US Deficit lowest since 2007

a reply to: onequestion

Dear onequestion,

Why didn't you make that objection to the OP? He brought up the idea of Obama succeeding, and that the Republicans would fail, not me.

Was I factually incorrect anywhere?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Who cares who brought it up still a fact.

Gimme a break - this guy does not mention the mandatory Sequester Cuts that Obama signed with basically a gun to his head. The cuts are mandatory he nor his policies have anything to do with it...i can't take this article seriously.


Budget sequestration in 2013

It's like Obama taking credit for decreased oil imports - like he wanted more domestic oil production that he tried to block at every pass...lol

It's total lies & fabrication!

While domestic oil production is growing, it is increasing only on private and state lands. The American Petroleum Institute notes that "in areas controlled by the federal government, production has actually fallen on President Obama's watch."

Obama Takes Credit For Oil Boom He's Tried To Block

The one time people needed to say ''its Obama's Fault''

Good to see the US is slowly recovering, I dont think it matters much at this point! :/

a reply to: pexx421

Not that it matters but I happen to be a real estate broker.

You're about 3 years behind in your descriptions of the markets. The foreclosure rush was 2009-2011.

Mortgages are designed to "make money" in the two or three different ways one could take that phrase.

But, it turns out I don't really disagree with you, except in the color of some of your "facts."

Look at the economic "history" of the US ... you see a fairly systematic or periodic rise and fall.

Both are artificial manipulations.

originally posted by: xuenchen
" US Deficit lowest since 2007 "

Yes the spending deficit is down.

But the total National Debt keeps ticking up like mad.

Always interesting to see how politicians binge spend. The first budget an incoming president has any control over is their third year budget. This is because budgeting is done two years in advance, though in the second year budget the sitting president can add with a supplemental bill if he's quick about it. What this means in practical terms is that through 2002 was Clinton, 2003-2010 was Bush, and 2011-2018 is Obama.

a reply to: Aazadan

woah cool it with that logic and facts yall
im not liking these implications
no sir not one bit
(the implications being youre a communist islamic america hater)

a reply to: charles1952

Thanks Xuenchen. I hadn't known how much the spending/revenue ratio fell when the Republicans got the House.

Ahh, that would be a NO then.

The Clinton budgets had us in surplus. BIG Surplus. Bush's two wars and Republican slash and burn ideology destroyed that immediatly.

Here is what happened to the budgets during Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations:

Congress: Not Democratic, and Not to Blame

Conservatives are embarassed by the way Reagan and the Bushes ran the debt up and out of control. So they have invented a cover story: The Democratic Congress did it. I have run into this lie dozens of times. So, I dug deep to set the record straight.
...
Reagan:

• The first budget — passed by all Republicans and a few conservative Southern Democrats. This increased the debt by $144 Billion.
  
• The next 5 budgets — passed by the Republican Senate and signed by Reagan.
  
• The last 2 budgets — passed by a Democratic Congress. Totalled slightly less than Reagan requested.
  

G. H. W. Bush:

• Democratic Congresses under Bush passed smaller budgets than he requested in 3 out of 4 years.
  
• These four Democratic budgets totalled $14.6 Billion less than Bush requested.
  

G. W. Bush:

• The first two budgets — Senate was split 50/50 and the House was Democratic.
  
• Bipartisan and totalled $20 Billion less than Bush requested. The biggest cause of deficits was Bush’s enormous tax cut, mainly for the rich.
  
• The next 4 budgets — the Congress was solid Republican.
  
• The last 2 budgets — Bush vetoed(2) modest Democratic attempts at spending.
  

Basically the President gets what he asks for within a few percentage points. Democratic Congresses tend to give the President a bit less than he asks for; Republicans tend to give the President a bit more.

It isn't the spending that is the problem anyway; it is the (lack of) revenue. The Reagan and Bush Tax cuts are strangling the nation. Had Reagan and the Bushes simply balanced their budget by paying for their spending sprees, the entire WWII debt would have been paid off during the Clinton administration and Bush II would have started his term entirely debt free.

a reply to: rnaa

You don't seem to get it. If the Republicans spent too much, that makes it even more important that Obama spends less.

You seem to have it backwards and think if Bush spends a lot then somehow it's OK for Obama to spend more than all the other presidents in history combined and have nothing to show for it.

Oh wait not nothing, as already pointed out, the mad money-printing has made our housing unaffordable. That's good right? Or maybe you have it backwards again?

I love the "last guy in red did it so it's ok for our guy in blue to do it" mentality.

Were you people taught that two wrongs don't make a right?

originally posted by: xuenchen
" US Deficit lowest since 2007 "

Yes the spending deficit is down.

But the total National Debt keeps ticking up like mad.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Always interesting to see how politicians binge spend. The first budget an incoming president has any control over is their third year budget. This is because budgeting is done two years in advance, though in the second year budget the sitting president can add with a supplemental bill if he's quick about it. What this means in practical terms is that through 2002 was Clinton, 2003-2010 was Bush, and 2011-2018 is Obama.

I have to double check but I don't think Bush even signed a fiscal 2009 budget.

I think Obama enhanced it and signed something in early 2009.

Democrats had Congress since Jan 2007.

It must be their fault.

a reply to: rnaa

Dear rnaa,

1.) The subject of Clinton's surpluses is a very interesting one. Would you care to explain how, in those years of supposed surplus, the National Debt was going up? Why were we borrowing more and paying more interest on the national debt if we had a surplus?

I haven't found anybody with a decent explanation, perhaps you have one.

2.) And spending isn't a problem? Social Security and health care expenditures are both expected to double by 2023. The Congressional Budget Office also says that Obamacare expenses will increase from $6 billion in 2013 to $250 billion by 2023.

Also from the CBO:

Unless substantial changes are made to the major health care programs and Social Security, spending for those programs will equal a much larger percentage of GDP in the future than it has in the past,” the report concluded. “At the same time, under current law, spending for all other federal benefits and services would be on track to make up a smaller percentage of GDP by 2024 than at any point in more than 70 years.”

In addition, federal revenues would grow substantially under current law as a percentage of the overall economy – at a faster rate than any time in memory. Revenues would equal 19.5 percent of GDP by 2039, compared to an average of 17.5 percent over the past four decades, the report stated.

Even so, the report said, spending would soon begin to outpace revenues by increasing amounts relative to GDP and in turn generate higher budget deficits.

Spending is the problem.

a reply to: charles1952

1) We didn't pay down the debt with our surplus. Just because we had more money didn't mean we had less debt. Clinton left with plans to pay it down, but the congress and the new president decided it would be best to cut taxes. We had a surplus, there was no reason to balance anything because the surplus would disappear with the tax cut. Then we went to war with no intention of paying for that except through debt.

2) Spending isn't a problem if revenue isn't a problem. They're both equal, to me. We spend a lot, but we don't put anything in either. So, if you want to keep your low taxes but not all the things that the government has, you want to cut spending. Or if you want to keep all the things the government has but don't mind taxes, you want to raise revenue. I think we should raise revenue, but we should also cut some spending. I don't believe we're good with just doing one or the other.

As to xuenchen's topic on who signed the FY 2009 budget, it was Obama. It was projected to have a $450-ish billion deficit. It ended up having a $1.4 trillion deficit. Mostly due to lack of revenue.

Overall, our deficit has been going down. The deficit has been reduced by nearly $1 trillion since Obama took office. If we manage to pull out a surplus sometime in the near future we need to demand to pay down the debt and not ask for tax cuts. Are you willing to do that?

a reply to: links234

Dear links234,

Thanks for the answers, they're quite clear. Might I ask you for more clarification?

1.) It's claimed that Clinton had surpluses for three years running. If he had money lying around, why did he borrow more every year? If he had three years of surplus, where did he put it? He borrowed money for spending. He didn't put it under his mattress. I would suppose that he'd park it in government bonds. But if he did that, the debt would be lower, not higher.

He supposedly had three years of surpluses, but if he had plans to pay it down, certainly he could have with just a phone call and a signature or two. He could have done it after the first and second years, but he didn't.

2.) Spending is a problem even if revenue isn't. Consider the extreme case. The government takes every thing you have and then spends it all. Revenue matches expenditures, doesn't it? No problem? Isn't that what the Communists called for? Everything belongs to the State?

The more spending the government does, the more decisions it can make and the fewer decisions the individual can make. There's no problem making revenue match spending, just take more. But if you want the citizens to have some freedom and a decent living, you lower the spending to match a reasonable tax.

