• 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!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

winston53660 said:
You might try clicking the link and reading the article for once before you start your canned responses.
Click to expand...

I have clicked on the link and read the link, suggest you do the same, both Freddie and Fannie are losing money requiring billions more in bailouts so until the bailouts stop there is no profit to the taxpayers.
 
Conservative said:
I have clicked on the link and read the link, suggest you do the same, both Freddie and Fannie are losing money requiring billions more in bailouts so until the bailouts stop there is no profit to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...


The dividends are more than the money they need bright eyes.
 
Conservative said:
So instead of paying dividends why doesn't Freddie and Fannie use those dividends to require less bailout money?
Click to expand...


Does it really make any difference either way? The Feds still made a profit.
 
winston53660 said:
Does it really make any difference either way? The Feds still made a profit.
Click to expand...

Is that the way you run your business? Think about it, according to all sources Freddie and Fannie are still losing money and requiring more taxpayer bailouts so instead of paying a dividend and then asking for more money use that dividend to require less taxpayer money.
 
Conservative said:
Is that the way you run your business? Think about it, according to all sources Freddie and Fannie are still losing money and requiring more taxpayer bailouts so instead of paying a dividend and then asking for more money use that dividend to require less taxpayer money.
Click to expand...


Meh I think how the deal is made is working out pretty well. Fannie and Freddie get to stay in business some people get to stay in their homes, some value remains the real estate market and the Feds get to make a profit against the bailout.
 
winston53660 said:
Meh I think how the deal is made is working out pretty well. Fannie and Freddie get to stay in business some people get to stay in their homes, some value remains the real estate market and the Feds get to make a profit against the bailout.
Click to expand...

Why does Fannie and Freddie have to stay in business when both continue to cost the taxpayers billions? Interesting how little logic liberals apply to almost every issue.
 
Conservative said:
Why does Fannie and Freddie have to stay in business when both continue to cost the taxpayers billions? Interesting how little logic liberals apply to almost every issue.
Click to expand...


uhh profit 1.1 billion...your sophistry really knows no bounds.
 
winston53660 said:
uhh profit 1.1 billion...your sophistry really knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

this is nothing more than a vicious circle, govt. bails out Freddie and Fannie, gets paid a dividend so they can pump that money back into more bailouts for Freddie and Fannie. That is liberal logic.
 
Conservative said:
Do you work for the govt, or are you in school and don't pay any taxes at all? Only in the liberal world are tax cuts an expense to the Federal Govt. Tax rate cuts have only happened three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and Bush and during all three Administrations GDP Grew as did Govt. revenue.
Click to expand...
WRONG!!! The debt tripled during Reagan's term. Then after the Cold War ended, the debt went down during Clinton's term. Then when Bush took office, the debt skyrocketed to over $10 TRILLION.

The CBO for some reason has credibility but only when it makes claims that you support.
Click to expand...
NOPE!!! You are the one denying the CBO data because it doesn't support YOUR claims. That is why you are trying to use Treasury Dept data instead of the CBO.

The Treasury shows where the money was spent and somehow in your world that isn't accurate. Where it is supposed to be spent and where it WAS spent are two different things. There was an increase in debt every year of Bill Clinton thus no surplus.
Click to expand...
PURE RUBBISH. You asked why the Treasury reports didn't include Clinton's surplus and I told you why. And now like a typical conservative, you're trying to avoid admitting you were wrong.

The Treasury Dept. shows where the money was spent and that is all that matters, money spent and revenue collected. Clinton added 1.3 trillion to the debt and no year during his Administration did the dbet go down.
Click to expand...
Really? Because I checked the Treasury Dept website and guess what? It says you're WRONG.....

Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History

"The buildup to World War II brought the debt up another order of magnitude from $51 billion in 1940 to $260 billion following the war. After this period, the debt's growth closely matched the rate of inflation until the 1980s, when it again began to increase rapidly.
Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of FY 2008, the gross national debt had reached $10.3 trillion, about 10 times its 1980 level.
history_debtchart.jpg


Tax rate cuts=higher consumer spending=greater demand=more jobs=more govt. revenue. Why the passion for higher taxes and no apparent concern over how the money is spent?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the Treasury Department says you've lost the debate.

Tax cuts didn't create the debt, spending and the recession caused by the financial bubble bursting did.
Click to expand...
See the Treasury Dept. chart above. Clinton reduced spending and raised taxes on the wealthy and the national debt turned into a budget surplus. Then Bush came into office, increased spending and cut taxes and the budget surplus quickly turned into a $10.3 trillion national debt. There is no way that reduced revenue will reduce the national debt. Only an idiot would think it does.

