Despite Strong Economy, Federal Deficit Soars

Obama owns the biggest deficits in history.

 

Ok, $9 TRILLION. Feel better?

(this is where alt-left, mindless libs try to blame Bush for the entire 8 years of the Obama fiasco)




Based on quarterly data released by the US Treasury, the debt at the end of 2008 — just before Obama took office — stood at roughly $10,699,805,000,000.

As of the third quarter of 2016, the most recent data available, the debt as Obama is set to leave office stood at $19,573,445,000,000.

Based on the website USdebtclock.com , which extrapolates the US national debt in real time based on committed government spending, the debt will be roughly $19.97 trillion when President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Friday.

Thus, the national debt under Obama will have grown by about $9 trillion, or an increase of 86%.

https://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

 

Right now the general push for this buchananite revolution is the right wing. Of course the buchananite Koch brothers will infest every political corner they can. Doesn't dismiss anything I've said. Trump -is- a tool of the Kochs, just look at Pence, a purebred Koch affiliate if ever there was one.

 

Ut-Oh. Progs don't like the daily numbers on the status of the Federal Debt, because they show that The Amazing Trump has already cut the increase in the Federal Debt by 24%!

Trump on tariffs: We need them to reduce the national debt

 

I can see todays word for you is buchananite and you are just going to spam it in every thread.

 

Trillion dollar deficits are not paltry. Your response "Dem's do it" to apologize for Republicans doing it is just more hypocrisy on your part ... go figure.

 

Bush's last fiscal year ended in October 2009. https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

This is still 8 Trillion but .. no need to misrepresent the numbers .. this is bad as it is.

The problem with most people is that they just look at the "number" and not the "why". Context matters. Any fool can increase spending on the back of increased deficits. It is quite another to decrease or maintain spending in an effort to decreases an already existing deficit.

Obama was handed a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. The idea that he could have reduced this to zero (or even cut it by half) in his first couple of fiscal years - then economy was in the toilet due to the 2008 crash is fodder for those who are either being disingenuous or just do not understand what they are talking about.

 

It's factually relevant.

 

Um, Obama's $875 BILLION stimulus was put on the 2009 budget.

Oops!

 

Only in your mind.. The Economy is doing well. That is what most people care about.. These conspiracy theories are nuts.

 

The $161B the Repubicans handed the Democrats in 2007 was. Two years later it was $1,400 and stayed over $1,000B until the Republican sequester and austerity.
So are you voting for more conservatives to hold back spending or are you going to be hypocritical and vote for more liberals who want to explode spending?

 

The last Bush/Republican deficit was 2007 and it was a measly $161B. Then the Democrats took the Congress and 2008 and 2009 were DEMOCRAT budgets especially 2009 where they cut Bush out complete. You have been repeatedly educated on the fact why do you keep claiming 2009 was a Bush budget?

Two years after he and his fellow Democrats too both house of Congress and budget control. Are you claiming he did not support those budgets and did not vote for those budgets and did not sign the 2009 Omnibus budget bill?

What is disingenuous is to pretend the Democrats did not take the Congress January of 2007 a year before the recession even began and that 2008 and 2009 were Bush budgets and the resulting 10% and then 20% spending increases were Bush spending increases. To claim that after 12 years the Democrats took back the Congress and Reid and Pelosi were lapdogs of Bush. Any that does not understand that and how the budget process works is displaying a total lack of knowledge of the budget process and the history of those budgets.

 

The Democrats including Senator and then President Obama did, get your facts straight.

 

No it wasn't ... Ooops ! That was the projected budget over 10 years - not what was spent in 2009.

The numbers for the deficit are as follows. If you read the previous link given to you from the CATO institute - hardly a bastion of liberal thought I might add ... you know that 400 Billion was already baked into the cake prior to Obama setting foot in office.

The Bush Budget for fiscal 2009 was tabled in Feb 2008 and called for spending of 3.1 Trillion on revenue of 2.7 Trillion = 400 Billion deficit (estimated).

As it turned out - due to the crash - revenue dropped from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 Trillion = 600 Billion dollar shortfall

250 Billion was TARP - enacted under Bush (bipartisan) and the other 150 Billion (again stimulus spending due to the 2008 crash and again bipartisan) was passed under Obama.

Those are the numbers. As stated previously - "context matters" as do having the proper figures.

Revenue did not get back to 2.7 Trillion (if memory serves) until 2013.

 

Complete gibberish - that has been refuted numerous times by numerous people - with you having no response followed by you running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial ... only to resurface later repeating the same nonsense as if repetition will somehow make those nonsense claims more true.

And as usual you provide no links that back up your nonsense claims and completely ignore links by Uber Right leaning think tanks that claim otherwise ... such as this - https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

As usual you completely ignore "The FACT" that Bush's budget - proposed spending of 3.1 Trillion - and that was what was the amount spent (sans the stimulus spending - 250 Billion under Bush (bipartisan) 150 Billion under Obama (bipartisan) )

As usual you completely ignore "The FACT" that the President has veto power.

As usual you completely ignore "The FACT" that "The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats" - 60 is required to break filibuster "it was during this time that Obama’s “stimulus” was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate…..and because Democrats didn’t have “total control” of that chamber…..three Republicans…..Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it’s passage." https://www.ohio.com/akron/pages/when-obama-had-total-control-of-congress.

As usual - you completely ignore "The Fact" that the Senate in the last 2 years of Bush the Senate was split down the middle with the Dems with the Republicans having a majority by 1 but the Dems having an Operational majority due to 2 independents (Sanders and Lieberman) normally caucusing with Dems - nowhere near 60 needed to be filibuster proof.

 

Your specious claims refute nothing.

I gave you the link to the OFFICIAL government data what are you refuting?

His 2009 budget was never even considered, it was DOA.

Well do explain how he could have vetoed the 2009 budget bill.

Oh THAT makes it a REPUBLICAN budget.............what utter nonsense.

So what, they were DEMOCRAT BUDGETS, the Democrats bragged about getting their higher spending and being able to cut out Bush in 2009 totally.

 

It doesn't matter when Obama moved from the Senate, where he supported all that Democrat spending, to the White House it matters when the Democrats took back the Congress.

Was DOA and not even considered. The Democrats PURPOSELY held off passing a budget until a Democrat, either Clinton or Obama, was elected.

"In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009.

The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did.
The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending
"Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office.
"He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president."
Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm

TARP was paid back, and ahead of schedule, with interest.

"
The portion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that went to banks has now turned a profit for the federal government, the Treasury Department announced Wednesday.

After receiving $7.4 billion in TARP repayments Wednesday, the Treasury has now received $251 billion from banks participating in various bailout programs, which is good for a $6 billion profit from the $245 billion originally handed out to banks. The department now estimates that bank investments under TARP will ultimately net taxpayers roughly $20 billion in profit."
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/152835-government-now-turning-a-profit-on-tarp-investment-in-banks

 

and you again run to the sandbox of denial .. you were claiming it was all on the dems . now you are backtracking.

Game - Set - Match

 

2017 WAS Obama's economy hangover, 2018 is all Trump.

 

I haven't backtracked on anything and stand by everything I have posted. Now one last time what are you disputing and refute it else Game - Set - Match. Ignoring the facts and claiming some kind of victory is about as specious as you can get.

 

Spewing falsehoods again .. I addressed every one of your false "facts" and corrected them accordingly.

Glad you have finally figured out that the deficit was not all the Dems fault - but seriously dude .. it took way too long.

 

Your points on the military are a better illustration of mismanagement than underspending, or at best, a time when we spent too much and spending didn't keep up with having a lot of stuff and holding them to high standards. Who is to say we even need 70% of the marine aircraft. Maybe we wouldn't if we didn't try to police the world.

The tax cuts do miss the bigger picture. The corporate rate was high, but not effectively high due to loopholes. It is still cheaper to put factories elsewhere and taxes are only a part of that picture. It is not going to motivate people to move their production here enough to offset the loss. It does not change the overall picture. Rich people and corporations don't just reinvest all the extra money they get - they may if they think more profit can be had, but tax cuts only change the equation if they convert something unprofitable into something profitable, and profitable enough to outweigh other investments or dividends, or reserves for uncertain times. It's just not usually the case.

 

It wasn't just the factories elsewhere that your high tax rates caused. It was the headquartering.
During the Obama years all the HQ's split to Ireland.

The offices. The easy to move stuff.

Now it will come back.

And yes it is only part of the equation. But the idea is to tip the balance in your favour as much as you can.

 

If we are to be strong and ready, we need most of our planes and helicopters ready. We sure don't need 75% of them broken down for lack of money to buy parts. China is going whole hog building up their military and a war could start at any time over their man made islands in the China Sea. They are trying to keep ships and planes away and several instances have already developed over them. If their is a war, we will be highly dependent on our ships and planes and China is getting ready. She already has the largest submarine force in the whole world and can produce twice the submarines we can.

Loopholds are fine for the big companies that can afford big tax accountants that can find those loop holds, but the majority of companies aren't that big and they are fighting competition abroad that are paying out a fraction of what they have to pay and then have that sky high corporate tax and killing regulations also facing them makes America a bad business climate to make a profit in. Wages in China are steadily going up and they don't come close to the regulations on them that American companies do. Yet reducing both, especially when your dealing in major products like appliances, America can come close to competing. That's because of shipping and containment charges also added onto the price of the product. Also the advantage of having the product made here gives them better control of production and distribution at times of up and down markets. Trump understands this, not the Democrats, with their constant war on business.

 

Military spending is absolutely absurd and needs to be curtailed, along with an immediate, absolute cut of all black fund spending. We need to close all our overseas military bases and immediately cease exporting massive amounts of weaponry to gaza and other areas of conflict.