• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    16

Painter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
583
Reaction score
314
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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.

This is adorable.

If I steal 100 dollars out of your wallet and give you 10 back, are you up 10 dollars or down 90?
 
This is adorable.

If I steal 100 dollars out of your wallet and give you 10 back, are you up 10 dollars or down 90?


Nice non sequitur but pretty much a fail at answering the question as to which Republican President last reduced the deficit -- but not unexpected
 
As if there is a difference between the 2 parties?

Anyone who seriously thinks "their" party is "better" than the other one has been thoroughly duped and is a tool.
 
This is adorable.

If I steal 100 dollars out of your wallet and give you 10 back, are you up 10 dollars or down 90?
That's certainly a philosophical headscratcher, but if you give me $10 back, I'm certainly, historically speaking, $10 richer than I'd be if a Republican was President and took my original $100 and then took another $20.
 
Nice non sequitur but pretty much a fail at answering the question as to which Republican President last reduced the deficit -- but not unexpected

The highest under Bush 43 was a half trillion lower than the lowest under Obama.
 
Oh oh, I know! This is where you shock us into discovering the truth so that hopefully we refuse to support candidates that claim to support lower spending.

Did I win a tootsie roll?
 
The highest under Bush 43 was a half trillion lower than the lowest under Obama.


Do you not understand the meaning of the word REDUCE?

Did or did not the deficit increase "under Bush 43"?

Has the deficit decreased during Obama's term?

Two simple questions, why are you unable, or is it unwilling, to answer.
 
Oh oh, I know! This is where you shock us into discovering the truth so that hopefully we refuse to support candidates that claim to support lower spending.

Did I win a tootsie roll?

Any candidate that claims to support lower spending is a big fat liar. Fortunately, both parties have idiots - it's fun to call both sides out.
 
The highest under Bush 43 was a half trillion lower than the lowest under Obama.
This is why I find politics amusing, the blatant misrepresentations. Don't worry, both sides do it, you just happen to be the one doing it now.
 
The highest under Bush 43 was a half trillion lower than the lowest under Obama.
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.
 
Do you not understand the meaning of the word REDUCE?

Did or did not the deficit increase "under Bush 43"?

Has the deficit decreased during Obama's term?

Two simple questions, why are you unable, or is it unwilling, to answer.

Fine, you want an answer? Bush 43, in 2007.

Your turn. Wow me with your economic aptitude.
 
Fine, you want an answer? Bush 43, in 2007.
huh?
Are you saying he decreased his own deficit from his previous year?
Not exactly what the question was about but on a technical wording level maybe I'll let you slide with that.

Another thing I noticed is that you do not seem to be attributing each President's first year deficit to his predecessor as is generally the way it is tracked.

I liked your initial metaphoric, tax vs debt analogy though. By that were you saying that you do not care about the debt so much as long as the super wealthy pay less tax?
 
huh?
Are you saying he decreased his own deficit from his previous year?
Not exactly what the question was about but on a technical wording level maybe I'll let you slide with that.

Well, when I tried to make a relevant point about Obama's lowest point being higher than Bush 43's highest point, every liberal whose ideology is stronger than his economic sense came out of the woodwork and started making deflections, red herrings, and excuses.

Another thing I noticed is that you do not seem to be attributing each President's first year deficit to his predecessor as is generally the way it is tracked.

Your numbers were in reflection of Obama in comparison to himself, as was mine with Bush's.

I liked your initial metaphoric, tax vs debt analogy though. By that were you saying that you do not care about the debt so much as long as the super wealthy pay less tax?

I think the "national debt" is a scare tactic and essentially worthless number. The most concerning deficit to me is the trade deficit, which Bush hacked to death. Granted - not entirely his fault, but he did. It was also one of Clinton's most saving graces. I enjoyed him providing a surplus, and I agree with most of the ways he got it. Most, but not all.

As far as the super wealthy paying taxes, we're in a progressive tax system - and I tend to favor a flat tax, with a generous standard deduction and many corporate loopholes being closed. Of course, being an accountant, doing so may hurt myself in the employment facet...but I'm a complicated man.
 
Well, when I tried to make a relevant point about Obama's lowest point being higher than Bush 43's highest point, every liberal whose ideology is stronger than his economic sense came out of the woodwork and started making deflections, red herrings, and excuses.
It's not an excuse to point out fiscal year 2009 budget was proposed and adopted under Bush, started four months before Obama and contained the worst economic recession in 70 years which resulted in much lower tax revenue than was expected when the budget was put into place.

Those are not excuses, they are just facts.
 
Do you not understand the meaning of the word REDUCE?

Did or did not the deficit increase "under Bush 43"?

Has the deficit decreased during Obama's term?

Two simple questions, why are you unable, or is it unwilling, to answer.

Fine, you want an answer? Bush 43, in 2007.

Your turn. Wow me with your economic aptitude.


I know I watched way too much Monty Python.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

As I look at my "two simple questions", I realise that there are actually four questions . . . but, nevermind. Someone appears to be unable to answer any of them so here's a picture that may make it simple enough to comprehend

FederalDeficitDeclinedtoHalfofPeak.jpg

CBO drops 2013 deficit estimate to $642 billion

The CBO projects a $642 billion budget deficit for fiscal year 2013, down more than $200 billion from its February estimate and the smallest annual shortfall since 2008. It is the lowest level of deficit spending to date under President Obama, who faced $1 trillion or more in annual deficits during his first term.

Toward the end of the USAToday article is this little tidbit
The lower deficits are also a result of decreased federal spending, which may have the long-term impact of slowing economic growth.

Sequester, any one?
 
Sequester, any one?
Clearly you're not familiar with the present Republican position on the sequester.

The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea.
 
As I said, this is adorable. Under Obama they skyrocket, drop a touch, and suddenly Obama's great. This is what I meant by "stealing 100, then giving back 10".

Bush's last year was hideous, but even that was better than Obama's best year. You guys keep moving the goalposts. It's hella entertaining.
 
Well, when I tried to make a relevant point about Obama's lowest point being higher than Bush 43's highest point, every liberal whose ideology is stronger than his economic sense came out of the woodwork and started making deflections, red herrings, and excuses.

Your numbers were in reflection of Obama in comparison to himself, as was mine with Bush's.
Ironically, accounting seems to be the issue at hand here, more so than ideology.
As an accountant, you know that there are many ways to manipulate the overall picture.
Both sides do this. One of the biggest manipulations is with Social Security... Runs a huge surplus, yet because the surplus is spent on bonds, it then creates "debt". The Left seems to not understand this well enough to ever make a point with it, and the Right deceitfully uses it to point and say Social Security is causing "debt".

Anyhow, back to my point...
The 2009 deficit is Bush's, not Obama's. And the same accounting applies to every Presidential term in that the first year belongs to his predecessor.
When a President takes office, a majority of the deficit for his first year is due to things that occurred the year before.
Obama has actually decreased the deficit by a higher percentage than any President in over 60 years if you consider the actual deficit that was handed to him.
Also what is the number attributed to the recession for loss of tax revenue? Isn't it 380 billion?

Compare this to a store manager taking over a store. For that next month, the orders have already been made, contracts signed, utilities already used, advertizements already purchased. The expenses for his first time period are already set in stone by his predecessor.
Government works in a similar way, only it is done by years instead of months.

Bush increased the deficit handed to him.
Obama decreased the deficit handed to him.
Now if you wanted to say, "That was Congress, not Obama", I would not argue with you.
 
Clearly you're not familiar with the present Republican position on the sequester.

The sequester is something this country needs which will not affect anything, unless it affects it negatively, at which point it was Obama's idea. But, like I said, it will not affect anything, so if it does affect something negatively it's only because Obama wants to punish Americans with this thing our country needs, which, again, was his idea.

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.
 
Ironically, accounting seems to be the issue at hand here, more so than ideology.
As an accountant, you know that there are many ways to manipulate the overall picture.

Well aware.

Both sides do this. One of the biggest manipulations is with Social Security... Runs a huge surplus, yet because the surplus is spent on bonds, it then creates "debt". The Left seems to not understand this well enough to ever make a point with it, and the Right deceitfully uses it to point and say Social Security is causing "debt".

The Washington Slush Fund? Yes, I'm aware of its consistent manipulation from both sides.

Anyhow, back to my point...
The 2009 deficit is Bush's, not Obama's. And the same accounting applies to every Presidential term in that the first year belongs to his predecessor.
When a President takes office, a majority of the deficit for his first year is due to things that occurred the year before.
Obama has actually decreased the deficit by a higher percentage than any President in over 60 years if you consider the actual deficit that was handed to him.
Also what is the number attributed to the recession for loss of tax revenue? Isn't it 380 billion?

Compare this to a store manager taking over a store. For that next month, the orders have already been made, contracts signed, utilities already used, advertizements already purchased. The expenses for his first time period are already set in stone by his predecessor.
Government works in a similar way, only it is done by years instead of months.

Bush increased the deficit handed to him.
Obama decreased the deficit handed to him.
Now if you wanted to say, "That was Congress, not Obama", I would not argue with you.

I will concede that 2008 was handed to Obama. However, overall he has not decreased it. It is not lower now than when he took office. It's lower now than it was a year ago.
 
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'm not a Republican. I'm just stating what they seem to believe. Personally, it makes me wonder how Republicans manage to stand with all the twisting they have to do in order to discuss the sequester.

In other words, I find the Republican position completely ridiculous, in nearly every way, not the least of which is the rather hypocritical nature of their position. Go back and read it again, I think you'd enjoy it. :)
 
I'm not a Republican. I'm just stating what they seem to believe. Personally, it makes me wonder how Republicans manage to stand with all the twisting they have to do in order to discuss the sequester.

In other words, I find the Republican position completely ridiculous, in nearly every way, not the least of which is the rather hypocritical nature of their position. Go back and read it again, I think you'd enjoy it. :)

What do you have issues with specifically...
 
As if there is a difference between the 2 parties?

.

Do I have to point this out EVERY time it is brought up? Sheesh!!

Everybody knows that democrat parties are open bar and at the republican parties you pay for your booze.
 
Back
Top Bottom