Who was the last Republican President to reduce the deficit he received?

[Painter]

Deficit is not debt, but I think I get your point. I'm out to watch the Packers rookies...

Right.
The question was about deficit. To be more specific it was about decreasing the deficit they received.

You pointed to Eisenhower as the last President to reduce the debt.

What I am telling you is that while I am not completely sure about your statement, Eisenhower is also the last "Republican" President who reduced the "deficit" he received.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Right.
The question was about deficit. To be more specific it was about decreasing the deficit they received.

You pointed to Eisenhower as the last President to reduce the debt.

What I am telling you is that while I am not completely sure about your statement, Eisenhower is also the last "Republican" President who reduced the "deficit" he received.

Yes, but the question wasn't very specific, and there are too many ways to measure it.

If you go by constant 2005 dollars, which is one method the OMB uses, then go from one fiscal year to the next from table 1.3, as the budget turns from the last to the new president, then the last republican president would be Bush (41). If you go by year to year for a president, then Bush (43) reduced his own previous deficit for 2005 vs. 2004.

This whole thing about which president has little meaning in my view. After all, congress controls the budget. The president only signs it into law.

 

[Somerville]

Apparently you do not live in an area with a military base or government contractors.
Several people I know, including my tenant, would all beg to differ with you.
The sequester is hurting people severely.

I think Slyfox was being a bit sarcastic

 

[TurtleDude]

A "meme" I saw on facebook this morning asked this question.
I was very surprised at the answer.

While it is debatable as to whether the credit goes to Congress or the Presidents, we know that the last 3 Democratic Presidents ALL decreased the annual deficit. These Presidents include:

Barrack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

I am curious as to how many people get it right as to who the last Republican President was that decreased the annual deficit.
The reason I think this is important is because public opinion of this is extremely backwards as compared to reality.

what president destroyed the boundaries reining in the federal government causing the massive deficits we have today?

that is the important question because your question is misleading since it often depends on congress as well

 

[Somerville]

what president destroyed the boundaries reining in the federal government causing the massive deficits we have today?

that is the important question because your question is misleading since it often depends on congress as well

That would be St Ronnie

 

[TurtleDude]

That would be St Ronnie

really? Its FDR

 

[John Liberty]

A "meme" I saw on facebook this morning asked this question.
I was very surprised at the answer.

While it is debatable as to whether the credit goes to Congress or the Presidents, we know that the last 3 Democratic Presidents ALL decreased the annual deficit. These Presidents include:

Barrack Obama
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter

I am curious as to how many people get it right as to who the last Republican President was that decreased the annual deficit.
The reason I think this is important is because public opinion of this is extremely backwards as compared to reality.

1). I would like to receive the drug you are on, because any drug strong enough to make someone believe that Obama has lowered the deficit must be pretty strong.

2). To answer your question: None of the above. The only president in modern times to have lowered the deficit at all was Bill Clinton, and honestly he didn't even lower it that much.

 

[Somerville]

1). I would like to receive the drug you are on, because any drug strong enough to make someone believe that Obama has lowered the deficit must be pretty strong.

2). To answer your question: None of the above. The only president in modern times to have lowered the deficit at all was Bill Clinton, and honestly he didn't even lower it that much.

Ye know not whereof ye post

 

[Painter]

I think Slyfox was being a bit sarcastic

Yeah. sorry. I got that once he explained and also I "liked" his explanation.

 

[Painter]

what president destroyed the boundaries reining in the federal government causing the massive deficits we have today?

that is the important question because your question is misleading since it often depends on congress as well

The answer to your question is far too complex to answer completely. But it is definitely not one President.

Your thinking FDR for Social Security. And your thinking Johnson for Medicare.
I will leave Johnson and medicare alone simply because the argument ties in to too many other arguments and it runs too deep for anything to happen in this forum other than annoying the crap out of each other. Then we'd wind up debating Obamacare after 100,000 words and a week of no sleep.

But I'd like to address Social Security:
First off, Social Security has never once been a part of the deficit or the debt in a legit way.
At present, Social Security is running a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.
What happens is the surplus that Social Security runs each and every year is used to buy government bonds.
These bonds then represent money owed to Social Security. At present, Social Security is owed 2.6 trillion dollars.
2.6 trillion dollars of our national debt is due to Social Security. But it is not because income tax revenue is needed to support Social Security.
It is quite the opposite. Social Security surplus has been used to support the Federal Government.
It is confusing I know. And this fact is why the Right Wing and Libertarian pundits and politicians have been so successful at perpetuating the lie.
Social Security has never been the cause of even 1 single cent of deficit. The debt that the bonds represent, which were purchased with Social Security money, now that is a different story. But this is not the fault of Social Security.

Social Programs and Medicare do represent part of the deficit each year.
But no where near as much as military spending. Tax cuts to the super wealthy that we can not afford also represent a good chunk of the deficit.

But to answer your question,

I'd have to say Johnson for creating Medicare. (giving you this one to keep myself honest)
I'd have to say Reagan and Bush for massive increases in military spending as well as tax cuts that ballooned the deficit.
Obama could be on this list but like medicare, its rather complicated. A lot would depend on whether or not you believe the economic crisis allowed by deregulation truly ever existed or not, which then leads to whether or not the solutions that Bush, Obama, and Congress all implemented were required or wasteful. And again, that is a not a winnable debate by either side.

 

[Painter]

1). I would like to receive the drug you are on, because any drug strong enough to make someone believe that Obama has lowered the deficit must be pretty strong.

2). To answer your question: None of the above. The only president in modern times to have lowered the deficit at all was Bill Clinton, and honestly he didn't even lower it that much.

Obama has lowered the deficit by a huge margin. The deficit for 2009 was determined under Bush in 2008. Obama has come close to cutting that deficit in half.
Now I am fully aware that some of it has to do with the stalemates, the sequester, and the tea party. But it does not change the fact that he has cut the deficit by a larger margin than any President of our time.

Clinton also cut the deficit. He in fact eliminated it all together and ran a surplus for a couple years. That surplus was not used for the debt unfortunately. Bush gave it away to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks as soon as he took office.

Carter also lowered the deficit he received.

 

[Painter]

really? Its FDR

FDR is pretty much the only one NOT responsible.
Social Security has always run an annual surplus until 2010 and that was only due to the payroll tax break.
Social Security is presently at a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.

 

[TurtleDude]

FDR is pretty much the only one NOT responsible.
Social Security has always run an annual surplus until 2010 and that was only due to the payroll tax break.
Social Security is presently at a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus.

FDR's destruction of the tenth amendment by his threat to pack the USSC allows almost all the nonsense we see today. without FDR's justices we would have no war on drugs for example. NO 2 million people in prison.

no Obamacare

No welfare state

No Great Society

No Dept of Education

 

[John Liberty]

Obama has lowered the deficit by a huge margin. The deficit for 2009 was determined under Bush in 2008. Obama has come close to cutting that deficit in half.
Now I am fully aware that some of it has to do with the stalemates, the sequester, and the tea party. But it does not change the fact that he has cut the deficit by a larger margin than any President of our time.

Clinton also cut the deficit. He in fact eliminated it all together and ran a surplus for a couple years. That surplus was not used for the debt unfortunately. Bush gave it away to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks as soon as he took office.

Carter also lowered the deficit he received.

I think the deficit has lowered a bit. However, it is quite illogical to give President Obama credit. He fought the sequester with everything he had in his arsenal. Also, he has fought any attempt by any congressman, Republican or Democrat, to lower the debt or the deficit. Also our National Debt has risen faster then it has with any other President in history!

 

[Dooble]

If you chalk up the entirety of the FY2009 budget to Obama's column, a budget in place for roughly 8 months prior to Obama taking office, sure. There simply wasn't a conceivable scenario in which we would not run deficits of historical magnitude in said year.

In other words, George Bush forced Hussein to drive the deficit up to $17T.

 

[Painter]

FDR's destruction of the tenth amendment by his threat to pack the USSC allows almost all the nonsense we see today. without FDR's justices we would have no war on drugs for example. NO 2 million people in prison.

no Obamacare

No welfare state

No Great Society

No Dept of Education

Ok, I admit your argument has more depth to it that I thought.
I thought you were simply referring to Social Security (which pays for itself without income tax revenue).

Even still, all of those things combined are less than military spending.
And keep in mind, I am not arguing against military spending as a necessity, merely showing that it is more responsible for deficits.
In the end, my personal opinion is that lack of proper tax revenue is responsible for a significant chunck of the deficit.

 

[Painter]

I think the deficit has lowered a bit. However, it is quite illogical to give President Obama credit. He fought the sequester with everything he had in his arsenal. Also, he has fought any attempt by any congressman, Republican or Democrat, to lower the debt or the deficit. Also our National Debt has risen faster then it has with any other President in history!

Some of this I can agree with.
However, Obama desperately fought cuts to social programs, not cuts to the deficit.
Obama desperately wants to eliminate the deficit. He simply wants to do it by taxing the super wealthy and closing loopholes.
Keep in mind that the deficit is merely a mathematical figure comprised to 2 values. Income vs. Expenses.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, I admit your argument has more depth to it that I thought.
I thought you were simply referring to Social Security (which pays for itself without income tax revenue).

Even still, all of those things combined are less than military spending.
And keep in mind, I am not arguing against military spending as a necessity, merely showing that it is more responsible for deficits.

there is tons of wasteful military spending-often pork projects. But military spending is at least constitutionally sound

 

[John Liberty]

Some of this I can agree with.
However, Obama desperately fought cuts to social programs, not cuts to the deficit.
Obama desperately wants to eliminate the deficit. He simply wants to do it by taxing the super wealthy and closing loopholes.
Keep in mind that the deficit is merely a mathematical figure comprised to 2 values. Income vs. Expenses.

No, Obama has no real interest in eliminating the deficit. His own economic theory (Keynesian Economics) actually states that the more money is spent on programs, the more money is gained in the long run.

Also, yes he has attempted to increase taxes on the rich. So if his end goal really is to reduce the deficit, he would rather have the citizenry pay for it rather then cutting a few unnecessary government programs. The economic problem we have today is that the government views each of it's programs as "vital" and thinks that if you cut a program or two here and there the nation will plunge into anarchy. President Obama himself even said something similar in a speech about the sequester.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Some of this I can agree with.
However, Obama desperately fought cuts to social programs, not cuts to the deficit.
Obama desperately wants to eliminate the deficit. He simply wants to do it by taxing the super wealthy and closing loopholes.
Keep in mind that the deficit is merely a mathematical figure comprised to 2 values. Income vs. Expenses.

You don't cut the deficit or debt by increasing tax rates. Revenue historically stabilizes at an average 18.3% of GDP, or maybe it's GNP. This means we need increased economic activity. Higher taxes reduce economic activity. That's why lowering taxes a little at a time is the better option.

 

[Painter]

No, Obama has no real interest in eliminating the deficit. His own economic theory (Keynesian Economics) actually states that the more money is spent on programs, the more money is gained in the long run.

Also, yes he has attempted to increase taxes on the rich. So if his end goal really is to reduce the deficit, he would rather have the citizenry pay for it rather then cutting a few unnecessary government programs. The economic problem we have today is that the government views each of it's programs as "vital" and thinks that if you cut a program or two here and there the nation will plunge into anarchy. President Obama himself even said something similar in a speech about the sequester.

I guess the difference is that I view the government as the people and you view it as the enemy.
When I think of taxing the rich, I think of the Walton family, BP and Exon. You think of the people.
I view Obama as the best advocate that "we the people" have had in a very long time. You view him as the enemy.

Am I wrong?

 

[Lord of Planar]

When I think of taxing the rich, I think of the Walton family, BP and Exon. You think of the people.

You don't think they already contribute enough to the revenue?

I suggest you pay more first, before suggesting other people should.

 

[Painter]

You don't cut the deficit or debt by increasing tax rates. Revenue historically stabilizes at an average 18.3% of GDP, or maybe it's GNP. This means we need increased economic activity. Higher taxes reduce economic activity. That's why lowering taxes a little at a time is the better option.

Has history not proven repeatedly that raising taxes does not stifle growth?
No one wants to raise them to a bad level. Just back to where it was for the growth during the Clinton years.
That, plus stopping the welfare for oil companies and closing corporate loopholes.

We can definitely agree on needing increased economic activity. I do not see that happening though so long as we have 100 million working poor. No amount of tax adjustments will change that one. Up or down. Corporations will always pay as little as they can get away with. We need a living wage. Then when we empower 100 million people to make it without welfare, we'd have economic growth.

 

[John Liberty]

I guess the difference is that I view the government as the people and you view it as the enemy.
When I think of taxing the rich, I think of the Walton family, BP and Exon. You think of the people.
I view Obama as the best advocate that "we the people" have had in a very long time. You view him as the enemy.

Am I wrong?

1). When Obama talks about taxing the "rich" he means anyone living a halfway decent lifestyle. i.e ME!

2). The people you mentioned...yeah they're rich. Your point? Why should they be punished for becoming successful? What makes it okay to raise taxes on them just because they have a little bit more than everyone else? You realize that's called redistribution which is actually one of the main core values of the Socialist and Communist Parties?

3). The government is not "the people". We are not a democracy. We vote people into office to vote for us. That's called a republic.

4). I do not view government as an enemy, I see the current members of the government as the enemy...and rightfully so. As Americans we are supposed to be skeptical of our government, that's why the constitution was ratified! Because the colonists didn't trust the government! They felt that certain powers had to be checked and balanced because they knew that not all members of the government would be perfect little angels who want good for everybody.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Has history not proven repeatedly that raising taxes does not stifle growth?
No one wants to raise them to a bad level. Just back to where it was for the growth during the Clinton years.
That, plus stopping the welfare for oil companies and closing corporate loopholes.

We can definitely agree on needing increased economic activity. I do not see that happening though so long as we have 100 million working poor. No amount of tax adjustments will change that one. Up or down. Corporations will always pay as little as they can get away with. We need a living wage. Then when we empower 100 million people to make it without welfare, we'd have economic growth.

Clinton was lucky. If it wasn't for the semiconductor industry revolutionizing things, and the Y2K scare, the 90's would have been pretty bad.