• 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

Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least cared more about people liking him than changing america.

Clinton much like Obama started out as an ideologue. But 1994 was a wake up call to him and he changed. Bill became a pragmatist. He worked with the Republican congress to get things done. He with the help of the Republican Congress actually balanced the budget. Kudo's to both.

in 2010 Obama didn't change or adjust to the fact the Republicans had won the House. I do not expect him to do so now after the senate has fallen into GOP hands. Clinton was willing to accept half a loaf and give the other half to the GOP if it meant moving his agenda forward. With Obama, he wants the whole loaf or nothing.
 
Clinton much like Obama started out as an ideologue. But 1994 was a wake up call to him and he changed. Bill became a pragmatist. He worked with the Republican congress to get things done. He with the help of the Republican Congress actually balanced the budget. Kudo's to both.

in 2010 Obama didn't change or adjust to the fact the Republicans had won the House. I do not expect him to do so now after the senate has fallen into GOP hands. Clinton was willing to accept half a loaf and give the other half to the GOP if it meant moving his agenda forward. With Obama, he wants the whole loaf or nothing.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

And in response, Clinton will be remembered as a great POTUS by historians. Nothing more need be said, I guess.
 
That part right there, explain why that matters. It seems like a random milestone to me.

GDP is the entire economy of the United States, debt to GDP says that we have more debt today than the entire annual GDP. Never in modern history has that happened and questions the credit worthiness of the country. As much debt as is being blamed on Reagan and Bush is dwarfed by Obama and not much concern on the part of his supporters.
 
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

And in response, Clinton will be remembered as a great POTUS by historians. Nothing more need be said, I guess.

It's only been 14 years since Clinton left office, historians tell us it takes 20 years for one to rate a president accurately. Time will tell. But as of now he is ranked 20th. That barely places him in the top half. So time will tell. It is interesting to note when Eisenhower left office in 1960 he was ranked 22nd, today he is number 8. When Bill left office he was ranked 24th, so he has gain 4 places over time while more presidents have been added. Not an easy thing to do.

So time will tell.
 
Let me get this straight, if we are for example overspending by $100 last year, we're only overspending this year by $97.20?

And that's good somehow?
Reducing the deficit by roughly a trillion dollars over a 5 year period without inducing a double-dip recession is a good thing.
 
Now, of course, Obama supporters are celebrating $500 billion deficits as being great and a reflection of Obama's great fiscal conservatism. Only 6 years ago, a $407 billion deficit was considered terrible.
Not all deficits are created equal. Running a similar deficit to FY09 during different circumstances (full employment) would be wildly irresponsible, as would balancing the budget during the early 1930's or 40's. The economic circumstances of the time in question determine what and what is not considered terrible, not merely the fear of big numbers.
 
Obama is no Clinton. Clinton at least cared more about people liking him than changing america.

Please unplug from Fox "News" or whatever your right-wing source is. It will do you good.
 
Bush had higher than that.

I was simply referring to Bush's FY2009 Budget proposal that was submitted in Feb, 2008 to Congress. Between the increased needs of an escalating recession, Congressional budgeting, and changes in the FY2009 budget made by Obama the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion. But even at $407 billion deficit Bush was heavily criticized for having such a large deficit. Washington Post stated:
But even in the unlikely event that he were to get his way, the budget deficit would jump sharply, from $163 billion in 2007 to about $400 billion in 2008 and 2009 -- partly the result of the new economic stimulus plan. Such deficits would rival the record deficit of $412 billion of 2004

President's Spending Plan Would Rival 2004 Deficit

It seems odd to me that we are now saying that Obama's FY2015 budget proposed deficit of $564 billion is excellent when Bush's $407 billion deficit in the middle of a recession is considered high.
 
Not all deficits are created equal. Running a similar deficit to FY09 during different circumstances (full employment) would be wildly irresponsible, as would balancing the budget during the early 1930's or 40's. The economic circumstances of the time in question determine what and what is not considered terrible, not merely the fear of big numbers.

That was my point. A high deficit during the FY2009 period when we had the worst recession for 30 or more years is perhaps acceptable. The recession ended during FY2009. But here we are 6 years removed from the end of that recession, probably a year or two from the next recession and we have a proposed deficit of $564 billion in FY2015.
 
Reducing the deficit by roughly a trillion dollars over a 5 year period without inducing a double-dip recession is a good thing.

Reducing the deficit today to zero is a good thing.
 
Please unplug from Fox "News" or whatever your right-wing source is. It will do you good.

Please let us know which news service you find credible since it isn't Fox and then support your insinuation that Obama is like Clinton?
 
The GDP is quite relevant. The higher the GDP, the better able the government is to service the debt.

Oh, and the Congress has increased the debt over the past six years, not the president. Not that he stood in their way, you understand, but the comparison of deficits by who occupies the White House is largely irrelevant.

He didnt sign the spending bills? The debt limit increases? He isnt responsible for the Treasury? He not only did not stand in the way, he endorsed it.
 
That was my point. A high deficit during the FY2009 period when we had the worst recession for 30 or more years is perhaps acceptable. The recession ended during FY2009. But here we are 6 years removed from the end of that recession, probably a year or two from the next recession and we have a proposed deficit of $564 billion in FY2015.

And worse, the highest level of debt, in total, and per GDP, and deficit and debt are predicted to go up.
 
Reducing the deficit by roughly a trillion dollars over a 5 year period without inducing a double-dip recession is a good thing.

At what cost though? Another credit bubble later? 400bn a year in interest, in which a significant chunk is sent overseas. A significant increase in tax collections.
 
Reducing the deficit today to zero is a good thing.

You mean like it was when Clinton left office, just before Bush spent like a drunken sailor and cut taxes for the rich?
 
He didnt sign the spending bills? The debt limit increases? He isnt responsible for the Treasury? He not only did not stand in the way, he endorsed it.

I have no doubt that Obama was all for the deficit spending, just as other presidents have been in the past. He still could not initiate deficit spending, however. All he could do is not stand in the way.
 
You mean like it was when Clinton left office, just before Bush spent like a drunken sailor and cut taxes for the rich?

Please explain to me how Clinton had zero deficit and still added 1.4 trillion to the debt? You don't seem to really have a clue about the deficit and what makes up that number. Let me help you. Clinton took from intergovt. holdings which includes SS and Medicare leaving them with IOU's. Those IOU's are deficits and although he came close to eliminating the public deficit he still had an intergovernment holding deficit which makes up part of the 1.4 trillion he added to the debt. You are way too smart to be fooled this easily
 
I have no doubt that Obama was all for the deficit spending, just as other presidents have been in the past. He still could not initiate deficit spending, however. All he could do is not stand in the way.

Do you really believe that the Democrat Controlled Congress didn't give Obama everything he wanted?
 
Do you really believe that the Democrat Controlled Congress didn't give Obama everything he wanted?

If it did, and if the mixed Congress that followed did, then it was still the Congress who initiated deficit spending.

Who supported deficit spending under Reagan? Under Bush?
 
If it did, and if the mixed Congress that followed did, then it was still the Congress who initiated deficit spending.

Who supported deficit spending under Reagan? Under Bush?

Reagan got results with his deficit spending that resonated throughout the economy, not so with Obama. The 1.7 trillion that Reagan added to the debt was still less than 50% of GDP. Bush had about 70% debt to GDP, and Obama is well over 100%. Obama signed the Bush budget after adding to it and recycling TARP knowing that people would blame Bush. That is exactly what happened yet people ignore that it was Obama and the Democrats that set record deficits.
 
That was my point. A high deficit during the FY2009 period when we had the worst recession for 30 or more years is perhaps acceptable. The recession ended during FY2009. But here we are 6 years removed from the end of that recession, probably a year or two from the next recession and we have a proposed deficit of $564 billion in FY2015.

Expenditures in real terms have actually fallen after 2011, only to eclipse that mark by $6 billion for fiscal year 2014. Understand that automatic stabilizers are sensitive to poor economic conditions, as is the government's ability to generate income. Tax revenue has increased by roughly $1 trillion. Furthermore, deficit spending as a percentage of output has fallen from 11% of GDP to 2.8% of GDP; a drop of roughly 3/4. Since 1959, the average deficit as a % of GDP has been 3.7%; 3.2% if you factor out the past 6 years.

Why focus strictly on place value?

Oh, and a graph :)

fredgraph.png


The right depicts deficit spending as APOGDP.
 
Reagan got results with his deficit spending that resonated throughout the economy, not so with Obama. The 1.7 trillion that Reagan added to the debt was still less than 50% of GDP. Bush had about 70% debt to GDP, and Obama is well over 100%.

Way to miss on the description of the debt situation. When Reagan entered office, debt as a percentage of GDP went from 30.79% to 50.23%; a change of 20.44%. So far, debt under the current administration has gone from 77.36% to 101.77%; a change of 24.41%. Interestingly enough, DPGDP actualled declined in 2013. As output growth eclipses debt growth, this metric will continue to fall.

fredgraph.png


You are aware that the world has changed (quite a bit) since the 1980's?
 
Way to miss on the description of the debt situation. When Reagan entered office, debt as a percentage of GDP went from 30.79% to 50.23%; a change of 20.44%. So far, debt under the current administration has gone from 77.36% to 101.77%; a change of 24.41%. Interestingly enough, DPGDP actualled declined in 2013. As output growth eclipses debt growth, this metric will continue to fall.

fredgraph.png


You are aware that the world has changed (quite a bit) since the 1980's?

Love how liberals always point to percentage change especially when the base is so much higher. I prefer actual dollars because it is actual dollars that we pay debt service in or doesn't that matter to you? Think the debt service on 1.7 trillion is the same as the debt service on 7 trillion?
 
Back
Top Bottom