If that's actually true -- and depending on how you look at the numbers, it isn't -- this only happened because the GOP-controlled forced him to do so.The last President to balance the budget was Clinton.
Nope. Only if you allow criminal accounting scams to hide expenses.
Clinton never had a balanced budget in front of him.
Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.
So in that case Obama is not responsible for the current deficit, congress is.
Nope. Only if you allow criminal accounting scams to hide expenses.
Clinton never had a balanced budget in front of him.
Also, it's the Congess that sets the budget, not the President, who merely signs the bill Congress writes.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
We need to cut the deficit and inspire confidence in the stability and good credit of the United States government, as the best means of growing the economy, and the only practical way to cut the deficit is the cut the spending. Cutting the spending by ummm...1.5 trillion dollars would do the trick nicely.
Which, of course, will never happen. While I'm sure both sides can put a good face on saying we need to be fiscally responsible, both sides want to cut different things.
That doesn't make sense. Cutting the deficit would reduce demand.
Which would reduce taxes.
Which would then reduce our capacity to pay down the massive debt as well as fund our $57+ Trillion in unfunded liabilities. Furthermore, cutting spending would stall if not stop the recovery resulting in more job losses and even less demand and revenue. You don't build stable credit on job losses and low tax revenue. But that's exactly what you are arguing for.
Austerity measures like the ones Germany is calling for will ensure low if any growth. And if you're against higher taxes, there's no way we can reduce our deficit and debt which will then lead to poor credit ratings.
Your argument does not gel with your goal.
What's that? You blame the Dems?So in that case Obama is not responsible for the current deficit, congress is.
Not among those who want less deficit.
If there was less deficit availaible, and people who wanted to buy deficit would find it more expensive, and the increased price of deficit would drive down demand, leading to an escalating effect that would reduce the demand for deficit to a newer, and lower equlibrium than can then be reduced by another forced deficit reduction.
See how easy it is?
Since the economy is driven by consumer demand, not money stolen or borrewed by the government, reducing the deficit will grow the economy.
Money paid in interest is money wasted. The Obama deficits are so gigantic that soon have the national GDP will be consumed by paying the interest. And money wasted paying deficit interest is money not paying for "infrastructure", or, more importanly, not money the private citizen can use for his own private purposes.
No.
Cutting spending reduces government outlays (by definition) which reduces the need for taxation (by definition).
Cutting tax rates, on the other hand, puts more money in the hands of people actually producing things with that money, (unlike government), and leads them to increase their income, which, by the way, increases the revenues the government realizes.
Massive spending isn't going to do it. The Messiah's first year and a half in office has proved this conclusively.
No. You don't build a stable nation on job losses and punitive taxes. So the nation should stop wasting time and money on failed Keynesian policies that have never worked.
My goal is freedom.
Government programs are slavery.
My argument makes perfect economic sense and it's consistent with my goal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?