Obama cuts deficit despite bad economy. NOT a deficit thread.

[glenn1]

Wow. The right wing media won't even give Obama credit for cutting the deficit despite the awful economy.
Just thought I would post this to show how the right wing media distorts the news.:biggrin:

I'm not in the right-wing media, but I'll make you a deal - I'll give Obama credit for reducing the deficit if you can admit that he has a long way yet to go. While going from worst deficit ever to 2nd worst is heading in the right direction I'm kinda hoping for some larger accomplishments from the administration; I'm sure Obama can do better than this.

 

[Brovane]

Last time it took 8-years of a Democrat presidency and 6-years of a republican congress to get a budget surplus.

The facts being what they are. Can we really agree on what to cut to get 1.3 trillion in cuts?

Defense? We are in the middle of a messy war in Afghanistan.

Social Security, Medicare, MediCaid? I can already hear the screaming.

The Deficit is going to take time to come back down. Hopefully we can make some long term structual changes in entitlments like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Actually borrowing costs are fairly low right now so it is a good time to borrow.

 

[MotF Bane]

I have trouble determining if techs is truly stupid, or just trolling.

Given how often he posts a thread like this, and then never returns to it, might be trolling.

 

[werepossum]

Given how often he posts a thread like this, and then never returns to it, might be trolling.

I suspect he's merely unable to find it again. Forums are, like, hard and stuff.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I have trouble determining if techs is truly stupid, or just trolling.

I'm almost embarrassed for him. Almost.

 

[ProfJohn]

Would someone tell Techs that Bush cut the deficit 3 times in a row, thanks.

 

[Brovane]

Would someone tell Techs that Bush cut the deficit 3 times in a row, thanks.

What did Bush 43 do with the Budget Surplus that was handed to him after Clinton left office?

 

[Double Trouble]

Sad, how some people can't grasp simple concepts like "deficit spending" and "debt" and "income". Income increased because of TARP repayment, spending also increased, but just at a slower pace, leading to an overall "reduction" in the yearly deficit. If that counts as an "accomplishment", we're all screwed.

 

[Zebo]

First of all Obama is lying because he is keeping a lot off the books, like Clinton lied when he changed formulation of UE number. Second Obama knows better with country moving right and will move right like Clinton did.

http://www.loansafe.org/president-obama-excludes-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-from-us-budget

 

[charrison]

What did Bush 43 do with the Budget Surplus that was handed to him after Clinton left office?

Tax receipts decrease and defecit spending to aid the economy. Like what is happening now, but on a much smaller scale.

 

[Corn]

I suspect he's merely unable to find it again. Forums are, like, hard and stuff.

Best laugh of the day! Truely classic.

 

[qliveur]

Oxymoron.

 

[Craig234]

First of all Obama is lying because he is keeping a lot off the books, like Clinton lied when he changed formulation of UE number. Second Obama knows better with country moving right and will move right like Clinton did.

http://www.loansafe.org/president-obama-excludes-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-from-us-budget

Excuse me. Let's see who is 'fiscally responsible' to put expenses on the books.

Republicans went to war in Iraq - and refused to put it in the budget. Obama moved it to the budget.

Republicans went to war in Afghanistan - and refused to put it in the budget. Obama moved it to the budget.

Republicans passed one of the biggest entitlements, Medicare Part D (for their biggest donor, big pharma) and refused to put it in the budget. Obama moved it to the budget.

# of Republicans who have posted this info: 0

Also, I heard a commentator mention that the only major new spending of Obama was the Stimulus - to keep us from the economy crashing into disaster, which he inherited.

Anyone care to list other major 'new' spending by Obama?

 

[Darwin333]

Last time it took 8-years of a Democrat presidency and 6-years of a republican congress to get a budget surplus.

The facts being what they are. Can we really agree on what to cut to get 1.3 trillion in cuts?

Defense? We are in the middle of a messy war in Afghanistan.

Social Security, Medicare, MediCaid? I can already hear the screaming.

The Deficit is going to take time to come back down. Hopefully we can make some long term structual changes in entitlments like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Actually borrowing costs are fairly low right now so it is a good time to borrow.

Yup, just like those interest only ARMS were great for consumers a few years ago.... Our debt is set up pretty much exactly the same way. We have to roll over almost all of our debt every 4 years so lets simplify it and say that 25% of EXISTING AND NEW debt must be "refinanced" every year during a time of historically low interest rates.


I don't have a degree in financing or anything but I thought it was a good idea to get cheap money with a long term loan versus a short term loan that I knew I couldn't possibly pay off within the terms.

Short term borrowing is cheap for the gov right now and no one really wants to loan them that kinda cake on the long end. We wouldn't sell that many long term bonds anyway, even though the interest rates would still be at historic lows, because it would make the budget look much worse.

Tell me again how this is a good idea? As I recall it, those interest only 5 year ARMs didn't seem to work out all that well for a whole lotta people.

Ironically, I bet that this traps the Fed into keep rates lower than they should for longer than they should. Cheap money for everyone, even with economic recovery..... because it worked out so well last time. Do you jack the rates and instantly add hundreds of billions to the budget or do you keep playing chicken with inflation/the bond market?

 

[Jhhnn]

Tax receipts decrease and defecit spending to aid the economy. Like what is happening now, but on a much smaller scale.

Which led to too much investment money chasing too few resources, the housing bubble, and the looting spree by the Bankstas & their crony capitalist entourage.

Viewed from a longer perspective, Bush era policy was the economic equivalent of crack cocaine. Absolutely wonderful on the way up, not so much when it wears off...

I'm sure much the same thing was said in the early Clinton years, because of the flywheel effect of the previous RR/GHWB policies and the looting of the much smaller S&L crisis. The economy doesn't turn on a dime, except when it's headed down from a speculative peak induced by policy failure and predatory practices among the financial elite.

Each succeedingly larger bubble has a more difficult and narrower recovery, simply because policy allows greater and greater concentration of income along with less actual investment in productive means in this country. No matter how much money the Treasury and the FRB create, it's quickly concentrated into the hands of a very few and whisked offshore, starving the domestic economy of productive investment and liquidity. We're arriving at the point where deficits won't be able to disguise that, at all- no amount of "stimulus" will provide relief from the results of a defective tax policy and supply side economics.

Hell, the mealy mouthed prognostications and punditry of the Right reveals the truth even as they attempt to hide or ignore it. Demand won't pick up until employment picks up, but they're holding off on hiring until demand picks up, even though they're flush with cash.

Go figure...

 

[Fenixgoon]

you know what the problem with a deficit cut is?

there's still a deficit. and a huge-ass one, at that.

i don't give two shits if he cut the deficit. i'll start caring when he busts congress' ass to get a balanced budget and start paying down our debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

you know what the problem with a deficit cut is?

there's still a deficit. and a huge-ass one, at that.

i don't give two shits if he cut the deficit. i'll start caring when he busts congress' ass to get a balanced budget and start paying down our debt.

You won't really like that, at all, because it's impossible to not completely crash the economy and achieve a balanced budget w/o strong tax increases, particularly at the top. Increasingly, they're the only people who have enough income to tax. We'd also necessarily need to drastically reduce our worldwide military footprint and expenditures.

But do rave on...

 

[LegendKiller]

You won't really like that, at all, because it's impossible to not completely crash the economy and achieve a balanced budget w/o strong tax increases, particularly at the top. Increasingly, they're the only people who have enough income to tax. We'd also necessarily need to drastically reduce our worldwide military footprint and expenditures.

But do rave on...

I find this type of ranting pretty amusing. They refuse to acknowledge that as as % of GDP, government spending hasn't moved a whole lot in the last 30 years. As a % of the total workforce, government workers haven't moved a whole lot in the last 30 years.

But somehow, they make the case that cutting spending is the best course of action, not raising taxes.

The old people cry over not getting an SS increase, so don't touch SS. The old people cry over having to spend a little more for medical coverage, so don't touch Medicare. Plan D, the biggest increase to government spending in many years, was put in place by Bush.

Then there's the wars, which continue to cost hundreds of billions, both by Bush and a bad idea to just stop overnight.

Then there's the tax cuts, which have done nothing to spur economic growth, that Bush put into place. Can't touch those because the rich won't spend then. (yeah, right).


The right is so full of shit. It started with Reagan and continues to today.

 

[Darwin333]

I find this type of ranting pretty amusing. They refuse to acknowledge that as as % of GDP, government spending hasn't moved a whole lot in the last 30 years.

Are you excluding the last 3ish years or so?

Lets extend your game a bit too, excluding the last few years, as a % of GDP the government has borrowed and spent roughly 2% more y/o/y than the revenue it generates as a % of GDP over the last few decades. Do you remember your math class when they went over exponents? I assume you must be good at math, could you explain what eventually happens with exponential growth like that?

But somehow, they make the case that cutting spending is the best course of action, not raising taxes.

FY 2010 Federal revenue was approximately $2.15T with 50% of that coming from income taxes so lets just call it $1T from income taxes. If Obama cuts the deficit by over 25% you would still have to double the revenue generated from income taxes to balance the budget. If he cuts it by 50% then luckily we would only have raise revenue generated from income tax by 75%.

I know you are good with numbers, so I would truly appreciate it if you would explain exactly how we go about accomplishing those kind of increases.

 

[Brovane]

Tax receipts decrease and defecit spending to aid the economy. Like what is happening now, but on a much smaller scale.

You left out the Bush Tax Cuts, the Iraqi war and then Medicare benefit increases.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Oh forget it . No comment must be the meds.

 

[charrison]

You left out the Bush Tax Cuts, the Iraqi war and then Medicare benefit increases.

And the average deficit:GDP ratio stayed within normal averages during his term as well. Cant say the same for what is going on now.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the average deficit:GDP ratio stayed within normal averages during his term as well. Cant say the same for what is going on now.

Heh. the grossly inflated GDP numbers of the Bush years, created from selling houses to each other and military spending?

Normal averages means what, anyway? Compared to the late Clinton years, the pre-Reagan years... WHat?

Such claims need documentation...

 

[charrison]

Heh. the grossly inflated GDP numbers of the Bush years, created from selling houses to each other and military spending?

Tell me again what bush policies caused the housing crises(house boom started before he took office). Oh right not much change to policy there and policy changes were proposed we blocked because as barney frank said, there are no problems with fannie/freddie.

Normal averages means what, anyway? Compared to the late Clinton years, the pre-Reagan years... WHat?

Such claims need documentation...

CBO keep all the historical data, but here is a pretty graph....


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...it As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s


I have posted the numbers before. I assume you will keep ignoring them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tell me again what bush policies caused the housing crises(house boom started before he took office). Oh right not much change to policy there and policy changes were proposed we blocked because as barney frank said, there are no problems with fannie/freddie.




CBO keep all the historical data, but here is a pretty graph....


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...it As Percent Of GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s


I have posted the numbers before. I assume you will keep ignoring them.

Yep- Reagan and GHWB deficits are the new normal, as are inflated GDP numbers from the Bush years.

Notice any trend in that graph, like the downward trend during the Clinton years? Couldn't be!