Bush VS. Clinton

Exposing the cost of the wars did nothing to change the debt numbers.

For instance, the reported deficit for 2008 was $458 billion but the change in the debt for that year was nearly two trillion.

When Obama put the wars back on the books in 2009, the reported deficit was 1.413T and the change in the debt was 1.6T.

In 2010, the reported deficit was 1.29T and the change in the debt was 1.23T. And so forth. The numbers will always be a little off because accounting on this scale is rather complicated, but the two numbers come closer and closer together as time goes by.

Openly admitting to knee jerking to something scary rather than thinking it through like a rational human being.

I like you. You're honest.

I know, our deficit is doing much better, but we need to get it to a positive number, I know a few good ways to do that, but if we're not going to do them then we need to increase the input.

Need a mix imo.

I'd personally like to strip the NSA of all funds, and the TSA, and repeal the patriot act, reduce pay of congress, damn near strip their benefits, eliminate their vacation pay, eliminate their retirement. I'd also like to reduce the population in prisons by legalizing marijuana and actually tax it to bring in more income to the coffers. Colorado has already been a good example of how much you can bring in.

That would just be a start.

It put it on the deficit for that year, overall increasing the debt, unless you're saying something else entirely, in which case, elaborate.

Silly me, trying to start a conversation by bashing on Bush and clinton on a leftist controlled forum. I'm sorry for forcing you to post at gunpoint by the way.

lol, what?


centrist, at best.

oh wait, that's right the "right" thinks everyone who doesn't agree with their radical fox news drivel is a socialist *** dirty liberal who's out to destroy freedom and 'Murica.

Just who do you plan to vote on that would do any of that besides Rand Paul?

Nobody, because nobody including him would do it. Even if he would be able to accomplish a few of the tasks, his radical isolationist platform is literally insane and has no place in the 21st century.

Edit: there's no party/politician that lines up with my views.

I'm saying reported deficit numbers don't influence the debt numbers at all. Yes, the yearly increase to the debt is supposed to be the deficit, however, they can outright lie and say the deficit is 0, but the debt will still continue to climb regardless.

The reason for that is because the reported deficit is just the reported number. If I decide to buy 3 things that cost 10 dollars each and only report that I bought 2 things, hiding the last item, my reported deficit is 20 dollars even though I'm down 30.

hmm, that really shouldn't be possible...

wasn't aware of that.

Well you don't have to take my word for it. Break out a calculator.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Bush lied about the deficit for his entire tenure, yet the debt still went up.

na it's fine, I'll read into it later.

ya, didn't think it through, it's in the middle of the night, and I'm exhausted...

Way to be relevant.

How did you not know that and you say I am the uneducated one.

'Lying' about your deficit is probably illegal but any 'smart' president can push their spending to the next guy going into office. One could a start project and keep the payments from showing up in the balance sheet until several years down the line. It's sort of like a hot potato, you try to hold it as long as you can but just remember to pass it to another guy before it blows up.

It's not exactly bad if you have a debt (everyone has debts these days). You are in debt but you aren't broke. That means you can do something about it. However, to pay back your debt, you need surplus in your balance sheet. For a government, they need to have a surplus to pay back debt. That means spending cuts and higher taxes.

US can't tax the middle class as they are still feeling the hurt from the crash. They can't tax the poor because it's stupid to do so. They can't tax the rich because those are trying to avoid taxes using the best money they can buy (e.g. Apple). Now if only you can convert those election money into taxes....

BTW, why is the fiscal year report of 2012 by the white house says federal debt is 13,528,807 millions (13,510,840 limit) and people are saying it 1.2T?

Well at least the right is willing to admit which side of the fence it's on. Seriously, do an image search on the political spectrum and see how greatly the interpretations vary and see how many place American liberals on the center line. Centrist is just a happy little Goldilocks term for liberals who want to feel like they're "juuuust right" in the middle.

You're a centrist as are most people here. If a true balls-to-the-wall liberal showed up here, I think some people's faces would melt Raiders of the Lost Ark-style.

Speaking of facemelters, just wanted to chime in here since there's been a few blips on the mod-radar coming from this thread...

Do not insult on a personal basis. Attack the content given. Anyone insulting other users will be placed in timeout and gets to wear a funky hat of political injustice.

*stares at Altimaomega and Jetackuu*

I like how you can call someone a single word in today's politics and instantly disregard any type of hopeful change in Americas foreign policy. Calling Rand Paul and isolationist along the same lines as the Tokugawa shogunate from the 1600's amounts to nothing more than a straw man argument. Saying something is a certain way doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it. All it does is shows a lack of knowledge and intelligence on the part of the person using the straw man argument. The reason they do this is most likely because they can't actually argue the facts or they don't know them at all.

Rand Paul's foreign policy is in fact a very attractive one. It involves the military actually being in the the United States protecting the United States. The real truth is supporting the status queue of our current foreign policy is the true mark of insanity as we will produce nothing but death, violence, rage, terrorism and debt. Perhaps if you advocated that in those words your argument would be less convincing, but the reality is all the same.

Obama doesn't kill people to bring us freedom. He kills people for refusing to go along with the aims of our empire and our allies. It's high time we kick these egotistical psychopaths like the Bush's, Clinton's and Obama's out of office and started to focus on this country.

lolwhat?

the "right" has hoped the fence and kept going so far that it can't really go any further. There's nothing wrong with sitting on the fence.

Keep thinking that though to justify your radical thoughts and words.

When did I insult somebody?

Altima, I wouldn't bother with certain people who shall not be named because their panties get tied into a knot every time you insult their master and cracker provider Obama.

Just point out how skewed the media is in their political agenda and be done with it. There will be no way you can convince several of the parrots here that their fearless leader has done no wrong.

For example: Several posters here think that Obama is a conservative. They also think that Obamacare is a Republican idea. They already stated that Bush is responsible for the $7 trillion debt increase in the past 5 years.

There is no hope for these parrots, they depend on their crackers too much...

The self delusion is strong in this one.

At this point I'm thinking the Clinton-Bush rivalry is entirely a massive conspiracy, they've joined forces, and are unstoppable. They will be the downfall of the greatest country in the history of civilization.

I should bookmark that next time a certain Bismark resident starts saying that we are all falling for the propaganda...

I agree, we don't need another Bush in the white house.

Problem is that with the Christie implosion Jeb is the closest thing the GOP has to a moderate. And the problem with being a moderate in a Republican presidential, where all others involved are trying to race to the right, is they will all gang up on the moderate.

I'm not that fond of Hillary either, but that's another story.

Rand Paul's appeal is to a large part of the tea party but he turns off many key parts of the GOP base. The corporatists are turned off by isolationism, the military industrial complex and the military itself by his plan to reduce the military and end our forward projection of power, the Chamber of Commerce and the retail sector by his economic policies.

Please note that I even like some of his ideas, I just think them impractical and think they will turn off much of the campaign contributing class. That would leave him at the mercy of politically active mega donors for cash.

Sheldon Adelson wants a war, Paul's defense stance looses with him.

Where does Paul stand on our exportation of petroleum distillates? On the too big to fail banks? On high speed trading? All have important donors.

I can agree with most of the first sentence. As for the second, too late.

We don't need another Clinton in the White House either. Especially one who pleads the 5th every time she is questioned.