No. Its not. On-budget and off-budget (ie, supplemental) spending is all added to total spending, which then determines the deficit for the year. Spending $1T in a supplemental bill and spending $1T on budget adds the same amount to the deficit.
You are correct, the difference is WHEN they are added. Supplimentals are only added when the money is spent. So what Bush did was approve supplemental spending for many things, that would help his budgets look good because they wouldn't be added until the laws forced them to be added in the future. Most of the supplemental spending bills covered military spending and were spent years after they were approved. And what BG is doing, and he has been shown many times how it's beyond disingenuous to the debate, is he is blaming Obama for that spending money that in reality he was forced to by laws passed during the Bush administration to.
A supplemental bill added in FY(x) will be added to the deficit for FY(x) just as if it had been added to the budget for FY(x). How the budget -looks- has nothgin to do with the -actual- deficit. Except, of course, The Obama and His congress could have cancelled that spending; in not choosing to do so, they accept blame.
Yeah blah blah blah when you can refute the facts claim you did is some long distance past. No one falls for it. And again explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the 2009 budget.
What are you talking about? The supplimental spending is for that year and in 2007 that was $88B for the wars. Are you claiming the 2008 and 2009 budgets were Republican budgets?
everyone knows your bullshit had been repeatedly refuted. Because NUMEROUS people, including myself, have repeatedly refuted it.
2008 most definitely. Bush signed it. 2009, is a mixed budget. LOTS of supplemental spending had to be added to deal with the worst republican caused recession in 80 years.
Why does that make it a Republican budget? Pelosi and Reid wrote it and passed it. And Bush wanted less spending and the Democrats wanted more spending, why do you solely blame Bush for that deficit? Bush was totally cut out it was a Pelosi/Reid/Obama budget, how is it "mixed" and why do you blame Bush for it? Again you claimed Bush could have and should have vetoed it, please explain how he could have done so.
civics bush was of course not cut out of anything. He signed the continuing resolution. He could have vetoed it instead.
How so? Bush didn't sign the 2009 budget that is factually wrong. It wasn't passed until after he left office, how could he have vetoed it even with a pen? How many times do you have to be educated on the historical facts here? "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did. The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office. "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president." Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm
I made no reference to John Galt, but since you asked, he's that guy people can google if they're interested.
NO it wont. Supplemental Spending bills are spent when they actually do the work. The supplemental bills from Bush were for armaments (tanks, bombs, ammunition etc for the military). That money doesn't get spent until those armaments are delivered, thus it doesn't get added to the deficit until that time. But whomever is in office is legally bound to spend the money. Your understanding of government spending is very rudimentary. Thats not how government spending and accounting works
How so was the 2008 budget a Republican budget when Pelosi and Reid controlled the Congress? Basic civics. Not the budget, basic civics Not the budget, basic civics. Yes please explain your claim Bush could have and should have vetoed a bill that wasn't passed until after he left office. Your claim was refuted above, lack of rebuttal noted.
The spending bills specify that the funds are available until the end of the current fiscal year. Thus, the expenditures count to the current fiscal year. Unless they pass a bill that cuts off the funds, which they chose to not do. I'm sorry you don't like the truth.
Which supplemental bill are you specifically talking about? The 2007 was $88B and it was for ongoing operations and the war was over by then. A President can send a spending rescission to Congress.
Cool. Now, can you please provide a link, to wherever you did post the same debt clock on this website from Mar'10-Jan'16?
bush was president. strawman strawman he signed the CR. could have vetoed it, but didn't. every argument you've tried to make on this, going back 3 years, has been completely demolished by myself and everyone else who has engaged you. And you know this perfectly well.
How so was the 2008 budget a Republican budget when Pelosi and Reid controlled the Congress? Basic civics. So what? A CR is not the budget. The budget wasnt't passed till Bush was out of office as I proved. He didn't sign the budget now explain your claim he could have and should have vetoed it when he wasn even in office. Yeah blah blah blah when you can't refute the facts just claim you did. You haven't even refuted anything here and are making demonstrably false statements.
so, civics. So in addition to civics, you don't know what CR's do. I didn't say the 2009 budget. I said the CR he signed for 2009. The budget was passed later. every argument you've tried to make on this, going back 3 years, has been completely demolished by myself and everyone else who has engaged you. And you know this perfectly well.
What about it? He did not sign a CR for 2009, it was a temporary bill to keep the government open. He was cut out of the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill, the budget. If you knew anything about civics you would know a CR is not the Budget. So explain how he could have vetoed the 2009 budget which was not passed until he was out of office. The budget which Obama added in his $800B stimulus along with the other spending increases the Democrats added in as I PROVED and you have yet to rebut. Yeah blah blah blah when you can't refute the facts just claim you did, we all get it. You haven't even rebutted anything in this thread.
Yeah blah blah blah when you can't refute the facts and your statements have been refuted claim you already refuted something. So explain how he could have vetoed the 2009 budget which was not passed until he was out of office. The budget which Obama added in his $800B stimulus along with the other spending increases the Democrats added in as I PROVED and you have yet to rebut.
