What good has Obama done for the U.S.A.?

purebred

Guest
Killing Bin Laden is not a valid response b/c the president did not commit this act himself - it simply occurred during his presidency.

I don't really keep up with politics but Obama makes me laugh. I recall him saying earlier on during his presidency where he said the depression had been over. LOL idk what country he thought he was presiding over but nothing seems to have improved economically or am I delusional. All Obama does when he speaks anywhere is get into his philosophical rants about how people shouldn't have to choose between prescriptions and putting food on the table, blah, blah, blah.

He never reveals what he intends to do. That sure wasn't the case during his election campaign. Promises, dreams, candy, and rainbows. He gets elected and I have yet to hear of/see any positive impact he's had on America. He's more of a celebrity icon than a president to me.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
He was always just a celebrity. He barely had a voting record.
 
Knotch

Knotch

Member
Awards
0
Killing Bin Laden is not a valid response b/c the president did not commit this act himself - it simply occurred during his presidency.

I don't really keep up with politics but Obama makes me laugh. I recall him saying earlier on during his presidency where he said the depression had been over. LOL idk what country he thought he was presiding over but nothing seems to have improved economically or am I delusional. All Obama does when he speaks anywhere is get into his philosophical rants about how people shouldn't have to choose between prescriptions and putting food on the table, blah, blah, blah.

He never reveals what he intends to do. That sure wasn't the case during his election campaign. Promises, dreams, candy, and rainbows. He gets elected and I have yet to hear of/see any positive impact he's had on America. He's more of a celebrity icon than a president to me.
I'd come up with a counter point but there's nothing to really counter. Unfocused rambling. It's also odd how the killing of Osama bin Laden just happened during his presidency but aparently the economy is a whole different story. This made me chuckle a bit.

I've been as underwhelmed by Obama as the next guy but really? 10 years of war and 10 years of the tax rate being its lowest since the 50's. What did you expect? Don't forget, before those 10 years, Clinton had left a surplus of over $200 billion. Chump change really, but still a surplus. As far as the economy goes, it will never be as strong as it was if we keep trying to repair/ strengthen it with the same methods that got us into this mess. In a consumer economy, the consumer must constantly consume. Buying **** they don't need, buying a new car every 3 years, a new house every 8. It's partially why illegal immigration has received little attention (as far as lawmakers go). They're more potential consumers to replace those that die off. "No Interest and No Payments for 12 Months!" Commercials like that show you that businesses KNOW that a very large percent of Americans are cash poor. They just find more ways to take and take.

Greed and infighting are the problem. So long as those two things exist, we will never be a truely united country and will therefore be powerless to stop the hidden hand.

Believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and all that you see.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Surplus was a myth...it was created in the same bubble/burst cycle the housing market was created in. Cuts in spending, increased tax revenue from the tec bubble created something that looks good on paper and serves as a political talking point, but was ultimately a failure and myth.
 
Young Gotti

Young Gotti

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
simple answer....nothing.....obama is the worst president this country has ever seen....the only thing worse than a bush is an obama
 
Knotch

Knotch

Member
Awards
0
Surplus was a myth...it was created in the same bubble/burst cycle the housing market was created in. Cuts in spending, increased tax revenue from the tec bubble created something that looks good on paper and serves as a political talking point, but was ultimately a failure and myth.
I tried to read up more on that but could only find Conservative sites making those claims. If you have an idenpendant site please post because if it's true, it's what I want to know. It's not a huge deal because like I said, $200 billion in respect to the federal budget, is chump change. It helps the arguement but certainly doesn't make it.


And yet another assertion with no talking points. The propaganda machine has worked well these past few years.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
I tried to read up more on that but could only find Conservative sites making those claims. If you have an idenpendant site please post because if it's true, it's what I want to know. It's not a huge deal because like I said, $200 billion in respect to the federal budget, is chump change. It helps the arguement but certainly doesn't make it.


And yet another assertion with no talking points. The propaganda machine has worked well these past few years.

Been a while..its a not a partisan issue, its just the facts. Companies were bought and sold with cheap money based on the number of hits...which was completely irrelevant to their value. Its the business I am in....companies were completely overvalued based simply off traffic numbers, not profit or revenue. You had a boom in the economy because of the internet and ecommerce, something that didn't exist in the 80's and early 90's....money was easy to get....interest rates were low....money was cheap (something that still existed after the crash). Companies were overvalued....wall street pumped trillions into these companies which as a result hired a LOT of people....then investors started to actually examine profits and actual revenue.....and the house of cards came tumbling down. You actually did have a cut in spending for the first time in forever....its amazing how many people give Clinton credit yet ignore the Nasdaq crash....

Now take that time period and apply it to the housing boom/bust....which I was in as well. Money was easy to get....prices increased not based on demand, but perception. Wall street pumped trillions into it, backed by the feds (which made it worse) and the same think happened.....when the numbers didn't add up and the reality that housing prices couldn't sustain a 35% annual increase in value, the house of cards fell.


As you say, believe all that you see...I saw it. If you look at it from political talking points, you simply will get facts interpreted to to fit an agenda. My agenda wasn't political, it was about making money.


Now you take all of that, you add in a couple million baby boomers retiring, you add a doubling of unemployment, you add increase in government spending overall (because of those same people that are retiring and now collecting) and you get to the state we are in....you can add the war but in reality you spent more in one week 2 years ago than you did in 8 for 2 wars so thats a blip when its come to the amount of debt we're in. You can stop that tomorrow, but you can't stop Social Security and medicare payments nor increase tax revneune from a loss of jobs.

When all is said and done the prognosis is that we probably should have neer had those jobs to begin with...4-5% unemployment is a myth in todays economy and reality is sinking in.....thats why everyone with a brain that isn't a partisan doesn't expect a return of before because it was all a farce. Only way you do is repeat the cycle again...or reinvent yourself...because the monopoly we had in production with so many industries is gone....to countries with cheaper labor and taxes.
 
MidwestBeast

MidwestBeast

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
He cares too much about the spotlight.

I don't really have any personal shots I want to take at him, but if I were in the role of President and the country was in the state that it is, I sure wouldn't be making ESPN NCAA brackets a priority. I'm not saying the guy shouldn't have a life (although he kind of shouldn't), but he should be telling his PR team that when he does stuff with athletes, it doesn't need to be covered; nor does he need to go out of his way to put himself in these positions. As a voter who doesn't rake in a lot of money, watching him yuk it up with millionaire athletes doesn't really make me want to vote for him or even support him for that matter.

And the one thing that just killed me was listening to the State of the Union (I NEVER listen to these, but made the mistake this year) where he talked about how important education is and how we need to put ourselves back in a position ahead of all the other countries like we used to, and then going on a few minutes later to talk about all the cuts to education. Makes me sick.
 
MidwestBeast

MidwestBeast

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
MWB for president yo!
Haha never in my life would I wish to be in that position. Even for those who handled the position well were still overly criticized. I don't need that kind of stress in my life (more reverse T3?! no thanks! lol). I don't know nearly as much about politics or the government any more as I should; I'm trying to correct that.

Not everyone will be perfect. There's no arguing that. But to have someone make a statement and then just minutes later in the same statement, knowingly contradict it is appalling.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Had the balls to be president during the second worst economic crisis in US history. I'll give him some credit for that.

He's not been stellar but I honestly believe nobody would. It's a shot situation that isn't going to be easy to heal and neither side has the nuts to do what it takes.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Had the balls to be president during the second worst economic crisis in US history. I'll give him some credit for that.

He's not been stellar but I honestly believe nobody would. It's a shot situation that isn't going to be easy to heal and neither side has the nuts to do what it takes.


