• 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

You're the partisan, standing up for Obama's failed control of spending. He promised to reduce spending, he didn't.
Nope, he promised to reduce the deficit. For what it's worth, spending has declined since FY11 as well.
 
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
Wrong again. You're on quite a roll here aren't you?

fredgraph.png
 
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.

umm, the OP doesn't suggest that spending has decreased
 
Nope, he promised to reduce the deficit. For what it's worth, spending has declined since FY11 as well.

Did he tell us that he would reduce the deficits from record levels and still have record deficits? Doubt most people considered that reality that we would have years of trillion dollar deficits and then trumpet reducing them to 400 Plus billion
 
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.

Thats surprisingly shallow commentary from the likes of you.

Calling us racist ? Seriously ?
 
Wrong again. You're on quite a roll here aren't you?

fredgraph.png

LOL, here we go again, please explain to me how Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt with surpluses? Another individual who doesn't understand that there are two parts to the deficit thus you only post the part you like, not the stealing from SS and Medicare leaving a deficit in those categories to make the public debt categories look better.

Here is what liberals want to ignore

debt by President

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
Clinton 1.4 trillion
GW BUsh 4.9 trillion
Obama 7.3 trillion

Clinton tends to get a pass because of claims he balanced the budget when the reality is he came close but due to taking SS and Medicare funds

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |

Treasury data is available as well to make this point.
 
Thats surprisingly shallow commentary from the likes of you.

Calling us racist ? Seriously ?

That is all they can do when they cannot post actual data to support their position. Big govt. liberals care more about getting revenue than allowing all taxpayers to keep more of what they earn. They will always ignore official data to continue with their talking points for to actually get the facts would destroy their opinions and ideology
 
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.

And while congress can initiate, they can not make it happen without the President approving (absent the rare overriding a veto). So blame them both.
 
Nope, he promised to reduce the deficit. For what it's worth, spending has declined since FY11 as well.

Barely, and it went up in FY2014, 50bn more than in 2013, and will be much higher in 2015. They basically pre spent normal spending growth in 2009.

Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2014 | Congressional Budget Office

Outlays
Overall, the government's net outlays increased by 1.4 percent from 2013 to 2014. If not for prepayments of deposit insurance premiums that otherwise would have been paid in 2013, the outlay increase would have been slightly greater. (The year-over-year changes discussed below reflect adjustments for those prepayments.) Outlays increased for several major categories but declined for others.
 
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 can always tell the weakness of ones position when they have to tout CBO projections.
 
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.

The stock market is up, unemployment is down, the housing market is coming back, how can you say that Obama didn't get results?
 
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]

Since the GDP numbers normally touted include gov't spending, the increase in GDP is FAR less than it actually is. Since almost every dollar spent by the gov't is taken out of the economy, all gov't spending is a negative. It's like paying yourself and claiming that you got a raise at work. So the denominator in your formula gets artificially inflated, resulting in the % looking smaller than it really is.
 
The stock market is up, unemployment is down, the housing market is coming back, how can you say that Obama didn't get results?

I know this is hard for you to understand but if the majority don't feel the results they didn't happen. A record stock market doesn't resonate with the 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers. The unemployment drop doesn't matter to the discouraged workers and the under employed(people who want full time jobs but cannot get it. The Housing market affects less than half the population. The issue is jobs and economic growth. On both counts Obama fails
 
The stock market is up, unemployment is down, the housing market is coming back, how can you say that Obama didn't get results?

They weren't the same results of the 1980's, so they are actually failures! :lol:
 
They weren't the same results of the 1980's, so they are actually failures! :lol:

Did you get that out of your text book? Have you ever really spent any time actually talking to real people or do you just spend all your time with book smart street stupid people?
 
Did you get that out of your text book? Have you ever really spent any time actually talking to real people or do you just spend all your time with book smart street stupid people?

You know you're beat when all you have left are personal attacks!
 
I know this is hard for you to understand but if the majority don't feel the results they didn't happen. A record stock market doesn't resonate with the 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers. The unemployment drop doesn't matter to the discouraged workers and the under employed(people who want full time jobs but cannot get it. The Housing market affects less than half the population. The issue is jobs and economic growth. On both counts Obama fails

Now, you're talking like a left winger. Sure, most of the recovery has affected the wealthiest half of the country. The poor are being left behind. Now, as a conservative, what do you think should be done about it?
 
You know you're beat when all you have left are personal attacks!

No, with every post of yours I see I realize how fortunate I was to get a degree and actually get out in the real world dealing with real people, hiring, firing, and yes promoting good hard working people rather than having my nose buried in a textbook. I guess getting beat is all in the definition. I will put my resume and results up against yours any day
 
Now, you're talking like a left winger. Sure, most of the recovery has affected the wealthiest half of the country. The poor are being left behind. Now, as a conservative, what do you think should be done about it?

What should be done about it is get rid of liberal feel good policies that create dependence not successful growth. Tough love is going to be needed and not sure that the public is ready for that. Return ALL social programs except the ones already forced on the American people(SS and Medicare) to the states where they belong. Return the Federal Govt. to its original intent, to defend and protect this country. Social programs should all be at the state and local level.
 
The stock market is up, unemployment is down, the housing market is coming back, how can you say that Obama didn't get results?

The jobs being created are low paying menial jobs and often part time.

Wages are stagnant and median household incomes are down.

Welfare claims are at record levels.

Macroeconomic indicators point to everything being peachy.

The microeconomics of middle and lower class Americans feeding their family are the worst they've been in nearly 75 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom