Obama economy: Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

[petej0]

Or that federalism is fundamentally a broken system.

Only because of the corrupt and selfish people running it.

The states in most need of funding would waste it anyway, on shit like abstinence only education or whitewashing textbooks.

It isnt just education, but all the stuff I mentioned and more. Then again, as long as you have corrupt and selfish people in power, they only serve to enrich themselves and the politically connected. So...I dont know what to say, at this point it is a fantasy. No wonder why people are sick of career politicians, they have used politics as a means to gain wealth and power and not for the good of the people.

[Elegiac]

Only because of the corrupt and selfish people running it.

One of the really useful things about actually studying history is you learn that individuals aren't nearly as impactful as you think they are. These people can afford to be corrupt and selfish because the system permits and encourages it.

It isnt just education, but all the stuff I mentioned and more. Then again, as long as you have corrupt and selfish people in power, they only serve to enrich themselves and the politically connected. So...I dont know what to say, at this point it is a fantasy. No wonder why people are sick of career politicians, they have used politics as a means to gain wealth and power and not for the good of the people.

There's nothing inherently wrong with career politicians, for starters.

And I thought you free market folks thought that being wealthy and powerful was a marker of inherent personal virtue.

[petej0]

One of the really useful things about actually studying history is you learn that individuals aren't nearly as impactful as you think they are.

When you get enough of them together it really is. They work together to start carving out money for themselves. "Vote for funding for me on this and I will vote for funding for you for that." Pretty soon the trillions our government takes in is being spread around on stupid shit, budgets are ballooned and when there is nothing left to pay for infrastructure, they tell a sob story about how taxes need to be raised.

There's nothing inherently wrong with career politicians, for starters.

Not inherently, until they start to use their position for personal gain.

And I thought you free market folks thought that being wealthy and powerful was a marker of inherent personal virtue.

There is a difference between a wealthy person who got wealthy through a business that provides a service or product to customers willing to pay for it. Then uses that wealth to donates or invests. It is far different when a person uses the public coffers or public policy to gain wealth.

[Elegiac]

When you get enough of them together it really is. They work together to start carving out money for themselves. "Vote for funding for me on this and I will vote for funding for you for that." Pretty soon the trillions our government takes in is being spread around on stupid shit, budgets are ballooned and when there is nothing left to pay for infrastructure, they tell a sob story about how taxes need to be raised.

Again, this is because the system allows and encourages this sort of behaviour.

Not inherently, until they start to use their position for personal gain.

So then your problem is actually with irresponsible politicians, not career politician.

Please stop using Fox buzzwords.

There is a difference between a wealthy person who got wealthy through a business that provides a service or product to customers willing to pay for it. Then uses that wealth to donates or invests. It is far different when a person uses the public coffers or public policy to gain wealth.

Just like politicians market a service (representation) to customers (voters) willing to pay for it (with votes).

There's no functional difference. The only reason you're bitching about politicians being corrupt is because they get the most air-time.

[petej0]

Again, this is because the system allows and encourages this sort of behaviour.

Because the two parties have a monopoly on the system and we cant root this behavior out.

So then your problem is actually with irresponsible politicians, not career politician.

The longer you are part of the system the greater the chance of getting influenced and the further they are from the everyday person and their struggles.

Please stop using Fox buzzwords.

Oh...ok, so its a "Fox buzzword" so just disregard whatever I say. This divide we have and the failure of both sides to listen to each other is why we are where we are.

Just like politicians market a service (representation) to customers (voters) willing to pay for it (with votes).

There's no functional difference. The only reason you're bitching about politicians being corrupt is because they get the most air-time.

Except the service they are selling is a flawed service. They dont represent us, they represent themselves. It is indicative of pay to play. They play lip service to our needs come election time, but when they dont need our votes they are collecting money from the lobbys.

[Elegiac]

Because the two parties have a monopoly on the system and we cant root this behavior out.

Bipartisanism is a -result- of the structure, not the cause of it.

You want to blame someone? Blame the founders.

The longer you are part of the system the greater the chance of getting influenced and the further they are from the everyday person and their struggles.

Good. Everyday people are not qualified to make decisions of that scale and nature.

Oh...ok, so its a "Fox buzzword" so just disregard whatever I say. This divide we have and the failure of both sides to listen to each other is why we are where we are.

I'm not obligated to listen to uninformed opinions. I do, but I'm not obligated to.

Except the service they are selling is a flawed service. They dont represent us, they represent themselves. It is indicative of pay to play. They play lip service to our needs come election time, but when they dont need our votes they are collecting money from the lobbys.

Because a businessman has never sold a shoddy product to a customer before.

I'm curious what time you think 'isn't election time'.

[Kallisto]

Because the two parties have a monopoly on the system and we cant root this behavior out.

Which dates back all the way to the founding on the US. Even if some of the beloved "Perfect" found fathers called against the formation of political parties and the like the first past the post voting system that your congress, state and even presidential voting systems created make it inevitable. The Bi-partisanship is a direct result of this. The system of voting you have make it so only 2 political entities are viable. If there are no parties to be had people would band together to make them. The two most powerful, with the voting system would absorb the smaller ones they agree with on most issues.

This is to stop the vote from splitting and giving the other side the win, even if say there are 2 left of centre parties and a right of centre party vying for a district. Together the two left of centre parties get just below 2/3s between them while the right of centre party gets just over 1/3. This means the representative from the right of centre party wins the entire thing due to having more votes than either the other two parties. But at the same time having nearly 2/3s of the district not wanting him/her there.

This brings it to being 2 parties who are always at loggerheads and have a bi-partisan outlook since one is always going to have a majority and has no need to work with the other side. This makes the other side more embittered until essentially it turns into mudslinging from both ends.

But if there was a system to which votes were made proportionally at least in the congress region you could end up with about 4-5 parties. More central who are now republican and democrat could break off and form their own parties, which would be more interested in working together due to the need for it. Yes the extreme parties may and likely will get into congress due to this but it just means the centre ground does more to work together (most of the time) and more gets done.

[Ozzayel]

As my first post was ignored I'll go again with more detail.
That graph in the OP is incredibly misleading, but generally people like to rewrite history to make the Obama years look better than they were.
And seeing as that graph is from MSNBC and Rachel Maddow... surprise surprise, not exactly an unbiased source.

Obama came into office in January 2009, and he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February of that year.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nt_Act_of_2009)
This bill was created by the majority Democrat House and Senate, and totalled just under $800B.
THAT is why the 2009 deficit spiked the way it did, but for whatever reason I don't understand that year gets counted as 'Bush' year deficits.
I could go into how the stimulus was a massive failure at creating jobs and was crammed full of rewards for Democrat cronies but let's keep it one thing at a time...

Another thing people don't realise is that that was supposed to be a one off expenditure, but instead it got baked into the budget from then on.
That's why the yearly deficits didn't come right back down the following year and deficits remained historically high for the entire Obama presidency.
That's why the Debt has doubled over the last 8 years.
Republicans tried to cut spending once Dems lost majority control but were fought every step of the way, leading to debacles such as sequestration.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United....S._Senate.png)

Now when you suddenly balloon spending by $800B, it's not exactly hard to then bring that number down a small amount each year.
Think about how that would work in your own personal life, its asinine to paint this as a great job by Obama.
He ballooned the deficit like crazy and then tries to take credit for bringing it down again far slower than he should have.

Whether you agree or disagree that the additional spending was a good thing for the country, don't be ignorant or lie about who commissioned that spending.
It was Obama and the democrats.

[Mormolyce]

I think you had to be a pretty oblivious political creature not to realise that the initial Obama deficit was a direct result of the GFC (not to mention the deficit Bush created) and that it was going to decrease in subsequent years. Always seemed like a pretty lame argument considering all the Republican Presidents in living memory have been all talk when it comes to budget deficits and Clinton is the only President in what - half a century? - to actually turn the deficit into a surplus.

The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.[/I]

You want to pull on this thread? The President doesn't control the economy ergo any political credit/blame games over the economy are fundamentally disingenuous. So the number one issue in politics since time immemorial is pretty much a load of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Bipartisanism is a -result- of the structure, not the cause of it.

You want to blame someone? Blame the founders.

You mean the two party system? Bipartisanship seems to be at an all time low in the last decade.

I don't buy this argument that the system creates a two party system - how do you explain the fact that the UK, Australia and many other nations are effectively two-party systems? Australia doesn't even use FPTP voting and its two-party system is rock solid.

[Deleted]

This is the FED's helicopter money and the lowest interest rates in modern times, not Obama. His main budgetary influence is less costly military involvement.

The Republican rhetoric was ridiculously wrong. We don’t have a trillion-dollar deficit; the deficit isn’t the ultimate problem; and it’s not growing.

Math fail? Of course the deficit is growing. The rate of growth is slowing.

