• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

HAHAHAHAH!! So it was CLINTON that was the budget hawk? So Spock has a beard in your world, doesn't he?

Clinton reduced the deficit. Bush exploded the deficit. Both facts. If Republicans are such deficit hawks, why does this happen over and over again when they have the White House?
 
Here's the OP:

Yes. There it is.

There you are, attempting to point to a deficit that is still well above non-fiscal crisis levels as some kind of evidence that he's been a fiscally responsible president. There you are, pointing to and hanging your hat on an article whose entire basis revolves around believing the world simply did not exist prior to 2008 and that we should simply compare things to the worst of times economically. There are, attempting to poke fun at and chide stereotyped propoganda using propoganda, and using mocking tones that clearly imply the opposite of what you're saying must be true.

Yes, there it is indeed.

Obama is not as bad as some Republicans made it out that he would be...he's also not nearly as good as you attempt to posit via your slanted use of statistics. Thus my point.
 
Really? Even if I take this as fact (which is isn't), what happens when they have the White House? Why does the deficit increase if Conservatives have both White House and Congress and are fiscally responsible?

When you can honestly answer that, we can have a real discussion.

Please name for me the years that Republicans controlled the entire Congress and the WH. Want me to help you?

2004 $413 Billion Deficit

2005 $318 Billion Deficit

2006 $248 Billion Deficit

2007 $161 Billion Deficit
 
Obamabot logic 101: If it is good news then Obama gets the (full?) credit, if it is bad news then Obama had no control over that and either Bush policy, the republicant congress critters or a conspiracy of racists, TP zealots and misogynists made it happen.

Really???

Are you really going to criticize liberals for that philosophy???


Everything that goes wrong Cons blames Obama. Even s*** not in his control. However when s*** starts going positive, you guys act like he not even president.

I not saying he should benefit for everything that goes right, but at the same time he shouldn't be blame for everything that goes wrong.
 
Clinton reduced the deficit. Bush exploded the deficit. Both facts. If Republicans are such deficit hawks, why does this happen over and over again when they have the White House?

Clinton's budget sensibility only started after the Republicans took over the House and Senate. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the worst spending binges happen when Democrats control both Houses of the Congress.

In other words, losing the rubber stamp in the House was the best thing to happen to Obama fiscally.

If the Senate flips to the Republicans today then expect a lot of bills going to the White House to further test Obama's resolve as a budget hawk. :lol:
 
Yes. There it is.

There you are, attempting to point to a deficit that is still well above non-fiscal crisis levels as some kind of evidence that he's been a fiscally responsible president. There you are, pointing to and hanging your hat on an article whose entire basis revolves around believing the world simply did not exist prior to 2008 and that we should simply compare things to the worst of times economically. There are, attempting to poke fun at and chide stereotyped propoganda using propoganda, and using mocking tones that clearly imply the opposite of what you're saying must be true.

Yes, there it is indeed.

Obama is not as bad as some Republicans made it out that he would be...he's also not nearly as good as you attempt to posit via your slanted use of statistics. Thus my point.

You continue to paint me with a particular brush in an effort to create some parity between me and Republicans. I'm stating facts. Under the Obama presidency, the deficit has continued the drop year after year. Under all of the Republican presidents of recent history, the deficit has increased overall, sometimes by wide margins.

Both statements are facts.

The rest of my post was poking fun Republican madness. We have not seen the spender and chief (the term they use to describe Obama) actually do what they predicted (assured) he'd do. They made great effort to link Obama to both the deficit and the debt, but now that the deficit is shrinking, the effort is to de-couple the President from the deficit.

Much like you're doing now.
 
Clinton's budget sensibility only started after the Republicans took over the House and Senate. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the worst spending binges happen when Democrats control both Houses of the Congress.

In other words, losing the rubber stamp in the House was the best thing to happen to Obama fiscally.

If the Senate flips to the Republicans today then expect a lot of bills going to the White House to further test Obama's resolve as a budget hawk. :lol:

It must be nice to just say stuff without actually supporting it.

When did a Republican run White House EVER reduce the deficit? I'm talking overall, for the entirety of their term.
 
Please name for me the years that Republicans controlled the entire Congress and the WH. Want me to help you?

2004 $413 Billion Deficit

2005 $318 Billion Deficit

2006 $248 Billion Deficit

2007 $161 Billion Deficit

Why should I answer any question of yours if you refuse to answer any question I've posted?
 
It must be nice to just say stuff without actually supporting it.

When did a Republican run White House EVER reduce the deficit? I'm talking overall, for the entirety of their term.

I love how they manage to avoid answering the key question. Why republican presidents manage to increase the deficit and democrats reduce it?
 
Clinton's budget sensibility only started after the Republicans took over the House and Senate. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the worst spending binges happen when Democrats control both Houses of the Congress.

In other words, losing the rubber stamp in the House was the best thing to happen to Obama fiscally.

If the Senate flips to the Republicans today then expect a lot of bills going to the White House to further test Obama's resolve as a budget hawk. :lol:

And yet Bush, who had full control of both Houses, increased the deficit. Reagan also increased the deficit.

Why do Republicans not seem to be able to reduce the deficit when they have the White House? Is it their policies? What?

Personally, I blame their policy of supply side economics. Until they release that fetish, they'll always increase the deficit.
 
It must be nice to just say stuff without actually supporting it.

When did a Republican run White House EVER reduce the deficit? I'm talking overall, for the entirety of their term.

I'm sorry, do I need to support the statement that the US deficit decrease of the late 90s was under a Republican House and Senate?
 
And yet Bush, who had full control of both Houses, increased the deficit. Reagan also increased the deficit.

Why do Republicans not seem to be able to reduce the deficit when they have the White House? Is it their policies? What?

Personally, I blame their policy of supply side economics. Until they release that fetish, they'll always increase the deficit.

Reagan had a Democrat House and Senate

Clinton's budget surpluses came under a Republican House and Senate

Bush increased the debt by $6 trillion in 8 years, Obama increased the debt by $7 trillion and has 2 more years to pad his lead.

Keep pretending that the President is the only person responsible for the budgets.
 
Obama has destroyed that argument. It does seem that you have a very poor understanding of basic civics and who controls the economy. The lack of leadership by Obama is quite evident and yet people like you still cling to his rhetoric. Why is that? What is it about Obama that creates people like you who ignore actual results? You actually think Obama has implemented a pro growth economic policy? Can you explain to me why Obama got 53% of the vote in 2008 and that support today is 41%? Where did that 13% go and why?

I'm tired of this false narrative. The Obama economy has far outstripped all other western economies is GDP growth and unemployment reduction since the Bush meltdown.
The question should be why has Obama succeeded where other leaders have failed?


The August 2013 gross domestic product report by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis drew little attention, but it contained a fairly remarkable piece of data: Inflation-adjusted GDP per capita in the United States hit a new all-time high in the second quarter of 2013, the first time a new high had been reached since 2007. Real consumer spending has hit a new high, too, and auto sales are at levels not seen since before the financial crisis. Millions of Americans are still searching for work and suffering financial hardship, but on average, by the broadest measures of economic performance, America’s Great Recession is over.

Few nations across the Atlantic can say the same. The eurozone slipped back into recession in 2012 for the second time in four years, and remains in an economic state that can be accurately described as miserable. Real economic output among eurozone nations remains three percentage points below its 2008 peak. Eurozone unemployment sits near twelve percent in late 2013, higher than the US ever experienced at the peak of its recession. These problems are as deeply human as they are economic or political. Each percentage point rise in Europe’s unemployment rate has boosted its suicide rate by 0.79 percent, according to a study published in the medical journal the Lancet.
Two-Speed Recovery: US vs. EU | World Affairs Journal
chart-of-the-day-real-gdp-rebased-to-100-in-2003-april-2012.jpg


CHART OF THE DAY: US Vs. UK Growth - Business Insider
 
I'm sorry, do I need to support the statement that the US deficit decrease of the late 90s was under a Republican House and Senate?

So was 6 of GW Bush's 8 years...your point is?
 
Reagan had a Democrat House and Senate

Clinton's budget surpluses came under a Republican House and Senate

Bush increased the debt by $6 trillion in 8 years, Obama increased the debt by $7 trillion and has 2 more years to pad his lead.

Keep pretending that the President is the only person responsible for the budgets.

So you are pretending that the tax cuts, the Iraq war and the prescription drug benefit bill that he signed were not Bush's responsibility? Who was responsible then?
 
And yet Bush, who had full control of both Houses, increased the deficit. Reagan also increased the deficit.

Why do Republicans not seem to be able to reduce the deficit when they have the White House? Is it their policies? What?

