• 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!

Who was the last Republican President to reduce the deficit he received?

Who was the last Republican President to reduce the deficit he received?


  • Total voters
    16
A "meme" I saw on facebook this morning asked this question.
I was very surprised at the answer.

While it is debatable as to whether the credit goes to Congress or the Presidents, we know that the last 3 Democratic Presidents ALL decreased the annual deficit. These Presidents include:

Barrack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

I am curious as to how many people get it right as to who the last Republican President was that decreased the annual deficit.
The reason I think this is important is because public opinion of this is extremely backwards as compared to reality.

I knew the answer to the question was none of the above, but this sure leaves a deceptive impression.

Did the facebook "meme" happen to mention how this was measured? In terms of percentage? Real or nominal dollars? From what baseline? In particular with respect to President Barack Obama, is this a second term reduction?

If for instance one explodes the deficit due to the passage of a 800 bil dollar stimulas, and then subsequently is forced to cut the rate of growth by an unwise sequester deal, does that count as a reduction although the total debt continues to explode?
 
I knew the answer to the question was none of the above, but this sure leaves a deceptive impression.

Did the facebook "meme" happen to mention how this was measured? In terms of percentage? Real or nominal dollars? From what baseline? In particular with respect to President Barack Obama, is this a second term reduction?

If for instance one explodes the deficit due to the passage of a 800 bil dollar stimulas, and then subsequently is forced to cut the rate of growth by an unwise sequester deal, does that count as a reduction although the total debt continues to explode?

The "meme" only posed the question.
Upon researching the question you come up the the answers that have been discussed within the thread.
My research says the answer is Eisenhower. While discovering this I also learned the facts about Carter, Clinton, and Obama.
The thing that keeps throwing people off and that is used so effectively for political propaganda is that a President's first year is credited to the previous President, not the current one.
In any event, people have pointed out and essentially proven that the President has very little to do with the deficits, and that it is an issue having more to do with Congress. I agree with this and already agreed with this when making the initial thread.
The threads purpose is more to call attention to the fact that the entire notion of Democrats being spenders and Conservatives being conservative is a bunch of baloney.
Both parties continuously balloon spending, while the Democrats often reduce the deficit by way of taxing the wealthy enough to pay for it, while the Republicans do not pay for theirs.
 
You don't think they already contribute enough to the revenue?

I suggest you pay more first, before suggesting other people should.

Saw a picture today that reminded me of this debate.
Sometimes a picture is worth much more than a statement.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...51866897.95145.415088615217854&type=1&theater

Who gets to decide that these people make this much money?
The stock holders would vote no. The customers would vote no. The employees would vote no.
Just the excess of this 1 employee's pay could lift tens of thousands of McDonald's employees out of poverty.

And as far as your suggestion that I pay more... I already do. The effective rate of income tax that we pay is far greater than the effective rate of any of the 1%.
The 1% often pay far less than the rest of us on a percentage basis due to a wide variety of loopholes and classifying income as dividends as opposed to income.
 
Saw a picture today that reminded me of this debate.
Sometimes a picture is worth much more than a statement.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...51866897.95145.415088615217854&type=1&theater

Who gets to decide that these people make this much money?
The stock holders would vote no. The customers would vote no. The employees would vote no.
Just the excess of this 1 employee's pay could lift tens of thousands of McDonald's employees out of poverty.

And as far as your suggestion that I pay more... I already do. The effective rate of income tax that we pay is far greater than the effective rate of any of the 1%.
The 1% often pay far less than the rest of us on a percentage basis due to a wide variety of loopholes and classifying income as dividends as opposed to income.

 
IMO, its childish to blame any President for any deficit, more or less...
Extraordinary events create these situations, such as the oil embargo, WW1, WW2, wars in general, 9-11-11, fear, ignorance......
If we are so damned concerned about these deficits, why not make them illegal , same as the drugs are illegal.........lol...
 
IMO, its childish to blame any President for any deficit, more or less...
Extraordinary events create these situations, such as the oil embargo, WW1, WW2, wars in general, 9-11-11, fear, ignorance......
If we are so damned concerned about these deficits, why not make them illegal , same as the drugs are illegal.........lol...

Not true.

Presidents get elected because of the charisma/leadership ability. The words of a president does have impact.

Democrats come out the gate, promising more social largess.
 
Please forgive me for not reading the whole thread, so I might be being redundant.

What about Congress? Did they have any control over taxes or spending?

2009 was a Bush/Obama budget. The last real Bush budget was 2008 and the first real Obama budget was 2010. The 2008 deficit was a fraction of the 2010 deficit. It has come down since then, but it's still much higher than it was in 2008.
 
If we are so damned concerned about these deficits, why not make them illegal , same as the drugs are illegal.........lol...

Well, if we did that and they had the same track record as the "war on drugs", the deficits would be even WORSE!
 
Back
Top Bottom