• 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

Kushinator said:
I haven't given Obama credit for anything. I have simply pointed out that during his presidency, the deficit has been cut by 2/3, 10 million jobs have been created, and our financial system is strong enough to be taken off life support.

Why does this bother you? As an American, you should be happy when America does well. Instead, you are jealous that it occurred on the watch of a democrat president.



The budget is not an issue, and neither is the debt. As for employment demographics, how is that Obama's fault?



The deficit is nowhere near record highs. Please try to aim for accuracy!
Click to expand...

Interesting how those 10 millions jobs don't show up in BLS. Are the phantom jobs? Please tell me why we have the same number of people working today that were working in December 2007 when the recession began? That doesn't look like 10 million jobs to me? Seems that your partisanship is showing. Please also explain to me with this booming economy, record high stock market, and great job creation that you are reporting why Obama has lost 13% of his support from when he was elected and why he has a 41% JAR? Seems the disconnect is between what the public feels and what you think happened

As for the deficit, name for me the last President that had a 483 billion dollar deficit?
 
Fletch said:
No, it has been countless liberals on this site.
Click to expand...
Whatever you say


Except that it is actually FED stimulus that has floated the economy, not Obamas spending spree in 2009-2010.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much.

The Fed has helped a bit in theory, since actions like lowering interest rates and QE did help a little bit with unfreezing lending and the commercial paper market. And of course, Bernanke and Paulson's actions, flawed as they were, at least helped prevent the economy from completely cratering.

It's likely that the Fed's policies have boosted a fair amount of stock buy-backs, which pushes the market up. However, that doesn't really boost GDP or cut spending. Fed policies are a part of the recovery, but certainly not all of it.


If you are going to credit someone, be honest and credit Bernanke, not Obama. But then again, the repercussions of that FED policy aren't yet known.
Click to expand...
I'd say they are reasonably well known by now.

In particular, the hysterical screeching that Fed policies will cause inflation, notably hyper-inflation, have obviously been proven wrong. We've also got a clear history of the value of the dollar and bond rates over the past 6 years.
 
Conservative said:
Yep, sure do understand how debt works and how that debt is paid for, do you?
Click to expand...

Of course i do!

Debt service is far from your definition, it is paid to the bond holders many of who are outside this country and foreign sources. That is an outflow that we could use in taxpayers pockets especially in a consumer driven economy.
Click to expand...

It is also a form of income for domestic tax payers! You will be troubled to show debt service or trade deficits for that matter relate to a net outflow.

Sorry but deficits being reduced that are still records and that still grow the debt aren't something to be touted. You don't really seem to have a grasp of reality.
Click to expand...

I understand finance. As interest rates rise, the PV of stock debt declines by definition. Given the relationship between output growth and inflation, a rise in interest rates would be a blessing for a government that has deficit growth < output growth. It seems i am talking way above your head.
 
Kushinator said:
Tax cuts were entirely justified. But you seem to forget the economic gains that have been achieved through technological innovation.



My predictions have been pretty darn accurate!



Tax cuts do not increase revenue, that is pure folly. Increased economic activity boots revenue; how much of it is attributable to tax cuts is an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...

Better tell your theory to the Treasury Dept which shows tax revenue growing AFTER The actual Income tax cuts. Seems they have a different set of numbers than you and I actually buy their numbers as they are the bank account of the United States.

As for increased economic activity boots revenue, couldn't agree more. Please tell me who having more spendable income in your paychecks affects economic activity? Isn't that what tax cuts do?
 
Conservative said:
Interesting how those 10 millions jobs don't show up in BLS. Are the phantom jobs? Please tell me why we have the same number of people working today that were working in December 2007
Click to expand...

Did you forget about the millions of job losses?

fredgraph.png


That doesn't look like 10 million jobs to me?
Click to expand...

That is because you don't know how to look!

Seems that your partisanship is showing.
Click to expand...

I have not said anything partisan. Please try and stay relevant.

Please also explain to me with this booming economy, record high stock market, and great job creation that you are reporting why Obama has lost 13% of his support from when he was elected and why he has a 41% JAR? Seems the disconnect is between what the public feels and what you think happened
Click to expand...

Now you want to begin discussing JAR? :lamo

Please try and stay relevant.

As for the deficit, name for me the last President that had a 483 billion dollar deficit?
Click to expand...

In 1944, the deficit (a record 24% of GDP) was only $50 billion. Is it too much to ask you to stay relevant?
 
Kushinator said:
Of course i do!



It is also a form of income for domestic tax payers! You will be troubled to show debt service or trade deficits for that matter relate to a net outflow.



I understand finance. As interest rates rise, the PV of stock debt declines by definition. Given the relationship between output growth and inflation, a rise in interest rates would be a blessing for a government that has deficit growth < output growth. It seems i am talking way above your head.
Click to expand...

Want to thank you for talking well above my head and the heads of the average Americans out there who see record deficits, record spending, record budgets, record numbers of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, and a debt service that is the fourth largest budget item. Also those 13% who supported Obama that no longer do. Wonder how that happened?

you don't seem to understand human behavior at all because higher interest rates create higher debt service and that reality escapes you.
 
