Obama Bin Laden won

BigSickD

BigSickD

Vet
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
2,717
Now the upper middle class is screwed and the welfare recipients are dancing in the streets.
 
The problem I have with the whole thing is that it was based on his color, not his ideas. If he were white he wouldn't have won, plain and simple. I mean damn, they showed Jesse Jackson crying his eyes out when the results came out. Who knows, we will see but making our country more of a socialist country only means that less people will be motivated to make more money cause they will just be taxed the shit out of.
 
this literally makes me sick. i dont know which moreso...the fact that barry ofama won or watching all of the full blown IDIOTS literally pissing their pants in excitement at the fact! i mean i cant even count how many people i have seen now interviewed in the crowd in tears, who were just so "speechless" they couldnt even comment. then you have the few who can who are total momos. a couple from i cant remember what state now was interviewed...when asked why they supported obama and volunteered on his campaign...they said they felt it was their time to help make a difference in their state...which...wait for it....usually goes BLUE!!! wtf?? does this idiot realize blue is the color symbolizing democrats?? and these are the people deciding this election. the future of our country. they were SO enthusiastic and excited about the vote and dont even know what their party colors are!!

and yea...they show jessie jackson in tears...couldnt even stand up straight his knees gave out he was so emotional. im not even getting started on that worthless man

top that off with every reporter being stationed in areas like harlem or atlanta...showcasing the MOBS of poverty stricken african americans...of course reported on my an african american reporter...one of which was so emotional he broke down in tears and couldnt even finish talking. becasue his father told him "once" that there would NEVER be a black president. and today we proved his old man wrong. SO WHAT!! its not about that!! and the democrats say this wasnt about the race issue

race aside...its not about that at all. its about our country!!! our future!!! regardless of race we needed to pick the candidate best qualified for the job. but you have all the pinheads out there that voted one way or another just because of race. without even thinking about the reprocussions on the country.

im honestly disappointed in our country as a whole, out of everyone out there these are the 2 best people we could come up for this job?? sad people. i dont really think either candidate was really the best choice...but i do believe you must pick the lesser of two evils. and my friends a socialist, radical leftist, communist, barely american, who cant even provide a birth certificate whose brother lives in a dirt hut in Whereverwe, Africa, who wants to redistribute our wealth and destroy the american dream is no the best choice.

our new party in power is ALREADY talking of another 500BILLION dollar bailout package...haha...wow

i mean where does this end?? take our money and give it away like robin hood because everyone wants to have more. raise our taxes so others can have health care, take our social security so others can go to school...because somewhere someone wants to go to college and cant. GET A JOB!!! GET A LOAN!! like all the rest of us did before you!! where does it end?? i mean everyone wants a bmw...lets give everyone a bmw...everyone wants a beach house...give them all a beach house. this has to end somewhere...its rediculous. and communistic. in a failing economy...this will only promote lazy and unsuccessfull attitudes. y should i work if i get it for free...and y should i work if its going to be taken from me.

this is absurd. america needs help. its needs to wake up and make some realizations. im throughly sick with this country...coming closer to moving to mexico every day

america :fawk2:
 
HugelyGifted said:
this literally makes me sick. i dont know which moreso...the fact that barry ofama won or watching all of the full blown IDIOTS literally pissing their pants in excitement at the fact! i mean i cant even count how many people i have seen now interviewed in the crowd in tears, who were just so "speechless" they couldnt even comment. then you have the few who can who are total momos. a couple from i cant remember what state now was interviewed...when asked why they supported obama and volunteered on his campaign...they said they felt it was their time to help make a difference in their state...which...wait for it....usually goes BLUE!!! wtf?? does this idiot realize blue is the color symbolizing democrats?? and these are the people deciding this election. the future of our country. they were SO enthusiastic and excited about the vote and dont even know what their party colors are!!

and yea...they show jessie jackson in tears...couldnt even stand up straight his knees gave out he was so emotional. im not even getting started on that worthless man

top that off with every reporter being stationed in areas like harlem or atlanta...showcasing the MOBS of poverty stricken african americans...of course reported on my an african american reporter...one of which was so emotional he broke down in tears and couldnt even finish talking. becasue his father told him "once" that there would NEVER be a black president. and today we proved his old man wrong. SO WHAT!! its not about that!! and the democrats say this wasnt about the race issue

race aside...its not about that at all. its about our country!!! our future!!! regardless of race we needed to pick the candidate best qualified for the job. but you have all the pinheads out there that voted one way or another just because of race. without even thinking about the reprocussions on the country.

im honestly disappointed in our country as a whole, out of everyone out there these are the 2 best people we could come up for this job?? sad people. i dont really think either candidate was really the best choice...but i do believe you must pick the lesser of two evils. and my friends a socialist, radical leftist, communist, barely american, who cant even provide a birth certificate whose brother lives in a dirt hut in Whereverwe, Africa, who wants to redistribute our wealth and destroy the american dream is no the best choice.

our new party in power is ALREADY talking of another 500BILLION dollar bailout package...haha...wow

i mean where does this end?? take our money and give it away like robin hood because everyone wants to have more. raise our taxes so others can have health care, take our social security so others can go to school...because somewhere someone wants to go to college and cant. GET A JOB!!! GET A LOAN!! like all the rest of us did before you!! where does it end?? i mean everyone wants a bmw...lets give everyone a bmw...everyone wants a beach house...give them all a beach house. this has to end somewhere...its rediculous. and communistic. in a failing economy...this will only promote lazy and unsuccessfull attitudes. y should i work if i get it for free...and y should i work if its going to be taken from me.

this is absurd. america needs help. its needs to wake up and make some realizations. im throughly sick with this country...coming closer to moving to mexico every day

america :fawk2:
Click to expand...

Wow, dude you put into words everything I was thinking. Good damn post.
 
BigSickD said:
The problem I have with the whole thing is that it was based on his color, not his ideas. If he were white he wouldn't have won, plain and simple. I mean damn, they showed Jesse Jackson crying his eyes out when the results came out. Who knows, we will see but making our country more of a socialist country only means that less people will be motivated to make more money cause they will just be taxed the shit out of.
Click to expand...

You know i love ya homey, but i dont think getting taxed more is going to stop people from wanting to make more money.....I make about 45k a year and bring home about 36k....but if i can make 250k and bring home 175k you think im not goint to do it??? Hellz yeah im going to want to make that money......Just because they will get taxed more does not mean people still will not want to make as much money as they can....
 
What a sad day this is. People who support this fool have no idea what is in store for them. The dems got control of Congress, and Obongo is a rubber stamp president. Pelosi and Reid are licking their lips. WE ARE IN TROUBLE.

To the above poster, You are wrong. You will be taxed the shit out of. Why do you think people( mostly low income) voted for him? It wasn't because of his great policies( which are laughable) It was because of his promises of handouts. Have you not seen the youtube video of the black woman at an Obongo rally saying, "I am so glad to be a part fo this, I don't have to worry about no mortgage no more, I don't have to worry about putting gas in my car no more". She honestly believes, along with millions of others that he will just GIVE them shit. With his socialist policies, that is exactly what will happen. Take from those who have and give to those who don't have. How in the hell anyone can support taking hard earned money from 1 person and just giving it to someone who sits on their ass all day and does nothing is beyond me.

Our nation has gone collectively mad, it really has.
 
CO-B16 said:
You know i love ya homey, but i dont think getting taxed more is going to stop people from wanting to make more money.....I make about 45k a year and bring home about 36k....but if i can make 250k and bring home 175k you think im not goint to do it??? Hellz yeah im going to want to make that money......Just because they will get taxed more does not mean people still will not want to make as much money as they can....
Click to expand...

But there's a fault in your logic. You need to assume that you are already making $250K and paying $X in taxes and then having someone say that you now have to pay $X+$Y so that we can spread those $Y around. I seriously doubt that you would be OK with having higher taxes then to support people who choose not to work.

KB
 
this is just a real sad day
guy wasnt elected for the right reason and now the whole country is going to pay

now that it matters with how bad mccain lost overall, but people looking for handouts caused the guy to loose his own damn state
 
Also, anyone notice how the media is already padding the inevitable failure of Obongo? Major news outlets are saying he faces the worst economic crisis in the history of the US. I have read a few articles about his top advisers saying they are preparing to address the american people about not to have to high of expectations of Obongo because of the market meltdown. All this is done, so when he does fail, they can say, oh poor Obongo, it wasn't his fault, he was just thrown into a bad situation.


HELLO, PLANET EARTH, IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE DOWN THERE?

Obongo was a direct cause of this economic mess. He is the lawyer who filed suit againt JP Morgan and Citigroup to force them to loan money to low income borrowers and high credit risk borrowers. Even this morning, I am still in shock that people would so blindly vote for this guy, and give the majority of our government making decisions to democrats.
 
ALLO said:
Also, anyone notice how the media is already padding the inevitable failure of Obongo? Major news outlets are saying he faces the worst economic crisis in the history of the US. I have read a few articles about his top advisers saying they are preparing to address the american people about not to have to high of expectations of Obongo because of the market meltdown. All this is done, so when he does fail, they can say, oh poor Obongo, it wasn't his fault, he was just thrown into a bad situation.


HELLO, PLANET EARTH, IS THERE ANY INTELLIGENT LIFE DOWN THERE?

Obongo was a direct cause of this economic mess. He is the lawyer who filed suit againt JP Morgan and Citigroup to force them to loan money to low income borrowers and high credit risk borrowers. Even this morning, I am still in shock that people would so blindly vote for this guy, and give the majority of our government making decisions to democrats.
Click to expand...

even he himself started making innuendos hinting towards his failure in his acceptance speech!! saying we may fail at first...we may take steps backwards...BUT NEVER FEAR AMERICA...just stick with me things will be fine.

ha.. typical

already padding us for failure...covering his ass for when it happens.

asking us to please stand by him...thats pretty much promising the inevitable failure. if he didnt plan on things getting worse why would he be asking us ahead of time to "stand by him" because it wont be easy, we will take some steps backwards in "rebuilding" this america.

wtf
 
Nigbo said:
now that it matters with how bad mccain lost overall, but people looking for handouts caused the guy to loose his own damn state
Click to expand...

I think the overall vote count was much closer than expected. Also, McCain won his home state of AZ 54% to Obama's 45%.

KB
 
LOL THEY ARE THROWING HIM TO THE WOLVES!!!


President-elect Obama inherits a world of troubles


WASHINGTON ? President-elect Barack Obama will face some of the most daunting challenges that any new president has confronted since at least 1981, when America tumbled into a severe recession with its prestige ebbing around the world.

He faces the immediate task of leading a nation that's reeling from its most serious economic downturn in a generation, one whose government is saddled with a federal deficit that's heading for $1 trillion this year.

He'll take the reins of a country with more than 183,000 of its sons and daughters fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan , conflicts that won't end simply because a new president wants to end them.

He also inherits a global war on terrorism against shadowy enemies who remain intent on doing America harm, not to mention hostile foreign capitals from Tehran to Moscow .

Yet Obama may be able to claim a mandate from the American people. He appeared poised to win by more than any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Like LBJ, Obama will take office with solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress .

Even so, he'll face significant political challenges in Washington . His victory will release "a lot of pent-up demand" among Democrats eager to see long-sought policies adopted, said Robert Loevy , a professor of political science at Colorado College .

Satisfying that demand won't be easy. For one thing, 50 to 60 moderate to conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House of Representatives are expected to continue their push for strict limits on spending. Combined with Republican opposition and still-powerful lobbies on behalf of the status quo, some Obama initiatives could be stymied.

New crises, both foreign and domestic, are also likely to pop up in this rapidly changing world. Times have changed dramatically since Labor Day . The global financial crisis has greatly expanded Washington's role in the economy, even under a conservative Republican president. That lame-duck president will host a gathering of world leaders on Nov. 15 in Washington to discuss overhauling the architecture of global economic governance, another challenge that Obama will inherit.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy shrank in the third quarter, the first contraction in seven years, and every sign suggests that it will worsen in coming months.

That may force Obama, like most new presidents, to trim his wish list in the face of changing circumstances. Presidents-elect often realize quickly that programs developed months before are now obsolete, said former Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Frenzel of Minnesota .

Yet the new, young president who ran on hope and a vision of change has some cards to play.

"There will be a honeymoon period. He'll have 100 days, maybe as long as four to six months," historian Robert Dallek said. "But that will all end pretty quickly if he doesn't create some sense of forward motion," for the nation and for himself.

The prognosis:

TAXES

The Bush administration's key 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts will expire on Jan. 1, 2011 . Obama wants to end only the breaks that benefit individuals who earn more than $200,000 a year and families that earn more than $250,000 .

He faces at least two hurdles: Most Republicans are dead set against his plan, and his proposed tax changes would cost the Treasury $2.95 trillion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That may be unaffordable.

Still, his tax policy is too crucial a Democratic centerpiece to abandon, so look for it to be sold as a new economic stimulus, said Maya MacGuineas , the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan research group.

"The game next year is, 'How much can you get done and call it "stimulus"?' " she asked.

SPENDING

Obama has a long list of priorities he wants to spend more on, including $60 billion for highways and other projects over 10 years, more money for college student grants, elementary and secondary education and a host of alternative energy projects.

He vows that spending cuts would offset his increases, with some of the money coming from higher taxes on the wealthy and savings from Iraq troop withdrawals. But US Budget Watch, a nonpartisan group, estimated that Obama's spending plans and tax reductions would add as much as $316 billion to the deficit in 2013 if they took full effect.

HEALTH CARE

History says that presidents typically get one big promise fulfilled during their honeymoon periods, and since Obama is expected to push an economic relief package, it's unlikely that health-care revisions would move down a parallel track that fast.

Despite spiraling health costs and lots of campaign talk, he's likely to find that comprehensive change is too costly, too complicated and too dependent on a delicate consensus, one that would be hard to craft in a few months.

Many, however, expect at least small steps.

"You want to get a foot in the door," said Dean Baker , the co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research , a liberal research group. For example, Obama could push for a mandate that all children be insured.

ENTITLEMENTS

Obama also faces the entitlements time bomb. Medicare faces insolvency by 2019, and Social Security will start costing more than it's collecting in 2017. Left unchanged, the programs will require much higher taxes in the not-distant future. Changing them is extremely difficult politically, however, as seniors don't want their benefits cut and no one wants his taxes raised.

WARS

Obama wants to remove one to two combat brigades a month from Iraq , meaning that all combat troops would be out by the middle of 2010. He's been vague about how many troops would remain, however, and has said he'd deploy more forces to Afghanistan .
NOT ONLY WILL HE RUIN AMERICA BUT IRAQ TO LOLOLOLOL
Click to expand...

He faces a dilemma on Iraq . The public increasingly thinks that the war is going well, so tampering with current policy could be politically dangerous, said Michael Franc , an analyst at the Heritage Foundation , a conservative research center in Washington .

A dramatic change in policy, Franc said, would make it Obama's war, "so he has to decide to what extent he wants to be seen as Bush 3."

If violence expands as U.S. troops withdraw and chaos threatens, would Obama still leave Iraq and risk being blamed for its collapse? If he stayed to avoid such a result, would he forfeit the loyalty of the end-the-war voters who elected him?

FOREIGN CHALLENGES

Finally, experts said ? not to mention Vice President-elect Joe Biden ? the chances are good that Obama will be tested by a foreign crisis early in his presidency.

President Bush confronted China three months after he took office, when the Chinese captured the crew of a downed U.S. surveillance plane. President Clinton suffered a setback in his first year when American troops were killed in Somalia .

In 1961, John F. Kennedy presided over the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in his third month in office; met with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev two months later in Vienna, Austria , where he was shaken by his rival's belligerence; and two months later the Soviets built the Berlin Wall.

In 2009, Colorado College's Loevy said, Obama also could be tested quickly. "If he has a rough start it would be because of mostly economic events," he said, "a series of worldwide economic events."

There also could be security challenges.

Iran is eager to expand its influence throughout the Islamic world. North Korea's nuclear program remains problematic. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has haunted every administration since Eisenhower's. China's growing global influence requires deft diplomacy, and Russia's summer invasion of Georgia reminds that Moscow can upset the geopolitical balance whenever Vladimir Putin sees an opening.

Obama will have his hands full.
 
Obama won because Bush has fucked up this country worse than any president in history. Please don't say it was Clinton who left office with a 500 billion surplus in the budget.
Bush will leave office with more than a trillion deficit in the budget as well as leaving the nation nearly 11 trillion in debt. It took 42 previous presidents to run up a 5 trillion national debt.
Oh yeah blame it on the Democratic run congress who have been in charge less than two years, and threatened with vetos every time that they tried to accomplish anything.
It a shame that so many continue to live in denial of facts and history. As for Obama winning because of his color what a crock of shit if that were the case Al Sharpton would been president four years ago. McCain just edged out Obama for the white vote.

Apparently none of the McCain supporters bothered to listen to his concession speech last night, any who have, certainly are not following his lead and request. Racism may not have had a major roll in the outcome of the election, but it sure rears it's head in many of these anti Obama posts. I'm truly surprised with some of you.
 
liftsiron said:
Obama won because Bush has fucked up this country worse than any president in history. Please don't say it was Clinton who left office with a 500 billion surplus in the budget.
Bush will leave office with more than a trillion deficit in the budget as well as leaving the nation nearly 11 trillion in debt. It took 42 previous presidents to run up a 5 trillion national debt.
Oh yeah blame it on the Democratic run congress who have been in charge less than two years, and threatened with vetos every time that they tried to accomplish anything.
It a shame that so many continue to live in denial of facts and history. As for Obama winning because of his color what a crock of shit if that were the case Al Sharpton would been president four years ago. McCain just edged out Obama for the white vote.

Apparently none of the McCain supporters bothered to listen to his concession speech last night, any who have, certainly are not following his lead and request. Racism may not have had a major roll in the outcome of the election, but it sure rears it's head in many of these anti Obama posts. I'm truly surprised with some of you.
Click to expand...

in all reality its both parties fault
clinton did alot of stupid things like encouraging free trade and having the bill passed that forces banks to low loan standards to aid minorities

bush got stuck with 911 and made some poor decisons on the way

but choose obama just isant the rout to go
 
Nigbo said:
in all reality its both parties fault
clinton did alot of stupid things like encouraging free trade and having the bill passed that forces banks to low loan standards to aid minorities

bush got stuck with 911 and made some poor decisons on the way

but choose obama just isant the rout to go
Click to expand...

Really? Who are you say bro, are you educated in international affairs? Economics? Political Science? What is your ph.d in anyhow? For fuck sake Ronald's Reagen's white house chief of
staff endorsed Obama, along with dozen's of life long republican's who held high offices as republican's. To many people are saying that Obama is going to do this and that without any idea as to what their talking about. At this point Obama doesn't even know what he's going to do, he has to work with congress. As Americans you would think that everyone would hope for the very best.
 
LIFTSIRON, typical Obongo supporter, when all reasoning fails, resort to the one thing that sends most cowards into hiding..................calling someone a racist. LOL, so fucking be it. You talk about not knowing what Obongo will do, hell, its been right from his own mouth for the last 2 years. Take a look at his voting record, he has been THE MOST LIBERAL VOTING MEMEBR OF CONGRESS SINCE HE GOT THERE.

Noone denies Bush is a fuck up, no one denies that, and that is another typical tactic of you Obongo supporters, you assume that since we don't like him, that we MUST like Bush and Mccain. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He is a socialist with a marxist agenda. That is a fact, from his won mouth, and cannot be denied.
 
liftsiron said:
Really? Who are you say bro, are you educated in international affairs? Economics? Political Science? What is your ph.d in anyhow? For fuck sake Ronald's Reagen's white house chief of
staff endorsed Obama, along with dozen's of life long republican's who held high offices as republican's. To many people are saying that Obama is going to do this and that without any idea as to what their talking about. At this point Obama doesn't even know what he's going to do, he has to work with congress. As Americans you would think that everyone would hope for the very best.
Click to expand...

What does my education level have to do with any of this?

If clinton passes a bill that forces loan companys to lower their standards to people with no jobs and low lifes with money from whatever but have no proof of income to get accepted for loans that cant be supported by their income why exactly do i need to be any of what u stated above to see that happened

its a fact, it happened and it put us in a great amount of financial dept, this is just one example, something factual happens, why do i need to be educated to see that? Or have an opinion about it?
 
liftsiron said:
Please don't say it was Clinton who left office with a 500 billion surplus in the budget.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they said he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


Surplus Public Debt Inter-gov Holdings Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the lie.

When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."
 
Last edited:
Fuck all the whining! Its done...get over it! I been fucked so much since Bush been in office, I would have voted for TheMindOfRoss before McSame. Give the nigga a chance.

GO OBAMA! :D
 
KB91Notch347 said:
Are you sure about that?

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they said he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


Surplus Public Debt Inter-gov Holdings Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the lie.

When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intergovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."
Click to expand...


Once again data is taken from a website http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
with god knows who's agenda they propose. Do you have figures from the GAO?
 
ALLO said:
LIFTSIRON, typical Obongo supporter, when all reasoning fails, resort to the one thing that sends most cowards into hiding..................calling someone a racist. LOL, so fucking be it. You talk about not knowing what Obongo will do, hell, its been right from his own mouth for the last 2 years. Take a look at his voting record, he has been THE MOST LIBERAL VOTING MEMEBR OF CONGRESS SINCE HE GOT THERE.

Noone denies Bush is a fuck up, no one denies that, and that is another typical tactic of you Obongo supporters, you assume that since we don't like him, that we MUST like Bush and Mccain. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He is a socialist with a marxist agenda. That is a fact, from his won mouth, and cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

You accuse me of name calling, what a joke everyone of your posts has Obongo in it, fitting for a third grader.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Trending

Back
Top