• 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

You are pointing to a 1 trillion dollar reduction in the deficit as if that is some great accomplishment.

No. I did say that a 2/3 reduction of a $1.3 trillion deficit is a great development given the state of the overall economy.

That trillion dollar reduction still has generated record high deficits exceeding anything Bush ever generated and that is with the Bush tax cuts

So what?
 
Really? please tell me when the Bush deficits ever exceeded one trillion dollars? All this talk about inflation adjusted deficits is bogus because it isn't only expenses that are inflation adjusted but also revenue. Deficits are paid for in today's dollars not inflation adjusted dollars. Further Bush never had a debt exceeding our yearly GDP, only Obama has done that. In Bush's 8 years the deficit dropped from 2004 to 2007 WITH a GOP Congress or did you forget or simply ignore??

Also I cannot seem to get an answer to the question posed, what did Obama do to lower the deficit that you want to give him credit for?

He signed the sequester.
 
There's an interesting example. He has a blank check to make payroll for the military.

I wonder what would be said if the government ran out of money to give the soldiers their pay?

Thats why they passed this bill, to ensure soldiers got paid during the "shutdown" At the moment, though, theres no borrowing cap, so they wouldnt run out of money. They would just borrow more. If there was a cap, then he would have to make some choices. And if he chose not to pay soldiers, then Dems would blame Reps and vice versa.
 
Why do you continue to ignore the question? What did Obama do to lower the deficits?

You continue to argue on a fallacious basis. I never claimed Bush had $1 trillion deficits, nor did i claim that Obama did anything to lower the deficits. Try addressing my actual comments and not your decryption of my comments. It would do wonders in allowing for a more civil discussion.

If you want me to write it in big bold letters:

Obama did nothing to lower the deficit other than increase tax rates on high income earners. But the majority of credit for increased revenue should go to the much improved economy.
 
You mean the sequester he ran away from and said would destroy the economy?

Hah, yep. But its the one thing keeping the situation from being worse. All of the saving being realized are being offset by ballooning mandatory spending. Without it, deficits would be MUCH higher.
 
Without it, deficits would be MUCH higher.

You cannot claim this. It is impossible to know how much higher expenditures would be as well as how receipts would be impacted by higher expenditures.
 
You continue to argue on a fallacious basis. I never claimed Bush had $1 trillion deficits, nor did i claim that Obama did anything to lower the deficits. Try addressing my actual comments and not your decryption of my comments. It would do wonders in allowing for a more civil discussion.

If you want me to write it in big bold letters:

Obama did nothing to lower the deficit other than increase tax rates on high income earners. But the majority of credit for increased revenue should go to the much improved economy.

So when exactly did the tax rates go up on high income earners? A much improved economy is a tribute to the free enterprise, capitalistic economy that we have in this country, one that isn't as dependent on Federal spending as the European economy which goes to show that we don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. that Obama has proposed.
 
You cannot claim this. It is impossible to know how much higher expenditures would be as well as how receipts would be impacted by higher expenditures.

Isn't that what liberals do, project that revenue would have been higher without the tax cuts that Reagan and Bush implemented? How can any liberal claim that most of the debt accumulated during the Bush term was due to tax cuts if not for the projections of the same economic growth and revenue growth without the tax cuts?
 
So when exactly did the tax rates go up on high income earners? A much improved economy is a tribute to the free enterprise, capitalistic economy that we have in this country, one that isn't as dependent on Federal spending as the European economy which goes to show that we don't need a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal Govt. that Obama has proposed.

LOL!

:screwy
 
Thats why they passed this bill, to ensure soldiers got paid during the "shutdown" At the moment, though, theres no borrowing cap, so they wouldnt run out of money. They would just borrow more. If there was a cap, then he would have to make some choices. And if he chose not to pay soldiers, then Dems would blame Reps and vice versa.
That's exactly what would happen.
Moreover, just maybe soldiers not getting paid would be enough to push the voters to stage a revolution at the ballot box and get rid of the partisans and their stupid gamesmanship.

Maybe.
 
That's exactly what would happen.
Moreover, just maybe soldiers not getting paid would be enough to push the voters to stage a revolution at the ballot box and get rid of the partisans and their stupid gamesmanship.

Maybe.

You might think so, but was that the result of the 'shutdown'? Was it in the 90s?
 
You might think so, but was that the result of the 'shutdown'? Was it in the 90s?

You have a point there. Voters must have a high tolerance for government incompetence, or the shutdown would have been enough to spark a rebellion all by itself.
 
So far whenever we hit the debt ceiling, the liberal message wins.
 
Just got back to my computer from being away from it for a few hours, and whlie I was away my brain twitched on something and I slapped my head.

Sangha said:

Kushinator said:

My apologies to both you gentleman. Apparently my brain was not revved up this morning as I went on about what the OP's link talked about, remembering it in an incredibly faulty way.I was wrong in my statements regarding the OP's story talking about the flat deficit numbers and not as a percentage of GDP and I wanted to acknowledge that, first thing, upon sitting back down at my computer. I've actually not read any of the thread since my last posts so I'm sure there will be some posts excorriating me on that fact (and absolutely rightfully so). My brain farted there and I should've double checked rather than just going off memory with the fog of the morning still hovering over me.
 
