For starters, one must understand the premise/concept and basic math of: $40 (forty dollars) is MORE, not less, than $20 (twenty dollars). If you can handle this simple concept and figures, you too can follow (the Democrat LIES of) Base-line Budgeting! So, read on (as well as, share this with the countless people you know that don't grasp the concept. From the hard working; well-intentioned but honestly; yet ill-informed folks to the out-right Brain-Dead fools. If you are one of those honest folks who just haven't learned the process yet, I apologize for the tone that is intended-at/targeting Lazy Liberals/Progressives - we are ALL ignorant of some subject matter until we take the time to educate our-self. Liberals often know, but LIE about it and treat you like, pretend you are, an idiot)...
Some think the best way through to a lazy persons brain is through their stomach, so let's go that route... This is the story of a hungry person and Dinner options. With me so far?
The Big-Bad-Wolfer comes to/for the Burger, the Sirloin steak, and the Fillet Mignon (wolfer... hungry... eating... ah never-mind...) on his/her menu at their favorite Steak place. (Pick your audience's favorite Steak place to customize the lesson to get the taste-buds involved, and their full attention; and this Three Little Pigs type analogy might sink into the Child-like brain.)
$20 (twenty dollars): Every day for the last year our hungry, hungry, hypocrite (read: Liberal/Progressive; and yes, another pun... visit Toys-R-Us if you don't get it) has been ordering: a Burger, Fries, a Soda-Pop, and a piece of Cake. This, with SALES-TAX (can't forget that) and TIP (assuming our Lib isn't the usual cheap-skate), comes to $20 (that's twenty dollars, pick Pesos, Euros, Loonies (see: Canada), or whatever else if you think it will help).
$50 (fifty dollars): Craving something upscale, our friend decides that the next time he/she will go for the Fillet Mignon selection; and an upgrade to Wine over Soda-Pop. The PROJECTED BUDGET final cost: $50 (fifty dollars).
$40 (forty dollars): Once seated, with the chair ever stressing and straining to hold, our Liberal "agrees" with their spouse to order the Sirloin steak, and a Beer, instead. The NEW PROJECTED final cost: $40 (forty dollars).
The simple Math equation [link tag #math]:
Both $50 (fifty dollars) and $40 (forty dollars) are more than $20 (twenty dollars). Yes?
20 (twenty) less 40 (forty) equals 20- (negative twenty).
20 (twenty) MORE than our original 20 (twenty); or our 20- (negative twenty), 20 (twenty) additional dollars lightening of our wallet; is a 100% (one-hundred percent) increase, growth, it's a bigger number, etc.
For crying-out-loud, my neighborhood's pre-school kids can understand this, why can't Liberals/Progressives?!?! Heck, I think my Pets grasp this better than Democrats.
$15 (fifteen dollars): The only way to get a Budget CUT would be to just order: a Burger, Fries, glass of Water, and Vanilla Pudding, for $15 (fifteen dollars). That, Liberals, get out your calculator (or Laptop Excel spreadsheet), would be a CUT in spending of a REAL/ACTUAL $5 (five dollars) or 25% (twenty-five percent).
It is no simpler than that! Liberals/Progressives/Democrats use the $50 (fifty) to $40 (forty) example; for their percentile "cuts" their MSM quote/report them, rather than call them, on; for FALSE/FICTICIOUS/PHONY/PRETEND "cuts" (re-defining terms, lying about "What the definition of 'is' is") rather than the ACTUAL/REAL cuts of going from our current $20 (twenty) to actual/real future $15 (fifteen) basic mathematics example. A Liberals/Progressives 100% (one-hundred percent) increase (PROJECTED Budget reduction) is magically reported, falsely, as a 20% (twenty percent) "CUT"/decrease. The numbers are only ?slightly? different, in Trillions of dollars, as a matter of fact, and reported in percentages over a projected 10 (ten) year period. Over that time, the Liberals/Progressives will just 'conveniently' forget their promises (read: lies) and increase spending even well beyond the proposed reduced projected amounts and inflating the Deficit and Debt; at an every increasing rate and scope (those percentages "compound" - you Lib's can look that one up yourself - over time).
RECAP: [link tag #recap] If Mr. Wolf has been spending $20 for Dinner everyday for the last month. Wolf decides to splurge and plans to spend $50 the next time out to Dinner. However, Wolf changes his mind and spends only $40. Wolf did NOT just CUT 20% (or $10) from Spending! He Reduced the Budgeted, Projected Spending, by 20% ($10) - He did NOT CUT Spending. It increased by 100% ($20). This is NOT an Obamao-nomics fuzzy-math, depends on what the definition of "is" is, 20% CUT. If we were further play the Democrats' game of 'over X years time-frame' this would be reducing his Dinner by a penny a day for the next 2 years [no, that is not the actual math, save your energy rather than complaining] - again, it would all be empty promises, smoke-and-mirrors, LYING, etc...
