re: Why aren't Republicans talking about the deficit?

quote:

---

mean, I know what the rant would say but I would hope people here are smart enough to realize that shaving nearly a trillion dollars off the deficit in 4 years is "good job"

---

There is simply no way an intelligent person could honestly argue this is true.

quote:

---

You yourself said TARP inflated Bush's bad year. TARP wasn't built-in permanently, so I disagree with the characterization that Obama "shaved" that. In fact, Obama's budgets benefited directly from its repayment.

Regardless, as I indicate, the structural aspect of the deficits is what matters to me, so using TARP's year (especially without considering its payback) as a baseline when it is in fact an outlier only serves the goal of obfuscating.

---

Right but we have republicans here saying 2009 was his fault. I just don't see how it can be his fault/not his fault simultaneously.

quote:

---

Sure. But even years ago, before this start materialized, both it and its soon-to-follow reversal had already been put in place. So I'm not sure it actually even does count as a start, since we gave up on the follow-thru before we began.

---

So he has no control over the deficit?

This is the thing, he either is responsible, partially responsible, or not responsible. Its intellectually dishonest to not be consistent.

You have to admit that republicans have a really hard time complimenting obama. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but here? Obama is wrong 110% of the time. Its comical, and infuriating at the same time.

quote:

---

Our revenue & spending plans still suck arse

---

Yes, from an objective point of view anything but budget neutral or paying down our debt - sucks arse. But from a subjective point of view, the situation is much better than it was.

I bet if you were to poll this board 5 years ago, they would have said we would still have trillion dollar deficits.

quote:

---

[This is, of course, looking past the fact that attributing the 2009 deficit baseline fully to Bush, without which this "trend" is meaningless, is partially dishonest.]

---

I fully accept that obama has 200B of the deficit for FY2009. But the other 1.2T, that is bush. Is it fair to use that as a baseline? Maybe not. Let's use 2010 then, which was also about 1.3T. Its still a massive reduction.

quote:

---

I would hope people here are smart enough to realize that shaving nearly a trillion dollars off the deficit in 4 years is "good job"

---

Glad to know we are the test subjects of DNC talking points.



If my wife ever learns this definition of "good" fiscal policy my financial situation at home is going to go south quick.

quote:

---

Is it fair to use that as a baseline? Maybe not. Let's use 2010 then, which was also about 1.3T.

---

The point of the baseline is to compare Obama's deficits to Bush's. So perhaps it should be the average of 2001-2009.

Or at very worst, 2009 adjusted for TARP that was directly repaid & adjusted for 2009 ARRA outlays. Or, pull the TARP repayments out of Obama's revenues in 2010-12. That's the exaggeration I was talking about, but I don't even care about this aspect. The 2009 budget is largely on Bush, but not to the degree usually used in these discussions. These accounting details of why 2009 isn't a fair comparison are irrelevant, simply because it was an outlier year.

quote:

---

Right but we have republicans here saying 2009 was his fault. I just don't see how it can be his fault/not his fault simultaneously.

---

I see both as partially responsible- Bush more so. I suspect we probably mostly agree there.

However 2009 is certainly not representative of Bush's deficits.

quote:

---

So he has no control over the deficit?
This is the thing, he either is responsible, partially responsible, or not responsible. Its intellectually dishonest to not be consistent.

---

Wat. You say this to me after I say that the current deficits don't count very much as "progress" or a "start". That has no bearing on what degree of control Obama has- what we are seeing is what our current policies yield and has been projected, accurately, for years now. Regarding what I think he's responsible for- I'd say that it's quite fair that the long-term budget effects of ACA and the piece of the Bush Tax Cuts that he made permanent are on him.

After all that fiscal cliff saga, we knew via CBO that deficits would shrink to 2015 then continue expanding. Since then, nothing has been done to improve current or future deficits, yet the deficit reductions have been touted as progress. Meanwhile there is literally no reason to think anything other than "this deficit trend is temporary and will reverse."

And of course, as things may look to be improving if you don't look hard, credit is being taken. Does he deserve it all when some of it was the sequester?

quote:

---

Yes, from an objective point of view anything but budget neutral or paying down our debt - sucks arse.

---

My standard is actually lower than that, I shite you not- what I want to see is a comprehensive plan signed into law where deficits still exist (and start historical averages) but GDP grows faster than they do. With the caveat that this is not accomplished using budget tricks.

quote:

---

So you're totally unable to realize that if this trend continues, we will be able to start paying down the debt?

---

You should have a look at CBO predictions in the out years post 2017...

The party in power doesn't talk about deficits. The dems where whining about deficits when bushie and an r congress was in charge. The rs were not

You will find my opinions to be less biased the further back in time they pertain to. I used to think bushie was the worst president ever. I've tempered that a bit. Iraq was a horrible mistake but outside of that his presidency was about average.

quote:

---

In dollar terms, 2014 was the lowest federal deficit since 2008

---

Lulz

Pass a trillion dollar stimulus and make it look like spending is decreasing. Some of you

quote:

---

The dumb shite you posted?

---

I <3 poliboard