Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no, it is not. they are related but one is not a reflection of the other.They are two different things, but they ARE related and I thoroughly understand the relationship. It's like in my field of physics, speed, distance and time are three different things but they are related by the equation D=SxT. The amount the national debt increases from one year to the next is the deficit for the year.Your lack of basic reading co0mprehension skills is not a problem for me.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
Deficit and debt are two different things and you're just too damned stupid to know the difference.
Letys try one you might understand
when you get your weekly check for intransigent and idiotic bums from the county every week and set aside $25 for your portion of the rent after sec 8 takes care of the rest you are creating a $25 deficit in your funds, but the debt you owe the landlord won't actually go down until you pay him at the end of the month. When you blow the money on crack and beer before you can give it to him, even though you budgetted for it... you still owe him.
Righty Extremist Fascists like you guys make me sick. Ronald Reagan would tell you bozos to beat it if you can't along with the rest of us. You are a disgrace to the party. You will cost us many, many elections next year, and possible the House. You are such losers.
SS is supposed to mimic a government bond fund. The economics are similar to a government bond mutual fund, except without the fees. So any interest debited to the trusts should offset the amount paid by the Treasury.
and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.hey dumbass, the wars are still off budget and off budget items count in the final deficit numbers.
I love it when you stupid assed liberals think you know something.
Historical Tables | The White House
Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:
Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. “We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it can’t estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion— assuming the war would cost at least that much. “It was a policy decision” [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.
IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations
Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.
The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair
The president’s defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, “People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.”
The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.
Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.
BenNatuf, you really can't read and understand the chart? Or are you just kidding?
Your chart shows "off budget" spending but NOT off budget supplemental appropriations.and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:
Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it cant estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion assuming the war would cost at least that much. It was a policy decision [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.
IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations
Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of emergency funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedurefive years after the war beganis budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.
The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair
The presidents defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.
The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.
Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.
Here is the actual national debt for the years you posted earlier. Subtract one year from the next and you get the real deficit for that year including the off budget SUPPLEMENTAL spending. As you can see the deficit for the year you chose in the above post, 2007, was $500 billion, not the $161 billion you claim.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
Date - Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:
Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. “We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it can’t estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion— assuming the war would cost at least that much. “It was a policy decision” [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.
IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations
Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.
The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair
The president’s defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, “People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.”
The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.
Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.
And as you can see, ladies and gentlemen, this is where the wheels come off Benny's little neocon propaganda wagon.
Benny hangs onto his little chart by IGNORING what the articles point how...being how the Shrub and company kept the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the books.
The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of “emergency” funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedure—five years after the war began—is budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.
Somebody needs to clue Benny in... "off budget" spending is just that.....and when you INCLUDE THAT SPENDING IN IT'S PROPER SLOT, YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN BUDGET SPENDING. The Shrub DID NOT EVEN INCLUDE COSTS OF THE WARS IN THE STANDARD "OFF BUDGET" SPENDING, as the links I provided pointed out.
Benny ignores this, then like a good little neocon toadie just regurgitates the propaganda.
What makes you think that a continuation of reaganomics is going to save the day?
Let me get this straight: you want even more spending and higher taxes?
Dems 2011: More Taxes, Higher Spending, Bigger Deficits and It's Bushs Fault...Reagan Too
Table 1.1SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−: 17892016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (−
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
BULLSHIT!What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations. You guys and you ignorant assed denial is just plain stupid. You are aware that treasuries outstanding that have matured are still fucking owed aren't you, the money to redeem them is budgetted. You cannot look at the total debt to figure out what the deficit was, to figure the deficit you look at outlays vs reciepts. And the total fucking deficit for 2007 including ALL on and off budget items was 161B. The other 340B has NOTHING whatever to do with outlays or reciepts in 2007. it could be money owed to the government from 2006 that was not paid in 2007, it could be unredeemed trasuries still on the books, it could be a combination of both, neither of which has a damned thing to do with 2007. What it is NOT is any "hidden" spending on any supplemental appropriation, those are INCLUDED in the final deficit number. No matter how much you want to believe otherwize. My god you fucking liberals are stupid.Your chart shows "off budget" spending but NOT off budget supplemental appropriations.
Here is the actual national debt for the years you posted earlier. Subtract one year from the next and you get the real deficit for that year including the off budget SUPPLEMENTAL spending. As you can see the deficit for the year you chose in the above post, 2007, was $500 billion, not the $161 billion you claim.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
Date - Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?
What makes you think that a continuation of reaganomics is going to save the day?
Let me get this straight: you want even more spending and higher taxes?
Do you even comprehend what the "spending" actually is, or are you just parroting neocon mantras?
Remember bunky, the Obama proposal would be aimed at raising the taxes on those who could afford it, the 200 - 250K and up....and it wouldn't be uniform. Do the research, because this has all been explained before.
So now the 200K are the 'evil rich' too?What makes you think that a continuation of reaganomics is going to save the day?
A proven track record through the 80's and 90's. Just as the Keynesian policies of Dear Leader have a proven track record of failure.
Of course, spending stimulus money to buy Mexican drug lords their guns does skew the multiplier - but that the fucking moron Obama for you....
Holder: "Hey Barry, what can really get the economy moving"
Obama: "I know, let's buy guns and give them to Mexican cartels - then we can blame Arizona and repeal the second Amendment."
Holder: "Brilliant my lord, it is a plan worthy of an Emperor."
Table 1.1SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (−
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
BULLSHIT!What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations. You guys and you ignorant assed denial is just plain stupid. You are aware that treasuries outstanding that have matured are still fucking owed aren't you, the money to redeem them is budgetted. You cannot look at the total debt to figure out what the deficit was, to figure the deficit you look at outlays vs reciepts. And the total fucking deficit for 2007 including ALL on and off budget items was 161B. The other 340B has NOTHING whatever to do with outlays or reciepts in 2007. it could be money owed to the government from 2006 that was not paid in 2007, it could be unredeemed trasuries still on the books, it could be a combination of both, neither of which has a damned thing to do with 2007. What it is NOT is any "hidden" spending on any supplemental appropriation, those are INCLUDED in the final deficit number. No matter how much you want to believe otherwize. My god you fucking liberals are stupid.
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?
Oh he got it....he just doesn't like it. So Benny just re-invents things to suit his needs....and ignores what doesn't fit his assertions/beliefs.
Then there is the sinking fund for Obamacare waiting to be drained.... Watch the debt jump by 20-25% per year.
Remember bunky, the Obama proposal would be aimed at raising the taxes on those who could afford it, the 200 - 250K and up....and it wouldn't be uniform. Do the research, because this has all been explained before.
A proven track record of outsourcing, downsizing, two "stimulus checks" that failed, two wars who's true cost were kept off budget, a perscription drug plan with NO viable way to pay for it, and a cumulation in 2009 of serious unemployment.
And the BEST you have is the latest ATF failed sting operation....and you couldn't even be honest about that by adding some BS about stimulus funding. You're one Uncensored asshole from 2008 all right.
Remember bunky, the Obama proposal would be aimed at raising the taxes on those who could afford it, the 200 - 250K and up....and it wouldn't be uniform. Do the research, because this has all been explained before.
Closest a fascist democrat has come to the truth in a long while.
Obama indeed wants to place a huge burden on those making "$200 to $250K" - realistically those making "$100 to $250K." This reveals the smoke screen of "tax the rich." Obviously, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Matt Damon and the rest of the radical left would not be real pleased with being heavily taxed - taxes are for the little people, after all. Obama is aiming at WAGE EARNERS. The truly wealthy don't earn wages, and are protected from taxation. Obama. as you pointed out, is aiming squarely at the middle class - as democrats always do.
That is righty extremist code talk for "I don't have a clue."
