• 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!

U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn

Good thing I didn't assert that.

Facts are fact. Deficit is decreasing. Obama is not and has not spent the US into ruin. He did indeed reduce the deficit. If we can eliminate the deficit, we can start attack the debt.

First thing is first... address the deficit and then we can address the debt.

Tell us how exactly Obama reduced the deficit? What was his budget proposal? You want to find anything possible to give Obama credit for but that reality just doesn't exist. Obama proposed a 3.9 trillion dollar budget so how does that reduce the deficit? It was the sequester that reduced the deficit which is still at record levels. I don't think I would be trumpeting a record deficit that still adds to the record debt but then again results matter to me, apparently not you.
 
It was the sequester that reduced the deficit which is still at record levels. I don't think I would be trumpeting a record deficit that still adds to the record debt but then again results matter to me, apparently not you.

LOL!

The term you are looking for is expenditure. And as we have seen, expenditures have continued to increase while receipts have increased by more than 45% since Obama has been in office.

fredgraph.png


It must suck being a partisan conservative these days.
 
LOL!

The term you are looking for is expenditure. And as we have seen, expenditures have continued to increase while receipts have increased by more than 45% since Obama has been in office.

fredgraph.png


It must suck being a partisan conservative these days.

Not as much as being an Obama supporter and someone who wants to give credit where credit isn't due. Please explain exactly what Obama did to lower the deficit and how a 3.9 trillion dollar budget proposal does that?
 
It is, but then again it's a matter of how one decides to view it and what they're arbitrarily comparing it too.

Say I go play craps on my first day in Vegas and lose $1000

Over the next few days going between slots and poker and blackjack I make $800

I could go "WOOOHOO! I've made $800" if I'm speaking just of those past few days other than the first. Or I could go "Damn, I'm still down $200".

It's a matter of perspective.

The Budget Deficit in 2008 was $458 Billion.

The Budget Deficit in 2009, largely on the back of Stimulus passed by the Democratic Congress and backed by both Bush (in 2008) and Obama (in 2009), balooned up to $1.4 Trillion

Over the next 5 years we're down to $483 Billion....still worse than before the fiscal crisis, still very far off the low point ($157B) or the average ($442B) of the previous administration. The $442 average deficit of the previous administration is less than half of the average thus far under this administration, which is $968 billion. Mind you, this is with assigning all of the 2009 deficit to George Bush.

So yes, government deficits* have "improved" over the past 5 years...when compared to the extremely artificially inflated numbers caused by the realities of the financial crisis. However, said improvement has been slow going and is still, even 5 years later, no where close to what we were looking at prior to 2008.

I'd also note that the projected deficit for next year is actually slated to increase by nearly $100 billion, not continue to fall. Giving rise to the notion that while Obama has been cutting the deficit from the artifically inflated highs of the peak of the crisis, there's absolutely no intention nor expectation to see them actually return to the routine levels of that dominated the 90's and 00's. Prior the 20 some odd years before 2008 it was rare to see a deficit over $400 billion, with most hovering around the $100B to $200B range, give or take a bit here or there.

You want to cheer a $200 loss at the table because it's not $1000. I consider such a thing a good thing, but hardly something to get the pom pom's out over.

* Also note, having smaller deficits does not inherently indicate smaller spending. Deficits are a product of revenue brought in and expenditures going out.

Given the Republican chant of Obama will spend America into ruin, you don't see this as a clear and definitive black mark on Republican sloganeering? Come on, you're a reasonable poster. The consistently decent job numbers (given the circumstances) and the consistent lowering of the deficit a clear indicator that Obama is not the face of the coming fiscal apocalypse?
 
Not as much as being an Obama supporter and someone who wants to give credit where credit isn't due. Please explain exactly what Obama did to lower the deficit and how a 3.9 trillion dollar budget proposal does that?

I am not here to toot Obama's horn. Facts are facts, and they are extremely painful for partisan conservatives.
 
Don't quite understand most Obama supporters who cannot seem to get over the reality that Obama has lost over 11% of his support since he won the election in 2008, these aren't right wingers, these aren't those evil Republicans, these are people who believed the Obama rhetoric but are now seeing the Obama results. Results matter to most people but apparently not 41%.

Supporters want to give Obama credit for reducing the deficit while ignoring that the deficit is still at record highs, the debt is approaching 18 trillion dollars, there are 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, extremely high unemployment in the African Community, the top 1% getting richer and yet so many still buy the Obama rhetoric. Why?
 
U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn - Bloomberg



OMG, we need to stop Obama from spending us into ruin!!

Oh, wait.... the deficit is SHRINKING? Whodathunkit! I guess he's NOT the spender in chief as he's been labeled by the consistent and reliable deficit increasing Republicans.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Good job of damning with faint praise. Yay Obama for not breaking his own record for budget deficits this time. What kind of Obama rumpswab goes around bragging about how swell the Obama deficit spending is this year because it's not the biggest deficit of his administration. 6 years into his administration and there wasn't one year where the deficit was as low as the worst year under Bush. That's a pretty perverse thing to cheer about if you think deficit spending is bad.
 
They can't have it both ways. They can't claim that Obama is a plague on deficit reduction then not credit him for actually reducing the deficit.

Of course they can. It's a simple exercise in doublethink.
 
I am not here to toot Obama's horn. Facts are facts, and they are extremely painful for partisan conservatives.

And what facts would those be? Obama record budgets? Obama still with record deficits? Obama still with 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers? Obama still with the same number of Americans working than when the recession started in 2007?

The issue is you cannot toot the Obama horn without providing the details. Still waiting and will continue to wait for what Obama did to lower the deficit to these still record levels??
 
Of course they can. It's a simple exercise in doublethink.

As long as liberals cannot provide the legislation Obama authored to lower the deficit to still record levels, it is easy to refute the liberal rhetoric and point out the actual facts.
 
Given the Republican chant of Obama will spend America into ruin, you don't see this as a clear and definitive black mark on Republican sloganeering? Come on, you're a reasonable poster. The consistently decent job numbers (given the circumstances) and the consistent lowering of the deficit a clear indicator that Obama is not the face of the coming fiscal apocalypse?

Do you have any concept of debt service? What do you think the debt service is going to be on the 18 trillion dollar debt when interest rates rise? Please tell me exactly what Obama has done to lower the deficit??
 
Given the Republican chant of Obama will spend America into ruin, you don't see this as a clear and definitive black mark on Republican sloganeering?

Yes, it runs counters to the propoganda and talking points put out by die hard Republicans.

However, the OP of this thread wasn't propoganda and talking points of die hard republicans. It was propoganda and talking points of the die hard liberal persuation.

As such, my post focused on discussing those.

There's a large difference between saying that Republicans have over stated the economic harm that Obama would do or that he's not leading us into a "Fiscal Apocolypse" and putting forth implications that his fiscal actions to this point are something to be cheered and are somehow the polar opposite of the republican extreme.

The reality is that Obama's economic policies have not been apocolyptic or country destroying, but have absolutely embraced VERY slow movement away from the artificially inflated highs of 2008. As well, it's clear he's taking a continued path forward that attempts to use the bottom levels of the fiscal crisis deficits as the new "normal" going forward. Which still places deficit levels a good $300 billion or more ABOVE the average deficit from 1987 - 2007.

So sure, Obama isn't nearly as bad as some Republicans attempted to paint him as being. But neither is he some polar opposite that who's hacking away at the deficit with a machete and significantly moving us back where we were during more stable times. On the contrary, by and large he's been taking a slow, steady approach towards the floor of the Crisis (~$450 Billion deficit) and treating that inflated number as the new normal. While not as harsh as what Republican talking points were trying to paint him as it undoubtably isn't something to cheer about or laud in my opinion. And I think the harping on 2008 numbers, and acting as if information prior to the fiscal crisis just doesn't exist, is as laughably transparent propoganda as much of what Republicans put out.
 
Reducing the deficit is not all about spending cuts it is also about growing the economy. I know that is a foreign thing to R's who fail miserably at growth when in power.

Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat! - Forbes

Obama has destroyed that argument. It does seem that you have a very poor understanding of basic civics and who controls the economy. The lack of leadership by Obama is quite evident and yet people like you still cling to his rhetoric. Why is that? What is it about Obama that creates people like you who ignore actual results? You actually think Obama has implemented a pro growth economic policy? Can you explain to me why Obama got 53% of the vote in 2008 and that support today is 41%? Where did that 13% go and why?
 
Regardless of how it came about (and it's hillarious that some on the right enjoy pointing out it was an "obama administration idea" when it suits them and then take credit for it when that is more advantageous), the reality is that the Sequester cuts came under Obama and were signed into law under Obama, so he deserves whatever credit you give to the Presidency for the deficits that occur under their watch. Ultimately, he was part of those cuts happening regardless of how you feel about those roles.
 
Yes, it runs counters to the propoganda and talking points put out by die hard Republicans.

However, the OP of this thread wasn't propoganda and talking points of die hard republicans. It was propoganda and talking points of the die hard liberal persuation.

As such, my post focused on discussing those.

There's a large difference between saying that Republicans have over stated the economic harm that Obama would do or that he's not leading us into a "Fiscal Apocolypse" and putting forth implications that his fiscal actions to this point are something to be cheered and are somehow the polar opposite of the republican extreme.

The reality is that Obama's economic policies have not been apocolyptic or country destroying, but have absolutely embraced VERY slow movement away from the artificially inflated highs of 2008. As well, it's clear he's taking a continued path forward that attempts to use the bottom levels of the fiscal crisis deficits as the new "normal" going forward. Which still places deficit levels a good $300 billion or more ABOVE the average deficit from 1987 - 2007.

So sure, Obama isn't nearly as bad as some Republicans attempted to paint him as being. But neither is he some polar opposite that who's hacking away at the deficit with a machete and significantly moving us back where we were during more stable times. On the contrary, by and large he's been taking a slow, steady approach towards the floor of the Crisis (~$450 Billion deficit) and treating that inflated number as the new normal. While not as harsh as what Republican talking points were trying to paint him as it undoubtably isn't something to cheer about or laud in my opinion. And I think the harping on 2008 numbers, and acting as if information prior to the fiscal crisis just doesn't exist, is as laughably transparent propoganda as much of what Republicans put out.

for the most part I agree with your comments but disagree with the statement that Obama isn't nearly as bad as some Republicans attempted to paint him. Obama's arrogance and inability to compromise along with very poor leadership skills has hurt this country greatly not only domestically but in foreign policy. Obama is a perfect example of why you never elect someone without leadership skills and based solely on rhetoric. Obama has done great damage in the world and to our economy long term. It next President is going to have a real mess to clean up, starting with an 18-20 trillion dollar debt and a world more dangerous than the one he inherited. Just my opinion
 
With all things being the same over the last SIX years of the Great Recession, with McCain as President, Republican posters would be crowing over this booming economy. Especially the latest 3.5% GDP which Romney praised. Compare that to the negative GDP six years ago when McCain suspended his campaign .
 
Regardless of how it came about (and it's hillarious that some on the right enjoy pointing out it was an "obama administration idea" when it suits them and then take credit for it when that is more advantageous), the reality is that the Sequester cuts came under Obama and were signed into law under Obama, so he deserves whatever credit you give to the Presidency for the deficits that occur under their watch. Ultimately, he was part of those cuts happening regardless of how you feel about those roles.

It does seem that there is hypocrisy on both sides of this issue as Obama wants both the benefits plus placing blame. He cannot have it both ways either

White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester - Forbes
 
You think posting $18,000,000,000,000 means something. Go figure!

The Left is always quick to point out how our defense budget is larger than the next 100 nations combined, but not when our debt is more than the next 5 galaxies combined. Go figure.
 
With all things being the same over the last SIX years of the Great Recession, with McCain as President, Republican posters would be crowing over this booming economy. Especially the latest 3.5% GDP which Romney praised. Compare that to the negative GDP six years ago when McCain suspended his campaign .

Just like an Obama supporter and liberal who knows exactly what McCain would have done while ignoring what Obama has actually done. Still waiting for exactly what Obama did to boost this economy and please tell me how proposing a 3.9 trillion dollar budget lowers the deficits?
 
How many threads have there been on this site where liberals proclaim that deficits don't matter...
sigh

No, it was actually Cheney who insisted that "deficits don't matter," when Bush 43-era policies erased the Clinton-era surplus.

The typical Keynesian claim is: During a recession, it is more important to spend on stimulus with high multipliers (like infrastructure spending, or unemployment benefits) to kick-start the economy, than to worry about short-term deficits. The stimulus will get the economy back on track faster, which means you're limiting the amount of government revenues lost to the recession. In turn, the deficit will go down as the economy gets back on track.

In addition, a fair amount of the government spending cuts would harm the economy. Cutting military will have some negative effects; but firing teachers and cops, or allowing infrastructure to continue to deteriorate, or putting off needed bridges, will all hurt the economy.

So: In 2008 and 2009, it would have been a great idea to spend on infrastructure projects, rather than do tax cuts.
1) We need to fix up bridges and roads anyway.
2) That kind of work would rely heavily on the underutilized construction workers and resources, idled by the recession / real estate bubble burst.
3) In the long run, you'll make up more by getting the economy back on track sooner, than you would if you tried to cut spending during the recession.

Further, the right-leaning economists claimed that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 100% would harm an economy. It turns out this is not the case, as the paper in question used a flawed interpretation of the data. (Reinhart-Rogoff Economic Paper Draws Fire - WSJ)

Despite the conservative caricature that the left just wants to tax and spend, the results we're seeing now are entirely consistent with what leftists and Keynesian-influenced economists have been saying for years.
 
And what facts would those be? Obama record budgets? Obama still with record deficits? Obama still with 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers? Obama still with the same number of Americans working than when the recession started in 2007?

The issue is you cannot toot the Obama horn without providing the details. Still waiting and will continue to wait for what Obama did to lower the deficit to these still record levels??

No matter how much you try to deny it, the economy has continued to grow under the current administration. The deficit has been reduced by roughly 2/3. The country has more wealth and produces more goods and services than any country in all of history.
 
Just so it's clear. The majority of credit for deficit reduction should go to the much improved economy. On two fronts, it has boosted tax revenue while lowering automatic stabilization outlays. Giving any credit to the "Republican controlled House" goes way beyond using your imagination.

Just so it's clear. You're okay with the OP giving the credit to President Obama, the guy who continues to want to spend, yet you're not okay with giving credit to the Republican House which effectively stopped him. Got it.
 
U.S. Deficit Decline to 2.8% of GDP Is Unprecedented Turn - Bloomberg



OMG, we need to stop Obama from spending us into ruin!!

Oh, wait.... the deficit is SHRINKING? Whodathunkit! I guess he's NOT the spender in chief as he's been labeled by the consistent and reliable deficit increasing Republicans.[/FONT][/COLOR]

To put that in perspective, if Obama wasn't spending us into ruin we would have a surplus right now.

This deficit is also larger than the Bush deficit that prompted Obama to call deficits unpatriotic....
 
Back
Top Bottom