Personally, I blame their policy of supply side economics. Until they release that fetish, they'll always increase the deficit.
"Supply side" has nothing to do with it. Much of the US budget is entitlements that cant be touched and grow all by themselves. I don't think either party has much credibility when it comes to reducing debt, but Obamas $8 trillion hole makes him the undisputed champ. Unless you attribute that to 'supply side' as well.
 
So you are pretending that the tax cuts, the Iraq war and the prescription drug benefit bill that he signed were not Bush's responsibility? Who was responsible then?
He put a $6 trillion tag on Bush, so he hung all those costs directly on him. Obama has an $8 trillion tag that the left is trying to pass the buck for and that just isnt going to work
 
Nope, this is just a statistical parlor trick which assume that Spending A is more important than Spending B. It is a subjective graph presented as an objective analysis.
If you say so.

No, wait, you're wrong. What it does is show how much of the spending over the past few years is due to the recession and Bush 43 policies.

- The costs of the two wars is not a parlor trick, and it's not subjective.
- The costs of the recovery measures are not parlor tricks, and are not subjective.
- Revenues lost to the recession, and the impacts of the Bush tax cuts, are estimates made by the CBO, which is non-partisan.

And no, the inconvenience of these facts to your current opinions does not make them go away. ;)


What this graph does is simply place specific Bush era spending on the top of the pile to give the impression that it is more responsible than all the other layers of spending bellow it for the deficit.
No, what it shows is how much of that deficit spending was due to deliberate choices enacted in the Bush 43 years, as well as the recession.

Heck, even Dick Cheney publicly stated that 25% of the increase in the deficit was due to the Bush tax cuts.


As an example of why this is bogus, the Democrats, as part of the selling of the PPACA, claimed that they could remove $500 billion from Medicare by cracking down on fraud and abuse and "fixing" Medicare.
Unless they don't. It's mostly savings as a result of slowing down health care costs overall, something we're already seeing happen.

And yes, the CBO does include these types of savings in their deficit projections. In fact, we're saving $23 billion more than the CBO projections.
 
Clinton reduced the deficit. Bush exploded the deficit. Both facts. If Republicans are such deficit hawks, why does this happen over and over again when they have the White House?

Republican congresses reduced the deficit. Democratic congress exploded the deficits. Both facts. If Democrats are such deficit hawks, why does this happen over and over again when they have the Congress.

Lets look at the congresses from 1989 (101st) and forward to demonstrate this.

From 1989 to 1994, under full Democratic controll of congress, the deficit went from $152.6 to $203.2 Bil. An increase on the deficit of $50.5 Bil. Over that period of time the average deficit was $231.91 Bil.

From 1995 to 2000, under full Republican controll of congress, the deficit went from $164 Bil to $-236.2 Bil. A decrease of $400.2 Bil. That's an average deficit over that period of time $-22.98 Bil.

From 2001 to 2002, with Democratic controll of the Senate and Republican control of the House, the deficit when from $-128.2 Bil to $157.8 Bil. An increase of $286 Bil and an average deficit over that time of $14.76 Bil.

From 2003 to 2006, with complete Republican control of congress, the deficit went from $377.6 Bil to $248.2 Bil. That's a decrease of $-129.4 Bil and an average of $339.2 per year

From 2007 to 2010, with complete Democratic control of congress, the deficit went from $160.7 Bil to $1294.3 Bil. That's an increase of $1133.7 Bil and an average deficit of $831.6 per year.

From 2011 to now, with Democratic control of the Senate and Republican control of the House, the deficit went from $1299.6 Bil to $483.4 Bil. That's a decrease of $-816.24 and an average deficit of $887.3

So lets look at some of those facts.

Democrats controlled all of congress twice in that time span. They increased deficits by $50.5 billion one time and $1133.7 billion the next.
Republicans controled all of congress twice in that time span. They decreased deficits by $400.2 billion one time and $129.4 billion the next.

The Republicans came after the Democrats once. The average deficit during their span was $254.9 billion less than the Democrats that preceeded them.
The Democrats came after the Republicans once. The average deficit during their span was $492.4 billion more than the Republicans that preceeded them.

The average deficit during the entire Republican controlled congresses over this time span was $121.9 billion.
The average deficit during the entire Democratic controlled congresses over this time span was $471.8 billion

The deficit decreased from the year before 5 times while congress was under full control by Democrats.
The deficit decreased from the year before 8 times while congress was under full control by Republicans.

Just as you keep claiming, all I'm doing is stating "facts". Feel free to point out anything about those numbers that isn't a "fact".

And thus the glory of the statement that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Some people like to keep saying they are posting "facts" and acting like presenting said "facts" will make everyone forget that the opinion and the subjective choices they're using in relation to those facts aren't any less questionable simply because there's a "fact" attached to it. The worth of a lot of these facts you, I, and everyone else in this thread are posting is largely based on subjective choices each of us make to decide what we want to give more, or less, concern to.
 
He put a $6 trillion tag on Bush, so he hung all those costs directly on him. Obama has an $8 trillion tag that the left is trying to pass the buck for and that just isnt going to work

Do you think that all of Bush's deficit causing policies just ended when Obama took office? You do know that at least 2 trillion of Obama's deficits were caused solely by the revenue loss from Bush's Great Recession?

Republicans often blame Obama for the huge deficit. We often hear rhetoric like "Obama has run up more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years." Democrats tend to blame Bush. These arguments are intellectually bankrupt and they reveal a failure to understand basic economics, math, or our system of budgeting.
Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. The deficit was caused by a combination of three factors:

1. Bush's policy changes

Let's quickly dispense with the impact of the Bush wars, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and tax cuts. None of these things were paid for. The Bush tax cuts cost $160 billion per year, the prescription drug benefit costs about $80 billion per year, and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars cost about $200 billion per year. That adds up to $440 billion per year in deficit impact.
2. Bush's reaction to the economic collapse.

Bush's 2008 stimulus added well over $100 billion to the yearly deficit (since many of the policies remained in effect). It added more than $200 billion to the 2008 deficit, but let's leave that aside for now. Bush's financial rescue efforts (the bailouts) added up to about $130 billion per year in deficit impacts. When you add all of that up, you get a total of $230 billion.

All told, Bush's policies created about $670 of the $1.3 trillion deficit that Obama inherited. I'm not here to throw stones at Bush. I supported some of those policies!

3. The economic downturn

In 2009, economists estimated that the economic downturn increased the deficit by about $426 billion in 2009. This assumption is based on two factors: (1) the loss of revenue after an economic collapse and (2) an increase in automatic payments as more people are forced onto unemployment insurance and other forms of government assistance.That adds up to about $1.1 trillion in deficit spending that had nothing to do with Obama. Aside from bailouts (which sharply decreased in impact in 2010 and beyond), these impacts were unchanging.
Neither Bush Nor Obama Caused Our Deficit Problem - Mic
 
Really???

Are you really going to criticize liberals for that philosophy???


Everything that goes wrong Cons blames Obama. Even s*** not in his control. However when s*** starts going positive, you guys act like he not even president.

I not saying he should benefit for everything that goes right, but at the same time he shouldn't be blame for everything that goes wrong.

As to the bolded above I agree. Far too many buy into the BS that the actions of the federal gov't under executive control are somehow beyond any connection with Obama yet are very quick to blame Bush for the recession and for starting wars that were approved by congress. If the "Obama economy" is responsible for lowering the deficit then that same "Obama economy" is also responsible for the increasing income inequality and making the black unemployment rate double that of whites.
 
Republican congresses reduced the deficit. Democratic congress exploded the deficits. Both facts.
Uh huh


From 1989 to 1994, under full Democratic controll of congress, the deficit went from $152.6 to $203.2 Bil.... etc
Are any of your figures adjusted for inflation?

Can you also identify which policies and events increased the deficit during any of the time periods you listed?

For example, and as has been pointed out many times: Policies advocated by Bush 43, with a Democratic Congress, had long-term effects on subsequent deficits, even to today. The Bush Tax Cuts are still largely in effect; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars went well into the Obama presidency, and the cost for veterans' care will be with us for the next 50+ years; the recession slashed revenues.

You have noticed that for the past 10 years, "control" is an overstatement? Margins are narrow, veto overrides not terribly common (and bipartisan). Congress is involved, but certainly not controlling the budget.

Did you forget how with both Clinton and Obama, there have been numerous attempts by Republican legislators to shut down the government -- and how they basically lost?

Are you distinguishing between changes in spending, and changes in revenue? Did you take note of the recessions and wars? Policy choices advocated by various politicians?

I.e. it doesn't really make sense to give any single party all the credit or all the blame. It doesn't work like that. You'd really need to break it down, determine who is responsible for what in each case, and further how much influence was exerted by a variety of other actors in those decisions.


And thus the glory of the statement that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Some people like to keep saying they are posting "facts" and acting like presenting said "facts" will make everyone forget that the opinion and the subjective choices they're using in relation to those facts aren't any less questionable simply because there's a "fact" attached to it.
So let me get this straight. You're presenting an overly simplified and selective analysis, labeling it as "facts," and then blasting other people who cite facts? Nice. :D
 
Republican congresses reduced the deficit. Democratic congress exploded the deficits. Both facts. If Democrats are such deficit hawks, why does this happen over and over again when they have the Congress.

Lets look at the congresses from 1989 (101st) and forward to demonstrate this.

From 1989 to 1994, under full Democratic controll of congress, the deficit went from $152.6 to $203.2 Bil. An increase on the deficit of $50.5 Bil. Over that period of time the average deficit was $231.91 Bil.

From 1995 to 2000, under full Republican controll of congress, the deficit went from $164 Bil to $-236.2 Bil. A decrease of $400.2 Bil. That's an average deficit over that period of time $-22.98 Bil.

From 2001 to 2002, with Democratic controll of the Senate and Republican control of the House, the deficit when from $-128.2 Bil to $157.8 Bil. An increase of $286 Bil and an average deficit over that time of $14.76 Bil.

From 2003 to 2006, with complete Republican control of congress, the deficit went from $377.6 Bil to $248.2 Bil. That's a decrease of $-129.4 Bil and an average of $339.2 per year

From 2007 to 2010, with complete Democratic control of congress, the deficit went from $160.7 Bil to $1294.3 Bil. That's an increase of $1133.7 Bil and an average deficit of $831.6 per year.

From 2011 to now, with Democratic control of the Senate and Republican control of the House, the deficit went from $1299.6 Bil to $483.4 Bil. That's a decrease of $-816.24 and an average deficit of $887.3

So lets look at some of those facts.

Democrats controlled all of congress twice in that time span. They increased deficits by $50.5 billion one time and $1133.7 billion the next.
Republicans controled all of congress twice in that time span. They decreased deficits by $400.2 billion one time and $129.4 billion the next.

The Republicans came after the Democrats once. The average deficit during their span was $254.9 billion less than the Democrats that preceeded them.
The Democrats came after the Republicans once. The average deficit during their span was $492.4 billion more than the Republicans that preceeded them.

The average deficit during the entire Republican controlled congresses over this time span was $121.9 billion.
The average deficit during the entire Democratic controlled congresses over this time span was $471.8 billion

The deficit decreased from the year before 5 times while congress was under full control by Democrats.
The deficit decreased from the year before 8 times while congress was under full control by Republicans.

Just as you keep claiming, all I'm doing is stating "facts". Feel free to point out anything about those numbers that isn't a "fact".

And thus the glory of the statement that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Some people like to keep saying they are posting "facts" and acting like presenting said "facts" will make everyone forget that the opinion and the subjective choices they're using in relation to those facts aren't any less questionable simply because there's a "fact" attached to it. The worth of a lot of these facts you, I, and everyone else in this thread are posting is largely based on subjective choices each of us make to decide what we want to give more, or less, concern to.

That's a nice list... but you've not actually addressed anything I said. All you've done was change the topic to Congress instead of Presidency, thus supporting your narrative.

Conservative presidents don't preside over deficit reduction is a fact (in recent history). Another fact is the deficit does not consistently rise and fall based on which party controls Congress. It's much more clear when you look at who's in the White House that the reduction or increase is more reliably determined... which is why you had to hopscotch years in order for your narrative to work.

Presidents set the direction of policy because they (supposedly) have a mandate from the people, which is why they have veto power.

I thank you for the reasonable argument, but I'd wish you'd actually address my point instead of redirecting it.
 
As to the bolded above I agree. Far too many buy into the BS that the actions of the federal gov't under executive control are somehow beyond any connection with Obama yet are very quick to blame Bush for the recession and for starting wars that were approved by congress. If the "Obama economy" is responsible for lowering the deficit then that same "Obama economy" is also responsible for the increasing income inequality and making the black unemployment rate double that of whites.

You say that you agree but still would not acknowledge that the GOP blames Obama for every single thing that goes wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom