As far as the deficit for Bush..... Administration Has Turned Record Surpluses to Record Deficits – The Administration’s estimated deficit of $407 billion marks a $1.1 trillion deterioration for one year alone relative to the $710 billion surplus estimated for 2009 when the Administration took office. In all, the $5.6 trillion projected ten-year surplus that the Administration inherited when it took office has been converted, under realistic estimates, into a $3.2 trillion deficit. This represents a swing of $8.8 trillion in the wrong direction – the largest fiscal deterioration in American history.
Five Biggest Deficits in American History Fiscal Year Deficit 2004 $413 billion 2008 $410 billion 2009 $407 billion 2003 $378 billion 2005 $318 billion So with this is mind, the carry forward WITHOUT the bailouts is $407 Billion Times 8 Years or $3.256 Trillion, this INCLUDES the Social Security Surplus which LOWERS THE REAL DEFICIT! On Apr 20, 1:40 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > SugarShack, > > Let's Review: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > So people here have a better Idea of why you cut and ran on the other > board... > Your message was confusing because it was wrong. > > (Keith Resonds: Sugarshack, once I thought I was wrong, but I was > mistaken. You need to check your figures Buddy!!!) > > ============ > > - You were comparing Obama's 'record deficit' to all eight > > years of Bush's BUDGETS and THEN said it was 4 TIMES\the size! > > *Keith Responds: * > > I said that Obama's budget deficit is four times the size of Bush's deficit, > for the past eight years. This is a correct assessment. > > In fact, the Obama proposed 10 year budget would expend over ten trillion > dollars over the next ten years, which exceeds not only the last eight > years, it exceeds the last 232 years of our entire history!!! > > =============== > > - So forgive me if I challenged it especially when your > > proof did not support this comment. > > ============== > > *Keith Responds:* > > Sean, Sean, Sean, > Any way you try to spin it, we have never, ever seen the kind of deficit > spending that the Obama Administration is proposing over the next ten > years. More importantly, the Obama Administration is attempting to expand > the federal government to something, once again, we have never seen. In > essence, President Obama is attempting to do away with a free market ecomony > in this Nation, (as well as the United States Constitution, and you somehow > are either attempting to ignore this fact, and/or brush over the financial > numbers!!!) > > ================ > > - I will read your post, look at the facts, then explain the > > results to you. > > ============ > > *Keith Responds:* > > Please do, before you throw out any more bogus numbers of out-dated facts!! > ============= > > For instance, the 2008 Bailouts though added to the 2009 > Budget are deficits Obama inherited. Also I want to > make sure interest is not also added to the figure. > > Obama inherited a $600,000 Billion deficit BEFORE > the 2008 Bailouts were even added on > > $600 Billion X 8 Years is already $4.8 Trillion > of Inherited Deficits that are a carry over from Bush > > ================== > > *Keith Responds:* > > Sugarshack, Sugarshack, Sugharshack, > > Your Numbers are not correct. The Bush Deficit was less than five hundred > billion. Your premise is also correct. Obama could stop eliminate the Bush > Administration's 480 billion budget deficit tomorrow, but that is not > Pelosi's Reed's or Obama's goal. The socialist-elitists' goal is just that, > socialism, elitism, and to expand federal government to heights we have > never seen!! > > It is disengenuous to suggest that this is somehow a "Bush carryover". It > would be like suggesting that President Clinton left some kind of a national > debt surplus, (not a budget surplus) when we both know this isn't true. > > Add to this the cost of the 2008 Bailouts and that > > > is another $1 to $1.5 Trillion! > > > To say this is Obama's Fault and to blame him > > for this deficit spending is truly disingenuous! > > > Obama inherited HLS and the Medicare Drug Program > > and the AIG, TARP, AUTO, Merrill Lynch, and > > other bailouts. Remember this fact. > > > Oh and for the record your actual words, not your > > revised version was this...... > > > On Apr 16, 5:17 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The "record deficit" that you reference, is a small drop in the bucket as > > > compared to the current "record deficit" which is four times the size of > > all > > > eight years of the Bush Administration's budgets..... > > > > You still don't get it!!! > > > BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!! Now try again. > > > On Apr 20, 9:25 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Good Morning SugarShack! > > > > What is it that you want me to post? I have clearly established that > > > President Obama's budget quadriples the budget deficit of the former > > > Administration's. That the proposed budgetary plan clearly expands a our > > > federal government to proportions unheard of. > > > > I have provided you factual links, some from the Congressional Budget > > > Office, some from other governmental sites which clearly establish these > > > facts. > > > > What is it that you think I should respond too? Your contention that you > > > didn't understand my post, or that somehow you take issue with my > > > semantics? > > > > Go over to the thread captioned, "The Steven Bradbury Memoranda On > > Enhanced > > > Interrogation Techniques: I Am Wanting To Hear Perspectives!!" and tell > > me > > > "WTF" is going on here and how any rational thinking person can conclude > > > that America ever tortured anyone. > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:21 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > I posted to the board and not a response all week end..... > > > > I posted my response on two separate strings, > > > > no response. I think EVERYONE on the board noticed this > > > > lack of response...... > > > > > On Apr 17, 9:09 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good Evening Sean!! > > > > > > What did I leave off of the table? I totally destroyed just about > > every > > > > > premise that you have put down on the table, but I don't want you to > > > > think > > > > > that I am avoiding you!!! > > > > > > Please, by all means, what subject is it that you wish for me to > > clarify > > > > for > > > > > you this evening??? > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM, VT VirtualTruth < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Keith you ran and hid in Political Forum > > > > > > said you had to go have dinner, yet here > > > > > > you are 'bragging' about the 'good' arguments you are > > > > > > having. > > > > > > > You want to come back to Political Forum so i can finish bitch > > > > > > slapping > > > > > > you? > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 11:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I was jerking Sean's chain.....Plus, on occasion I'd like to post > > > > some > > > > > > good > > > > > > > arguments on the board that I am kinda sorta runnin' this week!! > > > > (LOL!!) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Perplexed < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > What....why can't he post it here? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2:47 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I thought we weren't going to do this here? > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2:01 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sean!! > > > > > > > > > > > Good to see ya!! > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for sharing your homoerotic far left extremist > > > > talking > > > > > > points > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > the group! I know that members such as Fritzie, Biffie, > > > > Cosmo-ie > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > far left extremists are proud of you for picking up on and > > > > > > mimicking > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > likes of that gal who is the husband and splashes diesel > > behind > > > > her > > > > > > > > ears for > > > > > > > > > > perfume....Whuz-Her-Name....Rachael Maddow, and the other > > > > crazed, > > > > > > > > demented > > > > > > > > > > Moonbat, Keithie Olberman, but I digress. > > > > > > > > > > > Let's review your premise, and I quote: > > > > > > > > > > > "That the Republican Congress was NOT the reason for this > > > > balanced > > > > > > > > > > budget (during > > > > > > > > > > the Clinton Administration). That Clinton stood up to the > > > > Rhino's > > > > > > > > (Rhino > > > > > > > > > > being a derogatory term for Republican)" > > > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > > > > Sean, let us actually review the facts, and not revisionist > > > > > > history. > > > > > > > > Of > > > > > > > > > > course, all of the data I have attached here can be > > documented. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > > free to ask questions if there is anything that you get > > > > confused on > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > frustrated over not comprehending: > > > > > > > > > > > It is true, that the federal budget deficit tumbled from > > $255 > > > > > > billion > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > 1993 to approximately $117 billion in 1996, and that by > > 1999, > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > was an > > > > > > > > > > actual surplus versus a deficit in our national budget. > > > > > > > > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton announced his new > > > > > > Administration's > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The > > > > spending > > > > > > > > package is > > > > > > > > > > later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally > > > > > > > > irresponsible. > > > > > > > > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his > > > > > > $250-billion > > > > > > > > tax > > > > > > > > > > hike; which New York Senator Pat Moynihan accurately > > describes > > > > as > > > > > > "the > > > > > > > > > > largest tax increase in world history." > > >http://www.archive.org/stream/proposedconstitu00unit/proposedconstitu. > > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > Nevertheless, President Clinton's "Tax and Spend" policy > > passes > > > > the > > > > > > > > Democrat > > > > > > > > > > Controlled Congress, without a single Republican vote. The > > > > package > > > > > > > > contains > > > > > > > > > > approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes. > > > > > > > > > > > In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat > > the > > > > > > > > bi-partisan > > > > > > > > > > Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut > > > > federal > > > > > > > > spending > > > > > > > > > > and the deficit by $90 billion over five years. The > > Clinton > > > > White > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
