• 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!

CBO: Economic Growth is projected at 1.9%. 3-4% is unrealistic.

MTAtech said:
I guess you really don't like to listen and learn. How, exactly, was Obama responsible for "borrowing over a trillion a year?" Spending was relatively flat -- and more so if compared to Bush. So, are you really holding Obama responsible for revenues dropping by $500 billion a year during the Great Recession?
Click to expand...

I question your Numbers, try using true data. Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs. Using your numbers Obama was down by 4 Trillion which is false and something you need to prove. But still using your number 10 - 4 = 6 trillion, where did that 6 trillion go?

The Treasury Department released this month figures showing that federal tax revenue exceeded $3 trillion in fiscal year 2014—the first time revenue surpassed that mark.

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses $3 Trillion for First Time Ever
 
Born Free said:
I question your Numbers, try using true data. Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs. Using your numbers Obama was down by 4 Trillion which is false and something you need to prove. But still using your number 10 - 4 = 6 trillion, where did that 6 trillion go?

The Treasury Department released this month figures showing that federal tax revenue exceeded $3 trillion in fiscal year 2014—the first time revenue surpassed that mark.

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses $3 Trillion for First Time Ever
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension is a virtue. There are two areas that affect deficits. One is revenue the other is spending.

What you actually said was that 'Obama responsible for "borrowing over a trillion a year."' Presidents don't borrow. What presidents do is propose a budget that is negotiated in Congress. Now, if you are blaming Obama for the 'trillion dollar deficit,' how did he do that before taking office? Obama wasn't even president when this article was published about the 2009 deficit:

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

But I get it, conservatives who tell everyone to take personal responsibility spend most of their efforts shifting blame to others.
 
MTAtech said:
Reading comprehension is a virtue. There are two areas that affect deficits. One is revenue the other is spending.What you actually said was that 'Obama responsible for "borrowing over a trillion a year."' Presidents don't borrow. What presidents do is propose a budget that is negotiated in Congress. Now, if you are blaming Obama for the 'trillion dollar deficit,' how did he do that before taking office? Obama wasn't even president when this article was published about the 2009 deficit:CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009But I get it, conservatives who tell everyone to take personal responsibility spend most of their efforts shifting blame to others.
Click to expand...
Yeah I get it, please post up all the years Obama was in office using actual numbers. Because you don't get it.Reading comprehension is a virtue. There are two areas that affect deficits. One is revenue the other is spending.
 
Winston said:
American conservatives will get to see first hand what austerity does. When results fail to match expectations, what do you want to bet they blame the Democrats despite the GOP operating the House, the Senate, and the WH?
Click to expand...

Weeell, now.... Actually, the last time we had a fair chance of balancing the budget was after Bush was voted out. He had set the tracks for surpluses. Sorrily Mr It's the Economy Stupid chose a bubble instead of healthy finances and set the stage for two decades of missallocation.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah I get it, please post up all the years Obama was in office using actual numbers. Because you don't get it.Reading comprehension is a virtue. There are two areas that affect deficits. One is revenue the other is spending.
Click to expand...
You asked for it.

usgs_line.php
...
usgs_line.php
...
usgs_line.php
 
joG said:
Weeell, now.... Actually, the last time we had a fair chance of balancing the budget was after Bush was voted out. He had set the tracks for surpluses. Sorrily Mr It's the Economy Stupid chose a bubble instead of healthy finances and set the stage for two decades of missallocation.
Click to expand...
We did have a surplus after Bush (#41). That was the last four years of Clinton. What stopped the surplus was Bush (#43) cutting taxes and increasing spending.
 
Born Free said:
Thanks,

The one chart you did not show was the increase in spending from the previous years. Obama tops them all.
Click to expand...

AYFKM??

You said ...

"Originally Posted by Born Free

Yeah I get it, please post up all the years Obama was in office using actual numbers. Because you don't get it. Reading comprehension is a virtue. "
Click to expand...

That goal post must get heavy carrying it around so much.
 
Born Free said:
Thanks,

The one chart you did not show was the increase in spending from the previous years. Obama tops them all.
Click to expand...

However, here you go.

fredgraph.png


By that metric, every president is the worst president ever, until the next one.

