• 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

Conservative said:
I am waiting for any proof that the jobs created were 10 million and from what base? Did those shovels ever get to their destination from those shovel ready jobs stimulus?
Click to expand...

The labor market bottomed out in Q4 2009. Since then, 9,465,000 jobs have been created. This Friday will provide the requirements for rounding to 10 million.
 
Tettsuo said:
U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn - Bloomberg



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

Oh, wait.... the deficit is SHRINKING? Whodathunkit! I guess he's NOT the spender in chief as he's been labeled by the consistent and reliable deficit increasing Republicans.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The deficit may be shrinking, but spending isnt. Except I blame congress as much as I do Obama. All of them have been blindly passing spending bills, and ignoring entitlements.


Outlays
2009 3,517,677
2010 3,457,079
2011 3,603,059
2012 3,537,127
2013 3,454,605
2014 estimate 3,650,526
2015 estimate 3,900,989
2016 estimate 4,099,078
2017 estimate 4,268,606
2018 estimate 4,443,145
2019 estimate 4,728,791
 
Kushinator said:
The labor market bottomed out in Q4 2009. Since then, 9,465,000 jobs have been created. This Friday will provide the requirements for rounding to 10 million.
Click to expand...

Really? So your basis of judgement is not growing jobs but just replacing the jobs lost and calling that a win? Last nights election should have woken you up but apparently not. Today we have the same number of people working as we had when the recession began. The young and African Americans are hurting and have actually lost jobs, part time workers are on the rise, Obama's ratings are in the tank and still you don't get it. Not surprising
 
Conservative said:
Really? So your basis of judgement is not growing jobs but just replacing the jobs lost and calling that a win?
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of judgement nor is there a basis for "winning". Job creation is on record. Nothing you can say will negate this reality.
 
Kushinator said:
It is not a matter of judgement nor is there a basis for "winning". Job creation is on record. Nothing you can say will negate this reality.
Click to expand...

Got it, you can lose jobs and just getting those jobs back is all that matters. Doesn't even matter that 7.5 million long term part time jobs have been created. Please take the tarian out of your name and add al because that is what you are, a liberal, one of low expectations and spin.

Obama took office claiming he had a solution to the economic problems we faced. Rather than grow jobs the jobs created were the jobs lost with nothing added for population growth. African Americans and the young are suffering under this Administration. Now we have people like you giving him credit for numbers that the electorate doesn't buy. Where is the disconnect on your part?
 
poweRob said:
The binding constitutional thing about the budget is that the congress controls the purse strings. The president puts forth the budget saying, "this is how much money I need to run this government." It becomes constitutionally binding when the congress then votes and puts forth the money for the budget. That vote constitutionally puts the money in there.
Click to expand...
but the Congress can still pas spending measures that are not included in the budget. Most of the cost of the war in Iraq was paid for off budget, for example.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but the Congress can still pas spending measures that are not included in the budget. Most of the cost of the war in Iraq was paid for off budget, for example.
Click to expand...

The budget itself is not constitutionally binding, only the appropriations bills which they pass.
 
jonny5 said:
The budget itself is not constitutionally binding, only the appropriations bills which they pass.
Click to expand...

Correct.

So, the Congress has the power to spend, or not to spend

To spend or not to spend, that is the question.... and the answer, of course, is to spend.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very hackish

The fact is, the right endlessly whines about spending, deficits, and debt and now that they've won the senate, many here are under the delusion that spending will be cut. Meanwhile, there's a long history of spending increasing steadily over time regardless of who controls congress and under republican rule, both deficits and debt have increased faster (in both actual $$ and as a % of GDP) when the repubs are in the majority or have the White House.

But I guess it's easier to hurl hackish claims about "Obamabots" than take a cold hard look at how the right has failed in their main objective when they gain power.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Correct.

So, the Congress has the power to spend, or not to spend

To spend or not to spend, that is the question.... and the answer, of course, is to spend.
Click to expand...

Of course, but so does the President (by congress). He is given money to enforce the laws. He doesnt HAVE to spend it all. Like, hes given X dollars for performing a function but has lattitude as to how much he can spend. For example, the last bill that was signed:


(a) In General- There are hereby appropriated for fiscal year 2014, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for any period during which interim or full-year appropriations for fiscal year 2014 are not in effect--
(1) such sums as are necessary to provide pay and allowances to members of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code), including reserve components thereof, who perform active service during such period;
Click to expand...

Thats a blank check. So blame congress for giving it, and President for using it.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, it runs counters to the propoganda and talking points put out by die hard Republicans.

However, the OP of this thread wasn't propoganda and talking points of die hard republicans. It was propoganda and talking points of the die hard liberal persuation.

As such, my post focused on discussing those.

There's a large difference between saying that Republicans have over stated the economic harm that Obama would do or that he's not leading us into a "Fiscal Apocolypse" and putting forth implications that his fiscal actions to this point are something to be cheered and are somehow the polar opposite of the republican extreme.

The reality is that Obama's economic policies have not been apocolyptic or country destroying, but have absolutely embraced VERY slow movement away from the artificially inflated highs of 2008. As well, it's clear he's taking a continued path forward that attempts to use the bottom levels of the fiscal crisis deficits as the new "normal" going forward. Which still places deficit levels a good $300 billion or more ABOVE the average deficit from 1987 - 2007.

So sure, Obama isn't nearly as bad as some Republicans attempted to paint him as being. But neither is he some polar opposite that who's hacking away at the deficit with a machete and significantly moving us back where we were during more stable times. On the contrary, by and large he's been taking a slow, steady approach towards the floor of the Crisis (~$450 Billion deficit) and treating that inflated number as the new normal. While not as harsh as what Republican talking points were trying to paint him as it undoubtably isn't something to cheer about or laud in my opinion. And I think the harping on 2008 numbers, and acting as if information prior to the fiscal crisis just doesn't exist, is as laughably transparent propoganda as much of what Republicans put out.
Click to expand...

While your tone is accurate, and Obama is not any sort of economic or fiscal "savior", I have no idea where you got this idea that anyone considers the Bush recession any sort of "new normal" or "floor" for deficits, spending or any other budgetary measure. I can't think of anything anyone has said that would lead to such a conclusion.

Can you cite any statement, or anything at all, to support this claim of ~450B being a "new normal"?
 
sangha said:
Very hackish

The fact is, the right endlessly whines about spending, deficits, and debt and now that they've won the senate, many here are under the delusion that spending will be cut. Meanwhile, there's a long history of spending increasing steadily over time regardless of who controls congress and under republican rule, both deficits and debt have increased faster (in both actual $$ and as a % of GDP) when the repubs are in the majority or have the White House.

But I guess it's easier to hurl hackish claims about "Obamabots" than take a cold hard look at how the right has failed in their main objective when they gain power.
Click to expand...

What you fail to see is that "the right" is not represented by most republicants, just as "the left" is not represented by most demorats. I agree that no matter which party gets a slight edge among our congress critters it is not going to slow the growth of federal power/spending - at best some of it will be slightly redirected. Congress critters, of both parties, (must?) play like puppets of those with campaign cash and cooperate with their respective "party bosses" to get/remain included on the list of DNC/RNC (and related PACs) funding recipients.

It makes money to take money just as it takes money to make money. ;)

The only thing growing faster than federal spending is the campaign cash needed to control that federal spending.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What you fail to see is that "the right" is not represented by most republicants, just as "the left" is not represented by most demorats. I agree that no matter which party gets a slight edge among our congress critters it is not going to slow the growth of federal power/spending - at best some of it will be slightly redirected. Congress critters, of both parties, (must?) play like puppets of those with campaign cash and cooperate with their respective "party bosses" to get/remain included on the list of DNC/RNC (and related PACs) funding recipients.

It makes money to take money just as it takes money to make money. ;)

The only thing growing faster than federal spending is the campaign cash needed to control that federal spending.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe that first sentence, may I suggest you refrain from characterizing the left as "Obamabots"?
 
sangha said:
If you truly believe that first sentence, may I suggest you refrain from characterizing the left as "Obamabots"?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what the word Obamabot means? Tell me that most Obama supporters today in light of the economic results aren't Obamabots?
 
sangha said:
If you truly believe that first sentence, may I suggest you refrain from characterizing the left as "Obamabots"?
Click to expand...

Obamabots are only a subset of the left just as TP folks are only a subset of the right. On any given issue, the vast majority are neither hard right nor hard left. This thread is trying to credit (some unnamed) Obama fiscal policy with a deficit reduction and claiming that (counter to public opinion) the deficit.(and resulting national debt) is now getting under control. One cannot continue spending at 20% of GDP while taxing at 17% of GDP (resulting in a deficit of only 3% of GDP) and hope to not run deficits, much less pay down the national debt.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Obamabots are only a subset of the left just as TP folks are only a subset of the right. On any given issue, the vast majority are neither hard right nor hard left.
Click to expand...

Your initial comment did not seem to include such a reasonable distinction.

This thread is trying to credit (some unnamed) Obama fiscal policy with a deficit reduction and claiming that (counter to public opinion) the deficit.(and resulting national debt) is now getting under control. One cannot continue spending at 20% of GDP while taxing at 17% of GDP (resulting in a deficit of only 3% of GDP) and hope to not run deficits, much less pay down the national debt.
Click to expand...

As far as "unnamed" policies, there are several, including (but not limited to) ending the bush* tax cuts, TARP and the auto bailout, ACA, etc

And spending as a % of GDP has been declining though taxes as a % of GDP has also been declining.
 
Dittohead not! said:
but the Congress can still pas spending measures that are not included in the budget. Most of the cost of the war in Iraq was paid for off budget, for example.
Click to expand...

Yep but when obama became president he put all of GW Bush's war spending BACK on the budget and then got lampooned by the right who then said he exploded spending. simply because he counted the dollars rather than hid it. slight OT rant there. But it did get back on budget. It has to be paid sooner or later and if it's hidden off the books like GW did... it comes to light eventually. Presidential war powers have gotten far too out of hand.
 
poweRob said:
Yep but when obama became president he put all of GW Bush's war spending BACK on the budget and then got lampooned by the right who then said he exploded spending. simply because he counted the dollars rather than hid it. slight OT rant there. But it did get back on budget. It has to be paid sooner or later and if it's hidden off the books like GW did... it comes to light eventually. Presidential war powers have gotten far too out of hand.
Click to expand...

Iraq spending has not ever exploded, nor did it explode, spending, when it was put on budget. Its like 1% of total spending. The 2009 stimulus alone cost more than a decade of Iraq spending. On/Off budget doesnt even change total spending. It simply changes budgeted outlays.

Total direct war on terror spending between 2001-2007 totaled about 700bn. The govt spent 16 trillion during that same time, of which 10 trillion was social spending.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Yep but when obama became president he put all of GW Bush's war spending BACK on the budget and then got lampooned by the right who then said he exploded spending. simply because he counted the dollars rather than hid it. slight OT rant there. But it did get back on budget. It has to be paid sooner or later and if it's hidden off the books like GW did... it comes to light eventually. Presidential war powers have gotten far too out of hand.
Click to expand...

Bush's war spending are part of the debt that Obama inherited. Because it isn't on budget doesn't mean it isn't part of the yearly deficit, just like the Obama Afghanistan Supplemental's
 
sangha said:
Can you cite any statement, or anything at all, to support this claim of ~450B being a "new normal"?
Click to expand...

If you'll follow along in this thread you'll have seen my posts indicating why I believe he seems to be taking that as the "new normal", as it's based on what appears to be a near $100 billion dollar increased for next year based on projections for the Presidents proposed budget. After multiple years of trending downwards, and repeated claims by Democrats that we're now out of the worst of the crisis thanks to Obama's politics, the only clear reason I could fathom for beginning to go back upwards in deficit totals is a belief that they've been dropped far enough.

Granted, those projections are likely to change now over the coming months compared to what could reasonable be expected prior to the election since there's now a significantly different make up in the congress and a different seeming sentiment sent by the American People. Hopefully we'll actually continue to see a decrease, perhaps even a faster one, similar to the past few years. I'd be very happy to see such occur.
 
Kushinator said:
But so what?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry. Did I miss some kind of rule that only you can play indignant and claim to "simply pointing out" some "facts" while claiming you're not actually making any argument?

I'm just playing your game Kush. I'm just pointing out a fact. Why does that bother you? As an american, you should be upset when America isn't doing its absolute best. Instead, you're okay with less than its best because it occured on the watch of a Democratic president.

What? Don't like your little game of "I'm just going to claim facts, make clear implications, and then rail at people for not taking my subjective contextual basis for how I judge those facts as absolute truth" actually being used against you?

"So what"?

So there are other "facts" other than the ones you presented that one can look at and come to a different conclussion in regards to whether or not "America [is doing] well". That the measurement of what "doing well" is can vary depending on what arbitrary criteria you wish to use to define it.

So what? So your facts aren't the only ones that exist, your reference point isn't the only one that is legitimate, and your implied assertions aren't magically absolute objective facts simply because you use facts to reach said conclussions.

Now you want to argue on the basis of projections?
Click to expand...

Nope. Just stating facts. Just like you. I haven't "argued" anything, just like you haven't "given obama credit" for anything. I, just like you, were simply posting "facts". Interprit it as you wish. I'm simply pointing them out.

May I echo you again....why does that bother you?

If you expect me to treat your arguments based on a fraudulent method of debate where you just scream "FACTS FACTS FACTS" to try and distract people from the multitude of subjective factors and opinionated assertions you try to masquerade as facts as well as anything more than the dishonest tactic it is? Or that I'd react to them with anything better than your own tactics?

My post was simply demonstrating "facts", just like yours was. Why does that bother you so.
 
Last edited:
Tettsuo said:
LOL... when do so called Conservative EVER reduce spending? When have they EVER reduced the deficit?!

Sorry, but Conservative do not have a leg to stand on when discussing reducing the deficit or the debt. They've done neither when in power.
Click to expand...
You don't have to look back very far. GWB did it in 2005, then again in 2006, and once again in 2007.
 
Taylor said:
You don't have to look back very far. GWB did it in 2005, then again in 2006, and once again in 2007.
Click to expand...

Forget it, I posted the data showing what the Republican President and Republican Congress did after taking over in the 2004 elections but it was totally ignored. Liberals always stick to the same talking points and ignore Treasury data. Deficits were reduced every year of their control
 
jonny5;1063946885... said:
Total direct war on terror spending between 2001-2007 totaled about 700bn. ...
Click to expand...


That's pretty close to the spendulous bill, which was also spent over the course of a number of years, and Obama has been ferociously attacked about spending that much to save our economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom