Congressional Budget Office: Budget deficit drops to $435B

All you are doing is copy pasta jobs from other websites, trying to confuse the issue with irrelevant stats and false assertions, and repeating things you've already posted earlier and were answered to. It seems you are trying to throw this thread off its original theme. The subject of this thread has to do with the fact that cons and Reps were flooding this board with sarcastic "Thanks, Obama" flamebait, blaming him for the increased deficit (which was run up primarily by Bush), but now are not willing to credit him with reducing the deficit. I mean, he controls the deficit or not. If you blamed him before, you have to give him credit now. You can't have it both ways.

 

Why would you use averages to show how progress has been made during their terms, unless you are trying to be deceptive?

What did Bush inherit and what happened during his term? What did Obama inherit and what happened during his term?

- - - Updated - - -

False on both counts. But don't let that stop you. It never has before.

 

Bush apparently did not have anything to do with TARP either. Of course Obama is solely responsible for the Bush Crash that dropped revenues from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 contributing 600 Billion to the 2009 fiscal deficit ... it was all his fault !!

 

I don't know how you can look at America's current policy and actions within the current state of international affairs or the REAL unemployment rate and say the president is doing a good job.

The country's problems are not entirely his fault...he did inherit some of them...but his has been one of least transparent, most divisive and worst administrations in terms honesty and leadership in history.

 

Because when one is comparing Presidential Terms, an average makes perfect sense. The claim was made that Obama "wildly slashed" the budget compared to Bush. I didn't remember it that way, so I went to the WHITEHOUSE's very own numbers and showed that not only was that a wild exaggeration, that Obama is on track to rack up FOUR TIMES the average deficit that Bush racked up, and Bush was the very worst President in this regard, until Obama. That you are angered to the point of attacking me personally only further verifies my claims. You know the old saw:

If you have the facts, you argue the facts.
If you don't have the facts but you have the law, you argue the law.
If you have neither the facts nor the law, you raise your voice and pound the table.

Listen, Bush was a terrible President, the only problem is Obama is much worse. Rather than fighting one another, Democrats and Republicans, jointly, need to make sure we don't have 3 lousy presidents in a row.

Now we need to quit arguing with each other, and get to work.

 

Why does Obama get all the credit when the Republicans have controlled congress since January of 2011?????

 

True on both counts. But don't let that stop you. It never has before.

Obama raised taxes here and here.

And yes, Federal spending keeps going up.

 

I am providing the indisputable facts, lack of rebuttal noted. It has been shown to you it was the Democrats who increased the deficits so dramatically in 2008 and 2009, that points still stands and spare me your attempts to turn it into a sophomoric "you just hate Obama". Deal with the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

He had everything to do with it, it stopped the financial meltdown and then was paid back. No one was responsible for the recession, Democrats were responsible for their failed response to it and that includes President Obama.

 

They haven't controlled Congress since 2011 and have been able to fight the Democrats out of control spending and actually lower the deficits, you know that sequester the Democrats and resident leftist blame them for.

 

If Bush was responsible for the deficit, and no one is responsible for the recession (abject nonsense but ok) then quit blaming Obama for these things.

Now you are contradicted by your own words.

 

When the two objects your comparing start from radically different places, averages don't make sense at all.

Bush took office with a $236 billion budget surplus. Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit.

*Of course* Obama's average would be higher under such circumstances. You're essentially putting the blame on him for the Great Recession. Why would anyone expect any different? Why would you use it, except to be deceptive?

Bush inherited a $236 billion surplus and left office with the deficit projected at $1.2 trillion.

Obama inherited that deficit which is now down by 2/3.

What you "remember" is irrelevant. Those are facts.

Impressive table pounding.

Wake me up when Obama has squandered a surplus budget, when he's got us bogged down in a "mistaken" war, and when he leaves the worst recession in 80 years. Then we can talk.

 

No he didn't.

 

Why do you keep insisting Presidents alone are responsible for the budgets and resulting deficits/surpluses?

The Democrats, including Obama, raised the last Reupiblican deficit of a paltry $161B to over $1,400B in just two years and the kept it over $1,000B for what the next 4 years.

So lets compare Republican deficits to Democrat deficits.

- - - Updated - - -

I've done nothing of the sort. Get back to me when you want to debate the facts. Until then my points still stand.

 

Strawman. I've done nothing of the sort. Get back to me when you want to debate the facts. Until then my points still stand.

Bush wasn't a Democrat. Why do you keep implying the President has no role in the budget?

Compare away.

The recession was responsible for the jump in the deficit in 2009. Which you blame on Obama and the Democrat. His point is spot on.

 

I just pointed out where youbdid again.

So why do you do that?

I don't as you well know.

I do every time we discuss it as you well know you only attribute to who is sitting in the Oval office.

Still waiting.

Oh the recession raised it in 2009, didnt know recessions voted for budgets. But somehow didn't raise it in 2001 during that recession. Talking out both sides again.

The fact remains the Democrats raised spending HUGELY in 2008 and then doubled down on that in 2009 producing that $1,400B deficit and never got it down to the WORST Republican deficit, not when close.

And did youbsupportbthe sequester which has lowered the deficit these last few years? Yes or no? Did Obama? Yes or no?

 

Taxes are still lower than before Bush took office.

Year - Total spending
2009 3.52 a
2010 3.46 a
2011 3.60a
2012 3.54 a
2013 3.45 a
2014 3.51

I love it when the source people use to show they are right, prove they are wrong. Here your own source proves your RW propaganda statement proves your statement " the Federal government is spending more than ever" is wrong.

But don't let the truth from your own source stop you from regurgitating RW propaganda.

 

Thank the Republican's for the sequester.

 

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

The simple fact is that Obama inherited a federal deficit of $1.2 trillion on the day he was sworn in last year. Barely two weeks earlier, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular "Budget and Economic Outlook" document, stating: "CBO, Jan. 2009: The federal fiscal situation in 2009 will be dramatically worse than it was in 2008. Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place (that is, not accounting for any new legislation), CBO estimates that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, more than two and a half times the size of last year’s."
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/a-texas-size-whopper/

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

- - - Updated - - -

Report: Budget Deficit Shrinks Due To More Tax Revenue
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/05/07/report-budget-deficit-shrinks-due-to-more-tax-revenue-n1590424

 

You're being intellectually dishonest again.

Your often repeated claim: "The Democrats, including Obama, raised the last Reupiblican deficit of a paltry $161B to over $1,400B in just two years"
Bush was president in 2007. Why are you implying he had no role in the FY2009 deficit that was already running at $1.2 trillion before he left office?

for what?

You didn't know recessions increased deficits?

Let me educate you. With a bad recession, millions of people lose their jobs, and corporate profits and the stock market crater, all of which causes revenues to drop. People need more unemployment and Govt assistance, which causes expenditures to rise. Add in things like tax cuts and spending to stimulate the economy and the deficit situation worsens.

Fallacious comparison. 2001 wasn't a real recession, despite being proclaimed so. Real GDP did not decline in 2001, it increased 1%. It didn't decline two consecutive quarters.

You didn't have anything like the recesson Obama and the Democrats inherited.

See above. Spending increased because of the recession.

And 95% of FY2009 spending was already locked in before Obama took office.

See my prior posts where I answered this question the first 20 times you asked it.

 

Are we to dismiss that the deficit is going down as you wanted.

 

Revenue is up, which in large part explains the deficit decreasing. But revenue is not even close "historic" relative to GDP. If we collected the same amount of revenues proportionate to GDP as in 2000, the deficit would be virtually wiped out.

 

Sure it is. This kind of hair-splitting is ridiculous. Try again.

 

One of the things that I do not like about Obama is his assumption that being able to blame someone else for his results is as good as finding and implementing a solution. It isn't . Under one scenario we live under a solved situation, under the other, we live under something you have to find someone to blame for. They are not equal outcomes.

Now Bush never actually ran up a deficit this size, but he did allow the situation to develop where Under the assumption that current laws and policies remain in place one would. And what did Obama and Democrats, the only two agencies with the POWER to current laws and policies in place? The left them in place, added to the GM Bailout, added Cash for Clunders and the Trillion Dollar Porkulus Package. They decided to stay the couse and spend even more. The 2009 funding bills were signed into law by President Obama's pen, no one else's. Bush couldn't have vetoed them if he wanted to, because the Democrats refused him the opportunity.

Nothing can change that now, Obama and the Democrats made those decisions because they thought, with Krugman and Summers Cheering them, that these were the right decisions and that "RECOVERY SUMMER!" would quickly follow "FUNEMPLOYMENT!".

Well it flopped so badly that now they are trying to pretend Bush implemented these policies. That says more about Porkulus, Cash for Clunkers, the expanded GM bailout, than anything I could add.

I'm sure you would add that it was the dreadful economic reality that made all this necessary, and you certainly would have a point. What I wonder and I see real interest in exploring is were the Obama/Bush policies actually the most effective possible? Were the results we got the best possible? I do not think so. And that question has fueled the rise of the TEA Party and powers the candidacy of Carson and Trump. It is a national rejection of Obama/Bush. It is pushing Boehner out the door, rejecting Hillary, and forming a trap door under that supine gobbler, McConnell, it already kicked Pelosi and Reid to the curb.

From 1948 through 2000 real gross domestic product was a robust 3.6 percent.
From 2001 through 2014, the growth rate in GDP has halved, to 1.7 percent. That's trillions of dollars in expected wealth that never materialized over the last 15 years and that fact is landing on our heads like an anvil.

At the start of 2001, the federal debt stood at $5.8 trillion.
Today it $18.2 trillion.
Nominal GDP grew only $8 trillion during the same period, that is, the government borrowed and spent $4 trillion more than the entire economy grew during the last 14 years.

Private sector wages and corporate profits were fairly stable until the recession of 2001.
Since 2001, wages have decreased as a share of the national income and corporate profits have risen, a shift of hundreds of billions of dollars per year with no signs of correcting.

Median incomes for female workers are back to where they were 15 years ago, male workers are back where they were 40 years ago.

As for the GOP and the Dems pointing fingers at each other: Over the last 14 years the GOP had complete control of government for 4 years, Democrats for 2, and the other 8 years were split.

Prior to 2001, we thought established politicians at least knew the fundamentals of how to successfully do their job, now we are rather certain that they do not and that their major skill seems to be pointing the finger and fixing blame on someone else.

So, I think we have had enough, the entrenched politicians have had a decade and a half, and now it's time for change. Following the constraints of the Constitution it's time to change who represents us in DC and how they handle federal power.

More:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-hell-going_1039621.html?nopager=1

 

We have a ton of different legislation that adds up to the budget. I have lived my entire life without a budget and will live the rest of it without one. That is just how the world works. Write the checks for the bills and whatever is left keeps getting spent until the debit card says, "LOL. Nope."

 

Yet you all blame Obama for the great recession he inherited all the time. Pointing out the truth that Obama inherited the recession is not blaming someone else, it is fact.

Bush inherited a surplus budget. When he left the deficit was at $1.2 trillion. It was already running $1.2 trillion before Obama signed anything.