Well done Mitt, you took it to him last night...

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Wrong...You are implying all the previous war costs were added to Obama's first budget. This is not the case. What Obama did do is factor in the yearly cost of the wars for each yearly budget going forward. The grand Total averaged out to a little over 100 billion in war funding per year. He also did not add in the war costs until 2010.
The previous cost of the wars before Obama took office were already tacked on to the deficit. They just weren't in the proposed budget each year and were added in later as supplementals. Something Obama himself has done twice. Not all the war costs were put on the books each year...there still has been supplemental funding votes.
The wars account for 10% of the budget deficit under Obama.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
And your link disproves my facts how? Oh wait, it doesn't.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498000
And your link disproves my facts how? Oh wait, it doesn't.
It doesn't?
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections
Here's something interesting...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/time-to-move-iraq-and-afghanistan-funding-into-the-regular-budget-process
Congress has provided annual funding for these missions through the use of emergency supplemental spending bills. Given the length of time the military has been engaged and the increased predictability of what is required to succeed, the Pentagon should no longer use supplementals to pay for these contingencies. Congress should instead begin funding these operations as part of the regular defense budget in fiscal year 2010.
The result is a practical argument for bringing the supplemental appropriations to a close in fiscal year 2009 and in 2010 incorporating these funding requirements into the core defense budget.
"Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan have not been fundedthrough regular appropriations bills, butthrough emergency supplementalappropriations bills. As such, most of these expenses were not included in thebudget deficit calculation prior toFY2010. "
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52474715/United-States-Federal-Budget
"For example, until the President’s FY 2010 budget request, much of the funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was funded entirely through emergency appropriations. Funding the war using emergency spending was a gimmick that had the effect of removing billions of dollars of likely military expenditures from the spending totals in the President’s budget. At the time, 7/concord-coalition-warns-presidents-budget-omits-cost-major-initiatives">The Concord Coalition raised concerns that the deficit totals projected in the President’s budget were unrealistic because they omitted costs of major initiatives such as the war. Analysis by both CRS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also raised concerns about the practice. In a 2006 report, CRS concluded that the practice of funding the entire war effort using emergency appropriations departed from the prior practice of funding only the initial stages of military conflicts with emergency appropriations and then using regular appropriations to fund ongoing conflicts. In a 2008 study of supplemental appropriations, GAO encouraged the Administration to include known or likely projected costs of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Department of Defense’s base budget request. GAO concluded that “continuing to fund GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] through supplementals reduces transparency and avoids the necessary reexamination and discussion of defense commitments and funding tradeoffs.”
http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2010/0510/growing-misuse-emergency-designation-weakens-budget-discipline-and-increases-
So based on this article, the entire war was being funded by these supplemental spending bills you discussed during Bush's entire term.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

So based on this article, the entire war was being funded by these supplemental spending bills you discussed during Bush's entire term.
Did I state otherwise? Go back and reread what I said.
Your argument for the deficit from 2010 to now is the wars were added to the budget. This and only this claim is what I was and am addressing.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Just to add to the debate.
Actual deficit numbers with future deficit numbers based off current programs.
Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2013*: $901 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2012: $1,089 billion FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498009
Did I state otherwise? Go back and reread what I said.
Your argument for the deficit from 2010 to now is the wars were added to the budget. This and only this claim is what I was and am addressing.
And if you read the articles I listed, they state that the supplementary spending bills that were allocated for the wars from the beginning to 2010, were added to the deficit in 2010.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498010
Just to add to the debate.
Actual deficit numbers with future deficit numbers based off current programs.
Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2013*: $901 billion FY 2009†: $1,413 billion
FY 2012: $1,089 billion FY 2008: $459 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2007: $161 billion
FY 2010: $1,293 billion
I don't get what you're trying to convey here, or what these numbers represent. You're saying Bush only had a $161 billion deficit for 2007? Where do these stats come from?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498008
It doesn't?
The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.
That includes spending for the bank bailout legislation approved by President Bush. Annual increases in amounts actually spent since fiscal 2009 have been relatively modest. In fact, spending for the first seven months of the current fiscal year is running slightly below the same period last year, and below projections
Here's something interesting...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/time-to-move-iraq-and-afghanistan-funding-into-the-regular-budget-process
Congress has provided annual funding for these missions through the use of emergency supplemental spending bills. Given the length of time the military has been engaged and the increased predictability of what is required to succeed, the Pentagon should no longer use supplementals to pay for these contingencies. Congress should instead begin funding these operations as part of the regular defense budget in fiscal year 2010.
The result is a practical argument for bringing the supplemental appropriations to a close in fiscal year 2009 and in 2010 incorporating these funding requirements into the core defense budget.
"Much of the costs for the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan have not been fundedthrough regular appropriations bills, butthrough emergency supplementalappropriations bills. As such, most of these expenses were not included in thebudget deficit calculation prior toFY2010. "
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52474715/United-States-Federal-Budget
"For example, until the President’s FY 2010 budget request, much of the funding for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was funded entirely through emergency appropriations. Funding the war using emergency spending was a gimmick that had the effect of removing billions of dollars of likely military expenditures from the spending totals in the President’s budget. At the time, rns-presidents-budget-omits-cost-major-initiatives">The Concord Coalition raised concerns that the deficit totals projected in the President’s budget were unrealistic because they omitted costs of major initiatives such as the war. Analysis by both CRS and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also raised concerns about the practice. In a 2006 report, CRS concluded that the practice of funding the entire war effort using emergency appropriations departed from the prior practice of funding only the initial stages of military conflicts with emergency appropriations and then using regular appropriations to fund ongoing conflicts. In a 2008 study of supplemental appropriations, GAO encouraged the Administration to include known or likely projected costs of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq with the Department of Defense’s base budget request. GAO concluded that “continuing to fund GWOT [Global War on Terrorism] through supplementals reduces transparency and avoids the necessary reexamination and discussion of defense commitments and funding tradeoffs.”
http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-briefs/2010/0510/growing-misuse-emergency-designation-weakens-budget-discipline-and-increases-
So based on this article, the entire war was being funded by these supplemental spending bills you discussed during Bush's entire term.
The appropriations covered the war costs each and every year and seeing as how the the FY2009 budget was the last budget that has been approved the wars have never been placed on budget. All federal spending has been covered through appropriations sense that time.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498065
The appropriations covered the war costs each and every year and seeing as how the the FY2009 budget was the last budget that has been approved the wars have never been placed on budget. All federal spending has been covered through appropriations sense that time.
Well if I'm reading Darth's chart correctly, it shows that the total deficit reported for 2007 was $161 billion. If that were the case, where's the budget money for the wars for that year?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498071
Well if I'm reading Darth's chart correctly, it shows that the total deficit reported for 2007 was $161 billion. If that were the case, where's the budget money for the wars for that year?
The wars would have added 170 billion to that amount I believe. The budget is a forward looking estimate of expenditures vs revenue. It's not until the end of the fiscal year that we know the actual numbers. When unexpected expenses come up during the year congress can appropriate additional funds to cover them. Once the fiscal year is finished (budget for FY 2007 should have been completed in October of 2006) the actual revenues and expenditures are computed to come up with the deficit for the year. Some sources use the year ending numbers and some use the numbers from the actual budget.
I don't know where Darth got his numbers but I don't recall us getting that close to balance. The war spending that year was 170 billion so I think there would have been a big deal made about actually having a surplus that year without the wars. Times were good so the revenue was there but they weren't THAT good LOL!
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498074
The wars would have added 170 billion to that amount I believe. The budget is a forward looking estimate of expenditures vs revenue. It's not until the end of the fiscal year that we know the actual numbers. When unexpected expenses come up during the year congress can appropriate additional funds to cover them. Once the fiscal year is finished (budget for FY 2007 should have been completed in October of 2006) the actual revenues and expenditures are computed to come up with the deficit for the year. Some sources use the year ending numbers and some use the numbers from the actual budget.
I don't know where Darth got his numbers but I don't recall us getting that close to balance. The war spending that year was 170 billion so I think there would have been a big deal made about actually having a surplus that year without the wars. Times were good so the revenue was there but they weren't THAT good LOL!
I found the right-wing site where he got his charts. Here's some interesting explanations for those various comparisons:
2001 vs. 2009
According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). Spending increases (expressed as % of GDP) were in the following areas: Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), defense (1.6%), income security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), social security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). Revenue reductions were individual income taxes (?3.3%), payroll taxes (?0.5%), corporate income taxes (?0.5%) and other (?0.4%).
The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).
2001 vs. 2011
In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:
[*]
$3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
$1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cutsont> (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
[*]
$1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
[*]
$1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
[*]
$1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances
[*]
$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)
The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

