| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ... "basskisser" wrote in message On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser) [that's you]wrote: "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms interchangebly???!!! OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do this?] Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once. I still think asslicker is too stupid to realize how stupid he is. You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it that you mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you have not spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that it is wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper term is "deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this month is $6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this month of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow money from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either from savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or year), the budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four hundred-million in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the years to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called "national debt". If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in in revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have debt, brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order to cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a budget deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be brought into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a check on those funds. So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the term "debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so incorrectly. In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced budget in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt remaining accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current deficit. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush is certainly no Reagan | General | |||
| OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General | |||
| O.T. A day at the airport. | General | |||
| Can We STOP IT??? | ASA | |||
Threaded Mode
