• 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!

White House predicts record $1.47 trillion deficit

The last President to balance the budget was Clinton.
If that's actually true -- and depending on how you look at the numbers, it isn't -- this only happened because the GOP-controlled forced him to do so.
The Clintonian budgets passed by a Dem-controlled congress forecats deficits for as far as they eye could see.
 
Nope. Only if you allow criminal accounting scams to hide expenses.

Clinton never had a balanced budget in front of him.

Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.


So in that case Obama is not responsible for the current deficit, congress is.
 
So in that case Obama is not responsible for the current deficit, congress is.

Yep, for the most part. However, the President can veto the budget bill. Congress then can try to override the veto. So both in the end are to blame with IMO, Congress having the larger share.
 
God forbid that the president actually uses the power of veto. It's not just Obama that has failed in his fidiciary responsibility to exercise veto over unconstitutional laws, but presidents going all the way back to Andrew Jackson.
 
Nope. Only if you allow criminal accounting scams to hide expenses.

Clinton never had a balanced budget in front of him.

Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.

Haha yeah criminal? Every single President has used the same accounting practices.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

Stop LYING.
 
Last edited:
We need to cut the deficit and inspire confidence in the stability and good credit of the United States government, as the best means of growing the economy, and the only practical way to cut the deficit is the cut the spending. Cutting the spending by ummm...1.5 trillion dollars would do the trick nicely.

That doesn't make sense. Cutting the deficit would reduce demand. Which would reduce taxes. Which would then reduce our capacity to pay down the massive debt as well as fund our $57+ Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Furthermore, cutting spending would stall if not stop the recovery resulting in more job losses and even less demand and revenue. You don't build stable credit on job losses and low tax revenue. But that's exactly what you are arguing for.

Austerity measures like the ones Germany is calling for will ensure low if any growth. And if you're against higher taxes, there's no way we can reduce our deficit and debt which will then lead to poor credit ratings.

Your argument does not gel with your goal.
 
Which, of course, will never happen. While I'm sure both sides can put a good face on saying we need to be fiscally responsible, both sides want to cut different things.

And neither will cut what really matters.

Without cuts and reform to military, medicare and Social Security we will never even come close to balancing the budget.

The GOP knows it cannot touch Medicare. And it won't touch the military. Social Security may be possible, but only after the recession is over and job increases are in the six digits monthly. And that isn't looking likely for years. And Democrats won't touch SS or Medicare. And once Gates is gone, there's no way they'll be able to cut military spending.

Effectively the biggest three items are effective untouchable.
 
That doesn't make sense. Cutting the deficit would reduce demand.

Not among those who want less deficit.

If there was less deficit availaible, and people who wanted to buy deficit would find it more expensive, and the increased price of deficit would drive down demand, leading to an escalating effect that would reduce the demand for deficit to a newer, and lower equlibrium than can then be reduced by another forced deficit reduction.

See how easy it is?

Since the economy is driven by consumer demand, not money stolen or borrewed by the government, reducing the deficit will grow the economy.

Money paid in interest is money wasted. The Obama deficits are so gigantic that soon have the national GDP will be consumed by paying the interest. And money wasted paying deficit interest is money not paying for "infrastructure", or, more importanly, not money the private citizen can use for his own private purposes.

And earning money to spend for their own private purposes is the reason normal people work.

Which would reduce taxes.

No.

Cutting spending reduces government outlays (by definition) which reduces the need for taxation (by definition).


Cutting tax rates, on the other hand, puts more money in the hands of people actually producing things with that money, (unlike government), and leads them to increase their income, which, by the way, increases the revenues the government realizes.

What is important is increasing government revenues, right? Hmmm?

Taxation isn't supposed to be about punishing people with more money than you do, right? Hmmmm?

So... top marginal income tax rates should be SLASHED.

That capital gains tax? Shouldn't exist. Capital is invested and moved to create more capital, which is used to finance businesses and create jobs. This economy isn't going to grow in any significant way until taxes are cut.

Massive spending isn't going to do it. The Messiah's first year and a half in office has proved this conclusively.

Which would then reduce our capacity to pay down the massive debt as well as fund our $57+ Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Furthermore, cutting spending would stall if not stop the recovery resulting in more job losses and even less demand and revenue. You don't build stable credit on job losses and low tax revenue. But that's exactly what you are arguing for.

No. You don't build a stable nation on job losses and punitive taxes. So the nation should stop wasting time and money on failed Keynesian policies that have never worked.

And the unfunded liabilities is more like 100+ trillion. If the government doesn't get out of the way and allow the private sector to grow again, that hundred trillion dollar debt is going to become a quarter quadrillion dollar debt, and it's going to be paid by the government running it's magical money machines in the basement of the Treasury.

Austerity measures like the ones Germany is calling for will ensure low if any growth. And if you're against higher taxes, there's no way we can reduce our deficit and debt which will then lead to poor credit ratings.

Your argument does not gel with your goal.

My goal is freedom.

Government programs are slavery.

My argument makes perfect economic sense and it's consistent with my goal.
 
Not among those who want less deficit.

If there was less deficit availaible, and people who wanted to buy deficit would find it more expensive, and the increased price of deficit would drive down demand, leading to an escalating effect that would reduce the demand for deficit to a newer, and lower equlibrium than can then be reduced by another forced deficit reduction.

That was complete and utter gibberish.

See how easy it is?

Perhaps you could formulate that into comprehensible English?

Since the economy is driven by consumer demand, not money stolen or borrewed by the government, reducing the deficit will grow the economy.

Except that no one is forcing anyone to buy US debt. Your premise is essentially that the government is stealing money to pay for spending. That is no where near reality. Reducing the deficit means cutting spending and increases taxes, both of which reduce activity in the economy.

Money paid in interest is money wasted. The Obama deficits are so gigantic that soon have the national GDP will be consumed by paying the interest. And money wasted paying deficit interest is money not paying for "infrastructure", or, more importanly, not money the private citizen can use for his own private purposes.

While that is true, it doesn't address either of what we wrote.

No.

Cutting spending reduces government outlays (by definition) which reduces the need for taxation (by definition).

Except you ignore how the money is spent. And the demand that generates. And effectively all basic economic principles.

Cutting tax rates, on the other hand, puts more money in the hands of people actually producing things with that money, (unlike government), and leads them to increase their income, which, by the way, increases the revenues the government realizes.

Except that you once again are basing your premise that the government is forcibly taking money to spend it. Furthermore, your argument is one of opportunity cost and you assume that the money will be spent rather then sit it bank accounts doing nothing which we did see for months. Your argument is based on what you want to be true rather then what we see in reality.

Massive spending isn't going to do it. The Messiah's first year and a half in office has proved this conclusively.

Neither will cutting spending or lowering taxes. You, like so many people here, operate under the idea that all recessions are identical. Hence why so many of you appear foolish. Cutting taxes as Obama did, did not work because cutting taxes doesn't work against this type of recession. Hint: you may want to learn why this recession is different before posting again.

No. You don't build a stable nation on job losses and punitive taxes. So the nation should stop wasting time and money on failed Keynesian policies that have never worked.

Come back when you have reasonable beliefs on taxes.

My goal is freedom.

Government programs are slavery.

My argument makes perfect economic sense and it's consistent with my goal.

And one less reasonable person to talk to.
 
Back
Top Bottom