I prefer to base my reality on actual results, not rhetoric or partisan policy that ignores spending and promotes taking more money from the American people
Click to expand...
Well good, because the reality is you've lost the debate.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Moot;1059087015]WRONG!!! The debt tripled during Reagan's term. Then after the Cold War ended, the debt went down during Clinton's term. Then when Bush took office, the debt skyrocketed to over $10 TRILLION.
Click to expand...

You are nuts, the debt never went down during the Clinton years, it went from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion according to the U.S. Treasury Dept and they should know. Reagan debt grew 1.7 trillion in 8years and Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years. What purpose does it serve to relive the past and ignore the present?

You are the one denying the CBO data because it doesn't support YOUR claims. That is why you are trying to use Treasury Dept data instead of the CBO
Click to expand...
.

CBO is the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE and reports to the Congress, The U.S. Treasury is the checkbook of the United States. That is like saying your bank really doesn't have an accurate accounting of your finances so we should pay more attention to an agency that makes predictions. There is quite a bit of ignorance here regarding CBO. Better check out their accuracy.


You asked why the Treasury reports didn't include Clinton's surplus and I told you why. And now like a typical conservative, you're trying to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did because in your world Intergovt. holdings aren't really debt, but in the real world public debt and intergovt. debt added together is what we pay debt service on. Only in the liberal world can you borrow (steal) from SS and make the public debt look better. That would get you thrown in jail in the real world.


Really? Because I checked the Treasury Dept website and guess what? It says you're a liar....

Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History
Click to expand...

That is a personal attack, I am done with you. The fact is as I stated public debt and intergovt. holdings make up the U.S. debt and that is why debt went up during the Clinton years. The numbers don't make me a liar but do show how ignorant you are to the facts.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
You are nuts, the debt never went down during the Clinton years, it went from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion according to the U.S. Treasury Dept and they should know. Reagan debt grew 1.7 trillion in 8years and Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years. What purpose does it serve to relive the past and ignore the present?

.

CBO is the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE and reports to the Congress, The U.S. Treasury is the checkbook of the United States. That is like saying your bank really doesn't have an accurate accounting of your finances so we should pay more attention to an agency that makes predictions. There is quite a bit of ignorance here regarding CBO. Better check out their accuracy.




Yes, you did because in your world Intergovt. holdings aren't really debt, but in the real world public debt and intergovt. debt added together is what we pay debt service on. Only in the liberal world can you borrow (steal) from SS and make the public debt look better. That would get you thrown in jail in the real world.




That is a personal attack, I am done with you
Click to expand...

LOL MOot's the one who claimed that the rich should pay all of the estate taxes because they own all the land.

why stop conversing with someone like that when you can have so much fun?
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL MOot's the one who claimed that the rich should pay all of the estate taxes because they own all the land.

why stop conversing with someone like that when you can have so much fun?
Click to expand...

You are probably right, the liar comment got me for a moment but I am over it. Moot does provide some good entertainment.
 
Conservative said:
You are probably right, the liar comment got me for a moment but I am over it. Moot does provide some good entertainment.
Click to expand...

Fiscal
Year Year

Ending National Debt Deficit

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
When you get a job you will understand take home pay and know that tax cuts allow you to take home more of your pay. People today that are working are benefiting from the Bush tax cuts as their take home pay is higher.
Click to expand...
As a middle-class person, yes that is true, but if you are wealthy it only means you get more money to "save".

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy.
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg

They aren't getting benefits from the Obama tax cut any more.
Click to expand...
The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. So, I don't know what you mean.

Tax Cuts for the Middle Class equal Tax Cuts for Rich

Tax revenue is lower because of high unemployment, something Obama has done nothing to reduce and in fact has made it more expensive to hire.
Click to expand...
Another Republican/conservative lie. The bail out of the auto industry saved many jobs. Jobs that would have added to the unemployment. The Stimulus also saved many jobs, as well as kept us from going into depression.

While the ARRA did not achieve its initial goals, many, including President Obama, consider it a major success. It has been credited for the large change in GDP growth that occurred between the first quarter of 2009, when GDP declined at more than a 6% annualized rate, and the second quarter, when GDP was roughly unchanged. More broadly, the Administration and others argue that the ARRA has saved up to 2 million jobs and prevented an economic meltdown similar to the Great Depression.

Did Stimulus Create Any Jobs? - Forbes.com

We had an election Tuesday that you have missed when the American people spoke in historic fashion.
Click to expand...
How did I miss it? It was predicted and is considered a normal occurrence for mid-term. That your party got the house is admirable, but whether that is a good thing for the country is yet to be seen. People's votes are mostly a reaction to all the lies the Republicans have been spreading and continue to spread. They have found a way to gain votes and that is through lying and it seems to be working well. However, the truth is bound to come out sooner or later, and then what will your party have?

You probably ought to take the partisan hat off and figure out why there are 4 million more unemployed since Obama took office and on a month to month basis unemployment is higher this year than last year and it only cost the debt 3 trillion dollars.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you need to remove your tin-foil hat, it seems to be cutting the blood circulation and impairing your thinking. Reps/cons want Obama to fix in 2 years what took Bush 8 years to accomplish. Perhaps if Bush hadn't committed us to a useless war where we have wasted so much money, our economy wouldn't be in such bad shape. But, Reps/cons are so sure that now that they have gained control of the House, they are going to make everything rosy - I can hardly wait. Let's see how much of what they promised they are able to deliver.
 
Conservative said:
You are nuts, the debt never went down during the Clinton years, it went from 4.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion according to the U.S. Treasury Dept and they should know. Reagan debt grew 1.7 trillion in 8years and Obama has increased the debt 3 trillion in two years. What purpose does it serve to relive the past and ignore the present?
Click to expand...
And yet, the Treasury Department says the debt TRIPLED under Reagan, went DOWN under Clinton, and went UP TO 10 TRILLION Under Bush. So how do you explain the major discrepancy between what you're saying and what the Treasury Department is saying, Con?

CBO is the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE and reports to the Congress, The U.S. Treasury is the checkbook of the United States. That is like saying your bank really doesn't have an accurate accounting of your finances so we should pay more attention to an agency that makes predictions. There is quite a bit of ignorance here regarding CBO. Better check out their accuracy.

Yes, you did because in your world Intergovt. holdings aren't really debt, but in the real world public debt and intergovt. debt added together is what we pay debt service on. Only in the liberal world can you borrow (steal) from SS and make the public debt look better. That would get you thrown in jail in the real world.
Click to expand...
In the real world, the public and government debt is the National debt and the Treasury Department which BTW you insisted on referencing, said the National Dept TRIPLED under Reagan, went DOWN under Clinton and went up to $10.3 TRILLION under Bush. So why can't you admit you were wrong, Con?

That is a personal attack, I am done with you....
Click to expand...
Oh really, and after all the smarmy insults you've been engaging in? Please...

Conservative said:
You are nuts...
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
Interesting how little logic liberals apply to almost every issue.
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
You are indeed confused,..... I suggest that instead of spending so much time here that you do some studying of history.
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
... Facts seem to get lost in the liberal world of pure fantasy and social engineering.
Click to expand...
Conservative said:
...You don't seem to have a basic understanding of how our govt. works. Please take a civics class.
.....you look foolish.
Click to expand...

The fact is as I stated public debt and intergovt. holdings make up the U.S. debt and that is why debt went up during the Clinton years. The numbers don't make me a liar but do show how ignorant you are to the facts
Click to expand...
The fact is, you said no such thing and are now just trying to weasel out of admitting you were wrong. So lets recap shall we? Here's what you originally said....
Conservative said:
Tax rate cuts have only happened three times in modern history, JFK, Reagan, and Bush and during all three Administrations GDP Grew as did Govt. revenue......

The Treasury Dept. shows where the money was spent and that is all that matters, money spent and revenue collected. Clinton added 1.3 trillion to the debt and no year during his Administration did the dbet go down.
Click to expand...

Well now, since the Treasury Department is all that matters in your little world, here once again is what Treasury Department said and they don't agree with you....

Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History
"....Between 1980 and 1990, the debt more than tripled. The debt shrank briefly after the end of the Cold War, but by the end of FY 2008, the gross national debt had reached $10.3 trillion, about 10 times its 1980 level.
Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're real big on insulting Liberals, but when the favor is returned and you're proven wrong, you don't have an ounce of intergrity, courage or character to admit it or concede. Yup, you're a typical Conservative alright. :roll:
 
TurtleDude said:
Buffett is a hypocrite and complains about paying lower tax rates (due to the CG tax rate) because he played games and made his earned income abnormally low so as to ingratiate himself with people who feel as you do
Click to expand...

That is the lamest reason I've ever heard about why a wealthy person as Buffett would complain about paying lower taxes!

"Because he wants to ingratiate himself with people who don't want the rich to pay lower taxes?"

Ha,ha, that is such a stupid comment, I can't believe anyone would even come up with something like that!:lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
The neverending lie-tax cuts cause a deficit. NO ITS SPENDING THAT CAUSES A DEFICIT
Click to expand...
You think tax-cuts pay for themselves?
Contrary to popular belief, discretionary spending on social entitlement programs such as health care, unemployment benefits and Social Security is nowhere close to the leading cause of the exploding deficits over this past decade. The true culprit is the Bush tax cuts , which accounted for 48 percent of the deficit increase;
TheDartmouth.com | Deficit Danger


Besides, there are good reasons to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.

All of these tax cuts were passed with a “sunset” provision that will cause them to expire at the end of 2010. Virtually everyone in Congress agrees with the Obama administration that we should make permanent all of the reduced taxes for those who make less than $250,000—that’s 98 percent of Americans. The disagreement is limited to those cuts that affect the richest 2 percent of Americans—with conservatives demanding that the wealthiest Americans continue to benefit from the Bush administration’s largess.

There are lots of good reasons to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. Here are just three.

1. Billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy is just about the least efficient use of that money
2.The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised
3.The tax cuts for nearly all Americans and American small businesses would stay in place
ttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html


constantly whining that the rich need to pay more only buys dems the votes of people who are envious
Click to expand...
And coddling the rich buys the Reps votes from the wealthy and all the loonies who are still under the impression that some of their money is going to trickle down to them. George H.W.Bush himself called it voodoo economics!

it doesn't solve the deficit
Click to expand...
It will help pay off a chunk as opposed to adding:

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds
 
mertex said:
As a middle-class person, yes that is true, but if you are wealthy it only means you get more money to "save".

Give the wealthiest Americans a tax cut and history suggests they will save the money rather than spend it.

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody’s Analytics Inc. When taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and some Democrats in Congress who say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse will prompt them to reduce their spending, harming the economy.
Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending, Moody's Says - Bloomberg


The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. So, I don't know what you mean.

Tax Cuts for the Middle Class equal Tax Cuts for Rich


Another Republican/conservative lie. The bail out of the auto industry saved many jobs. Jobs that would have added to the unemployment. The Stimulus also saved many jobs, as well as kept us from going into depression.

While the ARRA did not achieve its initial goals, many, including President Obama, consider it a major success. It has been credited for the large change in GDP growth that occurred between the first quarter of 2009, when GDP declined at more than a 6% annualized rate, and the second quarter, when GDP was roughly unchanged. More broadly, the Administration and others argue that the ARRA has saved up to 2 million jobs and prevented an economic meltdown similar to the Great Depression.

Did Stimulus Create Any Jobs? - Forbes.com


How did I miss it? It was predicted and is considered a normal occurrence for mid-term. That your party got the house is admirable, but whether that is a good thing for the country is yet to be seen. People's votes are mostly a reaction to all the lies the Republicans have been spreading and continue to spread. They have found a way to gain votes and that is through lying and it seems to be working well. However, the truth is bound to come out sooner or later, and then what will your party have?


Perhaps you need to remove your tin-foil hat, it seems to be cutting the blood circulation and impairing your thinking. Reps/cons want Obama to fix in 2 years what took Bush 8 years to accomplish. Perhaps if Bush hadn't committed us to a useless war where we have wasted so much money, our economy wouldn't be in such bad shape. But, Reps/cons are so sure that now that they have gained control of the House, they are going to make everything rosy - I can hardly wait. Let's see how much of what they promised they are able to deliver.
Click to expand...

Never in my life have I seen so many people obsessed with what someone else pays in taxes and so naive when it comes to how the govt. spends the tax dollars. For some reason you believe that an increase in taxes on the rich is going to increase revenue to the Federal Govt. Whether or not it does is irrelevant, it is wrong to penalize one group of people and to continue to promote class warfare.

What happened on Tuesday was historic, 682 GOP State Legilators were elected along with 65 House members. You can continue to ignore it but that doesn't change the reality.

Obama for some reason has you brainwashed. What exactly did he do while a Senator in Congress to prevent Bush from "creating" this mess and what exactly did the Democrats do after taking over in January 2007 to prevent this mess from occurring? The tinfoil hat is one that liberals wear so that they can get zapped by something that helps with the brainwashing.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
And yet, the Treasury Department says the debt TRIPLED under Reagan, went DOWN under Clinton, and went UP TO 10 TRILLION Under Bush. So how do you explain the major discrepancy between what you're saying and what the Treasury Department is saying, Con?


In the real world, the public and government debt is the National debt and the Treasury Department which BTW you insisted on referencing, said the National Dept TRIPLED under Reagan, went DOWN under Clinton and went up to $10.3 TRILLION under Bush. So why can't you admit you were wrong, Con?

Oh really, and after all the smarmy insults you've been engaging in? Please...







The fact is, you said no such thing and are now just trying to weasel out of admitting you were wrong. So lets recap shall we? Here's what you originally said....


Well now, since the Treasury Department is all that matters in your little world, here once again is what Treasury Department said and they don't agree with you....

Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History


Yeah, you're real big on insulting Liberals, but when the favor is returned and you're proven wrong, you don't have an ounce of intergrity, courage or character to admit it or concede. Yup, you're a typical Conservative alright. :roll:
Click to expand...

History of PUBLIC DEBT? Stealing money from the SS fund to show lower public debt doesn't make the TOTAL Debt lower. Creative accounting like that would get you fired in the private sector
 
mertex said:
You think tax-cuts pay for themselves?
Contrary to popular belief, discretionary spending on social entitlement programs such as health care, unemployment benefits and Social Security is nowhere close to the leading cause of the exploding deficits over this past decade. The true culprit is the Bush tax cuts , which accounted for 48 percent of the deficit increase;
TheDartmouth.com | Deficit Danger


Besides, there are good reasons to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.

All of these tax cuts were passed with a “sunset” provision that will cause them to expire at the end of 2010. Virtually everyone in Congress agrees with the Obama administration that we should make permanent all of the reduced taxes for those who make less than $250,000—that’s 98 percent of Americans. The disagreement is limited to those cuts that affect the richest 2 percent of Americans—with conservatives demanding that the wealthiest Americans continue to benefit from the Bush administration’s largess.

There are lots of good reasons to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire. Here are just three.

1. Billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy is just about the least efficient use of that money
2.The Bush tax cuts didn’t deliver what they promised
3.The tax cuts for nearly all Americans and American small businesses would stay in place
ttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html



And coddling the rich buys the Reps votes from the wealthy and all the loonies who are still under the impression that some of their money is going to trickle down to them. George H.W.Bush himself called it voodoo economics!


It will help pay off a chunk as opposed to adding:

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion to deficit, panel finds
Click to expand...

Whether or not tax increases to the rich increase govt. revenue or not remains to be seen. regardless it is wrong to panalize one group of people over another and there is no evidence that tax increases will reduce the deficit because Congress continues to spend all the money they get. If it is 36 billion dollars great, you just lowered the deficit from 1.3 trillion to 1.264 trillion and you penalized job producers. That is liberal logic?
 
For those that continue to ignore the U.S. Treasury data here are the Budget items for line items in that budget. Notice that entitlement spending (SS and Medicare) is on budget and thus responsible for much of the deficit. Also notice the actual line item and you tell me how much in that budget is duplicated at the state and local levels.

2009 Budget vs. 2008 Budget

Defense 662.8 616.1
International Affairs 38.6 28.9
Gen. Science, Space 29.9 27.8
Energy 4.6 ..5
Natural resources/env 45.7 31.9
Agriculture 14.0 18.4
Commerce 292.5 277.0
Transportation 84.4 77.6
Community Dev 26.2 23.9
Education/Train/Social 78.2 90.9
Health 334.3 280.7
Medicare 430.1 390.8
Income Security 533.9 427.4
Social Security 683.0 617.0
Veterans Benefits 95.5 84.6
Justice 53.4 47.1
General Govt. 17.6 20.3
Net Interest 190.9 252.8


Total 3615.6 3063.9

2009 Budget 3615.6 trillion
2008 Budget 3313.6 trillion
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
History of PUBLIC DEBT? Stealing money from the SS fund to show lower public debt doesn't make the TOTAL Debt lower. Creative accounting like that would get you fired in the private sector
Click to expand...
Um, the Bureau of Public Debt is a branch of the Treasury Department the same as your source, TreasuryDirect. Helloooooo. So if the Bureau of Public debt is using creative accounting methods, then so is your source, TreasuryDirect, since the two are interconnected.

One of our primary responsibilities is to account for the U.S. public debt. We update this number daily at TreasuryDirect.gov
Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage

You lose again. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Um, the Bureau of Public Debt is a branch of the Treasury Department the same as your source, TreasuryDirect. Helloooooo. So if the Bureau of Public debt is using creative accounting methods, then so is your source, TreasuryDirect, since the two are interconnected.

Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage

You lose again. :cool:
Click to expand...

Yes, it sure is and reports ONE PART OF THE DEBT not the TOTAL DEBT which went up. Looks to me like you are the one losing. Let's see if you have the maturity to admit when wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom