Rachel Maddow: Shrinking U.S. Budget Deficit Foils GOP Talking Point

[Playinghardball]

Found on the ObamaDiary

[Hulk]

1. I'm just a wee bit confused....yet.

Last edited Sat Aug 10, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

IF our $17 trillion debt is still growing...or seems to be growing by $606 billion, instead of the $642 billion previously forcaste....is that really a "shrinking debt"? I mean, it's still a growing debt, but not growing as fast as previously expected.

What am I missing here?...or am I missing anything? What Rachel says seems "part true", and "part illusion". I think of the phrase, "It's on sale, so you're actually 'saving money'..." which in fact, you are not. You are still spending money, but spending less.

If I understand this correctly, then I think Rachel is misleading her minions. This frustrates the hell out of me. I hate it when the reich wingers lie and distort reality; but I am doubly infuriated when the progressive voices are also deceiving the public with their "double speak", or "shell game", or whatever you want to call it.

When we can actually say we are shrinking the $17 trillion debt this country has accumulated, THEN, I would say we are actually shrinking the debt. Until then, our national debt is still growing.

Straighten me out if I'm missing something, please.

[A Simple Game]

2. You should look up the definitions of debt and deficit. They aren't interchangeable. n/t

[Hulk]

3. Your comment was very little help to my question.

Perhaps I scrambled the words debt and deficit; but the question remains the same. I did look up the difference, as listed below:

The national debt...

...is the net accumulated borrowing by the federal government.

It's the difference between all the money that our federal government
has ever spent and all the revenue that it has ever collected since our
nation's inception.

The annual federal budget deficit...

...is the amount that our federal government borrows each year. [1]

It's the difference between what the federal government spends and
the revenue it receives during a particular year.

So each year's deficit is added to the existing debt. When revenue exceeds spending,
it's called a surplus, which subtracts from the debt.

So the question remains: If we are lowering the amount of this years deficit so that we owe $606 billion instead of $642 billion, we are still increasing the "debt". How can this be "not adding to our debt" then?

[Delver Rootnose]

4. you are not really confused...

...the total national debt is going up every year. However, the amount we add to the national debt each year is going down fast.

But that is not what Eric Cantor is saying. He is conflating the debt and the deficit. He is saying the annual deficit is going up in an attempt to make Obama look bad and say spending is out of control under the Obama administration. Which is not the case. If he was honest he would talk about the ever continuing national debt increase but then he would have to deal with the arguments that most of the debt was accumulated under republican administrations or legislation written by republicans continues to add to that debt, like the Medicare part d plan that was passed under Bush with no provision for tax increases to pay for it.

[Hulk]

5. so, in essence...

we need to get the deficit down another $606 billion before we can actually say that the national debt is finally falling.

I don't want to sound like I'm being an ass for specifics; but it just seems a bit dishonest to give the impression that the red ink is finally in the black. It's only getting closer to the black; and until it does, we continue to add to the national debt.

Am I right?

And I get what you mean by Cantor making it sound like "this black President in the White House is spending like a drunken sailor..." With the economy finally, slowly, in-spite-of-everything-the repuKKKes-have-done, is getting more taxes into the purse so we can finally reach that "living within our budget" point.

Cantor is a total ass-hole. I'm pissed at Virginia for sending such a syrupy, nauseating drawl-hound to Washington to have to deal with; but that's the way it is when you jerry-mander districts around to where there will never be anyone but the same thug each term. I realize the Democrats have the same advantage/disadvantage. Just seems wrong.

[Mc Mike]

6. Thanks for posting this.

There has to be SOMEtime, some where, that the repugs could use the truth, just once, to back up their stated beliefs and policy positions.

I haven't seen it ever occur, but it must be theoretically possible.