Obama's Record On Debt, Deficits Is Worst Ever
113 Comments


01/14/2015 06:52 PM ET
Federal Spending: Time was, a half-trillion-dollar deficit would have been denounced as a national disgrace and a sign of failed leadership. When the president reported the 2015 shortfall will be $483 billion, he took a victory lap.

'The deficit has gone down by two-thirds since I was president of the United States," President Obama said, calling his budgeting "responsible." This would be like calling Johnny Manziel's first year as an NFL quarterback "successful."

While Obama inherited a fiscal mess, his first order of legislative business was to make it worse by adding another $830 billion in deficit spending.

Then came auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, green energy programs, unemployment and food stamp expansions, and ObamaCare subsidies, among other spending that was trumpeted as a pick-me-up for the economy. Well, we got the debt, but instead of a growth spurt, we got the flimsiest expansion in half a century.

When it comes to the burden of deficits, measured as a share of the overall economy, Obama is the all-time champ of fiscal incompetence.

Even assigning the all-2009 deficit to George W. Bush, which is unfair because Obama inflated it, Obama's record is much worse. Adjusting for the extra spending added by Obama to the '09 deficit, his deficits are roughly twice as high as Bush's. Ironically, liberals used to deride Bush as the most fiscally irresponsible president in history.

 

The fact of the matter is that Obama has murdered this countries budget, made a mockery of the budget process, and fostered in Washington cronyism and corruption unlike anything seen since Nixon and Clinton.
The damage he has done will take generations to repair, and I wonder if we even have the will to get it done.

 

First of all, you said that the yearly deficit declined under Reagan. Unless you meant that it declined from its previous rise under Reagan, I demonstrated that you were mistaken. The yearly deficits were lower under Carter.

Now you change the subject to President Obama.

I have pointed out on several occasions that Obama's big mistake was in not hiking taxes on the well to do when his approval rating was 65%. That was the time for him to do the heavy lifting, even though there has long been support for raising taxes on the rich.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich

Now I will change the subject to the residents of the Republican Clown Car. Every single one of them promises to cut taxes, especially for the well to do. How is that supposed to balance the budget?

 

This is what I said;

The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.
​

This is both accurate and on topic. The point of the thread is Obama.
Try to keep up.
And try to stay on topic.
If you want to talk about the candidates, Republican and Democrat, start a thread. I'd be glad to discuss that topic there.

 

Not really. This is what you wrote:

By not giving a date for a 6.3% deficit per GDP, you imply that the deficit declined from what it was under Carter. This was not the case. By 1983 Reagan had been in office for two years. The ironically named Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 had already been signed into law; it had already cut taxes. A deficit of 6.3% of GDP was the result.

Giving Reagan credit for a deficit that declined after his tax cuts raised it is as misleading as giving him credit for a decline in the unemployment rate from 10.8% to 5.7%, while forgetting that unemployment did not rise to 10.8% until Reagan had been in office for over a year and a half, and that the highest rate of unemployment under Carter was 7.8%.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

 

Fuck, I hate it when people shoot horses!

 

(sigh) lets review the entire chain then shall we?

Distant Lover said: ↑
The downward spiral began when Ronald Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent, and encouraged employers to cripple labor unions. The national debt only became a problem with Reagan's Voodoo Economics scam.​

And I responded;
More Democratic hate machine rhetoric. Lets look at the facts, Oh master of facts;

The size of the federal civilian workforce declined by about 5 percent, because of conservative managers such as Donald Devine, described by The Washington Post as “Reagan’s terrible swift sword of the civil service.”

The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.

Compare this, please, to Obama's record on the deficit.

The near tripling of the national debt was mostly due to Reagan’s defense spending. In President Carter’s last budget, America spent just under $160 billion on national defense. In 1988, the Reagan administration spent $304 billion, including more than twice as much on military hardware. During his years in office, Reagan expended a total of $1.72 trillion on national defense, an unprecedented amount that he stoutly defended.
My personal favorite response from Reagan to his critics;

“Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”
Was it worth $1.72 trillion to build up America’s defenses so that Reagan could end the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield? Most Americans would not hesitate to emphatically answer, “Yes!”

Compare this to Obama's spending on defense, and for that matter, his record on defense. Hell, the boob doesn't have a foreign policy that I can detect. Yet he has driven the debt to a record $18 TRILLION. And counting!


