Debt Ceiling

[OregonSmock]

Maybe I'm slow here, but if at one point in time we have some debt, and over some period of time we're running a budget deficit, wouldn't we then have more debt?  If Obama has reduced the debt by $2.5 trillion then we much have run a budget surplus, and quite a significant one at that?

Budget obligations go beyond one fiscal year.  Like I pointed out with the sequester, the total savings from the 2013-2021 period will equate to around $1.1 trillion.  The current administration and the current Congress will have an influence on the budgets beyond this term.  And yes, budget deficits lead to more accrued debt.  But reducing those budget deficits leads to balancing the budget.  This isn't rocket science.

I have a feeling beems made up the 2.5 trillion in debt reduction number, or maybe he meant increase, but that doesn't prop up his point, so I don't know.

The lowering of the debt by saying its a smaller percentage of the GDP is just a ridiculously deceptive comment to appeal to the low information voter who will parrot it out on message boards.

Are you really this misinformed and ignorant?  Maybe you should find a source of information outside of the right wing herd bubble.  This article is older but here are some facts:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/09/news/economy/obama-deficit-reduction/index.html

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
President Obama on Wednesday is expected to make the case for cutting deficits by $1.8 trillion -- a number that would bring total proposed debt reduction under Obama to unprecedented levels.

The president's budget, which is not expected to fly on Capitol Hill, nonetheless sets an important marker for continuing debt talks with lawmakers.

His tax and spending framework would bring total deficit reduction to about $4.3 trillion relative to where things stood in August 2010, which was the launching point used by the president's fiscal commission chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.

More than half that amount -- $2.5 trillion -- would come from several measures that came about from negotiations with Republicans:

    initial savings from the 2011 Budget Control Act, not including the automatic budget cuts that went into effect in March;
    lower spending levels set by temporary government funding resolutions enacted since 2010;
    revenue raised by the fiscal cliff deal passed at the start of this year.

The remaining $1.8 trillion would come from Obama's 2014 budget proposal.

The president will seek to replace the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction that would result from the automatic budget cuts, also known as the sequester. And then he will propose another $600 billion in deficit reduction on top of that, much of which may come from his tax proposals.

In terms of sheer dollars, the country has never cut deficits by $4.3 trillion over a decade.

But when measured in terms of how much it would reduce the country's accumulated debt load as a percent of the economy, it really doesn't rank.

Reducing projected deficits by $4.3 trillion would still leave the country with a public debt level equal to about 73% of the economy, or about 4 percentage points less than today.

Some of you guys are so ignorant when it comes to this stuff that I seriously wonder sometimes whether or not you're just trolling.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I have a feeling beems made up the 2.5 trillion in debt reduction number, or maybe he meant increase, but that doesn't prop up his point, so I don't know.

The lowering of the debt by saying its a smaller percentage of the GDP is just a ridiculously deceptive comment to appeal to the low information voter who will parrot it out on message boards.

No, the $2.5 trillion was a real talking point from the Obama admin earlier this year. Beems just took it and ran, without actually considering how phony the number really is. Again, it is a reduction in the theoretical deficits over the next 10 years, which is weak on its face, and weaker still because it is only a reduction as compared to spending in 2010, which Obama jacked up to the highest level of spending in history.

So, to simplify so even retards like Beems can understand, Obama first jacks the spending through the roof, then theoretically reduces that spending by about 10% over the next 10 years, and he claims $2.5 trillion is savings. Retards like Beems then claim that the national debt has been decreased by $2.5 trillion, even though we're adding roughly a trillion to the debt each year.

[OregonSmock]

Again, it's awesome how this KSU guy just ignores the entire Bush administration, which ended with the worst recession since the Great Depression, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq war, the expansion of Medicare, and the collapse of Wall Street.  Things like context and facts have no place in a religion.  This guy has built an entire mindset around hating Obama.

[OregonSmock]

Oh and I forgot to mention the fact that Bush created an entirely new branch of government (The Department of Homeland Security).  But yeah, that 2010 budget is all Obama's fault, just like everything else that's wrong in this world (well, except for the stock market, of course). 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Beems, debt and deficit are not interchangeable.

[OregonSmock]

Beems, debt and deficit are not interchangeable.

You are the one who has been all over the map with regards to the budget deficit vs. the national debt.  I still don't think you understand the concept of deficit reduction vs. debt reduction.

[sonofdaxjones]

For Review once again.  Democrats controlled both houses of Congress from 2006-2010, add in the White House from 2008-2010.

Swept into power to reduce the budget deficits and reduce the national debt:  Fail and Fail.

Obama has been in office for nearly 6 years now.   All time record budget deficits (not even close), largest increase in the National Debt in U.S. History (again, not even close to his predecessors). 

Federal FY 2013-All time Record Tax Receipts:  Still $800 Billion in Budget Deficits

[OregonSmock]

Statistical data (since this has come full circle back to the blame game):










Budget deficits appear to be decreasing, but then again, stats and information have a liberal bias, so we'll see.

[sonofdaxjones]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

[Headinjun]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

[Headinjun]

Didn't the democrats propose a budget that would reduce deficits as well? Seems like there has been a failure from both sides to me.

  that was a good one!

It did KSU just likes being a myopic right wing dumbass..

KSU, do you remember the last debt ceiling fight where the Dems called for a  10-1 ratio in spending cuts to tax increases?   Probably not.

Just thought I would remind you, or just let you know of some info outside the thick bubble of fiction and dumbassery.

That was not a budget, you dumbfuck, just a hypothetical campaign talking point to paint the GOP presidential candidates as extreme for recognizing that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Dems have never put pen to paper and actually drafted a budget that would reduce spending. The GOP has. To pretend that the Democrat party is serious about reducing spending or the deficit is just rough ridin' stupid.

Do you really believe that if the GOP had conceded to tax increases, the Dems would have agreed to 10x the spending cuts? Are you a rough ridin' idiot?

Also, I overlooked it earlier, but I love your term "insurance company reform" for ObamaCare. Is that what the libs are calling it now?

That was an actual negotiation point to stave off the last debt ceiling fight that the Repubs effed up. They walked away from that deal with the smarter traditional repubs who are the last ones worth a dam left to wonder the sanity of their party.

And yes for the most part "Obamacare" is a for profit insurance reform. You tend to think your the smartest guy in the room, why don't you know this?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Homeland Security was the second worst thing to happen to government in the last 20 years. But, imagine the fight the left would wage if congress tried to eliminate any part of it, especially the TSA.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Didn't the democrats propose a budget that would reduce deficits as well? Seems like there has been a failure from both sides to me.

  that was a good one!

It did KSU just likes being a myopic right wing dumbass..

KSU, do you remember the last debt ceiling fight where the Dems called for a  10-1 ratio in spending cuts to tax increases?   Probably not.

Just thought I would remind you, or just let you know of some info outside the thick bubble of fiction and dumbassery.

That was not a budget, you dumbfuck, just a hypothetical campaign talking point to paint the GOP presidential candidates as extreme for recognizing that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Dems have never put pen to paper and actually drafted a budget that would reduce spending. The GOP has. To pretend that the Democrat party is serious about reducing spending or the deficit is just rough ridin' stupid.

Do you really believe that if the GOP had conceded to tax increases, the Dems would have agreed to 10x the spending cuts? Are you a rough ridin' idiot?

Also, I overlooked it earlier, but I love your term "insurance company reform" for ObamaCare. Is that what the libs are calling it now?

That was an actual negotiation point to stave off the last debt ceiling fight that the Repubs effed up. They walked away from that deal with the smarter traditional repubs who are the last ones worth a dam left to wonder the sanity of their party.

False. It was never anything more than a talking point. The Dems never actually defined any cuts they would make, let alone 10x the tax increase, let alone propose an actual budget, and regardless, if you honestly believe that Dems would have honored said talking point, you've been eating Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) sandwiches. See Pelosis comment just yesterday.

[sonofdaxjones]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

Wait a second, when Clinton was having those "surpluses" who controlled Congress?  When the deficits exploded to record levels which party controlled Congress?

By "neo-cons" I hope you're including such people as Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who by and large have never met a war they didn't like or want.   I also hope you're also thinking of Clinton's illegal war in the Balkans (no Congressional Mandate, no UN Mandate and in violation of the NATO Charter) which was essentially the white paper for future U.S. interventionism/unilateral warfare (no to mention the outright support of entities that had strong Al Qaeda leanings/Iranian leanings).   

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And yes for the most part "Obamacare" is a for profit insurance reform. You tend to think your the smartest guy in the room, why don't you know this?

Oh yes, no doubt, Obamacare put a heap of new regulations on private insurance, and that's working out just peachy, btw - it's really putting the "affordable" in Affordable Care Act (you remember, the original label for the law). I'm just amused how liberals continue to try to re-brand and re-label this turd of a law. You can call it whatever you want, it is still a turd.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

And because Beems has no excuse for how utterly Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) his claim is that the "Obama has reduced the national debt by 2.5 trillion," he simply reverts to the final liberal defensive position when all other avenues have been exhausted: Blame Bush! (Hey, that seems to be Obama's "argument" most of the time, too!)

Anyway, while Bush's spending (with his willing Dem accomplices in Congress) was indeed inexcusable, it in no way justifies Obama's profligacy.

[Institutional Control]

That was an actual negotiation point to stave off the last debt ceiling fight that the Repubs effed up. They walked away from that deal with the smarter traditional repubs who are the last ones worth a dam left to wonder the sanity of their party.

And yes for the most part "Obamacare" is a for profit insurance reform. You tend to think your the smartest guy in the room, why don't you know this?

K-S-U's wife works in healthcare so he pretty much knows everything there is to know about health insurance.

[Headinjun]

Didn't the democrats propose a budget that would reduce deficits as well? Seems like there has been a failure from both sides to me.

  that was a good one!

It did KSU just likes being a myopic right wing dumbass..

KSU, do you remember the last debt ceiling fight where the Dems called for a  10-1 ratio in spending cuts to tax increases?   Probably not.

Just thought I would remind you, or just let you know of some info outside the thick bubble of fiction and dumbassery.

That was not a budget, you dumbfuck, just a hypothetical campaign talking point to paint the GOP presidential candidates as extreme for recognizing that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Dems have never put pen to paper and actually drafted a budget that would reduce spending. The GOP has. To pretend that the Democrat party is serious about reducing spending or the deficit is just rough ridin' stupid.

Do you really believe that if the GOP had conceded to tax increases, the Dems would have agreed to 10x the spending cuts? Are you a rough ridin' idiot?

Also, I overlooked it earlier, but I love your term "insurance company reform" for ObamaCare. Is that what the libs are calling it now?

That was an actual negotiation point to stave off the last debt ceiling fight that the Repubs effed up. They walked away from that deal with the smarter traditional repubs who are the last ones worth a dam left to wonder the sanity of their party.

False. It was never anything more than a talking point. The Dems never actually defined any cuts they would make, let alone 10x the tax increase, let alone propose an actual budget, and regardless, if you honestly believe that Dems would have honored said talking point, you've been eating respect sandwiches. See Pelosis comment just yesterday.

That was actually brought to the table during the last debt ceiling negotiations and the repubs in the room who were representing that side of congress walked away.

Who know if they would have honored it, but it was a start and the pubs could have had a huge say in it considering they had the house of reps.

[Headinjun]

Still doesn't change reality.

Democrats were swept in to change course in 2006 and then to the White House in 2008 and the exact oppossite occured.

Yeah wars, prescription drugs, and added bureacracy advocated and signed into law,by the right with only supply side prayers to pay for it has had no bearing on our fiscal situation at all. 

Dax you're a MIC hater, why are you ignoring the neo cons spending irresponsibility of the last decade plus?

Wait a second, when Clinton was having those "surpluses" who controlled Congress?  When the deficits exploded to record levels which party controlled Congress?

By "neo-cons" I hope you're including such people as Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who by and large have never met a war they didn't like or want.   I also hope you're also thinking of Clinton's illegal war in the Balkans (no Congressional Mandate, no UN Mandate and in violation of the NATO Charter) which was essentially the white paper for future U.S. interventionism/unilateral warfare (no to mention the outright support of entities that had strong Al Qaeda leanings/Iranian leanings).

Well then why didn't the repubs of yesteryear help continue those surpluses? As soon as they got control of both houses Dick Cheney was telling us "deficits don't matter". 

Why did the party that likes to beat its chest about fiscal responsibility continue to rack up record deficits at the time, not pay for two wars, add an prescription drug entitlement, and add another bureaucracy to the federal government without figuring how to pay for it? 

I don't think any party has a foot to stand on to be honest, but to put the blame solely on Obama and the democrats is pretty asinine and ignorant.

I also have no problem with your mentions of the neo-cons above. You must also include Obama as he has been just as militaristic as his predecessor.

[Headinjun]

And yes for the most part "Obamacare" is a for profit insurance reform. You tend to think your the smartest guy in the room, why don't you know this?

Oh yes, no doubt, Obamacare put a heap of new regulations on private insurance, and that's working out just peachy, btw - it's really putting the "affordable" in Affordable Care Act (you remember, the original label for the law). I'm just amused how liberals continue to try to re-brand and re-label this turd of a law. You can call it whatever you want, it is still a turd.

I'm not trying to rebrand a dam thing.

I was just making a point about what the AHCA was put into effect to do.

We've had a for profit insurance problem for decades and the motivation to do something was based off of that.

I'm sorry if your bosshog is a dick and your insurance has gone up, but mine has gone down, and when I had it on my own I got a refund from Coventry because of the 80/20 rule.

[OregonSmock]

Facts don't get in the bubble.  They simply won't accept any information that doesn't come from Fox News or conservative talk radio.

[Emo EMAW]

I can't believe how much of an idiot Beems is on this.  Not even worth arguing over it.  He literally doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.

[sys]

mods, can we get a bot that will post: "you don't know the difference between debt and deficit, lol", every time someone posts in this thread?  save everyone some time.

[OregonSmock]

I can't believe how much of an idiot Beems is on this.  Not even worth arguing over it.  He literally doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit.

This guy has to be trolling at this point, right?

[OregonSmock]

Here we go:

The national debt is the accumulation of past and current budget deficits.

The budget deficit is the annual level at which spending outpaces revenue. 

Budget deficits can be reduced year to year, while still increasing the overall national debt. 

Class dismissed.