• 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 said:
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

1. It doesn't mean anything unless it apportions the 1.2 trillion to specific expenses.

2. If you are right then FactCheck is either delusional or hyper-partisan. It can't have been both Clinton's tax policies and Republican hammering of those policies which led the the mid-late 90s boom.

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

I'm not accepting it is rhetoric until you prove it.


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
Click to expand...

The shoe is on the other foot. To begin with, I haven't claimed much, and hardly anything revolutionary; every word is consistent with FactCheck.

I speculated the 1.2 trillion might be unpaid interest, at least in part. Since specific expenses are not registering on the annual budgets, and because it is routinely asserted by numerous authories that much of our exisitng debt is accumulated interest (from the Reagan and Bush Senior years; Clinton didn't add enough and George Bush Jr.'s hasn't been around long enough), that seems to be the most plausible explanation; no reason to think interest wasn't growing just because Clinton was president.

In any event, I'm not convinced even if Clinton was responsible for the entire 1.2 trillion that he still wouldn't be fiscally responsible; adjusting for inflation, 1.2 trillion over eight years would have still been tiny in comparison to any other individual president's budgets in the last thirty years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
Conservative said:
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

1. It doesn't mean anything unless it apportions the 1.2 trillion to specific expenses.

2. If you are right then FactCheck is either delusional or hyper-partisan. It can't have been both Clinton's tax policies and Republican hammering of those policies which led the the mid-late 90s boom.



I'm not accepting it is rhetoric until you prove it.




The shoe is on the other foot. To begin with, I haven't claimed much, and hardly anything revolutionary; every word is consistent with FactCheck.

I speculated the 1.2 trillion might be unpaid interest, at least in part. Since specific expenses are not registering on the annual budgets, and because it is routinely asserted by numerous authories that much of our exisitng debt is accumulated interest (from the Reagan and Bush Senior years; Clinton didn't add enough and George Bush Jr.'s hasn't been around long enough), that seems to be the most plausible explanation; no reason to think interest wasn't growing just because Clinton was president.

In any event, I'm not convinced even if Clinton was responsible for the entire 1.2 trillion that he still wouldn't be fiscally responsible; adjusting for inflation, 1.2 trillion over eight years would have still been tiny in comparison to any other individual president's budgets in the last thirty years.
Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of use for kids that cannot read a financial statement. 1.2 trillion in debt service? When Clinton took office the total debt was 4.4 trillion so figure out how much interest is on 4.4 trillion dollars if the interest rate was 4%? There is a line item on the financial statement for interest. Obviously you didn't go to the website because there are line items for each department expense.

As for other Presidents, Reagan's deficits were 1.7 trillion in 8 years. Bush 1, 1.4 trillion in 4 years, Clinton 1.2 trillion in 8 years and Bush 5.0 trillion in 8 years with 9/11 and two wars.

It is also apparent that you don't even know the difference between a deficit and debt. Learn to read a financial statement then get back to me.
Click to expand...
 
Morality Games said:
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.



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 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.
Click to expand...


Far too many use "unnamed" economists as evidence to support a particular position but since economics isn't an exact science there are various points of views depending on the economists that you talk to. Different economists different points of view.

For those that support Obama and what he is doing, here is something to think about. FDR gets a lot of praise for what he did but as these economists state he prolonged the depression which could have ended years earlier. This just proves that different economists have different opinions. That is why I prefer bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Treasury data which is non partisan and serves as the real data for the nation's economy.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
 
Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

Who is "you"?

Also the debt to gdp ratio is available on wikipedia. Also last I remembered most of the world was at a consensus that stabilizing the US economy did prevent economic collapse? But thank you for calling me out on what exactly was in the plan. I dont exactly know, I haven't been completely interested. What do you believe was in the plan? "Economic plan" heh... sounds... communist.
 
SE102 said:
Who is "you"?

Also the debt to gdp ratio is available on wikipedia. Also last I remembered most of the world was at a consensus that stabilizing the US economy did prevent economic collapse? But thank you for calling me out on what exactly was in the plan. I dont exactly know, I haven't been completely interested. What do you believe was in the plan? "Economic plan" heh... sounds... communist.
Click to expand...

Stabilizing the U.S. Economy occurred in 2008 with the passing of TARP, you know the program Obama is taking credit for but then blaming for the deficit? TARP, the Toxic Asset Relief Program that bailed out the banks and most of which has been paid back.

You, is you, raised the issue of debt to GDP ratio, check out Bush's and then compare that to Obama's, get back to me with the results.
 
The issue is not what the gdp ratio was between presidencies what I sad was that it was viable and stable still. Note if you take a look at some of the charts on wiki the debt to gdp ratio was absolutely massive in the 50s. Also I thought the vast majority of debt belonged to the republican administrations in the decades before obama. :shrug:

Stabilizing the U.S. Economy occurred in 2008 with the passing of TARP
Click to expand...
Weird I though the recession was announced at the beginning of the obama administration. Your talking abut a different recession. Are you seriously arguing that the current depression was preempted and stabilized before anyone knew it was happening?
 
SE102 said:
The issue is not what the gdp ratio was between presidencies what I sad was that it was viable and stable still. Note if you take a look at some of the charts on wiki the debt to gdp ratio was absolutely massive in the 50s. Also I thought the vast majority of debt belonged to the republican administrations in the decades before obama. :shrug:

Weird I though the recession was announced at the beginning of the obama administration. Your talking abut a different recession. Are you seriously arguing that the current depression was preempted and stabilized before anyone knew it was happening?
Click to expand...

The recession began in November 2007 according to NBER and no it did not start at the beginning of the Obama Administration although he has made it worse.

We are NOT in a depression and not even close. Read the history books and see the unemployment rate then vs. now.
 
The recession began in November 2007 according to NBER and no it did not start at the beginning of the Obama Administration although he has made it worse.

We are NOT in a depression and not even close. Read the history books and see the unemployment rate then vs. now.
Click to expand...

He has made it worse... in your uninformed politically charged opinion.

Strange, its not a depression... because there was a bailout. I'll leave you in the tailspin of the causal loop to figure that one out yourself.
 
SE102 said:
He has made it worse... in your uninformed politically charged opinion.

Strange, its not a depression... because there was a bailout. I'll leave you in the tailspin of the causal loop to figure that one out yourself.
Click to expand...

Talk about partisan, being partisan means facts do not matter. Unemployment higher today than when he took office and the stimulus plan stimulated nothing but economic growth. BLS.gov, BEA.gov.

Obviously facts do not matter to you. How has the economy hurt you and your family? During the depression everyone was hurt.
 
Morality Games said:
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.
Click to expand...
You mean a Democrat forced into responsibility by a GOP Congress. Left to his own devices, as evidenced by his first two budgets, he would have shown none of that responsibility you give him credit for.

Never mind that all of this is completely outside the point that I made.
 
Goobieman said:
"He did it too" isnt a defense.
Click to expand...
No it is not but neither is just blaming one side of the political spectrum exclusivily as did the poster I was responding to

You didnt pay attention to the right people or look in the right places.
Click to expand...
Right I was not looking under the rocks, the only people I heard complaining about the Bush deficits were accused of being anti american or loony like Ron Paul

See above.

"He did it too" isnt a defense.

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.
Click to expand...

Quite partisan in nature, as is the nature of US politics.

Each side has given a pass to their side
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
No it is not...
Click to expand...
And so, my statement stands.
His post was an admission of the partisan nature of his complaint/excuse.

Right I was not looking under the rocks, the only people I heard complaining about the Bush deficits were accused of being anti american or loony like Ron Paul
Click to expand...
There were numerous complainers just in here. Ask Danahrea.
 
Conservative said:
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...

And Conservative shows why his grasp of economics is on par with a 3rd grader.

That study in no way addresses the issue of trade. Prior to the depression and dirty trade wars, the global integration of markets was higher then it was now. Around 2006, global trade accounted for a direct 11% of the US economy and based on economic multipliers (something completely beyond Conservative's grasp), a total percentage in excess of 25%. A study that does not talk about the effects of the dirty trade war and protectionist only to focus on FDR's policy is a scam.

With integration at a higher rate then in 2006, ripping out >25% of the economy is going to cause massive economic ripples. That idiotic study in no way even acknowledges the effects of global trade.

ANYONE who relies on that study is either a complete moron or a scam artist.
 
SE102 said:
He has made it worse... in your uninformed politically charged opinion.

Strange, its not a depression... because there was a bailout. I'll leave you in the tailspin of the causal loop to figure that one out yourself.
Click to expand...

Do you find it interesting how Conservative claims that the stimulus did nothing and yet claims more people are out of work?

I'd like to see his economic model of how increasing spending actually results in more unemployment when inflation is negligible. That outta be good. Wait for the personal attacks to commence as he attempts in vain to defend his views.
 
Conservative said:
Talk about partisan, being partisan means facts do not matter. Unemployment higher today than when he took office and the stimulus plan stimulated nothing but economic growth. BLS.gov, BEA.gov.

Obviously facts do not matter to you. How has the economy hurt you and your family? During the depression everyone was hurt.
Click to expand...

Yes actually our family lost all our investment value in our college savings accounts and now I'm on loans. Lameness I know.

Also, because unemployment went up when he took office does not make it a fact that the stimulus is not working or that it even has to do with him, only a fraction of the stimulus has been spent so far and of course, for some reason you expected a recession to be over after a year. You make it seem as if people were expecting some sort of economic magic to occur, I wasn't expecting anything of the sort and I am not outraged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom