• 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 estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion [W:383]

Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OpportunityCost said:
Asinine comments like this are why I am sick of you. There is no excuse for making snide remarks other than being unable to make remarks without insulting the other side.

As for the attempts to circumvent the sequester, it was all over every political site for months, if you need cites for that, you need to get better sources.
Click to expand...

Better to just put him on ignore than go back and forth, in my opinion.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Tell the U.S. treasury then, because they must be missing half a trillion dollars...

09/30/2008: 10,024,724,896,912.40
09/30/2009: 11,909,829,003,511.70
Total Deficit: 1,885,104,106,599.30

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Again, that leaves it at:

Obama: $0.6t
Bush: $1.3t
Click to expand...

So you credit Bush with TARP and the auto bailouts which saved the country from going into a depression. That is fair, but since the money loaned to the banks was paid back with interest and profit, where is that return reflected in any of your numbers.

Also do you think tax receipts may have been low in the 2009 budget year as income was dramatically lowered due to the sharp, short recession?
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

washunut said:
So you credit Bush with TARP and the auto bailouts which saved the country from going into a depression. That is fair, but since the money loaned to the banks was paid back with interest and profit, where is that return reflected in any of your numbers.
Click to expand...
Of course I credit Bush with helping save the economy. Of course, that was after he and his party put it into a death spiral which then required massive amounts of spending to prevent it from total collapse.

washunut said:
Also do you think tax receipts may have been low in the 2009 budget year as income was dramatically lowered due to the sharp, short recession?
Click to expand...
Who said I didn't attribute any of the shortfall to Bush's Great Recession??
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Of course I credit Bush with helping save the economy. Of course, that was after he and his party put it into a death spiral which then required massive amounts of spending to prevent it from total collapse.
Click to expand...

A rhetorical dodge in an attempt to justify failed Keynesian policy. Without massive government spending the economy would have collapsed. Indeed. The beauty of the statement is that it can't be proven otherwise, but a look back through our history darn sure proves otherwise.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

froggigger said:
A rhetorical dodge in an attempt to justify failed Keynesian policy. Without massive government spending the economy would have collapsed. Indeed. The beauty of the statement is that it can't be proven otherwise, but a look back through our history darn sure proves otherwise.
Click to expand...
And yet, it brought the economy back to life following Bush's Great Recession as it did in the 1930's following the Great Depression.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
And yet, it brought the economy back to life following Bush's Great Recession as it did in the 1930's following the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

The Great Depression was the longest depression in our nations history to that point. It was also the first depression that government tried to fix. We had a depression in 1920 that Keynesian advocates don't like to talk about because government didn't try to fix that one and we were well into recovery by 1922. There were quite a few depressions prior that had the same result. Only in 1929 did government get into the fix-it business and the results were devastating. Blame the latest recession on Bush, blame it on Obama, blame it on global warming, it makes no difference. Government is still trying to fix recessions and the anemic recovery is the usual result, and this time we have a mind-boggling debt to go along with it.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OpportunityCost said:
Even FactCheck.org doesnt agree with that viewpoint.

factcheck.org : The Sequester Blame Game

The debt ceiling talks were going on and $620B in revenue increases were agreed to in that deal and Obama wanted MORE after that.
Click to expand...

LOL! Your own source confirms that I'm right!

Predictably, the President is already claiming that his tax hike on the “rich” isn’t enough. I have news for him: the moment that he and virtually every elected Democrat in Washington signed off on the terms of the current arrangement, it was the last word on taxes. That debate is over. Now the conversation turns to cutting spending on the government programs that are the real source of the nation’s fiscal imbalance.
Click to expand...
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

sangha said:
LOL! Your own source confirms that I'm right!
Click to expand...

After getting 650B in new revenue, you are somehow saying that MORE was needed before cuts were lessened in the sequester? Nah. If thats your criteria, the GOP shouldnt have budged but they already had for the debt ceiling increase. You seem to think the tax increases already agreed to meant nothing and thats just not the case.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OpportunityCost said:
After getting 650B in new revenue, you are somehow saying that MORE was needed before cuts were lessened in the sequester? Nah. If thats your criteria, the GOP shouldnt have budged but they already had for the debt ceiling increase. You seem to think the tax increases already agreed to meant nothing and thats just not the case.
Click to expand...

LOL!

First you denied that the repubs refused to compromise. Now, you're arguing that they did refuse, and were right to do so. :lamo

Soon, you'll argue that you were right both times.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

sangha said:
LOL!

First you denied that the repubs refused to compromise. Now, you're arguing that they did refuse, and were right to do so. :lamo

Soon, you'll argue that you were right both times.
Click to expand...

What seems be be being said is that there were two phases to lessening the budget gap. Tax increases and the sequester. You seem to want to say they were not interrelated.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

washunut said:
What seems be be being said is that there were two phases to lessening the budget gap. Tax increases and the sequester. You seem to want to say they were not interrelated.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what he said
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OpportunityCost said:
Even FactCheck.org doesnt agree with that viewpoint.

factcheck.org : The Sequester Blame Game

The debt ceiling talks were going on and $620B in revenue increases were agreed to in that deal and Obama wanted MORE after that.
Click to expand...

washunut said:
What seems be be being said is that there were two phases to lessening the budget gap. Tax increases and the sequester. You seem to want to say they were not interrelated.
Click to expand...

sangha said:
No, that's not what he said
Click to expand...

Both the sequester and the debt ceiling were ongoing at the same time. After Dems got the revenue increases they wanted they got greedy and went after more when they agreed not to do so during sequester negotiations.

But during the talks about avoiding sequestration, republicans did forward some bills that had revenue increases in them, just not as large as the dems wanted--they wanted equal parts revenue and cuts. What they should have done was get a plan in place that made the cuts as painless as possible, they did the opposite for political purposes and it still didnt work.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

OpportunityCost said:
Both the sequester and the debt ceiling were ongoing at the same time. After Dems got the revenue increases they wanted they got greedy and went after more when they agreed not to do so during sequester negotiations.

But during the talks about avoiding sequestration, republicans did forward some bills that had revenue increases in them, just not as large as the dems wanted--they wanted equal parts revenue and cuts. What they should have done was get a plan in place that made the cuts as painless as possible, they did the opposite for political purposes and it still didnt work.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what you said either
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

sangha said:
The thing is, you didn't quote it
Click to expand...

Sure Sangha, did you want 15 or 30 minutes at the argument clinic?

Address the topic and quit trolling.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

froggigger said:
The Great Depression was the longest depression in our nations history to that point. It was also the first depression that government tried to fix. We had a depression in 1920 that Keynesian advocates don't like to talk about because government didn't try to fix that one and we were well into recovery by 1922. There were quite a few depressions prior that had the same result. Only in 1929 did government get into the fix-it business and the results were devastating. Blame the latest recession on Bush, blame it on Obama, blame it on global warming, it makes no difference. Government is still trying to fix recessions and the anemic recovery is the usual result, and this time we have a mind-boggling debt to go along with it.
Click to expand...
There is no comparison between the depression in 1920-21 with the one starting in 1929. The Great Depression was far worse so there is no comparing the recoveries of both. That would be like comparing Hurricane Andrew with Hurricane Isaac. Yes, they're both hurricanes ... but ...

As far as debt, we had mind-boggling debt even before Obama became president. I don't recall anyone on the right ever complaining about it until a Democrat became president.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
There is no comparison between the depression in 1920-21 with the one starting in 1929. The Great Depression was far worse so there is no comparing the recoveries of both. That would be like comparing Hurricane Andrew with Hurricane Isaac. Yes, they're both hurricanes ... but ...

As far as debt, we had mind-boggling debt even before Obama became president. I don't recall anyone on the right ever complaining about it until a Democrat became president.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a very good comparison to be made. The economy in 1920 was looking very bleak. Unemployment had risen to almost 12% and GNP had fallen 17%. Then Secretary of Commerce Hoover strongly urged President Harding to intervene in a number of ways. Harding paid Hoover no mind. Instead of "stimulus", Harding cut the government's budget almost in half between 1920 and 1922, tax rates were deeply cut for everyone, and the debt was reduced by a third. The Federal Reserve, still in its infancy, did not try to fight the depression by playing around with the supply of money.

Signs of recovery were evident by late summer in 1921. By 1922, unemployment had dropped to 6.7% and kept dropping. By 1923, it was 2.4%. Full recovery in less than 3 years because government didn't do what the Keynesian economists ever since have said was necessary to "fix" it: prime the pump and run deficits with government spending. Note that in 1920 Japan did take that route. It resulted in a severe banking crisis in 1927 after years of stagnation.

Government put the Great in the next depression by trying to fix it. We all know what happened next. It's interesting to note, though, that in the months after the crash of 1929, unemployment never went into double digits. It peaked at 9% in Dec. 1929 and had fallen to 6.3% by June 1930. That was the market talking --- and then government decided to "do something".

No argument from me about the debt. It has risen every year since 1957 and isn't going to stop until the people wake up and reign in the politicians --- ALL the politicians, D and R alike.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

froggigger said:
Actually, there is a very good comparison to be made. The economy in 1920 was looking very bleak. Unemployment had risen to almost 12% and GNP had fallen 17%.....
Click to expand...

Stop right there. That 17% drop in GNP pales in comparison to the drop in GDP during the Great Depression, which dropped 46%

GDP

And the rise in unemployment of 12% pales in comparison to the 25% during the Great Depression.

Again, there is no comparison. Meaning you also can't compare the recovery. Not to mention, the factors which caused the 1920 Depression were different than the Great Depression; yet another reason you can't compare the recovery.

There's a reason the depression starting in 1929 is known as the Great Depression while the other one is not.
 
Last edited:
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop right there. That 17% drop in GNP pales in comparison to the drop in GDP during the Great Depression, which dropped 46%

GDP

And the rise in unemployment of 12% pales in comparison to the 25% during the Great Depression.

Again, there is no comparison. Meaning you also can't compare the recovery. Not to mention, the factors which caused the 1920 Depression were different than the Great Depression; yet another reason you can't compare the recovery.

There's a reason the depression starting in 1929 is known as the Great Depression while the other one is not.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I guess then we should then state that using the terms, " the great recession" or " the greatest recession since the depression" thus trying to make the comparison is just shilling for this administration's failures to fix the economy 5 years out.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

washunut said:
Fair point. I guess then we should then state that using the terms, " the great recession" or " the greatest recession since the depression" thus trying to make the comparison is just shilling for this administration's failures to fix the economy 5 years out.
Click to expand...
Why? Calling it the "Great Recession" accentuates that it was a far deeper recession than most recessions. Just as the Great Depression was a far deeper depression than most depressions.
 
Re: CBO estimates 2013 deficit at $642 billion

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Stop right there. That 17% drop in GNP pales in comparison to the drop in GDP during the Great Depression, which dropped 46%

GDP

And the rise in unemployment of 12% pales in comparison to the 25% during the Great Depression.

Again, there is no comparison. Meaning you also can't compare the recovery. Not to mention, the factors which caused the 1920 Depression were different than the Great Depression; yet another reason you can't compare the recovery.

There's a reason the depression starting in 1929 is known as the Great Depression while the other one is not.
Click to expand...

You're right. The 12% pales in comparison to the 25% and the 17% drop pales in comparison to 46%. No argument there. The pertinent question is why the difference? The onset of both depressions were dire, so why did the one in 1920 end quickly and the one in 1929 drag on for far longer? You said there was a reason and I agree. There is a definitive reason. Every depression, every depression, prior to 1929 ended fairly quickly. Only in 1929 did government get into the fix-it business, and the Great Depression was the result.

Look at the link you provided for the years 1920 to 1941. In the first column, GDP (though GDP didn't arrive until around 1932, it was GNP before then) started falling but had recovered past the 1920 level by 1923. Compare that to 1929. We didn't surpass the 1929 level again until 1941. Again, why the difference in speed of recovery. The answer is the same. Government tried to fix it after the 1929 crash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom