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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So... I pass a bad policy. It's my policy right? And the policy causes tons and tons of debt. It's all my fault.
So far.... I'm with you. I agree with that logic. Bush did bad, bad cost money, thus debt is Bush's fault.
We all agree.
Here's the problem sparky............ The MOMENT that Obama got into office, he COULD HAVE cut those bad policies, and repealed the bad plan, cut the spending, and taken a new course of action.
If Obama had done that, I would right here, right now, be supporting Obama on that.
Is that what Obama did? No. It is not. Not only did Obama not repeal the bad Bush policies... he extended them, and expanded them. He inherited a bad Federal Deficit, and made it 5 times worse.
Now whether you agree with this or not, the fact is, the moment Obama continued Bush policies, and expanded Bush policies, and increased Bush policies.... the moment he did that.... HE OWNS IT.
Whether you like it or not, that's the fact.
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.
You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.
Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
The rightwing denial in this thread would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
Of course the leftwing denial is worse.
The Democrats passed the CRA when that idiot Carter was President and years later it comes back and bites this country in the ass big time almost collapsing our economy. Who would have ever thunk that using government pressure to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that neither had the means or the inclination to pay back the money would tank our economy? Answer: not the Liberals. They never think about the consequences of their failed policies.
The CRA was enhanced during the Clinton administration but when Barney Queerboy, Obama, Peloski and Reid took over Congress after the 2006 election it really was able to do its damage.
After that it was just poor management by the Democrats. Bush was an idiot going along with the Democrats in 2007 and 2008. However, when that shithead Obama took over it got worse and we still haven't recovered.
Meanwhile the Democrats have given us a poor recovery, tremendously more debt, much larger destructive government, lowest workforce participation in 40 years, very high U-6 unemployment, highest poverty rate ever, most number of people on welfare, more taxes, worse health care and declining family income , not to mention a really shitty foreign policy. Thanks a lot Obama.
Now these butt pirates Democrats didn't do it all by themselves. The Republicans didn't stop the Democrats so they are partially responsible. When you elect big government shitheads whether they be Republican or Democrats you always get bad government.
RIGHT WING NONSENSE. SHOCKING
Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?
A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.
From Bushs Presidents Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008
The Presidents Working Groups March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.
Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?
A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf
Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse
Bush's documented policies and statements in time frame leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)
Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2003)
Giving away 40,000 PER YEAR free down payments (2004)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)
But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT THESE BILLS THE DEMS PASSED JAN 2007-JAN 2009 THAT CRASHED THE US ECONOMY?? LOL
The precursor to the crash started the day the stupid Democrats enacted the CRA.
Bill Clinton strengthened the CRA. George Bush didn't put a stop to it.
It all came tumbling down when Barney Queerboy assumed chairmanship of the Finance Committee and that stupid 2006 Democrat Congress assumed power and didn't provide the oversight to stop the out of control Fannie Mae.
The government told the lending institutions to give credit to minorities and if that cause problems then the government would bail them, which is exactly what happen.
It is time for the Liberals to take responsibility for the mess they got this country into by trying to give credit to the minorities than neither had the means or inclination to ever pay the money back.
Of course Liberals never take responsibility for anything, do they?
Housing Finance and the 2008 Financial Crisis Downsizing the Federal Government
Housing Finance and the 2008 Financial Crisis
Overview
The financial crisis and recession of 2008 and 2009 were serious blows to the U.S. economy, so it is important to step back and understand what caused them. While some people have pointed to financial deregulation and private-sector greed as the sources of the problems, it was actually misguided monetary and housing policies that were the main causes of the crisis.
The expansion in risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers was encouraged by the federal government. The growth of "creative" nonprime lending followed Congress's strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal Housing Administration's loosening of down-payment standards, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's pressuring of lenders to extend mortgages to borrowers who previously would not have qualified.
Meanwhile, the government-supported mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, grew to own or guarantee about half of the United States' $12 trillion mortgage market. Congressional leaders pointedly refused to moderate the distortions created by the government's implicit guarantee that the firms would not be allowed to fail, which was the catalyst for their rapid expansion. Instead, Congress pushed them to promote "affordable housing" through expanded purchases of nonprime loans to low-income applicants.
The credit that fueled these risky mortgages was provided by the cheap money policy of the Federal Reserve. Following the 2001 recession, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan slashed the federal funds rate from 6.25 to 1.75 percent. It was reduced further in 2002 and 2003, reaching a record low of 1 percent in mid-2003—where it stayed for a year. This created excessive liquidity and generated a huge demand bubble.
Thus, the causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves, unwise regulations, and misguided federal housing policies. These poorly chosen policies distorted interest rates and asset prices, diverted loanable funds into the wrong investments, and twisted normally robust financial institutions into unsustainable positions.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development budget costs taxpayers more than $50 billion annually, but the economic damage caused by ill-advised federal housing policies has cost the U.S. economy far more than that. For that reason, HUD housing finance subsidies should be repealed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be fully privatized and stripped of government guarantees, while being freed from federal mandates. With a neutral and noninterventionist approach to housing policy, federal taxpayers would save money and markets would work more efficiently to benefit everybody—except those seeking subsidies at taxpayer expense.
snip
The long-term remedy for the severely mistaken government monetary and regulatory policies that have produced the current financial train wreck is similar. We need to identify and undo policies that distort housing and financial markets, and dismantle failed agencies and departments, such as HUD, whose missions require them to distort markets. We should be guided by recognizing the two chief errors that have been made. First, cheap-money policies by the Federal Reserve do not produce sustainable prosperity. Second, delivering mortgage subsidies by imposing affordable housing mandates on banks and by providing federal support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds can backfire in a tragic way that damages the broader economy.
No shit!
Bush said he was giving us a tax rebate upon entering office because there was a surplus. Are you saying he was lying? Should he not have given us that rebate?
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
Got it, an ignorant tool conflating a yearly budget versus debt. Shocking
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Budget Surplus'
When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.
The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.
MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!
Then explain how Clinton increased the debt every year he supposedly ran a surplus.
Yes, BECAUSE the US federal Gov't would just stop on a dime right? Fkkking dishonest cons today!
Why is it EVERY other US Prez accepts responsibility for their first budget AFTER they are in office and get their players in place with the next fiscal year budget, but Obama, he had super powers and accepts responsibility for most of Dubya's final and 8th fiscal year budget??? lol
Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.
MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking
AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*
Gawdddmn POS conservatives!
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.
Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.
Just ask Reagan.
Because he signed the final approps bill for that year AND because his party was in power in Congress and they set it up so he could do that.
MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking
AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*
Gawdddmn POS conservatives!
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.
Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.
Just ask Reagan.
Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!
Dishonest POS conservatives!
PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol
Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!
I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!
List the problems caused by President Obama:
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
1. Obamacare
2. A tediously slow recovery
3. The Iran deal
4. Losing Iraq
5. The rise of ISIS
6. Pissing off Israel
7. The specter of immigration amnesty/overrun border
8. IRS, Fast and Furious, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, SEC management scandals
9. Politicization of the career civil service
10. DOJ run amuck
11. Partisan divisiveness worsened
12. Race relations worsened
13. Congressional relations worsened
14. Fake War on Women
15. Actual War on Christians
I could go on.
Flash, step in, please.
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
Any asshole politician who claims the federal government is running a surplus is a liar, you don't run a surplus until you've paid all outstanding obligations and have money left over.
Got it, an ignorant tool conflating a yearly budget versus debt. Shocking
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Budget Surplus'
When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.
The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.
MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!
Then explain how Clinton increased the debt every year he supposedly ran a surplus.
REALLY? You don't understand the difference with debt versus YEARLY budgets? Hint, EXCESS payments came into Gov't that ws REQUIRED BY LAW to buy US bonds (created intra Gov't debt)!!!! You do know Reagan increased SS taxes by over $2.7+ trillion in 1983 to "save SS" right? The money that has been used to fund Gov't AND hide Ronnie/Dubya's TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!!
A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out, NOT Steiner BS premise that IF debt increases, you can't have a surplus!
MORE right wing nonsense. Shocking
AGAIN, Dubya, like every other US Prez isn't responsible for the 8th and final F/Y budget BECAUSE he chose to evade signing it? lol The F/Y that started 4 months prior to Obama coming into office and that the CBO predicted was $1.2+ trillion in deficit 12 days pre Obama? *shaking head*
Gawdddmn POS conservatives!
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.
Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.
Just ask Reagan.
Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!
Dishonest POS conservatives!
PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol
Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!
I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!
No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.
Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.
Bush did not evade signing it, you fool. Congress did not present him with full year appropriations.
They intentionally waited till Obama took office to pass the full year approps.
You are too stupid and obtuse on this issue to post to.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.
Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.
Just ask Reagan.
Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!
Dishonest POS conservatives!
PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol
Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!
I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!
No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.
Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.
February 4, 2008
Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion
Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”
Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0
Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables
NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol
More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
You didn't ask for any.
Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.
Got it, an ignorant tool conflating a yearly budget versus debt. Shocking
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'Budget Surplus'
When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.
Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia
More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.
The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.
MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!
Then explain how Clinton increased the debt every year he supposedly ran a surplus.
REALLY? You don't understand the difference with debt versus YEARLY budgets? Hint, EXCESS payments came into Gov't that ws REQUIRED BY LAW to buy US bonds (created intra Gov't debt)!!!! You do know Reagan increased SS taxes by over $2.7+ trillion in 1983 to "save SS" right? The money that has been used to fund Gov't AND hide Ronnie/Dubya's TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!!
A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out, NOT Steiner BS premise that IF debt increases, you can't have a surplus!
Evidently you don't understand, see the portion of your previous post I put in bold. Evidently you're too ignorant to think for yourself, now go away BUBBA you're dismissed.
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
You didn't ask for any.
Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.
Goood for you Bubba
Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.
To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.
Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).
In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.
The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
Reagan s Budget Proposals
NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?
Obama and the democrats did try to correct the bad policy that the bush boy and republicans forced on our nation.
Pelosi got a lot of it passed through the House. However when it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it. Just as they filibustered almost every piece of legislation that was passed out of the House.
Now before you start in on super majorities being able to break that republican filibuster, the democrats never had 60 people in their seats to vote.
If you're honest you will remember that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until SEVEN months after everyone else. He was sworn in to the Senate in July 2009. By that time senators Byrd and Kennedy were dying. They weren't actually in their seats to vote. They were in the hospital mostly on their death beds. When Kennedy died Massachusetts elected a republican for his seat.
So there never was a 60 seat majority for the democrats to break the gop filibuster and pass the legislation to correct all the bad policy the bush boy enacted and left behind.
The republicans want that policy to stay in place and we've been suffering from it all this time. It won't stop until democrats have control of the house and a filibuster proof majority in the senate. Which I don't see happening anytime soon. The gop has gerrymandered the seats in the House so much that it will be nearly impossible to break that majority.
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.
You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.
Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
First of all, I'm no Bubba. Tends to be a term applied to men.
Secondly, you do not understand the budgetary and appropriations process. As someone whose career was doing that, I find posting the same basic information over and over to you tedious because you are ignorant and not learning.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
You didn't ask for any.
Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.
Goood for you Bubba
Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.
To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.
Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).
In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.
The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
Reagan s Budget Proposals
NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?
You still don't get it, do you?
You do know that Senate rules prohibit filibusters on budget bills, right?
While a filibuster is prohibited for budget bills, the senate also has a rule that for it to actually go into effect or be enacted it must have cooperation from the House in a resolution passed by the house. OR at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist
From the article:
It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote. However, the resolution does not take effect when the Senate passes it. It takes effect in one of two ways: if the House and Senate pass an identical resolution, usually in the form of a conference report; or if the Senate passes a separate Senate Resolution (as opposed to a concurrent resolution, which is what a budget resolution is) that says the House is “deemed” to have agreed to the budget resolution passed by the Senate.
But there are no special procedures for the simple Senate Resolution required by this second, “deeming” process, so it is subject to the unlimited debate allowed on almost everything in the Senate. If you do not have the support of 60 Senators to invoke cloture and end a filibuster, or prevent a filibuster from even starting (because everyone knows 60 Senators support cloture), you cannot pass such a deeming resolution in the Senate.
Because its rules are different, the House with a simple majority can pass a resolution deeming that the House and Senate have agreed to the House resolution so that it can take effect. This means the allocations in the resolution, such as for appropriations, are in effect in the House and anybody can raise a point-of-order against legislation that would cause a committee to exceed its allocation.
