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.
As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.Thanks for that link.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $3.388 Trillion to $6.317 Trillion. An increase of $2.929 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2001 and 1/31/2009)
from $5.716 trillion to $10.632 trillion. An increase of $4.916 Trillion.
I see Debt Held by the Public went (between 1/31/2001 and 5/31/2011)
from $6.317 Trillion to $9.723 Trillion. An increase of $3.406 Trillion.
I see Total Debt went (between 1/31/2008 and 5/31/2011)
from $10.632 Trillion to $14.345 Trillion. An increase of $3.713 Trillion.
Looks like Obama's first 28 months have beat Bush's 96 months when you look at Debt Held by the Public.
I'll bet by this time next year, Obama will have beat Bush's 8 year total for Total Debt as well.
So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.
I was not the one using budget trickery, it was JeRK. And when CON$ wanted to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extending unemployment benefits they argued that very little of it was spent in 2009 because the Dems were saving it for just before the 2012 election. So obviously very little of would be counted against Bush.As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.
So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.
You have to remember that Reagan is the one who said in his first State of the Union speech that you measure each presidents debt by the fiscal year plus interest. I am merely using St Ronnie's established CON$ervative standard.
I was not the one using budget trickery, it was JeRK. And when CON$ wanted to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extending unemployment benefits they argued that very little of it was spent in 2009 because the Dems were saving it for just before the 2012 election. So obviously very little of would be counted against Bush.As you well know, the budget is based on fiscal years not calendar years. And the yearly budget deficit is the yearly increase in the total debt for each budget, not the public debt.
So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.
You have to remember that Reagan is the one who said in his first State of the Union speech that you measure each presidents debt by the fiscal year plus interest. I am merely using St Ronnie's established CON$ervative standard.
Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!BULLSHIT!!!!
Providing Right wing propaganda is your intent! The Heritage Foundation, your source, is easily the most dishonest source known to man for anything. you already contradicted your own "accurate information" when you denied a surplus in 2000 and 2001.
Here are the ACTUAL debt numbers for the Bush fiscal years and the numbers in your dishonest Heritage chart are not even close!!! Only the most gullible fool on the face of the earth would be stupid enough to swallow any crap from Heritage!
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.
yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see
I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.
My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.During the Clinton administration, the federal budget ran a surplus for four consecutive years, something that had not been accomplished for seven decades
I used the total debt number, not your public debt number. Borrowing from trust funds and pension funds is still borrowing to pay for deficit spending, so the total debt is the only honest debt number, not public debt.I was not the one using budget trickery, it was JeRK. And when CON$ wanted to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extending unemployment benefits they argued that very little of it was spent in 2009 because the Dems were saving it for just before the 2012 election. So obviously very little of would be counted against Bush.So the Obama stimulus package passed on February 17, 2009 should count against Bush, because his budget ran until September 2009?
The Debt Held by the Public numbers and Total Debt numbers I posted are more accurate than adding each years "budget deficit" numbers together. My way takes into account "off-budget" trickery that politicians use. They can't trick us when we add up all the bonds they sell.
You have to remember that Reagan is the one who said in his first State of the Union speech that you measure each presidents debt by the fiscal year plus interest. I am merely using St Ronnie's established CON$ervative standard.
If you don't use the debt numbers I posted, you are using budget trickery.
So some of the stimulus was spent in 2009 and you want to blame Bush for it?
I don't remember Reagan saying that in his first State of the Union speech.
Do you have a link?
Damn you CON$ are thick! I already pointed out the debt numbers I used that show Bush's $6 trillion spending spree do not show a surplus during the Clinton years.Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!So you want to blame GWB for the interest on the debt he inherited?
Typically those who are not hacks only look at the debt that president added
but if you want to add the interest to it then Obama has added about 4 trillion in 2 years, best I can tell
09 is over 1.2 his
this would also mean there was never a surplus and Clinton added about 2 trillion, 1.5 to 2
look, your a hack, I understand that
us that really care only count the debt the policies add
not the interest
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
this is from MSNBC
US budget deficit falls to lowest level in 5 years - politics - msnbc.com
The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.
yours state that we had 500 billion or so that year (07)
see
I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.
My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if you will apply the same indignation and rules of the road over this statement that was in the MSNBC article.
.During the Clinton administration, the federal budget ran a surplus for four consecutive years, something that had not been accomplished for seven decades
I used the total debt number, not your public debt number. Borrowing from trust funds and pension funds is still borrowing to pay for deficit spending, so the total debt is the only honest debt number, not public debt.I was not the one using budget trickery, it was JeRK. And when CON$ wanted to use unspent stimulus money to pay for extending unemployment benefits they argued that very little of it was spent in 2009 because the Dems were saving it for just before the 2012 election. So obviously very little of would be counted against Bush.
You have to remember that Reagan is the one who said in his first State of the Union speech that you measure each presidents debt by the fiscal year plus interest. I am merely using St Ronnie's established CON$ervative standard.
If you don't use the debt numbers I posted, you are using budget trickery.
So some of the stimulus was spent in 2009 and you want to blame Bush for it?
I don't remember Reagan saying that in his first State of the Union speech.
Do you have a link?
And in his first speech to the nation St Ronnie attacked Carter for the nearly $1 trillion in debt at the time, mind you in 4 years Carter added only about $300 billion to the debt he inherited and Reagan added $2 trillion in 8, and Reagan pointed out that his spending including interest will start October 1 of that year.
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery - February 18, 1981
Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt.
Ignoring our terrible problems will not make them go away. The Democrats just want to ignore and pass these terrible problems onto future generations. Is that the right thing to do? I'll let you decide that for yourselves.
If you think putting the Republicans back in power is going to result in the GOP taking the tough, politically toxic measures needed to straighten out our fiscal situation you are delusional.
Put the GOP back in power and the first thing they'll do is exacerbate our fiscal situation by cutting taxes even further, digging that revenue hole even deeper and making the hard spending cut choices even harder.
why do you think higher taxes will fix this mess?
If you think putting the Republicans back in power is going to result in the GOP taking the tough, politically toxic measures needed to straighten out our fiscal situation you are delusional.
Put the GOP back in power and the first thing they'll do is exacerbate our fiscal situation by cutting taxes even further, digging that revenue hole even deeper and making the hard spending cut choices even harder.
why do you think higher taxes will fix this mess?
I'm not talking about higher taxes. I'm talking about the fanciful notion of some that putting the GOP back in power is going to result in any improvement in the country's fiscal situation.
The GOP will cut taxes further and not pay for them because paying for them is not politically expedient. Tax cutting no matter what the consequences is the GOP's religion. That's what happens to politicians who make a pledge to a radical anti-tax lobbyist that supersedes their oath of office.
So I guess cutting spending is out of the question ??
It is really that simple
we won in Iraq, that cost is really gone, yet the deficit is went 7 times what it was in 07
the last GOP budget
So I guess cutting spending is out of the question ??
It is really that simple
we won in Iraq, that cost is really gone, yet the deficit is went 7 times what it was in 07
the last GOP budget
The last what? So you're saying the 2011 deficit belongs to the GOP, right?
Damn you CON$ are thick! I already pointed out the debt numbers I used that show Bush's $6 trillion spending spree do not show a surplus during the Clinton years.Damn, you are milking that CON$ervative dumb act to its limit!!!
I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.
My link gave the actual increase in debt that occurred for each fiscal year so what Bush "reported" is obviously the lie!!!!!! The national debt increased by over $500 billion in 07 because there was over $500 billion in deficit spending in 07. Obviously Bush kept $350 billion of that $500 billion in deficit spending off budget. But off budget deficit spending is still deficit spending as the increase in the national debt for 07 shows!!!!! The same phony bookkeeping that showed a surplus for 2000 and 2001, which you acknowledge as phony, produced the phony Bush $162 billion deficit for 07, but now you accept it a gospel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if you will apply the same indignation and rules of the road over this statement that was in the MSNBC article.
.During the Clinton administration, the federal budget ran a surplus for four consecutive years, something that had not been accomplished for seven decades
I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.
why do you think higher taxes will fix this mess?
I'm not talking about higher taxes. I'm talking about the fanciful notion of some that putting the GOP back in power is going to result in any improvement in the country's fiscal situation.
The GOP will cut taxes further and not pay for them because paying for them is not politically expedient. Tax cutting no matter what the consequences is the GOP's religion. That's what happens to politicians who make a pledge to a radical anti-tax lobbyist that supersedes their oath of office.
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
]
why do you think higher taxes will fix this mess?
I'm not talking about higher taxes. I'm talking about the fanciful notion of some that putting the GOP back in power is going to result in any improvement in the country's fiscal situation.
The GOP will cut taxes further and not pay for them because paying for them is not politically expedient. Tax cutting no matter what the consequences is the GOP's religion. That's what happens to politicians who make a pledge to a radical anti-tax lobbyist that supersedes their oath of office.
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
people pay taxes
If you cut my taxes as GWB did I will be allowed to keep more of my own wealth
Your point is that cutting taxes means there will be less revenue?
That is not true
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
I'm not talking about higher taxes. I'm talking about the fanciful notion of some that putting the GOP back in power is going to result in any improvement in the country's fiscal situation.
The GOP will cut taxes further and not pay for them because paying for them is not politically expedient. Tax cutting no matter what the consequences is the GOP's religion. That's what happens to politicians who make a pledge to a radical anti-tax lobbyist that supersedes their oath of office.
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
people pay taxes
If you cut my taxes as GWB did I will be allowed to keep more of my own wealth
Your point is that cutting taxes means there will be less revenue?
That is not true
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Bush did not boost federal revenue. That is a myth. Revenue topped 2 trillion in 2000, Bush never got 2 trillion in revenue until 2005.
You can read it right here:
Historical Tables | The White House
Open table 1.1
I'm not talking about higher taxes. I'm talking about the fanciful notion of some that putting the GOP back in power is going to result in any improvement in the country's fiscal situation.
The GOP will cut taxes further and not pay for them because paying for them is not politically expedient. Tax cutting no matter what the consequences is the GOP's religion. That's what happens to politicians who make a pledge to a radical anti-tax lobbyist that supersedes their oath of office.
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
]
Well for the sake of not letting you dodge the issue by changing the subject into some childish quibble over semantics,
what would you like to call it when the government cuts taxes, but does not accompany the tax cuts with a comparable amount of spending cuts that offset the lost revenue in the tax cuts.
Give it a name and we'll call it that.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
]
Well for the sake of not letting you dodge the issue by changing the subject into some childish quibble over semantics,
what would you like to call it when the government cuts taxes, but does not accompany the tax cuts with a comparable amount of spending cuts that offset the lost revenue in the tax cuts.
Give it a name and we'll call it that.
I will steal from a former poster to point out how Bush paid for his tax cuts.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
We can agree that someone hid Bush's veto pen and the Republicans spent like drunk sailors for 6 years. That spending was the cause of the deficits and increase in the national debt.
And the spending has to be stopped by the Republicans that now own the House.
With respect
there is no such of thing as paying for tax cuts
people pay taxes
If you cut my taxes as GWB did I will be allowed to keep more of my own wealth
Your point is that cutting taxes means there will be less revenue?
That is not true
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a surprise windfall.
DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Bush did not boost federal revenue. That is a myth. Revenue topped 2 trillion in 2000, Bush never got 2 trillion in revenue until 2005.
You can read it right here:
Historical Tables | The White House
Open table 1.1
So he really did then anyway right?? but you wanted it in 2003 so 05 doesn't mean anything??
The only deficit during the Clinton terms was the $2 trillion in interest on the $3 trillion Reagan/Bush I in deficits they ran up and passed on to Clinton. As you can see from St Ronnie's speech below, there is about $90 billion in interest per trillion of debt. Reagan and Bush I ran up about $3.5 trillion which is about $315 billion per year for the 8 Clinton years which comes to about $2.5 trillion total in interest which is about equal to Clinton's total deficit for his 8 years.Damn you CON$ are thick! I already pointed out the debt numbers I used that show Bush's $6 trillion spending spree do not show a surplus during the Clinton years.I wonder if you will apply the same indignation and rules of the road over this statement that was in the MSNBC article.
.
Calling conservatives thick is not an answer to my question. Your statement that prompted my question is this:
Wha' hoppen to Clinton's deficit interest?I blamed Reagan and Bush I for the interest on the debt Bush II inherited and I blamed those 3 for the interest on the debt Obama inherited.
And, your response to the Obama stimulus addition to the FY2009 budget and blaming that deficit spending on Bush was BS. Feel free to subtract the amount that Obama spent on all of those 'shovel ready' jobs.
Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery - February 18, 1981
Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt.
