Posted on 12/07/2009 9:02:46 PM PST by advance_copy
With President Barack Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional troops to battle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, he has put his imprint on the war on terror, and at the same time, given up the Democrats' most famous fallback position: blame George W. Bush.
Couple that with the economy and we are seeing the end of the president's first year in office coincide with him having to accept the full responsibility for the condition of the country.
Obama rode into office on the "blame Bush" tidal wave as the nation sickened of everything he touched. The economy? Bush was horrible at stewarding it. Giving banks billions in TARP funds? Dumb idea by Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank "Mr. Wall Street" Paulson. Sick of billions going to the war? It was all the fault of Bush and his chief crony, Vice President Dick Cheney.
The blame Bush mantra proved effective because it totally silenced Republicans, who were loathe to defend a conservative president who began with a surplus and ended with a deficit, as well as the architect of a war in Iraq based on never-proven claims of weapons of mass destruction. They couldn't even muster the strength to call him a conservative.
(Excerpt) Read more at campbellbrown.blogs.cnn.com ...
“When you learn the difference between national debt and a budget deficit get back to me.”
Until you learn that you don’t produce surpluses by borrowing money and calling it “revenue”, get back to me. There were real deficits during those years. They were covered with debt. It’s as if one runs up a credit card to make ends meet and claims they have a surplus because they took out more cash than required.
It’s like arguing with Gore... geez. Next thing you know, you’ll be talking about the “lock box”!
LOL!!! The discussion is simply on deficit and national debt. Go have someone else answer your retarded and disruptive question.
You still don't understand a simple accounting term and definition. A budget deficit or budget surplus is simply the difference between the receipts and the outlays. That's it! You keep dragging the national debt and intergovernmental debt in the equation for budget deficit/surplus.
You are dense and slow... boy! Sheeze..........
“You still don’t understand a simple accounting term and definition. “
You don’t understand simple economics. If you want to talk about the difference between economic terms and accounting terms, then we’ll talk.
“You keep dragging the national debt and intergovernmental debt in the equation for budget deficit/surplus.”
There was NO REAL SURPLUS! Bush was right in 2000!
When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.
I can’t help you any more than that.... Sheeze...
Maybe this will help you.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
“When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.”
“I can’t help you any more than that.... Sheeze...”
Look up “economic profit” vs “accounting profit” in a good economics book. Perhaps then you’ll understand where I’m coming from when I say that there was no actual surplus - even by GAAP standards.
Good day. We’re done.
“Good day. We’re done.”
Those who are unwilling to understand the economic reality and continue to repeat Gore talking points most certainly are done. Bye.
So you have no answer. Figures. You’re just another loud-mouthed, small-brained RINO-loving POS who engages in ad hominems instead of answering legitimate questions that are even phrased politely.
Agreed. The radical communism of the current administration calls for a radically constitutionalist response.
When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.
I can’t help you any more than that.... Sheeze...
Maybe this will help you.
SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
And the radical globalism of the previous administration DIDN’T?????
Look asshat, the discussion was about the numbers, not on what they spent it on you moron! Go ask someone else your retarded question! Sheeze....
Here’s a list of what they spent it on. Have fun going through it! lol!
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
And calling me RINO Lover becuase I won’t answer your ignorant and unrelated question — priceless!
“When the term “budget deficit” or “budget surplus” is used in regards to the federal government is simply means the difference between receipts and outlays.”
The Treasury can define Skittles as “revenue” to claim a surplus, but that doesn’t exactly match GAAP. You know what GAAP is, right?
That’s been the definition for 233 years... go take up the issue with someone else if you don’t like it. At least I know what they mean when they speak of budget deficits or budget surplus.
You say that my “standards are low” because I consider President Bush to be our best national leader since Reagan. If you disagree, which intervening president do you think showed better leadership? George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton?
It is difficult for any strong man to admit a mistake - particularly in the case of war strategy. It is much easier to say from the sidelines what a leader should do on the field, than it is to actually make those consequential decisions. President Bush made the right decision on the surge, stood behind it, and saw it through to a successful conclusion. Well done.
I don’t believe President Bush “stole” money from the American people to give to Africa and “other foreign aid” - unless one’s definition of thievery includes a large percentage of federal expenditures. Under that definition, it could be said that President Reagan “stole” money from the American people to give to Israel, the contras, etc. I don’t think it buttresses your argument against President Bush to blame him personally for things that all presidents do.
President Bush was vastly better than his principal opponents in ‘00 and ‘04. The country and the world are better off today because of his service, than we would be had his opponents been elected.
“That’s been the definition for 233 years... go take up the issue with someone else if you don’t like it. At least I know what they mean when they speak of budget deficits or budget surplus.”
No, it hasn’t.
Keep on defending Gore’s argument.
I’m always in favor of a constitutionalist response to overweening federal government power. Unfortunately, the main opponent to Obama in the ‘08 election was John McCain - not Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, or for that matter Sarah Palin. So we didn’t have a viable alternative. I think - and hope - and pray - that ‘12 will be different!
“You say that my “standards are low” because I consider President Bush to be our best national leader since Reagan. If you disagree, which intervening president do you think showed better leadership? George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton?”
Your standards are low because we haven’t had a national leader since Reagan.
“President Bush made the right decision on the surge, stood behind it, and saw it through to a successful conclusion. Well done.”
After how many years? The war isn’t actually OVER, so I’m not sure about the “conclusion” part....
“I don’t believe President Bush “stole” money from the American people to give to Africa and “other foreign aid” - unless one’s definition of thievery includes a large percentage of federal expenditures.”
Yes, it is theft. Much of it. Charity with the public purse is criminal.
“President Bush was vastly better than his principal opponents in ‘00 and ‘04. The country and the world are better off today because of his service, than we would be had his opponents been elected.”
That’s not saying much at all.
What I meant by “successful conclusion” was that at the close of President Bush’s administration, Iraq was in pretty good shape. It will take a very long time - probably generations - to actually change the culture so that representative democracy takes true root. But it’s not impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.