Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

  • metta

    Posts: 39139

    May 06, 2016 2:08 AM GMT
    Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era


    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 2:18 AM GMT
    (in b4 mil8 )
    obama_shush_lg.jpg
  • biathlete01

    Posts: 81

    May 06, 2016 12:16 PM GMT
    Most politicians agree deficits do not matter.

    What about the debt?


  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14360

    May 06, 2016 12:38 PM GMT
    biathlete01 saidMost politicians agree deficits do not matter.

    What about the debt?


    Oh please, you don't want these extremist liberal hens burning up the last few brain cells they have by thinking about the debt.icon_cool.gif
  • biathlete01

    Posts: 81

    May 06, 2016 1:09 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    biathlete01 saidMost politicians agree deficits do not matter.

    What about the debt?


    Oh please, you don't want these extremist liberal hens burning up the last few brain cells they have by thinking about the debt.icon_cool.gif




    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 1:24 PM GMT
    The US Federal Debt in January 2009 when Obama took office: 10.6 Trillion

    The current Federal Debt: 19.2 Trillion

    http://www.usdebtclock.org

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 2:17 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    http://www.concordcoalition.org/issue-page/national-debt
    The national debt has grown significantly in recent years due to rising annual deficits. A deficit occurs in any year the government spends more money than it takes in. Borrowing to make up the difference is added to the national debt -- technically referred to as the gross federal debt.

    The gross debt has two components: 1) Debt held by the public -- money the government borrows on the open market from domestic or foreign investors; and 2) Intra-governmental debt -- money the government owes itself, as in the Social Security trust fund.


    http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/budget-reports/updates/2016/0405/eliminating-debt-implausible-goal
    Eliminating the Debt: An Implausible Goal

    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump recently estimated that he could pay off the nation’s $19 trillion debt within eight years.

    “This claim demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the debt and its impact on the economy,” says Robert L. Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. “It is also inconsistent with the tax and spending proposals Trump has espoused on the campaign trail, which are far more likely to grow the debt rather than eliminate it.”

    In a new blog post, Bixby says the debt’s importance is not its size in dollar terms but its size relative to the economy (GDP).

    “While the debt is indeed very high by historic standards and is projected to grow at an unsustainable rate over the coming decades, there is no need to eliminate it within eight years,” he writes. “Attempting to do so, however, would require spending cuts or tax increases that risk substantial harm to the economy.”

    A better goal, he says, would be to stabilize the debt as a share of GDP and then begin to reduce it over time, as the nation did after World War II.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Coalition
    The Concord Coalition is a political advocacy group in the United States, formed in 1992. A bipartisan organization...The Concord Coalition's advocacy centers on ending deficit spending and promoting a balanced budget in the U.S. federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 2:20 PM GMT
    10.15.15_0.jpg?itok=diS1IQOY

    2015-10-16T01-33-28-133Z--1280x720.nbcne

    Yes, there is a difference between the annual budget deficit, and the total debt. But in this article, it makes clear it's addressing REPUBLICAN and TEABAGGER attacks against Democrats, and Obama specifically, for increasing the DEFICIT.

    And so that's the focus of the article. A little reading comprehension on the part of the Righties here would be helpful (though probably asking for too much).

    And regarding the debt, that total is an accumulating consequence of continuing outlays incurred for the never-ending Bush Wars and the Middle East turmoil they created, and because of tax cuts by a Republican Congress.

    When you cut your tax revenues from corporations and the upper 1%, through direct cuts or shelters, to a lesser percentage rate than middle class private citizens pay, you incur debt. Even with unprecedented budget cuts.

    Wait until Republican plans ever get carried out to gut or eliminate Social Security. Then you'll hear those aging Teabaggers all squeal and change their tunes.

    Right now they've bought the BS Republican line that all these government services they want eliminated will only affect "others" but not themselves. When it IS themselves they'll be angrier than they've ever been. And I'm sure Republicans will try to shift the blame to Democrats, who right now they're blaming for NOT cutting these services. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 3:02 PM GMT
    UTTERN NONSENSE..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 5:54 PM GMT
    CDAVIS saidUTTERN NONSENSE..

    That's Artless in spades, CD. The facts and numbers speak for themselves, and his usual, useless name-calling adds nothing to the discussion.
  • biathlete01

    Posts: 81

    May 06, 2016 6:26 PM GMT
    One thing is true, Republicans and Democrats both spend more than is generated by taxes. Last year was the largest inflow of tax revenues in history and they still spent more.



    $3,248,723,000,000: Federal Taxes Set Record in FY 2015; $21,833 Per Worker; Feds Still Run $438.9B Deficit
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 06, 2016 9:04 PM GMT
    Flying on Air Force One for date nights and father-daughter weekends to Manhattan at a cost of $225,000 per hour doesn't help.

    The President and First Lady taking separate planes to California on the same day doesn't help either.

    Free Cellphones then
    Free Cellphones with texting and now
    Free Smartphones for low income people doesn't help either.

    Hiring a government worker to make sure and monitor that a Part-Time Magician has a Disaster Preparedness Plan for the rabbit in his act doesn't help either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 12:10 AM GMT
    metta saidDeficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era


    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era


    Are you saying that the sequester put into effect by the Republicans is working?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    May 07, 2016 12:52 AM GMT
    FLgator said
    metta saidDeficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era


    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era


    Are you saying that the sequester put into effect by the Republicans is working?


    ^^Revisionist history^^

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_sequestration_in_2013
    It required the support of Senate Democrats, who had the majority, to agree to it as well. But the intent was to create time for a select Super-Committee to come up with recommendations, calling for spending cuts AND tax increases, of which the Democrats and Republicans could not agree on. So when the deadline passed, sequestration kicked in.

    But I think it will be reduced or end soon as the Feds are whispering about implementing negative interest rates to get inflation consistently above 2% or even 3%. And that is how they are looking to pay down the debt.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    May 07, 2016 1:25 AM GMT
    A zit is smaller an hour after you squeeze it. Yes, but it still looks horrible.

    but for Sequestration. Which Obama was forced to do. There would be no shrinkage.

    Obama and Sen Democrats spoke against sequestration.

    "We're putting them on notice," Schumer said in a press conference Tuesday. "Republicans should be warned right here, right now, Democrats are not going to help you pass appropriations bills that lock in senseless, automatically triggered cuts that hurt the middle class."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 2:03 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidFlying on Air Force One for date nights and father-daughter weekends to Manhattan at a cost of $225,000 per hour doesn't help.



    That's right! Because every other president that ever went on vacation before Obama flew Delta! Shame on him! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 2:29 AM GMT
    BlackCat said
    mx5guynj saidFlying on Air Force One for date nights and father-daughter weekends to Manhattan at a cost of $225,000 per hour doesn't help.

    That's right! Because every other president that ever went on vacation before Obama flew Delta! Shame on him! icon_lol.gif

    I presume you mean that facetiously. Because no President since flight began has ever routinely flown on commercial airlines. I'm not aware that President Obama has ever flown commercial during his term in office.

    The security and communications aboard Air Force One are vital for national security. And it's Obama's predecessor, GW Bush, who may hold the title as the most "vacationed" President in modern times.

    As far as the use of Air Force One, its cost is reimbursed at a set rate when the flight is not strictly for official government business. Again, Bush was notorious for pushing that envelope, flying primarily to attend political events but including some minor & brief official Presidential appearance to justify a taxpayer bill for the cost of the entire flight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 5:35 AM GMT
    Three factors to consider:

    1. Taxes are too high - sure, they help reduce a government-created deficit, but they screw us by taking too many dollars out of our hard-earned pay. Reduce taxes, let us keep more of our money, and those deficits suddenly start flowing in the opposite direction.

    2. Sequestration - a major reason why spending has been somewhat contained; ironically, this was put in place because the people who run the government couldn't agree on other ways to more productively address the deficit issue

    3. Economic cycles - history shows us over and over the ebb and flow of economic cycles, regardless of which party controls the White House. These deficits were due to start turning once the economy improved. I suppose the folks giving Obama credit for this turnaround, therefore need to give Reagan credit for what happened while he was in office.

    These three factors, more so than the President's policies, is why Rachael can be tooting the deficit-is-falling horn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 5:54 PM GMT
    As much as I dislike Obama, I've had a hard time being too mad at him considering that whomever we get next will end up being worse, or at least a worse person.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 07, 2016 10:53 PM GMT
    Say what you like about Obama, but he's the first president in 50 years who is fully a man of his times. He may not have the sunny disposition of Reagan, but he does seem to be "in touch" with ordinary people (to the extent that any president can be).

    And given that he came into office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, he has done a very competent job economically.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 08, 2016 6:45 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidSay what you like about Obama, but he's the first president in 50 years who is fully a man of his times. He may not have the sunny disposition of Reagan, but he does seem to be "in touch" with ordinary people (to the extent that any president can be).

    And given that he came into office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, he has done a very competent job economically.


    Shhhhhhhhh not too loud now... You don't want these bigoted,Obama hating, extremist repugnican hens on here take you to task now.
    You better duck...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2016 2:07 AM GMT
    biathlete01 saidMost politicians agree deficits do not matter.

    What about the debt?





    The Debt is The Hole.

    The Deficit is the rate at which we are digging deeper into The Hole.

    So Yes, Deficits Do Matter.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 09, 2016 6:55 PM GMT
    It's amazing how quickly the deficit shrinks when you get rid of the Repub party's wasteful and immoral tax cuts for the rich economic policy, as President Obama did in January 2013.

    And when Hillary raises taxes even more on the rich, we can get back to running a SURPLUS and paying off the National Debt - like we did the last time the Clintons were in the White House!
  • Relajado

    Posts: 409

    May 09, 2016 10:54 PM GMT
    mx5guynj saidThe US Federal Debt in January 2009 when Obama took office: 10.6 Trillion

    The current Federal Debt: 19.2 Trillion

    http://www.usdebtclock.org



    That debt figure is mosleading. It did not include the budget for those disastrous wars.
  • Relajado

    Posts: 409

    May 09, 2016 10:54 PM GMT
    Kantankerous said
    biathlete01 saidMost politicians agree deficits do not matter.

    What about the debt?





    The Debt is The Hole.

    The Deficit is the rate at which we are digging deeper into The Hole.

    So Yes, Deficits Do Matter.



    Yup.

    Some people here are really damn thick.