• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

Right, like they wouldn't have done the same f*cking thing if McCain had won in '10 instead of Obama! :lol:

Pure speculation on your part but we do know what Obama has generated
 
He also has 4 trillion added to the debt in 3 years after his name as well plus 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans.
Nope, that's more BS. Bush's FY2009 budget projected a $1.2 trillion deficit before Obama was even sworn in. Yet here you are, attributing that to Obama. Shame on you.
 
He also has 4 trillion added to the debt in 3 years after his name as well plus 25 plus million unemployed and under employed Americans.
Obama has not added 25 million underemployed.

Stop lying, Con.
 
Pure speculation on your part but we do know what Obama has generated
Wait, that's not fair!

You said you voted for Bush over Gore and Kerry because Bush was the better choice ... ? Let's see you prove that without speculation?
 
Right, like they wouldn't have done the same f*cking thing if McCain had won in '08 instead of Obama! :lol:
nah, if McCain would have won, we would all be living in the land of milk and honey, and all would be well:roll::lamo
 
nah, if McCain would have won, we would all be living in the land of milk and honey, and all would be well:roll::lamo

Focus, randel, McCain isn't in office, you have no idea what he would have done. His resume shows he wouldn't have done what the Obama resume showed.
 
Focus, randel, McCain isn't in office, you have no idea what he would have done. His resume shows he wouldn't have done what the Obama resume showed.

The point is that anyone reasonably in his right mind would have taken measures similar to those that Obama took.
 
The point is that anyone reasonably in his right mind would have taken measures similar to those that Obama took.

Prove that what Obama did was someone in their right mind?
 
Prove that what Obama did was someone in their right mind?

Okay, and then we'll move on to something enlightening like his birth certificate. :roll:
 
Focus, randel, McCain isn't in office, you have no idea what he would have done. His resume shows he wouldn't have done what the Obama resume showed.
If we can believe McCain's rhetoric, he probably would have invade Iran and we would be paying $15/gas for gas.
 
You said my post was a bald face lie, now prove it

yearly-us-budget.jpg
 
If we can believe McCain's rhetoric, he probably would have invade Iran and we would be paying $15/gas for gas.

I'd count those as a win-win, personally.
 

You think the CBO is the checkbook of the United States? Stop buying this bull****. Here are the numbers from the bank account of the United States which is the official record. You really need to learn how the CBO works and their accuracy. They make you look foolish.

Deficit by year. Show me the Clinton Surplus

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

1/20/1993 4,188,092,107,183.60
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

10/1/1993 4,406,339,573,433.47
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89

10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89
10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50

10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50
10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34

10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34
10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32

10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32
10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02

10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02
11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13

11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13
1/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
 
err...see that GIANT spike in your graph?

that's the Clinton surplus.

see how the spike drops way down? that's what King George did with the surplus.

And that is a lie, a projected surplus that never happened. Here is the checkbook of the United States and what is used to determine debt service. Why doesn't the bank account of the U.S. Show a surplus?

What is it about liberalism that creates such passion for the massive expansion of the govt, for wealth redistribution. Even when confronted with facts liberals ignore them

Deficit by fiscal year

1/20/1993 4,188,092,107,183.60
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38


10/1/1993 4,406,339,573,433.47
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89


10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89
10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50

10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50
10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34

10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34
10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32


10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32
10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02


10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02
11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13


11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13
1/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
 
You think the CBO is the checkbook of the United States? Stop buying this bull****. Here are the numbers from the bank account of the United States which is the official record. You really need to learn how the CBO works and their accuracy. They make you look foolish.

Deficit by year. Show me the Clinton Surplus

I already showed, you, and I've explained to you many times the difference between the debt held by the public and the intergovernmental debt. And it is a FACT that Clinton ran BUDGET SURPLUSES for several years. You can argue that you don't like the way that budget deficits/surpluses are calculated, but you cannot deny that Clinton ran budget surpluses. If you do then you are lying.

The numbers you posted are not deficit numbers, which is, I'm sure, why you didn't post a link to the data.
 
Last edited:
I already showed, you, and I've explained to you many times the difference between the debt held by the public and the intergovernmental debt. And it is a FACT that Clinton ran BUDGET SURPLUSES for several years. You can argue that you don't like the way that budget deficits/surpluses are calculated, but you cannot deny that Clinton ran budget surpluses. If you do then you are lying.

The numbers you posted are not deficit numbers, which is, I'm sure, why you didn't post a link to the data.
.

Look if that is what you want to believe facts aren't going to change your mind. I posted the link, how many times do you want me to post that link. Here it is one more time.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application). You can see the deficit by day
 
.

Look if that is what you want to believe facts aren't going to change your mind. I posted the link, how many times do you want me to post that link. Here it is one more time.

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application). You can see the deficit by day

And again (and again and again and again), you are not posting or linking to the appropriate numbers. You are linking to intergovernmental debt, which is a different data set. The reason it looks like there was rising debt is that, during Clinton's term, there was a social security surplus. Social security taxes don't count towards budget deficits. BUT ... if there's a surplus then the government is *required* to purchase Treasuries in the amount of the surplus (so the money is earning interest instead of sitting on shelf). That, however, ends up looking like spending on the intergovernmental side even though it's actually surplus revenue. Get it?
 
And again (and again and again and again), you are not posting or linking to the appropriate numbers. You are linking to intergovernmental debt, which is a different data set. The reason it looks like there was rising debt is that, during Clinton's term, there was a social security surplus. Social security taxes don't count towards budget deficits. BUT ... if there's a surplus then the government is *required* to purchase Treasuries in the amount of the surplus (so the money is earning interest instead of sitting on shelf). That, however, ends up looking like spending on the intergovernmental side even though it's actually surplus revenue. Get it?

Deficits are public debt plus intergovt. holding deficits but you cannot seem to understand that. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

Why do you think there was a SS surplus? Are IOU's assets or liabilities? How is SS IOU's going to be paid for? Do you realize that using SS surpluses is taking your money and spending it on something else? What is going to happen when you retire and want your money?
 
Why do you think there was a SS surplus? Are IOU's assets or liabilities? How is SS IOU's going to be paid for? Do you realize that using SS surpluses is taking your money and spending it on something else? What is going to happen when you retire and want your money?

The cash is used to purchase in US Treasury Securities, are you saying SS should keeps the cash in cash?
 
Deficits are public debt plus intergovt. holding deficits but you cannot seem to understand that. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

No, BUDGET deficits absolutely are not public debt plus intergovenmental holdings. That is absolutely wrong. Presidents do not budget social security tax surpluses, for one. You are making up your own definition of deficit to suit your incorrect argument.

Why do you think there was a SS surplus? Are IOU's assets or liabilities? How is SS IOU's going to be paid for? Do you realize that using SS surpluses is taking your money and spending it on something else? What is going to happen when you retire and want your money?

A real issue, but a diversion from the topic at hand, which is that Clinton did in fact run budget surpluses for four years.
 
The cash is used to purchase in US Treasury Securities, are you saying SS should keeps the cash in cash?

What they are saying is that they are against anything Social Security did. Folks of that ideological mindset opposed it in the Thirties and nothing has changed for them in 3/4 of a century.
 
Back
Top Bottom