US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

[Hutch Starskey]

When it comes to spending the only difference between the parties is what they overspend on not the overspending it's self.

Well, of course a big difference that has been drawn is in the actual efforts that have been made by one party to lower spending and the other party that seems to not only erase those gains but surpass the previous spending.


There is no way Republicans can call themselves fiscally responsible at all.

Really? Which party has made an effort to lower spending? The national debt was paid off one time under Andrew Jackson that lasted one year since that time Republican and Democrat Presidents and Republican and Democrat controlled Congress have run up debt that is why it is at 21 trillion and counting only the blindest of the blind partisans think either party has tried to do anything to control spending.

Reducing deficit spending is controling spending, dope.

It was not the Dems who increased the spending after two Dem presidents reduced it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I am all for a huge cut in spending.

The Dems should cut the budget by $1 trillion after they win the house in 2 months.

Or the repubs should have done it before or right now.

You are the one claiming how great the Dems are at slicing and dicing, let’s see if It happens.

I didn't say they were great. I simply said they actually did it while Republicans only talk about it.

Yep, and the POS Republicans who won’t cut spending should be voted out and replaced with conservatives who actually want small government and personal freedom and want to support the constitution.

Like when the Republicans balanced the budget while Clinton was President. The Republicans held the house and Newt Gingrich led the push to balance the budget.


True conservatives.

Not these POS Rinos and straight up socialists we now have in the house.

A lot of the current Congress need to voted out and we need term limits.

We have term limits for POTUS, there should be also for Congress so we don’t have Mitch McConnells and Diance Feinsteins.

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no difference between the two parties when it comes to spending. This you can count on, both parties will spend and spend when in office and both will complain about it when they are out of office.

Neither party will stop the madness. Higher taxes, cut spending is the only way out but neither side is interested in it.

There is no difference between the two parties when it comes to spending

There is a difference. Your false equivilancies won't change that fact.

The debt continues to grow, we just want to blame. Name the last President when the debt went down from the time they entered the office and when they left office.

You just want to blame equally.
Obviously that is not reality.

Better yet, name the last Republican President to lower the deficit.

No, I am being realistic, you can’t answer my question, he your silly deflection and in reality Congress is just as responsible for the huge debt.

Yes, and one party makes an effort to control spending and the other talks a big game.

Neither one does unless the power is split.

 

[Papageorgio]

You misunderstand. I was asking what Trump had to do with this because you brought him up. Why bring him up when responding to me?

And to repeat: Congress holds the purse-strings, not the president. I don't deny that presidents influence congressional budgets, but this simplistic 'Obama lowered the deficit' as though he single-handedly wrote and passed the federal budget during his terms is just silly.

Obama worked with congress to do it just as Clinton did and just as Reagan and Bush did not.


Because this is the thread.
US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

The better question is, why bring up Obama?

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

And both of them did it because the other party controlled Congress.

 

[Montrovant]

You misunderstand. I was asking what Trump had to do with this because you brought him up. Why bring him up when responding to me?

And to repeat: Congress holds the purse-strings, not the president. I don't deny that presidents influence congressional budgets, but this simplistic 'Obama lowered the deficit' as though he single-handedly wrote and passed the federal budget during his terms is just silly.

Obama worked with congress to do it just as Clinton did and just as Reagan and Bush did not.


Because this is the thread.
US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

The better question is, why bring up Obama?

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

 

[bripat9643]

I realize that, my point I don’t hold. President entirely responsible for the debt, Congress is also a key factor. Neither party will do the right thing and cut spending, it political suicide to do so.

We need to make it political suicide to keep spending like this.

How do you imagine such a proposition would ever get passed?

The people vote out spenders regardless of party. Now we have too many partisans like you protecting them.

When has that ever happened?

Of course he did.

Crybrat, you're a conspiracy RWNJ boob! I understand why you believe these conspiracy theories, it makes non of them true! Like Rump you have the comprehension skills of a toddler!

It's not a conspiracy, moron. It's what he actually did. Meanwhile, millions of snowflake nutburgers like you believe Trump was involved in a vast conspiracy to collude with the Russians

Well you are wrong as usual, I do not know if Agent Orange is, but I am willing to let the investigation play out.

It's already played out, moron: no evidence of collusion. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Nothing.

Like I said, we currently have too many stupid
partisans like you. Debt only a problem when other party in power right?

I think a post that totally ignores the post it's supposed to be a reply to is an infallible indication of stupidity.

 

[bripat9643]

You misunderstand. I was asking what Trump had to do with this because you brought him up. Why bring him up when responding to me?

And to repeat: Congress holds the purse-strings, not the president. I don't deny that presidents influence congressional budgets, but this simplistic 'Obama lowered the deficit' as though he single-handedly wrote and passed the federal budget during his terms is just silly.

Obama worked with congress to do it just as Clinton did and just as Reagan and Bush did not.


Because this is the thread.
US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

The better question is, why bring up Obama?

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

He reduced it only after he tripled the deficit.

 

[Toro]

3/4s of the budget is military, Medicare and SS. Within the next 30 years, they will be 85% of the budget.

Which of those three do you want to cut?

 

[Brain357]

3/4s of the budget is military, Medicare and SS. Within the next 30 years, they will be 85% of the budget.

Which of those three do you want to cut?

Military.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama worked with congress to do it just as Clinton did and just as Reagan and Bush did not.


Because this is the thread.
US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

The better question is, why bring up Obama?

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

And both of them did it because the other party controlled Congress.

They didn't have to sign it, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Obama worked with congress to do it just as Clinton did and just as Reagan and Bush did not.


Because this is the thread.
US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

The better question is, why bring up Obama?

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

 

[Papageorgio]

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

And both of them did it because the other party controlled Congress.

They didn't have to sign it, dope.

Using name calling to try to win an argument?

When you know you won’t get a better deal because you don’t have the votes, you are forced to compromise or no budget get passed. As much as you disliked the Congress of “No”, it had a positive effect as well as a negative effect. That is why we have the three branches of government, to BALANCE the power.

 

[Montrovant]

You actually did in mentioning the last 2 Democratic presidents. I merely pointed out that the deficit being reduced during Obama was an unusual situation because the deficit was at $1.5 trillion in his first year, so using his presidency as an example of how Dems reduce deficits is misleading. That's also true because Congress was majority Republican for most of Clinton's terms.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Democrats, Republicans, both parties have generally increased the deficit and debt.

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

And both of them did it because the other party controlled Congress.

They didn't have to sign it, dope.

Using name calling to try to win an argument?

When you know you won’t get a better deal because you don’t have the votes, you are forced to compromise or no budget get passed. As much as you disliked the Congress of “No”, it had a positive effect as well as a negative effect. That is why we have the three branches of government, to BALANCE the power.

So, you're saying the Repubs bullied the Dem presidents into cuts?

I called you a dope because that ^ is a dopey idea.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. Dems just way, way less.

There is no equivalence to be made.

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

As if Obama's recovery spending wasn't a
"Special circumstance".

History shows quite clearly that Dem presidents have worked to cut spending. Republican presidents have not.

 

[Montrovant]

Except that isn't the case. I've posted a link multiple times showing the deficit, debt, and which party controlled the presidency and had a majority in the Senate and House. Since Reagan, the deficit has only gone steadily downward over multiple years with a Republican majority Congress and Democrat president, during Clinton. During Obama the deficit started at an insanely high $1.5 trillion, then went down, up, down, and up again. The highest the deficit has ever been was with a Democrat majority Congress and a Republican, going into Democrat, president with the transition from Bush to Obama.

Yes, the deficit dropped during Obama's presidency, but considering how high it was to begin with, is that an incredible accomplishment? I'm glad it went down as much as it did, but I'd much prefer if it had gone down much more, rather than ending up still higher than every single year's deficit in the history of the US prior to the Obama administration.

And yes, the deficit is going up during the Trump administration. That is ridiculous, particularly when the economy is supposed to be doing well.

There's also the question of how the numbers are calculated, and if it makes sense. There are often 3 years during the Clinton administration shown as having a negative deficit, or a surplus....yet in each of those years, the debt increased.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

The deficit has increased under Republican and Democrat presidents, and under Republican, Democrat, and mixed Congresses.

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

As if Obama's recovery spending wasn't a
"Special circumstance".

History shows quite clearly that Dem presidents have worked to cut spending. Republican presidents have not.

Of course the spending was a special circumstance. The entire situation was unusual, which is the point.

That deficits were lowered while Dem presidents were in office does not, by itself, indicate those presidents worked to cut spending. Did Clinton propose the budgets that Congress adopted? Did Obama? For that matter, did the Republican presidents propose the budgets adopted while deficits went up?

And how about this question: When Dems have controlled both the presidency and Congress, has the deficit gone down? How about Reps? From what I've seen, the deficit has both gone up and down when either party controls both the executive and legislature. 2004-2005 the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency, and the deficit went down. 1993-1994, the same was true with Democrats in control. Then again in 2009-2010 for Democrats, although again, that's going down from the largest deficit in history by a wide margin.

Each party has had instances of control where the deficit went up, as well.

History has show the deficit decreasing and, much more often, increasing under both Dem and Rep presidents and Congresses.

Perhaps Dem presidents have pushed to cut spending more often, but simply showing the deficit numbers certainly does not prove that, or even particularly indicate it.

 

[Brain357]

Do you know the difference between debt and deficit? I don't think you do.
No. Clinton took the deficit to zero and had a brief surplus. Obama reduced it by 75%.

This idea of equivalency is idiotic. Republican presidents have never done so.

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

As if Obama's recovery spending wasn't a
"Special circumstance".

History shows quite clearly that Dem presidents have worked to cut spending. Republican presidents have not.

Of course the spending was a special circumstance. The entire situation was unusual, which is the point.

That deficits were lowered while Dem presidents were in office does not, by itself, indicate those presidents worked to cut spending. Did Clinton propose the budgets that Congress adopted? Did Obama? For that matter, did the Republican presidents propose the budgets adopted while deficits went up?

And how about this question: When Dems have controlled both the presidency and Congress, has the deficit gone down? How about Reps? From what I've seen, the deficit has both gone up and down when either party controls both the executive and legislature. 2004-2005 the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency, and the deficit went down. 1993-1994, the same was true with Democrats in control. Then again in 2009-2010 for Democrats, although again, that's going down from the largest deficit in history by a wide margin.

Each party has had instances of control where the deficit went up, as well.

History has show the deficit decreasing and, much more often, increasing under both Dem and Rep presidents and Congresses.

Perhaps Dem presidents have pushed to cut spending more often, but simply showing the deficit numbers certainly does not prove that, or even particularly indicate it.

Right now it’s all repub and increasing dramatically. Time to vote them out.

 

[Montrovant]

I didn't say that the deficit increased from the beginning of each president's term until the end. I just said, correctly, that it has increased under presidents and Congresses from both parties.

Whether or not there was a surplus under Clinton is debatable, as the debt never decreased. Also, yet again, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit by himself. There was a Republican majority Congress when the deficit got close to or made it into a surplus, do you think Clinton decided the budget himself?

As to the Obama presidency, yes, the deficit decreased from his first year...but the deficit increased in that first year to levels more than 3 times as high as it had ever been before. You give Obama credit for lowering the deficit, don't blame him for raising it to a level far beyond anything it had been before, all of the time seemingly ignoring Congress's part in creating budgets.

You seem to be trying too hard to make Democrats seem good and Republicans bad. When it comes to spending they are both bad.

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

As if Obama's recovery spending wasn't a
"Special circumstance".

History shows quite clearly that Dem presidents have worked to cut spending. Republican presidents have not.

Of course the spending was a special circumstance. The entire situation was unusual, which is the point.

That deficits were lowered while Dem presidents were in office does not, by itself, indicate those presidents worked to cut spending. Did Clinton propose the budgets that Congress adopted? Did Obama? For that matter, did the Republican presidents propose the budgets adopted while deficits went up?

And how about this question: When Dems have controlled both the presidency and Congress, has the deficit gone down? How about Reps? From what I've seen, the deficit has both gone up and down when either party controls both the executive and legislature. 2004-2005 the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency, and the deficit went down. 1993-1994, the same was true with Democrats in control. Then again in 2009-2010 for Democrats, although again, that's going down from the largest deficit in history by a wide margin.

Each party has had instances of control where the deficit went up, as well.

History has show the deficit decreasing and, much more often, increasing under both Dem and Rep presidents and Congresses.

Perhaps Dem presidents have pushed to cut spending more often, but simply showing the deficit numbers certainly does not prove that, or even particularly indicate it.

Right now it’s all repub and increasing dramatically. Time to vote them out.

I'd be more happy with that idea if it weren't just going to be more Dems getting voted in.

 

[Godboy]

...'The real highlight of the August budget report was that government outlays, or total spending, soared to $433.3 billion, not only 30% higher than a year ago, but the highest government monthly outlay of any month on record.'

US Government Spends A Record $433 Billion In One Month As Deficit Explodes

Federal deficit jumps by $214 billion in August


Absolutely pathetic.

Is this Trump's/the Rep's idea of 'small government'?

Useless pricks.

Dont worry, as soon as a democrat gets back into the White House, they will take care of the deficit. For reals this time!

 

[Brain357]

You seem to be trying very hard to make a false equivalency.

I've painted no one as either good or bad. I've simply pointed out the differences in how and when spending cuts have been made.

No, that's not all you have done. You've specifically given credit to Democrat presidents for lowering the deficit, while ignoring both the special circumstances (including the incredibly massive increase in the deficit) which occurred during the Obama administration and the fact that Congress is who actually creates the budgets.

You have clearly tried to present Democrats as more fiscally responsible and interested in lowering deficits, unlike Republicans.

As if Obama's recovery spending wasn't a
"Special circumstance".

History shows quite clearly that Dem presidents have worked to cut spending. Republican presidents have not.

Of course the spending was a special circumstance. The entire situation was unusual, which is the point.

That deficits were lowered while Dem presidents were in office does not, by itself, indicate those presidents worked to cut spending. Did Clinton propose the budgets that Congress adopted? Did Obama? For that matter, did the Republican presidents propose the budgets adopted while deficits went up?

And how about this question: When Dems have controlled both the presidency and Congress, has the deficit gone down? How about Reps? From what I've seen, the deficit has both gone up and down when either party controls both the executive and legislature. 2004-2005 the Republicans had control of both houses and the presidency, and the deficit went down. 1993-1994, the same was true with Democrats in control. Then again in 2009-2010 for Democrats, although again, that's going down from the largest deficit in history by a wide margin.

Each party has had instances of control where the deficit went up, as well.

History has show the deficit decreasing and, much more often, increasing under both Dem and Rep presidents and Congresses.

Perhaps Dem presidents have pushed to cut spending more often, but simply showing the deficit numbers certainly does not prove that, or even particularly indicate it.

Right now it’s all repub and increasing dramatically. Time to vote them out.

I'd be more happy with that idea if it weren't just going to be more Dems getting voted in.

And if they spend we vote them out. Make this irresponsible spending political suicide. Heck we might get some independents.