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.
I already showed that the 2007 deficit had 340 billion in deficit spending that was not accounted for in the 161 billion deficit you claimed. The burden of proof is on you to show that the supplemental spending was included in Bush's deficit numbers, all you did was pontificate that it was in the off budget numbers.All you need to do is show the on budget spending and the off budget spending and the supplemental spending and show that the deficit increased by more than the combination of the on and off budget numbers.BULLSHIT! It is not included anywhere in the budget.
I already showed that the 2007 deficit had 340 billion in deficit spending that was not accounted for in the 161 billion deficit you claimed. The burden of proof is on you to show that the supplemental spending was included in Bush's deficit numbers, all you did was pontificate that it was in the off budget numbers.All you need to do is show the on budget spending and the off budget spending and the supplemental spending and show that the deficit increased by more than the combination of the on and off budget numbers.
Yeah, $340 billion taken from trust fund surpluses.
Which you still don't understand.
If supplemental spending is kept secret and not included in any borrowing numbers, how do you know there was any supplemental spending?
And why isn't it a huge scandal?
Do you imagine you've discovered some deep dark secret? LOL!
That patented CON$ervative dumb act again!I already showed that the 2007 deficit had 340 billion in deficit spending that was not accounted for in the 161 billion deficit you claimed. The burden of proof is on you to show that the supplemental spending was included in Bush's deficit numbers, all you did was pontificate that it was in the off budget numbers.All you need to do is show the on budget spending and the off budget spending and the supplemental spending and show that the deficit increased by more than the combination of the on and off budget numbers.
Yeah, $340 billion taken from trust fund surpluses.
Which you still don't understand.
If supplemental spending is kept secret and not included in any borrowing numbers, how do you know there was any supplemental spending?
And why isn't it a huge scandal?
Do you imagine you've discovered some deep dark secret? LOL!
Total debt rose by $500 billion. Net debt rose by $160 billion.That patented CON$ervative dumb act again!I already showed that the 2007 deficit had 340 billion in deficit spending that was not accounted for in the 161 billion deficit you claimed. The burden of proof is on you to show that the supplemental spending was included in Bush's deficit numbers, all you did was pontificate that it was in the off budget numbers.
Yeah, $340 billion taken from trust fund surpluses.
Which you still don't understand.
If supplemental spending is kept secret and not included in any borrowing numbers, how do you know there was any supplemental spending?
And why isn't it a huge scandal?
Do you imagine you've discovered some deep dark secret? LOL!
I have already shown that the debt rose 500 billion in 2007, so there is 340 billion in 2007 deficit spending that is not accounted for in Bush's phony 161 billion deficit.
The actual debt rose 500 billion, Bush used accounting gimmicks, banned by Obama, to make a real deficit of 500 billion into a phony 161 billion deficit. If the 2007 deficit was only 161 then the national debt would not have risen by 500 billion.Total debt rose by $500 billion. Net debt rose by $160 billion.That patented CON$ervative dumb act again!Yeah, $340 billion taken from trust fund surpluses.
Which you still don't understand.
If supplemental spending is kept secret and not included in any borrowing numbers, how do you know there was any supplemental spending?
And why isn't it a huge scandal?
Do you imagine you've discovered some deep dark secret? LOL!
I have already shown that the debt rose 500 billion in 2007, so there is 340 billion in 2007 deficit spending that is not accounted for in Bush's phony 161 billion deficit.
The numbers are readily available. You've seen them yourself.
Nothing phony about any of them.
Sorry you still don't understand.
The actual debt rose 500 billion, Bush used accounting gimmicks, banned by Obama, to make a real deficit of 500 billion into a phony 161 billion deficit. If the 2007 deficit was only 161 then the national debt would not have risen by 500 billion.Total debt rose by $500 billion. Net debt rose by $160 billion.That patented CON$ervative dumb act again!
I have already shown that the debt rose 500 billion in 2007, so there is 340 billion in 2007 deficit spending that is not accounted for in Bush's phony 161 billion deficit.
The numbers are readily available. You've seen them yourself.
Nothing phony about any of them.
Sorry you still don't understand.
So borrowing and spending from "trust funds" is not deficit spending. It's that kind of GOP "Deficits don't matter" if you steal from "trust funds" attitude that has put us 14 trillion in debt.The actual debt rose 500 billion, Bush used accounting gimmicks, banned by Obama, to make a real deficit of 500 billion into a phony 161 billion deficit. If the 2007 deficit was only 161 then the national debt would not have risen by 500 billion.Total debt rose by $500 billion. Net debt rose by $160 billion.
The numbers are readily available. You've seen them yourself.
Nothing phony about any of them.
Sorry you still don't understand.
Total debt rose by $500 billion. Total debt held by the public rose by $160 billion. Total debt "owed to the trust funds" rose by $340 billion.
No gimmicks. Spending the "trust funds" hasn't been banned by Obama.
If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.So borrowing and spending from "trust funds" is not deficit spending. It's that kind of GOP "Deficits don't matter" if you steal from "trust funds" attitude that has put us 14 trillion in debt.The actual debt rose 500 billion, Bush used accounting gimmicks, banned by Obama, to make a real deficit of 500 billion into a phony 161 billion deficit. If the 2007 deficit was only 161 then the national debt would not have risen by 500 billion.
Total debt rose by $500 billion. Total debt held by the public rose by $160 billion. Total debt "owed to the trust funds" rose by $340 billion.
No gimmicks. Spending the "trust funds" hasn't been banned by Obama.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Bush did not put one penny "in the bank." Bush borrowed 340 billion from the trust funds "bank" and spent it!If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.So borrowing and spending from "trust funds" is not deficit spending. It's that kind of GOP "Deficits don't matter" if you steal from "trust funds" attitude that has put us 14 trillion in debt.Total debt rose by $500 billion. Total debt held by the public rose by $160 billion. Total debt "owed to the trust funds" rose by $340 billion.
No gimmicks. Spending the "trust funds" hasn't been banned by Obama.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.
Isn't it terrible. That's another reason to privatize Social Security.Bush did not put one penny "in the bank." Bush borrowed 340 billion from the trust funds "bank" and spent it!If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.So borrowing and spending from "trust funds" is not deficit spending. It's that kind of GOP "Deficits don't matter" if you steal from "trust funds" attitude that has put us 14 trillion in debt.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.
You can say that. But then you'd have to say that the deficit was $160 billion.If you borrow money from a bank and spend it, your bank account does NOT increase by the amount you spent!!!!
So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.Isn't it terrible. That's another reason to privatize Social Security.Bush did not put one penny "in the bank." Bush borrowed 340 billion from the trust funds "bank" and spent it!If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.You can say that. But then you'd have to say that the deficit was $160 billion.If you borrow money from a bank and spend it, your bank account does NOT increase by the amount you spent!!!!
No, spending $160 billion more than you take in is what makes the deficit $160 billion.So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.Isn't it terrible. That's another reason to privatize Social Security.Bush did not put one penny "in the bank." Bush borrowed 340 billion from the trust funds "bank" and spent it!You can say that. But then you'd have to say that the deficit was $160 billion.If you borrow money from a bank and spend it, your bank account does NOT increase by the amount you spent!!!!
So why are you CON$ complaining about borrowing more money, the more we borrow and spend, according to you, the lower the deficit gets.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney
So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
No I understand perfectly. The "deficit" is a phony number that has nothing to do with how much money was borrowed to cover what was really spent each year. How much the national debt increases each year tells you how much money was borrowed to cover the deficit spending for each year.So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
Problem is edtheliar, you don't grasp the difference between deficit and debt.
No I understand perfectly. The "deficit" is a phony number that has nothing to do with how much money was borrowed to cover what was really spent each year. How much the national debt increases each year tells you how much money was borrowed to cover the deficit spending for each year.So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
Problem is edtheliar, you don't grasp the difference between deficit and debt.
Get it?
No I understand perfectly. The "deficit" is a phony number that has nothing to do with how much money was borrowed to cover what was really spent each year. How much the national debt increases each year tells you how much money was borrowed to cover the deficit spending for each year.So, SPENDING an extra 340 billion of BORROWED money reduces the 500 billion debt to 160 billion.
Problem is edtheliar, you don't grasp the difference between deficit and debt.
Get it?
It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!No I understand perfectly. The "deficit" is a phony number that has nothing to do with how much money was borrowed to cover what was really spent each year. How much the national debt increases each year tells you how much money was borrowed to cover the deficit spending for each year.Problem is edtheliar, you don't grasp the difference between deficit and debt.
Get it?
when you pay your SS taxes is the government "borrowing" the money from you? No, they're taxing you. The money they count in the deficit from SS taxes is not "borrowed", it's "collected".
LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!No I understand perfectly. The "deficit" is a phony number that has nothing to do with how much money was borrowed to cover what was really spent each year. How much the national debt increases each year tells you how much money was borrowed to cover the deficit spending for each year.
Get it?
when you pay your SS taxes is the government "borrowing" the money from you? No, they're taxing you. The money they count in the deficit from SS taxes is not "borrowed", it's "collected".
LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!when you pay your SS taxes is the government "borrowing" the money from you? No, they're taxing you. The money they count in the deficit from SS taxes is not "borrowed", it's "collected".
Originally Posted by ToddsterpatriotIf you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.
An IOU means the general fund BORROWED the money.LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!when you pay your SS taxes is the government "borrowing" the money from you? No, they're taxing you. The money they count in the deficit from SS taxes is not "borrowed", it's "collected".
