• 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!

Budget Deficit on Path to Surpass $1 Trillion Under Trump

Anthony60 said:
Oh, gee, that explains it! Why didn't I think of that? So smart.
Click to expand...

What bit of substance was offered in this post :

Anthony60 said:
Nice work of fiction there, LOL! I like the part in the story where Obama spends 8 years "repairing" (as in doing nothing to repair it) the economy. 8 years, and you have no problem with that! Ha, ha. Gee, maybe he only needed another 8 years to get it done, or a decade maybe? Hey, take all the time you need, meanwhile we suffer. Good riddance!
Click to expand...

It's all opinions and drivel.
 
Anthony60 said:
I like how you keep molding things to fit your argument. Now, your accusations of "cut and run" don't work, so you mold it into not going anywhere, so it's "cut and stay" now. Reminds me of "global warming". Didn't fit anymore, so now it's "climate change", which is constantly happening so it can never be wrong.

Oh, and I'll let you in on a little secret. People don't usually continue to debate when it's like talking to a wall, getting the same thing back, over and over. It's not "cut and run", it's "sick and tired", or just a plain old waste of time.
Click to expand...

Anthony, this is now the fourth request for you to explain how I "mislead and distort" the truth. I know its pointless to ask a conservative to explain anything but this is a debate forum What phrase would you use when someone refuses to answer in an honest and intelligent fashion?
 
dcsports said:
That's some revisionist history. The actions which stabilized the economy were put in place before Obama came into office. He then did things that limited growth and extended the recovery.... in addition to massive spending increases. The economy recovered slowly in spite of Obama. The only reason the deficit started coming down was that republicans acted as an anchor on additional spending increases.
Click to expand...

sorry DC, "massive spending increases" is just a false. You really are about 10 years behind on the facts. Here's one of many posts on the subject.

Vern said:
that's pretty funny Ludin. President Obama inherited the trillion dollar Bush Deficits. Look, the CBO revised Bush's 300 billion dollar to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over. From the 2009 Budget outlook.

View attachment 67163084

Just so you know, the CBO estimated costs up 450 billion and revenue down 450 billion. Add that to the original 300 billion deficit bush called for and presto, 1.2 trillion. Can you believe that revenue actually crashed another 250 below the Jan estimate. So revenue crashed 700 billion from the initial estimate because of the Great Bush recession. Again, that was before President Obama took over. So spending went up 400 billion (below the Jan 2009 est) and revenue crashed 700 billion. See how revenue loss was the biggest cause of the first of the trillion dollar Bush Deficits.

Now ludin, I know how reality is always a shock to conservatives. when you feel up to it, I'll explain sequestration to you.
Click to expand...

so President Obama was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits. that is just a fact. So the next time you post that, you will be lying.
 
MTAtech said:
[h=1]Budget Deficit on Path to Surpass $1 Trillion Under Trump[/h]
Just like us stupid liberals said would happen when the GOP passed its tax-cut in Dec 2017, is happening. If you remember, the proponents of that tax-cut said they would pay for themselves. Well, they aren't, just as tax-cut detractors said.
Click to expand...

As the elections draw closer I'm positive trump will try to draw the dems as the party who is fiscally out of control and just want to tax and spend. It's the usual four year argument over and over.
 
bongsaway said:
As the elections draw closer I'm positive trump will try to draw the dems as the party who is fiscally out of control and just want to tax and spend. It's the usual four year argument over and over.
Click to expand...
That -- and paint them as "radical Socialists" who want to turn the country into Venezuela -- blurring Soviet-style central planning or Venezuela-style nationalization of industry with free college tuition. And no, this isn’t a caricature: Read the strange, smarmy report on socialism that Trump’s economists released a year ago; that’s pretty much how its argument goes.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Obama inherited an economic calamity, which he spent 8 years repairing while the Republicans were trying to sabotage him. At the end of his term, Obama reduced the deficit by 50% and handed Trump a pristine economy. Trump, like every modern Republican -- squandered the economy he inherited, blew a whole through the deficit the size of Texas, and reduced America's ability to recover from a recession almost entirely. There's no spending ammo to left, Trump gave it away to his friends.

The moral of the story is that Democrats spend most of their presidency repairing the mess they inherit, get blamed for not repairing it fast enough, then a Republican gets elected who sets the economy back another 8 years.

Rince and repeat.

Anyone who votes for a Republican out of fiscal responsibility is either a very slow learner, or is in on the grift.
Click to expand...

It’s true. Clinton brought deficit spending under control and balanced the budget after the absolutely enormous debt increase during Reagan/Bush era before turning things over to Bush. And, we know what Bush did - total f***up.

Republicans complain about tax and spend. It’s a half lie. Republicans cut taxes but they spend just as much or more, claiming that their tax cuts stimulate growth and will result in more tax revenue down the line. It’s appealing, but just isn’t true.
 
Kushinator said:
Why would you try to reduce the spending without full employment? You failed to acknowledge what drove deficit reduction: revenue growth.


I don't care to address the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

Not talking even talking about reducing spending, but controlling the increases. Federal spending made massive jumps under Obama and a Democrat controlled congress.
 
Vern said:
sorry DC, "massive spending increases" is just a false. You really are about 10 years behind on the facts. Here's one of many posts on the subject.



so President Obama was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits. that is just a fact. So the next time you post that, you will be lying.
Click to expand...

Again, the deficit was more for a couple of years due to decreased revenue (recession) and one time spending (stimulus/TARP). It's the massive spending increases tacked on by democrats that drove much of the deficits that followed.
 
dcsports said:
lol -- that's silly. Sorry.
Click to expand...

That's right. Runaway.

If it were proveable, I'd put money on the fact you didnt read it or possibly even click on the link.

:lol:
 
dcsports said:
Not talking even talking about reducing spending, but controlling the increases.
Click to expand...

Spending was already set to plateau as automatic stabilizers phased out with growth in employment. Revenue growth is what drove deficit reduction, and anyone who wants to claim spending restriction was a success is a hypocrite given the past two years of GOP control of the purse strings. It's obvious you're ashamed of your party's failure.

Federal spending made massive jumps under Obama and a Democrat controlled congress.
Click to expand...

During a once in a century financial crisis.
 
poweRob said:
That's right. Runaway.

If it were proveable, I'd put money on the fact you didnt read it or possibly even click on the link.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Nope. Not running away. It's a partisan piece not even worth responding to.
 
Kushinator said:
Spending was already set to plateau as automatic stabilizers phased out with growth in employment. Revenue growth is what drove deficit reduction, and anyone who wants to claim spending restriction was a success is a hypocrite given the past two years of GOP control of the purse strings. It's obvious you're ashamed of your party's failure.



During a once in a century financial crisis.
Click to expand...

Again - yes - revenue growth is what slowly drove deficit reduction. Yes. But it also took Republican 'obstruction' to prevent additional spending increases. That's a very slow way to do it.

And while the financial crisis was significant, it really was't as drastic as many like to claim in defense of Obama. The liquidity crisis was the most dangerous part - and it was addressed before Obama took office. But we're talking deficit spending by democrats - dramatic increases under Obama and Pelosi. Not one-time spending (a loan paid back) from TARP, or even the 'stimulus package'. Not temporary increases in welfare and unemployment that is later reduced. But long term government expansion that we still haven't grown out of.
 
dcsports said:
But it also took Republican 'obstruction' to prevent additional spending increases.
Click to expand...

I notice you've failed to provide any data. Are you sure you want to go down this realm, because i'm more than willing to provide you a crash course in government finance.

Can you produce any CBO baseline projections prior to and following the sequestration? You would need to have data for 2012, 2013, 2014 and any other longer term date of your choice. I don't have to produce these things because i'm already looking at them.

So... are you able to retrieve the necessary data?

And while the financial crisis was significant, it really was't as drastic as many like to claim in defense of Obama.
Click to expand...

It was the largest instance of wealth loss in the history of the world. We had to embark on a zero-interest-rate-policy (ZIRP) for 7 years. The Fed had built up a $4+ trillion balance sheet. Over $15 trillion in sovereign debt is held at negative interest.

Do i need to go on?

The liquidity crisis was the most dangerous part - and it was addressed before Obama took office.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The liquidity issue was addressed via monetary policy via the Federal Reserve. Quantitative easing is what provided the backbone in financial liquidity. This policy approach was embarked on by nearly every single developed central bank on the planet.

But we're talking deficit spending by democrats - dramatic increases under Obama and Pelosi. Not one-time spending (a loan paid back) from TARP, or even the 'stimulus package'. Not temporary increases in welfare and unemployment that is later reduced. But long term government expansion that we still haven't grown out of.
Click to expand...

Why have you failed to produce government expenditure data as a percentage of GDP?
 
dcsports said:
Nope. Not running away. It's a partisan piece not even worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Yup.. running away from something I knew you didnt even read. It was The Economist. Not Huffington Post so therefore... You are clearly running away. And thks after you specifically asked someone to bring it to you. :lol:
 
Vern said:
Anthony, this is now the fourth request for you to explain how I "mislead and distort" the truth. I know its pointless to ask a conservative to explain anything but this is a debate forum What phrase would you use when someone refuses to answer in an honest and intelligent fashion?
Click to expand...

Your response to DC right below your post I am responding to now is a great example of you (and the left) trying to mislead. So, there you go, you provided it, served up like a meatball. Of course, now you'll play dumb and say you don't even know what I mean, which is all part of it. And, before you ask, it's been explained already.
 
Anthony60 said:
Can you imagine! Opinions on a debate board (you supply the drivel)!
Click to expand...

You confuse your uninformed partisan opinions for fact, which is what happened in post #363.
 
Kushinator said:
You confuse your uninformed partisan opinions for fact, which is what happened in post #363.
Click to expand...

Right, like you know what you’re talking about. I know you libs like the back of my hand.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap
 
poweRob said:
Yup.. running away from something I knew you didnt even read. It was The Economist. Not Huffington Post so therefore... You are clearly running away. And thks after you specifically asked someone to bring it to you. :lol:
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. I actually did read it. Not the The Economist - the Economic Policy Institute - a Washington Based liberal think tank who's founder served on the Obama transition team.

In case you forgot the link...

The congressional GOP has smothered a more rapid economic recovery | Economic Policy Institute
 
dcsports said:
Wrong on all counts. I actually did read it. Not the The Economist - the Economic Policy Institute - a Washington Based liberal think tank who's founder served on the Obama transition team.

In case you forgot the link...

The congressional GOP has smothered a more rapid economic recovery | Economic Policy Institute
Click to expand...

Yup i confused it with the Economist that i had been reading.

You still didnt read it. You dismissed it first then decided to go to the link after razzing. And then researched the site and ignored the article. Am i wrong on that ?
 
dcsports said:
Again, the deficit was more for a couple of years due to decreased revenue (recession) and one time spending (stimulus/TARP). It's the massive spending increases tacked on by democrats that drove much of the deficits that followed.
Click to expand...

sorry Dc, no “massive spending increases” were tacked on. Spending under President Obama was quite constrained. Spending shot up under Bush because spending automatically shoots up during recessions. And revenue goes down during recessions. So in the case of the worst recession since the depression, revenue went down a lot. Revenue collapse accounted for over half of Bush’s 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. (I showed you that already).

President Obama’s spending was literally flat in his first 5 budgets. It did take off a little bit in 2014. Oh that’s right, republicans failed to make President Obama a one termer so of course spending starting going up. And once republicans took over the senate to control all of congress, the deficit started going back up. Look how the deficits starts shooting up once republicans control congress.

YEAR___Revnue______Spending___ deficit
2009__ 2,104,989__ 3,517,677__ -1,412,688__ Bush's last budget
2010__ 2,162,706__ 3,457,079__ -1,294,373__ Dem congress
2011__ 2,303,466__ 3,603,065__ -1,299,599__ Dem congress
2012__ 2,449,990__ 3,526,563__ -1,076,573__ Republican House
2013__ 2,775,106__ 3,454,881__ -679,775__ Republican House
2014__ 3,021,491__ 3,506,284__ -484,793__ Republican House
2015__ 3,249,887__ 3,691,847__ -441,960__ Republican House
2016__ 3,267,961__ 3,852,612__ -584,651__ Republican congress
2017__ 3,316,182__ 3,981,628__ -665,446__ Republican congress
2018__ 3,329,904__ 4,109,042__ -779,138__ Republican congress and President

Try to post something that reflects the actual numbers. anyhoo, I cant wait to add the 2019 actuals to this chart
 
poweRob said:
Yup i confused it with the Economist that i had been reading.

You still didnt read it. You dismissed it first then decided to go to the link after razzing. And then researched the site and ignored the article. Am i wrong on that ?
Click to expand...

Yes. You are wrong. I read it after you initially posted it - at least the first half and skimmed the rest. It's obviously not written from an objective perspective, and contains numerous misleading statements and 'talking points'. I did do some research of the site after your 'razzing' to confirm what I suspected from reading it.

Thanks!
 
Vern said:
sorry Dc, no “massive spending increases” were tacked on. Spending under President Obama was quite constrained. Spending shot up under Bush because spending automatically shoots up during recessions. And revenue goes down during recessions. So in the case of the worst recession since the depression, revenue went down a lot. Revenue collapse accounted for over half of Bush’s 1.4 trillion dollar budget deficit. (I showed you that already).

President Obama’s spending was literally flat in his first 5 budgets. It did take off a little bit in 2014. Oh that’s right, republicans failed to make President Obama a one termer so of course spending starting going up. And once republicans took over the senate to control all of congress, the deficit started going back up. Look how the deficits starts shooting up once republicans control congress.

YEAR___Revnue______Spending___ deficit
2009__ 2,104,989__ 3,517,677__ -1,412,688__ Bush's last budget
2010__ 2,162,706__ 3,457,079__ -1,294,373__ Dem congress
2011__ 2,303,466__ 3,603,065__ -1,299,599__ Dem congress
2012__ 2,449,990__ 3,526,563__ -1,076,573__ Republican House
2013__ 2,775,106__ 3,454,881__ -679,775__ Republican House
2014__ 3,021,491__ 3,506,284__ -484,793__ Republican House
2015__ 3,249,887__ 3,691,847__ -441,960__ Republican House
2016__ 3,267,961__ 3,852,612__ -584,651__ Republican congress
2017__ 3,316,182__ 3,981,628__ -665,446__ Republican congress
2018__ 3,329,904__ 4,109,042__ -779,138__ Republican congress and President

Try to post something that reflects the actual numbers. anyhoo, I cant wait to add the 2019 actuals to this chart
Click to expand...

You missed the 2008 budget, with 2.9T, as well as the democrat congress beside the 2009 budget. Yes, in 2009, a good chunk of the increase was due to stimulus related spending, but if you'll notice, it never came down. I'd call $600B (21%) increase pretty singificant, wouldn't you?
 
dcsports said:
Yes. You are wrong. I read it after you initially posted it - at least the first half and skimmed the rest. It's obviously not written from an objective perspective, and contains numerous misleading statements and 'talking points'. I did do some research of the site after your 'razzing' to confirm what I suspected from reading it.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

*Cough* bull**** *cough*

You never addressed anything in it. If you read it, you would've commented on any of the content. You didnt and haven't to any specifics. Just general dismissals. Go try you con on someone else. It ain't working here. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom