It's official:

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Ausm
YOU LIE!!!!

NOT AGAIN!!!!

 

[TurdMiner]

So Obama should just put the yearly budget on a credit card at a ridiculous interest rate and promise that the next administration will pay it back. Then Obama's budget numbers would be OFFICALLY lower than both Bush's budget numbers and the next administrations.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: TurdMiner
So Obama should just put the yearly budget on a credit card at a ridiculous interest rate and promise that the next administration will pay it back. Then Obama's budget numbers would be OFFICALLY lower than both Bush's budget numbers and the next administrations.

Not if the government banked with Chase Bank they would jack the interest rates up to 30% even tho they are on the take for shitloads of cash

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't give a shit what he racks up right now. I do give a shit what he pays back in the next 3 years.

That is the key, Clinton had it, both the "Republicans" and Democrats failed to grasp it in the last 30 years. It's funny that our most fiscally conservative president was a Democrat. Hopefully Obama learned that lesson and puts the breaks on spending once the recovery begins.

Clinton only balanced the budget after the Republicans took over congress.

Clinton did not even talk about a balanced budget prior to 1995. Look at his inaugural address or his state of the union speeches and you will see that all he spoke of pre-1995 was reducing the deficit, but not one word about a balanced budget.

Here is a good source of Clinton speeches
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Modern_Presidents/clinton_speeches.htm

Please, when Newt and his cabal wanted to spend in the late 90's Clinton held the line. They were all ready to spend all of the gains they had like drunken sailors. He vetoed plenty of spending bills then.

Oh you mean like the appropriations bill he voetoed in 1996 because it didnt include the additional 1.6 billion he wanted? Or do you mean the bill he vetoed because the GOP wanted to make spending cuts to the COPS program? Like that you mean?

Or do you mean the offsets he was prepared to give to get those? Or do you mean the whole budgets that the Pubs wanted to push spending to the WHOLE surplus?

Nice revisionist history there, but Congress, controlled by the Repugs, wanted tons more spending, which he vetoed.

 

[jpeyton]

So is it unofficial now, or is it still official?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't give a shit what he racks up right now. I do give a shit what he pays back in the next 3 years.

That is the key, Clinton had it, both the "Republicans" and Democrats failed to grasp it in the last 30 years. It's funny that our most fiscally conservative president was a Democrat. Hopefully Obama learned that lesson and puts the breaks on spending once the recovery begins.

Clinton only balanced the budget after the Republicans took over congress.

Clinton did not even talk about a balanced budget prior to 1995. Look at his inaugural address or his state of the union speeches and you will see that all he spoke of pre-1995 was reducing the deficit, but not one word about a balanced budget.

Here is a good source of Clinton speeches
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Modern_Presidents/clinton_speeches.htm

Please, when Newt and his cabal wanted to spend in the late 90's Clinton held the line. They were all ready to spend all of the gains they had like drunken sailors. He vetoed plenty of spending bills then.

Oh you mean like the appropriations bill he voetoed in 1996 because it didnt include the additional 1.6 billion he wanted? Or do you mean the bill he vetoed because the GOP wanted to make spending cuts to the COPS program? Like that you mean?

Or do you mean the offsets he was prepared to give to get those? Or do you mean the whole budgets that the Pubs wanted to push spending to the WHOLE surplus?

Nice revisionist history there, but Congress, controlled by the Repugs, wanted tons more spending, which he vetoed.

It's not revisionist at all. It was widely publicised those were the reasons he vetoed.

Oh and that same GOP congress gave him a balanced budget. Thats really all that matters. That they sat down and decided to do whats right.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
So is it unofficial now, or is it still official?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...s-to-1.4-trillion.html

http://www.presstv.com/detail....8445&sectionid=3510203

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20...financeeconomyusbudget

http://talk.baltimoresun.com/s...?goto=newpost&t=220745

http://www.monstersandcritics....h-1-4-trillion-dollars

http://www.newsdaily.com/stori...e5966hc-us-usa-budget/

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...dbf.311&show_article=1

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/U...4_trilli_10072009.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17deficit.html

http://economictimes.indiatime...rticleshow/5133066.cms

http://news.ph.msn.com/busines...?cp-documentid=3628746

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...mits-democrats-agenda/





I would say its confirmed.

 

[nobodyknows]

President Bush Envisions a Soft Landing ? What Does He Know?

August 08, 2007
.
.
.
It is notable that the president does not see any problems with the lack of fiscal discipline that has roughly doubled US debt during his reign.

 

[Rangoric]

So what blackangst1 is saying is that all of the money spent before, what is it Jan 21st or so, was spent with the approval of Obama.

Also (and this is the part bugging me) is that the 2009 Budget as per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/index.html is signed by Bu Bu Bush, while the 2010 one is signed by O O Obama. Telling me that the 2009 Budget, which started in Oct 2008 was signed by O O Obama seems a little... stupid

And http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html lists 2009 as Bush too.

So, while there may have been increased spending, you have to deal with things in the 2009 budget and other things like expected income from esimates done before the recession happened.

And not to mention anything Congress does from October 1st 2008 to January 21st 2009 that is above and beyond the budget.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't give a shit what he racks up right now. I do give a shit what he pays back in the next 3 years.

That is the key, Clinton had it, both the "Republicans" and Democrats failed to grasp it in the last 30 years. It's funny that our most fiscally conservative president was a Democrat. Hopefully Obama learned that lesson and puts the breaks on spending once the recovery begins.

Clinton only balanced the budget after the Republicans took over congress.

Clinton did not even talk about a balanced budget prior to 1995. Look at his inaugural address or his state of the union speeches and you will see that all he spoke of pre-1995 was reducing the deficit, but not one word about a balanced budget.

Here is a good source of Clinton speeches
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Modern_Presidents/clinton_speeches.htm

Please, when Newt and his cabal wanted to spend in the late 90's Clinton held the line. They were all ready to spend all of the gains they had like drunken sailors. He vetoed plenty of spending bills then.

Oh you mean like the appropriations bill he voetoed in 1996 because it didnt include the additional 1.6 billion he wanted? Or do you mean the bill he vetoed because the GOP wanted to make spending cuts to the COPS program? Like that you mean?

Or do you mean the offsets he was prepared to give to get those? Or do you mean the whole budgets that the Pubs wanted to push spending to the WHOLE surplus?

Nice revisionist history there, but Congress, controlled by the Repugs, wanted tons more spending, which he vetoed.

It's not revisionist at all. It was widely publicised those were the reasons he vetoed.

Oh and that same GOP congress gave him a balanced budget. Thats really all that matters. That they sat down and decided to do whats right.

Despite, as proven above, their complete vote AGAINST balancing the budget...

Revisionist history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...nciliation_Act_of_1993


As Greenspan also backs up, the entire surplus was due to Clinton's holding the line, not the Repuglicans.

I suspected, but never verified, that the 09 budget was Bush. So, as usual, you lose.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
As Greenspan also backs up, the entire surplus was due to Clinton's holding the line, not the Repuglicans.

I suspected, but never verified, that the 09 budget was Bush. So, as usual, you lose.

I will grant him that it's just about official that the deficit is stupidly large though. I just am willing to give a bit of a Pass on this particular budget since it was drawn up before even the crap that started in March/May I think it was for Bear Stearns? That ended up with the whole fiasco in August-October.

 

[Darwin333]

Something that I don't see discussed much is how our externally held debt has been rolled into shorter and shorter term bonds. Basically, we have to sell $3 trillion worth of bonds every year in order to "refinance" our debt. That doesn't include a single dime of new borrowing or interest on the debt. To make matters much worse, our bond rates are pretty low right now but since we currently have to roll ALL of our debt over every 4 years, if the bond market jacks up the rates in the next few years we are in some serious trouble.

something as "mere" as a 2% increase in the average interest rate on Treasury debt could result in a near-doubling of interest owed, sticking more than $300 billion of additional red ink into the budget instantly.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Topic Title: It's official:
Topic Summary: 2009 closes with $1.4 trillion deficit

Good

Please start paying it back immediately out of your pocket.

It's you and your hero Bush that did this.

Maybe you shouldn't have voted for Bush.

Thanks for wrecking the economy Dave.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
So what blackangst1 is saying is that all of the money spent before, what is it Jan 21st or so, was spent with the approval of Obama.

Also (and this is the part bugging me) is that the 2009 Budget as per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/index.html is signed by Bu Bu Bush, while the 2010 one is signed by O O Obama. Telling me that the 2009 Budget, which started in Oct 2008 was signed by O O Obama seems a little... stupid

And http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html lists 2009 as Bush too.

So, while there may have been increased spending, you have to deal with things in the 2009 budget and other things like expected income from esimates done before the recession happened.

And not to mention anything Congress does from October 1st 2008 to January 21st 2009 that is above and beyond the budget.

No, thats not what Im saying. At all.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I don't give a shit what he racks up right now. I do give a shit what he pays back in the next 3 years.

That is the key, Clinton had it, both the "Republicans" and Democrats failed to grasp it in the last 30 years. It's funny that our most fiscally conservative president was a Democrat. Hopefully Obama learned that lesson and puts the breaks on spending once the recovery begins.

Clinton only balanced the budget after the Republicans took over congress.

Clinton did not even talk about a balanced budget prior to 1995. Look at his inaugural address or his state of the union speeches and you will see that all he spoke of pre-1995 was reducing the deficit, but not one word about a balanced budget.

Here is a good source of Clinton speeches
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/Modern_Presidents/clinton_speeches.htm

Please, when Newt and his cabal wanted to spend in the late 90's Clinton held the line. They were all ready to spend all of the gains they had like drunken sailors. He vetoed plenty of spending bills then.

Oh you mean like the appropriations bill he voetoed in 1996 because it didnt include the additional 1.6 billion he wanted? Or do you mean the bill he vetoed because the GOP wanted to make spending cuts to the COPS program? Like that you mean?

Or do you mean the offsets he was prepared to give to get those? Or do you mean the whole budgets that the Pubs wanted to push spending to the WHOLE surplus?

Nice revisionist history there, but Congress, controlled by the Repugs, wanted tons more spending, which he vetoed.

It's not revisionist at all. It was widely publicised those were the reasons he vetoed.

Oh and that same GOP congress gave him a balanced budget. Thats really all that matters. That they sat down and decided to do whats right.

Despite, as proven above, their complete vote AGAINST balancing the budget...

Revisionist history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...nciliation_Act_of_1993


As Greenspan also backs up, the entire surplus was due to Clinton's holding the line, not the Repuglicans.

I suspected, but never verified, that the 09 budget was Bush. So, as usual, you lose.

Revisionist indeed.

The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate on March 4, 1997, by one vote -- the same margin of failure as during the 104th Congress. Though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has predicted it may come up for another vote in this Congress, for the time being the idea is dead.

The amendment is favored by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats, including the president.





In 1995, Clinton had propsed FIVE budgets, each one lowering the amount until it was matched by the GOP's wants. Let us not forget Clinton's famous quote of 1995:

"balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

In 1995 it was Gingrich's push to eliminate the deficit in seven years....but they ended up doing it in four.

Taken directly from the federral budget itself under spending increased by 29.49%, and tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Go ahead and google "clinton balanced budget myth" and you'll get all the facts for yourself.

edit: I thought I would add, before you do, Im mixing two things in this reply: amendments and budgets; however, it is to prove the point it was the GOP in the 90's who wanted a balanced budget, not the Democrats. Oh how things change.

 

[William Larsen]

I hate to burst peoples balloons, but the last general budget surplus was in 1957! Clinton came close to a surplus, but he still ran deficits every single year he was in office. He was able to do this because he consumed military hardware without replacing it, raising taxes and curbing some spending.

Not only has every stimulus in the past has been borrowed money, they borrowed even more money to pay the interest. This is why the national debt increases every year. At the same time the amount of interest paid on the debt increases (except this year). The problem with our current situation is that the US has gone to short term notes and this creates a ?short? squeeze opportunity for lenders.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: William Larsen
I hate to burst peoples balloons, but the last general budget surplus was in 1957! Clinton came close to a surplus, but he still ran deficits every single year he was in office. He was able to do this because he consumed military hardware without replacing it, raising taxes and curbing some spending.

Not only has every stimulus in the past has been borrowed money, they borrowed even more money to pay the interest. This is why the national debt increases every year. At the same time the amount of interest paid on the debt increases (except this year). The problem with our current situation is that the US has gone to short term notes and this creates a ?short? squeeze opportunity for lenders.

Clintons' Surplus was an Operating Budget Surplus. It was a significant milestone, although as you point out it didn't result in an increase in actual Value, because it ignored Interest Payments etc. Still important and something along the path towards actually turning the Deficit/Debt situation around.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Revisionist indeed.

The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate on March 4, 1997, by one vote -- the same margin of failure as during the 104th Congress. Though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has predicted it may come up for another vote in this Congress, for the time being the idea is dead.

The amendment is favored by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats, including the president.





In 1995, Clinton had propsed FIVE budgets, each one lowering the amount until it was matched by the GOP's wants. Let us not forget Clinton's famous quote of 1995:

"balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

In 1995 it was Gingrich's push to eliminate the deficit in seven years....but they ended up doing it in four.

Taken directly from the federral budget itself under spending increased by 29.49%, and tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Go ahead and google "clinton balanced budget myth" and you'll get all the facts for yourself.

edit: I thought I would add, before you do, Im mixing two things in this reply: amendments and budgets; however, it is to prove the point it was the GOP in the 90's who wanted a balanced budget, not the Democrats. Oh how things change.

Balanced Budget Amendments are stupid.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Revisionist indeed.

The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate on March 4, 1997, by one vote -- the same margin of failure as during the 104th Congress. Though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has predicted it may come up for another vote in this Congress, for the time being the idea is dead.

The amendment is favored by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats, including the president.





In 1995, Clinton had propsed FIVE budgets, each one lowering the amount until it was matched by the GOP's wants. Let us not forget Clinton's famous quote of 1995:

"balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

In 1995 it was Gingrich's push to eliminate the deficit in seven years....but they ended up doing it in four.

Taken directly from the federral budget itself under spending increased by 29.49%, and tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Go ahead and google "clinton balanced budget myth" and you'll get all the facts for yourself.

edit: I thought I would add, before you do, Im mixing two things in this reply: amendments and budgets; however, it is to prove the point it was the GOP in the 90's who wanted a balanced budget, not the Democrats. Oh how things change.

Balanced Budget Amendments are stupid.

I agree, but I was making a point.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rangoric
So what blackangst1 is saying is that all of the money spent before, what is it Jan 21st or so, was spent with the approval of Obama.

Also (and this is the part bugging me) is that the 2009 Budget as per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/index.html is signed by Bu Bu Bush, while the 2010 one is signed by O O Obama. Telling me that the 2009 Budget, which started in Oct 2008 was signed by O O Obama seems a little... stupid

And http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html lists 2009 as Bush too.

So, while there may have been increased spending, you have to deal with things in the 2009 budget and other things like expected income from esimates done before the recession happened.

And not to mention anything Congress does from October 1st 2008 to January 21st 2009 that is above and beyond the budget.

No, thats not what Im saying. At all.

Sure fooled me.

Obama's budget, Obama's problem. Simple math: Obama's deficit>Bush's, wars included or not.

No. The 2009 budget was signed by Obama on March 11 this year.

(For reference the 2010 budget is the one that was signed this year)

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Revisionist indeed.

The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate on March 4, 1997, by one vote -- the same margin of failure as during the 104th Congress. Though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has predicted it may come up for another vote in this Congress, for the time being the idea is dead.

The amendment is favored by most Republicans and opposed by most Democrats, including the president.





In 1995, Clinton had propsed FIVE budgets, each one lowering the amount until it was matched by the GOP's wants. Let us not forget Clinton's famous quote of 1995:

"balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

In 1995 it was Gingrich's push to eliminate the deficit in seven years....but they ended up doing it in four.

Taken directly from the federral budget itself under spending increased by 29.49%, and tax revenues increased by 85.58%.

Go ahead and google "clinton balanced budget myth" and you'll get all the facts for yourself.

edit: I thought I would add, before you do, Im mixing two things in this reply: amendments and budgets; however, it is to prove the point it was the GOP in the 90's who wanted a balanced budget, not the Democrats. Oh how things change.

Balanced Budget Amendments are stupid.

I agree, but I was making a point.

Yet, Clinton did Balance the Budget. He just didn't want a Knee-Jerk Amendment put in place that would come back and burn Future Generations.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Rangoric
So what blackangst1 is saying is that all of the money spent before, what is it Jan 21st or so, was spent with the approval of Obama.

Also (and this is the part bugging me) is that the 2009 Budget as per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/index.html is signed by Bu Bu Bush, while the 2010 one is signed by O O Obama. Telling me that the 2009 Budget, which started in Oct 2008 was signed by O O Obama seems a little... stupid

And http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html lists 2009 as Bush too.

So, while there may have been increased spending, you have to deal with things in the 2009 budget and other things like expected income from esimates done before the recession happened.

And not to mention anything Congress does from October 1st 2008 to January 21st 2009 that is above and beyond the budget.

No, thats not what Im saying. At all.

Sure fooled me.

Obama's budget, Obama's problem. Simple math: Obama's deficit>Bush's, wars included or not.

No. The 2009 budget was signed by Obama on March 11 this year.

(For reference the 2010 budget is the one that was signed this year)

Wrong. 2009 omnibus bill was signed.

edit: H.R. 1105 FYI

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Clinton only balanced the budget after the Republicans took over congress.

Clinton did not even talk about a balanced budget prior to 1995. Look at his inaugural address or his state of the union speeches and you will see that all he spoke of pre-1995 was reducing the deficit, but not one word about a balanced budget.

Pants on fire. That would make you a liar.


Deficit Reduction Act of 1993

"".... Ultimately every Republican in Congress voted against the bill ... ""

Ummm it's called the "deficit reduction act' NOT the balanced budget act.

Again, Clinton NEVER spoke about a balanced budget prior to 1995.

Click on the link I provided and read his major policy speeches and then look up his pre-1996 budgets and you will so NO mention of a balanced budget. It was not until the fall of 1995 that he was finally dragged kicking and screaming to the table and forced to accept a balanced budget plan.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rangoric
Wait a sec, I thought the budget for 2009 was done up starting in october 2008, before the election even took place.

Nope, the Democrats refused to present Bush with a budget prior to October 2008 knowing that they were going to win seats and most likely win the White House.

The majority of the 2009 budget was passed AFTER Obama took office therefore the own it.

You will go to no end to obfuscate the financial clusterfuck that was the voodoo econimics and budgeting of the GOP and Bush.

Until someone demonstrates how the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were paid for, how our 'overseas contingency operations' have been paid for, Part D, LNCB, ad nauseum ...

You got nothing but propaganda, revisionist history and Fail.

2008 deficit = $400 billion
2009 deficit = $1400 billion.

Where did the extra trillion come from??

I am pretty sure it didn't come from Bush's earlier failings. Instead it came from a drop in tax revenue related to the deficit and a HUGE increase in spending by Obama and congress.

BTW spending went from $2.9t in 2008 to $3.5t in 2009 a $600 billion increase in just one year.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rangoric
So what blackangst1 is saying is that all of the money spent before, what is it Jan 21st or so, was spent with the approval of Obama.

Also (and this is the part bugging me) is that the 2009 Budget as per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/index.html is signed by Bu Bu Bush, while the 2010 one is signed by O O Obama. Telling me that the 2009 Budget, which started in Oct 2008 was signed by O O Obama seems a little... stupid

And http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html lists 2009 as Bush too.

So, while there may have been increased spending, you have to deal with things in the 2009 budget and other things like expected income from esimates done before the recession happened.

And not to mention anything Congress does from October 1st 2008 to January 21st 2009 that is above and beyond the budget.

You don't seem to understand the process...
Let me help you.

You are linking to the White House's budget page which is not the actual budget that is passed by Congress.

The FY 2009 budget was proposed by Bush way back in Feb 2008, but the Democrats essentially ignored it and waited till Obama to take office to finally pass a 2009 budget.

As for the 2010 budget, it IS signed by Obama you must have looked at the wrong link.