It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How much did the deficit explode in Obama's first fiscal year?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I'm guessing they added a trillion dollars!

...no?

Ok, at least $500 billion, they had to add that much to the deficit.

...no? Not even with Obamacare?

Well...it's still like...$250 billion.

Not even close?

$100 billion....that's still a lot of money!

...I give up, just end this stupid pretense and get to the story.

Well, the correct answer was that the "tax and spend" liberals shrank the deficit by $122 billion in Obama's first fiscal year



For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high.


Well, it might not be the biggest change, but it's a step in the right direction, isn't it?



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dee4469f6f17.jpg[/atsimg]

But seriously, they're all tax and spend. Who're we kidding.
edit on 26-10-2010 by xEphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


And that cartoon was made before Bush signed TARP into law...

I've actually seen conservatives redo that cartoon without attributing the deficit caused by Bush's last fiscal year to Bush and instead attributing it solely to Obama.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


That seems about par for course considering it's Obama's fault for everything that happened in the last decade.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
This has already been brought up....US deficit shrinks nearly nine percent in fiscal 2010 by Misoir.
edit on 26-10-2010 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Oops, forgot about that thread.

Mods, feel free to close this one.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Removed due to irrelevance!
edit on 26-10-2010 by Mudman21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Wasn't trying to run ya off either. But a good consolidated discussion about it is better than fractured ones.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Whoo hoo!!! The deficit went down a bit!

As far as I'm concerned that's small cupcakes; start reducing the national debt and I'll be impressed:

The national debt 25 Oct, 2000, was 5,672,690,012,239.29
The national debt 25 Oct, 2005, was 8,013,731,899,256.73
The national debt 26 Oct, 2009, was 11,897,586,393,656.67
The national debt 25 Oct, 2010, is 13,669,359,903,495.66
Source
edit on 10/26/2010 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by abecedarian
 


i believe you may have missed the point.
second



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


No, I get the point. A tongue-in-cheek jab at the conservatives who've accused the liberals for overrunning the defecit. Unfortunately, the defecit does not include all the money the government spends. When you account for that....



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
reply to post by justadood
 


No, I get the point. A tongue-in-cheek jab at the conservatives who've accused the liberals for overrunning the defecit. Unfortunately, the defecit does not include all the money the government spends. When you account for that....


...when you account for that...

the so-called conservatives are still actually big spenders.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Which brings me back to what I said about the deficit and the national debt.
Reducing the deficit by less than 1% is small cupcakes compared to how much the national debt grew over the last year.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I am a bit confused or maybe a lot confused. Def-i-cit: an excess of expenditure over revenue (according to Webster). So how can one reduce the deficit and more than triple the national debt?



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by searching411
I am a bit confused or maybe a lot confused. Def-i-cit: an excess of expenditure over revenue (according to Webster). So how can one reduce the deficit and more than triple the national debt?


Interest on the debt is one way it can increase. Spending money that's not accounted for in the budget is another. Borrowing money not reflected on the balance sheets is yet another.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
AH yes, you commoners seem to have a bit of enlightenment here.

But the fat Elephant shall be back soon enough; in control.

We shall dazzle the pheasant minds enough to win the minds of those that think not; the majority.

Thou canst change thus.

We shall oust thou commoner-loving Democrats; thou despicable pheasant loving traitors to us.

The fat Elephant shall still fool thy masses.

Thou canst stop that.

Our own we shall help; and thou Democrats we shall triumph.

Thou despicable commoners we shall enslave further via debt.

Prosperity you shall lack for all the rest of your days.

Your offspring we shall cut deeper.

The fat Elephant will be back; you shall doeth nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join