Good grief! It's just a simple meausre of the difference between receipts and outlays of the frikin' budget! Damn you are dense!
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 ...
*sigh*
When the US Treasury says there was a deficit for a particular month or year or say there was a surplus for a particular month or year, that is simply receipts minus budget outlays.
You are aware that a budget is submitted and passed each year before the end of each fiscal year, right?
You continue to have no clue as to the difference of budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.
You’re clueless! No other way around it.
Hey, I never said he was perfect!
More horsecrap from you. The budget is paid by receipts which are income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties.
Try reading this for once numbnuts! Sheeze.........
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt
“More horsecrap from you. The budget is paid by receipts which are income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties.”
Wow... You really DON’T understand how the system works and what that intragovernmental debt actually is....
“You are aware that a budget is submitted and passed each year before the end of each fiscal year, right?”
Too well.
“You continue to have no clue as to the difference of budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”
You continue to believe government numbers. I’m just pointing out that from an accounting perspective, those surpluses DID NOT EXIST.
“Hey, I never said he was perfect!”
True.
Not true by a long shot. As long as there are the alphabet news organizations, fools that live and vote in the United States, and a Democrat Party it will never be over.
They exist in the budget transactions but not in the intergovernmental debt or overall national debt. That's what is confusing you.
The budget deficit/surplus is simply the accounting of receipts minus outlays. Receipts are: income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties. That's called federal revenue.
“They exist in the budget transactions but not in the intergovernmental debt or overall national debt. That’s what is confusing you.”
I’m not in the least confused. You, however, think those surpluses based on liabilities are relevant. They aren’t.
Income is NOT LIABILITIES. T-bills and bonds are notes and liabilities.
“The budget deficit/surplus is simply the accounting of receipts minus outlays. Receipts are: income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties. That’s called federal revenue.”
You are ignoring one big non-income revenue source that creates your non-surplus: Social Security Treasury purchases and the sale of other bonds. That is counted - against GAAP - as income. It is not. This is what you do not understand about your numbers and why you do not understand why those books are cooked.
cut the crap, Rab.. people really need to grow up and drop the RINO stuff... Bush was not a “fiscal” conservative.. I honestly don’t remember him even claiming he was a fiscal conservative... in actuality the fiscal conservative in 2000 was McCain the man so many love to hate... I’m not defending McCain in this, but just saying... because Bush was a good Christian man people assumed he would be the whole banana, but he always said he was a “compassionate” conservative — which is pretty much what Mike Huckabee would be and look how close Huck came in 2008....
Good grief! It's just a simple meausre of the difference between receipts and outlays of the frikin' budget! Damn you are dense!
“Good grief! It’s just a simple meausre of the difference between receipts and outlays of the frikin’ budget! Damn you are dense!”
Sonny, you can keep believing that cooked books meant the GOP Congress didn’t spend more than income, but that doesn’t make it so. You brought the Treasury “surplus” crapola into this discussion as proof of something... What was that again?
I really don’t give a flying fig what Treasury uses to define these terms. REAL DEFINITIONS indicate that was NOT A REAL SURPLUS! Not in reality. Only in government la-la land.
End of story.
There you go confusing budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.
“There you go confusing budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”
There you go confusing reality with what the government tells you. It doesn’t matter what Treasury defines as income. It doesn’t matter what Treasury defines as a deficit or surplus. What matters is whether or not it really IS a deficit or a surplus. It was a deficit in 2001. Spin it however you like.
I’m done, sonny. You are off in never-never land where economics doesn’t matter and ENRON-style accounting tricks are financial truth. Again, I don’t give a damn what they call it. I only care about what it actually IS.
There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.
“intergovernmental debt”
Oh, BTW... it’s “intragovernmental debt”. Intergovernmental debt is another thing entirely.
“There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.”
The Treasury ran a deficit in 2001. They reported it as a surplus. You can claim anything if you report liabilities as income.
Just what were you trying to prove bringing this up vis-a-vis Bush? Are you trying to defend the Gore campaign?
pedant.
“pedant.”
Projection.
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.