It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Conservatives believe the government is incompetent, and seek to elect people who will prove it
Ignorance is Bliss Bliss is the same as happiness US Christian conservatives are the happiest in the US according to studies Do you see a connection?
Blame others for the mess they had made.
Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.
But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)
Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?
Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.
The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
Your love for Clinton is admirable but what does that have to do with the thread topic. Deficits are yearly and debt cumulative. Clinton took office with a 4.4 trillion debt and left with it at 5.7 trillion so show me the surplus. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion debt and left it at 10.6 trillion. Today it is 14.6 trillion
You play it in a tricky way. To seperate it to other tems such like Project surplus.... .
If you earn $1,100 a year and you spend $1,000, you have $100 surplus. That's common sense. At the same time, if you also inherits a debt of $4,400 so you have to pay a 3% interest on it, that's $132, if you add them together, then you have a $32 deficit. Should Clinton be responsible for that $4,400 debt and interest?
But with it you say he didn't earn more. That's a nonsense. When we say Clinton had a surplus, that's normal term we use to judge each presidency fiscal year. You now want to judge it by national debt, it's another standard to deal with Clinton. It doesn't mean Clinton hadn't had surplus in 2008,2009 and 2010.
If you judge Bush with same standard, he had none surplus. That's why you push out different term to confuse people.
Yearly deficits are made up of budget and intergovt. holding(SS, Medicare, and other govt. long term responsibilities. What Clinton had was a budget surplus but an intergovt. holding deficit which did not make for a net surplus. He got the budget surplus by using SS funds from intergovt. holdings leaving a deficit in that acccount.