Conservative said:
Please tell me who having more spendable income in your paychecks affects economic activity? Isn't that what tax cuts do?
Click to expand...

Tax receipts were at record lows in 2008. It certainly didn't translate into greater economic activity. As stated, it is far more complicated than you make it out to be.
 
Conservative said:
Want to thank you for talking well above my head and the heads of the average Americans out there who see record deficits, record spending, record budgets, record numbers of unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, and a debt service that is the fourth largest budget item. Also those 13% who supported Obama that no longer do. Wonder how that happened?

you don't seem to understand human behavior at all because higher interest rates create higher debt service and that reality escapes you.
Click to expand...

More partisan foot stomping! You pretend to understand government finance. You pretend to understand growth economics. In reality, the only thing you truly understand is partisan hackery. Reason being, you are one of the best hacks this site has ever had!

Congrats i guess?
 
Kushinator said:
It makes absolutely no sense to believe that the economy would be where it is if government spending was curtailed for the past 5 years. Remember, government expenditure is a part of total output.
Click to expand...

No, what really makes no sense it to believe that money taken out of the economy to be spent by government has a better ROI than the money spent directly by the tax payers.
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...

And there'd be democratic posters ripping it.

Yes, there will be hyper partisan people that will fly off the handle less based on what's actually happening and more based on their party, thanks for enlightening us.

What exactly is your point, other than attempting to broadly lump every Republican poster together in one stereotyped charicature?
 
Kushinator said:
Did you forget about the millions of job losses?

fredgraph.png




That is because you don't know how to look!



I have not said anything partisan. Please try and stay relevant.



Now you want to begin discussing JAR? :lamo

Please try and stay relevant.

As for the deficit, name for me the last President that had a 483 billion dollar deficit?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Didn't forget at all but apparently you did forget population growth and the reality that you can create any numbers you want by picking selected moments in time. I prefer to look at the economy when the recession began and where it is now. I cannot see your 10 million jobs except comparing 2000 to the present. Is that really what you are trying to do? Then of course there is a cost to the taxpayers for those so called stagnant employment numbers but costs don't seem to affect you as money grows on trees.
 
Kushinator said:
Do you believe the sequester was a deficit buster?
Click to expand...

I honestly haven't looked at it too closely. My point was more that whether you feel like the sequester helped or harmed the deficit, the reality is that Obama deserves whatever part of the praise/blame you'd normally give a president for legislation enacted under his watch and signed by him.

IE....if you think the sequester DID help with deficits then you shouldn't attempt to somehow take credit away from Obama for those deficits being cut, because ultimately it happened at least in part because of actions on his end.
 
Kushinator said:
More partisan foot stomping! You pretend to understand government finance. You pretend to understand growth economics. In reality, the only thing you truly understand is partisan hackery. Reason being, you are one of the best hacks this site has ever had!

Congrats i guess?
Click to expand...

Aw, yes, personal attacks which you are noted for. I am sorry to confuse you with actual data not trumped up projections and personal opinions. It is a fact that we have the same employment today as we had when the recession began and you are trumpeting 10 million jobs being created. That is a lie. Jobs created would be additional jobs from when the recession started. Obama took over a 10.6 trillion dollar debt that is now approaching 18 trillion dollars, you must be so proud. Obama fits the liberal mold of being arrogant and having zero leadership skills. Congratulations you supported the most incompetent person to ever hold the office
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's the OP:

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.
Click to expand...
First, I noted a fact. The deficit is shrinking.

Second, I noted that Republicans increase deficits when in power. We can have discuss what being in power means, as I believe that's when one party controls the White House... this applies even moreso when one party controls both the WH and Congress.

So, you didn't actually address the OP. You veered off the OP to hit on details that are not addressed in my OP in an effort to siphon credit from Obama.

IMO, Obama's avoiding the austerity policies of the Right Wing was exactly the medicine needed. An austerity that the Republican candidate wasn't going to do according to his proposed policies.
 
Tettsuo said:
Here's the OP:


First, I noted a fact. The deficit is shrinking.

Second, I noted that Republicans increase deficits when in power. We can have discuss what being in power means, as I believe that's when one party controls the White House... this applies even moreso when one party controls both the WH and Congress.

So, you didn't actually address the OP. You veered off the OP to hit on details that are not addressed in my OP in an effort to siphon credit from Obama.

IMO, Obama's avoiding the austerity policies of the Right Wing was exactly the medicine needed. An austerity that the Republican candidate wasn't going to do according to his proposed policies.
Click to expand...

The question is big govt. vs limited govt. and which is better. You seem to want bigger govt. and more govt. spending. That says you don't really understand the economy and its components. We are a private sector economy that has to grow or businesses go bankrupt. All the govt. spending really does is create debt.

You seem to ignore not only fiscal conditions but world conditions when a President is in office. Bush had a recession and 9/11 that cost the economy over a trillion dollars according to the GAO and still Bush never had debt exceeding our yearly GDP. You keep buying the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal costs. You can continue to ignore my posts but I will continue to point out the proven facts.
 
Visbek said:
:lamo

Sorry. Anyway. Most of the high deficits were not a result of Obama's policies. Huge swaths of the shortfalls were due to:
• the recession, which reduced tax revenues, and happened before Obama came into office
• the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, started by Bush 43
• the Bush tax cuts

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f1-wide.jpg


Regardless of whether you want to credit Obama or Congressional Republicans, or if you think the wars were just and well-run, or if you think tax cuts are good, the facts are that a) Obama inherited a bunch of deficit-boosting situations, and b) deficits have fallen every year since 2009.
Click to expand...

Nope, this is just a statistical parlor trick which assume that Spending A is more important than Spending B. It is a subjective graph presented as an objective analysis.

What this graph does is simply place specific Bush era spending on the top of the pile to give the impression that it is more responsible than all the other layers of spending bellow it for the deficit.

As an example of why this is bogus, the Democrats, as part of the selling of the PPACA, claimed that they could remove $500 billion from Medicare by cracking down on fraud and abuse and "fixing" Medicare. This $500 billion in waste in Medicare is in the other spending below the highlighted Bush expenses so, mysteriously, it apparently was not contributing to the deficit. :roll:
 
Tettsuo said:
Here's the OP:


First, I noted a fact. The deficit is shrinking.

Second, I noted that Republicans increase deficits when in power. We can have discuss what being in power means, as I believe that's when one party controls the White House... this applies even moreso when one party controls both the WH and Congress.

So, you didn't actually address the OP. You veered off the OP to hit on details that are not addressed in my OP in an effort to siphon credit from Obama.

IMO, Obama's avoiding the austerity policies of the Right Wing was exactly the medicine needed. An austerity that the Republican candidate wasn't going to do according to his proposed policies.
Click to expand...

The Republican controlled Congress in the late 90's created a surplus. Republicans don't always increase deficits.
 
apdst said:
The Republican controlled Congress in the late 90's created a surplus. Republicans don't always increase deficits.
Click to expand...

More like clinton kept the fiscally irresponsible republicans in check. The GOP wanted to spend but clinton wouldnt let them. As soon as they got the presidency they managed to turn a surplus in the a trillion dollar deficit.
 
Give credit to obama for reducing the bush trillion dollar deficit to 483.4 billion.
 
99percenter said:
More like clinton kept the fiscally irresponsible republicans in check. The GOP wanted to spend but clinton wouldnt let them. As soon as they got the presidency they managed to turn a surplus in the a trillion dollar deficit.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? so what you are saying is that Clinton didn't sign GOP Budgets? Interesting re-write of history and just goes to show that some people will always buy the rhetoric over reality. What happened is that Clinton vetoed GOP Budgets only to sign them later after taking credit for implementing the veto. Please provide me proof that the Clinton budgets were less than the GOP wanted? Dare you
 
99percenter said:
Give credit to obama for reducing the bush trillion dollar deficit to 483.4 billion.
Click to expand...

And what trillion dollar deficit would that be? Please show me the BUSH SIGNED Budget for fiscal year 2009??
 
Kushinator said:
I haven't given Obama credit for anything. I have simply pointed out that during his presidency, the deficit has been cut by 2/3
Click to expand...

Which is a fact.

What is also a fact is that 2/3rd cut still doesn't put us below the floor of the Fiscal Crisis deficits, established in 2008 at $458 Billion

What is also a fact is that the average deficit over this administrations time (giving 2009 numbers to GWB) thus far is more than double the average deficit held during the Bush Administration.

What is also fact is that the average deficit over this administrations time thus far is nearly 7 times greater than the average deficit levels of the past 20 years.

What is also fact is that the estimated deficit numbers for 2015 are actually slated to increase by just under $100 billion dollars, rather than decrease again. Placing it more than $100 Billion dollars higher than the floor of the fiscal crisis deficit levels.

So yes. Your fact is correct, and it's definitely a positive thing relative to what you're measuring it against. But see, that's the tricky part and why you'll enjoy going up and bamboozling someone like Conservative who you feel you can beat one easily. You are pairing an objective FACT with a subjective point of reference, and hoping that people just treat your subjective reference as fact because of the other facts you're tossing around next to it.
 
99percenter said:
More like clinton kept the fiscally irresponsible republicans in check. The GOP wanted to spend but clinton wouldnt let them. As soon as they got the presidency they managed to turn a surplus in the a trillion dollar deficit.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAH!! So it was CLINTON that was the budget hawk? So Spock has a beard in your world, doesn't he?
 
apdst said:
The Republican controlled Congress in the late 90's created a surplus. Republicans don't always increase deficits.
Click to expand...

Really? Even if I take this as fact (which is isn't), what happens when they have the White House? Why does the deficit increase if Conservatives have both White House and Congress and are fiscally responsible?

When you can honestly answer that, we can have a real discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom