adjusted GDP 1.1%

#52
#52
Debt to GDP - W left office at 60%; Obama will leave office at 100% debt to GDP. He's really slaying that deficit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#53
#53
volinbham said:
True or false, the debt has gone up under every Dem president in the last 50 years?

True or false, the deficits under Obama went up considerably before the came down to still high levels?

As evidence - true or false the national debt doubled under Obama? Hard to claim he's making big progress on the deficit when under him we've added as much debt as all other administrations combined.

True or false, the Sequester has had a major impact on lowering the deficit since enacted.

Bottomline it's silly to point to either party as fiscally conservative when it comes to Federal spending and the debt
Click to expand...


I agree with your bottom line. However Obama wasn't entirely responsible for doubling the debt. Bush did not put the wars started during his term on budget therefore appropriations had to be made during Obama's administration. The bills for those wars are still coming due and being paid for under Obama's watch. He also inherited an economy that was not bringing in money which required more deficit spending.

Our economy and budget is too big and complicated to point the finger at one president, party or either house of congress. Nor will it be solved until both sides can find a way to work together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#54
#54
MT LeConte said:
I agree with your bottom line. However Obama wasn't entirely responsible for doubling the debt. Bush did not put the wars started during his term on budget therefore appropriations had to be made during Obama's administration. The bills for those wars are still coming due and being paid for under Obama's watch. He also inherited an economy that was not bringing in money which required more deficit spending.

Our economy and budget is too big and complicated to point the finger at one president, party or either house of congress. Nor will it be solved until both sides can find a way to work together.
Click to expand...

No President is entirely responsible for the deficit or debt nor are they entirely responsible for programs that contribute to either that existed prior to them.

Agree it's folly to point the finger. The bottomline is few POTI have the stones to push for spending reductions (or even spending freezes).

One of W's big deficit makers is Medicare Part D. I don't recall Obama pushing to take that entitlement away. Likewise, Obamacare will start raising the deficit more and more but I don't future POTI will be anxious to take any of the benefits away.
 
#55
#55
volinbham said:
The Sequester should be claimed by both parties and they should be proud of it. Sure it's a clumsy, ridiculous way to attack spending but at least it actually attacked spending.

The only real policy choice made by Obama that significantly impacted the deficit was the reduction in spending associated with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's the funny part (kinda like the Sequester). We left Iraq because the withdrawal had already been negotiated - that was Obama's rationale for not leaving troops in when he gets pressed on ISIS. So if that's true then W should get credit for stopping that spending since he negotiated the withdrawal from Iraq and Obama just implemented what was already done. Funny how politicians take credit for and distance themselves from the exact same thing depending on the context.
Click to expand...


I agree with this, for the most part. I think the sequester is so toxic because the Dems don't want to get blamed for the cuts to domestic programs and the Republicans don't want to get blamed for the cuts to defense. It wasn't supposed to even go through, they tried to make it so toxic that an agreement would have to be made before it kicked in. Oops.

I really wish more people realized that pulling the troops out of Iraq was negotiated by Bush. I still don't think you can give him credit for "savings" when he was the reason for the costs of the war in Iraq in the first place. We had to go into Afghanistan, not so with Iraq.

I looked up the numbers for the sequester and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it looks to me like the savings for ending the wars is about the same as the savings from the sequester. I could not find numbers for how much more revenue was gained by letting the top tax rates expire.

The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year | The Fiscal Times
Scroll down a bit for the bar graph that shows the expenditures.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/Estimated%20Savings.pdf
 
#56
#56
GAVol said:
Before it's said and done, Obama will increase the debt by roughly the same amount as Bush II. That's not slower.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
So Obama will do more than Bush 1 and about the same as Bush 2

You were saying?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that claims that Obama's been any more of a spendthrift than his Republican predecessors going back to the 1960s is just plain wrong.

Ideally, we would increase revenue by spurring economic growth. But we are going to have to face hard choices on social spending and on military spending, too.

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent $3.7 trillion.

24 percent was spent on social security.

25 percent was spent on Medicare, Medicaid, and related programs.

16 percent was spent on defense.

Only about 10 percent was spent on other safety net programs. When people talk about spending on things like food stamps, for example, they are just taking that way out of context. Food stamps are on the order of 2 percent of the budget.

So now, how do we reduce the debt? Look at what you can cut. There's just not much, unless you are willing to talk about ways to reduce social security and Medicare, and the military spending. That's just a fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
volinbham said:
No President is entirely responsible for the deficit or debt nor are they entirely responsible for programs that contribute to either that existed prior to them.

Agree it's folly to point the finger. The bottomline is few POTI have the stones to push for spending reductions (or even spending freezes).

One of W's big deficit makers is Medicare Part D. I don't recall Obama pushing to take that entitlement away. Likewise, Obamacare will start raising the deficit more and more but I don't future POTI will be anxious to take any of the benefits away.
Click to expand...
I remember being incredulous over the Part D thing under Bush, with such massive debt. I still haven't signed up for that, and will be penalized when I do. I have been on Medicare for 20 months. I only take one generic blood pressure pill as medication, so I don't currently need Part D. But every month that I don't join Part D, I have to pay more monthly when I do.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying that claims that Obama's been any more of a spendthrift than his Republican predecessors going back to the 1960s is just plain wrong.

Ideally, we would increase revenue by spurring economic growth. But we are going to have to face hard choices on social spending and on military spending, too.

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government spent $3.7 trillion.

24 percent was spent on social security.

25 percent was spent on Medicare, Medicaid, and related programs.

16 percent was spent on defense.

Only about 10 percent was spent on other safety net programs. When people talk about spending on things like food stamps, for example, they are just taking that way out of context. Food stamps are on the order of 2 percent of the budget.

So now, how do we reduce the debt? Look at what you can cut. There's just not much, unless you are willing to talk about ways to reduce social security and Medicare, and the military spending. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...
Cut them. I'm game.
 
#60
#60
jackaro said:
I agree with this, for the most part. I think the sequester is so toxic because the Dems don't want to get blamed for the cuts to domestic programs and the Republicans don't want to get blamed for the cuts to defense. It wasn't supposed to even go through, they tried to make it so toxic that an agreement would have to be made before it kicked in. Oops.

I really wish more people realized that pulling the troops out of Iraq was negotiated by Bush. I still don't think you can give him credit for "savings" when he was the reason for the costs of the war in Iraq in the first place. We had to go into Afghanistan, not so with Iraq.

I looked up the numbers for the sequester and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and it looks to me like the savings for ending the wars is about the same as the savings from the sequester. I could not find numbers for how much more revenue was gained by letting the top tax rates expire.

The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year | The Fiscal Times
Scroll down a bit for the bar graph that shows the expenditures.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/Estimated%20Savings.pdf
Click to expand...

My point with the bolded is Obama takes credit for reducing the spending but in reality it was Bush policy that reduced the spending.

IOW - the "drop" in the deficit from less spending in Iraq isn't due to an Obama policy - it is follow through on policy he inherited; just as deficit spending from Medicare D is policy he inherited.

In the end though it's just a game of attribution. Bush and Obama have been prolific spenders of the public's money.
 
#61
#61
Medicare, social security, and defense are roughly 80 % of the federal spending every year. You cannot have meaningful debt reduction unless you are willing to cut all three and/or to increase revenues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
lawgator1 said:
Medicare, social security, and defense are roughly 80 % of the federal spending every year. You cannot have meaningful debt reduction unless you are willing to cut all three and/or to increase revenues.
Click to expand...
What percentage is interest on the debt?
 
#64
#64
lawgator1 said:
We basically traded 10 years worth of anemic growth and recovery to avoid 5 years of depression-level disaster.

Whether it was a good trade or not depends on what kind of job you had then, and have now.
Click to expand...

I had the same job during bush and obama, who do I blame/give credit?

*im joking
 
#65
#65
lawgator1 said:
Medicare, social security, and defense are roughly 80 % of the federal spending every year. You cannot have meaningful debt reduction unless you are willing to cut all three and/or to increase revenues.
Click to expand...

That's certainly it in a nutshell.

1. The baby boomers (including me) aren't dying fast enough.

2. The military is bloated, imo we can get more for less.

3. Taxes are too low.

We can do something about 2 and 3. 1 will have to take care of itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#66
#66
MT LeConte said:
That's certainly it in a nutshell.

1. The baby boomers (including me) aren't dying fast enough.

2. The military is bloated, imo we can get more for less.

3. Taxes are too low.

We can do something about 2 and 3. 1 will have to take care of itself.
Click to expand...

We can do something about 1 as well.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#67
#67
BeecherVol said:
We can do something about 1 as well.:)
Click to expand...

Single payer would do that.

But we'll be stuck with single payer. So no.


#2. It's being worked on, oh my god it's being worked on. Don't push it anymore.

#3. Lololololololololo. Go **** yourself. They need to be decreased.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
What is needed to curb military spending is twofold:

1. Audit the Pentagon expenditures. The bookkeeping of military expenditures is nonexistent. We need to make sure the money goes to where it is supposed to go.

2. Have national security experts (military and civilian) set the budget as needed to protect America and American interests. Congress funds programs that the Pentagon does not want and budgets are set by how much money it brings to Congressional districts.

As far as funding Social Security, raise the wage maximum that is taxed from $118,500 to whatever it needs to be to fund it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#69
#69
ClearwaterVol said:
It must be real bad in some areas because Nashville, Knoxville and St. Pete/Clearwater are the areas I know and they all seem to be kicking ass.
Click to expand...

Wow so 4 small areas are kicking butt according to you, and that means the economy is doing fine. Man what a legit analogy. Well like momma said, stupid is as stupid does.
 
#72
#72
You guys debating which moronic whore-of-a-president reduced deficits more is like debating which one of your Samoan girlfriends is skinny.

They ALL suck. They've sucked for decades. They will likely continue to suck in the future.

How about for your next conversation you argue about where the deck chairs looked best on the Titanic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#74
#74
Thunder Good-Oil said:
You shouldn't trust that Made in China calculator from Dollar Tree. You missed by about 112%.

Buy American.
Click to expand...
People don't understand percentage increases. A couple of days ago, a VN poster, Lawrence Wright, stated that the stock market has had a 300% increase under Obama. I pointed out that the Dow was at 8,200+ when Obama came in, and that a 300% increase would put it at over 33,000 today. Good catch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#75
#75
1972 Grad said:
People don't understand percentage increases. A couple of days ago, a VN poster, Lawrence Wright, stated that the stock market has had a 300% increase under Obama. I pointed out that the Dow was at 8,200+ when Obama came in, and that a 300% increase would put it at over 33,000 today. Good catch.
Click to expand...

Even if he said it the way he meant it, it's still not "over" 300%. 934 x 3 = 2,802. He failed multiple times in a single calculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top