• 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!

Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

Not this myth again.

View attachment 67114847

Looking back the past 40 years:
  • Spending was at its lowest when Republicans had complete control.
  • Spending was at its highest when Democrats had complete control.
  • Spending was also quite high in the Reagan/Tip O'Neill years
  • Spending was moderate by comparison when Congress was controlled by the opposing party

If you instead want to go the "House control the purse-strings" route, you'll also find a large difference between the parties:
Democratic House: 21.0%
Republican House: 19.2%​


The amount spent is only one side of the ledger, the amount of revenues is the other. Republicans may tend to spend less, they also take in less and as a result increase the debt more then democrats have. Republicans like to defer taxes to future generations while democrats would pay for their spending now
 
He increased the debt more than any other president. I think it was around 5-6 trillion

As someone else pointed out, spending is just half the problem
What's important is the debt to gdp ratio:

514px-USDebt.png


The debt increased throughout Clinton's presidency, but the overall significance of that debt declined because of strong GDP growth. The more money you make, the more debt you can maintain.

Bush largely maintained debt/gdp throughout his presidency, though his presidency was bookended with recessions, so you see it climb at the beginning and at the end.

The increases under Bush were due to decreased revenues during two recessionary periods, not from "out of control spending."

With Obama, we have high spending and stagnant growth, so yes - the alarm bells are going off.
 
Its not just spending its tax cuts without cutting spending. That chart is not a practical view of our economic situation. Spending is one half of the budget. Sometimes spending is a good thing.
I posted a "practical view of our economic situation" above
Any significant increases in debt under Bush had nothing to do with tax cuts. The first gain ocurred before the cuts were implemented, and the second gain occurred when the last recession hit.
 
It doesn't label each category by years which makes it difficult to tell if it's accurate

OK, but it's wasn't clear

Where is D pres, split congress?
Democratic presidents hadn't had a split congress for at least 60 years, and probably a lot longer than that, until this year.
 
I don't blame Obama for the debt he took on. We were loosing revenue at an extraordinary rate. Drastic have made things spending cuts would have made things worse. I can show you a similar chart form 1936 of what happens when the government makes massive spending cuts in a recession.

Yes you do give a more practical view above. The tax cuts did not come with spending cuts, just because it didnt happen right away does not mean the tax cuts didnt not cause a deficit increase. We were already running a deficit, tax cuts are irresponsible without the same spending cuts. Yes the decreased revenues were from the recessions.
 
The amount spent is only one side of the ledger, the amount of revenues is the other.
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.

Republicans may tend to spend less,
No, Bush and to a lesser extent Nixon had that tendency, Reagan and Bush Sr. spent vast amounts.

they also take in less and as a result increase the debt more then democrats have.
I doubt there's much of a difference except GWB probably had somewhat less with the two recessions (as I explained above) and Obama having significantly less given that tax receipts have been at historic lows.
 
What's important is the debt to gdp ratio:

514px-USDebt.png


The debt increased throughout Clinton's presidency, but the overall significance of that debt declined because of strong GDP growth. The more money you make, the more debt you can maintain.

Bush largely maintained debt/gdp throughout his presidency, though his presidency was bookended with recessions, so you see it climb at the beginning and at the end.

The increases under Bush were due to decreased revenues during two recessionary periods, not from "out of control spending."

With Obama, we have high spending and stagnant growth, so yes - the alarm bells are going off.

True, but notice where it starts trending decidedly upwards. What happened in 1980? Does anyone remember?
 
Yes you do give a more practical view above. The tax cuts did not come with spending cuts, just because it didnt happen right away does not mean the tax cuts didnt not cause a deficit increase. We were already running a deficit, tax cuts are irresponsible without the same spending cuts. Yes the decreased revenues were from the recessions.
I suppose we also can't assume that tax cuts didn't cause a huge surge in revenue that thwarted a massive depression. Of course there's no proof that either occurred, but fun to fantasize.
 
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.


No, Bush and to a lesser extent Nixon had that tendency, Reagan and Bush Sr. spent vast amounts.


I doubt there's much of a difference except GWB probably had somewhat less with the two recessions (as I explained above) and Obama having significantly less given that tax receipts have been at historic lows.

It's not adding up. During bush*, the deficits soared, but you say it's not because of increased spending or tax cuts. Here's another way to look at it

CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

1-25-05bud-f1.jpg
 
Yes of course. That post was specifically addressing a claim made that Bush and his R congress "spent like mad" -- False.

Point conceded. I should have said "deficit spending like mad", that is, spending like mad compared to the tax revenues coming in
 
I suppose we also can't assume that tax cuts didn't cause a huge surge in revenue that thwarted a massive depression. Of course there's no proof that either occurred, but fun to fantasize.

The tax cuts clearly reduced revenue and should have been repealed. They happened a very short time before the recession and did not create many jobs.
 
Far left column is tax filings. Middle is income people bring in in those categories. Right column is the effective tax rate (everything you pay in taxes) broken in quintiles then farther broken into percentiles.
 
I don't blame Obama for the debt he took on. We were loosing revenue at an extraordinary rate. Drastic have made things spending cuts would have made things worse. I can show you a similar chart form 1936 of what happens when the government makes massive spending cuts in a recession.

Yes you do give a more practical view above. The tax cuts did not come with spending cuts, just because it didnt happen right away does not mean the tax cuts didnt not cause a deficit increase. We were already running a deficit, tax cuts are irresponsible without the same spending cuts. Yes the decreased revenues were from the recessions.

Does that mean you think he's doing a good job and that you'd like him to continue with the program for another four years?
 
He is better than the Republican candidates. He is not politically savy and has trouble getting through the programs he wants to pass. Republicans solution i to keep cutting taxes and spending. That will make the problem worse.
 
It's not adding up. During bush*, the deficits soared, but you say it's not because of increased spending or tax cuts. Here's another way to look at it

CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

1-25-05bud-f1.jpg
That figure is taken from a Jan 2005 piece by the left wing cbpp. The pie chart is their predicted breakdown for 2005.
They claimed the tax cuts would balloon the deficit to the tune of $569.
They were way off - the deficit ($319) came in well below their predictions and those of the CBO.
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

They posted a followup artricle the next year insisting that the drop in the deficit was not due to strong growth, but from temporary factors. The economy of course continued to grow at an impressive rate for another couple of years. So, people don't take cbpp predictions too seriously.
 
He is better than the Republican candidates. He is not politically savy and has trouble getting through the programs he wants to pass. Republicans solution i to keep cutting taxes and spending. That will make the problem worse.

Forget abut the Republicans for a moment, please.

Do you feel Obama is doing a good job and deserves another four years?
 
If FDR or Clinton was running no I don't think he deserves another four. I don't think anyone who is running right now (including Obama) should be President. I will vte for him because he is the best option.
 
If FDR or Clinton was running no I don't think he deserves another four. I don't think anyone who is running right now (including Obama) should be President. I will vte for him because he is the best option.

So you view him as the best available person to be President of the United States. Thanks for that. I was just curious as to the why.
 
That figure is taken from a Jan 2005 piece by the left wing cbpp. The pie chart is their predicted breakdown for 2005.
They claimed the tax cuts would balloon the deficit to the tune of $569.
They were way off - the deficit ($319) came in well below their predictions and those of the CBO.
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

They posted a followup artricle the next year insisting that the drop in the deficit was not due to strong growth, but from temporary factors. The economy of course continued to grow at an impressive rate for another couple of years. So, people don't take cbpp predictions too seriously.

According to the chart at the following link (there's a table you can plug date ranges into) the growth in GDP was not "impressive"

United States GDP Growth Rate
 
Back
Top Bottom