According to Harvard economist Robert Barro, Reagan easily finishes first in comparing the economic report cards of postwar presidents from Truman through Reagan . Using the change each year in inflation, unemployment, interest rates, and growth in gross national product, Reagan ranks first. He engineered the largest reduction in the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) in history—50 percent. The 1980s, says economist Richard B. McKenzie, were, up to then, “the most prosperous decade in American history.”

You responded with some nonsense about the workforce numbers, and then said the federal deficit as a share of GDP was a fantasy;

Cuts in the federal civilian workforce were more than compensated by increases in the military. Because the Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan, and collapsing from within it was not necessary to raise military spending. If it was necessary to increase military spending it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it.

Your fantasy about federal deficit as a share of GDP is exposed by the following chart.

​

Then I responded; ↑
How does your lengthy and somewhat irrelevant article in Wikipedia, together with the chart you posted expose the "fantasy about federal deficit as a share of GDP"?

Debt as a percentage of GDP is a way to measure debt growth and shrinkage, without getting bunched up about a debt figure that cannot truly be comprehended.

Would it make you feel better if I simply posted something like this?

and you responded;

First of all, your chart deals with absolute debt, not debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. You claimed that debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined under Reagan. That is most assuredly untrue.

What your chart also reveals is that the debt in absolute or relative terms only became a problem with the failure of supply side economics. That was always a scam. Unfortunately, most Republicans still think tax cuts will balance the budget.
​

I responded, pointing out that I was talking DEFICIT, not DEBT;

I did NOT say the national DEBT as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan.
I said the DEFICIT as a percentage of GDP dropped under Reagan.

The deficit and the debt are two different critters all together.
But I think you know that.

Now then; if Reagan's "scam" was the start of the debt problem, you must certainly agree that Democrats have held office long enough to reverse that trend. In fact, debt has continued to grow right through every administration's tenure regardless of party affiliation.

It is interesting the the biggest increases have happened under Obama's tenure, in particular when he controlled Congress as well.

Pretty hard to blame today's debt on a president from 30 years ago.

And you responded with an article from 1988 (for Gods sake!) that inferred that Reagan saw the creation of more new debt than any president, which we know to be a lie.

Paradox of Reagan Budgets: Austere Talk vs. Record Debt
By MARTIN TOLCHIN, Special to the New York Times
Published: February 16, 1988
Long committed to balanced budgets and fiscal integrity, Mr. Reagan has overseen the creation of more new debt than the combined deficits of all previous Presidents. He assailed Jimmy Carter's $73.8 billion deficit in the 1980 campaign, but the deficit reached $220.7 billion in 1986, and the deficit target for the forthcoming budget is $136 billion. The deficits rose from 2.6 percent of the gross national product in the fiscal year 1981 to 6.3 percent in 1983, then dropped to 3.4 percent this year.
​

And I posted a much more recent article pointing that out;

01/14/2015 06:52 PM ET
Federal Spending: Time was, a half-trillion-dollar deficit would have been denounced as a national disgrace and a sign of failed leadership. When the president reported the 2015 shortfall will be $483 billion, he took a victory lap.

'The deficit has gone down by two-thirds since I was president of the United States," President Obama said, calling his budgeting "responsible." This would be like calling Johnny Manziel's first year as an NFL quarterback "successful."

While Obama inherited a fiscal mess, his first order of legislative business was to make it worse by adding another $830 billion in deficit spending.

Then came auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, green energy programs, unemployment and food stamp expansions, and ObamaCare subsidies, among other spending that was trumpeted as a pick-me-up for the economy. Well, we got the debt, but instead of a growth spurt, we got the flimsiest expansion in half a century.

When it comes to the burden of deficits, measured as a share of the overall economy, Obama is the all-time champ of fiscal incompetence.

Even assigning the all-2009 deficit to George W. Bush, which is unfair because Obama inflated it, Obama's record is much worse. Adjusting for the extra spending added by Obama to the '09 deficit, his deficits are roughly twice as high as Bush's. Ironically, liberals used to deride Bush as the most fiscally irresponsible
president in history.

And you responded with your silliness about Carter's deficit, which wasn't even in the discussion and remains irrelevant.

First of all, you said that the yearly deficit declined under Reagan. Unless you meant that it declined from its previous rise under Reagan, I demonstrated that you were mistaken. The yearly deficits were lower under Carter.

Now you change the subject to President Obama.

I have pointed out on several occasions that Obama's big mistake was in not hiking taxes on the well to do when his approval rating was 65%. That was the time for him to do the heavy lifting, even though there has long been support for raising taxes on the rich.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poll+++taxes+++rich

Now I will change the subject to the residents of the Republican Clown Car. Every single one of them promises to cut taxes, especially for the well to do. How is that supposed to balance the budget?​

Then I responded;
This is what I said;
The annual federal deficit as a share of GDP fell significantly from 6.3 percent in 1983 to 2.9 percent in 1989. As Reagan left office, the Congressional Budget Office projected that “deficits were on a path to fall to about 1 percent of GDP” by 1993.
This is both accurate and on topic. The point of the thread is Obama.
Try to keep up.
And try to stay on topic.
If you want to talk about the candidates, Republican and Democrat, start a thread. I'd be glad to discuss that topic there.

And you responded;

By not giving a date for a 6.3% deficit per GDP, you imply that the deficit declined from what it was under Carter. This was not the case. By 1983 Reagan had been in office for two years. The ironically named Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 had already been signed into law; it had already cut taxes. A deficit of 6.3% of GDP was the result.

Giving Reagan credit for a deficit that declined after his tax cuts raised it is as misleading as giving him credit for a decline in the unemployment rate from 10.8% to 5.7%, while forgetting that unemployment did not rise to 10.8% until Reagan had been in office for over a year and a half, and that the highest rate of unemployment under Carter was 7.8%.

​

So, now that we have everything in one place, let me respond to your latest rant;

Once again; comparing your villain Reagan's budget performance to my villain Obama's budget performance shows by any measure, that Obama has been a dismal failure. Obama, not Reagan, has driven the debt to record levels and has done so with record deficits.

Obama's tax and spend program has failed. Miserably.

And we've covered the unemployment rate of the two administrations.
Reagan's unemployment rate being above 10% lasted a total of 10 months and did no long term damage to either the unemployment trust funds, the labor force, or the economy.

Obama's unemployment rate rose above the 8% that it was when he was inaugurated and did not drop below 8% again for over 3 years. His expansion of the unemployment benefit program was nothing but a handout, bankrupted the unemployment trust funds, put employers in debt to states and the feds to the tune of $29 BILLION, ruined 1.3 Million members of the labor force by driving them right out of the labor force, putting them on welfare, food stamps and Social Security disability.

Really. this very long and repetitive post is to accomplish one thing;
To keep you on track in the discussion.
Try to keep up.

Their are two conclusions to be drawn from all of this;
1) Obama is bar none the worst President in this nation's history. By a long shot. He hasn't ruined the country, but he's done serious long term damage.
2) You either are incapable of, or unwilling to, remain on track with a discussion when you discover you are wrong, your lies have been uncovered, and you have been called out.

Both conclusions were known before I posted this. I just wanted to state them again.

 

Good fucking grief.

 

Seriously you guys could bore a leg of a billiard table with this back and forth bullshit.

 

I agree. It is helpful to learn from history, but rehashing it to place blame does no good what so ever. As far as our present commander in chief, we can see the debt spiral continues unabated, however we can hope his successor will be substantially more competent in fiscal policy.

 

Well, Big Guy - guess what? The longest Bull Run started in 1982, when Reagan was president, and went 18 years until 2000. The last bull run does not even compare. NOW, I'm at a loss... I was leaning towards Trump until he opened his mouth and started showing everyone what an ass he is. For instance, mocking that reporter with a disability.

The shit in the middle east, refugees, who is protecting ISIS?, ..., all the Islamic bullshit and Obama's view on it, ..., etc. There is so much crap there and yes, it's hard to sort all of the facts from fiction in the media, but still Obama is looking more like a lame duck everyday and no, he has NOT been good for the United States.

 

Haha the issue, plane and simple - is the last two presidents, DUMB and DUMBER... Bush the lesser seriously got things going out of control and Obama made a BAD situation WORSE.

 

I'm not and never really was a Bush fan, but, you're wrong.

Bush had never intended for this country to be attacked on 9-11, that was due to the Clinton foreign policy reforms. Bush never intended to have the subprime housing crisis, which was due to Clinton's CRA policy reforms.

Obama's fundamentally changing the United States of America is working as engineered.

 

Ok, you made some good points about Clinton... I was looking at the deficit charts only. Obama though is totally out of control and there is a lot unfolding in the media these days with France, Russia, ..., etc. A lot is rhetoric but there are disturbing facts too, if you can sort it all out.

 

Every passenger of the Republican Clown Car promises to cut taxes. How will that end deficit spending?

I have already pointed out here:

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/what...upport-most-major-government-services.323689/

and here:

https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/republican-deficit-hawks.294204/

That there is little support for specific budget cuts.

 

Why was increased defense spending necessary? The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan and collapsing internally. If it was necessary, it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for the increases.

 

I think all he did was pour gasoline onto a fire.

 

Carter had eviscerated the defense budget. Reagan recognized how weak Russia was, and saw an opportunity to do what Khrushchev had promised he would do to the west in 1956, mainly to bury us economically.

It worked. Reagan buried Russia economically.

Whether you subscribe to the cold war, believe in the "domino effect" or believe mother Russia was the center of the universe, the fact remains that in 1980 Russia, and communism, was our adversary.

Reagan rebuilt the military after Carter gutted it, and forced Russia into an expensive and unwinnable war with the west over military might.

As Reagan said, “Look, I am the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief. My primary responsibility is the security of the United States. … If we don’t have security, we’ll have no need for social programs.”

Reagan spent $1.72 Trillion accomplishing his goal. Was it worth it to defeat Russia at the bargaining table rather than on the battlefield?
In my opinion, Hell yes!

Now. A question for you;
Obama gave us auto bailouts, cash for clunkers, green energy programs, unemployment and food stamp expansions, and ObamaCare subsidies, among other record spending that was trumpeted as a pick-me-up for the economy. Was it worth it, this $8 TRILLION spending spree of Obama's?

I saw a projection from the Congressional office of Budget, and the projection is, Obama will leave behind a doubling of the debt; $20 TRILLION. That is his legacy.

Is it worth it, dog?

 

I have not averaged these out, however the lowest inflation rate under Kennedy & Johnson was 0.67%. When Johnson left office the inflation rate was 4.4%. The lowest inflation rate under Reagan was 1.46%. When he left office it was 4.67%

http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table

I have already pointed out that the inflation that grew from 1974 to 1980, and began to decline after 1980 was largely due to fluctuations in the world price of petroleum, over which neither president had much control.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

Under Carter the unemployment rate fluctuated between 5.6% to 7.8%.
Under Reagan the unemployment rate fluctuated between 5.3% to 10.8%.
Under Clinton the unemployment rate fluctuated between 3.8 to 7.3%.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

An average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year under Carter. This declined to 2,000,000 under Reagan. It rose to 2,900,000 under Clinton.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

High interest rates are good for people like me with money in the bank and no debts, and bad for people whose debts exceed their assets. Under Reagan they fluctuated from 6.75% to 9.3%. Under Clinton they fluctuated from 4.54% to 5.75%.

http://swanlowpark.co.uk/savingsinterestannual.jsp

During the eight years Kennedy & Johnson were in office per capita GDP in 1996 dollars grew by $4,030 for an increase of 30.44%.

During the eight years Reagan was in office per capita GDP in 1996 dollars grew by $4,170 for an increase of 19.09%.

During the eight years Clinton was in office per capita GDP in 1996 dollars grew by $5,260 for an increase of 19.20%.

The absolute increase under Clinton was much higher than it was under Reagan. The relative increase was slightly higher.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Therefore I question Richard B. McKenzie's assertion that the Reagan years were “the most prosperous decade in American history.”

I would also like to point out that I did my own calculations to evaluate Robert Barro's assertions. I did not pull something off the internet like you did.

 

You have not demonstrated your first assertion.

James Buchanan, who was president before Lincoln, did nothing as eleven states seceded. He may have shortened the Civil War by immediately using military force when South Carolina seceded.

The causes of the Great Depression are still debated. An obvious cause of the stock market crash of 1929 was lax regulation of the Stock Market. People would borrow money, buy stock, sell the stock when the stock prices rose, and bank the difference. Obviously this only works when the stock market is growing. During the 1920's stocks increased in value simply because people thought they would, and kept buying. Stocks increased in price that had not paid dividends for years. As soon as prices started to decline, there was nothing to stop them.

Calvin Coolidge had nearly six years to recognize that the situation was dangerous, and to propose regulations, but he did not.

When unemployment rose to 23.6% Herbert Hoover did nothing of an effective nature to reverse the increase.

George W. Bush inherited peace and prosperity and left a mess, which as I have acknowledged Barack Obama has not cleaned up.

Concerning your second assertion, when I refute your arguments I do not accuse you of lying. I think you really believe what you say. Moreover, I do not usually appeal to emotion in my arguments. I do not usually insult those I disagree with. Another difference is that I usually compose my own arguments, using the internet only to document my factual assertions.

I added the adjective "usually" because one might find an example of a time when I did, but that is not characteristic of me.