It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama’s Five Trillion Dollar Lie

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
One can blame Bush or Obama for the problems the United States is in and they would be correct. The problems are caused by both political parties who's main concern is either staying in power or regaining power, They don't care what happens to the American people, and will say and do anything to remain in power. The whole lot of them are corrupt and yet we keep sending the idiots back to DC. We are 15 trillion in debt, have had no budget for 3 years, and all we do is argue over who's fault it is when the fault is ours for not holding these people accountable. We keep re-electing these people despite their running this country dangerously close to extinction. If something doesn't change soon, what is going on in Europe, especially Greece, will be happening here in our streets. The Great Depression was bad, what is coming will be much worse.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
What amazes me is that the financial policy makers are working towards the collaps of the US economy and society. Why..?

Do they not see the forrest because of the trees, plain stupid or are they busy with other...more important things than curing the nation?

Maybe they are counting on MiracleMan...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


you vote left or right...or as folks say on this site..red pill or blue pill...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Guess Obama-nation of Desolation really did buy that "transforming debt into wealth video and watch it...

Now we know how he transformed future debt into current wealth.

I don't suppose anyone has one of these babies lying around with a primed flux capacitor?



Can't see the pics right now the site is borked for me, you should be looking at the "Back to the Future" Delorean time machine if i picked the right blanked out pic.
edit on 22-5-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ILikeStars
 


You're right...
Instead,
You FIRE that mediocre B.S.-ing mechanic,
and find a BETTER & MORE COMPETENT one.

...aka- Yes we can, CAN OBAMA!

and HIRE DR. PAUL!

:
:



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Let's get to the full facts under Clinton:

Here:


Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.


So, it depends on who you ask as to if Clinton did well or not, with finances.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


The five trillion dollars, were stolen by the Bush administration ...



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
Let's get to the full facts under Clinton:

Here:

So, it depends on who you ask as to if Clinton did well or not, with finances.


No, jesus christ almighty ... and I ain't even religious.

Now, you racists dogs are trying to get George W. Bush of the hook?

NO company in the entire Universe books immediately future payouts ... payouts are booked progressively. Any company that makes such a claim, is bankrupt already ... businesses make cashflow, and they make money out of the cash flowing in, before it flows out ... just like a bank does. The bank has no money, it owns not as much as a cent of the cash that is in it. Every single penny it has, and then some ... are all "future payouts" ... every bank in the world, would basically be on the minus side if anyone used this kind of bookings.

Because, unless you are totally retarded ... if you book today, what you have to pay next year ... you are ignoring what you'd make in that year.

It's always the current state, that is being reflected in any financial statement ...

The American public is totally screwed up ... Racists bigots, who "hate" Obama, because he's black. And now the GWB stuff, is being pinned on Obama. And now you're trying to say "oh, the money never existed".

Looks like the american people have a general mental illness, a god complex ... or retardism. Any child should see that you don't make financial statements on "future" depts.

What you are referring to, is known as "liquidity", it's a statement that says "If your income stops right now, how able are you to pay out your creditors". Do you expect the US treasury to enter that state?

edit on 23/5/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
To explain further, "liquidity" .. this report tells you, how much muscle you have as a financier. It tells you, how much "free" cash is available. It's not a financial statement.

This "liquidity" can't be negative .. it can only be less than "100" ... a liquidity of "100" means you are able to stand up to your investments. A liquidity less, means you need to pay up on your investments, from your income ... this is the state of every goverment, and about 99 percent of all companies.

If, during the Clinton era, the liquidity was less than 100. You also have to take into account, what period we are talking about ... talking about all, in the case of a government, is neither logical or sane. Because a government has "eternal" liabilities ... more or less. So, it doesn't make any financial "sense" to take these into account. You'd have to take a certain period, a 4 year period for example ... and if I recall correctly, there was a 10 or 20 year period, where "pension fund" liquidity was at "100" at the end of the Clinton era.

But what is interresting to find out, is how utterly crooked Americans are, when it comes to finances. With a liquidity less than 100 ... you can't afford to wage war. You can't afford to increase military spending. You can't afford to make "homeland security".

Currently, you are living on "Chinese" funding ... they are currently, and have been for the past half a decade, financing the US treasury. But even "China" will run out of funds to support this sort of spending ... and what are you then going to do?

I'd ask you, the same thing I'd wanna ask the Swedish government ... in the case of the swedish goverment, I'd ask ... when the money you got from Saab and Volvo run out, what are then going to do?

What are you Americans going to do? Eventually, the Chinese "will" want their money back ... and they're going to get it, either in cash ... or through "your goverment committing treason", that is ... providing them with secret data that will help them advance their military and space technology. They've probably already done that for decades ...

Good luck with your future ...




posted on May, 23 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Hmm...after all the conservatives screaming that Obama would destroy America....I have yet to see it. I still see a country on it's way back...and the only ones crying wolf are the republican bunch.

The conservatives must hate the fact the gays, immigrants, people of color and women are getting more rights and to them that is the destruction of the country...


I just want to know something.

Where did you get your education?

Why? Because that was the most ignorant post I have ever seen in my life.

....And I have seen some ignorant posts.


You cant blame the last administration for all of Obamas failures and not do the same about his "achievements".
Obama does wrong= Bushs' fault
Obama does something good= Obama did a great job..

If you could only see yourselves from the outside. Really- its hysterical and sad.

Clinton may have had no debt handed off to Bush- but he sure did have a deficit of $133 Billion dollars.

He never had a surplus- he ALMOST eliminated the surplus in 2000(only 5Billion-- but ended up with $133
his last year.



www.treasurydirect.gov...
www.craigsteiner.us...



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
No, jesus christ almighty ... and I ain't even religious.

Now, you racists dogs are trying to get George W. Bush of the hook?
Where in the world did I state that Bush was off the hook? All I stated was that it depends on how you look at Clinton's spending. There is another accounting method that put him in the negative.

NO company in the entire Universe books immediately future payouts ... payouts are booked progressively.
Considering that the US government should be more like a housewife balancing their budget than a business, it would make more sense if they would go with that latter method. Personal opinion.

But what is FACT is that social security was earmarked from the beginning, and when they put it in the general fund, they dropped that automatic earmark. It is nice to note that if it was withheld, due to it belonging to these future retirees, although they were not drawing on it right then, that Clinton would have been in the negative. So sorry, this is a real financial fault that is his and his alone.

Because, unless you are totally retarded ... if you book today, what you have to pay next year ... you are ignoring what you'd make in that year.
Ah, lol. Companies look for any way to not justify taxation, yet fluff up their earning for stock value, so creative accounting is generally the name of the game. And small businesses DO look at their budget for next year with this years funds. It's how they don't go under. But this is NOT what was being addressed in the link.

The American public is totally screwed up ... Racists bigots, who "hate" Obama, because he's black. And now the GWB stuff, is being pinned on Obama. And now you're trying to say "oh, the money never existed".
No, what I quoted from was that this EARMARKED money is what made the system profitable. That is all. You are extrapolating from thin air.

Looks like the american people have a general mental illness, a god complex ... or retardism. Any child should see that you don't make financial statements on "future" depts.
From the article:

which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations
Again: Here: This explains the difference between the cash and the accrual method of accounting. Here is the financial report of the US govt. in 1999.

These fi nan cial state ments of the U.S. Government are prepared based on GAAP that requires using the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual basis, transactions are reported when the events giving rise to the transactions occur , rather than when cash is received or paid ( cash basis ). In contrast, Federal budgetary reporting is generally on the cash basis in accordance with accepted budget concepts.

What you are referring to, is known as "liquidity", it's a statement that says "If your income stops right now, how able are you to pay out your creditors". Do you expect the US treasury to enter that state?
Well, we are technically entering that state right now. Baby boomers, whose SS money was tied into what Clinton did with the finances, are retiring. So the money that is their's should be going out. This is why people are being so dramatic over SS funds, right now. Frankly, since we can go through the FED and print more, this will never fully happen, but what it does do is inflate the dollar. So yes, some of what Clinton did is screwing us over, now.

That was NOT the point. My point is that not everyone accounts Clinton as having positive balance--that is all.

And I NEVER stated any of the things that were in that quote that you ripped into ME like I was THE AUTHOR of it. Seriously. Then you started explaining things like I was a 2 year old, when I can (and just did) follow the links. It should not have needed your rant. I only posted a part of what the link stated, anyway.

Now:
Why would I blame Bush for what Clinton did? Clinton should have never TOUCHED SS. PERIOD. He is AT FAULT for that. And it is a financial issue.

Why would I blame Clinton for what Bush did? Clinton didn't start a multi-billion dollar war? (In fact Clinton used the Lewinsky stuff and the Al Qaeda bombings under him as foils against each other. Rather masterfully played.) Did Clinton cause a massive bailout? The answers to these is NO.

Now, why would I blame Bush for things Obama did on his own? He put together a healthcare plan that we cannot afford. He did his own round of bailouts--which he did not have to do. When he was told to bring in more troops or bail, he dragged out the Afgan war. When it was time to bring home troops from Iraq, instead he started sniffing around Libya. ect.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It does not matter who the POTUS is. They will all do it. They are all the same, bought and paid for by the same corporations. However they aren't doing this to be evil. The simple fact is, no president can let the country fall in to chaos. So if that means keeping the fake money going until the world call's us out on it then so be it. Would you rather discuss the possibility of not being able to fix it in the future? Or having everything taken away from you tomorrow so that it can all be honest? Wake up, they know how fake the money and economy are but they can't let 300 million people lose everything over night. The whole world would come to a halt. It's simply keeping the game going longer. However bad for the future it could POSSIBLY be. There is no proof that they can't truly fix it. They may just not want to YET, because of the months of CHAOS that would ensue. I voted for Obama in 08 because he was the lesser of two evils. I will be writing in Ron Paul this time. By the way I voted for a republican who is actually honest as my county exec. The only republican I've ever voted for. He's done a better job than anyone. So spare me the "you lean to one side" replies
edit on 23-5-2012 by johnnyl22 because: grammar



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
For all the Obama supporters; How can you fix a debt problem by borrowing more and more monies?
For everyone else who believes the system still works; We have had well over 200 years to show that
the system does not work! What more proof do you need to see who is actually running this country?
Banks get into trouble and they get bailed out! Do you remember New Orleans, how long it took for
a federal response to happen! This in my eyes proves one thing people are expendable but large corporations and banks are not! Do you people remember what the corporate charter was supposed to serve originally?
I do, it was supposed to serve the public intreast but now they are considered people and only serve their own
intreast which is the bottom line, their existance and profits. Yet we are the ones that allow them to survive through our purchases! Do any of you really believe that any of this will change once a Mitt Romney or a Ron Paul gets into office! I used to but today I don't think it will matter! These are men who lie to get elected and
though Ron Paul may have a better record I believe he is just like any other plant and will grow when he gets
enough attention! I am tired of all these games, media lies, materialism, selfishness, foreign agendas, wars and all the rest! I don't understand why so many people are so irrational and illogical. Just thinking about it makes my heart ache! I wish I had a way out of here, said the joker to the theif! There's too much confusion and I can't get no relief!
Until we all realize these truths and many more our only way out of here may be through death! God Help us all!



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ILikeStars

Originally posted by PvtHudson
3. Obama inherited a mess (forget that Bush did too and every single president since Washington)



Bush did not inherit a mess. He inherited a RECORD SURPLUS!!!

Obama inherited a RECORD DEBT.


Don't blame the autobody shop if they can't fix the car to perfection because the car was too intensively damaged.
edit on 22-5-2012 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)


No, you are wrong there. Bush inherited a debt of over 6 trillion dollars. He also inherited a BUDGET surplus. Huge difference.

Clinton grew the debt faster than any President before him in 8 years. Bush grew the debt faster than Clinton. Obama has grown it faster than Bush but it only took him 3 years to surpass Bush.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta

.....
Source
This is maddening!
....
Your thoughts?!


