Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Dec 29, 2013.
I'd agree except for the fact that we have a crybaby RINO in charge of the House... One that I have no confidence in.
You do realize 2013 was still the 5th largest deficit in US history right? We have some of the highest tax revenue we have ever had and still run a very large deficit.
Let's keep the bs out and look how it really got to where it is, which is no stimulus and cut to defense spending with taxing the rich more as a cherry on top.
If you are talking averages the bigger difference between the percentages of receipts and of outlays to GDP is outlays/spending and not the lack of receipts. That value is over twenty percent above its average of 19.8 since WWII. Whereas receipts are about 12 percent lower than the average from WWII to today. The difference between the two is at an all-time high of -10.2 percent for the last four years verses the average of -2.1 percent from WWI to the present.
Cuts - despite what many believe - were never going to erase the deficit.
The deficit is being erased by tax receipts which are due to a cyclical recovery. Obama is right that the deficit is reduced, he's wrong that he did anything about it.
You raise the deficit to the highest point in history in your first year, then take credit four years later for cutting deficit in half even though it is still higher then when you took office. And the gulible believe this and defend it.
gullible is still believing "he" raised all that deficit in fiscal 09...it was $1.2 trillion by the time he even stepped in, with the economy going to sh!t
or thinking the deficit/debt shouldn't increase when the economy is crumbling
If we're being honest, the deficit he stepped into was not 1.2T, it was $800B. An additional $400B was appropriated after Obama took office.
Still a decrease, but not halved. And it's still not due to any presidential policy.
Before Obama even took office, CBO projected the 2009 deficit at 1.3 trillion. The vast majority of the 2009 budget deficit goes to Bush.
Well if folks are going to blame him for the deficit getting up to 1.2T then he might as well claimed to have halved it. But so much of what presidents get blamed for is kind of silly anyway, just as much of what they take credit for happening.
Yep. Obama is bragging that this year his year deficit is equivalent to being the tallest midget.
Yes, the vast majority goes to Bush. That's ignoring the point of what I said entirely.
Also what the hell would the CBO estimate have to do with what actually happened?
You said 800 million goes to Bush. It's higher than that. The CBO estimate shows that the deficit was already expected to be as high as it ended up being before any Obama policy was enacted. Tell me you can understand the relevance of this.
The CBO's deficit estimate does not mean anything. The budget that Bush signed had a nearly $800B deficit as it pertains to spending over revenue. Effectively all you're saying is the CBO estimate was right.
Yeah I didn't figure you could understand the relevance of the CBO estimate. The CBO estimate further supports the claim that the vast majority of the 2009 deficit is not attributable to Obama's policies in his first year. You attribute 400 billion to Obama's policies. This is not correct for the 2009 deficit.
My god, the CBO estimate does no such thing. The CBO factors budget (and/or proposed budgets) against economic factors (retail, unemployment, etc.) to surmise an estimated revenue. They then say "we expect spending to be X and revenue to be Y, leaving a Z deficit or surplus."
Their number was pretty close, but that says absolutely nothing about the actual $s that contributed to variable Z.
I'm sort of staggered that you believe the CBO estimate makes some sort of assertion about specifically when and where the spending will come versus the revenue. It's ... baffling.
Let me simplify the math for you:
In 2010 (for 2010), federal receipts totaled $2.1T
In 2008, Bush proposed a budget that called for $3.1T in spending
In 2009, Obama signed two stimulus bills that added approximately $400B to that total.
This resulted in a $1.38T deficit.
You can't really split that # up arbitrarily. Bush oversaw ~$900B more spending than we had in receipts. Obama oversaw $400B in additional expenditures without increasing receipts as a result.
Note: I went to school for macro but this is 3rd grade math.
And please note that while I don't give Obama (or any president) direct credit for budgetary activity, he has overseen one of the slowest growths of federal spending in decades and that's going to be an admirable thing should it continue through the end of his term.
That doesn't change what happened in 2009.
I'll try one last time. The CBO estimated the deficit would be 1.3 trillion for 2009 before Obama even came into office. The actual deficit came out to around 1.4 trillion. This is indicative of Obama policies not having much impact on what the deficit for 2009 was already expected to be. It's real simple if you want to see it. If not, I can't help you understand something so basic unless you choose to.
I'm not sure how else to explain that this doesn't matter. Look at the post above. It's very, very basic math.