DescentBB

only two presidents in that past 50 years shrank the deficit while in office:

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.



hmmmmmm, one doesn't hear much talk of the deficit anymore. Wonder why?

Using your new age math skills again. Let me know when Obama shrinks the deficit below what it was when he took office...until then he expanded it.

woodchip wrote:Using your new age math skills again. Let me know when Obama shrinks the deficit below what it was when he took office...until then he expanded it.

it is currently far less than the deficit he inherited from Bush. Check the numbers and get back to me. Remember, fiscal 2009 was what Bush left him.



edit--hell, just for fun, I looked it up:
2008 deficit(definitely Bush)--489 billion
2009 deficit(essentially Bush's proposals/programs)--over 800 billion
2014 projected(just revised downward in April)--around 440 billion.

math skills, Woody? Nice try, but sorry, again you're proven to be a windbag with no facts behind you.

So the 17 trillion deficit has magically disappeared. Good to know.

Deficits come and go…the debt is forever…

Psssst…Woody…17 trillion is the debt…not the deficit.

it's easy not to run a deficit when you run everything on Credit

woodchip wrote:So the 17 trillion deficit has magically disappeared. Good to know.

that isn't the deficit, that is the national debt. Related, but hardly the same thing. Gotta fix the deficit before you begin to address the debt.

callmeslick wrote:Related, but hardly the same thing.

Dude, stop making sense. You are going to hurt the brains of some descentbb.net readers.

what hurts my brain is how some people will argue the president cant really make a difference in these matters....but if he is their guy they say he can get credit for the upticks...and they say the debt and deficit are not really inherently a bad thing...except when their guy isn't in power...

With all the celebration of and rewards for selective application of standards in american culture it is a wonder we aren't already a completely apathetic cynical bunch of sociopathic anarchists.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Using your new age math skills again. Let me know when Obama shrinks the deficit below what it was when he took office...until then he expanded it.

it is currently far less than the deficit he inherited from Bush. Check the numbers and get back to me. Remember, fiscal 2009 was what Bush left him.



edit--hell, just for fun, I looked it up:
2008 deficit(definitely Bush)--489 billion
2009 deficit(essentially Bush's proposals/programs)--over 800 billion
2014 projected(just revised downward in April)--around 440 billion.

math skills, Woody? Nice try, but sorry, again you're proven to be a windbag with no facts behind you.

Perhaps you should look at it this way:

One reason Obama is able to point to an historically high decline is because the deficit as a percent of GDP had never been higher. Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an advocacy group focused on taxes and spending, said the reduction is significant. But at the same time, he said, "Let’s face it, there was a lot to reduce. The deficit was morbidly obese."

So while you are trying to paint a hero image of Obama as deficit reducer, he made it so dam high that it couldn't get much worse. And before your gamey cackles about Obama being a deficit reducer, he is not a deficit eliminator. He is still running around a 7% deficit and the debit is still rising. All this with record taxes coming in.

it is lower than when he started. Can't dance around that, how much you might try, Woody. And, those spikes in deficit? Do you remember, or were you even aware, that Bush left him such an economic mess that the US faced a complete liquidity meltdown not once, but twice, in the first 4 months of his term? Would you actually be suggesting that we DIDN'T go into deficit spending to avoid the total loss of the banking system?

CUDA wrote:it's easy not to run a deficit when you run everything on Credit

huh?

callmeslick wrote:it is lower than when he started. Can't dance around that, how much you might try, Woody. And, those spikes in deficit? Do you remember, or were you even aware, that Bush left him such an economic mess that the US faced a complete liquidity meltdown not once, but twice, in the first 4 months of his term? Would you actually be suggesting that we DIDN'T go into deficit spending to avoid the total loss of the banking system?

No Bush didn't leave him the mess, The Dems and Clinton with their affordable housing policies and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was what caused the mess. If you recall further Bush in fact asked to have this all addressed a number of times but Barney Frank fought against it.
As to going into deficit spending, when has this country not been in deficit spending? Which reminds me, didn't Bush propose reductions in baseline budgeting and the Dems howled how it would hurt the children? Cried as though cutting the percent of baseline budgets would mean no increases at all in their budgets?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:it is lower than when he started. Can't dance around that, how much you might try, Woody. And, those spikes in deficit? Do you remember, or were you even aware, that Bush left him such an economic mess that the US faced a complete liquidity meltdown not once, but twice, in the first 4 months of his term? Would you actually be suggesting that we DIDN'T go into deficit spending to avoid the total loss of the banking system?

No Bush didn't leave him the mess, The Dems and Clinton with their affordable housing policies and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was what caused the mess. If you recall further Bush in fact asked to have this all addressed a number of times but Barney Frank fought against it.

both of those were factors, but the truth is that had regulators in the administration been doing their jobs, much of this wouldn't have happened.

As to going into deficit spending, when has this country not been in deficit spending?

most recently? That would be 2000-2001, the final year and a half of the Clinton budgets, which ran SURPLUSES.

Which reminds me, didn't Bush propose reductions in baseline budgeting and the Dems howled how it would hurt the children? Cried as though cutting the percent of baseline budgets would mean no increases at all in their budgets?

he was simply trying to work around the huge damage he'd inflicted by two unfunded wars, and an unfunded Medicare pharma benefit, at the expense of the weakest segments of society, and the least able to advocate for themselves. Hardly something to be proud of and hardly responsible.

I note, with delight, that you have given up slagging my math and now realize that my statement at the outset was, indeed, accurate.

While you merrily dance around the gibbet, I didn't give up anything. Obama only was able to get credit for the miniscule reduction because the republicans kept his spending in check. So nice try at the Texas two step.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:...

No Bush didn't leave him the mess, The Dems and Clinton with their affordable housing policies and the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was what caused the mess. If you recall further Bush in fact asked to have this all addressed a number of times but Barney Frank fought against it.

both of those were factors, but the truth is that had regulators in the administration been doing their jobs, much of this wouldn't have happened. ...

You are really trying hard to deflect the blame from the Dems in congress who refused to follow the recommendations of those regulators who DID TRY to do their jobs. I've posted the video of the congressional appearance of those regulators and we all watched the Dems on the committee play the race card and every other trick in their bag to shout down the regulators.

You are so quick to excuse half of the people who are at the root of everything going wrong with our representation...just pulling excuses for them out of your rear end as needed. You cede any moral high ground you think you may hold by doing that. If you won't honestly face the whole problem you just make yourself part of the problem...perpetuating it, not someone who recognizes it and calls attention to it.

Because its always easier to point a finger at another, then it is to be responsible for ones own actions

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


...uh-huh..

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:it's easy not to run a deficit when you run everything on Credit

huh?

Last I heard, Congress wasn't giving Obama much credit to spend with in the first place.

Duper wrote:http://www.usdebtclock.org/


...uh-huh..

another one, seemingly slow to grasp the difference between deficit(operating budgets) and debt(monies owed via bonds).

callmeslick wrote:

Duper wrote:http://www.usdebtclock.org/


...uh-huh..

another one, seemingly slow to grasp the difference between deficit(operating budgets) and debt(monies owed via bonds).

Are you trying to imply the connection isn't there between the two?!?

When the sequester was looming I recall you were whining about the danger of us defaulting on our debts....seems to me the sequester was all about reining in spending, as in, deficit spending. So obviously there is a connection to be considered. We sell bonds to raise money to spend in our budgets....

Your snarky attempt to shout down Duper was pretty lame.

Slick also seems to overlook a small item that is part of debt...called interest. One has to wonder how much of the "Deficit" is due to funds being paid to cover the interest on the Debt.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Duper wrote:http://www.usdebtclock.org/


...uh-huh..

another one, seemingly slow to grasp the difference between deficit(operating budgets) and debt(monies owed via bonds).

Are you trying to imply the connection isn't there between the two?!?

one leads to the other, but until you get the deficit down, you aren't going to start on the debt.