Deficit shrinks by $1 trillion in Obama era

MrBates2

Loves Spam
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Posts
831
In the not-too-distant past, talk in the political world of the U.S. budget deficit was all the rage. As the Tea Party “movement” took shape, conservatives quite literally took to the streets to express their fear that President Obama and Democrats were failing to address the “out of control” deficit.

Congressional Republicans agreed. As recently as 2013, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was asked about the radicalism of his political agenda and he responded, “[W]hat I would say is extreme is a trillion-dollar deficit every year.” Around the same time, then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argued that Congress should be “focused on trying to deal with the ultimate problem, which is this growing deficit.”

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.
Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.

For the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.

Revisiting our coverage from several months ago, I looked for press releases from the “Obama is turning us into Greece!” crowd, eager to see them celebrate President Obama’s striking record on deficit reduction, but so far, nothing has turned up. Maybe they’re busy.

And in practical terms, that’s a shame. The vast majority of Americans are absolutely certain – thanks to deceptive Republican rhetoric and unfortunate news coverage – that the deficit has soared in the Obama era. Late last year, a Bloomberg Politics Poll found that 73% of the public believes the deficit has gotten bigger over the last six years.

The year before, the same pollster found that only 6% of Americans realized the deficit was shrinking. It helps explain why the president hasn’t gotten any credit for deficit reduction, which seems like the sort of development Tea Partiers and the Beltway’s Very Serious People should consider an extraordinary accomplishment.

As we talked about last year, it’s tempting to conclude that the public’s confusion doesn’t matter. In the Clinton era, the deficit disappeared entirely, and Americans had no idea.

But there’s another side to this. Whether or not Americans know and/or understand the basics of the fiscal argument may not have a practical impact on the debate itself, but the fact remains that voters are ultimately responsible for electing policymakers. If Americans believe, incorrectly, that the deficit is getting bigger, these same voters may be inclined to vote for candidates who’ll slash public investments and undermine social-insurance programs – which would have real-world consequences.

Postscript: To reiterate a point that bears repeating, I don’t necessarily consider this sharp reduction in the deficit to be good news. If it were up to me, federal officials would be borrowing more, not less, taking advantage of low interest rates, investing heavily in infrastructure and economic development, creating millions of jobs, and leaving deficit reduction for another day.

That said, if we’re going to have a fiscal debate, it should at least be rooted in reality, not silly misconceptions. And the reality is, we’re witnessing deficit reduction at a truly remarkable clip. Every conservative complaint about fiscal recklessness and irresponsibility in the Obama era is quantifiably ridiculous.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/10.15.15_0.jpg?itok=diS1IQOY

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/deficit-shrinks-1-trillion-obama-era
 
The interesting thing from my point of view is that, as far as we can tell on this side of the pond, it has been achieved without wholesale cuts in public spending. The UK government say that the only way to reduce a deficit is to cut public spending to the bone.
 
The interesting thing from my point of view is that, as far as we can tell on this side of the pond, it has been achieved without wholesale cuts in public spending. The UK government say that the only way to reduce a deficit is to cut public spending to the bone.

Well that's what they would say, they don't want to put a tax on the City of London. They don't want to close the loop holes to keep you money in the country and out of the tax heavens. They don't want the populaces to know that the Upper Crust has been skimming the wealth of the Empire for four hundred years.

Our Government learned a lot from your Government. Like how to fuck the lower classes to pay for all that Fox Hunting, wine sipping, Rolls riding, and home owning the the council house living class is paying for.
 
Contrifag32 will be along shortly to insist that we "can't trust no nigger administration numbers".

That's what he always says.
 
The interesting thing from my point of view is that, as far as we can tell on this side of the pond, it has been achieved without wholesale cuts in public spending. The UK government say that the only way to reduce a deficit is to cut public spending to the bone.

So when you can't pay your bills you keep spending?

As a side note, when anyone says they want to cut the size of government it's only for programs they don't agree with. When it comes to cutting THEIR government program, them's fightin words.
 
Well that's what they would say, they don't want to put a tax on the City of London. They don't want to close the loop holes to keep you money in the country and out of the tax heavens. They don't want the populaces to know that the Upper Crust has been skimming the wealth of the Empire for four hundred years.

Our Government learned a lot from your Government. Like how to fuck the lower classes to pay for all that Fox Hunting, wine sipping, Rolls riding, and home owning the the council house living class is paying for.

What do you mean? Britain is a tax haven, if you have plenty of money, that is.
 
So when you can't pay your bills you keep spending?

You seem to think that your country's economy is the same as a household budget. It isn't. in a household if you stop buying pizzas you don't have to provide support for the delivery guy who is now out of a job. You also don't lose income because said delivery guy is no longer paying taxes.
 
in a household if you stop buying pizzas you don't have to provide support for the delivery guy who is now out of a job.

