If conservatives understood cash accounting, would they stop blaming Obama for the debt?

Question

It seems like few conservatives understand the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting.

Under the accrual method, revenues and expenses can be recorded when the funds are allocated or budgeted. In other words you don't have to wait until you actually pay money to record a transaction. If Bush had used an accrual accounting method America would have incurred the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Medicare Part D during the Bush Administration. But that's not what happened. Instead, Bush used the magic of cash accounting.

Under the cash method, income is not counted until cash (or a check) is actually received, and expenses are not counted until they are actually paid. Thus, Bush was able to wage two unfunded foreign wars and pass the largest-ever unfunded expansion of socialized medicine without actually "spending" a dime.

Instead, these costs hit the books when they were actually paid under the Obama Administration. This is why the debt under Obama spiked in 2009... because Obama included Bush's expenses in the annual deficit.

Put simply - Bush ran up America's credit card and stuck Obama with the bill. Then as soon as Obama started making payments, conservatives complained about the original purchases and asked for Bush back.

Answer 1

If liberals understood anything would they ask stupid questions like this one?



First, I have a business degree and have taken tons of accounting classes. I know more about accounting than you could ever imagine. You apparently got your accounting 101 textbook from Amazon today, read the first couple of chapters and now think you're an expert.



Second, the wars are irrelevant. The total cost of both wars combined is 1.3T which is about 6 months worth of debt under Obama (or about 8%).



Third, you seem to forget that the big spike in spending started in 2007 when the democrats took congress. Since congress is the branch that controls spending it should be pretty obvious where the spending came from.



Fourth, the out of control spending didn't stop until the republicans took back the house in 2010 and refused to raise the debt ceiling.



You seem to imply that Bush secretly plotted to lay a whole bunch of debt on Obama, ignoring the fact that Bush couldn't have controlled that if he wanted to. The democrats were the ones who put all of the debt on Obama two years before he became president. Then Obama took it to a whole new level once he got there.

Answer 2

Wow, it must be so tiring to come up with such detailed BS in order to absolve Obama from his numerous and horrendous failures. I have to give you an A for effort and creativity.



Yes there was bound to be a hangover due to money spent during the Bush administration. Anybody elected was going to have to face that. I think if you'll look back to what the republicans and tea party has been saying since even before Bush left office, you'll realize that we were quite aware of the mess our next candidate was getting themselves into. That's kind what all the candidates were running on, getting us out of this mess.

Yet liberals act as if conservatives had absolutely no idea that the country was in trouble when Obama was elected. Fixing the country is what Obama ran on, and when he get's elected we're told the problem was too big for him (or anyone) to fix in two terms. And it's worse now. Stocks may be up for the time being, some jobs may be back (not as good as they'd like you to think), but we're buried in twice the debt we had 5 years ago and the world is falling apart.



But keep talking about accounting, that explains everything.

Answer 3

Accrual vs. cash accounting has nothing to do with reality; it's just a question of at what point in time something is added to or subtracted from a balance sheet for tax purposes. Funds allocated during the Bush administration, including war expenditures, are included in national debt figures for that period and attributed to him. And no president controls federal accounting practices.

Answer 4

Liberals/democrats try to pin the 2009 deficit on Bush when, if the budget submitted by Bush had been adhered to, the deficit would have been a little over 400 billion; instead, Obama revised it and created a 1.4 trillion deficit.

Answer 5

we do and we wont as we understand its Obama's fault. using the same 'logic" displayed here, if liberals understood basic civics that all financial matters arise from the house of representatives, they would START blaming the Obama and the Pelosi/reid regime and not bush for the debt.

Answer 6

I have the smarts and intelligent(SORRY LIBS AND OBAMA LOVERS) to know if I inherit someone's credit card and don't have the money to pay it off, much less spend like crazy to increase it, that I use as SELDOM as possible..something anti American libs don't understand

Answer 7

Forget the 100 trillion in unfunded libilites did we.

Answer 8

Not even Obama knows what the hell you're talking about. He just likes to spend.

Answer 9

Of course not, they have to blame Obama for EVERYTHING. Even when they lose elections, it's Obama's fault for buying votes or blocking their ineffectual schemes to chase after non-existent fraud.

Answer 10

Fascinating. Too bad it's a blatant lie. Do you really expect us to believe that all the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were blocked from the books until 2009, after you've spent the last several years chastising Bush supporters for the fact that the wars ran up so much debt before Obama took office?



Only $79 billion was added to the debt in 2009 as a result of the war on terror, and that is the lowest amount spent on the war on terror of any year since the invasion of Iraq began.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm

Answer 11

Obama is the one spending the money. GROW UP.

Answer 12

I just love how Liberals can cook the books.

Answer 13

It seem like liberals dont understand economics or science

Answer 14

right.....this from a kid who keeps parroting the "unfunded wars" thing but has never explained, in her own words, how Bush's political, economic and military decisions led to the BANKING collapse that actually DID tank the economy..

Answer 15

This is incredibly sophomoric. And you are certainly no accountant.

Answer 16

an yet the debt keeps going up,,,, 17 trillion an counting, 11 when he took office aprox 20 when he leaves, almost double,,, imagine that........

Answer 17

Basically, Bush used "kick the can down the road" accounting

Answer 18

I've been cooking the books from day one.

Answer 19

Your analysis/data is overhead the head of most right-wing Monkeys on Y/A.

Answer 20

Probably not

Answer 21

No.

Answer 22

No.

Answer 23

No.