Last edited:
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.

Since Obama took office, there are over 1 million less Americans under 55 who are employed.

Plus there are 14 million more Americans on food stamps.

Plus the national debt has risen about 60%.


Is it any wonder the Dems lost the Senate in the mid-terms?

Nope.
 
Last edited:
Since Obama took office, there are over 1 million less Americans under 55 who are employed.

Plus there are 14 million more Americans on food stamps.

Plus the national debt has risen about 60%.


Is it any wonder the Dems lost the Senate in the mid-terms?

Nope.

The issue is whether or not it's Obama's fault, and if someone else could have done a better job.

It took us a dozen years to recover from the Great Recession, so I think it's a little unfair to totally blame our weak economy on O'. But could someone else have done a better job, yea, a better leader probably could have. The guy simply wasn't qualified to be POTUS.
 
The issue is whether or not it's Obama's fault, and if someone else could have done a better job.

It took us a dozen years to recover from the Great Recession, so I think it's a little unfair to totally blame our weak economy on O'. But could someone else have done a better job, yea, a better leader probably could have. The guy simply wasn't qualified to be POTUS.

I agree completely.


Btw, I have near zero faith in either party to properly govern the United States of America at this time.
 
So is the executive branch. The Executive Branch puts forth the budget. The congress then votes on it or modifies it and then votes on it. The budget generally originates in the executive branch with the executive branch putting in a budget request to congress.

Well, Congress doesn't have to pay much attention to what the President wants. Bush certainly found that out in FY2009 (FY2009 started in Oct 1, 2008) when he requested a budget with a deficit of $407Billion that ended up with an actual deficit of S1.413 trillion. The Democrat controlled Congress did not pass the budget until March, 2009, when Obama signed it. But Bush gets the blame for that deficit, I guess. And I guess that Bush should therefore get the credit for ending the recession during FY2009.

The last Bush-Republican Congress budget deficit was $161 billion in FY 2007.

In FY2013, Obama proposed a budget deficit of $901 billion that ended up being $680 billion. In FY2014, Obama's proposal was for a $744 billion deficit that ended up with Congress's $483 billion deficit.
 
Well, Congress doesn't have to pay much attention to what the President wants. Bush certainly found that out in FY2009 (FY2009 started in Oct 1, 2008) when he requested a budget with a deficit of $407Billion that ended up with an actual deficit of S1.413 trillion. The Democrat controlled Congress did not pass the budget until March, 2009, when Obama signed it. But Bush gets the blame for that deficit, I guess. And I guess that Bush should therefore get the credit for ending the recession during FY2009.

The last Bush-Republican Congress budget deficit was $161 billion in FY 2007.

In FY2013, Obama proposed a budget deficit of $901 billion that ended up being $680 billion. In FY2014, Obama's proposal was for a $744 billion deficit that ended up with Congress's $483 billion deficit.

?


And for a more comical side of this... here's a quote from the story by Bush projecting a balanced budget on the eve of his historic economic collapse:

“Thanks to the hard work of the American people and spending discipline in Washington, we are now on a path to balance the budget by 2012,” the president said in an introductory message.​

Then of course the next president would be left with not only Bush's economic fiasco but also the unemployment fiasco after all his cuts:

Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009.​

Back to the budget... His budget was the largest proposed in our history that year.

Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.​

Perhaps we are talking about different budgets?
 
?

And for a more comical side of this... here's a quote from the story by Bush projecting a balanced budget on the eve of his historic economic collapse:
“Thanks to the hard work of the American people and spending discipline in Washington, we are now on a path to balance the budget by 2012,” the president said in an introductory message.​

Then of course the next president would be left with not only Bush's economic fiasco but also the unemployment fiasco after all his cuts:
Mr. Bush said he would cut or terminate 151 programs, saving $18 billion in 2009.​

Back to the budget... His budget was the largest proposed in our history that year.
Mr. Bush’s proposed budget, the first in the nation’s history to exceed $3 trillion, foresees near-record deficits just ahead — $410 billion in the current fiscal year, on spending of $2.9 trillion, and $407 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 — before the budget would come into balance in 2012.​

Perhaps we are talking about different budgets?

No we are talking the same budgets, your problem seems to be that you don't understand what the projected deficit was for that budget vs. what Obama actually signed and the deficit from that signature.

You also seem to ignore TARP which was a LOAN that was repaid but recycled instead of reducing the deficit because liberals knew people like you would blame Bush.

Seems you aren't sure what you are talking about nor do you even understand it.
 
No we are talking the same budgets, your problem seems to be that you don't understand what the projected deficit was for that budget vs. what Obama actually signed and the deficit from that signature.

You also seem to ignore TARP which was a LOAN that was repaid but recycled instead of reducing the deficit because liberals knew people like you would blame Bush.

Seems you aren't sure what you are talking about nor do you even understand it.

Whose this we stuff? I don't think anyone was actually talking to you. But if you want to weigh in on yet another fiscal thread were you ultimately go down in flames... help yerself!
 
Back
Top Bottom