We can chose not to do that anymore.

You also don't lose income because said delivery guy is no longer paying taxes.

Don't need it if you don't have to take care of those that can't take care of themselves.

Besides he doesn't make enough to pay taxes anyhow.

In either case we come back to the fact that elite have won, and the 15 million people in this country who own the entire mother fuckin planet are going to either start paying more or just keep rolling the dice. At some point they quit taking care of those who can't take care of themselves and see just how much shit the peasants will actually eat before they totally lose control. The middle ground between the two options is rapidly vanishing and the 2016 election has done a fantastic job at highlighting that fact so far.
 
Last edited:
You seem to think that your country's economy is the same as a household budget. It isn't. in a household if you stop buying pizzas you don't have to provide support for the delivery guy who is now out of a job. You also don't lose income because said delivery guy is no longer paying taxes.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide people with jobs. Broken window fallacy, go look it up.

If you believe the government should give people jobs then you are also implicitly saying the government can tell those people what jobs they can do.

Somehow I don't think that's the path you want to go down.
 
It's not the government's responsibility to provide people with jobs. Broken window fallacy, go look it up.

If you believe the government should give people jobs then you are also implicitly saying the government can tell those people what jobs they can do.

Somehow I don't think that's the path you want to go down.

What I am saying is that a household budget is a hell of a lot simpler than a country's economy. You can't treat the two as being the same thing because they work in a completely different way.

The fact that your government has reduced their deficit quicker than we have in the UK would seem to indicate that cutting government spending is not the best way to tackle the problem. Incidentally, in both countries, the national debt is still growing. If interest rates increase, so will the deficit, so this is the best time to tackle the problem.
 
Besides he doesn't make enough to pay taxes anyhow.

Oh I think he does. Isn't everything he buys subject to sales tax? Take away his income, he spends much less and so pays less tax. There are some people who think that we should stop taxing companies on their profits and just whack it all on sales tax. The idea being that the companies couldn't avoid paying that.
 
Oh I think he does. Isn't everything he buys subject to sales tax? Take away his income, he spends much less and so pays less tax. There are some people who think that we should stop taxing companies on their profits and just whack it all on sales tax. The idea being that the companies couldn't avoid paying that.


You can think whatever you want but the reality is min wage jobs are heavily subsidized. Hell Wal Mart at one point (might still) was handing out food stamps/supplemental income/housing aid applications with their new hire packets.

Once you add up the food stamps, housing/utility aid, WIC if single mom etc. that 800 bucks a year worth of tax they can hand over even if they spend it all on shit because living in moms basement it still ain't shit. They are actually a taxpayer burden in most cases because min wage is scary socialism.

You gotta be pulling like 15/hr full time with benefits just to think about being above water and that's if you're well disciplined with the budget in a cheap ass part of the country. 20/hr MIGHT be paying a little bit of tax if they are single. Not much tho and certainly not if they have a kid. It doesn't even cover rent in most of California.

The lower 40 something % of the country doesn't pay taxes man...they don't make enough. Oprah farts more than their entire collective annual existence is worth every day.
 
Last edited:
They don't pay income taxes. They still pay sales, gas, property and a litany of other taxes. They net gain yes but our economy is a cycle. They still add even if it's just grass for rats to eat before hawks get em.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide people with jobs. Broken window fallacy, go look it up.

If you believe the government should give people jobs then you are also implicitly saying the government can tell those people what jobs they can do.

Somehow I don't think that's the path you want to go down.

The Broken Window Fallacy doesn't apply to a service economy like ours.

No, saying the government should give people jobs is not saying the government can tell people what jobs they can do. Not until and unless they are the sole provider of jobs.

It's a path we've been down for decades.
 
They don't pay income taxes. They still pay sales, gas, property and a litany of other taxes.

That's an awful stretch even if they live with mom and blow it all on booze n' ciggz every week.

They net gain yes but our economy is a cycle. They still add even if it's just grass for rats to eat before hawks get em.
.

Trust but verify....you got a source for that?

Last I read stand alone min wagers are a loss. Unless they are supported by someone else they almost always have to be supported by the state, their 900 bucks a month just doesn't get it otherwise.

It's also been central to the argument for raising min wage for some time now....quit letting all these companies subsidized their labor force with food stamps and shit simply because Wal Mart can buy the Senate/WH.
 
Last edited:
Booze and Cigarettes still have sin taxes on them. I'm not in anyway claiming they pull their weight just that they do pay "taxes".

As for the other part I wasn't clear. I was stating that they definitely get more from the system than they give to system but in a society that functions the way ours does it still makes more sense to give it to them, so they can give it back than to just sit on it.