But this is for purposes of enforcement in the House only. What the House does has no effect whatsoever on the Senate or its budget enforcement. And vice versa, if the Senate deems that its budget resolution has been agreed to.
With the exception of reconciliation legislation, it effectively takes 60 votes to consider any legislation in the Senate so it really does not matter whether the resolution has been adopted; if you have 60, you can consider the legislation, if you don't, you can't.
The bottom line is the budget process set out in the Budget Act works pretty well when the Congress can agree on budget policies. When they cannot, no process in the world can make things work smoothly, but Congress muddles through and does what absolutely has to be done (like keeping the government from shutting down or defaulting on the debt). Not having a budget resolution in place is a symptom of the inability to reach agreement – not the cause of Congress not being able to accomplish things.
Correcting the mess the bush boy and gop left behind can't be done in just a budget. It will and did take separate legislation to reverse the damage. For example:
Nancy Pelosi passed a bill that removed the tax benefits of moving a business out of America. It imposed penalties for those who did it and it gave tax rewards to those who brought business back to America. When it got to the Senate the republicans promptly filibustered it and killed it.
Pelosi also passed a bill that would remove a lot the subsidies and tax loopholes that big oil companies receive. When it got to the Senate the republicans filibustered it and killed it.
I can go on and on with good legislation that was passed in the House only to be filibustered and killed in the Senate by the republicans.
Thank you for your link on the budget resolution process.
You make, however, a very common error in confusing the budget resolution, which is really only a guideline for Congressional committee action, with actual appropriations legislation, which is binding on the entire nation.
Go back and understand the difference and then perhaps we can talk.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
First of all, I'm no Bubba. Tends to be a term applied to men.
Secondly, you do not understand the budgetary and appropriations process. As someone whose career was doing that, I find posting the same basic information over and over to you tedious because you are ignorant and not learning.
You mean your a Bubbette who isn't honest? I'm shocked. Basic info is DUBYA, LIKE EVERY OTHER US PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FINAL F/Y BUDGET THAT STARTS 4 MONTHS BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE. To claim otherwise is BS!!!
Please tell me about this spending inferno Obama created if not??? lol
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
You didn't ask for any.
Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.
Goood for you Bubba
Reagan's proposals were based on such optimistic forecasts of the economy that they bore little resemblance to reality.
To understand how the ruse works, a brief review of the budget process is helpful. A budget passed by Congress is not written in stone; there are actually many flexible items in it. One example is unemployment. The budget says, "Pay each unemployed person XXXX amount in unemployment compensation." If the unemployment rate rises higher next year than anticipated, the budget automatically pays these extra individuals without requiring Congressional action.
Another example of a flexible budget item is interest on the debt. If interest rates soar or receipts drop more than expected, then interests costs are going to be greater. These are paid without Congressional action (unless the debt limit is reached).
In the president's budget proposals, he must estimate next year's unemployment rate, interest rates, and several other economic indicators. We have already seen that in Reagan's first budget, David Stockman came up with a super-optimistic forecast that predicted 5 percent economic growth. (The higher the growth, the less government has to spend on unemployment, welfare, stimulus packages, etc.) Today, Stockman derisively refers to his first budget as the "Rosy Scenario." Although Reagan's remaining budgets were not quite as far-fetched as the Rosy Scenario, they were indeed much too optimistic. In fact, the only reason why spending surpassed the requests in only 7 instead of all 8 years was because one year -- 1984 -- actually saw a phenomenal spike of 6 percent growth.
What supply-siders are doing with the above chart, then, is comparing what was spent in the real world with what Reagan proposed in 8 Rosy Scenarios. They then blame the difference on Congressional action -- despite the fact that Congress didn't act on these increases.
The ruse is akin to a President proposing to spend one dollar on the budget next year, and blaming Congress for (inevitably) exceeding this proposal. Even if it turns out that Congress cuts the real budget, and the economy does better than normal!
As reported on the previous page, the House Appropriations Committee conducted a study that compared Reagan's concrete proposals to what Congress actually passed, not what was spent afterwards. And it found that Reagan asked for $29.4 billion more than Congress passed.
Reagan s Budget Proposals
NEXT TALKING POINT? TELL ME ABOUT THE DEMS NOT HOLDING UP THEIR SIDE OF NONIE'S BARGAIN? PLEASE?
You still don't get it, do you?
That Congress gave Ronnie less money than he asked for? Sure. Do you?
\More right wing nonsense. Shocking
If it's nonsense, please refute my post, point by point.
If you can't do that, well, then, your positions are not well thought out.
A list that means about as much as your farts? AND? Grow a brain, want to make a posit, show WHY, how and by whom!!!
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You asked for a list of his failures. I complied.
It's up to you to refute the list.
You gave NO justifications for ANYTHING (most because you couldn't.)
BUT LETS GET ONTO RONNIE PLEASE? I'M READY
You didn't ask for any.
Every year Ronnie proposed deep cuts to domestic spending, including abolishing some programs (I happened to work for one of those at the time). Congress put them back in, every year.
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll382.xml
On February 4, 2008, President George W. Bush submitted (as is customary for a president to do so) a budget request to the U.S. Congress for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It would amount to $3.1 trillion in federal spending, and trim spending on several domestic programs while eliminating others. In addition, his proposal would make permanent the tax cuts passed during his first term and increase defense spending by 5 percent
FY 2009 U.S. federal budget - OpenCongress Wiki
WANT TO TRY AGAIN BUBBA??
If you go back several pages, I explained the entire budgetary process in detail.
Let me point out that submission of the President's budget does not mean it will be passed into law.
Just ask Reagan.
Yet the Congress gave Dubya a budget he NEVER signed. Go figure, my original posit stands!
Dishonest POS conservatives!
PLEASE tell me more about Ronnie not getting the budgets he wanted, since Congress spent LESS than what he wanted AND his budgets were NOTHING like reality to begin with, thinking growth (and receipts) would be much higher! lol
Come on Bubba, DARE YOU!
I'm ready to crash your stupid ass with FACT BASED DATA!!!!!
No, Congress did not give him a budget he never signed.
Posting to you is just stupid. You do not understand the process in the slightest and you keep posting things that are just not accurate.
February 4, 2008
Bush Seeks Budget of $3.1 Trillion
Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009. One agency, the Education Department, accounts for 47 of the terminated programs and three of the programs to be cut. But he would increase spending in areas that fall under the umbrella of “national security.”
Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.html?_r=0
Total expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)
$3.518 trillion (actual)
Budget FY 2011 - Summary Tables
NAH, DUBYA SHOULDN'T OWN MOST OF THE BUDGET RIGHT?? lol
It wasn't enacted. Go away till you understand the process.
More freaking word games, they should have said, A balanced budget occurs when on budget spending equals on budget income, the deficit does not reflect the total debt incurred by the federal government in a given year.
The fact is the federal government has carried a national debt most of it's existence and just servicing that debt will rise to near 1 trillion a year, in fact if there is a hiccup in interest rates it could exceed that. So just keep playing your word games, they won't mitigate the on coming disaster.
MORE nonsense. Shocking. A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it, NOTHING to do with whether income coming in versus go out are balanced or in deficit. Weird you don';t know that? Oh right the conservatives get most of their economic advice from guys who barely made it through high school, Rush, Hannity and Beck!
Then explain how Clinton increased the debt every year he supposedly ran a surplus.
REALLY? You don't understand the difference with debt versus YEARLY budgets? Hint, EXCESS payments came into Gov't that ws REQUIRED BY LAW to buy US bonds (created intra Gov't debt)!!!! You do know Reagan increased SS taxes by over $2.7+ trillion in 1983 to "save SS" right? The money that has been used to fund Gov't AND hide Ronnie/Dubya's TRUE costs of tax cuts for the rich!!!!
A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out, NOT Steiner BS premise that IF debt increases, you can't have a surplus!
Evidently you don't understand, see the portion of your previous post I put in bold. Evidently you're too ignorant to think for yourself, now go away BUBBA you're dismissed.
You moron, what's wrong with you? Can't use reason and logic?
"A yearly balanced budget, surplus OR deficit is created through ALL spending in a given year, whether through normal yearly budgets OR off-budge, debt is ONLY a byproduct of it"
...A yearly budget is ONLY money coming in versus going out,"
lol
