Trump on debt crisis: "I won't be here" when it blows up

[Edge-]

Let's put this in a little perspective...shall we?

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." - Barrack Obama (02/23/09)

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...cit_chart.html

If we're treating the first years budget as a holdover from the previous president, he actually did that.

$1.4T in 2009
$679B in 2013

Score one for Obama, as he's talking about the deficit and not overall US debt.

I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make here, but I don't think you made it.

[Machismo]

Let's put this in a little perspective...shall we?

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." - Barrack Obama (02/23/09)

And Obama, as bad as his spending was... actually did cut the deficit. Of course, it also started to go back up at the end of his term.

And here we have Trump, causing it to skyrocket... for no apparent reason.

[Breccia]

Let's put this in a little perspective...shall we?

$1.4T in 2009
$679B in 2013

Score one for Obama

And Obama, as bad as his spending was... actually did cut the deficit.

Obama cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office. He then kept it basically stationary in the second term.

Trump promised to balance the budget. Trump has been in office 2 years, and the deficit has increased by 50%.

Don't bring feelings to a fact-fight. Your opinions just became a smear on the sidewalk.

[akris15]

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...cit_chart.html

If we're treating the first years budget as a holdover from the previous president, he actually did that.

$1.4T in 2009
$679B in 2013

Score one for Obama, as he's talking about the deficit and not overall US debt.

I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make here, but I don't think you made it.

It also didn't help that Obama basically forced Congress to put the Iraq WCF expenses into the GF ledger which also made it seem worse for him although they were decisions made by the previous president. People who don't understand how the Federal ledger works would go "OBAMA'S FAULT" when he was putting the expenses back on the books per se.

[DocSavageFan]

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com...cit_chart.html

If we're treating the first years budget as a holdover from the previous president, he actually did that.

$1.4T in 2009
$679B in 2013

Score one for Obama, as he's talking about the deficit and not overall US debt.

I'm not quite sure what point you were trying to make here, but I don't think you made it.

You're completely ignoring the fact that TARP was the most significant factor affecting the deficit in 2009. Please know that Obama requested an additional $350B while Bush was still in office and Bush honored this request. To attribute the 2009 deficit solely to the prior President is less than honest. You also ignore that by late 2014, all of the TARP funds were repaid (along with a $15.3B profit!) which substantially lowered Obama's deficits as well. Then throw in the sequester (which proved to be untenable) and you have another major factor affecting the deficit.

An honest broker would compare deficits in 2008 ($459B) to 2016 ($585) to effectively adjust for TARP and the sequester....which is actually damn good imo. But comparing the deficit in 2009 ($1.4T) to 2013 ($679B) is just plain dishonest spin...the kind of "facts" that are commonly regurgitated in political forums by hyperpartisans.

[Breccia]

You're completely ignoring the fact that TARP was the most significant factor affecting the deficit in 2009.

And if your aunt had a penis, she'd be your uncle.

Special Pleading on the play, 10 yard penalty, repeat last post without making exceptions.

[Machismo]

You're completely ignoring the fact that TARP was the most significant factor affecting the deficit in 2009. Please know that Obama requested an additional $350B while Bush was still in office and Bush honored this request. To attribute the 2009 deficit solely to the prior President is less than honest. You also ignore that by late 2014, all of the TARP funds were repaid (along with a $15.3B profit!) which substantially lowered Obama's deficits as well. Then throw in the sequester (which proved to be untenable) and you have another major factor affecting the deficit.

An honest broker would compare deficits in 2008 ($459B) to 2015 ($548) to effectively adjust for TARP and the sequester....which is actually damn good imo. But comparing the deficit in 2009 ($1.4T) to 2013 ($679B) is just plain dishonest spin...the kind of "facts" that are commonly regurgitated in political forums by hyperpartisans.

So, now your argument (via cherry picking data) is to say, at worst, that Obama made the deficit slightly worse. Of course, if we are going to go by that metric, then you would apply the 2016 deficit to what Trump is currently pushing. By either metric, Trump is objectively worse, would you agree?

[DocSavageFan]

So, now your argument (via cherry picking data) is to say, at worst, that Obama made the deficit slightly worse. Of course, if we are going to go by that metric, then you would apply the 2016 deficit to what Trump is currently pushing. By either metric, Trump is objectively worse, would you agree?

I was attempting to look at the data reasonably instead of cherry picking data like Edge did. Was this completely lost on you?

I think Obama did a damn good job regarding the deficit and explicitly stated this. Was this completely lost on you as well?

But...that said...yes, I believe Trump is "objectively worse". Feel better now?

[s_bushido]

You're completely ignoring the economic shitshow that went down as Bush was leaving office.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

[Breccia]

So, now your argument (via cherry picking data) is to say, at worst, that Obama made the deficit slightly worse.

No no no, he said "Obama made Bush pay into TARP" Now, why did Obama make Bush pay into TARP? What was TARP's role and reason for needing that funding? Could it be... Bush crashed the economy?

He's trying to use "Obama made Bush pay for his own goddam mess" as a reason Obama didn't keep his promise. So not only is he being blatantly insincere, he's also now being insincere with a stupid fucking reason. This is amazing.

[Machismo]

I was attempting to look at the data reasonably instead of cherry picking data like Edge did. Was this completely lost on you?

I think Obama did a damn good job regarding the deficit and explicitly stated this. Was this completely lost on you as well?

But...that said...yes, I believe Trump is "objectively worse". Feel better now?

You chose to cherry pick, that's the point. You wanted to whine about Edge doing it, but you did the same thing... only worse.

It's a shame you always seem to shill for people as fiscally irresponsible as Trump is.

[DocSavageFan]

What a fucking clown show.

[Machismo]

No no no, he said "Obama made Bush pay into TARP" Now, why did Obama make Bush pay into TARP? What was TARP's role and reason for needing that funding? Could it be... Bush crashed the economy?

He's trying to use "Obama made Bush pay for his own goddam mess" as a reason Obama didn't keep his promise. So not only is he being blatantly insincere, he's also now being insincere with a stupid fucking reason. This is amazing.

Obama clearly held a gun to Bush's head. He and Hillary are both forcing Trump to spend like a drunken sailor.

- - - Updated - - -

What a fucking clown show.

Well, the thread (and the numbers) aren't exactly in your favor.

[Edge-]

You're completely ignoring the fact that TARP was the most significant factor affecting the deficit in 2009. Please know that Obama requested an additional $350B while Bush was still in office and Bush honored this request. To attribute the 2009 deficit solely to the prior President is less than honest. You also ignore that by late 2014, all of the TARP funds were repaid (along with a $15.3B profit!) which substantially lowered Obama's deficits as well. Then throw in the sequester (which proved to be untenable) and you have another major factor affecting the deficit.

This is called moving the goalposts. You tried to take a snipe at Obama in light of Trump's comments on the debt, and mistakenly quoted Obama's comments on the deficit, making a promise he kept.

You tried to say he didn't do a think but he actually did. If you wanted to add qualifiers to that, which you're doing now, you missed your chance.

An honest broker would compare deficits in 2008 ($459B) to 2016 ($585) to effectively adjust for TARP and the sequester....which is actually damn good imo. But comparing the deficit in 2009 ($1.4T) to 2013 ($679B) is just plain dishonest spin...the kind of "facts" that are commonly regurgitated in political forums by hyperpartisans.

You're the one that brought it up, if it's a bad point of comparison that's purely on you.

[Dontrike]

Perhaps you think generalizing from past observation divines the future?

Are you saying that looking back at history and the events that caused various conclusions (a.k.a cause and effects) is something that shouldn't be done?

- - - Updated - - -

Let's put this in a little perspective...shall we?

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." - Barrack Obama (02/23/09)

You're not very good at this, he did cut the deficit. You know you can look this stuff up, right?

[Breccia]

You're the one that brought it up, if it's a bad point of comparison that's purely on you.

Don't forget: he's calling it a bad point of comparison, because Obama made Bush pay for a Bush issue. Not only was this moving the goalposts, it's 100% against the intent of the point. I mean...damn, this was stupid.

[PC2]

Are you saying that looking back at history and the events that caused various conclusions (a.k.a cause and effects) is something that shouldn't be done?

Nah, historical analysis is very important. It's important to learn from the mistakes of the past.

What I'm saying is that quantitatively you can't project historical data to determine the future. There's an entire field based around this concept called Bayesian probabilistic inference. Which it's basically a cargo cult that masks itself as being scientific.

[Mormolyce]

It's fine that spending hasn't gone down, since the economy also grows over time. That's perfectly acceptable. The only time where a country absolutely has to decrease spending is if the economy repeatedly shrinks year after year.

Got any stats that show the economy fairy magically paying off the deficit?

No?

Didn't think so.

This is worse than voodoo economics.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

What a fucking clown show.

Its not at all stop being a simp.

[Breccia]

U.S. recession risks jump, Fed rate hike expectations slump: Reuters poll

The risk of a U.S. recession in the next two years has risen to 40 percent, according to a Reuters poll of economists who also found a significant shift in expectations toward fewer Federal Reserve interest rate rises next year.

What has fueled concerns of a downturn is the flattening of the U.S. yield curve - with the spread between two- and 10-year note yields falling to less than 10 basis points, the smallest gap since the run-up to the last U.S. recession.

A flattening yield curve suggests investors believe economic growth and inflation will slow. A yield curve inversion has preceded almost all recessions over the last half-century.

The probability of a U.S. recession in the next two years has jumped to 40 percent, according to the median of those polled, the highest since that question was first asked in May this year.

Before that, the last time such a high probability appeared in a Reuters poll was in January 2008, just eight months before the collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers, which brought on the Great Recession.

The range of forecasts, which runs from 15 to 75 percent, also points to a higher probability of a recession in the next two years compared to a poll conducted just last month, which had a median 35 percent chance.

The U.S. Treasury yield curve was forecast to invert next year, and possibly in the next six months, with a recession expected to follow as soon as a year after that, according to a separate Reuters poll of fixed-income strategists on Thursday.

“The combination of a Fed that does not think that inverting the yield curve is a problem (along with) a global outlook that is not likely to improve in a sustained manner, is likely to lead to a monetary policy error that will push the economy into recession,” noted Philip Marey, senior U.S. strategist at Rabobank. “How many hikes this may take is still unclear.”

The latest poll of over 100 economists taken Dec 6-13 showed the U.S. economy will slow in the coming quarters with annualized gross domestic product growth easing to 1.8 percent by mid-2020, about half the latest reported rate of 3.5 percent.

“I think all of the impetus for growth will fade in 2019. So where is the growth going to come from?” asked Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors.

“Are we definitely going into a recession? I can’t say that,” said Naroff. But, he added, “I haven’t had negative (GDP) numbers on my forecast for nine years now, and 2020 is the first time I have put negative numbers into the forecast.”

Let's see, flattening economic growth, increased chance of recession, GDP dropping back under 2%...all by 2020. If Trump thinks he'll be gone by then, well, Mueller must have the pee tapes.