Your mystery Treasury data which you've failed to provide is not including replacement of munitions and equipment, death benefits for the families, nor the cost of Veterans care for the thousands injured and maimed.
Diversion is exactly what you are practicing when you attack me for where I live instead of my positions on the issues.
News bulletin for you: I was never mayor of Detroit. I was never elected to anything in Detroit. I have not lived in Detroit for over several decades.
Got it?
If you weren't so busy with your talking points you would have paid attention to the links I posted to those budgets. Of course that doesn't fit into your agenda as you have no problem posting your opinions as fact and ignoring actual facts. When the deficit is posted it includes all the items you mentioned but that doesn't fit into your agenda. Suggest you post less and do more research.
Unbelievable. Proven wrong again and again, he keeps slinging the same bullsh*t.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
You don't even begin to understand the budget process or accounting. Most of Bush's war spending was off budget, coming in the form of emergency appropriations. Obama has corrected that deceptive practice, making his deficits look worse relative to Bush's.
Here we go again, you have been brainwashed, didn't read the article on the myth did you? Let me help you, THERE WAS A SURPLUS in PUBLIC DEBT but that is only part of the story and if you read the article you would stop making a fool of yourself.
You don't seem to understand that supplementals although not part of the budget ARE part of the deficit and thus are added tot he debt. Obama's 842 billion dollar stimulus was a supplemental and part of the 2009 deficit. You confuse budgets with actual expenditures so you really should do more research.
Hey, at least you finally acknowledge that there was a surplus. Maybe one day you'll even understand why the gross debt still showed minimal growth (i.e., the SS tax surplus).
Will you ever figure out that only budget items are considered when BUDGET DEFICITS are discussed? You are confusing two different things: budget deficits and deficits in gross. They are not interchangeable and you can't pick and choose which one to cite as it suits your argment.
I provided Treasury Data which includes total debt and as I posted out 842 billion stimulus for Obama wasn't on budget but was counted in the deficit, just like Bush supplementals. You are the one picking and choosing what you want to believe. You want to believe Clinton had a surplus. Does it matter if he had a surplus if the debt increased? Taxpayers fund debt service and that debt service is paid on the debt which is increased by the total deficits. Get it yet?
It is purely a question of semantics, and you choosing to use the wrong figures to try and make your argument. But if you prefer to look at the gross debt that's fine with me. While it did continue to grow slightly during Clinton's second term, it was extremely minimal growth relative to preceding and following presidents. If we could return to that level of growth we would be absolutely fine.
Thanks for the laugh at the end of the evening as I know that is your purpose, to come into the forum, make wild accusations and then get a response. This is an act, no question about it
Act? Your whining and crying about how the liberals are trying to steal your money is an obnoxious act, proof= the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. I don't care how you label it the countries wealth was more evenly spread across the classes and now it is concentrated with the rich. My conclusion it was stolen through stock market manipulating, predatory lending by banks, insurance companies, speculating, derivatives,hedge funds, wars waged to protect the interests of the haves
Act? Your whining and crying about how the liberals are trying to steal your money is an obnoxious act, proof= the transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. I don't care how you label it the countries wealth was more evenly spread across the classes and now it is concentrated with the rich. My conclusion it was stolen through stock market manipulating, predatory lending by banks, insurance companies, speculating, derivatives,hedge funds, wars waged to protect the interests of the haves
A general question to all. Does the above truly represent the depth of knowledge by the folks on this site about the economic situation. Or is this just a political rant that folks can have fun jostling about.
If it is the former, then trying to have a discussion is pretty meaningless and for many their time would be better spent on either other sites or other sections. If it is the latter, then let folks have fun.
What are your thoughts?
When was the loan approved, Pb? What was the Walton family involvement and when? Becareful now
Memo: Walton Family's Firm Was Part Of The Restructuring Deal. A memo released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee states that both Argonaut Venture Capital, the fund tied to Kaiser's foundation, and Madrone Capital Partners, which is tied to the Walton family, "negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee":
In the fall of 2010, DOE told Solyndra that, due to the company's financial problems, the department would refuse its request for a loan disbursement unless Solyndra obtained additional capital. Solyndra, DOE, and two of Solyndra's lead investors -- Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners --began negotiations to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee agreement. On November 3, 2010, Solyndra announced that it was closing its older manufacturing facility, resulting in the layoff of 135 temporary employees and approximately 40 full-time employees.
From December 2010 through February 2011, DOE, Solyndra, and two of its investors, Argonaut Venture Capital and Madrone Capitol Partners, negotiated the terms and conditions of an agreement to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee. Throughout this process, DOE consulted with OMB about the proposed terms and conditions of this arrangement.
On February 23, 2011, the parties signed an agreement to restructure the Solyndra deal. Under that agreement, Solyndra's investors agreed to a $75 million credit facility, with the option of a second $75 million. DOE agreed to extend the term of Solyndra's loan guarantee from seven to 10 years, and to postpone the first repayment installment by one year, from 2012 to 2013. In addition, the agreement provided that, in the event of the company's liquidation before 2013, the investors have the senior secured position with respect to the first $75 million recovered. DOE has the second senior secured position with respect to the next $150 million recovered in liquidation. If Solyndra had not liquidated or declared bankruptcy by 2013, the investors would have lost their senior secured position to DOE. [House Energy and Commerce Committee, 9/12/11]
What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra | Media Matters for America
Here is a conservative blogger who disputes the AP's "fact check"
JustOneMinute: On Average, The AP Is Useless
[h=3]On Average, The AP Is Useless[/h]Much as it grieves me to rally to the defense of Barack Obama, the latest AP Fact Check on his proposed Buffett Rule tax on millionaires seems to deliberately miss the point of Obama's pronouncements. From the AP:
The loan was bad, but this is not a scandal, that's my point.So what you are saying confirse the fact that Bush did not make the loan to Solyndra. The fact remains, Solyndra went bankrupt AFTER the loan guarantee showing that a big campaign supporter of Obama got taxpayer backed loans in a "green energy" field and went bankrupt. What the press got wrong? Taxpayers are losing over 500 million dollars on this deal, a deal supported by the Obama Administration and rejected by Bush.
The loan was bad, but this is not a scandal, that's my point.
So where is Obama being held accountable for making a bad business decision for the U.S. Taxpayer? Bush didn't issue the loan but 9 days after taking office Obama reinstated the proposal, why? There are billions of other taxpayer backed loans that are being released in the next few months as well. Where is the scrutiny and outrage for failure?
The taxes for those having a taxable income of a million or more would go to Clinton's level, 3.9% more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?