Who Cares about Budget Deficits?

[Charles Kozierok]

More evidence that it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

A truly fine display of partisan hypocrisy.

Also, of the polarization that has ensued since Obama took office (which one side will say is Obama's fault, and the other will say is Obama's opponents' fault; I think both, though I lean more towards the latter.

 

[cwjerome]

Hmmm, not exactly a hot topic here... partisans are much more tolerant of things when their people are in power and/or doing thing it, but go apeshit when it's the other group. Not sure what else to say other than it's predictable and it sucks.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Not sure what else to say other than it's predictable and it sucks.

I think its a fine reason for folks that were against very high bush-debt to find out why they are for obama's insane debt.

That said: the tapering down in high information in the first image shows us that high-information vis a vis the consequences of deficit in the new world that is coming over the horizon.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

In 2007 the deficit was only $161bn, and it had declined for 3 consecutive years. The deficit in 2011 was 11x higher and was at its peak. One could conclude that the increasing Republican concern about the deficit was supported by the changing facts while the decreasing concern among Democrats was clearly not.

Although I'm sure you could find a different example where the Republican's shift their views based on who is in charge.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

In 2007 the deficit was only $161bn, and it had declined for 3 consecutive years. The deficit in 2011 was 11x higher and was at its peak. One could conclude that the increasing Republican concern about the deficit was supported by the changing facts while the decreasing concern among Democrats was clearly not.

the fact is that deficits matter as much as you think; except that they are a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

More evidence that it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

A truly fine display of partisan hypocrisy.

Also, of the polarization that has ensued since Obama took office (which one side will say is Obama's fault, and the other will say is Obama's opponents' fault; I think both, though I lean more towards the latter.

I saw this earlier and I found it funny, but not for the reason you said.

If you accept Keynesian economics as being correct, these poll numbers make absolutely perfect sense. During boom times the federal deficit should be low, and during a depression the federal deficit should be high.

In light of that, the distortion of Democratic numbers not only makes sense, it is necessary. The Republican numbers are harder to explain. Not that I'm saying that either party must be doing such a thing, but smart economic analysis would actually track quite well with the Democratic position on the deficit.

 

[ivwshane]

I would say that in 2007 the crash was just beginning and like the above post states, in a recession government must spend. That's why you see a slight decline from previous years. In 2011 we are still hurting from a stagnant economy and again, government spending is more important than lowering the deficit.

I personally don't think the charts show that deficits only matter when the other party is in control but rather that democrats understand basic economics.

 

[sandorski]

I saw this earlier and I found it funny, but not for the reason you said.

If you accept Keynesian economics as being correct, these poll numbers make absolutely perfect sense. During boom times the federal deficit should be low, and during a depression the federal deficit should be high.

In light of that, the distortion of Democratic numbers not only makes sense, it is necessary. The Republican numbers are harder to explain. Not that I'm saying that either party must be doing such a thing, but smart economic analysis would actually track quite well with the Democratic position on the deficit.

Yup.

The Democrat, assuming they are Keynesian, change of opinion makes perfect sense. We know that Republicans reject Keynesian Economics, but their change of opinion makes less sense, although it could be argued that they have good reason to be concerned as well. However, given the Republican statements on many issues ever since Obama became President, it's hard not to think their change of opinion is largely Partisanship.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, to be clear I find it very unfortunate that such a graph would be used as evidence of partisan hypocrisy when in fact that very 'hypocrisy' would be tracking with basic economics.

The idea that people should have the same view of deficits regardless of economic circumstances is the real threat here. If anything, people highlighting this chart are part of the problem.

 

[Craig234]

"...Deficits don't matter."
- Vice President Dick Cheney when he had the White House

It's really pretty simple. Which is the only party to have skyrocketed the deficits during peacetime?

It's a new phenomen to after 1980, begun with Reagan; Clinton reduced it every year for eight years to zero; Bush W skyrocketed it; during a recovery, it's down with Obama.

Every single time it's been skyrocketed - which is this new thing starting with Reagan - a Republican has done it. It's a political formula - talk responsibility, but spend wildly.

Turns out voters with an 'R' by their name think saying responsibility means it's correct.

To this day, these people will say Reagan was great at fighting the deficit while the numbers show he shot it up like never before. It's like the Wizard of Owez.

 

[RampantAndroid]

It's a new phenomen to after 1980, begun with Reagan; Clinton reduced it every year for eight years to zero;

...to zero?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

OK then.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yes, to be clear I find it very unfortunate that such a graph would be used as evidence of partisan hypocrisy when in fact that very 'hypocrisy' would be tracking with basic economics.

The idea that people should have the same view of deficits regardless of economic circumstances is the real threat here. If anything, people highlighting this chart are part of the problem.

I think you give far too much credit to the average American -- even "informed" ones -- in terms of understanding of Keynesian philosophy.

That said, I will agree that it shows more hypocrisy on the right than the left. The same people who supported the Bush administration blowing a balanced budget for no reason whatsoever in the early 00s, suddenly found religion on the debt as soon as the black Kenyan Muslim took office.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you give far too much credit to the average American -- even "informed" ones -- in terms of understanding of Keynesian philosophy.

That said, I will agree that it shows more hypocrisy on the right than the left. The same people who supported the Bush administration blowing a balanced budget for no reason whatsoever in the early 00s, suddenly found religion on the debt as soon as the black Kenyan Muslim took office.

You're right that a significant part of the shift is probably opportunism, however the shift is most pronounced among high information voters, those who are most likely to understand the economic issues.

Now I haven't gone back and checked the standard they used to determine 'high information voter', but for me it is hard to criticize people for hypocrisy when their opinions are tracking with what is actually the correct policy. The Republicans on the other hand do make it awfully easy to criticize, as their stance follows no coherent economic philosophy that I am aware of.

 

[GreenMeters]

I think you give far too much credit to the average American -- even "informed" ones -- in terms of understanding of Keynesian philosophy.

Depending on your news sources, it doesn't take much political wonkery. For example, if you read Krugman in the NYT, basically every other article is hammering home the idea that the government should be deficit spending now while we're in a liquidity trap and borrowing costs are ridiculously low and the economy is still suffering from demand-side weakness.

 

[Craig234]

...to zero?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

OK then.

You are confused about deficit and debt.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You are confused about deficit and debt.

If the debt went up every year, then the deficit couldn't have been zero.

It was, of course, a lot closer to it than we have been since.

 

[Mursilis]

I saw this earlier and I found it funny, but not for the reason you said.

If you accept Keynesian economics as being correct, these poll numbers make absolutely perfect sense. During boom times the federal deficit should be low, and during a depression the federal deficit should be high.

In light of that, the distortion of Democratic numbers not only makes sense, it is necessary. The Republican numbers are harder to explain. Not that I'm saying that either party must be doing such a thing, but smart economic analysis would actually track quite well with the Democratic position on the deficit.

Shouldn't the budget be in surplus in boom times?

 

[fskimospy]

Shouldn't the budget be in surplus in boom times?

Yes, or at least we should be reducing our debt/gdp ratio. Not sure why I wrote that.

 

[GreenMeters]

If the debt went up every year, then the deficit couldn't have been zero.

It was, of course, a lot closer to it than we have been since.

If the public debt went up every year, then yes. If only by adding in intragovernmental debt (which is what that website shows) does the total debt go up, then no. There was a true surplus during the Clinton administration, partly due to budget decisions (e.g., PAY-GO) and partly due to increased SS revenue during the boom times. But SSA isn't allowed to horde cash, so they turned around and bought T-notes; this is little more than budgetary trickery--whether you call it the government borrowing from itself or just a reallocation of funds.

 

[Atreus21]

If the public debt went up every year, then yes. If only by adding in intragovernmental debt (which is what that website shows) does the total debt go up, then no. There was a true surplus during the Clinton administration, partly due to budget decisions (e.g., PAY-GO) and partly due to increased SS revenue during the boom times. But SSA isn't allowed to horde cash, so they turned around and bought T-notes; this is little more than budgetary trickery--whether you call it the government borrowing from itself or just a reallocation of funds.

Clinton never ran a surplus. If debt goes up, you are spending more than you're taking in. It's that simple. It doesn't matter who holds the debt.

Did Clinton run a surplus adjusted for inflation? Yes.

Did Clinton come a lot closer to a true surplus than any president since, by miles? Yes.

Did Clinton run a surplus? No.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Also, of the polarization that has ensued since Obama took office (which one side will say is Obama's fault, and the other will say is Obama's opponents' fault; I think both, though I lean more towards the latter.

I lean more toward the former.

Part also may be that the overall attitude toward paying bills.
Live within your means or live off credit cards until the card is declined and out of work

Democrat sheep seem to not realize that they can not tax themselves out of the hole; no matter how the want to and are told that shold be the "fair" way.

Republicans feel that it is easier to cut expenses than increase income. those that want the income increased many times want it to be the other guy that should pay. By cutting expenses; it does not tie up funds that the business can use, it actually releases funds for higher priority needs.

If the Democrats are so wiling to tax their way out; let them tax the lower and middle class also, instead of cherry picking.

You want a tax - 10% across the board Wages, interest, dividends and 1099. Let everyone feel the pain of their desires.

 

[EagleKeeper]

"...Deficits don't matter."
- Vice President Dick Cheney when he had the White House

It's really pretty simple. Which is the only party to have skyrocketed the deficits during peacetime?

It's a new phenomen to after 1980, begun with Reagan; Clinton reduced it every year for eight years to zero; Bush W skyrocketed it; during a recovery, it's down with Obama.

Every single time it's been skyrocketed - which is this new thing starting with Reagan - a Republican has done it. It's a political formula - talk responsibility, but spend wildly.

Turns out voters with an 'R' by their name think saying responsibility means it's correct.

To this day, these people will say Reagan was great at fighting the deficit while the numbers show he shot it up like never before. It's like the Wizard of Owez.

Clinton ran a 0 deficit budget years because of his massive tax hikes, the .dot bubble and accounting using SS funds.

Tax hikes were tolerated due to the rising economy.

 

[sandorski]

I lean more toward the former.

Part also may be that the overall attitude toward paying bills.
Live within your means or live off credit cards until the card is declined and out of work

Democrat sheep seem to not realize that they can not tax themselves out of the hole; no matter how the want to and are told that shold be the "fair" way.

Republicans feel that it is easier to cut expenses than increase income. those that want the income increased many times want it to be the other guy that should pay. By cutting expenses; it does not tie up funds that the business can use, it actually releases funds for higher priority needs.

If the Democrats are so wiling to tax their way out; let them tax the lower and middle class also, instead of cherry picking.

You want a tax - 10% across the board Wages, interest, dividends and 1099. Let everyone feel the pain of their desires.

Only one Party has insisted on a one-sided solution to the Deficit and it isn't the Democrats.

 

[Mursilis]

Only one Party has insisted on a one-sided solution to the Deficit and it isn't the Democrats.

Didn't the GOP cave on some taxes as part of the fiscal cliff negotiations?

 

[ivwshane]

I lean more toward the former.

Part also may be that the overall attitude toward paying bills.
Live within your means or live off credit cards until the card is declined and out of work

Democrat sheep seem to not realize that they can not tax themselves out of the hole; no matter how the want to and are told that shold be the "fair" way.

Republicans feel that it is easier to cut expenses than increase income. those that want the income increased many times want it to be the other guy that should pay. By cutting expenses; it does not tie up funds that the business can use, it actually releases funds for higher priority needs.

If the Democrats are so wiling to tax their way out; let them tax the lower and middle class also, instead of cherry picking.

You want a tax - 10% across the board Wages, interest, dividends and 1099. Let everyone feel the pain of their desires.

It's really hard to take you serious when you say, "democrat sheep". And the democrat position isn't to tax their way out of trouble it's to level the burden and the playing field so more people can get ahead. Sometimes that means raising taxes, tax reform, entitlement programs.