You're right, the deficit has been going down. Obama started with an absurdly high deficit in his first four years, then started bringing it down to today where the deficit is down to about the highest deficit Bush ever had.

Pulling out a surplus in the future? The CBO says unless there are significant changes in circumstances or policies, we won't see one for a decade. But if we do, how about 50 - 50, tax cuts and debt? Or, maybe better, how about a complete reform and simplification of the tax code? Then put the surplus into reducing debt? Throw out 90% of the pages of the Tax Code, and make each page understandable to normal humans, not just the Reptilians at IRS.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I'm seeing interesting things about the Clinton annual spending "surpluses".

His first 2 years in office had spending deficits with a Democrat (103rd) Congress.

His last 6 years had a spending "surplus" with Republican (104th, 105th, 106th) Congresses.

Yet during Clinton's entire 8 years, the National debt actually rose each year.

I guess that means they sold too many Treasury Securities.

Hmmm.

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

Historical Tables - follow table 1.1 excel tables

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

You're right. It's that constantly increasing debt that bothers me about this story. When my wallet is bulging with money and I need to buy a lawn mower, I don't go down to the bank for a loan. Why did Clinton go to the "bank" for a loan when his wallet was bulging?

It makes no sense, unless he wasn't running a true surplus, it was just accounting tricks and he had to borrow real money.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952
I try to avoid posting too much in my own threads. I will try to answer you though.

1) That's a question you'd want to ask Dennis Hastert, speaker of the house from 1999-2007. The House is responsible for the budgeting and the taxes. Clinton called for paying off the debt by 2015: Clinton: Pay debt by 2015, CNN June 28, 1999

Clinton's plan did not include any major increases in the targeted tax cuts that he proposed earlier this year in areas such as child care and long-term care. Congressional Republicans want to use surpluses for far bigger tax cuts than Clinton has offered.

2) This argument starts to become a matter of ideology. I don't agree with you ideologically, based on what you've posted here. I don't want to make blanket statements about cuts and revenue because there are exceptions to each that I'd make. Suffice to say, I think more revenue is in order as well as some, limited, cuts.

As to the end statements, if we were to raise taxes and/or cut loopholes we could generate a significant amount of revenue. Among the many things we could do is establish a national health care system, but before I delve too far into line-item subjects as that I'll just end it there. Does that help?

a reply to: supermouse

You don't get it at all. It isn't that the Republicans spent too much; its that they didn't pay for it. Maxing out your credit card isn't a problem as long as you have the income to manage it. But maxing out your credit card and then quiting your job isn't very smart - and it is EXACTLY what both Regan and Bush did.

U.S. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is not too outlandish - it hasn't got to maxing out the credit card yet. The country can still afford it.

The problem is the lack of revenue; and Government revenue as a percentage of GDP is at an historic low - which means that there is a lot of scope for increased revenue (yes - raising taxes) to reduce the deficit.

If your only acceptable method of reducing the deficit is to stop spending you will start feeling it in stagnating growth and deteriorating infrastructure ( which is already failing at an alarming rate ). How many roads have to deteriorate so badly that trucking costs double driving inflation through the roof before you figure out that it costs money to keep them maintained? How many bridges need to fall down before you realize it costs money to keep them maintained? How many people need to die from Ebola before you realize it costs money to do medical research?

The Reagan and Bush tax cuts destroyed the economy and it is going to take most of the century to put it back together and in the mean time, if Congress doesn't wake up soon, it is going to cost lives and lots and lots and lots of money to repair the infrastructure that it took us 150 years to put in place and research and engineering may never recover. Infrastructure that allowed us to become the most powerful economy on the planet and the destruction of which will push us back to 2 world status with in 50 years.

It took 50 years to almost pay off the World War 2 debt, it would have happened during the Clinton Administration if Reagan hadn't fallen under the influence of the voodoo economists and Bush just blew it out of the water. If this Congress would learn how to count, it could be fixed with relatively little pain. I am not holding my breath.

Here is some more food for thought:

EFFECT OF REAGAN, KENNEDY, AND BUSH TAX CUTS ON REVENUES

a reply to: rnaa

How does GDP go directly into the U.S. Treasury?