[usiris]

Obama has actually done some good in decreasing spending in wasteful areas like NASA or the military but increasing the welfare state was a terrible decision that has set a bad precedent for future presidents who have no intention of shrinking it.

This is a masterful piece of troll bait.

[Judgedredd]

I think you had to be a pretty oblivious political creature not to realise that the initial Obama deficit was a direct result of the GFC (not to mention the deficit Bush created) and that it was going to decrease in subsequent years. Always seemed like a pretty lame argument considering all the Republican Presidents in living memory have been all talk when it comes to budget deficits and Clinton is the only President in what - half a century? - to actually turn the deficit into a surplus.



You want to pull on this thread? The President doesn't control the economy ergo any political credit/blame games over the economy are fundamentally disingenuous. So the number one issue in politics since time immemorial is pretty much a load of shit.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean the two party system? Bipartisanship seems to be at an all time low in the last decade.

I don't buy this argument that the system creates a two party system - how do you explain the fact that the UK, Australia and many other nations are effectively two-party systems? Australia doesn't even use FPTP voting and its two-party system is rock solid.

It actually has nothing to do with the system and more to do with absolute power absolutely corrupting the U.S system. After all when you are the most powerful country in the world, why reform? This would be equivalent to killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.

[I Push Buttons]

As my first post was ignored I'll go again with more detail.
That graph in the OP is incredibly misleading, but generally people like to rewrite history to make the Obama years look better than they were.
And seeing as that graph is from MSNBC and Rachel Maddow... surprise surprise, not exactly an unbiased source.

Obama came into office in January 2009, and he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February of that year.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nt_Act_of_2009)
This bill was created by the majority Democrat House and Senate, and totalled just under $800B.
THAT is why the 2009 deficit spiked the way it did, but for whatever reason I don't understand that year gets counted as 'Bush' year deficits.
I could go into how the stimulus was a massive failure at creating jobs and was crammed full of rewards for Democrat cronies but let's keep it one thing at a time...

Another thing people don't realise is that that was supposed to be a one off expenditure, but instead it got baked into the budget from then on.
That's why the yearly deficits didn't come right back down the following year and deficits remained historically high for the entire Obama presidency.
That's why the Debt has doubled over the last 8 years.
Republicans tried to cut spending once Dems lost majority control but were fought every step of the way, leading to debacles such as sequestration.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United....S._Senate.png)

Now when you suddenly balloon spending by $800B, it's not exactly hard to then bring that number down a small amount each year.
Think about how that would work in your own personal life, its asinine to paint this as a great job by Obama.
He ballooned the deficit like crazy and then tries to take credit for bringing it down again far slower than he should have.

Whether you agree or disagree that the additional spending was a good thing for the country, don't be ignorant or lie about who commissioned that spending.
It was Obama and the democrats.

So you contend that the recession was both entirely unrelated to Bush AND we should have let the economy fail instead of putting forward the stimulus...

[Mormolyce]

It actually has nothing to do with the system and more to do with absolute power absolutely corrupting the U.S system. After all when you are the most powerful country in the world, why reform? This would be equivalent to killing the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.

Many of the less powerful countries also have two party systems though.

[Endus]

Math fail? Of course the deficit is growing. The rate of growth is slowing.

I'm not sure you understand what "deficit" means. The deficit is how much above budget the government spending is.



As should be clear, the deficit was much higher in 2010 ("higher" in the graph above is lower on the graph; a deficit is a negative amount). It's been narrowing ever since, though that narrowing has slowed down in 2014-2016 (and was expected to). The deficit is not growing.

Because there is a deficit, the debt is growing. Not the same thing.

[Ozzayel]

So you contend that the recession was both entirely unrelated to Bush AND we should have let the economy fail instead of putting forward the stimulus...

Actually I didn't say that at all...
I didn't even mention Bush OR anything about the crash... way to ignore the meat of my post.
But yes, in terms of creating jobs, the stimulus was very inefficient and ineffective.

My only point is that the graph in the OP that so many of you are praising Obama for is BS from a ultraleft hack Rachel Maddow.
Putting the stimulus as 'Bush' spending is disingenuous and is only done to try to make Bush look even worse and then paint Obama's (or more descriptively the Democrat House's) massive spending increase as actually cutting spending.
The truth is they spent more than has ever been spent, and kept spending (but a little less) for the next 6 years.
Only in 2015 did the yearly deficit return to levels close to that of Bush's. And that's not even touting Bush, his spending was historically high in his own presidency.

I just don't even see the need to mislead about it, as in general dems tout spending and think it's a good thing, so why try and paint it in a different light?
If you want more spending, don't care about the debt or deficit, then just explain the good you think it does and own it, don't lie and obfuscate about it.

[ati87]

Obama came into office in January 2009, and he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February of that year.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nt_Act_of_2009)
This bill was created by the majority Democrat House and Senate, and totalled just under $800B.
THAT is why the 2009 deficit spiked the way it did, but for whatever reason I don't understand that year gets counted as 'Bush' year deficits.
I could go into how the stimulus was a massive failure at creating jobs and was crammed full of rewards for Democrat cronies but let's keep it one thing at a time...

Nobody is adding 2009 to Bush (unlike how at some point right wingers where adding 2008 to Obama) however it's counted as a crisis Obama inherited from Bush, it's a subtle difference. The whole stimulus policies started under Bush and Obama inherited, continued and doubled down on some of those policies, like the car bailouts (which was the car industries own fault that had nothing to do with the overall crisis in my opinion).

Also it wasn't meant to create jobs, that's just you're interpenetration. The car bailout which saved the car industry in the US didn't create new jobs it saved them, net job gain my be less then zero but again it goal was to save the companies.

[Ozzayel]

Nobody is adding 2009 to Bush

Except the OP and the graph he posted...

The stimulus can be argued and we can talk about Bush's failures, that was never the reason for my post.
It was just to correct the graph the OP listed as no one else did and to explain why it was misleading.

As for the auto bailout it was only around $80B of the stimulus, a lot of the talk at the time was about creating 'shovel ready jobs' and trying to bring unemployment down through infrastructure spending and the like.

[Poopymonster]

I think you had to be a pretty oblivious political creature not to realise that the initial Obama deficit was a direct result of the GFC (not to mention the deficit Bush created) and that it was going to decrease in subsequent years. Always seemed like a pretty lame argument considering all the Republican Presidents in living memory have been all talk when it comes to budget deficits and Clinton is the only President in what - half a century? - to actually turn the deficit into a surplus.



You want to pull on this thread? The President doesn't control the economy ergo any political credit/blame games over the economy are fundamentally disingenuous. So the number one issue in politics since time immemorial is pretty much a load of shit.

- - - Updated - - -



You mean the two party system? Bipartisanship seems to be at an all time low in the last decade.

I don't buy this argument that the system creates a two party system - how do you explain the fact that the UK, Australia and many other nations are effectively two-party systems? Australia doesn't even use FPTP voting and its two-party system is rock solid.

They can't be good, they aren't the US.

[Mackeyser]

I'm not sure you understand what "deficit" means. The deficit is how much above budget the government spending is.



As should be clear, the deficit was much higher in 2010 ("higher" in the graph above is lower on the graph; a deficit is a negative amount). It's been narrowing ever since, though that narrowing has slowed down in 2014-2016 (and was expected to). The deficit is not growing.

Because there is a deficit, the debt is growing. Not the same thing.

What thevoicefromwithin said "Of course the deficit is growing. The rate of growth is slowing."

That is correct.

The DEFICIT typically refers to the gross indemnity of the US treasury not including unfunded mandates or Agency debts of the United States and is currently at around $19.5T.

That it very often conflated, confused and erroneously interchanged with the annual US Budget deficit.

The RATE at which the DEFICIT is growing as the chart shows has slowed since 2009, when it spiked.

But in 2010, almost $1.5T was added to the DEFICIT. In 2011, and 2012, around $1.2T. In 2013, $1.0T...etc. Each year, MORE is added to overall indemnity of the US Treasury (except for the rare exception of '99-2000).

So, the statement that the DEFICIT is growing, the rate of growth is slowing is exactly correct with respect to the DEFICIT.

Thus, the DEFICIT is growing, the RATE of growth for the DEFICIT is slowing, and the BUDGET DEFICIT is shrinking.

And of course, there will be folks with an agenda who will use this information which is pretty easy to confuse and be downright devious in their deception with it.

I just know the economics.

The politics gives me hives.

Edit: Some may specifically prefer the term "the debt" over "the deficit" for the US Treasury's total indemnity on behalf of the US government. I prefer "The deficit and the budget deficit" personally, but I can see where others would prefer to refer to "the debt" as the overall indemnity and "the deficit" as the budget shortfall". It's more a matter of preference...as long as folks aren't talking past one another.