• 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

imagep said:
Absolutely. that's why I advocate for shifting taxation from the consumer class to the rich.



I have never understood why conservatives like to use Reagan's 17 million jobs as an example, when that is only about average. Carter "created" 11 million jobs in half the amount of time. Clinton "created" 22 million jobs. Bush is the only president in my lifetime who had a net loss of jobs during any term and fewer than 5 million total new jobs - even Obama has that beat.
Click to expand...

Guess I will never understand what it is about liberals who always buy what they are told by people that they want to believe. Please post for me any BLS data that shows Clinton creating 22 million jobs and Bush having a net job loss? I have posted the BLS charts over and over again and still they are ignored just like liberals ignore that Bush inherited a recession and Reagan inherited a double dip with Clinton inheriting a growing economy and no recession. Seems that history isn't one of your strong suits.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2009

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1980 99879 99995 99713 99233 98945 98682 98796 98824 99077 99317 99545 99634
1981 99955 100191 100571 101056 101048 100298 100693 100689 100064 100378 100207 99645
1982 99692 99762 99672 99576 100116 99543 99493 99633 99504 99215 99112 99032
1983 99161 99089 99179 99560 99642 100633 101208 101608 102016 102039 102729 102996
1984 103201 103824 103967 104336 105193 105591 105435 105163 105490 105638 105972 106223
1985 106302 106555 106989 106936 106932 106505 106807 107095 107657 107847 108007 108216
1986 108887 108480 108837 108952 109089 109576 109810 110015 110085 110273 110475 110728
1987 110953 111257 111408 111794 112434 112246 112634 113057 112909 113282 113505 113793
1988 114016 114227 114037 114650 114292 114927 115060 115282 115356 115638 116100 116104
1989 116708 116776 117022 117097 117099 117418 117472 117655 117354 117581 117912 117830
1990 119081 119059 119203 118852 119151 118983 118810 118802 118524 118536 118306 118241
1991 117940 117755 117652 118109 117440 117639 117568 117484 117928 117800 117770 117466
1992 117978 117753 118144 118426 118375 118419 118713 118826 118720 118628 118876 118997
1993 119075 119275 119542 119474 120115 120290 120467 120856 120554 120823 121169 121464
1994 121966 122086 121930 122290 122864 122634 122706 123342 123687 124112 124516 124721
1995 124663 124928 124955 124945 124421 124522 124816 124852 125133 125388 125188 125088
1996 125125 125639 125862 125994 126244 126602 126947 127172 127536 127890 127771 127860
1997 128298 128298 128891 129143 129464 129412 129822 130010 130019 130179 130653 130679
1998 130726 130807 130814 131209 131325 131244 131329 131390 131986 131999 132280 132602
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523
2000 136559 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
Click to expand...

Reagan 99 million to 116 million equal 17 million
Clinton 117 million to 137 million equals 20 million
GW Bush 137 million to 142 million equals 5 million

Looks like all had net job gains to anyone looking at BLS numbers
 
imagep said:
Every charitable organization has overhead. Even that overhead money isn't destroyed, it's spent back into the private sector economy, and results in jobs and demand.

Anyhow, I'm not an advocate for means tested welfare, I believe we should end means tested welfare.

I'm not even particularly an advocate for charity. If net after tax income was distributed in such a manner that it was suffient for familes that had full time workers to take care of themselves, then welfare wouldn't be needed. I believe in personal responsibility, if everyone took care of their selves first, their family second, their friends and coworkers and neighbors and churchmates third, then there would be no need for either welfare or organized charity.
Click to expand...

Every charitable organization doesn't have overhead especially if the charity is the individual giving to the actual poor. St. Vincent de Paul distributes food and there is no cut taken out of that food. When I give money to St. Vincent de Paul it goes directly to the individual 100% and goes for rent, electricity or other expenses. What you have bought is the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results. We have more people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer today than at any time in history and that is a disaster except for the liberal elites who keep their jobs because of people like you
 
Conservative said:
Guess I will never understand what it is about liberals who always buy what they are told by people that they want to believe. Please post for me any BLS data that shows Clinton creating 22 million jobs and Bush having a net job loss? I have posted the BLS charts over and over again and still they are ignored just like liberals ignore that Bush inherited a recession and Reagan inherited a double dip with Clinton inheriting a growing economy and no recession. Seems that history isn't one of your strong suits.



