• 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

Just so it's clear. You're okay with the OP giving the credit to President Obama, the guy who continues to want to spend, yet you're not okay with giving credit to the Republican House which effectively stopped him. Got it.

Here was the OP:

OMG, we need to stop Obama from spending us into ruin!!

Where was credit being given?

Poking fun at chicken little republicans is necessary given the garbage that gets thrown around. The deficit has been reduced by 2/3, while the government continues to spend more and more every year. Why, its all about the economy.
 
Regardless of how it came about (and it's hillarious that some on the right enjoy pointing out it was an "obama administration idea" when it suits them and then take credit for it when that is more advantageous), the reality is that the Sequester cuts came under Obama and were signed into law under Obama, so he deserves whatever credit you give to the Presidency for the deficits that occur under their watch. Ultimately, he was part of those cuts happening regardless of how you feel about those roles.

This is true, but it fails to recognize that Obama went on a campaign style bus tour in early 2013, just after winning his second term in office, claiming that if the sequestration cuts weren't stopped, the country's economy would implode and there'd be Armageddon.
 
To put that in perspective, if Obama wasn't spending us into ruin we would have a surplus right now.

You aren't making any sense:

graph


This deficit is also larger than the Bush deficit that prompted Obama to call deficits unpatriotic....

The economy is also much larger than when Bush was in office. It is, IMO, unpatriotic to run (at the time) record deficits when the economy is operating at full employment.
 
Regardless of how it came about (and it's hillarious that some on the right enjoy pointing out it was an "obama administration idea" when it suits them and then take credit for it when that is more advantageous), the reality is that the Sequester cuts came under Obama and were signed into law under Obama, so he deserves whatever credit you give to the Presidency for the deficits that occur under their watch. Ultimately, he was part of those cuts happening regardless of how you feel about those roles.

Do you believe the sequester was a deficit buster?
 
Here was the OP:



Where was credit being given?

Poking fun at chicken little republicans is necessary given the garbage that gets thrown around. The deficit has been reduced by 2/3, while the government continues to spend more and more every year. Why, its all about the economy.

Clearly, the sarcasm in the statement from the OP that you quoted went straight over your head. No problem, never mind.
 
Clearly, the sarcasm in the statement from the OP that you quoted went straight over your head. No problem, never mind.

Poking fun at chicken little is entirely justified given the vitriol that spews from the majority of conservatives.
 
No matter how much you try to deny it, the economy has continued to grow under the current administration. The deficit has been reduced by roughly 2/3. The country has more wealth and produces more goods and services than any country in all of history.

Thus are the benefits of a free enterprise, capitalistic society. The issue is amount of growth and stimulus to generate massive growth. This is the worst recovery on record because of poor leadership.

Look you are too smart to post like this. The deficit being reduced 2/3 means exactly what? You think a 483 billion dollar deficit is something to be proud of? Or how about an 18 trillion dollar debt? Stop acting ignorant because you aren't
 
Poking fun at chicken little is entirely justified given the vitriol that spews from the majority of conservatives.

Obama's spending obsession has effectively been controlled since shortly following the 2010 mid-term elections when the Republicans took control of the House and the initiation of spending bills. No vitriol here - no chicken little hysteria here. That would be President Obama who has traveled the country claiming obstructionist Republicans have kept him from his plans to improve the economy and yet you, and others, are now touting how wonderful the American economy is. Imagine that!!
 
You aren't making any sense:

Here, let me help!

2009 US Budget: $3.1 Trillion
2013 US Budget: $3.8 Trillion

Difference: $700 billion
So if Our budget remained at the level we had at the height of the stimulus we would be running a surplus now.


The economy is also much larger than when Bush was in office. It is, IMO, unpatriotic to run (at the time) record deficits when the economy is operating at full employment.

US GDP in 2009: $13.9 Trillion
US GDP in 2013: $16.8 Trillion

Percent increase: 20.8%

US Budget in 2009: $3.1 Trillion
US Budget in 2013: $3.8 Trillion

Percent increase: 22.5%

Therefor, the US budget is growing faster than the US economy.
 
Thus are the benefits of a free enterprise, capitalistic society.

Of course!

This is the worst recovery on record because of poor leadership.

A partisan foot stomp!

Look you are too smart to post like this. The deficit being reduced 2/3 means exactly what? You think a 483 billion dollar deficit is something to be proud of? Or how about an 18 trillion dollar debt? Stop acting ignorant because you aren't

The debt total is irrelevant. What is important is that deficit growth < output growth.
 
Here, let me help!

2009 US Budget: $3.1 Trillion
2013 US Budget: $3.8 Trillion

Difference: $700 billion
So if Our budget remained at the level we had at the height of the stimulus we would be running a surplus now.

Fallacy of composition.

You cannot say that total receipts would be at their record levels if we held spending constant. Does this make sense?
 
Of course!



A partisan foot stomp!



The debt total is irrelevant. What is important is that deficit growth < output growth.

No, what matters is the debt service on that debt which is now the fourth largest budget item and soon to be first or second as interest rates rise. You cannot seem to comprehend that reality. Debt today exceeds our yearly GDP and you don't seem to think that is a problem, why? When was the last time that debt exceeded yearly GDP?
 
Obama's spending obsession has effectively been controlled since shortly following the 2010 mid-term elections when the Republicans took control of the House and the initiation of spending bills.

Spending was a byproduct of a financial crisis. As expected, automatic stabilization outlays declined with a much improved economy.

That would be President Obama who has traveled the country claiming obstructionist Republicans have kept him from his plans to improve the economy and yet you, and others, are now touting how wonderful the American economy is. Imagine that!!

It could be much better. Too bad the partisan right salivates at the idea of financial collapse on the watch of this administration. There is absolutely no reason to credit Republicans in Congress for anything.
 
sigh

No, it was actually Cheney who insisted that "deficits don't matter," when Bush 43-era policies erased the Clinton-era surplus.
sigh

No, it has been countless liberals on this site.

The typical Keynesian claim is: During a recession, it is more important to spend on stimulus with high multipliers (like infrastructure spending, or unemployment benefits) to kick-start the economy, than to worry about short-term deficits. The stimulus will get the economy back on track faster, which means you're limiting the amount of government revenues lost to the recession. In turn, the deficit will go down as the economy gets back on track.

In addition, a fair amount of the government spending cuts would harm the economy. Cutting military will have some negative effects; but firing teachers and cops, or allowing infrastructure to continue to deteriorate, or putting off needed bridges, will all hurt the economy.

So: In 2008 and 2009, it would have been a great idea to spend on infrastructure projects, rather than do tax cuts.
1) We need to fix up bridges and roads anyway.
2) That kind of work would rely heavily on the underutilized construction workers and resources, idled by the recession / real estate bubble burst.
3) In the long run, you'll make up more by getting the economy back on track sooner, than you would if you tried to cut spending during the recession.

Further, the right-leaning economists claimed that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 100% would harm an economy. It turns out this is not the case, as the paper in question used a flawed interpretation of the data. (Reinhart-Rogoff Economic Paper Draws Fire - WSJ)

Despite the conservative caricature that the left just wants to tax and spend, the results we're seeing now are entirely consistent with what leftists and Keynesian-influenced economists have been saying for years.
Except that it is actually FED stimulus that has floated the economy, not Obamas spending spree in 2009-2010. If you are going to credit someone, be honest and credit Bernanke, not Obama. But then again, the repercussions of that FED policy aren't yet known.
 
Fallacy of composition.

You cannot say that total receipts would be at their record levels if we held spending constant. Does this make sense?

What doesn't make sense is why we need a 3.8 trillion dollar budget? We have 50 states that have their budget as well and Congress has a tendency to run for the next election and buy votes with social spending which is a state responsibility all to keep their jobs. There is no false comparison here as it is right on. A growth of 700 billion in the budget to generate the results we have today is gross misuse of taxpayer money.
 
Fallacy of composition.

You cannot say that total receipts would be at their record levels if we held spending constant. Does this make sense?

Government spending exceeds government receipts so it makes no sense to claim that government spending is a tax multiplier.
 
first or second as interest rates rise.

Do you understand how debt works?

You cannot seem to comprehend that reality.

On the contrary, it is you that is severely lacking in the understanding department. Debt service is only an issue insofar as deficit growth > output growth. When this relationship reverses, the present value of debt necessarily decreases! Do you understand why or even what i am saying?

Debt today exceeds our yearly GDP and you don't seem to think that is a problem, why?

It is decreasing! You see, we just emerged from a once in a century financial crisis.


When was the last time that debt exceeded yearly GDP?

When the country emerged from both a world war and a once in a generation financial crisis.
 
Spending was a byproduct of a financial crisis. As expected, automatic stabilization outlays declined with a much improved economy.



It could be much better. Too bad the partisan right salivates at the idea of financial collapse on the watch of this administration. There is absolutely no reason to credit Republicans in Congress for anything.

Talk about partisanship, you have yet to give the opposite party any credit while trying to find something to credit Obama for. You have yet to acknowledge the Obama 3.9 trillion dollar budget proposal, the Obama debt of over 7 trillion dollars, the high unemployment/under employment/discouraged workers, and the partisan arrogant leadership he displays. Wonder what it is about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty. True results matter and cutting the deficit to still record highs should never be touted as a success.
 
Government spending exceeds government receipts so it makes no sense to claim that government spending is a tax multiplier.

It makes absolutely no sense to believe that the economy would be where it is if government spending was curtailed for the past 5 years. Remember, government expenditure is a part of total output.
 
Do you understand how debt works?



On the contrary, it is you that is severely lacking in the understanding department. Debt service is only an issue insofar as deficit growth > output growth. When this relationship reverses, the present value of debt necessarily decreases! Do you understand why or even what i am saying?



It is decreasing! You see, we just emerged from a once in a century financial crisis.




When the country emerged from both a world war and a once in a generation financial crisis.

Yep, sure do understand how debt works and how that debt is paid for, do you?

Debt service is far from your definition, it is paid to the bond holders many of who are outside this country and foreign sources. That is an outflow that we could use in taxpayers pockets especially in a consumer driven economy.

Sorry but deficits being reduced that are still records and that still grow the debt aren't something to be touted. You don't really seem to have a grasp of reality.
 
Poking fun at chicken little is entirely justified given the vitriol that spews from the majority of conservatives.
Actually, the vitriol flows from your keyboard at rate that would make the typical liberal blush. The truth is, Obama is just as much a bystander on the economy as he is on foreign policy. The only real credit he can claim for the recovery is just happening to have been sitting in the Oval Office when the economy recovered.
 
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that the economy would be where it is if government spending was curtailed for the past 5 years. Remember, government expenditure is a part of total output.

Seems that liberals believe that Reagan's 17 million jobs created would have happened without the tax cuts. Seems that liberals always make projections that they claim are accurate but ignore human behavior. It makes no sense to claim that tax cuts which increased govt. revenue contributed the most to the debt that has been generated? You seem to have a double standards in believing what liberals tell you. Don't you make projections all the time and ignore actual events?
 
Talk about partisanship, you have yet to give the opposite party any credit while trying to find something to credit Obama for.

I haven't given Obama credit for anything. I have simply pointed out that during his presidency, the deficit has been cut by 2/3, 10 million jobs have been created, and our financial system is strong enough to be taken off life support.

Why does this bother you? As an American, you should be happy when America does well. Instead, you are jealous that it occurred on the watch of a democrat president.

You have yet to acknowledge the Obama 3.9 trillion dollar budget proposal, the Obama debt of over 7 trillion dollars, the high unemployment/under employment/discouraged workers, and the partisan arrogant leadership he displays.

The budget is not an issue, and neither is the debt. As for employment demographics, how is that Obama's fault?

True results matter and cutting the deficit to still record highs should never be touted as a success.

The deficit is nowhere near record highs. Please try to aim for accuracy!
 
To put that in perspective, if Obama wasn't spending us into ruin we would have a surplus right now.
:lamo

Sorry. Anyway. Most of the high deficits were not a result of Obama's policies. Huge swaths of the shortfalls were due to:
• the recession, which reduced tax revenues, and happened before Obama came into office
• the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, started by Bush 43
• the Bush tax cuts

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f1-wide.jpg


Regardless of whether you want to credit Obama or Congressional Republicans, or if you think the wars were just and well-run, or if you think tax cuts are good, the facts are that a) Obama inherited a bunch of deficit-boosting situations, and b) deficits have fallen every year since 2009.
 
Seems that liberals believe that Reagan's 17 million jobs created would have happened without the tax cuts.

Tax cuts were entirely justified. But you seem to forget the economic gains that have been achieved through technological innovation.

Seems that liberals always make projections that they claim are accurate but ignore human behavior.

My predictions have been pretty darn accurate!

It makes no sense to claim that tax cuts which increased govt. revenue contributed the most to the debt that has been generated? You seem to have a double standards in believing what liberals tell you. Don't you make projections all the time and ignore actual events?

Tax cuts do not increase revenue, that is pure folly. Increased economic activity boots revenue; how much of it is attributable to tax cuts is an entirely different discussion.
 
Back
Top Bottom