• 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
What do you have issues with specifically...
What I said earlier:

"Clearly you're not familiar with the present Republican position on the sequester.

The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea."


Strangely, that makes sense to Republicans.
 
I will concede that 2008 was handed to Obama. However, overall he has not decreased it. It is not lower now than when he took office. It's lower now than it was a year ago.

In turn, I also do not disagree with your statement.
But your still missing the point in that the 2009 deficit (Obama's first year) was created mostly under Bush during the year of 2008. This 2009 deficit is what was handed to Obama.
The same applies for Bush's first year, it belonged to Clinton.
As an accountant you should be aware that this is the most common way and the only reasonable way to assign credit or blame.
 
What I said earlier:

"Clearly you're not familiar with the present Republican position on the sequester.

The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea."


Strangely, that makes sense to Republicans.

Did you really post this?
 
Yes, I saw that, but why?
Because someone else credited a lower deficit spending this year to the sequester, and did so in response to someone who seems to be taking the Republican position.

I get the feeling you're trying to make another point, one not asking for a literal response, but I'm going to have you just come out and say it anyways. :)
 
Because someone else credited a lower deficit spending this year to the sequester, and did so in response to someone who seems to be taking the Republican position.

I get the feeling you're trying to make another point, one not asking for a literal response, but I'm going to have you just come out and say it anyways. :)

No, I had no ulterior motives, but in response to the sequester notion of reducing the deficit, I would call BS. The deficit has been falling every year since there has been no budget, and this is what I would credit for the reduction...
 
No, I had no ulterior motives, but in response to the sequester notion of reducing the deficit, I would call BS. The deficit has been falling every year since there has been no budget, and this is what I would credit for the reduction...
OH, ok. :lol:

I thought you were going to take issue with my perception of the Republican stance on the sequester. That's kind of funny, and really kind of telling about political debating. Or at least how I perceive it.

And I agree, I don't think the sequester gets a significant portion of credit for falling deficits. I think it plays a part, just like many other parts, not the least of which is the increase in tax revenue.
 
No, I had no ulterior motives, but in response to the sequester notion of reducing the deficit, I would call BS. The deficit has been falling every year since there has been no budget, and this is what I would credit for the reduction...

A pretty good point - however, I do think that they're related. Sequestration was actually a great move, but the fallback is that it allowed Democrats to make a political play and point fingers.

This is why when liberals call Republicans the "party of no", they see it as an insult whereas I see it as a compliment. Stopping a negative is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a positive.
 
OH, ok. :lol:

I thought you were going to take issue with my perception of the Republican stance on the sequester. That's kind of funny, and really kind of telling about political debating. Or at least how I perceive it.

And I agree, I don't think the sequester gets a significant portion of credit for falling deficits. I think it plays a part, just like many other parts, not the least of which is the increase in tax revenue.

Well, now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, I don't think we're seeing much from tax increases at this point either. What I am seeing is that, instead of passing a budget each year, the spending is being held back somewhat through the CR process, and that, along with natural growth, is resulting in the deficit reduction. Now, if we want to move beyond this, wouldn't it be nice to see growth policies come out of DC?
 
A pretty good point - however, I do think that they're related. Sequestration was actually a great move, but the fallback is that it allowed Democrats to make a political play and point fingers.

This is why when liberals call Republicans the "party of no", they see it as an insult whereas I see it as a compliment. Stopping a negative is, for all intents and purposes, the same as a positive.

I have no problem with being disagreed with, the repubs shouldn't either... :mrgreen:
 
Am I missing something?

Maybe.
2008 was Bush's last year. 2009 was Obama's first year.
The budget and most expenses for 2009 were created during 2008.

2009 deficit is what was handed to Obama.
2009 was also Bush's highest deficit and Obama's current deficit is far lower. (without looking again) I think its only slightly above half as much now.

When you say that Bush's was 500 billion less than Obama's lowest, you are definitely not attaching the responsibility to Bush for Obama's first year, as is customary in assigning deficit responsibility.
The same will apply in 2017. Obama will preside over the 2017 budget during his last year of 2016. Obama will be responsible for the next President's deficit in 2017.

Look at it like your wife running up the credit card bills, leaving you, and you get stuck with the bill. :)

Your looking at things in terms of when they take office, while I am discussing things in terms of the years they are responsible for.
Bush more than doubled the deficit from when he took over, while Obama has almost cut it in half.
 
Maybe.
2008 was Bush's last year. 2009 was Obama's first year.
The budget and most expenses for 2009 were created during 2008.

2009 deficit is what was handed to Obama.
2009 was also Bush's highest deficit and Obama's current deficit is far lower. (without looking again) I think its only slightly above half as much now.

When you say that Bush's was 500 billion less than Obama's lowest, you are definitely not attaching the responsibility to Bush for Obama's first year, as is customary in assigning deficit responsibility.
The same will apply in 2017. Obama will preside over the 2017 budget during his last year of 2016. Obama will be responsible for the next President's deficit in 2017.

Look at it like your wife running up the credit card bills, leaving you, and you get stuck with the bill. :)

Your looking at things in terms of when they take office, while I am discussing things in terms of the years they are responsible for.
Bush more than doubled the deficit from when he took over, while Obama has almost cut it in half.

Oh, I get it...you're talking about cyclical lag. Usually that's a valid argument...but since Obama employed a lot of Keynesian tactics and expansionary monetary policy in order to loosen corporate coffers, the impact should be felt more immediately than if you had an administration try to "ride it out". Obama pumped a lot of "economic laxatives" with regard to entitlement programs, which can distort actual resorts for the first 2-3 years of his tenure.
 
Clearly you're not familiar with the present Republican position on the sequester.

The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea.

Is that a Monty Python quote? ;)
 
Oh, I get it...you're talking about cyclical lag. Usually that's a valid argument...but since Obama employed a lot of Keynesian tactics and expansionary monetary policy in order to loosen corporate coffers, the impact should be felt more immediately than if you had an administration try to "ride it out". Obama pumped a lot of "economic laxatives" with regard to entitlement programs, which can distort actual resorts for the first 2-3 years of his tenure.

Care to be more specific?
Keep in mind, I am no accountant... I merely stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think the Bush bailout for Wall Street had a bit to do with the 2009 deficit as well.
 
None of the above because I'm sure you mean national debt rather than deficit, and the answer is Nixon.
 
Care to be more specific?
Keep in mind, I am no accountant... I merely stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think the Bush bailout for Wall Street had a bit to do with the 2009 deficit as well.

The President used more of TARP than his predecessor...
 
None of the above because I'm sure you mean national debt rather than deficit, and the answer is Nixon.

Actually, in absolute terms, Eisenhower was the last President to reduce the debt...
 
Care to be more specific?
Keep in mind, I am no accountant... I merely stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I think the Bush bailout for Wall Street had a bit to do with the 2009 deficit as well.

...a move I was against. However, compared to Obama, it was a relative drop in the bucket.
 
Actually, in absolute terms, Eisenhower was the last President to reduce the debt...

This is also the correct answer to the initial question of "Deficit".
Which is why I tactfully stopped at 5 Republican Presidents when setting it up.

Eisenhower is the last Republican President to reduce the deficit. I am not sure on debt but I think you are right.

I just noticed someone picked Reagan. Got a good laugh out of that one.
 
This is also the correct answer to the initial question of "Deficit".
Which is why I tactfully stopped at 5 Republican Presidents when setting it up.

Eisenhower is the last Republican President to reduce the deficit. I am not sure on debt but I think you are right.

I just noticed someone picked Reagan. Got a good laugh out of that one.

Deficit is not debt, but I think I get your point. I'm out to watch the Packers rookies...
 
Back
Top Bottom