What do you have to say about the now $18 trillion deficit??
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your unemployment numbers are skewed and don't count those out of work who are not actively looking for work....
What do you have to say about the now $18 trillion deficit??
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your unemployment numbers are skewed and don't count those out of work who are not actively looking for work....
What do you have to say about the now $18 trillion deficit??
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your unemployment numbers are skewed and don't count those out of work who are not actively looking for work....
What do you have to say about the now $18 trillion deficit??
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your unemployment numbers are skewed and don't count those out of work who are not actively looking for work....
Ding Ding Ding!! We have your number 1 Dem answer!!!!
Ding Ding Ding!! We have your number 1 Dem answer!!!!
People need to learn the difference between DEFICIT and DEBT. We do not have an $18 trillion deficit. The annual deficit under Obama has come down quite a bit. Credit where credit is due.
I encourage everyone to dig into the numbers from the debt clock website. Some fascinating stuff.
People need to learn the difference between DEFICIT and DEBT. We do not have an $18 trillion deficit. The annual deficit under Obama has come down quite a bit. Credit where credit is due.
I encourage everyone to dig into the numbers from the debt clock website. Some fascinating stuff.
The deficit under Obama may have come down in 2014 due to budget caps and the automatic cuts from sequester ,but it's still hugh.. President Barack Obama has presided over five of the six largest annual budget deficits the U.S. government has ever run..that's what he gets credit for....
It was the tea party movement in the 2010 midterm elections,that radically changed the direction of our fiscal deterioration ( by putting fiscally conservative Republicans in the House)...they changed the path of federal spending...
Obama not only gave us the most expensive new entitlement in 40 years, but he has fought nearly every spending reform of the last three years..and people want to give him credit for being a deficit cutter....LOL
The deficit under Obama may have come down in 2014 due to budget caps and the automatic cuts from sequester ,but it's still hugh.. President Barack Obama has presided over five of the six largest annual budget deficits the U.S. government has ever run..that's what he gets credit for....
It was the tea party movement in the 2010 midterm elections,that radically changed the direction of our fiscal deterioration ( by putting fiscally conservative Republicans in the House)...they changed the path of federal spending...
Obama not only gave us the most expensive new entitlement in 40 years, but he has fought nearly every spending reform of the last three years..and people want to give him credit for being a deficit cutter....LOL
Canovsp, it's worst than that ....the article is written by a blogger on Rachel Maddows blog ..
Canovsp, it's worst than that ....the article is written by a blogger on Rachel Maddows blog ..
I'm guessing this was directed at me so I'll reply. I was absolutely correct in stating the difference between debt and deficit, unlike the post that I tried to set straight. There was a post that said Obama had an $18 trillion deficit, that is flat out wrong. He has run a deficit every year which has added to the total debt, which is now over $18 trillion. Big difference. You are correct that running a deficit every year adds to the debt but saying we have an $18 trillion deficit is an ignorant of facts statement. Even when Clinton had a balanced budget the debt still increased.
I'm hardly an Obama backer, can't stand the guy, but just looking at the numbers, the deficit has come down. The 2009 budget was at 1.4 trillion deficit, down to 506 billion this year. Although you can argue that part of the 2009 budget year under Bush should have gone to Obama for the stimulus plan. Obama's first two budgets had deficits of 1.3 trillion each.
It's easy to forget that Bush ran relatively low deficits until the 2009 budget where he got saddled with the stimulus spending on his budget. The 7 Bush years before the disputed 2009 numbers saw his deficits range from 158 billion to a high of 458 billion, still well below the best deficit Obama has produced to this point.
Of course you can make numbers look better than they really are and have a lot of govt spending off the books as to not show in the budget. But that's another topic...
I'm guessing this was directed at me so I'll reply. I was absolutely correct in stating the difference between debt and deficit, unlike the post that I tried to set straight. There was a post that said Obama had an $18 trillion deficit, that is flat out wrong. He has run a deficit every year which has added to the total debt, which is now over $18 trillion. Big difference. You are correct that running a deficit every year adds to the debt but saying we have an $18 trillion deficit is an ignorant of facts statement. Even when Clinton had a balanced budget the debt still increased.
I'm hardly an Obama backer, can't stand the guy, but just looking at the numbers, the deficit has come down. The 2009 budget was at 1.4 trillion deficit, down to 506 billion this year. Although you can argue that part of the 2009 budget year under Bush should have gone to Obama for the stimulus plan. Obama's first two budgets had deficits of 1.3 trillion each.
It's easy to forget that Bush ran relatively low deficits until the 2009 budget where he got saddled with the stimulus spending on his budget. The 7 Bush years before the disputed 2009 numbers saw his deficits range from 158 billion to a high of 458 billion, still well below the best deficit Obama has produced to this point.
Of course you can make numbers look better than they really are and have a lot of govt spending off the books as to not show in the budget. But that's another topic...
Agree spending is way out of control. I wasn't saying having a lower budget deficit, this adding to the debt, was good. Was just stating fact that while Obama's deficits have been massive, they have come down. Any deficit is too high in my opinion. We agree there.
The Clintonites claim there was a surplus because the amount of public debt went down, which it did. However that is only a part of the deficit component. The amount of intragovernmental holdings went up more in each of those years than the public debt went down, thus creating a deficit which added to our national debt. Clinton has made false claims that he paid down the national debt by 360 billion. He paid down the public debt portion but increased the other portion by more than that. That is why the national debt increased each of those supposedly surplus years. Basically the govt borrowed money to create an on paper surplus.
Agree spending is way out of control. I wasn't saying having a lower budget deficit, this adding to the debt, was good. Was just stating fact that while Obama's deficits have been massive, they have come down. Any deficit is too high in my opinion. We agree there.
The Clintonites claim there was a surplus because the amount of public debt went down, which it did. However that is only a part of the deficit component. The amount of intragovernmental holdings went up more in each of those years than the public debt went down, thus creating a deficit which added to our national debt. Clinton has made false claims that he paid down the national debt by 360 billion. He paid down the public debt portion but increased the other portion by more than that. That is why the national debt increased each of those supposedly surplus years. Basically the govt borrowed money to create an on paper surplus.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.