• 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!

Deficit at Highest Level in 6 Years

Oborosen said:
Originally Posted by MTAtech The fact is that the deficit rose dramatically under Bush, in relatively good times. They also initially rose under Obama, but that was due to the economic collapse that made revenues dive. Once the economy started to mend, deficits dropped.
Click to expand...
So how did Obama add to it by nearly 44%?
Click to expand...

PLEASE! Take a few minutes, do the Google thing and learn, or at least TRY, to learn the difference between "deficit" and "debt".
 
MTAtech said:
In the words of the Lion King's Rafiki "The past can hurt." That doesn't make it any less true. The fact is that the deficit rose dramatically under Bush, in relatively good times. They also initially rose under Obama, but that was due to the economic collapse that made revenues dive. Once the economy started to mend, deficits dropped.
Oborosen said:
So how did Obama add to it by nearly 44%?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
As the phrase goes, "it's the economy, stupid." (Not that I'm calling you stupid.)

Two weeks before Obama took office, the CBO was already forecasting a $1.2 trillion 2009 deficit. So, clearly Obama had nothing to do with that, since he wasn't president yet.

Let's depart from right-wing talking points and recognize that rising debt was due to collapsing federal revenues in light of the great recession (e.g. the economy that Obama inherited.) In addition, automatic safety net programs, such as unemployment insurance, SNAP, etc., then become available to the unemployed. There was a $700 billion stimulus that expired in two years that added a small amount too.

So, the narrative that "Obama" added x amount to the debt is largely nonsense. It was a bad economy and your federal government responding to that bad economy.
 
Oborosen said:
So how did Obama add to it by nearly 44%?
Click to expand...

ah, the classic conservative "question" as if you're making a point. You know any clear statement about deficits is easily rebuked by actual facts so you have to ask "questions." So if you have a point, why not make it. This is a debate forum not a chatroom.
 
Vern said:
ah, the classic conservative "question" as if you're making a point. You know any clear statement about deficits is easily rebuked by actual facts so you have to ask "questions." So if you have a point, why not make it. This is a debate forum not a chatroom.
Click to expand...

Great.. a question answered with a deflection...

Par for the course again with you Vern.. not surprised.
 
Oborosen said:
Great.. a question answered with a deflection...

Par for the course again with you Vern.. not surprised.
Click to expand...

Instead of asking a question of which you presume the answer to make your point, why not just make your point and stop being coy?
 
Critter7r said:
Instead of asking a question of which you presume the answer to make your point, why not just make your point and stop being coy?
Click to expand...

I would, yes.
Though to be honest this is Vern I am conversing with and I know exactly what he is capable of. So if I want an actual response from him, I am going to be typing until my fingers are bloodied.

I am content to watch him squirm and wriggle until he actually manages to surprise me. At least posters like Haymarket, PeteEU and even Calamity are capable of having an intelligent conversation...

With Vern however... I have yet to breach that gate. One day maybe, but I doubt it will be today.
 
Oborosen said:
Great.. a question answered with a deflection...

Par for the course again with you Vern.. not surprised.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry my post seems like a deflection. Its just that President Obama didn't add 44% to the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits he inherited so who knows what you point was because it wasn't a point. It was a "question". so O, please explain where you got the "increased 44%" because bush's last budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/01-07-outlook.pdf

the CBO revised Bush's deficit from 300 billion to 1.2 billion because they estimated a 450 billion dollar collapse in revenue and an extra 450 billion in spending. Revenue actually collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion. let me do the math for you 300 billion + 400 billion +700 billion is 1.4 trillion. so just to be clear, how did President Obama add 44% to it?
 
Oborosen said:
I would, yes.
Though to be honest this is Vern I am conversing with and I know exactly what he is capable of. So if I want an actual response from him, I am going to be typing until my fingers are bloodied.

I am content to watch him squirm and wriggle until he actually manages to surprise me. At least posters like Haymarket, PeteEU and even Calamity are capable of having an intelligent conversation...

With Vern however... I have yet to breach that gate. One day maybe, but I doubt it will be today.
Click to expand...

Ok. Fair 'nuff I 'spose.

EDIT: Although, his response seems pretty lucid.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
I think Clinton\Gore had the right idea. The first step is to get the deficit down to below ZERO. They accomplished that (see previous graph). And then GW/Cheney came along.
Click to expand...
From FY 2001 to FY2009 Bush/Cheney had a total deficit of $3.4 trillion. For fiscal years 2010 thru 2012 Obama ran up $3.7 trillion (CBO figures). Obama was also President for 3/4s of FY2009 but I counted the entire year against Bush/Cheney.
 
Critter7r said:
Ok. Fair 'nuff I 'spose.

EDIT: Although, his response seems pretty lucid.
Click to expand...

to be fair I should have posted my second response first but I knew he wouldn't respond. I gave him just the excuse he was looking for to cut and run from actual facts.
 
Vern said:
I'm sorry my post seems like a deflection. Its just that President Obama didn't add 44% to the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits he inherited so who knows what you point was because it wasn't a point. It was a "question". so O, please explain where you got the "increased 44%" because bush's last budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/01-07-outlook.pdf
the CBO revised Bush's deficit from 300 billion to 1.2 billion because they estimated a 450 billion dollar collapse in revenue and an extra 450 billion in spending. Revenue actually collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion. let me do the math for you 300 billion + 400 billion +700 billion is 1.4 trillion. so just to be clear, how did President Obama add 44% to it?
Click to expand...


At least shop around a little before you settle on an answer next time. Because only a fool would choose not to hold him accountable for the things that happened under his own watch.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Just blaming Bush and trying to sweep the rest of it under the rug isn't doing you or the committee any favors here
To answer someone's previous question with a slight extrapolation on this one.. I am not yet surprised.
 
Critter7r said:
Ok. Fair 'nuff I 'spose.

EDIT: Although, his response seems pretty lucid.
Click to expand...

Which response? Because either dancing around the topic, deflecting, or even just citing something that doesn't really cover the issue is all I have ever really seen from him.

On a majority of instances he just repeats the same fallacy, or runs his mouth (so to speak).

Though like before I am most likely going to get bored with him before he can even up his game.
 
Oborosen said:
At least shop around a little before you settle on an answer next time. Because only a fool would choose not to hold him accountable for the things that happened under his own watch.
Click to expand...

O, you're wrong again. I give President Obama full credit for reducing the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name), preventing the Great Bush Depression, ending the Great Bush Recession, saving the auto industry, Obamacare and all the other things to give us a growing economy. what exactly do you think I should hold him accountable for? It's your narrative. Asking you to explain it doesn't is perfectly acceptable at a debate forum. Oh, you havent explained the "increased 44%" comment you made yet.

and fyi, I posted the CBO Budget Outlook. I dont have to "shop around".

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Just blaming Bush and trying to sweep the rest of it under the rug isn't doing you or the committee any favors here
To answer someone's previous question with a slight extrapolation on this one.. I am not yet surprised.
Click to expand...

Oh look, you found a link that mentions the made up "debt by inauguration day" metric. I notice you ignored the other two methods mentioned. But O, that still doesnt explain your "increased 44%" comment you made. And if possible, can you explain exactly how you ignore that Bush's last deficit shot up over a trillion before Obama even took office? if that's too much, just focus on the "increased 44%" and "accountable" comments you made. thanks in advance.
 
Oborosen said:
Which response? Because either dancing around the topic, deflecting, or even just citing something that doesn't really cover the issue is all I have ever really seen from him.
On a majority of instances he just repeats the same fallacy, or runs his mouth (so to speak).
Though like before I am most likely going to get bored with him before he can even up his game.
Click to expand...

er uh O, you can whine all day but asking you to explain your "increased 44%" comment and posting the CBO outlook is nothing of what you described. And I have to laugh that you literally do exactly what you're whining about. Watch me back that up. Here's me responding to your posts in a deficit related thread. You never backed up or explained any of the nonsense you posted. and you ignored the facts that shredded your obedient narrative. You simply repeated your narrative. Here's just the first two.

Vern said:
O, help me see what you see for you to think "both parties are good at being deficit hawks when not in power". I've never seen dems calling for spending cuts in the worst recession since the depression. I didn't see dems flip flop on stimulus spending when a republican was in the WH. I haven't seen democrats whipping their base into a frenzy that the national debt will destroy us all. I've never seen democrats purposely try to sabotage the economy driving deficits up. I haven't seen a steady stream of bills from democrats to balance the budget. I'm just not seeing the "deficit hawk" narrative you see. what is it that you see? sure the Dems are just more prudent when it comes to the budget. the fact that the deficits went down under President Clinton and President Obama proves that. I just don't see being better with money as a "deficit hawk". Are sure this isn't just some easy narrative to cling to so you can continue to vote republican?
Click to expand...

Vern said:
O, I asked you what you see that makes you think dems are “deficit hawks” when not in power. You provided no example. you simply reiterated your "both sides do it" narrative but I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Let me expand on one of the examples I mentioned above. Republicans and democrats voted for Bush’s 2008 stimulus. In 2009, republicans did not vote for President Obama’s stimulus. Only flaming lying hypocrisy explains that.

But I agree the system is broken but until you hold republicans accountable for being flaming lying hypocrites about deficits, nothing is going to change. And that starts with you acknowledging that deficits go up under republicans and down under democrats.

And fyi, Bush is responsible for the massive trillion dollar deficits President Obama inherited. Revenue collapsed 700 billion from pre-recession estimates in 2009 alone. You could have eliminated the entire discretionary budget and still not balanced the budget. But only republicans talk about balancing budgets and only when a democrat is in office.
Click to expand...

You did not respond in an honest and intelligent fashion in that thread so I expect the same in this thread.
 
Media_Truth said:
Actually, the deficit was reduced substantially by Obama.

View attachment 67230065

See the big dip after 2008. Had it not been for the Bush/Cheney wars, it would have probably been reduced further.
Click to expand...

How did HE do it? Elaborate. And wouldnt it be as fair to say he increased the deficit substantially? See the spilke in 2009?
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
They're at it again. The supposedly fiscally responsible Party is balooning the deficit again. The same old sorry story. Trumps doing it. GW did it. Reagan did it. Cut taxes for billionaires and CEOs, and put the burden on the every day taxpayer.

US monthly budget deficit largest in 6 years - Mar. 12, 2018

New Treasury Department numbers show that the US government racked up a $215 billion deficit in February -- the largest monthly deficit in six years.
Click to expand...

One month is meaningless. Revenue is UP for the fiscal year. The every day tax payer is paying less taxes. As is always the problem, SPENDING is UP more, mainly due to out of control social programs and interest on the debt that both parties have been racking up.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53638

The largest increases in outlays were in the following categories:

Outlays for net interest on the public debt increased by $15 billion (or 13 percent), largely because of differences in the rate of inflation. To account for inflation, the Treasury Department adjusts the principal of its inflation-protected securities each month by using the change in the consumer price index for all urban consumers that was recorded two months earlier. That adjustment was $6 billion in the first five months of fiscal year 2017 but nearly $15 billion early in the current fiscal year.
Social Security benefits rose by $15 billion (or 4 percent) because of increases both in the number of beneficiaries and in the average benefit payment.
Outlays recorded for the Department of Homeland Security, which are included in the “Other” category below, increased by $14 billion (or 65 percent), largely because of activities related to disaster relief.
Spending for military programs of the Department of Defense rose by $12 billion (or 5 percent).
Click to expand...
 
jonny5 said:
How did HE do it? Elaborate. And wouldnt it be as fair to say he increased the deficit substantially? See the spilke in 2009?
Click to expand...
He did it, basically, by having his party lose control of the House in 2010.
 
Conservative said:
Please show me the Treasury data that supports your claim that Clinton/Gore even had any surplus which would mean less than zero deficit or show me any year that they indeed had a balanced budget?

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/d...tYear=2017&endMonth=03&endDay=20&endYear=2018
Click to expand...

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0900.pdf

There indeed was a surplus on paper in FY2000. However, some of that is due to payroll tax surplus which gets loaned to general revenue and spent, and is technically intragovt debt.
 
jonny5 said:
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0900.pdf

There indeed was a surplus on paper in FY2000. However, some of that is due to payroll tax surplus which gets loaned to general revenue and spent, and is technically intragovt debt.
Click to expand...

Which is what on the left do not seem to understand, TOTAL DEBT not just public debt. Using SS and Medicare funds to show a lower deficit or even a surplus still leaves Inter-Government Holdings show and that is why Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Interesting isn't it how 1.4 trillion is trumpeted by the left but Reagan's 1.7 trillion was a disaster. Too many leftists don't understand Treasury or even basic economics and civics.
 
Conservative said:
Which is what on the left do not seem to understand, TOTAL DEBT not just public debt. Using SS and Medicare funds to show a lower deficit or even a surplus still leaves Inter-Government Holdings show and that is why Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Interesting isn't it how 1.4 trillion is trumpeted by the left but Reagan's 1.7 trillion was a disaster. Too many leftists don't understand Treasury or even basic economics and civics.
Click to expand...

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER


The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.
Click to expand...

 
MTAtech said:
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

FULL ANSWER
Click to expand...

You are truly a partisan hack with the inability to understand how wrong you are. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt during his 8 years in office. That is reality and comes from BOTH BUDGET(Public Debt) AND INTER-GOVERNMENT Holdings. How does someone have a budget surplus and add 1.4 trillion to the debt? I am getting very tired of kicking your ass but still having fun at it
 
Conservative said:
You are truly a partisan hack with the inability to understand how wrong you are. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt during his 8 years in office. That is reality and comes from BOTH BUDGET(Public Debt) AND INTER-GOVERNMENT Holdings. How does someone have a budget surplus and add 1.4 trillion to the debt? I am getting very tired of kicking your ass but still having fun at it
Click to expand...
Yes, I am a partisan hack -- partisan to facts and evidence. I provided a link that explains concisely what the surplus under Clinton consisted. So, you don't want to believe facts and I'M the partisan hack? Got it.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, I am a partisan hack -- partisan to facts and evidence. I provided a link that explains concisely what the surplus under Clinton consisted. So, you don't want to believe facts and I'M the partisan hack? Got it.
Click to expand...
Your so-called facts lack context as we pay debt service on total debt Clinton had a deficit in the Years you quoted in inter government Holdings which added to the debt and after 8 years it was 1.4 trillion dollars. That is reality so you know what you can do with your fax

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom