🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

The end of "The Period of American WO"

That money is spent - end of story.


Trump wouldn't like you.

You'd tell him his entire new building cost must be expensed immediately instead of amortized over the life of the building.

You also are not a CPA, a CFA, or anything close....
 
That money is spent - end of story.


Trump wouldn't like you.

You'd tell him his entire new building cost must be expensed immediately instead of amortized over the life of the building.

You also are not a CPA, a CFA, or anything close....
No I would not. Are you trying to state that the growth in debt that is recorded is due to money that was not actually spent but was projected to be spent?

Because I do not think that is the case at all.
 
You do not understand accounting. Period. Things like amortization, accounting for projects that take more than a year to complete, you are completely lost on those issues.

Bottom line, this topic is about how our debt was under control before the Period of American WO, and now it isn't, thanks to W and O, the two worst Presidents in US history by a light year...
 
You do not understand accounting. Period. Things like amortization, accounting for projects that take more than a year to complete, you are completely lost on those issues.

Bottom line, this topic is about how our debt was under control before the Period of American WO, and now it isn't, thanks to W and O, the two worst Presidents in US history by a light year...
Uh huh.

Avoiding the actual question. It is clear that you are here to demand that no one knows anything but yourself while also refusing to say what it is that you know.
 
...Treasure of US figures.


You are obviously not a CPA or a CFA. You just parrot and parrot and parrot and ignore the reality of the opening post.


You imbecile: I provide the Treasury figures!!!

These:

These are the actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!


Go get a magnifying glass and a calculator and see if any year showed a decrease.



Admit it: there was never....NEVER....any such Clinton surplus as you stated.
And 190% under Raygun, and doubled under W. The schmucks that gave us this pander to the rich mess...


You're really a slow learner....or, a non-learner.


1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Fiscal_consequences



Pop quiz:
Which is greater, $1.7 or $17

C'mon.....you can do it!


Don't you wish Obama had Reagan's success?

Obama sure does.
He ruined the country. The rich made a pile, dupe. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top