APP - If we still had President Obama the Deficit would be lower.

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



It is true.

Read it and rejoice:

Y2K US Federal Budget Surplus: $260 billion

ELIMINATED.

CREATED a SURPLUS.

Amazing how two people can read the exact same thing and come to two different conclusions. Right there in your link it shows the deficit at well over $5 trillion,600 billion. But yes, there was a budget surplus temporarily as you said. Debt elimination? No. Only I can do that once anointed king.

 

[montgomery]

Only I can do that once anointed king.

Can you explain what that means? Does it mean that you will be anointed king?

 

[anonymoose]

Can you explain what that means? Does it mean that you will be anointed king?

Yes, I will be. And it will hurt. But we'll be better off for it in the long run. Fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility rewarded rather than penalized, universal healthcare via Moosecare (which I unveiled on the old dcj board).
Handguns for the public will be illegal with severe penalty/punishment for their possession, much worse if used in a crime . Hunting rifles allowed only with a valid hunting license and proof of responsible ownership.
What else would you like to know about my plans for the country?

 

[montgomery]

Yes, I will be. And it will hurt. But we'll be better off for it in the long run. Fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility rewarded rather than penalized, universal healthcare via Moosecare (which I unveiled on the old dcj board).
Handguns for the public will be illegal with severe penalty/punishment for their possession, much worse if used in a crime . Hunting rifles allowed only with a valid hunting license and proof of responsible ownership.
What else would you like to know about my plans for the country?

Nothing. Suggesting that you will be anointed king is off-topic spamming.

 

[PoliTalker]

Amazing how two people can read the exact same thing and come to two different conclusions.

Extraordinarily so.

Right there in your link it shows the deficit at well over $5 trillion,600 billion.

No, that's the debt figure you are reading. There was no deficit. It was eliminated. The deficit was replaced by a surplus. (shown) There was no deficit at the time. And if you watch the debt figure for a moment, you can see that it is getting smaller. That's because there was a surplus, not a deficit.

But yes, there was a budget surplus temporarily as you said. Debt elimination? No. Only I can do that once anointed king.

OK, I'm perplexed. Why are you using the words debt and deficit interchangeably? They are not the same thing.

The debt is the debt. That's how much we owe.

If we owe more than we are bringing in, the difference is called the deficit.

If we are bringing in more than we owe, the difference is called the surplus.

The deficit could be zero and we still owe the debt.

The deficit could be eliminated and we still owe the debt.

In order to eliminate the debt, we would have to first eliminate the deficit, then create a surplus which equaled the debt. If we eliminate the deficit and create s surplus, but it is smaller than the debt, then the debt is reduced by the amount of the surplus for that year.

The link I have shown is real-time of all the figures at that given moment in time. There is an option in the upper right corner to advance the clock or look back in time to a previous date. When looking at the figures for year 2000 at the conclusion of President Clinton's terms, it shows a surplus.

DebtClock

 

[anonymoose]

Nothing. Suggesting that you will be anointed king is off-topic spamming.

Not really. It tells one a little about what my positions are. I find it amusing how some of them are very progressive yet the dims on the board consider me a hard core ultra right wing racist Trumpster only because I don't agree with 100% of their positions. Insufferable.

 

[anonymoose]

OK, I'm perplexed. Why are you using the words debt and deficit interchangeably? They are not the same thing.

OK, you educated me. We're on the same page just didn't realize it.

 

[montgomery]

Not really. It tells one a little about what my positions are. I find it amusing how some of them are very progressive yet the dims on the board consider me a hard core ultra right wing racist Trumpster only because I don't agree with 100% of their positions. Insufferable.

More off-topic spamming of this APP section. STOP IT!

 

[artichoke]

Thanks for expressing your view. I disagree with it. Nothing you have said has caused me to doubt anything I have asserted. But I am very glad you have explained why you feel the way you do about things. While I disagree with your view, I completely support your right to express it. I actually think much of what you have said is best left unchallenged. Your views are so extremist that, for one who strives to separate fact from fiction, I think simply allowing you to voice how you think so much opinion is fact does more to cause rational minds to disagree with you than anything I could say. When I read what you have to write, I get the impression you have weakened your position and strengthened mine.

President Obama is far more popular than President Trump.

People trusted President Obama to guide us through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. They chose him over John McCain because they believed he would do a better job with the economy. They still must believe that, because after what you claim was 'the worst recovery' (meaning a naturally expected longer slower recovery to a deeper recession,) they rate President Obama far higher than they do President Trump who has presided during a more-recovered economy than President Obama. Americans believe in President Obama's handling of the economy much stronger than they believe in President Trump.

My opinion remains unchanged:

The deficit would be lower if we still had President Obama

The idea wasn't to change your opinion. It was to show that you are provably wrong. Your approval was not factored into the equation at all.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello anonymoose,

OK, you educated me. We're on the same page just didn't realize it.

Cool.

And thanks for saying so.

It is a pleasure to talk honestly and respectfully with someone as perceptive as yourself.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Arminius,

The idea wasn't to change your opinion. It was to show that you are provably wrong. Your approval was not factored into the equation at all.

In my view, you have failed to prove me wrong. We are talking about opinions here. Proof is accomplished with facts. You have attempted a 'proof' by using your opinions, an exercise fraught with logical impossibility. Opinions 'prove' nothing. They are simply personal impressions of a situation.

Simply using and identifying with loaded spin buzz word sound bytes like 'the worst recovery' automatically leaves the realm of facts and enters full-on propaganda. As if all recessions are the same. Which they are not. So when a recession is deeper than the rest, more pronounced, more devastating to the economy, as was The Great Recession, it is only expected that a recovery from that is going to take longer. Criticizing policy makers by focusing on the amount of time required for a full recovery is thus disingenuous and nothing more than slanted opinion. Cherry picking and focusing on the negative without considering the context. That's bias, not proof.

I've presented my view, my opinion, that if we still had President Obama, that the deficit would be lower. I strongly believe that. But I have in no way attempted to assert that my opinion is fact, or tried to prove it. It's simply something I believe which cannot be proven one way or the other. I can provide supporting evidence, and there is plenty. But I understand it can't be proven. It is just something I believe in very strongly.

If we still had President Obama, the deficit would be lower.

I would give that a 99.9% chance of being true.

President Obama did not spend frivolously. Unless it is somehow 'frivolous' to Promote the General Welfare of the United States of America.

 

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



Cool.

And thanks for saying so.

It is a pleasure to talk honestly and respectfully with someone as perceptive as yourself.

lol, I may just use that as my sig!

 

[montgomery]

It's a simple fact that with Obama the deficit would be lower. I have to caution everybody that decent conversation alone is subject to moderation for being off-topic. Be careful, and keep in mind that Obama is such a huge contrast to Trump. It's comparing the very worst of Trump with what could become the best president ever.