LOL..had the balls? Yeah right....if you think he actually thought about THAT when he decided to run you're nuts....he was the anti-war candidate to counter Hillary's pro war voting record....the economy happened when he was neck deep in the campaign already.
 
kanakafarian

kanakafarian

Well-known member
Awards
0
If you look at history, it is when a Republican is in office that we end up in a national debt. When Clinton took over, as stated above, there was a surplus. Then what happened? Rep back in office and left us in the biggest deficit in history. There's not much one can do when you inherit a country to run in such debt. You really can't blame Obama for it. I'm neither Rep or Dem so just saying. No matter who's in office, someone will be complaining.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
If you look at history, it is when a Republican is in office that we end up in a national debt. When Clinton took over, as stated above, there was a surplus. Then what happened? Rep back in office and left us in the biggest deficit in history. There's not much one can do when you inherit a country to run in such debt. You really can't blame Obama for it. I'm neither Rep or Dem so just saying. No matter who's in office, someone will be complaining.
History does not agree with you. Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Biggest deficit in history? Not even close....Money doesn't care what side of the aisle you're on....they ALL spend like crazy.





Graph of U.S. gross public debt between 1981 and 2012 (est) as a percentage of GDP, with columns color coded by party in control of Congress. At the top of the chart, the presidential terms are identified to aid in analysis.
 
kanakafarian

kanakafarian

Well-known member
Awards
0
I stand corrected, I guess the chart will speak for itself. But what people don't realize is that the housing bubble busted and that in turn, led to a domino effect. Timing was bad for Obama to say the least. But like I said, I'm neither for or against him. I just think he gets the blame for everything that was already wrong with our country.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I tried to read up more on that but could only find Conservative sites making those claims. If you have an idenpendant site please post because if it's true, it's what I want to know. It's not a huge deal because like I said, $200 billion in respect to the federal budget, is chump change. It helps the arguement but certainly doesn't make it.


And yet another assertion with no talking points. The propaganda machine has worked well these past few years.
The other issue with the "surplus" was that the presidents of either party were raiding the social security revenue that was supposed to be adding to the balance of the social security trust fund, and instead counting it as general revenue.

Beyond that, it still wasn't real. From the US treasury... the actual debt outstanding for the US government


09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

I may not be a congressman, but I can do the math and see that somehow the national debt went up even in the years where clinton had a "surplus". Here's a link to the actual department of treasury page Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
I stand corrected, I guess the chart will speak for itself. But what people don't realize is that the housing bubble busted and that in turn, led to a domino effect. Timing was bad for Obama to say the least. But like I said, I'm neither for or against him. I just think he gets the blame for everything that was already wrong with our country.

He gets the blame for not fixing it...whether fair or not. If you run for President and within that time claim to get the country back on track or get America working again or some other cliche he used, then you get the blame if you dont come through.

The reality, he can't and never could. He knew that but he's trying to get elected. The cause of all this mess goes back a long long way.... But you wont hear that because if you convince people that its recent, you can use it to to get elected.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
He gets the blame for not fixing it...whether fair or not. If you run for President and within that time claim to get the country back on track or get America working again or some other cliche he used, then you get the blame if you dont come through.

The reality, he can't and never could. He knew that but he's trying to get elected. The cause of all this mess goes back a long long way.... But you wont hear that because if you convince people that its recent, you can use it to to get elected.
And somehow people are ok blaming Bush, but he inherited a near instant recession from the dot com bubble busting as well as the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
And somehow people are ok blaming Bush, but he inherited a near instant recession from the dot com bubble busting as well as the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.

Of course....people want to be elected so you have to convince the public of that. Very rare is the truth in some poltical speech or talkng point.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Of course....people want to be elected so you have to convince the public of that. Very rare is the truth in some poltical speech or talkng point.
Oh, come on...enough with the extreme conspiracies here.

My home girl got the reality of the situationz down to the stone here vvvv
 
kanakafarian

kanakafarian

Well-known member
Awards
0
So, bottom line? We don't need a president? Anarchy FTW! lol
 
Conagher

Conagher

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Had the balls to be president during the second worst economic crisis in US history. I'll give him some credit for that.

He's not been stellar but I honestly believe nobody would. It's a shot situation that isn't going to be easy to heal and neither side has the nuts to do what it takes.
Agreed.I won`t pretend that I know what it takes to make an economy run,but to a layman like myself the major problems seem to be pretty transparent.But like you said,neither side has the balls to step up and do what it takes to get this thing back on track.
I have been involved to a small extent on both ends of the spectrum.From corporate corruption to corrupt entitlement progams,the working man is getting squeezed to death.
 
Conagher

Conagher

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
And somehow people are ok blaming Bush, but he inherited a near instant recession from the dot com bubble busting as well as the first attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
The problem I have with Bush,Easy,is the whole Iraq charade.Kind of odd that Haliburton reaped all the benefits of no bid contracts from the whole debacle,don`t you think?
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
The problem I have with Bush,Easy,is the whole Iraq charade.Kind of odd that Haliburton reaped all the benefits of no bid contracts from the whole debacle,don`t you think?
Then by your rational Obama is tied to them as well since he has increased the cost and size of both wars......dont ya think?

The anti-war President is suddenly on the side of the Bush doctrine...Libya anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The problem I have with Bush,Easy,is the whole Iraq charade.Kind of odd that Haliburton reaped all the benefits of no bid contracts from the whole debacle,don`t you think?
And now with Obama we have a whole Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and more potential wars soon to be in the mix. Haliburton loves Obama.

Obama is Bush's 3rd term on steroids...an no matter who gets elected (real leaders dont get elected) it will be Bush's 4 term coming soon!
 

AE14

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The end result, we have had horrible leadership for decades. It will not change, as all of the current flock of politicians are bought and paid for. I dont care who wins in 2012, it is all the same. The parties really are no different, and the people in this country are too fat, lazy and happy to make a change. Quite sad really
 
Knotch

Knotch

Member
Awards
0
Been a while..its a not a partisan issue, its just the facts. Companies were bought and sold with cheap money based on the number of hits...which was completely irrelevant to their value. Its the business I am in....companies were completely overvalued based simply off traffic numbers, not profit or revenue. You had a boom in the economy because of the internet and ecommerce, something that didn't exist in the 80's and early 90's....money was easy to get....interest rates were low....money was cheap (something that still existed after the crash). Companies were overvalued....wall street pumped trillions into these companies which as a result hired a LOT of people....then investors started to actually examine profits and actual revenue.....and the house of cards came tumbling down. You actually did have a cut in spending for the first time in forever....its amazing how many people give Clinton credit yet ignore the Nasdaq crash....

Now take that time period and apply it to the housing boom/bust....which I was in as well. Money was easy to get....prices increased not based on demand, but perception. Wall street pumped trillions into it, backed by the feds (which made it worse) and the same think happened.....when the numbers didn't add up and the reality that housing prices couldn't sustain a 35% annual increase in value, the house of cards fell.


As you say, believe all that you see...I saw it. If you look at it from political talking points, you simply will get facts interpreted to to fit an agenda. My agenda wasn't political, it was about making money.


Now you take all of that, you add in a couple million baby boomers retiring, you add a doubling of unemployment, you add increase in government spending overall (because of those same people that are retiring and now collecting) and you get to the state we are in....you can add the war but in reality you spent more in one week 2 years ago than you did in 8 for 2 wars so thats a blip when its come to the amount of debt we're in. You can stop that tomorrow, but you can't stop Social Security and medicare payments nor increase tax revneune from a loss of jobs.

When all is said and done the prognosis is that we probably should have neer had those jobs to begin with...4-5% unemployment is a myth in todays economy and reality is sinking in.....thats why everyone with a brain that isn't a partisan doesn't expect a return of before because it was all a farce. Only way you do is repeat the cycle again...or reinvent yourself...because the monopoly we had in production with so many industries is gone....to countries with cheaper labor and taxes.
Oh I fully agree it's not a partisan issue. That's the kind of thinking detracts from the core. Considering you have experience in that sort of thing, I'll take your word for it. (re: the surplus)

The only real criticism that I have for Obama is that he really hasn't stood up and fought for his ideals. He reminds me of that kid that would try to hang out with a group of kids but was never really accepted, and the only reason the cool kids let him around is to take stuff from him. He's been a huge pushover. Not a huge fan of what he's trying to do overseas either. Certainly doesn't help the debt at all.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Cycle of politics. Cater to the base in your primary, shift to center (less critical positions) in the general, get elected, do everything to get reelected even if that means alienating the people that got you there. Rinse, repeat....

There is a reason the boomers are so cynical.
 
Conagher

Conagher

Active member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The end result, we have had horrible leadership for decades. It will not change, as all of the current flock of politicians are bought and paid for. I dont care who wins in 2012, it is all the same. The parties really are no different, and the people in this country are too fat, lazy and happy to make a change. Quite sad really
Agreed.I have lost all hope for the future of this country.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Hope and change!
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Oh I fully agree it's not a partisan issue. That's the kind of thinking detracts from the core. Considering you have experience in that sort of thing, I'll take your word for it. (re: the surplus)

The only real criticism that I have for Obama is that he really hasn't stood up and fought for his ideals. He reminds me of that kid that would try to hang out with a group of kids but was never really accepted, and the only reason the cool kids let him around is to take stuff from him. He's been a huge pushover. Not a huge fan of what he's trying to do overseas either. Certainly doesn't help the debt at all.
He did stand up for his ideals though. His only ideals were "do and say whatever I have to so as to get elected president".
 
owlicks

owlicks

Member
Awards
0
Read, be entertained, and hopefully learn a thing or two along the way: http://whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/ -- grr... won't let me post w/o editing -- just take out spaces http://www.whatthe f u c k hasobamadonesofar.com And I don't believe this should be edited b/c it's a legitimate URL to a legitimate site, I can't link it w/o profanity.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
He did stand up for his ideals though. His only ideals were "do and say whatever I have to so as to get elected president".
Hey, its not easy standing and reading a teleprompter at the same time.
 
MidwestBeast

MidwestBeast

AnabolicMinds Site Rep
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Obama is Bush's 3rd term on steroids...an no matter who gets elected (real leaders dont get elected) it will be Bush's 4 term coming soon!
Interesting take on it. I like the analogy.

The parties really are no different, and the people in this country are too fat, lazy and happy to make a change. Quite sad really
Yep. With almost anything anymore, people don't show any initiative.

Hope and change!
Yes we can!
 
Knotch

Knotch

Member
Awards
0
He did stand up for his ideals though. His only ideals were "do and say whatever I have to so as to get elected president".
And the Latinos aren't too happy. He's extremely lucky that a republican choice would be worse for them.
 
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
And the Latinos aren't too happy. He's extremely lucky that a republican choice would be worse for them.
Unless you're in Miami...And your name is Rubio.
 
JudoJosh

JudoJosh

Pro Virili Parte
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I tried to read up more on that but could only find Conservative sites making those claims. If you have an idenpendant site please post because if it's true, it's what I want to know. It's not a huge deal because like I said, $200 billion in respect to the federal budget, is chump change. It helps the arguement but certainly doesn't make it.


And yet another assertion with no talking points. The propaganda machine has worked well these past few years.
http://www.politifact.com/
 
TheMeatus101

TheMeatus101

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Killing Bin Laden is not a valid response b/c the president did not commit this act himself - it simply occurred during his presidency.

I don't really keep up with politics but Obama makes me laugh. I recall him saying earlier on during his presidency where he said the depression had been over. LOL idk what country he thought he was presiding over but nothing seems to have improved economically or am I delusional. All Obama does when he speaks anywhere is get into his philosophical rants about how people shouldn't have to choose between prescriptions and putting food on the table, blah, blah, blah.

He never reveals what he intends to do. That sure wasn't the case during his election campaign. Promises, dreams, candy, and rainbows. He gets elected and I have yet to hear of/see any positive impact he's had on America. He's more of a celebrity icon than a president to me.
Exactly, when he shows up on T.V. one night wearing a ****ing turbin shouting that this is the end of America and launches a ****ing nuclear bomb on us, then everybody will realize.
 
Knotch

Knotch

Member
Awards
0
Completely spaced out and forgot about that one, thank you. Added to favorites. It does in a way confirm what I had said though. About $200 billion. I had seen the claims of $5 trillion but it seemed far too convenient and low and behold it was in fact, spin.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Until Americans are willing to actually give something up nothings getting better. Everyone wants budget cuts until it effects them. Then, not so much.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Completely spaced out and forgot about that one, thank you. Added to favorites. It does in a way confirm what I had said though. About $200 billion. I had seen the claims of $5 trillion but it seemed far too convenient and low and behold it was in fact, spin.
but again, tell me how there was even a dollar in surplus, if the federal debt went up each year? Other than the surplus being spin entirely.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
but again, tell me how there was even a dollar in surplus, if the federal debt went up each year? Other than the surplus being spin entirely.
There can be a surplus and debt at the same time. The surplus would be calculated based on debt "payments" due. Not on the entire balance.

Of course, even in times of surplus our "leaders" never choose to retire debt. It's always easier to spend it. Regardless of party.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
There can be a surplus and debt at the same time. The surplus would be calculated based on debt "payments" due. Not on the entire balance.

Of course, even in times of surplus our "leaders" never choose to retire debt. It's always easier to spend it. Regardless of party.
No, thats not true. Surplus in any sort of accounting is "Revenue in vs Expenses Out". You can't make a deficit be a surplus by spin. Either you took in more money than you spent, or you didn't.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
No, thats not true. Surplus in any sort of accounting is "Revenue in vs Expenses Out". You can't make a deficit be a surplus by spin. Either you took in more money than you spent, or you didn't.
Exactly, "expenses" though are debt payments due. Not the entire debt balance. By your definition almost every corporation in the world is broke. The "surplus" at the time was defined as a budget surplus not a balance sheet surplus. In the budget year they owed less in debt payments than revenue coming in. The key word here is payments.

I operate on a monthly surplus as I'm able to put money in savings monthly even though I owe a bank for my mortgage.
 
EasyEJL

EasyEJL

Never enough
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Exactly, "expenses" though are debt payments due. Not the entire debt balance. By your definition almost every corporation in the world is broke. The "surplus" at the time was defined as a budget surplus not a balance sheet surplus. In the budget year they owed less in debt payments than revenue coming in. The key word here is payments.

I operate on a monthly surplus as I'm able to put money in savings monthly even though I owe a bank for my mortgage.
You are thinking about net worth, not surplus or deficit. Surplus has nothing to do with the debt balance or how much you owe. All it has to do with is how much $ comes in vs how much money goes out. What goes out is things like federal paychecks, military expenses, etc as well as the interest payments on the debt. If more goes out than comes in, its a deficit or (in the private world a loss). If more comes in than goes out its a surplus (or in the private world a profit).
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
You are thinking about net worth, not surplus or deficit. Surplus has nothing to do with the debt balance or how much you owe. All it has to do with is how much $ comes in vs how much money goes out. What goes out is things like federal paychecks, military expenses, etc as well as the interest payments on the debt. If more goes out than comes in, its a deficit or (in the private world a loss). If more comes in than goes out its a surplus (or in the private world a profit).
That's exactly what I just said. Lol I think we agree.

Either way it has little to do with the topic of the thread.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Until Americans are willing to actually give something up nothings getting better. Everyone wants budget cuts until it effects them. Then, not so much.
Its a bit more complicated than just budget cuts. There are many policy issues involved along with corporate and political corruption, and unless we fix the core of the problem any budget cut is merely a temporary mask and not a solution.
 
Rahl

Rahl

Well-known member
Awards
1
  • Established
Its a bit more complicated than just budget cuts. There are many policy issues involved along with corporate and political corruption, and unless we fix the core of the problem any budget cut is merely a temporary mask and not a solution.
I concur!
 

Similar threads


Top