• 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!

Obama Deficits Continue to rise

Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
134,496
Reaction score
14,621
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where is the outrage? Over and over again I have heard the people here complaining about how much money Bush spent and how bad the deficit was and how Bush doubled the debt.

Now we have Obama who will create more debt in three years than Bush created in 8 and not a word. Record deficit in the shortest month of the year has the Obama Administration on track to blow the 2009 deficit out of the water setting again another record.

Although some here want to continue to blame Bush solely for the 2009 deficit there is no way anyone can blame Bush for the 2010 deficits.

U.S. Monthly Budget Deficit Balloons to a Record - WSJ.com
 
Where is the outrage? Over and over again I have heard the people here complaining about how much money Bush spent and how bad the deficit was and how Bush doubled the debt.

Now we have Obama who will create more debt in three years than Bush created in 8 and not a word. Record deficit in the shortest month of the year has the Obama Administration on track to blow the 2009 deficit out of the water setting again another record.

Although some here want to continue to blame Bush solely for the 2009 deficit there is no way anyone can blame Bush for the 2010 deficits.

U.S. Monthly Budget Deficit Balloons to a Record - WSJ.com

There's been no outrage... a slight simmering concern only. A few comments... but hey, the outrage is saved for Republicans usually. Unlike some of us who were upset back then and are just as upset now, the REAL partisan hacks reserve outrage only for those they disagree with. Otherwise it's a silent protest.
 
Where is the outrage?

Maybe those people believe that there will be benefit to the cost, when there wasn't one before.

It's not a matter of amount only, it's how it is being used.
 
It's Bush's fault. or maybe Sarah Palin's. Depends on what day of the week it is.
 
Maybe those people believe that there will be benefit to the cost, when there wasn't one before.

It's not a matter of amount only, it's how it is being used.

Yeah, that is it, wonder how those people are benefiting from all this Obama spending and massive expansion of govt? Last I checked there are still over 15 million people unemployed and all we have to show for it is debt.

Some people will continue to drink the Kool-Aid but both Reagan and Bush got it right, it is the private sector that will grow the economy and create the meaningful jobs, not the public sector.
 
Yeah, that is it, wonder how those people are benefiting from all this Obama spending and massive expansion of govt? Last I checked there are still over 15 million people unemployed and all we have to show for it is debt.

Some people will continue to drink the Kool-Aid but both Reagan and Bush got it right, it is the private sector that will grow the economy and create the meaningful jobs, not the public sector.

I've been saying that from the beginning of this recession. If government really wants to get out of this mess, then they need to cut corporate taxes and make a friendlier environment for businesses to expand, and for entrepreneurs to start up new ventures.
 
Yeah, that is it, wonder how those people are benefiting from all this Obama spending and massive expansion of govt? Last I checked there are still over 15 million people unemployed and all we have to show for it is debt.

Some people will continue to drink the Kool-Aid but both Reagan and Bush got it right, it is the private sector that will grow the economy and create the meaningful jobs, not the public sector.

first your analysis doesn't rely upon cost/benefit, but cost only. now you reveal that you believe nothing takes time, that results should be immediate. keep flailing.
 
first your analysis doesn't rely upon cost/benefit, but cost only. now you reveal that you believe nothing takes time, that results should be immediate. keep flailing.

Oh, I don't know, you tell me what happens when you get to keep more of what you earn? What do you think the cost/benefit is of keeping this country safe especially after having to spend over a trillion dollars for 9/11?

You buy the social rhetoric in spite of the fact that over 60% of our budget is entitlement/social spending so what is the cost/benefit of that?
 
Oh, I don't know, you tell me what happens when you get to keep more of what you earn?

I'm glad I've prompted you to begin thinking this way. conclusions ought to be things we come to, not what we start with. but I'm just one person. if I "keep more" of what I earn, it's irrelevant, it's the experiences of 300 million + people we're concerned about. and regardless, what they keep and what they earn is meaningless in a discussion of spending, if policy isn't sound. it's the policy that's important. your question is an abstract, pointless deflection.


What do you think the cost/benefit is ...
cost/benefit analysis is what we do to arrive at conclusions. it's not a thing that is this or that, or the other. and it is possible to be somewhat objective about these things ...

of keeping this country safe especially after having to spend over a trillion dollars for 9/11?
... but I see that objectivity is something that is difficult for you. because to you, some priorities are valid and others aren't. "having to spend" ... and "keeping this country safe" ...that's an interesting way to describe the worldwide ire that escalated between 2002-2008.

So, basically, you are the very same as what you complain about. where is the outrage? we believe what we want to. we've already made our minds up. the invasion of Iraq was either necessary, or not. current government spending is either necessary, or not, depending up on your point of view.

Hopefully there will be another POTUS that overlooks domestic issues in order to doggedly pursue a personal grievance, disguised as something else, despite all evidence to the contrary, so that you can feel complacent again.
 
Last edited:
niftydrifty;1058613092]I'm glad I've prompted you to begin thinking this way. conclusions ought to be things we come to, not what we start with. but I'm just one person. if I "keep more" of what I earn, it's irrelevant, it's the experiences of 300 million + people we're concerned about. and regardless, what they keep and what they earn is meaningless in a discussion of spending, if policy isn't sound. it's the policy that's important. your question is an abstract, pointless deflection.

Hardly, you are an example of an "average" American and if you get to keep more of what you earn multiply that by the number of Americans just like you. That is the impact of the tax cuts and that is what grew economic growth and created the almost 20 million jobs during the 80's. It also doubled govt. revenue as new taxpayers were created. Compare that to now where govt. revenue is dropping as jobs haven't been created.

cost/benefit analysis is what we do to arrive at conclusions. it's not a thing that is this or that, or the other. and it is possible to be somewhat objective about these things ...

Stop trying to make this complicated, it is very simple, allow the people to keep more of their money, stimulate and grow the economy, create jobs, and reduce govt. dependence.

... but I see that objectivity is something that is difficult for you. because to you, some priorities are valid and others aren't. "having to spend" ... and "keeping this country safe" ...that's an interesting way to describe the worldwide ire that escalated between 2002-2008.

What worldwide recession from 2002-2008. Show me any reputable site that showed a worldwide recession during those years and then go to BEA.gov to see what the economic growth in this country was during those years. Stop buying the rhetoric.

So, basically, you are the very same as what you complain about. where is the outrage? we believe what we want to. we've already made our minds up. the invasion of Iraq was either necessary, or not. current government spending is either necessary, or not, depending up on your point of view.

My outrage is over Obama claiming he inherited a deficit that he helped create and has taken Bush spending and put it on steroids without generating anything other than debt. Govt. jobs have been created but govt. jobs are paid for by taxpayers. There is no economic growth other than govt. growth and that is unsustainable.

Hopefully there will be another POTUS that overlooks domestic issues in order to doggedly pursue a personal grievance, disguised as something else, despite all evidence to the contrary, so that you can feel complacent again.

Now there you go again, acting like a leftwing kook. Domestic issues were not overlooked as evidenced by consumer spending and thus economic growth. Stop making a fool out of yourself. Non partisan sites like BEA.gov paint a different picture.
 
I don't know shouldn't preventing complete global economic meltdown count as a necessary cost? I don't like everything about it but when facing the alternative the price doesn't seem so bad. Also the debt to gdp ratio is less than that in many traditionally stable countries in the past and they experienced no collapse.

Also I don't remember hearing about any feasible economic plan materializing from the current government to expand the government in order to address joblessness. Unless I am grossly misinformed that's made up.

Concern, yes.
Outrage, no.

Our country is in a very different situation that during the Bush years.
 
Maybe those people believe that there will be benefit to the cost, when there wasn't one before.

It's not a matter of amount only, it's how it is being used.
Translation:
Liberals/Dems dont mind deficits, no matter how big, so long as their guys are charge, doing something they like.

We knew this, of course -- good to see that someone finally admitted it.
 
Perspective:

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.
This is one-month figure is more than the deficits in each of FY2001, 2002 2007 and is almost as much as in 2006

The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
This five-month figure is 42% greater than the highest FY deficit under GWB (FY2008, $458.5B)

The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total.
This two-year figure exceeds the total budget deficts for the GWB administration.

But, the Obamanation will give Him a pass.
 
Translation:
Liberals/Dems dont mind deficits, no matter how big, so long as their guys are charge, doing something they like.

We knew this, of course -- good to see that someone finally admitted it.

And conservative/republicansare any different?

I dont recall much in the way of Republicans deploring the Reagan era deficits.

Nor was there much complaining about the Bush II era deficits

What I do recall is Dick Cheney stating

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

And they didnt for the vast majority of conservative/republicans as long as Bush was in offfice, doing stuff they liked

Very very few people are against deficit spending period regardless of who is in office (true libertarians are one such group)
 
I don't know shouldn't preventing complete global economic meltdown count as a necessary cost? I don't like everything about it but when facing the alternative the price doesn't seem so bad. Also the debt to gdp ratio is less than that in many traditionally stable countries in the past and they experienced no collapse.

Also I don't remember hearing about any feasible economic plan materializing from the current government to expand the government in order to address joblessness. Unless I am grossly misinformed that's made up.

Concern, yes.
Outrage, no.

Our country is in a very different situation that during the Bush years.

What is it in the Obama economic plan that has prevented a worldwide economic collapse? What exactly is the debt to GDP ratio with the Obama spending?

You seem to have had a outrage over the Bush deficits which until the recession hit in December 2007 were a much smaller percentage of GDP than anything Obama is proposing?
 
And conservative/republicansare any different?
"He did it too" isnt a defense.
I dont recall much in the way of Republicans deploring the Reagan era deficits.
You didnt pay attention to the right people or look in the right places.
Nor was there much complaining about the Bush II era deficits
See above.
And they didnt for the vast majority of conservative/republicans as long as Bush was in offfice, doing stuff they liked
"He did it too" isnt a defense.
Very very few people are against deficit spending period regardless of who is in office (true libertarians are one such group)
So you agree that the pass given thus far to The Obama by the Dems, and the Dem criticisms laid upon GWB for his (comparitively tiny) deficits were nothing but partisan in nature.
Thanks.
 
And conservative/republicansare any different?

I dont recall much in the way of Republicans deploring the Reagan era deficits.

Nor was there much complaining about the Bush II era deficits

What I do recall is Dick Cheney stating

"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

And they didnt for the vast majority of conservative/republicans as long as Bush was in offfice, doing stuff they liked

Very very few people are against deficit spending period regardless of who is in office (true libertarians are one such group)


You keep hammering what you call the Reagan deficits when the reality is it was a joint deficit between a Republican President and a Democrat controlled House of Representatives where the spending bills basically originate. Can you distinguish between what Reagan proposed and what the Congress approved?

Do you realize that govt. revenue doubled during the Reagan years and that more than paid for the defense buildup? Do you realize that the President of the United States doesn't have a line item veto? How much of the spending was attached to tax cut legislation or military buildup?

All that defense spending destroyed the Soviet Union and left us with a peace dividend in the 90's. How much more spending would there be today had the Soviet Union still be engaged in the Cold War?
 
Translation:
Liberals/Dems dont mind deficits, no matter how big, so long as their guys are charge, doing something they like.

We knew this, of course -- good to see that someone finally admitted it.

Why look for Republican approval? The only fiscally responsible president in thirty years was a Democrat and he didn't receive an iota of thanks from the right. And no Republican president has ever received any real amount of blame for fiscal irresponsibility.
 
Last edited:
Why look for Republican approval? The only fiscally responsible president in thirty years was a Democrat and he didn't receive an iota of thanks from the right. And no Republican president has ever received any real amount of blame for fiscal irresponsibility.

Really? Only fiscally responsible President in 30 years was a Democrat? Now who would that be? You want to give Clinton credit for something he didn't do other than cash in the defense dividend left him by Reagan. The U.S. Treasury site gives an entirely different picture of the Clinton years as does the Congressional record. Simple question for you, Clinton shutdown the govt. a couple times. Did Clinton shutdown the govt. because the GOP increased his budgets or decreased them?

Clinton had close to a balanced budget because of using SS funds but of course those that want to praise Clinton ignore that reality. Then when asked what legislation did Clinton propose and sign that led to any budget surplus of course we get silence because there wasn't any.

So you can make the claim over and over again but the fact is your view of the Clinton Administration accomplishments never really happened although like all Democrats he takes credit for the work of others and places blame for his own actions or inactions.
 
Really? Only fiscally responsible President in 30 years was a Democrat? Now who would that be? You want to give Clinton credit for something he didn't do other than cash in the defense dividend left him by Reagan. The U.S. Treasury site gives an entirely different picture of the Clinton years as does the Congressional record. Simple question for you, Clinton shutdown the govt. a couple times. Did Clinton shutdown the govt. because the GOP increased his budgets or decreased them?

Clinton had close to a balanced budget because of using SS funds but of course those that want to praise Clinton ignore that reality. Then when asked what legislation did Clinton propose and sign that led to any budget surplus of course we get silence because there wasn't any.

So you can make the claim over and over again but the fact is your view of the Clinton Administration accomplishments never really happened although like all Democrats he takes credit for the work of others and places blame for his own actions or inactions.

I'm sorry, but I don't speak hyperbole. "Shut down the government?"

Anyway, while duty obliges me to take assertions that Clinton's economic policy was not the catalyst for the mid-late 90s economic boom seriously, you'd have to make a stronger argument for it; what you have now are vague generalizations.

I'm also not going to argue whether or not Clinton had a surplus, so you can stop right there; I believe he did, but if you want to say he didn't, I don't care. I said he was fiscally responsible in that the economic bills he passed did not exceed fundamental limits on available capital.

Let's see what fact check has to say:


FactCheck.org: Were Clinton's policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth?



Hm. Doesn't mention Reagan. However:

Clinton's major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

Reducing deficits. Interesting.

Almost sounds like fiscal conservatism.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games;1058613499]I'm sorry, but I don't speak hyperbole. "Shut down the government?"

That is what it is called when the President and Congress cannot agree on a budget. Non necessary personnel are sent home and it is called a govt. shutdown

Anyway, while duty obliges me to take assertions that Clinton's economic policy was not the catalyst for the mid-late 90s economic boom, you'd have to make a stronger argument for it; what you have now are vague generalizations.

I don't have to make any argument at all, check out the economic growth in 1993 and 1994 before the GOP took over Congress. You can get that information from bea.gov.

I'm also not going to argue whether or not Clinton had a surplus, so you can stop right there; I believe he did, but if you want to say he didn't, I don't care. I said he was fiscally responsible in that the economic bills he passed did not exceed fundamental limits on available capital.

I don't say he had a deficit, the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the Govt. says he didn't have a surplus without using SS. That never was the intent of SS.



Did you read what factcheck says? Try again, the economic plan he passed retroactive to January 1, 1993 led to the election of the Republican Congress who reversed many of those tax increases. That led to the boom the later part of the decade, a boom however that was built on the dot.com industry and thus fake assets.

Why do you buy what you are told and never research to verify the rhetoric?
 
Did you read what factcheck says? Try again, the economic plan he passed retroactive to January 1, 1993 led to the election of the Republican Congress who reversed many of those tax increases.

Why do you buy what you are told and never research to verify the rhetoric?

Wait a minute. FactCheck is liberal?

