• 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

Conservative said:
Oh, Good Lord, when did Obamacare go into effect? What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of support and loyalty in the face of economic disaster??
Click to expand...
Um, not in 2009.

DERP!
 
You can't take credit for a lower deficit and lower spending when you opposed that lower spending. Fortunately, Obama hasn't really tried. His supporters, on the other hand... I'd say take a cue from Paul Krugman. He believes current fiscal policy is a bad idea and he's stuck to that argument. When you're trying to give a Democratic President credit for doing the very things not only he, but most of his supporters, opposed, it doesn't really make him look as good as you think it might.
 
Kushinator said:
Can you explain this statement in with a little bit of detail.
Click to expand...


They posted a graph that didn't count the stimulus in Obama's spending spree.
 
francois60 said:
You can't take credit for a lower deficit and lower spending when you opposed that lower spending.
Click to expand...

Medicare spending, a huge (and formerly fast-growing) chunk of the federal budget just shrank on a per capita basis. We had at least two elections cycles (2010/12) where Obama was hammered repeatedly for his Medicare policies. Now that they're working, perhaps it's time for a little credit.
 
American said:
Reducing the deficit today to zero is a good thing.
Click to expand...
Why stop there? A 500 billion dollar surplus will do, no less. To discount the massive improvement in the fiscal health of the country in the past 5 years is nothing more than blind partisanship.
 
Greenbeard said:
Medicare spending, a huge (and formerly fast-growing) chunk of the federal budget just shrank on a per capita basis. We had at least two elections cycles (2010/12) where Obama was hammered repeatedly for his Medicare policies. Now that they're working, perhaps it's time for a little credit.
Click to expand...


He was hammered for far more than his " medicare " policies.

From his economic policies to his foreign policy to the disaster that is ObamaCare , Obama's legacy as one of the WORST Presidents in our Nation's history is practically in stone.

People don't like being lied too. They don't like being told they're too stupid to know what's best for them.

The video of ObamaCares key architect saying American voters were idiots and thats why ObamaCare was sold on a pack of lies has exposed a side of the left wing that Millions of Americans didn't know existed.

That these elitist look down on the average American.

Now I've known this for a loong time. Left wing policies have to be misrepresented publicly.

Or else no one would support them.
 
a351 said:
Why stop there? A 500 billion dollar surplus will do, no less. To discount the massive improvement in the fiscal health of the country in the past 5 years is nothing more than blind partisanship.
Click to expand...


Fiscal health ?

We've added 7 Trillion to our structural debt and our FED is monetizing our debt like its going out of style.

The economy after 6 years with record low interest rates is stagnant and not creating enough new jobs to keep up with population.

A good chunk of the new jobs are part time and Corporations would rather buy up their overvalued shares than risk their principle by investing it in the American economy.

Median income levels have flatlined and still haven't returned to 2007 levels.

Poverty rates are up and blue states are sitting on massive amounts of debt and unfunded liabilities.

Banks would rather park excess reserves at the FED earning paltry .25 percent than risk their principle in this economy.

And wait until the Business mandate of ObamaCare kicks in.

There's nothing to brag about. Not of your'e a Democrat.
 
Fenton said:
He was hammered for far more than his " medicare " policies.
Click to expand...

Sure, but since Medicare is the single biggest driver of long-term deficits, it's particularly relevant to the subject of this thread. And Obama was hammered mercilessly for taking action to turn it around. Now those efforts seem to be bearing quite a bit of fruit.

the-mystery-of-the-missing-1200-figure-1.png


Can't imagine why the budget picture is brightening.
 
Greenbeard said:
...And Obama was hammered mercilessly for taking action to turn it around. ...
Click to expand...

If Obama was pushing for lower taxes on the rich, and to eliminate welfare, and to cut wasteful spending, he would still be hammered by those on the far right.

It's not about his policies, it's about the "(D)" after his name and the color of his skin.
 
Greenbeard said:
Sure, but since Medicare is the single biggest driver of long-term deficits, it's particularly relevant to the subject of this thread. And Obama was hammered mercilessly for taking action to turn it around. Now those efforts seem to be bearing quite a bit of fruit.

the-mystery-of-the-missing-1200-figure-1.png


Can't imagine why the budget picture is brightening.
Click to expand...

It is also the most likely to benefit from "death panels" or making the (correct?) medical decision to acknowledge that a patient is terminallyy ill and seek to offer only care that improves the quality of life. This is a morally, and politically, tough call yet not that difficult strictly medically speaking. Many uncurable and barely treatable conditions, such as end stage cancer and Alzheimer's disease, offer no real hope of recovery regardless of how "aggressive" (and expensuve) the treatment given is.

Before I Die: Spending on Care

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...gdp-unprecedented-turn-39.html#post1063969481
 
a351 said:
Why stop there? A 500 billion dollar surplus will do, no less. To discount the massive improvement in the fiscal health of the country in the past 5 years is nothing more than blind partisanship.
Click to expand...

You're the partisan, standing up for Obama's failed control of spending. He promised to reduce spending, he didn't.
 
imagep said:
You mean like it was when Clinton left office, just before Bush spent like a drunken sailor and cut taxes for the rich?
Click to expand...

Actually the Clinton surplus was projected and never existed, but go ahead and believe that ****. And you're not bother me at all, I complained about Bush's spending plenty. Go look it up in the archives. :lamo
 
imagep said:
If Obama was pushing for lower taxes on the rich, and to eliminate welfare, and to cut wasteful spending, he would still be hammered by those on the far right.

It's not about his policies, it's about the "(D)" after his name and the color of his skin.
Click to expand...
What total bull s**t. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would be ashamed to make a statement like that.
 
Fletch said:
What total bull s**t. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would be ashamed to make a statement like that.
Click to expand...

I just callum like I seeum. I wouldn't have any integrity otherwise.

But in all fairness, I probably should have said "and/or" instead of just "and".
 
Tettsuo said:
Not really, no. If revenues are always climbing from president to president, then it's meaningless to quote the fact that revenues are higher under Obama.
Click to expand...

Unless, of course, someone foolishly makes the argument that a decreased deficit translates directly to reduced spending.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So is your basic argument that as a nation becomes larger both in population and the size of the economy, government should get smaller in nominal levels?
Click to expand...

No. My basic point is that if R - E = -1(D) (revenues minus expenditures give us a deficit), and D is getting smaller as a result of R becoming a larger portion of E, that is not an argument for how E is decreasing or even not expanding, as the OP illiterately suggested.
 
Kushinator said:
:lol:
Click to expand...

:) Hey, I don't make up the numbers. The CBO does.

It would be a good idea to actually understand the topics you attempt to discuss. To save time:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...eptember-payrolls-jump-49.html#post1063846910
Click to expand...

Annnd the CBO also accounts (optimistically, imo) for increased revenues, and it's not exactly impossible to project an assumed inflation out to put the figures in real dollars or an assumed growth rate to put them in portions of GDP, or both to help given an idea of their portion of revenues or the budget, which those of us who actually care about saving these programs (and the rest of our budget from them) do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom