• 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

Taylor said:
You don't have to look back very far. GWB did it in 2005, then again in 2006, and once again in 2007.
Click to expand...

And he still managed to leave office with a huge deficit, that he created from the balanced budget he inherited.
 
imagep said:
And he still managed to leave office with a huge deficit, that he created from the balanced budget he inherited.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's almost godlike how he managed to single-handedly create and burst the tech bubble AND the housing bubble. George Bush... the hobgoblin of little minds.
 
Conservative said:
Forget it, I posted the data showing ywhat the Republican President and Republican Congress did after taking over in the 2004 elections but it was totally ignored. Liberals always stick to the same talking points and ignore Treasury data. Deficits were reduced every year of their control
Click to expand...
Must be too busy doing cartwheels and drinking champagne because the deficit was "only" half a trillion dollars, lol.
 
Taylor said:
Must be too busy doing cartwheels and drinking champagne because the deficit was "only" half a trillion dollars, lol.
Click to expand...

160 Billion actually, and on track to balance prior to housing bubble. Had the Congress and Bush not increased social spending by 550bn during that time, we would have still had a surplus.

Deficit
2004 -412,727
2005 -318,346
2006 -248,181
2007 -160,701
 
Zyphlin said:
If you expect me to treat your arguments based on a fraudulent method of debate where you just scream "FACTS FACTS FACTS" to try and distract people from the multitude of subjective factors and opinionated assertions you try to masquerade as facts as well as anything more than the dishonest tactic it is? Or that I'd react to them with anything better than your own tactics?
Click to expand...

You need to take a minute to understand the context of my exchange with Con. He claimed i was giving Obama credit, which was sheer nonsense. But since he made it a point to bring Obama up, i figured it was more than appropriate to put into light some of the developments in recent years. The "facts" you decided to spew were about as arbitrary as Con is stubborn. And to them i say so what? Nothing you have posted can be considered even remotely relevant to the discussion.

My post was simply demonstrating "facts", just like yours was. Why does that bother you so.
Click to expand...

Your facts were bound by relative arbitrarity. It would akin to me stating the year is 2014. Perhaps we can get back to the discussion at hand rather than continue to squabble over your perception of my "debate tactics"? You have already admitted your lack of information regarding the subject matter. I figured you smart enough not to act as an aggressor in a discussion where you're completely outgunned.

Good luck!:lol:
 
imagep said:
That's pretty close to the spendulous bill, which was also spent over the course of a number of years, and Obama has been ferociously attacked about spending that much to save our economy.
Click to expand...

That certainly is the liberal spin but the reality is quite different. The recession ended in June 2009 yet the spending continued. All Obama did was "save" union jobs and support his base. Still there are 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers
 
imagep said:
And he still managed to leave office with a huge deficit, that he created from the balanced budget he inherited.
Click to expand...


There was no balanced budget inherited, Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt. People always forget Intergovernment holdings.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Citing nominal dollars is a flawed approach to describing the situation. Reason being, it disallows comparison to a broader historical context of our fiscal reality. You should considering it in terms of output, e.g. nominal deficit as a percentage of nominal GDP. Instead, you chose to compare nominal deficits to those of years past. A textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.

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.
Click to expand...

Are you unaware that $450 billion in 2008 is not the same as $450 billion in 2014?

it undoubtedly 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...

Deficit reduction in the tune of $1 trillion certainly is something to cheer or laud about. Your uninformed opinion is of no consequence to this.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
If you'll follow along in this thread you'll have seen my posts indicating why I believe he seems to be taking that as the "new normal", as it's based on what appears to be a near $100 billion dollar increased for next year based on projections for the Presidents proposed budget. After multiple years of trending downwards, and repeated claims by Democrats that we're now out of the worst of the crisis thanks to Obama's politics, the only clear reason I could fathom for beginning to go back upwards in deficit totals is a belief that they've been dropped far enough.

Granted, those projections are likely to change now over the coming months compared to what could reasonable be expected prior to the election since there's now a significantly different make up in the congress and a different seeming sentiment sent by the American People. Hopefully we'll actually continue to see a decrease, perhaps even a faster one, similar to the past few years. I'd be very happy to see such occur.
Click to expand...

I haven't actually read all the posts in this thread, but the fact that the deficit is projected to increase for one year is pretty slim evidence of any sort of belief on Obama's part. It's like saying bush*'s support of TARP shows that he had abandoned his belief in balanced budgets and smaller government.
 
sangha said:
It's like saying bush*'s support of TARP shows that he had abandoned his belief in balanced budgets and smaller government.
Click to expand...

Not really. One could look at the history of Bush's term, which was generally keeping the deficit around $200 Bil +- about $100, with numerous instances where it dropped year to year and also look at the context of the economic crash, and easily reason the support of TARP was a short term abandonment of his beliefs in balanced budgets and smaller government to deal with a uniquely troublesome economic period.

It's similar to why I don't scream and rant, like some conservatives, about Obama's $1 Trillion dollar deficits his first few years.

However, one can look at Obama's history with the deficit, seeing that it's gone down each and every year, and put that in context with what his administration has been suggesting which is that we've largley came out of the fiscal crisis in question and that we're in a substantially better place, and come to a conclussion that there isn't a similar reasonable event occuring to explain the sudden increase again on the deficit.

I'll admit in one or two of my posts I may've been stating it as a bit too much of a certainty as opposed to suggesting it appears that way to me based on the projections and their context within the economic situation in the country. I don't know what the future holds, I don't know for certainty his intents, and the new congress does shake the equation up a bit. However, going off the information that was available, the potential bounce back up of the deficit prior to even reaching the floor of what it was at the fiscal crisis gave me pause.
 
Kushinator said:
i figured it was more than appropriate to put into light some of the developments in recent years.
Click to expand...

As was I. My "facts" were no more abitrary than yours. They were also highlighting the FACTUAL realities regarding the deficit over Obama's term. The only difference is you don't like mine so you desperately wish to hand wave them away and hope your ridiculous smugness and idiotic smileys will magically make it so.

And to them i say so what?
Click to expand...

No less relevant than yours. You were simply pointing out facts that occured economically under his presidency...so was I. You attempted to present facts to butress your opinion that America is "[doing] well", desperately attempting to present your opinion as something more than an opinion. I presented facts highlighting that there are multiple ways to measure the situation depending on the arbitrary time period you wish to look at (mine was no less arbitrary than yours, which was the point) and the context in wish you want to measure it, and as such while your opinion regarding the well being of America in a fiscal stance is perfectly reasonable it is far from absolute truth.

Your facts were bound by relative arbitrarity.
Click to expand...

As are yours. My facts are no less arbitrary in their boundries than yours are. You wish to judge how "well" America is doing under Obama only from the scope of where it was when he started and where he was now. I wish to judge how "well" America is doing by taking in a broarder scope of history that is available to us, looking at where it was in relatively recent times and where it is now. The context I choose is no less arbitrary than yours, it is simply difference...which was precisely the point. To highlight that "facts" can change depending on the various factors one uses to get those facts, and that is why they attempting to support ones position with facts still doesn't make the opinion itself a fact.

As to what numbers I'm citing, I'm remaining consistent and going off the standards and comparisons that the OP's article goes off. My apologies if you dislike the source of what we're discussing here. If you do, take it up with the article's author. Perhaps he'll have higher regard for smileys and desperate attempts to put forward a persona of intellectual superiority in an effort to hide stereotypical hyper partisan ranting....sadly, I don't. Have a great day continuing to use piss poor tactics and then getting dismissive and attempting to hand wave them away when a person highlights that fact by presenting a similar argument back towards you.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Not really. One could look at the history of Bush's term, which was generally keeping the deficit around $200 Bil +- about $100, with numerous instances where it dropped year to year and also look at the context of the economic crash, and easily reason the support of TARP was a short term abandonment of his beliefs in balanced budgets and smaller government to deal with a uniquely troublesome economic period.

It's similar to why I don't scream and rant, like some conservatives, about Obama's $1 Trillion dollar deficits his first few years.

However, one can look at Obama's history with the deficit, seeing that it's gone down each and every year, and put that in context with what his administration has been suggesting which is that we've largley came out of the fiscal crisis in question and that we're in a substantially better place, and come to a conclussion that there isn't a similar reasonable event occuring to explain the sudden increase again on the deficit.

I'll admit in one or two of my posts I may've been stating it as a bit too much of a certainty as opposed to suggesting it appears that way to me based on the projections and their context within the economic situation in the country. I don't know what the future holds, I don't know for certainty his intents, and the new congress does shake the equation up a bit. However, going off the information that was available, the potential bounce back up of the deficit prior to even reaching the floor of what it was at the fiscal crisis gave me pause.
Click to expand...

Obama has a record of decreasing deficits, and even with this one year increase his record will be one of reducing deficits, both in actual dollars and as a % of GDP. Even with this one year increase, Obama will have reduced the deficit as a % of GDP to a fraction of what it was when he took office. Even more important is that this one year projected increase is due to projections that have lowered the rate of economic growth (IOW, it's not caused by increased spending) and the same projections show continued reductions in the deficit in the years after.

In addition, projections in 2014 show a $5 *trillion* reduction in deficits over the next ten years compared to the 2010 ten year projection. IMO, that is not an indication of a belief that deficits have a "floor"

PS - With respect to bush*'s record, in four of his 8 years, the deficit increased as a % of GDP
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
My "facts" were no more abitrary than yours.
Click to expand...

Bull****!

Con made outlandish claims about Obama and was in need of a reality check. You responded with a bunch of "so what" statements that entirely miss the forest for the trees. Historical comparison of nominal deficits, even within your selective time frame, is piss poor analysis.

They were also highlighting the FACTUAL realities regarding the deficit over Obama's term. The only difference is you don't like mine so you desperately wish to hand wave them away and hope your ridiculous smugness and idiotic smileys will magically make it so.
Click to expand...

You didn't factor for inflation, output, financial context, etc.... No less a partisan foot stomp than what Con put forth.

No less relevant than yours.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

You were simply pointing out facts that occured economically under his presidency...so was I.
Click to expand...

Again, you compared nominal deficits within a 27 year time frame. Do you not understand the weakness of this method? Why not compare current deficits to those of the 1960's? Hell, why not go the full monty and compare them to the 1930's?

You attempted to present facts to butress your opinion that America is "[doing] well", desperately attempting to present your opinion as something more than an opinion.
Click to expand...

My opinion is contrived from positive economic analysis.

I presented facts highlighting that there are multiple ways to measure the situation depending on the arbitrary time period you wish to look at (mine was no less arbitrary than yours, which was the point) and the context in wish you want to measure it, and as such while your opinion regarding the well being of America in a fiscal stance is perfectly reasonable it is far from absolute truth.
Click to expand...

Your presentation was amateur at best. If you wish to discuss political economy, be prepared to be called out when you string together weak analysis. I have already explained the weakness. You have not done the same with respect to my comments. Claiming my statements were arbitrary, without a valid point as to why, simply won't cut it.

I wish to judge how "well" America is doing by taking in a broarder scope of history that is available to us, looking at where it was in relatively recent times and where it is now.
Click to expand...

The way you went about it was weak.

The context I choose is no less arbitrary than yours, it is simply difference...which was precisely the point.
Click to expand...

No, it is simply weakness on your part.

I claimed the deficit has shrank by more than 2/3 in reference to another member who likes to squwack about $1.3 trillion deficits of 2009 and 2010. Which is a fact that bothers Con immensely. You chirped in about some ridiculous reference to times past, without any consideration to a plethora of other factors that render your "facts" nothing short of irrelevant.

