Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: ‘We Don’t Have an Urgent Deficit Crisis’

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Since it appears you seem to be agreeing with neo, let me ask you a simple question.

Have the deficits under Obama decreased or increased?

Please share the source of information you are using to find your answer.




posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 





When has anyone said anything different? Obama DECREASED the deficits every year he has been in office...no one ever said he eliminated them.


So If I have $100 bucks and take $50 bucks from someone else and spend $300 bucks and keeps adding 20 % each day, to the $300 bucks.and continue to do the same thing for 7 days straight has my deficit shrank?
edit on 23-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


That's very true! Although neo96 insists that even a budget surplus is unacceptable.

I genuinely disagree with this stance as would most economists.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Translation: "We're not broke, honest! Just a little short!"

Over half of the money spent in this country goes towards the military. Over. Half. We have as much a spending problem right there as a broke shoe addict does skipping food & bills to buy their heels, and just like the footwear addict, no one's going to stop military spending until they can't scrounge up a penny more. Meaning, every other program out there gets to feel the pinch first while the military's toys & black projects get dibs. But we don't have a money management problem! Don't forget that!


Looks like the idea is to stick to bad money management next year, too.

nationalpriorities.org...
edit on 8/23/2013 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AlienScience
 





When has anyone said anything different? Obama DECREASED the deficits every year he has been in office...no one ever said he eliminated them.


So If I have $100 bucks and take $50 bucks from someone else and spend $300 bucks and keeps adding 20 % each day,.and continue to do the same thing for 7 days straight has my deficit shrank ?
edit on 23-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


"keeps adding 20% each day" to what? Your spending...your income...this example is confusing to say the least.

Here, try this.

2009: You had an income of 10,000 but spend 15,000...put 5,000 on a credit card.
2010: You had an income of 11,000 but spend 15,500...put 4,500 on a credit card.
2011: You had an income of 12,000 but spend 16,000...put 4,000 on a credit card.

In that scenario, you have this.

2009: DEFICIT: 5,000 DEBT: 5,000
2010: DEFICIT: 4,500 DEBT: 9,500
2011: DEFICIT: 4,000 DEBT: 13,500

Question: Did your deficits decrease year by year?



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 



"FINAL SPENDING BILLS"

Not the entire budget.

It's right there in the text you quoted...the budget is Bush's budget...in any year additional needs come up and the current President needs to approve those. The LAST spending bill for FY2009 (which ends in September 2009) were signed by Obama in March. He was sworn in on January...so he had from January to March to sign spending bills...the rest was all Bush.

The reading comprehension and understanding of basic budget knowledge is very lacking in this thread.



Well guess WHO spent their way into oblivia the last half of FY2009 ....

My guess is Obama and the Democratic Congress.

{Logical, since they were in power}

They were drooling like mad scientists that just discovered global warming or something !!



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyiah
 


Nice try everyone has charts:



And links too:

www.usdebtclock.org...

Social Security=$1.5 trillion
Medciad and Medicare= $ $1.1 trillion


Defense $800 billion

We spend more on entitle programs than we do defense:

Entitlement programs are social security,medicare,medicaid,welfare,food stamps,unemployment insurance,free homes, free cell phones.

We spend more on the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


*sigh*

I can't seem to explain the difference between deficits and debt to you, so I am very unconfident that you will ever understand discretionary and mandatory spending. So since I don't have the time (or energy) to attempt that, I will just skip the part about why combining the two into the same graph is just ridiculous.

Take some basic econ/finance classes, I think they would help you in your understanding of budgets.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 





So If I have $100 bucks and take $50 bucks from someone else and spend $300 bucks and keeps adding 20 % each day, to the $300 bucks.and continue to do the same thing for 7 days straight has my deficit shrank?


I clearly understood it :

I get paid $100 bucks

Someone else is giving me $50 bucks

But I am spending $300 bucks

And that $300 bucks has $20 % added to it every day for 7 days.

So I am spending $360 bucks a day and only have $150 bucks to my name.

Total for that 7 day @ 150 bucks is $1050 but I spent $ 2,520 which means I am still $1740 in the whole.

Of course each day I am spending money firgure in the cost of inflation from the devaluation of the dollar that means my money keep buying less.


Deficit never shrank, and as time goes on I OWE MORE MONEY.

Whoops wrong amount forgot to figure in compounding interest.
edit on 23-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Since it appears you seem to be agreeing with neo, let me ask you a simple question.

Have the deficits under Obama decreased or increased?

Please share the source of information you are using to find your answer.


Look at the chart here. Note the numbers are from the White House.


2009 spending deficit up significantly from 2008.
{how did they 'justify' that ?}

2010 spending deficit down slightly from 2009.

2011 spending deficit up slightly from 2010.

2012 spending deficit down significantly from 2011 thanks to a resistant House of Representatives.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by neo96
 


*sigh*

I can't seem to explain the difference between deficits and debt to you, so I am very unconfident that you will ever understand discretionary and mandatory spending. So since I don't have the time (or energy) to attempt that, I will just skip the part about why combining the two into the same graph is just ridiculous.

Take some basic econ/finance classes, I think they would help you in your understanding of budgets.


That was rich.

Mandatory spending is what had made those deficits because they are not shrinking.

Clearly someone doesn't understand debt or deficits.

Maybe they should go take an econ class.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Another interesting FACT:

[color=Cyan]
Total added to Federal Debt:

Last 4 years of Bush +$ 1,185,781,000,000 -- that's 1.185 Trillion Dollars

First 4 years of Obama +$ 5,092,755,000,000 -- that's 5.092 Trillion Dollars

Now WHO is Nuts ?




edit on Aug-23-2013 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 







First 4 years of Obama +$ 5,092,755,000,000 -- that's 5.092 Trillion Dollars


Hey Obama ?

That's unpatriotic



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Ok after reading through this thread I don't think it's invalid to combine discretionary and mandatory spending so I'm going to have to admit that you were right, they do actually spend more on nannying than they do on defence spending. But I still think the point I was making is valid, because they also spend a huge sum of money on defence spending and I'm sure a lot of that money could be better spent, where as healthcare and social security spending actually achieves something useful.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm going to have to disagree with ya here. I read the article and I read others like it. I believed it myself until I got down to the nitty and gritty budget lines to add the numbers and figure it myself. He had surpluses.

White House historic Budget Tables

Table 1.1 or 1.4 both show it very clearly and Clinton wasn't the only one to have surpluses. There just haven't been many years where it happened. That is a simple calculation of money spent vs. money brought in. The national debt is something else entirely.

Compounding interest is what keeps it growing and it's something they didn't even acknowledge as being rolled into the debt itself to build until fairly recent. The last year or two.

The national budget doesn't simply have to be dead even to knock down the national debt, it has to be in a fairly high surplus every year, for many years into the future and because of that compounding interest. That keeps it growing even when no principle is being added.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


LOL

We spend too much money on EVERYTHING.

The Nanny state is more than most countries individually or combined.

The Defense complex is more than most countries individually or combined.

There is massive room for improvement across the boards of government stupidity.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Curious here ?

If you don't believe what the current government says why would you believe anything said by any other?

Fuzzy math is not a phenomenon new to us.

Creative government accounting is as old as government itself.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Nah, the MASSIVE national debt isn't an issue, it's meant to be this way.

As long as the USA remains a valuable tool for the Bankster Cartel, they don't care how much of their fabricated currency is spent.

One doesn't care how much meat their Attack Dog eats, as long as the hound does a good job of tearing up one's enemies.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Neo, if we don't want to believe what the bean counters put out...then we can't take the numbers that say Obama is doing badly and use THEM as a source for any argument, either. That does cut both ways and those Historic Tables go back a couple hundred years on both revenue and spending for the total deficit or surplus. That's plain and simple math ...and again, we can't say Obama is doing badly when that measure comes from the literal same table of numbers.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


The two are not even comparable, hell any historical data isn't comparable.

Population increases.

Government program increases

Government program cost increases.

Tax revenue increases.

etc.

Feel free that Clinton has 'surplus's' I don't.






top topics



 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join