Again, briefly: Was spending $20, considered/planned/wanted spending $50, but (reduced projected spending from $50 to) $40 was final next time spending. That is 100% ($20) MORE (Growth/Increase) in spending, NOT an actual CUT!
Likewise: [link tag #likewise] If you have $20 (twenty dollars) in your Left pocket and a Credit-card in the other. What time did the train leave Toledo (er... wait, not that kind of question :) lol)... If your Bill is $20 (twenty dollars) but you take out and put back the $20 (twenty dollars) from your Left pocket in order to use your Credit-card -- Did you save $20 (twenty dollars)?
NO DUMMY, you didn't... you just spent more like $22 (twenty-two dollars) for Dinner - you have to pay that eventually - by the time your fees and interest are piled (compounded, that word again) on top of the cost. That, again, is more Liberal/Progressive pretzel-logic to somehow believe they just saved 20 (twenty) bucks. This is, of course, what we're doing in DC (charging every $0.40 (forty cents) of every dollar we spend on our CHINESE CREDIT-CARD).
I could go on about more Obamao-nomics (really, lack of true Economics of any Liberal/Progressive policies) and how MATH works in the real world (outside of Washington DC), but Liberal/Progressive brains are (no doubt) about ready to explode just trying to condense this to usable information.
The bottom line, Fact is, that even the Paul Ryan (R) plan increases spending over the next projected 10 (ten) years - it just does so at a lower rate of growth, which eventually (over time) lowers the Federal Budget as a percentage of GDP. Actual/Real cuts are needed in many Departments, especially those that have been so grossly artificially inflated (the other aspect of Baselining, the MSM won't tell you about, and of future increases) by Obama's first Budget (when the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats controlled the POTUS, House, and a Super-majority Senate) and the (for those paying attention and willing to look, the not so HIDDEN agenda of the) Stimulus (Government expansion, less than 8% (eight percent) of that 800 Billion went to Infrastructure) funding! (see: (RWU) STOP TALKING, START LEGISLATING! for my suggested Budget cuts)
Here's another FUN EXAMPLE: UNICORN CO made $20M Profit last year. Unicorn Co hoped to make $40M Profit this year. However, they only made $30M Profit. Does the Unicorn Co get to claim a $10M LOSS on their Tax Filings for this Year?? OF COURSE NOT, they made $30M Profit (and a $10M INCREASE over Last Year). Yet, if Unicorn Co could use the CREATIVE ACCOUNTING that Democrats use during BUDGET TIME they could!
GLOSSARY OF TERMS [link tag #glossary]:
Increase (and/or Growth): MORE (NOT less) than before.
Reduction (Budget): Less than you'd like to spend, but MORE than you were.
Freeze (Budget): Spending EXACTLY what you were spending.
Spending Cuts: means you actually spend LESS (NOT more, nor the same) than you were.
As always, Regards from JLenardDetroit from "NoMoTown (The MOTORless CITY)"
"Remember, Liberals - looking to do for America, what they've done to Detroit. - Destroy it!"
"I think, therefore I am Conservative"
"Conservative by choice, Republican by necessity"
"The more things 'hope and change' the more they stay the same"
closing quotes attributable to (me) JLenardDetroit
cross-posted: "Rattle With Us" Tea Party and RedState
(RS) some Budget numbers (fiscal 2011) courtesy of dhorowitz
(RWU) Politically BRAIN-DEAD
(RWU) More MSM Lies, Distortions, and Spin
(RWU) Political Extortion and Psychological Projection, as usual!
(RWU) STOP TALKING, START LEGISLATING! ("Contrast for America") Republicans have/are!
(RS) Warning: Children Will Die!!
(RWU) Hey Progressives - Here's Your Sign!
KISS = Keep It Simple STUPIDS / Kill Insane Spending STUPIDS
(RWU) the Party of kNOw
(RWU) New "Contract" = "Contrast for America"
(RS) unintended consequences (Democrats always ignore)
First rule of deepening holes: STOP digging.
For some reason the BALANCE THE BUDGET NOW widget didn't display.... Visit the The Tea Party Network (http://theteaparty.net) Resource Center at: http://act.theteaparty.net to see that and other Tea Party Resources. From there you can sign petitions, find your Reps, write your Rep's, and more...
Joseph M Lenard (JLenardDetroit) said:
We need the Romney/Ryan ticket to start explaining the Budget (REAL PROCESS) to the Dummies (read: Liberals)
Bill Clinton Legacy of Myththology and Surplus: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-837799
By pagan1gov | Posted September 5, 2012 | Illinois
CNN PRODUCER NOTE
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton. For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:
Fiscal Year Year Ending National Debt Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.
Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.
Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.
So why do they say he had a surplus?
As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:
Fiscal Year End Date Claimed Surplus Public Debt Intra-gov Holdings Total National Debt FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B
That chart, in better format:
Fiscal Year - Year - Ending National Debt - Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion