business debt doesn't work the same. There's a reason why every developed country has debt.

Yep they are stupid and corrupt and nobody holds them accountable for their actions.

devil's advocate comment:

when a group does stand up to corrupt governments, we call them islamic terrorist.

?

I don't think they would be in the good old USA I believe we call them Revolutionists

GM made the comment that we have to pay for it and nobody is holding these guys accountable. as far as developed nations goes.

which i agree with you, GM.

It was more a tongue and cheek comment, but i'm saying that the radicals in the middle east, if you hear them from their perspective, are saying that they are fighting corrupt governments.

but we labeled them terrorist.

GM and Ted, I'm sure you guys have seen this as well, but there are some people around social media that are saying that what the tea party did pre-revolution could be considered terrorism today.

So my comment had more to do with bringing light to the labels we call people depending on which side of the fight you're on.

There is a difference between the tea party and Islamic terrorist. The tea party dumped some tea into the ocean. The terrorists murder and or blow up innocent people.

but the results end up the same, gaining power.

I don't think the terrorists are gaining any power. Not like the tea party had. Terrorist acts are downgraded to exactly what they are: terrorist acts. They don't gain any power with legit govts.

well, before 9/11, the taliban straight up ran afghanistan.

i'd say thats power.

and ISIS runs iraq

But they aren't seen as a legit power. They are seen as pathetic mosquitos needing to be squashed. They have gained no power in an international sense. Or even in a country sense. They have zero leverage.

tell that to the people who are being told to commit suicide bombings or their daughters will be raped and killed.

or the guys and women being beheaded.

or the iraqi army.

for them being misquitos, they sure are outlasting.

Meh, they are mostly mosquitos.

well, being hit by explosion by these mosquitos, i don't agree.

Meh, you aren't the only person to fight in Iraq. My brother invaded Falujah with the marines. Then he got out and got a degree with the gi bill. Now he has a job working with the govt. He doesn't have any of the issues you have.

thats fine. i understand i'm not the only one. such a captain obvious statement.

tell him i said congrats that he doesn't have my problems. i dunno if you feel like i'm proud to have mental problems or not.

but what does your brother have to do with your comment vs mine? or my mental heath for that matter?