Don't argue economics unless you are willing to source. For example, I want to know which economists have argued Clinton's tax policies (of which most were still effective) did not yield the revenue. Even though the Republicans were able to get the political capital to reverse some points of the policy, it didn't stop the plan from taking effect.

I don't have to make any argument at all, check out the economic growth in 1993 and 1994 before the GOP took over Congress. You can get that information from bea.gov.

If you're not here to argue, leave. I'm not going to draw inferences for you. You are going to spell them out. And then I am going to prove you wrong.

I don't say he had a deficit, the U.S. Treasury Dept. which is the checkbook of the Govt. says he didn't have a surplus without using SS. That never was the intent of SS.

I repeat.

I. Don't. Care. Given the huge deficits of previous years, it is immaterial as to whether Clinton was fiscally responsible if the budget went a hundred billion either way.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games;1058613553]Wait a minute. FactCheck is liberal?

Not what I said, apparently you are the liberal.

Don't argue economics unless you are willing to source. For example, I want to know which economists have argued Clinton's tax policies (of which most were still effective) did not yield the revenue.


Do you have a checkbook? Check out the checkbook of the United States which is the Treasury Dept. That beats any economist's opinion and what is in your world that makes economist comments credible. They are a dime a dozen and I can give you economists to refute yours. That is why I prefer the checkbook and non partisan sites.


I
f you're not here to argue, leave. I'm not going to draw inferences for you. You are going to spell them out. And then I am going to prove you wrong.

Bring it on, but you better have the facts, not opinions.


I repeat.

I. Don't. Care. Given the huge deficits of previous years, it is immaterial as to whether Clinton was fiscally responsible if the budget went a hundred billion either way

Clinton decimated the military and cashed in the peace dividend. When he took office the debt was 4.4 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.6 trillion. Where is the surplus? that is 1.2 trillion added to the debt. Reagan added 1.7 trillion and destroyed the Soviet Union.
 
Not what I said, apparently you are the liberal.

If what you are saying is true, based on how the article is written, FactCheck is trying to cover something up.

Do you have a checkbook? Check out the checkbook of the United States which is the Treasury Dept. That beats any economist's opinion and what is in your world that makes economist comments credible. They are a dime a dozen and I can give you economists to refute yours. That is why I prefer the checkbook and non partisan sites.

This is a debate forum. Debate or leave.

Capital is a tricky thing. I have no guarantee your interpretations are sound. That's why I want to see you spell them out for me. I'm not going to make guesses.

Clinton decimated the military and cashed in the peace dividend. When he took office the debt was 4.4 trillion dollars and when he left it was 5.6 trillion. Where is the surplus? that is 1.2 trillion added to the debt. Reagan added 1.7 trillion and destroyed the Soviet Union.

Just so we know, did the Soviet Union implode on itself because communism is inherently unsustainable or did Reagan destroy it? Destroying something that isn't sustainable isn't a great feat. Also, what about all those other guys and their contributions to the decades-long Cold War policy? Eisenhower, Johnson, and Nixon to name a few.

But to the point: the 1.2 trillion could be interest from unpaid debt. While yearly budgets would have included payment for some of the interest, not all of it would have been due on any given fiscal year. In which case, it was never part of Clinton's economic responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games;1058613618]If what you are saying is true, based on how the article is written, FactCheck is trying to cover something up.

Fact check did a pretty good job and was fair. Suggest you read it then verify the rhetoric with bea.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Here is the budget link for 2000. Notice SS included in the revenue section. Back out SS revenue and expense and see what you get.

http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf

This is a debate forum. Debate or leave.

Who made you moderator? Learn to do your own research and stop with just rhetoric.

Capital is a tricky thing. I have no guarantee your interpretations are sound. That's why I want to see you spell them out for me. I'm not going to make guesses.

All I have seen from you are wild claims that you have yet to back up. I gave you specific sites, non partisan sites and you offered nothing in return.
 
Back
Top Bottom