Reagan 99 million to 116 million equal 17 million
Clinton 117 million to 137 million equals 20 million
GW Bush 137 million to 142 million equals 5 million

Looks like all had net job gains to anyone looking at BLS numbers
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I didn't claim that Bush had a net loss, I said that he had a net loss his first term. your numbers don't indicate that, I was repeating numbers off the top of my head as closely as possible, although I didn't get them perfect. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now as far as me ignoring recessions, it's not like Obama didn't inherit one also.
 
Conservative said:
Every charitable organization doesn't have overhead especially if the charity is the individual giving to the actual poor. St. Vincent de Paul distributes food and there is no cut taken out of that food. When I give money to St. Vincent de Paul it goes directly to the individual 100% and goes for rent, electricity or other expenses. What you have bought is the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results. We have more people dependent on the Federal Taxpayer today than at any time in history and that is a disaster except for the liberal elites who keep their jobs because of people like you
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with St. Vincent de Paul, but I still would think that they have some sort of overhead. It might be a third party paying that overhead (like a church), but overhead still exists.

Anyhow, like I already said, I don't support government means tested welfare, so I really don't know what we are arguing about.
 
imagep said:
Just for the record, I didn't claim that Bush had a net loss, I said that he had a net loss his first term. your numbers don't indicate that, I was repeating numbers off the top of my head as closely as possible, although I didn't get them perfect. Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now as far as me ignoring recessions, it's not like Obama didn't inherit one also.
Click to expand...

That is why BLS issues the official numbers so the question is if BLS issues the official numbers why would anyone use another source?

Yes, Obama inherited a recession, one that he was part of creating as a member of the Congress. The public voted on Tuesday telling the world what they think of the Obama recovery. Only a small minority still defend the indefensible and the incompetent President.
 
imagep said:
I'm not familiar with St. Vincent de Paul, but I still would think that they have some sort of overhead. It might be a third party paying that overhead (like a church), but overhead still exists.

Anyhow, like I already said, I don't support government means tested welfare, so I really don't know what we are arguing about.
Click to expand...

St. Vincent de Paul gives every dime they receive to those in need and all the food donated goes to the poor as well. It is one of the best charities on the planet. Most of the employees are volunteers. Overhead is paid for by donations as well but donations tabbed as for overhead not for the poor.
 
imagep said:
Makes sense to me.

And does the pooling of wealth have anything to do with this? Just seems to me that it would be the very rich who are desperate for a place to park their money who cause bubbles. Maybe higher taxes on the uber weathy would prevent these types of bubbles.
Click to expand...

I don't see any signs that the bubbles have to do with the mega rich, except that relatively they do not spend as much on consumption. You see, I believe the liquidity is largely in the hands of insurance companies, pension funds and the like, where smaller amounts are pooled to huge sums.
 
Conservative said:
St. Vincent de Paul gives every dime they receive to those in need and all the food donated goes to the poor as well. It is one of the best charities on the planet. Most of the employees are volunteers. Overhead is paid for by donations as well but donations tabbed as for overhead not for the poor.
Click to expand...

OK, I see. Overhead doesn't exist as long as it comes out of a different charitable account.
 
imagep said:
OK, I see. Overhead doesn't exist as long as it comes out of a different charitable account.
Click to expand...

When I give money to St. Vincent de Paul it goes 100% to those in need. You don't seem to understand the concept as you continue to try and defend the massive dependence created by the Federal Govt. and how your tax dollars are wasted
 
Conservative said:
Guess I will never understand what it is about liberals who always buy what they are told by people that they want to believe. Please post for me any BLS data that shows Clinton creating 22 million jobs and Bush having a net job loss? I have posted the BLS charts over and over again and still they are ignored just like liberals ignore that Bush inherited a recession and Reagan inherited a double dip with Clinton inheriting a growing economy and no recession. Seems that history isn't one of your strong suits.



Reagan 99 million to 116 million equal 17 million
Clinton 117 million to 137 million equals 20 million
GW Bush 137 million to 142 million equals 5 million

Looks like all had net job gains to anyone looking at BLS numbers
Click to expand...

They are cherry picking the losses. I remember in the run up to the 2004 election it was all 'x jobs lost under Bush'. And when they were all recovered and building, the media went silent.
 
poweRob said:
?


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?
Click to expand...

Huh? You have the same info that I gave. Bush's last budget proposal for FY2009 that started in Oct, 2008 and was proposed by Bush in Feb. 2008, had a proposed deficit of $407 billion. Revenues were up due to improved growth helped by the tax cuts so even though it was the first $3 trillion budget, revenues covered most of it.

I wrote:
Bush certainly found that out in FY2009 (FY2009 started in Oct 1, 2008) when he requested a budget with a deficit of $407Billion
Click to expand...

Now, of course, Obama supporters are celebrating $500 billion deficits as being great and a reflection of Obama's great fiscal conservatism. Only 6 years ago, a $407 billion deficit was considered terrible.
 
Let me get this straight, if we are for example overspending by $100 last year, we're only overspending this year by $97.20?

And that's good somehow?
 
CanadaJohn said:
You might want to throw a little credit the way of the Republican controlled House which insisted on the complete implementation of the trillion dollar sequestration agreement that Obama and Democrats tried to renege on and for also insisting on the end to the payroll tax holiday and reining in unemployment insurance extensions that again Obama and Democrats wanted to further extend.

Just imagine, when the Republicans take control of the Senate and more Republican initiatives get to a vote on the Senate floor how much better the economic picture will get. And then, two years later, when the anchor in the White House is removed, it will be clear sailing again for the greatest economy in the world.
Click to expand...

If Congressional Republicans and Obama can look to the '90s as proof that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President can indeed work together, then the next two years might actually be a welcome break from partisan gridlock. And let's not forget that the aforementioned time period included one of the best economies in US history.
 
imagep said:
Bush had higher than that.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it, do you? Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009 therefore it was his budget not Bush's. Bush's budget was rejected by the Democrat Congress and liberals knew that people like you wouldn't understand that thus blame Bush. The liberal elites were right
 
Phys251 said:
If Congressional Republicans and Obama can look to the '90s as proof that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President can indeed work together, then the next two years might actually be a welcome break from partisan gridlock. And let's not forget that the aforementioned time period included one of the best economies in US history.
Click to expand...

Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least cared more about people liking him than changing america.
 
American said:
Let me get this straight, if we are for example overspending by $100 last year, we're only overspending this year by $97.20?

And that's good somehow?
Click to expand...

It's not that the deficit is down by 2.8%
It's that the deficit is down to 2.8% of the GDP.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's not that the deficit is down by 2.8%
It's that the deficit is down to 2.8% of the GDP.
Click to expand...

Far too many don't seem to understand that deficits to GDP are irrelevant because we pay debt service on the actual debt which is accumulations of deficits. What should bother most is the fact that the debt to GDP exceeds 100% and Obama has increased the debt over 7 trillion dollars, a record for any President
 
Conservative said:
Far too many don't seem to understand that deficits to GDP are irrelevant because we pay debt service on the actual debt which is accumulations of deficits. What should bother most is the fact that the debt to GDP exceeds 100% and Obama has increased the debt over 7 trillion dollars, a record for any President
Click to expand...

The GDP is quite relevant. The higher the GDP, the better able the government is to service the debt.

Oh, and the Congress has increased the debt over the past six years, not the president. Not that he stood in their way, you understand, but the comparison of deficits by who occupies the White House is largely irrelevant.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The GDP is quite relevant. The higher the GDP, the better able the government is to service the debt.

Oh, and the Congress has increased the debt over the past six years, not the president. Not that he stood in their way, you understand, but the comparison of deficits by who occupies the White House is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Interesting that Congress was under Democrat Control when the recession began yet Bush is responsible according to Liberals. Obama took office and signed the fiscal year 2009 budget but liberals still blame Bush for the 2009 deficit. Congress was under Democrat control from January 2007 to January 2011 and yet it was Bush's deficit in 2007-2009 and now its Congress's deficit from 2009-2014 because Obama is in the WH? Just wanted to make sure I understood the rules?

Ditto, I understand that you don't think this way but there are many here who do
 
Conservative said:
Interesting that Congress was under Democrat Control when the recession began yet Bush is responsible according to Liberals. Obama took office and signed the fiscal year 2009 budget but liberals still blame Bush for the 2009 deficit. Congress was under Democrat control from January 2007 to January 2011 and yet it was Bush's deficit in 2007-2009 and now its Congress's deficit from 2009-2014 because Obama is in the WH? Just wanted to make sure I understood the rules?

Ditto, I understand that you don't think this way but there are many here who do
Click to expand...

Yes, there are , and many more who blame the POTUS for everything, whether it is in his purview or not.

It's partisanship, plain and simple, absurd partisanship I might add.
 
Wake me when we stop spending more than we have by trillions of dollars every year.
 
Conservative said:
...What should bother most is the fact that the debt to GDP exceeds 100%...
Click to expand...


That part right there, explain why that matters. It seems like a random milestone to me.
 
Erod said:
Wake me when we stop spending more than we have by trillions of dollars every year.
Click to expand...

Someone should have woke you up a few years ago. Do you not watch the news?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom