• 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!

Who was the last Republican President to reduce the deficit he received?

Who was the last Republican President to reduce the deficit he received?


  • Total voters
    16
A "meme" I saw on facebook this morning asked this question.
I was very surprised at the answer.

While it is debatable as to whether the credit goes to Congress or the Presidents, we know that the last 3 Democratic Presidents ALL decreased the annual deficit. These Presidents include:

Barrack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

I am curious as to how many people get it right as to who the last Republican President was that decreased the annual deficit.
The reason I think this is important is because public opinion of this is extremely backwards as compared to reality.

Just a few of things:

1) This is a factual question concerning who was president during a time of reduced deficit.

2) That doesn't mean the president is responsible.

3) presidents have less control here. Deficit (not economy) can be effected by budget decisions. But congress likely plans a larger role.

Now as to taxing he rich. They are rarely actually taxed much. They have enough money to skirt around it. A simple progressive tax without loop holes would do the job. Both sides demonize groups of people. We'd do better to merely discuss best approaches.
 
1). When Obama talks about taxing the "rich" he means anyone living a halfway decent lifestyle. i.e ME!

2). The people you mentioned...yeah they're rich. Your point? Why should they be punished for becoming successful? What makes it okay to raise taxes on them just because they have a little bit more than everyone else? You realize that's called redistribution which is actually one of the main core values of the Socialist and Communist Parties?
Unless your making over 250,000 a year... Nobody considers you rich.
That's per year, not in net worth. 250k in net worth is nothing. 250k per year is really damn good.
 
Just a few of things:

1) This is a factual question concerning who was president during a time of reduced deficit.

2) That doesn't mean the president is responsible.

3) presidents have less control here. Deficit (not economy) can be effected by budget decisions. But congress likely plans a larger role.

Now as to taxing he rich. They are rarely actually taxed much. They have enough money to skirt around it. A simple progressive tax without loop holes would do the job. Both sides demonize groups of people. We'd do better to merely discuss best approaches.
Is that coming from an understanding, or jealousy?
 
Not sure what you're taking about. It was a reasonable statement. Not partisan either.

There is nothing reasonable about wanting others to pay more than you do.
 
There is nothing reasonable about wanting others to pay more than you do.

I'm willing to pay more than others. I make a decent living. I still believe in the public good. You should read Dickens and Swift.
 
I'm willing to pay more than others. I make a decent living. I still believe in the public good. You should read Dickens and Swift.
So why should they pay a higher percentage? that is the short solution for the left. Tax them more. That is the wrong approach. Do you have a viable solution?
 
Obama didn't create the debt. He inherited it from a Republican President. That Republic President inherited a balanced budget from a Democratic President. And so on and so forth.
 
So why should they pay a higher percentage? that is the short solution for the left. Tax them more. That is the wrong approach. Do you have a viable solution?

It's a time honored, completely justifiable approach. Accepted until lately. He well off seem to whin more these days. I'm not sure why. But there's nothing radical in the approach.
 
Obama didn't create the debt. He inherited it from a Republican President. That Republic President inherited a balanced budget from a Democratic President. And so on and so forth.
Yep, and like I pointed out, Nixon was the last president to have the debt reduced on his watch.
 
1. The last Republican president to successfully put into practice conservative ideals regarding the budget was the most underestimated President in American history, Calvin Coolidge. The last to attempt to do so was Ronald Reagan.

2. I welcome the agreement from my Democrat friends that reducing the deficit to manageable levels is vitally important, and look forward to discussing plausible ways to get that done.
 

My first question is, did you actually read the article?

My second question is were you paying attention to politics during the linked time frame of December 2012?

Please do not misunderstand me, as I do not ask these questions to be offensive.
It just seems that you have linked something that proves my point and not your own.

As the article points out, Obama wanted to raise tax on the rich and was trying to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the middle class.
But Republicans, at the time, were only concerned about the top bracket and did not want to give Obama the tax breaks for the middle class without also extending them for the top bracket.
And what the article's title refers to is that an Obama win for the top bracket could still mean the middle class takes a hit because the Republicans did not want to give him a middle class cut without renewing the cuts for the rich.
Pretty much expresses my point in that Obama wants only the rich to pay more. Now whether or not that is right, that's an entirely different debate.
 
In other words, George Bush forced Hussein to drive the deficit up to $17T.
The circumstances surrounding the time in which he took office made large deficits an inevitability. How much blame Bush the younger receives for that is up for debate. Also, learn the difference between debt and deficit.
 
Well, now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, I don't think we're seeing much from tax increases at this point either. What I am seeing is that, instead of passing a budget each year, the spending is being held back somewhat through the CR process, and that, along with natural growth, is resulting in the deficit reduction.
I have to disagree with you there. The CBO seems to disagree as well:

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015

...

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for this year is about $200 billion below the estimate that it produced in February 2013, mostly as a result of higher-than-expected revenues and an increase in payments to the Treasury by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

...

Under current law, revenues are expected to increase by 15 percent in 2013, about 4 percentage points more than CBO projected in February and substantially more than the expected growth of about 3 percent in nominal GDP this year. As a result, revenues in CBO’s baseline will climb from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 17.5 percent in 2013, which is slightly below their average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Revenues have increased robustly so far this year in part because of the expiration of the 2 percentage-point payroll tax cut in January 2013. In addition, receipts of individual income taxes have been boosted by three factors:


  • Beginning in January, tax rates on personal income above certain thresholds went up
  • Some high-income taxpayers realized more income late in calendar year 2012 in anticipation of changes in tax law and therefore paid taxes on that income in fiscal year 2013; and
  • Personal income rose for reasons not related to the changes in tax provisions.

CBO also attributes some of the growth in revenues this year to increases in the average tax rate on domestic economic profits, which boosted receipts from corporate income taxes.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44172-Baseline2.pdf

Now, if we want to move beyond this, wouldn't it be nice to see growth policies come out of DC?
I'm always conflicted on what I want from DC. On one hand, it sure would be nice if they could get anything accomplished. On the other hand, the only things they seem to agree on usually are not good for Americans, or at the very least, have little to no effect. Sometimes I'm not really sure what I want from them, even if I know what I'd like to see from them. If that makes sense.
Is that a Monty Python quote? :wink:
I have never seen Monty Python. True story. People mock me all the time because of it.
 
The circumstances surrounding the time in which he took office made large deficits an inevitability.
Wrong. Liberal spending habits made large deficits an inevitability.

How much blame Bush the younger receives for that is up for debate.
Wrong, again. Obama did nothing to rectify any problems Bush created. He only exacerbated them. This is all on Obama now.

Also, learn the difference between debt and deficit.
Check. And thank you for catching that.

Let's take another look at the national debt clock:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
 
There is nothing reasonable about wanting others to pay more than you do.
But there's quite a bit reasonable about expecting them to make the same sacrifice in taxes I do. And that goes for people of all income levels.
So why should they pay a higher percentage?
Because the amount they are left with is still significantly higher than everyone else. In other words, to make a sacrifice equal to what I make, they have to pay a greater percentage because it has to "hurt" (for lack of a better term) just as much.

If I have $100 and you have $1000. A 20% tax rate hurts me much more than it hurts you. You can still buy your food and necessities, as well as the newest DVD which came out (or whatever luxury item you want to use). My ability to simply buy the necessities is greatly impacted and I can absolutely forget about luxuries. But if I'm taxed at 10% and you at 20%, I am more likely to be able to afford my necessities and you can still buy your luxury.

It's about sacrifice. We should all sacrifice equally. Rich and poor.

Wrong. Liberal spending habits made large deficits an inevitability.
Like what? Also, do you consider Republicans liberal? Democrats? Both?

Wrong, again. Obama did nothing to rectify any problems Bush created. He only exacerbated them. This is all on Obama now.
You mean cutting the projected deficit in half in only five years after a major recession is all on Obama? I think he'll take the "blame" for that.
 
Wrong. Liberal spending habits made large deficits an inevitability.
This is incorrect. A decline in revenues by more than 400 billion dollars in tandem with a sizable increase in mandatory spending as a result of rapid job losses made large deficits an inevitability. The projections put forth in January of 2009 estimated deficits of more than one trillion with no substantial policy shifts, if unemployment topped out at 8.5 percent. The fact that unemployment reached an even 10 later that year renders the 1.4 trillion deficit incurred quite predictable.

Wrong, again. Obama did nothing to rectify any problems Bush created. He only exacerbated them. This is all on Obama now.
Wrong on multiple levels. Not only have a number of economic indicators shown improvement under his tenure, the previous administration will likely bear more of the blame for the recession and its effects than will the current one. History will not be kind to those who claim the effects of a financial crises cannot be attributed to the President who merely oversaw its roots (think Hoover).
 
The projections put forth in January of 2009 estimated deficits of more than one trillion with no substantial policy shifts, if unemployment topped out at 8.5 percent.
Just to add on to this, the trillion dollar deficits projected by the CBO were before Obama even took office, if I'm not mistaken.
 
There is nothing reasonable about wanting others to pay more than you do.

I whole heartedly agree. Within the past few years, the increase of those who do not pay any federal income tax has sky-rocketed to now the burden of taxes falls to 50%. And within the group that do not pay federal income tax, a good portion of them are collecting generous benefits at the same time. This should be a concern for anyone who supports our Republican form of government.
 
I whole heartedly agree. Within the past few years, the increase of those who do not pay any federal income tax has sky-rocketed to now the burden of taxes falls to 50%.
Which just so happens to coincide with the increase of those who live in poverty.

And within the group that do not pay federal income tax, a good portion of them are collecting generous benefits at the same time.
So generous I cannot find a SINGLE person who is of "middle class" or above who is willing to trade places with them.

This should be a concern for anyone who supports our Republican form of government.
I agree. We most definitely should be concerned at the idea the income disparity in this country has reached such drastic proportions a large segment of the population is living in poverty while those with the most money actively bribe...excuse me, lobby...our lawmakers to change tax codes to benefit them even more.
 
This is incorrect. A decline in revenues by more than 400 billion dollars in tandem with a sizable increase in mandatory spending as a result of rapid job losses made large deficits an inevitability. The projections put forth in January of 2009 estimated deficits of more than one trillion with no substantial policy shifts, if unemployment topped out at 8.5 percent. The fact that unemployment reached an even 10 later that year renders the 1.4 trillion deficit incurred quite predictable.
This regurgitation doesn't absolve the Democrats. Barack Obama and his band of thugs could've turned this around if they really wanted to and they aren't/haven't. It isn't sexy to roll up your sleeves and start making cuts. No, Hussein wanted to be known as the giver of affordable healthcare that practically no one can afford. Who has time to make the tough decisions when your calendar is packed full of so many golf dates and family vacations?

Wrong on multiple levels. Not only have a number of economic indicators shown improvement under his tenure, the previous administration will likely bear more of the blame for the recession and its effects than will the current one. History will not be kind to those who claim the effects of a financial crises cannot be attributed to the President who merely oversaw its roots (think Hoover).
Wrong on the only level that matters: It's a safe bet to say that any indicators that might show what you're talking about, you can guarantee that it was purely unrelated. Barack Obama is incapable of driving this country anywhere except into the ground.
 
This regurgitation doesn't absolve the Democrats. Barack Obama and his band of thugs could've turned this around if they really wanted to and they aren't/haven't. It isn't sexy to roll up your sleeves and start making cuts. No, Hussein wanted to be known as the giver of affordable healthcare that practically no one can afford. Who has time to make the tough decisions when your calendar is packed full of so many golf dates and family vacations?

The facts I mention did not apply strictly to Democrats at the time. Neither candidate foresaw the severity of the crisis at the time, and neither possessed a plan that would "turn it around" by implementing massive cuts during a recessionary period, and with good reason. Your solution was and continues to be born of pie in the sky thinking. Also important to note that spending has in fact declined under Obama in real terms despite the sluggish economy, a phenomenon nearly unprecedented in modern US History.

Wrong on the only level that matters: It's a safe bet to say that any indicators that might show what you're talking about, you can guarantee that it was purely unrelated. Barack Obama is incapable of driving this country anywhere except into the ground.
We get it. You're incapable of actually assessing the situation without inserting your personal dislike of the President. A waste of time really.
 
Back
Top Bottom