Hold a ruler between the peaks of the bars from 2000 to 2016. You'll see that with the exception of 2008-2012, the trend is pretty clear, and seems to point out that the trajectory of Obama's spending pattern began with Bush. Which kind of tells me that it's a government thing, and not a left/right thing.
 
Last edited:
Critter7r said:
However, here you go.

fredgraph.png


By that metric, every president is the worst president ever, until the next one.

Hold a ruler between the peaks of the bars from 2000 to 2016. You'll see that with the exception of 2008-2012, the trend is pretty clear, and seems to point out that the trajectory of Obama's spending pattern began with Bush. Which kind of tells me that it's a government thing, and not a left/right thing.
Click to expand...
What your chart clearly shows is that the narrative that Obama was a big spender is false. Spending under Bush 43 is a different story. Spending nearly doubled under Bush 43.
 
Critter7r said:
However, here you go.

fredgraph.png


By that metric, every president is the worst president ever, until the next one.

Hold a ruler between the peaks of the bars from 2000 to 2016. You'll see that with the exception of 2008-2012, the trend is pretty clear, and seems to point out that the trajectory of Obama's spending pattern began with Bush. Which kind of tells me that it's a government thing, and not a left/right thing.
Click to expand...

Typical excuse, he did it so can I. Real original. Geee Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs doubling the national debt, so according to you Trump can borrow 20 Trillion to match Obama. Obama did it so can Trump.
 
Born Free said:
Typical excuse, he did it so can I. Real original. Geee Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs doubling the national debt, so according to you Trump can borrow 20 Trillion to match Obama. Obama did it so can Trump.
Click to expand...
It's not about making excuses, it's about showing that your complaining about it is hypocritical.

And "he borrowed" that gigantic sum of money because tax revenues fell off a cliff due to the recession, the housing crash, and the tax cuts enacted under Bush. It's not as if he went on a spending spree.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Born Free said:
I question your Numbers, try using true data. Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs. Using your numbers Obama was down by 4 Trillion which is false and something you need to prove. But still using your number 10 - 4 = 6 trillion, where did that 6 trillion go?

The Treasury Department released this month figures showing that federal tax revenue exceeded $3 trillion in fiscal year 2014—the first time revenue surpassed that mark.

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses $3 Trillion for First Time Ever
Click to expand...

Outlay data is outlay data........Spending in FY 2009 ran just over 3.55 trillion (NOT including about 150 billion in ESAs for Iraqnam). FY 2017 spending was just short of 4.2 trillion.

That's the lowest growth rate of Federal spending since Eisenhower.....
 
Born Free said:
Typical excuse, he did it so can I. Real original. Geee Obama borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs doubling the national debt, so according to you Trump can borrow 20 Trillion to match Obama. Obama did it so can Trump.
Click to expand...

As long as Trump does so while keeping growth in Federal Spending below 3% per year......

You need to understand the implications of what the former Fed Chair is saying here...

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/columnists/2007/09/18/greenspan_is_clintons_unlikely_defender.html


In his autobiography, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Penguin Press), Greenspan, 81, makes clear that his patron Ronald Reagan, who appointed him to head the U.S. central bank board in 1987, was a reckless steward of the nation's finances, eclipsed in economic irresponsibility by current president George W. Bush.



Clinton was in a fiscal bind when he came to power in 1993, and the record deficits of Reagan and George H.W. Bush put him there. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back," Greenspan writes. "I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."


It's something called Structural Deficit.
 
Born Free said:
Christ it's only been 6 months, give him time. Moving from 1.5% to 4% is not going to happen overnight. Hell Obama had 8 yrs to boost the GDP and failed miserably and borrowed 10 trillion and still failed. In fact Obama's best GDP number did not come above Clinton's worst.
Click to expand...

There is no way America under Trump will average 3.5% GDP growth during his Presidency (unless he drastically changes his present policies). I guarantee you he will not even average 3%.

He has flip flopped on his Fed policy (which was a good one during the campaign) - and has instead embraced their economically stagnating programs. In fact, he is supporting almost everything Obama did (that was wrong) except for his incredibly STUPID protectionist ideas (which NO ONE with a properly working brain on Wall Street agrees with)...which he keeps hinting at.
His income tax 'reform' is just glorified trickle down economics...which is pathetic. He might help big business - but not the overall economy.

There is NO WAY - unless he does another 180 - that America under Trump will see 3.5% GDP growth for his Presidency...no chance AT ALL.

Anyone who says other wise, based on what he has proposed so far, simply does not understand macroeconomics.
 
DA60 said:
There is no way America under Trump will average 3.5% GDP growth during his Presidency (unless he drastically changes his present policies). I guarantee you he will not even average 3%.

He has flip flopped on his Fed policy (which was a good one during the campaign) - and has instead embraced their economically stagnating programs. In fact, he is supporting almost everything Obama did (that was wrong) except for his incredibly STUPID protectionist ideas (which NO ONE with a properly working brain on Wall Street agrees with)...which he keeps hinting at.
His income tax 'reform' is just glorified trickle down economics...which is pathetic. He might help big business - but not the overall economy.

There is NO WAY - unless he does another 180 - that America under Trump will see 3.5% GDP growth for his Presidency...no chance AT ALL.

Anyone who says other wise, based on what he has proposed so far, simply does not understand macroeconomics.
Click to expand...
There are fundamental reasons why growth won't be 3%+. The population is aging. Those baby boomers that were entering the workforce under Reagan are now retiring.
 
MTAtech said:
There are fundamental reasons why growth won't be 3%+. The population is aging. Those baby boomers that were entering the workforce under Reagan are now retiring.
Click to expand...

But Trump PROMISED!!
 
MTAtech said:
There are fundamental reasons why growth won't be 3%+. The population is aging. Those baby boomers that were entering the workforce under Reagan are now retiring.
Click to expand...

Three things:

1. Labor participation among people in their prime working age is very low.

2. We keep hearing don't blame free trade, people are being replaced by robots. Why isn't that translating into more productivity.

3. Many have not saved enough for retirement, yet the press tells us people are voluntarily retiring? Can't square that circle.
 
washunut said:
Three things:

1. Labor participation among people in their prime working age is very low.

2. We keep hearing don't blame free trade, people are being replaced by robots. Why isn't that translating into more productivity.

3. Many have not saved enough for retirement, yet the press tells us people are voluntarily retiring? Can't square that circle.
Click to expand...

1. Labor participation is what it is due to demographic factors. The baby boomers are retiring and the young are spending more time in school.
2. Productivity is increasing -- for the companies but the companies aren't sharing those gains with workers. They go to management and stock holders.
3. There are always people volunteering to retire. Two things: they may be retiring at an older age; and, the distribution isn't even throughout the income distribution. A minority have a bundle to comfortably retire. It's the majority that have insufficient private means to retire. The problem is that if you are a manual laborer you can only work so long and no longer.
 
MTAtech said:
1. Labor participation is what it is due to demographic factors. The baby boomers are retiring and the young are spending more time in school.
2. Productivity is increasing -- for the companies but the companies aren't sharing those gains with workers. They go to management and stock holders.
3. There are always people volunteering to retire. Two things: they may be retiring at an older age; and, the distribution isn't even throughout the income distribution. A minority have a bundle to comfortably retire. It's the majority that have insufficient private means to retire. The problem is that if you are a manual laborer you can only work so long and no longer.
Click to expand...

If you took the time to read my post you would have seen I was talking about PRIME working age people. If you understood GDP then you would know that higher productivity counts regardless of how profits are shared. Of course you can argue that if more went to workers they would be about to spend more. Higher productivity may not lead to more profits, depends if the competition is also doing it and prices get lowered. Thus low inflation. They vast majority of Americans are no longer doing heavy manual labor. Just another strawman that folks put out there while also saying that automation is doing away with less skilled workers.

Lets have a real debate about a serious issue facing our nation.
 
washunut said:
If you took the time to read my post you would have seen I was talking about PRIME working age people.
Click to expand...

What constitutes as very low?

fredgraph.png


If you understood GDP then you would know that higher productivity counts regardless of how profits are shared. Of course you can argue that if more went to workers they would be about to spend more. Higher productivity may not lead to more profits, depends if the competition is also doing it and prices get lowered. Thus low inflation. They vast majority of Americans are no longer doing heavy manual labor. Just another strawman that folks put out there while also saying that automation is doing away with less skilled workers.
Click to expand...

The gains from production are going to those who are not going to spend them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom