Obama's First Term: 2.4T in deficit reduction

[Direckshun]

Considering that cutting the deficit retards growth, and Obama inherited the Great Recession, this is pretty astonishing we've had this much deficit reduction without tanking growth. It does help explain, however, why growth has been steady but sluggish.

The CBPP says we need an additional 1.4T in deficit reduction, and that's it: our long term debt would be stabilized under our current economy. Which means, of course, if we could get the economy growing at a 3%+ clip again, the long term deficit is put on a downward spiral.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

This $1.4T deficit. How much of it was Bush's and how much was Obama's considering Obama was president for 8 months of that fiscal year?

When was the Obama/Reid/Pelosi failed stimulus passed? I thought it was like in February 2009, well within the $1.4T fiscal deficit year.

Everything that fails until he leaves office is W's fault~

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

This $1.4T deficit. How much of it was Bush's and how much was Obama's considering Obama was president for 8 months of that fiscal year?

When was the Obama/Reid/Pelosi failed stimulus passed? I thought it was like in February 2009, well within the $1.4T fiscal deficit year.

The recovery measures turned what was a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit into a 1.4 dollar deficit.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Dramatically increase it by... 200 billion, according to most estimates. A deficit that was already 1.3 trillion.

For recovery measures. To inject demand into the economy.

If that's a "dramatically increasing," then we have subsequently seen a dramatic decreasing of the deficit on his watch as well, by your own mathematical standard.

Obama doesn't get a pass on FY2009 spending. He's the President who signed most of the legislation for spending that you're attributing to GWBush. Congress didn't get around to passing a budget or authorizing spending for FY2009 until after GWBush left office. The whole story about Obama inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit is bogus.

Beyond that, much of the spending that GWBush did authorize in FY2009 was due to his bank bailout. Most, if not all, of that spending was eventually repaid. You want to attribute the outflow of money under that program to Bush while giving credit for the return income on those loans to Obama. That might be reasonable in terms of generic accounting, but it's not reasonable when it comes to apportioning proper credit/blame to each President for their contribution to our fiscal situation. Bush's bailout turned out to be an effective government program that didn't add to the debt. The repayments on that program should offset his spending, not Obama's.

Needless to say, when the above is taken into account, Bush's FY2009 deficit numbers go way down and Obama's deficit numbers for FY2009 and beyond go way up. I'm not going to look up all of the numbers and figure out what the final score is, but as an approximation, let's compare their average deficits:

Bush avg. deficit = $330 billion (conservatively assessing 50% of FY2009 deficit as a Bush responsibility)

Obama avg. deficit = $1,060 billion (generously only blaming him for 50% of FY2009 and not accounting for the bailout bonus for which he doesn't deserve credit)

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Maybe you could help me with some basic mathematics.

This is from the link you just provided me:



Now, is $901B significantly larger, or significantly smaller, than $1,413B?

It's gotta be one of the two, right?

Do you see that "cross" symbol next to the FY2009 Bush deficit number you have circled? Here's what the chart's legend says that cross means:

† Some people have emailed to insist that the FY 2009 deficit should be assigned to Obama. Good point.

[Otter]

Direckshun and KcNitwit should have a mental showdown.

When an irresistible ignorance meets unmovable lack of self-awareness.

You decide.