Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era


In the not-too-distant past, talk in the political world of the U.S. budget deficit was all the rage. As the Tea Party “movement” took shape, conservatives quite literally took to the streets to express their fear that President Obama and Democrats were failing to address the “out of control” deficit.

Congressional Republicans agreed. As recently as 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was asked about the radicalism of his political agenda and he responded, “[W]hat I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year.” Around the same time, then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that Congress should be “focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit.”

The Republican rhetoric was ridiculously wrong. We don’t have a trillion-dollar deficit; the deficit isn’t the ultimate problem; and it’s not growing.

Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.


Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Revisiting our coverage from several months ago, I looked for press releases from the “Obama is turning us into Greece!” crowd, eager to see them celebrate President Obama’s striking record on deficit reduction, but so far, nothing has turned up. Maybe they’re busy.

And in practical terms, that’s a shame. The vast majority of Americans are absolutely certain – thanks to deceptive Republican rhetoric and unfortunate news coverage – that the deficit has soared in the Obama era. Late last year, a Bloomberg Politics Poll found that 73% of the public believes the deficit has gotten bigger over the last six years.

The year before, the same pollster found that only 6% of Americans realized the deficit was shrinking. It helps explain why the president hasn’t gotten any credit for deficit reduction, which seems like the sort of development Tea Partiers and the Beltway’s Very Serious People should consider an extraordinary accomplishment.

...

Read More: http://www.msnbc.com/rach...-obama-era
Top
+8
-4
Posted by Tomm (-1033) 5 years ago
Good report. Now give the report on the national DEBT. Today it is at $19,257,490,295,850.
Top
+5
-6
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 5 years ago
What causes the national DEBT to grow Tomm?
Top
+4
-4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Yeah, I also was going to say... and the deficit causes increases to what???

Hrmmm. I guess it's a mystery.
Top
+4
-4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Tomm (#366227)
Tomm wrote:
Good report. Now give the report on the national DEBT. Today it is at $19,257,490,295,850.

Here you go Tomm.

Who Increased the Debt?



TL;DR ... of the last 5 presidents according to the U.S. Treasury ...

#1. Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

#2. George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

#3. George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

#4. Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

#5. Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

http://www.snopes.com/pol...aldebt.asp
Top
+7
-5
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 5 years ago
Reply to MilesCity.com Webmaster (#366229)
MilesCity.com Webmaster wrote:
Yeah, I also was going to say... and the deficit causes increases to what???

Hrmmm. I guess it's a mystery.


Apparently it's a mystery to at least one man.
Top
+4
-4
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 5 years ago
STOP WITH THE FACTS!

You Liberals are always throwing facts and reality around as if they matter! What matters is the 'anti-everyone not just like me' fantasy. (Well, not me. I'm a smart, uppity woman but you know what I mean.)

Stop interjecting reality into my bigotry.
Top
+6
-8
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Here's a video for Tomm.


He should try to soak that up a bit. Although, I also think he needs a refresher on compound interest and the effects of it over time.
Top
+5
-4
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 5 years ago
That video was obviously produced by MSNBC or similar such organizations.

We need to hear from more reputable news sources, such as FOX, Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc. before we can formulate an opinion.

Correct, Tomm?
Top
+6
-4
Posted by MCMTLG (+46) 5 years ago
Which President signed the 2009 budget?
Top
supporter
Posted by M T Zook (+515) 5 years ago
I would like to point out that Mr. Webmasters data in the one example only goes to April, 2011, a full 5 years ago.

#5. Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

Debt, deficit, I don't care what you call it. It needs to go away and the only way to fix that is something that makes NOBODY happy, increase taxes and cut spending.

Back in the hole...

[Edited by M T Zook (4/27/2016 5:33:17 AM)]

[Edited by M T Zook (4/27/2016 5:34:26 AM)]
Top
+7
-1
Posted by busyB (+625) 5 years ago
I'm about as liberal as they come.

I also have a weakness for facts.

When using a chart from Snopes.com, its important to read the Snopes synopsis.

That chart is flawed as a percentage increase in debt would only be a viable if all parties rated held office for the same amount of time and if it were measured as such.

Obviously, some held two terms, some held one... Obama is only rated for his first half term.

Thus the reason it was on Snopes in the first place.

Inaccurately biasd, at best.
Top
+3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
All these arguments assume that debt is a bad thing.

Is it?

http://www.nytimes.com/20....html?_r=0

Discuss.
Top
+4
-4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to MCMTLG (#366242)
MCMTLG wrote:
Which President signed the 2009 budget?

Federal budget years run from Oct - Sept. The 2009 budget year started Oct. 1, 2008. George W. Bush and congress created it. Obama signed it after taking office.



2009 United States federal budget

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008. The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ral_budget
Top
+2
-2
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to M T Zook (#366243)
M T Zook wrote:
I would like to point out that Mr. Webmasters data in the one example only goes to April, 2011, a full 5 years ago.

I didn't make the chart. The data for Obama is obviously incomplete.

The current U.S. debt is $19,210 billion.
Source: http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search

So, using the same method, the order should be updated to this:

Who Increased the Debt?

#1. Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

#2. George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

#3. Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of April 27, 2016): $19,210 billion
Percent change in total debt: +80%

#4. George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

#5. Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

Perhaps not the best way to evaluate, but it does show the percent the debt increased under each president.
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Isn't it clever how you can spin an economic disaster. You report "reduced deficits"

Here's the equation...

Stifle growth + raise taxes = reduced deficits

The icing on the cake is an additional $11,000,000,000,000 in real debt, but.. "Nothing to see here folks....just keep moving..."

"Deficit" reduction = rabbit out of a hat.

It's almost like someone with zero understanding of economics is running the Country......

Oh....wait...
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
oddy's question begging again. BAD ODDY, BAD!
Top
+3
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Such fun!

You lib's always get so bent when you think someone else is using your proprietary fallacy tools!

Attack the person, dodge the argument.

Is there something wrong with what I said, Bridgier?

Please astound us with your wisdom.

[Edited by Oddjob (4/27/2016 12:17:57 PM)]
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
I'm happy to hear you concede that logic is proprietary to liberals.
Top
+2
-4
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 5 years ago
"Oddjob" wrote:
Stifle growth

How do you measure growth? GDP?
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
Stifle growth + raise taxes = reduced deficits



So....tell me about the time that Obama raised your Federal taxes, Oddjob.
Top
+1
-4
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
The assumption that obama has the power to unilaterally 'stifle growth' and given that, that he then uses that power incorrectly because he has 'zero economic knowledge' is assuming the argument, that is, question begging.

Oddy was a proud member of the tautology club back in high school.
Top
+5
-5
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366252)
Oddjob wrote:
Isn't it clever how you can spin an economic disaster. You report "reduced deficits"

Here's the equation...

Stifle growth + raise taxes = reduced deficits

A. Define what you mean by "economic disaster". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.

B. In regards to the first part of your "equation":

US GDP by Year:

2009 $14,419 billion
2010 $14,964 billion
2011 $15,518 billion
2012 $16,155 billion
2013 $16,663 billion
2014 $17,348 billion
2015 $17,947 billion

Where's the stifle?
Top
+4
-4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Also:

US Unemployment Rate by Year

2009 9.9%
2010 9.3%
2011 8.5%
2012 7.9%
2013 6.7%
2014 5.6%
2015 5.0%

Again, where's the stifle?
Top
+3
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
But just imagine how much FASTER it would have grown if The Kenyan In Chief hadn't been waging a War On Coal or shackling the economic engines of Wall Street.

You can't prove that it wouldn't have, so you'll probably need to concede that point to Oddy.
Top
+4
-2
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
Stifle growth + raise taxes = reduced deficits



Oddjob obviously knows nothing about economics (or much else, really)

Stifling growth wouldn't reduce the deficit, dummy.

Less growth = less corporate and individual earnings = less tax revenue.

Less tax revenue = INCREASED DEFICITS
Top
+2
-5
Posted by MCMTLG (+46) 5 years ago
So a 2009 budget passed by a Pelosi house and Reid Senate, then signed by President Obama was really Bush's fault?
Top
+3
-2
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to MCMTLG (#366271)
MCMTLG wrote:
So a 2009 budget passed by a Pelosi house and Reid Senate, then signed by President Obama was really Bush's fault?

Okay, to take your side... while ignoring the whole great recession thing...

If congress, in this case [2008/2009] (with a Pelosi house and a Reid senate) are to be somewhat blamed for the 2009 budget... then how about since?

Should not the same measure apply to all congresses since?
Top
+4
-2
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 5 years ago
Yawn. The best post in this thread was made earlier by Bridgier. Those who lay awake at night, worrying about the national debt, are ignorant mouth breathers whose limited intellect prevents them from understanding modern economics.

Time to vote for a savvy businessman who does. Vote Trump!
Top
+1
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
The Obama record:

Most anemic GDP growth in history..

http://www.investors.com/...-the-pace/

Highest tax revenue extracted in history..2014 & 2015.

https://www.rt.com/usa/31...e-deficit/

Of course "deficit" will decrease.

The whole premise of the original article that this is a wonderful accomplishment is hogwash.
Top
+3
-3
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 5 years ago
I'll ask again:

Have your FEDERAL tax rates increased during the Obama administration?
Top
+3
-3
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
The best post in this thread was made earlier by Bridgier.

This is almost invariably true.

And I see that Oddy IS trying to make the case that the growth should have been higher. Well... prove it.
Top
+2
-3
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14950) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366275)
Oddjob wrote:
The Obama record:

Most anemic GDP growth in history..

http://www.investors.com/...-the-pace/

Highest tax revenue extracted in history..2014 & 2015.

https://www.rt.com/usa/31...e-deficit/

Of course "deficit" will decrease.

The whole premise of the original article that this is a wonderful accomplishment is hogwash.


Oddjob make a great point here. War is big business and great for the economy. If the Kenyen-in-Chief had only been more aggressive and patriotic in exporting the delivery of shock and awe, and the whole military-industrial complex, if the kill rate of brown people was like 5% higher, we could have grown our economy at a much higher rate. But because he has been so timid about carpet bombing the "enemy", we have this anemic growth. Thanks, Obama.
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9193) 5 years ago
How's the deficit doing in Kansas these days?
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 5 years ago
The thing I could never understand is for all the handwringing conservatives do over the deficit, their solution is "tax cuts."

Are they just all terrible at math?
Top
+4
-3
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 5 years ago
No. They know the poor will suffer and the rich will get richer. The rest is just smoke and mirrors. Even the Republicans in Kansas are starting to say, wait, what happened? because it is SO BAD there.
Top
+2
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366275)
Oddjob wrote:
The Obama record:

Most anemic GDP growth in history..

By my calculations, using government figures from this website:

http://www.bea.gov/national/

GDP Snapshot
2016 Q1 - 18,221 billion
2009 Q1 - 14,383 billion
2001 Q1 - 10,508 billion
1993 Q1 - 6,054 billion
1989 Q1 - 5,527 billion
1981 Q1 - 3,131 billion

GDP Increase by President (my estimate)
Obama: 27% increase (so far)
Bush #2: 36% increase
Clinton: 74% increase
Bush #1: 9% increase
Reagan: 76% increase

So how is that, the "most anemic GDP growth in history"?
Top
+2
-3
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Well, if you consider 2% growth in the GDP as a success story then your man is a goddamn hero. Most economists would consider it a dismal failure.

The metric they are talking about here would be highly favorable in an expanding economy, but the economy is not expanding. It's barely keeping up with inflation. That means the "deficit" is being cut by oppressive taxation on a reduced workforce..95 million people are not working. They are not even looking.

This article is a cynical slap in the face to the people who are bearing the burden.

(Which you should understand, is most of you who are ragging on me)

Enjoy.
Top
+4
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366317)
Oddjob wrote:
Well, if you consider 2% growth in the GDP as a success story then your man is a goddamn hero. Most economists would consider it a dismal failure.

Where are you getting the 2% growth GDP figure? GDP has increased 27% since Obama has taken office.

Oddjob wrote:
The metric they are talking about here would be highly favorable in an expanding economy, but the economy is not expanding. It's barely keeping up with inflation.

Again, where you are coming up with that? Inflation is below 1%.

Oddjob wrote:
That means the "deficit" is being cut by oppressive taxation on a reduced workforce..95 million people are not working. They are not even looking.

Yet again, where are you coming up with that? By my calculations, since Obama took office, the workforce has increased by about 4 million, and the employed workforce has gone up by about 9 million.

Also, there are perhaps about 9 million people unemployed. Not 95 million. The total U.S. Workforce is something like 156 million people -- to suggest that 95 million of 156 million are unemployed, is pretty darned ridiculous.
Top
+5
-4
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2495) 5 years ago
95 million people are not working. They are not even looking.


It would appear Oddjob got this statistic from here: http://www.breitbart.com/...bor-force/

BUT, when that 94 million Americans number is actually examined, a far different picture emerges, see Here http://blogs.wsj.com/econ...bor-force/

The following deadbeat number "There are 2.6 million who want a job but aren’t looking" is the actual truth of Americans who aren't even looking for jobs, don't already have a job, aren't students, aren't retired, aren't disabled, etc.
Top
+5
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Hannah Nash (#366322)
So, right off the bat ... of the 92 million people who didn't work, as of 2014 ... "About 41 million Americans don’t work because they’re retired."

Huh, who would have thunk that?

And "An additional 15 million say they’re not in the labor force because they’re in school."

Then add on another 20 million people who don't actually want a job.

Plus whatever other reasons the rest have.

Great way to cherry pick stats to make up a tale, Oddjob.
Top
+5
-3
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 5 years ago
Oddjob wrote:
The metric they are talking about here would be highly favorable in an expanding economy, but the economy is not expanding. It's barely keeping up with inflation. That means the "deficit" is being cut by oppressive taxation on a reduced workforce..95 million people are not working. They are not even looking.


Please explain to me how this works.

Individual and corporate tax rates have not increased during the Obama administration. So how is it that taxation is more oppressive now as compared to when your boy GW Bush was the President?

I know, math is hard for some folks.
Top
+2
-4
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
MilesCity.com Webmaster wrote:


Where are you getting the 2% growth GDP figure? GDP has increased 27% since Obama has taken office.


Again, where you are coming up with that? Inflation is below 1%.


Your Google button works the same as mine, Webmaster. Here is one source that won't show up on page 1.

GDP

https://research.stlouisf...L1Q225SBEA

Look at the 5 year graph. Even an eyeball estimate of the average screams 2%!. Look at the 10 year graph keeping in mind that (X) is now 2.5.

Inflation

http://www.forbes.com/sit...f03635118b

Worst kept secret on the planet? The CPI is a number that suits a government purpose. It is NOT a number with any basis in reality.

The primary weakness with Google is it can't force you to look for what you don't want to see.
Top
+1
-4
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366330)
I don't know what you're smoking, but you apparently need new eyeballs and a lesson in math.


http://www.multpl.com/us-...-adjusted/

Even your "Real GDP" figure shows something like a 12% increase for Obama and almost the exact same thing for G.W. Bush.

And, the second link is an opinion piece from an anti-fiat Bitcoin hack.
Top
+3
-1
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366330)
I see now, that the "2%" GDP figure you are spouting off about comes from you cherry picking data, yet again. It shows up in this chart:


http://www.multpl.com/us-...rowth-rate

Which if you look at it, has a tiny little red dot on the right hand side labeled "1.98%".

The thing you did not mention, is your "2%" GDP figure is (A) an Adjusted "Real GDP" Growth Rate, and (B) *and this is the important one* - is only a single Annual sample.

Look at the chart again, Mr. Oddjob. Do you see any other dips on it that go below what you declared as the "most anemic GDP growth in history"??? Any at all???
Top
+3
-2
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 5 years ago
Says the Webmaster...

"And, the second link is an opinion piece from an anti-fiat Bitcoin hack."

At least my hack has a degree in something remotely related to finance as opposed to Steve Benen, who is a hack blogger and producer for Rachael Maddow with a degree in Political Science.

If you don't want to defend the CPI, just say it. If you want to believe data sourced from bloggers and MSNBC, and tell me that the data I referenced from FRED and Forbes is not credible there is not much point to this discussion.
Top
+2
-4
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17052) 5 years ago
Your "hack" -- Perianne Boring -- was the "constituent relations director" for Rep. Dennis A. Ross, a Florida Republican. I'm sure Perianne would never say anything bad about President Obama.

If you don't like that the government uses the CPI to decide if you get your Social Security raise or not you can always write to your congressman and complain. Be sure to include a note about which tax you want to raise to help pay for the increased cost of Social Security benefits. I know you love tax increases and you certainly wouldn't want those increased benefits to add to our national debt.
Top
+2
-3
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 5 years ago
Reply to Oddjob (#366367)
Oddjob wrote:
If you don't want to defend the CPI, just say it.

You already defended the CPI with your promotion of "Real GDP" (above ^^) -- which, BTW, is GDP adjusted by CPI.

Or did you not realize that?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Top
+3
-2
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 5 years ago
Economics is not Oddjob's forte!
Top
+1
-3