  • Recessions or the business cycle (37%);

  • Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
    Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
    New policies from President Obama (10%).
Several other articles and experts explained the causes of change in the debt position
2008 vs. 2009
In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, i.e. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[sup] [/sup]The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were:
[list type=decimal]
accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations;
assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;
accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and
anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.
[/list type=decimal]
According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Well if I'm reading Darth's chart correctly, it shows that the total deficit reported for 2007 was $161 billion.  If that were the case, where's the budget money for the wars for that year? 
Let me explain this slowly as you are not grasping this.
All appropriation bills are accounted for on the books. Now, they may not be in the proposed budget that congress passes but they are still accounted for each year. Meaning those dollars are already accounted for.
What Obama did was this.Instead of using appropriation bills to fund the war, he added the projected costs for the year into his budget. meaning that year there would be no need for appropriation bills supposedly. He still needed to get appropriation bills passed for the ramp up in Afghanistan, as that was an unforeseen expenditure. But his budgets in general accounted for that years figured war costs.
He did NOT add the entire war cost from the previous administration into his budget. This is what you are implying and this is what was not done. What was done is an extra 100 billion dollars was factored into his budget to cover the wars for that year. This accounts for less than 10% of the yearly deficit.
If appropriation bills were not added into the budget and our books before, then the last four years we have not spent any money since no budget has been passed since 2008. You and I both know this is not the case.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I found the right-wing site where he got his charts.  Here's some interesting explanations for those various comparisons:
2001 vs. 2009
 
According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). Spending increases (expressed as % of GDP) were in the following areas: Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), defense (1.6%), income security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), social security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). Revenue reductions were individual income taxes (?3.3%), payroll taxes (?0.5%), corporate income taxes (?0.5%) and other (?0.4%).
The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).
 2001 vs. 2011
 
In June 2012, CBO summarized the cause of change between its January 2001 estimate of a $5.6 trillion cumulative surplus between 2002 and 2011 and the actual $6.1 trillion cumulative deficit that occurred, an unfavorable "turnaround" or debt increase of $11.7 trillion. Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher. Of this total, the CBO attributes 72% to legislated tax cuts and spending increases and 27% to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56% occurred from 2009 to 2011.
The difference between the projected and actual debt in 2011 can be largely attributed to:
  • $3.5 trillion – Economic changes (including lower than expected tax revenues and higher safety net spending due to recession)
  • $1.6 trillion – Bush Tax Cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA), primarily tax cuts but also some smaller spending increases
  • $1.5 trillion - Increased non-defense discretionary spending
  • $1.4 trillion – Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • $1.4 trillion - Incremental interest due to higher debt balances$0.9 trillion - Obama stimulus and tax cuts (ARRA and Tax Act of 2010)
    The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
    Recessions or the business cycle (37%);Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); andNew policies from President Obama (10%).
Several other articles and experts explained the causes of change in the debt position
2008 vs. 2009
In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, i.e. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act">American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[sup] [/sup] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.
The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were:
[list type=decimal][*]accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations;[*]assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; andanticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.[/list type=decimal]
According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear
Those charts came from here. Not sure if it is a right wing site or not.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498085
Those charts came from here. Not sure if it is a right wing site or not.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
Did you read this link from your source?
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. See here.
http://american.com/archive/2011/july/the-government2019s-four-decade-financial-experiment

Projected and Recent US Federal Debt Numbers








Gross
Federal Debt



Debt Held
by Public



Debt Held by
Federal Reserve







FY 2013*



$17.5 trillion



$10.6 trillion



$2.1 trillion







FY 2012*



$16.4 trillion



$9.7 trillion



$1.9 trillion







FY 2011



$14.8 trillion



$8.5 trillion



$1.7 trillion







FY 2010



$13.5 trillion



$8.2 trillion



$0.8 trillion







FY 2009



$11.9 trillion



$6.8 trillion



$0.8 trillion







FY 2008



$10.0 trillion



$5.3 trillion



$0.5 trillion



“Gross Federal Debt” is the total debt owed by the United States federal government. It comprises “Debt Held by Public”, including foreign governments, debt held by federal government accounts such as IOUs owed to the Social Security trust fund, and “Debt held by Federal Reserve,” debt bought by the Federal Reserve System as part of the monetary base.
Note:
US Federal Debt
Fiscal Years 1900 to 2016




Year



GDP-US
$ billion nominal



Population-US
million



Gross Public Debt -fed
percent GDP







2000



9951.5



282.172



56.56



a







2001



10286.2



285.082



56.09



a







2002



10642.3



287.804



58.24



a







2003



11142.2



290.326



60.67



a







2004



11853.3



293.046



62.05



a







2005



12623



295.507



62.63



a







2006



13377.2



298.109



63.18



a







2007



14028.7



300.733



63.80



a







2008



14369.1



303.380



69.50



a







2009



13939



306.051



85.20



a







2010



14526.5



308.746



93.13



a







2011



15094



311.592



97.82



a







2012



15601.5



314.123



104.80



e



r />

2013



16335



316.847



107.43



e





2014



17155.6



319.594



107.84



e







2015



18177.8



322.366



106.87



e







2016



19261.1



325.010



105.87



e
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
The deficits are never what is in the budget, never have been never will be because budgets are based on projections. The national debt is a real time number based on what we are borrowing at any given time.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Did you read this link from your source?
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. See here.
http://american.com/archive/2011/july/the-government2019s-four-decade-financial-experiment
Projected and Recent US Federal Debt Numbers
 
Gross
Federal Debt
Debt Held
by Public
Debt Held by
Federal Reserve
FY 2013*
$17.5 trillion
$10.6 trillion
$2.1 trillion
FY 2012*
$16.4 trillion
$9.7 trillion
$1.9 trillion
FY 2011
$14.8 trillion
$8.5 trillion
$1.7 trillion
FY 2010
$13.5 trillion
$8.2 trillion
$0.8 trillion
FY 2009
$11.9 trillion
$6.8 trillion
$0.8 trillion
FY 2008
$10.0 trillion
$5.3 trillion
$0.5 trillion
“Gross Federal Debt” is the total debt owed by the United States federal government. It comprises “Debt Held by Public”, including foreign governments, debt held by federal government accounts such as IOUs owed to the Social Security trust fund, and “Debt held by Federal Reserve,” debt bought by the Federal Reserve System as part of the monetary base.
Note:
US Federal Debt
Fiscal Years 1900 to 2016

Year


GDP-US
$ billion nominal


Population-US
million


Gross Public Debt -fed
percent GDP

2000
9951.5
282.172
56.56
a
2001
10286.2
285.082
56.09
a
2002
10642.3
287.804
58.24
a
2003
11142.2
290.326
60.67
a
2004
11853.3
293.046
62.05
a
2005
12623
295.507
62.63
a
2006
13377.2
298.109
63.18
a
2007
14028.7
300.733
63.80
a
2008
14369.1
303.380
69.50
a
2009
13939
306.051
85.20
a
2010
14526.5
308.746
93.13
a
2011
15094
311.592
97.82
a
2012
15601.5
314.123
104.80
e
2013
16335
316.847
107.43
e
2014
17155.6
319.594
107.84
e
2015
18177.8
322.366
106.87
e
2016
19261.1
325.010
105.87
e
What does this have to do with your implication that president Obama Put all the past war costs into his Budget? That has been my only point of contention
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/160#post_3498146
Still not sure of the point. as of January of this year 0bama had increased the national debt 4.7 Trillion. Don't know exactly where it is today but the debt stood at 10.6 trillion when he took office.
Read the article. You rail Obama and label him as this big spender, yet the statistics show he hasn't spent any more than Bush did. Is that a good thing? Of course not. The only thing Obama is guilty of is the same thing every politician does to try and get elected - make promises they can't keep. If Romney wins, it'll be the same song, different dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top