Obama's First Term: 2.4T in deficit reduction

[Direckshun]

Considering that cutting the deficit retards growth, and Obama inherited the Great Recession, this is pretty astonishing we've had this much deficit reduction without tanking growth. It does help explain, however, why growth has been steady but sluggish.

The CBPP says we need an additional 1.4T in deficit reduction, and that's it: our long term debt would be stabilized under our current economy. Which means, of course, if we could get the economy growing at a 3%+ clip again, the long term deficit is put on a downward spiral.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

It's not spin. It's an outrageous lie.

Is the deficit 2.4 trillion dollars less than when Obama took office? Yes or no?

You misunderstand.

The projections are based on the next ten years of policy. Which is the same way budgetary calculations have been made on everything from the debt ceiling standoff of 2011 to the fiscal cliff deal of 2013.

[KC Dan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Absolutely.

Our projected deficits by 2022 will be 2.4 trillion smaller thanks to budgetary measures taken by this President and Congress.

Unless they actually grow some balls and tackle entitlements, this is impossible

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It's a perversion of the English language.

Not at all.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FD

It just adds up the deficit reduction measures put into place since 2010. Its a meaningless number because the counterfactual isnt well specified and it ignores other deficit increasing legislation. Its both wrong and stupid, in other words.

I'm not sure I follow you here, honestly.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Reductions in PROJECTED deficits are not the same as reductions in the deficit itself, just as reductions in PROJECTED spending are not real spending cuts. It's semantic sophistry--political demagoguery to baffle partisan buffoons with bullshit.

If you want to call it what it is, reductions in projected deficits, fine; otherwise you ain't bullshitting this bullshiter.

By the way...I assume your term "long term deficit" is a euphemism for national debt. We'll need to sustain 3%+ growth without real spending increases for a very, very long time to pay of the current debt--so real cuts should be a major part of the discussion as well. I'm just saying...

"Projected" doesn't merely mean we're hoping or thinking this is what will happen. Projected means that the law has been mapped out for this to happen. So yes, projected deficit reduction is actual deficit reduction, or "real" deficit reduction.

I agree with your last point regarding growth, however. I think the second GDP starts consistently posting a 3%+ pace, our long-term debt will start shrinking steadily.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by KC Dan

Unless they actually grow some balls and tackle entitlements, this is impossible

Well, it's already written down. It's law. So it's a done deal.

Don't take that as a claim that entitlements shouldn't be tackled, however.

[mlyonsd]

I think Direckshun has exposed a very interesting political tactic, that being just how Obama and his cronies trick their constituents into being so stupid.

Right now the national debt is growing at about $4 billion dollars a day, or about $166 million dollars per hour. That of course isn't all on him, although I find it hypocritical now he says congress should pay for the bills they have racked up, when he was actually a member of both congressional bodies when they were racking it up. Not counting the spending he himself has signed into law as president. But I digress.

I suppose when you trick people into believing reducing the growth and not the actual deficit works, you run with it, even though the damage it is doing far outweighs any political gains he receives.

The country is waking up to what the debt actually means, especially at the pace it is growing under Obama. The debt increased more in 3 years under Obama than it did under 8 of Bush. And now that Obama has made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent he has painted himself into a corner on the debt.

Being divisive only for political gain will eventually come back to haunt how history judges him. He can't escape the numbers, he owns them now.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I think Direckshun has exposed a very interesting political tactic, that being just how Obama and his cronies trick their constituents into being so stupid.

Right now the national debt is growing at about $4 billion dollars a day, or about $166 million dollars per hour. That of course isn't all on him, although I find it hypocritical now he says congress should pay for the bills they have racked up, when he was actually a member of both congressional bodies when they were racking it up. Not counting the spending he himself has signed into law as president. But I digress.

I suppose when you trick people into believing reducing the growth and not the actual deficit works, you run with it, even though the damage it is doing far outweighs any political gains he receives.

The country is waking up to what the debt actually means, especially at the pace it is growing under Obama. The debt increased more in 3 years under Obama than it did under 8 of Bush. And now that Obama has made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent he has painted himself into a corner on the debt.

Being divisive only for political gain will eventually come back to haunt how history judges him. He can't escape the numbers, he owns them now.

This too is an interesting tactic. Calling me stupid, then going on to not actually refuting anything I've siad.

Quite clever.

In reality, Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit in a crippling near-depression.

And you wanted him to do what? Eliminate a trillion dollar deficit in two years? Four years?

Do you understand that deficit reduction retards growth? And that slight deficit reduction will only retard growth slowly, while the extreme deficit reduction you'd clearly favor would have been even more devastating?

To pull off the elimination of a trillion dollar deficit in two or four years, you'd almost have to decimate our entitlements, at a time when a ton of people wound up on them at no fault of their own, because of the irresponsible actions of a handful of massively wealthy people.

That's truly, honestly madness.

I favor a less radical, more responsibly gradual approach that picks up steam as our economy does.

Which is what we're getting.

[chefs fan in omaha]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You misunderstand.

The projections are based on the next ten years of policy. Which is the same way budgetary calculations have been made on everything from the debt ceiling standoff of 2011 to the fiscal cliff deal of 2013.

And that is why it is all BS

[chefs fan in omaha]

[quote=Direckshun;9340002]This too is an interesting tactic. Calling me stupid, then going on to not actually refuting anything I've siad.

Quite clever.

In reality, Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit in a crippling near-depression.

EDIT:

So he raised taxes then raised the deficit, all the while blaming the previous guy. Obama can't keep his hands out of the cookie jar.

[chefs fan in omaha]

Boasting how much better he was then the previous guy, Obama laughed at Bush and said watch this, I can get the deficit way over a trillion a year.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This too is an interesting tactic. Calling me stupid, then going on to not actually refuting anything I've siad.

Quite clever.

In reality, Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit in a crippling near-depression.

And you wanted him to do what? Eliminate a trillion dollar deficit in two years? Four years?

Do you understand that deficit reduction retards growth? And that slight deficit reduction will only retard growth slowly, while the extreme deficit reduction you'd clearly favor would have been even more devastating?

To pull off the elimination of a trillion dollar deficit in two or four years, you'd almost have to decimate our entitlements, at a time when a ton of people wound up on them at no fault of their own, because of the irresponsible actions of a handful of massively wealthy people.

That's truly, honestly madness.

I favor a less radical, more responsibly gradual approach that picks up steam as our economy does.

Which is what we're getting.

No, no, I never called you stupid. I think you know exactly what you're doing by parroting this stuff.

I was just pointing out while your graph is pretty and all shiny it avoids the real issue of where we really are heading under Obama.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by chefs fan in omaha

And that is why it is all BS

Really? You think legal, budgetary obligations set for the future are BS?

Well... that's on you.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by chefs fan in omaha

So he raised taxes then raised the deficit, all the while blaming the previous guy. Obama can't keep his hands out of the cookie jar.

Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit.

Inherited.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I was just pointing out while your graph is pretty and all shiny it avoids the real issue of where we really are heading under Obama.

How much would you have preferred Obama to reduce the deficit the past four years?

All trillion dollars? Would you have had him accomplish that in his first year?

His first two years?

I want to see exactly how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.