To highlight that "facts" can change depending on the various factors one uses to get those facts, and that is why they attempting to support ones position with facts still doesn't make the opinion itself a fact
Click to expand...

Adorable!

Instead of trying to "show me", how about you stick to the topic. It would save you face and both of us time.
 
sangha said:
Obama has a record of decreasing deficits, and even with this one year increase his record will be one of reducing deficits, both in actual dollars and as a % of GDP.
Click to expand...

I've never said otherwise. Actually, I've acknowledged that REPEATEDLY and stated, from a narrow scope of his tenure as President alone, that that is a good thing.

Even with this one year increase, Obama will have reduced the deficit as a % of GDP
Click to expand...

Which is all fine and dandy, but not what the OP of this thread was speaking about. It spoke about the deficit as a hard number, not as a percentage of GDP, so my comments were made judging it based on said criteria. This goes back PRECISELY to my PRIMARY POINT I've been making in all of my posts. Let me re-iterate it one more time since people seem to keep missing it again and again and instead misrepresenting what I'm actually saying and what I'm actually arguing by taking my statements to be literal examples of my belief as opposed to actions being done for an illustrative purpose....

Economic facts are just that...facts. However, how one comes to those facts are built upon subjective choices with regards to the context in which those facts are generated. Do you look at pure deficit numbers or do you look at deficit as a % of GDP? Do you compare the numbers under Obama only to his own term or to previous terms as well? Do you judge a the deficit over a President's tenure based on its highest and lowest point, it's average, or simply it's starting and end point? Do you give more weight on the deficit to the President, Congress, or split between both in some fashion? Do you adjust for inflation or do you not? Do you take into account the context of how and why a deficit went up and how and why it may be going down outside? Do you trust projections at all, and if so how far forward do you trust them? Do you attribute 2009 to George Bush, as typically you do since the Budget would normally be executed prior to the new President? Or do you attribute it at least in part to Obama, since that year was atypical and the budget wasn't actually passed under Bush but months into the Obama administration?

I can go on and on, but I believe you should get my point there. There are a PLETHORA of ways a person can come at an issue to generate the "facts" they wish to shout. Which is absolutely fine and acceptable, as long as one actually acknowledges and realizes that they don't have a monopoly on facts...and that their opinions based off those facts aren't actually objective truth...because ultimately their "facts" themselves are based on subjective choices as to how they were generated.

My comments regarding how I view Obama on the deficit was based on the OPs subjective choice of going with straight deficit numbers, and with respect to that I stated that I agreed with a positive assertion for Obama using the OPs subjective means of measurement (looking only at his tenure). I also stated that if you change the frame of reference, comparing it to more recent history broadly as opposed to just comparing it to the worst portion of time that happened to fall near the start of Obama's presidency, that I would view him in a more negative fashion. Undoubtably, if you change the other subjective choices the OP made, like changing from straight deficit to % of GDP, my opinion would change yet again because the factors being judged change.

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY PRIMARY POINT.

My issue was not with people suggesting Obama's done well with the economy. My issue isn't with people suggesting they've been unhappy with it either. My issue has been with those acting as if there is only one way to possibly view this particular economic issue and only one seemingly objective conclussion to be drawn from it simply because of "facts"....which completely ignoring that said facts are simply products of numerous subjective decisions and are not in and of themselves the absolute means of measurement of the issue.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is all fine and dandy, but not what the OP of this thread was speaking about. It spoke about the deficit as a hard number, not as a percentage of GDP, so my comments were made judging it based on said criteria.
Click to expand...

You're full of ****!

From post # 1:

The shortfall of $483.4 billion in the 12 months ended Sept. 30 was 2.8 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product of $17.2 trillion over the same period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg using Commerce Department figures. The figure peaked at 10.1 percent of GDP in December 2009.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
Very hackish

The fact is, the right endlessly whines about spending, deficits, and debt and now that they've won the senate, many here are under the delusion that spending will be cut. Meanwhile, there's a long history of spending increasing steadily over time regardless of who controls congress and under republican rule, both deficits and debt have increased faster (in both actual $$ and as a % of GDP) when the repubs are in the majority or have the White House.

But I guess it's easier to hurl hackish claims about "Obamabots" than take a cold hard look at how the right has failed in their main objective when they gain power.
Click to expand...

Oh, they haven't failed. Their main objective is to gain power.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've never said otherwise. Actually, I've acknowledged that REPEATEDLY and stated, from a narrow scope of his tenure as President alone, that that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that and I haven't said you were saying otherwise. I was just making my argument

You know, by using facts!! (heh! I couldn't resist putting that jab in there)



Which is all fine and dandy, but not what the OP of this thread was speaking about. It spoke about the deficit as a hard number, not as a percentage of GDP, so my comments were made judging it based on said criteria.
Click to expand...

And it's fine, if that's what you want to do. However, I believe that measuring the deficit as a % of GDP is the more relevant measure, and that seems to be the consensus of economists.

This goes back PRECISELY to my PRIMARY POINT I've been making in all of my posts. Let me re-iterate it one more time since people seem to keep missing it again and again and instead misrepresenting what I'm actually saying and what I'm actually arguing by taking my statements to be literal examples of my belief as opposed to actions being done for an illustrative purpose....

Economic facts are just that...facts. However, how one comes to those facts are built upon subjective choices with regards to the context in which those facts are generated. Do you look at pure deficit numbers or do you look at deficit as a % of GDP? Do you compare the numbers under Obama only to his own term or to previous terms as well? Do you judge a the deficit over a President's tenure based on its highest and lowest point, it's average, or simply it's starting and end point? Do you give more weight on the deficit to the President, Congress, or split between both in some fashion? Do you adjust for inflation or do you not? Do you take into account the context of how and why a deficit went up and how and why it may be going down outside? Do you trust projections at all, and if so how far forward do you trust them? Do you attribute 2009 to George Bush, as typically you do since the Budget would normally be executed prior to the new President? Or do you attribute it at least in part to Obama, since that year was atypical and the budget wasn't actually passed under Bush but months into the Obama administration?

I can go on and on, but I believe you should get my point there. There are a PLETHORA of ways a person can come at an issue to generate the "facts" they wish to shout. Which is absolutely fine and acceptable, as long as one actually acknowledges and realizes that they don't have a monopoly on facts...and that their opinions based off those facts aren't actually objective truth...because ultimately their "facts" themselves are based on subjective choices as to how they were generated.

My comments regarding how I view Obama on the deficit was based on the OPs subjective choice of going with straight deficit numbers, and with respect to that I stated that I agreed with a positive assertion for Obama using the OPs subjective means of measurement (looking only at his tenure). I also stated that if you change the frame of reference, comparing it to more recent history broadly as opposed to just comparing it to the worst portion of time that happened to fall near the start of Obama's presidency, that I would view him in a more negative fashion. Undoubtably, if you change the other subjective choices the OP made, like changing from straight deficit to % of GDP, my opinion would change yet again because the factors being judged change.

WHICH WAS EXACTLY MY PRIMARY POINT.

My issue was not with people suggesting Obama's done well with the economy. My issue isn't with people suggesting they've been unhappy with it either. My issue has been with those acting as if there is only one way to possibly view this particular economic issue and only one seemingly objective conclussion to be drawn from it simply because of "facts"....which completely ignoring that said facts are simply products of numerous subjective decisions and are not in and of themselves the absolute means of measurement of the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good point and you've made it well. I don't take issue with that point. I was merely questioning your argument that Obama's may believe there's a deficit "floor" below which he neither wants, nor believe he needs, to go below.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course, but so does the President (by congress). He is given money to enforce the laws. He doesnt HAVE to spend it all. Like, hes given X dollars for performing a function but has lattitude as to how much he can spend. For example, the last bill that was signed:




Thats a blank check. So blame congress for giving it, and President for using it.
Click to expand...

There's an interesting example. He has a blank check to make payroll for the military.

I wonder what would be said if the government ran out of money to give the soldiers their pay?
 
Kushinator said:
Citing nominal dollars is a flawed approach to describing the situation. Reason being, it disallows comparison to a broader historical context of our fiscal reality. You should considering it in terms of output, e.g. nominal deficit as a percentage of nominal GDP. Instead, you chose to compare nominal deficits to those of years past. A textbook definition of comparing apples to oranges.



Are you unaware that $450 billion in 2008 is not the same as $450 billion in 2014?



Deficit reduction in the tune of $1 trillion certainly is something to cheer or laud about. Your uninformed opinion is of no consequence to this.
Click to expand...

It must be lonely in your world as your self proclaimed brilliance trumps everyone else's. Please tell me exactly what Obama did to lower the deficit and why the Democrats got thumped in the midterms with what you perceive as results to cheer about??
 
Conservative said:
It must be lonely in your world as your self proclaimed brilliance trumps everyone else's. Please tell me exactly what Obama did to lower the deficit and why the Democrats got thumped in the midterms with what you perceive as results to cheer about??
Click to expand...

You need to try and stay relevant. I never claimed Obama did ANYTHING!
 
sangha said:
Obama has a record of decreasing deficits, and even with this one year increase his record will be one of reducing deficits, both in actual dollars and as a % of GDP. Even with this one year increase, Obama will have reduced the deficit as a % of GDP to a fraction of what it was when he took office. Even more important is that this one year projected increase is due to projections that have lowered the rate of economic growth (IOW, it's not caused by increased spending) and the same projections show continued reductions in the deficit in the years after.

In addition, projections in 2014 show a $5 *trillion* reduction in deficits over the next ten years compared to the 2010 ten year projection. IMO, that is not an indication of a belief that deficits have a "floor"

PS - With respect to bush*'s record, in four of his 8 years, the deficit increased as a % of GDP
Click to expand...

Really? please tell me when the Bush deficits ever exceeded one trillion dollars? All this talk about inflation adjusted deficits is bogus because it isn't only expenses that are inflation adjusted but also revenue. Deficits are paid for in today's dollars not inflation adjusted dollars. Further Bush never had a debt exceeding our yearly GDP, only Obama has done that. In Bush's 8 years the deficit dropped from 2004 to 2007 WITH a GOP Congress or did you forget or simply ignore??

Also I cannot seem to get an answer to the question posed, what did Obama do to lower the deficit that you want to give him credit for?
 
Conservative said:
Really? please tell me when the Bush deficits ever exceeded one trillion dollars? All this talk about inflation adjusted deficits is bogus because it isn't only expenses that are inflation adjusted but also revenue. Deficits are paid for in today's dollars not inflation adjusted dollars. Further Bush never had a debt exceeding our yearly GDP, only Obama has done that. In Bush's 8 years the deficit dropped from 2004 to 2007 WITH a GOP Congress or did you forget or simply ignore??

Also I cannot seem to get an answer to the question posed, what did Obama do to lower the deficit that you want to give him credit for?
Click to expand...

*yawn*
 
Conservative said:
please tell me when the Bush deficits ever exceeded one trillion dollars?
Click to expand...

Who claimed they did? Your response is a textbook example of a strawman fallacy.
 
Kushinator said:
You need to try and stay relevant. I never claimed Obama did ANYTHING!
Click to expand...

You are pointing to a 1 trillion dollar reduction in the deficit as if that is some great accomplishment. That trillion dollar reduction still has generated record high deficits exceeding anything Bush ever generated and that is with the Bush tax cuts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom