sort by best latest
Best Answer LandmarkWealth says
Thanks Landmark for your excellent answer. It explains the situation to a lot of people.
Thanks, whats more disturbing is today is the first time since 2009 that SS announced an increase. So the last two years the adm didn't even have to deal with that increase in the budget for one of the largest line items.
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Mark Passarelli says
Actually it is a valid question so why don't you tell us why you don't seem to be concerned about him adding working on $6 trillion to our national debt? I didn't read the name Romney in the question or are you that partisan?
I was going to agree with you Prince, but after looking at the person asking the question there is probably a personal bias.
Rombama = Obamney. There are other candidates.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
That's "demwit," not dimwit. Some are quite bright, but for the politics.
I see :D , missed that.
What a demwit. The 2009 budget was not signed by Bush, Pelosi made sure that Obama signed it. The 2009 budget was signed March 11, 2009. Duh!
And you forget that the Republicans took the House and were able to cut the Obama budget down a little.
*sigh* Obama just signs the first budget he cannot make adjustments because it as already passed the year before, if he were to veto it then there would have to be a government shut-down.
Biggest reduction budget was 2010 before congress changed
Since it was the Demwits who controlled the House and the Senate in 2009, Obama signed what the Demwits wanted, why would he change it?
Reduction in 2010? LOL!
No it was George Bush who made the 2009 budget which was argued with congress then passed just like current Obama budgets.
2010 saw an almost 2% reduction in spending which is the biggest reduction in more than a decade.
2010 budget of $3.6 trillion submitted and signed by Obama in a Demwit controlled Congress vs. the 2009 budge of $3.1 trillion submitted by Bush to Demwit controlled Congress then signed by Obama. $3.6
Boy what a crock of Josak that was Josak. Of course he bears no responsibility. All he's done since assuming office is blame other people. You do that too concerning your life too son?
Wall street journal link to explain because I can't be bothered.
Ah yes that wonderful Nutting article that was already shot down by so many for the reasons that were already covered. What a bunch of Malarkey.
You can have a Forbes article if you prefer. But you have to do better than "was already shot down" with a reliable source.
So your saying the 3.5 trillion spent in 2009 which included the stimulus of 900 plus billion was actually a budget proposed before the stimulus of 2.6 trillion. That's a 300 billion spending cut by President Bush or did Bush create the stimulus also
- See all 12 commentsHide extra comments
Larry Wall says
All one has to do is study this clock Larry. People fail to pay attention to the unfunded liabilities. That's the part that is owed and is covered with IOU's.
No US debt is ever covered by anything like an IOU US debt is sold as an investment to groups and nations willing to buy it.
Because of exchange rates and interest rates,that is always a moving target.
All debt instruments that are not backed by collateral is an IOU. The only thing that backs a treasury obligation is the "Full Faith and Credit" of the Treasury. That is the definition of an IOU regardless of who the purchaser is. Just a formal one.
- See all 4 commentsHide extra comments