I have great news for you! All you have to do to stop being so mad is to stop getting your news from teabagger websites that, if they report any news at all, it is always mixed with political baloney and crap they just make up. The facts are that Obama inherited a collapsed economy something no President since FDR had to deal with. In fact many economist say it was worse. Realizing that should help you greatly with your tender emotional state and be grateful that we still have something resembling a functioning economy, thanks to Obama.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by afeent1
Bush inherited a debt of over 6 trillion dollars. He also inherited a BUDGET surplus. Huge difference.

Clinton grew the debt faster than any President before him in 8 years. Bush grew the debt faster than Clinton. Obama has grown it faster than Bush but it only took him 3 years to surpass Bush.


You were/are correct about the Budget Surplus. Thank you for catching my mistake, and taking the time to correct me.

Reagan was handed a 1 Trillion dollar debt and a budget that was in the red (spending more than what is coming in)
Eight years later Bush Sr. was handed a 2.9 Trillion dollar debt, budget still in the red.
Bush Senior handed President Clinton a 4.4 Trillion dollar debt, budget still in the red.
Clinton handed Bush Jr. a 5.6 Trillion dollar debt, budget in the green (more money coming in than was being spent)
Bush Jr. gave President Obama a 11.5 Trillion dollar debt, and a budget more in the red than at any other time in history.

Recap:
1 Trillion > Reagan > 2.9 Trillion
2.9 Trillion > Bush Sr. > 4.4 Trillion
4.4 Trillion > Clinton > 5.6 Trillion
5.6 Trillion > Bush Jr. > 11.5 Trillion
11.5 Trillion > Obama (currently about 15.7 Trillion)



edit on 23-5-2012 by ILikeStars because: This must be filled out apparently. So: I added a short video and some words and corrected a typo. Thank you for taking the time to read what I took the time to type here. This concludes this particular "edit" explanation.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ILikeStars
Reagan was handed a 1 Trillion dollar debt and a budget that was in the red (spending more than what is coming in)
Eight years later Bush Sr. was handed a 2.9 Trillion dollar debt, budget still in the red.
Bush Senior handed President Clinton a 4.4 Trillion dollar debt, budget still in the red.
Clinton handed Bush Jr. a 5.6 Trillion dollar debt, budget in the green (more money coming in than was being spent)
Bush Jr. gave President Obama a 11.5 Trillion dollar debt, and a budget more in the red than at any other time in history.

Recap:
1 Trillion > Reagan > 2.9 Trillion
2.9 Trillion > Bush Sr. > 4.4 Trillion
4.4 Trillion > Clinton > 5.6 Trillion
5.6 Trillion > Bush Jr. > 11.5 Trillion
11.5 Trillion > Obama (currently about 15.7 Trillion)


I'm having a hard time understanding this. How did Clinton have a surplus, but still raise the debt as much as Bush Sr? If you have a surplus should't the debt go down or at least level out? I'll concede that maybe I am missing something. But from what I have read in the past, Clinton simply took Social Security income and used that to pay for everything so that it looked like the "general fund" was not paying out as much. To me, if true, that is disingenuous.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by Nspekta
 



His supporters better have a really good reason for this.
Excuses on why he did it in 3...2...1...


they'll just have a bunch of deflection in the form of excuses like:

1. There is no difference between the two sides

2. Romney is no better

3. Obama inherited a mess (forget that Bush did too and every single president since Washington)

4. The economy is recovering

Doesn't matter now Romney or Obummer we need paul




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by westrock2000
 


*Surplus Budget, a record surplus budget. The government was taking in more money than it was spending under Clinton for the first time in a long time.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


5 out of the last 7 full presidential terms of office were held by Republicans. NOT counting Democrat Clinton the deficit has DOUBLED under each of those presidents.

I fail to see how President Obama has "stolen" 5 trillion dollars from future generations.

Obama inherited an 11.5 trillion dollar debt.
The current debt is 15.7 trillion dollars.

15.7 minus 11.5 = 4.2 trillion dollars.

So then .... according to the source supplied by the OP ... 4.2 Trillion dollars is GREATER than 5 Trillion dollars.




top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join