Well until/unless we're ready to see what they do when they get relaly desperate.
 
Booze and Cigarettes still have sin taxes on them. I'm not in anyway claiming they pull their weight just that they do pay "taxes".

As for the other part I wasn't clear. I was stating that they definitely get more from the system than they give to system but in a society that functions the way ours does it still makes more sense to give it to them, so they can give it back than to just sit on it.

Well until/unless we're ready to see what they do when they get relaly desperate.

Oh yea in that sense they do.

I agree, keeps the money moving. Seems it would be easier to just pay people more.


Who knows, at the rate mega bux is going it's not going to be much longer before we find out.
 
It would be simpler just to pay people more and sadly you may be right about us finding out where the end of the road is.
 
It would be simpler just to pay people more and sadly you may be right about us finding out where the end of the road is.

If T wins we gonna have us a fire Sean!! :D


We don't need no water let the mother fucker burn...burn mother fucker....burn.
 
Last edited:
They don't pay income taxes. They still pay sales, gas, property and a litany of other taxes. They net gain yes but our economy is a cycle. They still add even if it's just grass for rats to eat before hawks get em.



The Broken Window Fallacy doesn't apply to a service economy like ours.

No, saying the government should give people jobs is not saying the government can tell people what jobs they can do. Not until and unless they are the sole provider of jobs.

It's a path we've been down for decades.

Yes, the fallacy does apply. The government creates a job pushing paper with the idea they can get taxes from that person to help pay for government services. Quite obviously the number of people needed to be employed, and whose salaries will come from others, will never be sufficient to meet the needs to pay for those services.

And yes, the government could tell you what job you had to work at if they're the ones giving you the job. It's similar to how government contracts require people to do or not do certain things if they want the government money.
 
The issue is how do we develop the consumers of our industries? How do we make sure that the American market can support a Bizilion dollars in consumption?

It take lot of excess capital to support our consumerist social order. If the wages fall to 3rd world levels, who will buy the IPads, cell phones, Cars and TV's, etc and the like?

The great unwashed are the ones who buy that shit. If they are just scraping by, month to month, one busted radiator from starving, or being homeless. What happens to the market for shit at Wall mart?

The Dark Lords must realize that if they want to grow the economy, the masses have to have disposable income and not have to depend on welfare to supplement their Walmart wages and shitty hours. Only to be jeered at because the Great Corporations are not even interested in the people who work for them but pour heaps of cash into their bulging portfolios.

But then peons have always been replaceable.
 
The issue is how do we develop the consumers of our industries? How do we make sure that the American market can support a Bizilion dollars in consumption?

It take lot of excess capital to support our consumerist social order. If the wages fall to 3rd world levels, who will buy the IPads, cell phones, Cars and TV's, etc and the like?

The great unwashed are the ones who buy that shit. If they are just scraping by, month to month, one busted radiator from starving, or being homeless. What happens to the market for shit at Wall mart?

The Dark Lords must realize that if they want to grow the economy, the masses have to have disposable income and not have to depend on welfare to supplement their Walmart wages and shitty hours. Only to be jeered at because the Great Corporations are not even interested in the people who work for them but pour heaps of cash into their bulging portfolios.

But then peons have always been replaceable.

Careful Jack you are starting to sound like a socialist.

On a more serious note, providing the people at the bottom with more disposable income is a boost to any economy. Give a rich man more money and he just puts it in the safe. Give a poor man more money and he spends it to try and improve his standard of living.

Your government, like ours, has injected cash into the economy. They call it quantitative easing. Effectively they gave it to the banks who supposedly loaned it out. I know this will start a shit storm, but imagine the effect if they gave the money directly to the people in the form of a lump sum tax refund. Instead of sitting in the bank, it would have been spent, putting money into the pockets of retailers, stimulating the demand for goods and causing manufacturers to employ more people to produce the goods. Those newly employed people start paying taxes and around we go. That, of course, doesn't take account of the amount of sales tax that comes back, or the amount of extra tax the retailers and manufacturers pay on their increased profits.

Cuts in the basic rate of tax, only ever really benefit the rich and the more money you have coming in the greater the benefit. The puzzle is why do the poorer people in society still vote for a president who promises to cut taxes? They are not the ones who will ever see any benefit from that.
 
The lower 40 something % of the country doesn't pay taxes man...they don't make enough. Oprah farts more than their entire collective annual existence is worth every day.

Also because they're old or paying pay roll tax. Plus, over a person's whole life time they will, at some point, pay a federal income tax. Read this it contains something called nuance.

I notice you didn't piss and moan about your beloved corporations who didn't pay any income tax at all. Or piss and moan about companies like Verizon that had an effective tax rate of -2.8% because they soaked tax payers for $535 million in tax rebates.
 
Back
Top