Are you saying he decreased his own deficit from his previous year?
Not exactly what the question was about but on a technical wording level maybe I'll let you slide with that.
Another thing I noticed is that you do not seem to be attributing each President's first year deficit to his predecessor as is generally the way it is tracked.
I liked your initial metaphoric, tax vs debt analogy though. By that were you saying that you do not care about the debt so much as long as the super wealthy pay less tax?
Your numbers were in reflection of Obama in comparison to himself, as was mine with Bush's.Another thing I noticed is that you do not seem to be attributing each President's first year deficit to his predecessor as is generally the way it is tracked.
I think the "national debt" is a scare tactic and essentially worthless number. The most concerning deficit to me is the trade deficit, which Bush hacked to death. Granted - not entirely his fault, but he did. It was also one of Clinton's most saving graces. I enjoyed him providing a surplus, and I agree with most of the ways he got it. Most, but not all.I liked your initial metaphoric, tax vs debt analogy though. By that were you saying that you do not care about the debt so much as long as the super wealthy pay less tax?
As far as the super wealthy paying taxes, we're in a progressive tax system - and I tend to favor a flat tax, with a generous standard deduction and many corporate loopholes being closed. Of course, being an accountant, doing so may hurt myself in the employment facet...but I'm a complicated man.
Those are not excuses, they are just facts.
I know I watched way too much Monty Python.As I look at my "two simple questions", I realise that there are actually four questions . . . but, nevermind. Someone appears to be unable to answer any of them so here's a picture that may make it simple enough to comprehendNOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
Toward the end of the USAToday article is this little tidbitCBO drops 2013 deficit estimate to $642 billion
The CBO projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down more than $200 billion from its February estimate and the smallest annual shortfall since 2008. It is the lowest level of deficit spending to date under President Obama, who faced $1 trillion or more in annual deficits during his first term.
Sequester, any one?The lower deficits are also a result of decreased federal spending, which may have the long-term impact of slowing economic growth.
“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea.
As I said, this is adorable. Under Obama they skyrocket, drop a touch, and suddenly Obama's great. This is what I meant by "stealing 100, then giving back 10".
Bush's last year was hideous, but even that was better than Obama's best year. You guys keep moving the goalposts. It's hella entertaining.
As an accountant, you know that there are many ways to manipulate the overall picture.
Both sides do this. One of the biggest manipulations is with Social Security... Runs a huge surplus, yet because the surplus is spent on bonds, it then creates "debt". The Left seems to not understand this well enough to ever make a point with it, and the Right deceitfully uses it to point and say Social Security is causing "debt".
Anyhow, back to my point...
The 2009 deficit is Bush's, not Obama's. And the same accounting applies to every Presidential term in that the first year belongs to his predecessor.
When a President takes office, a majority of the deficit for his first year is due to things that occurred the year before.
Obama has actually decreased the deficit by a higher percentage than any President in over 60 years if you consider the actual deficit that was handed to him.
Also what is the number attributed to the recession for loss of tax revenue? Isn't it 380 billion?
Compare this to a store manager taking over a store. For that next month, the orders have already been made, contracts signed, utilities already used, advertizements already purchased. The expenses for his first time period are already set in stone by his predecessor.
Government works in a similar way, only it is done by years instead of months.
Bush increased the deficit handed to him.
Obama decreased the deficit handed to him.
Now if you wanted to say, "That was Congress, not Obama", I would not argue with you.