Is the Budget deficit almost closed?

that's a misleading statement. that number is only relevant when compared with what the government would have taken in over the next ten years if ALL the Bush Tax Cuts had been rescinded. To surmise: If the Bush Tax Cuts had expired on New Years Eve for every single tax payer and taxes had gone up on everyone, we would have taken in 4 trillion more in revenue over the next ten years than with the current deal that only raises taxes on income earners over 400,000 and couples over 450,000.

I am sure you will say that Obama raised taxes on everyone because the payroll tax holiday was not extended but it was never meant to be a permanent measure and that was made clear when it was enacted.

 

It isn't misleading at all. It is exactly factual. If Obama wanted to keep taxes lower on the middle class he should have paid for his revenue cuts with spending cuts. Instead he only adjusted one half of the equation. His policies are increasing budget deficits by 4 trillion dollars. It is a fact.

Of course he raised taxes. When the tax holiday sunsets payroll taxes increase by about 50%. The fact that the cut was always intended to be temporary does not negate this. If the tax is more today than it was yesterday the tax has increased. You can debate whether he raised the taxes when he signed legislation with the sunset, or when he did nothing to stop the holiday from sunsetting, but the taxes are still raised effective 1/1/2013.

 

yes it is misleading. we are not spending an additional 4 trillion dollars no matter how you want to spin it.

 

I didn't say we were spending an additional dime. I said deficits were going to increase by 4 trillion dollars as a result of Obama's policies, and that is true.

 

do you even understand where they are getting this 4 trillion dollars? from the sound of things I do not believe that you do, so let me explain:

The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire on New Years Eve in their entirety. If the Bush Tax Cuts had been left alone completely and allowed to continue for the next ten years they would have added an additional 5.9 trillion to the debt, just as they have added that much to the debt over the past debade since they were enacted back in 2001 and 2003. The President and Congress reached a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for any individual who earns more than $400,000 per year or any couple who earns more than $450,000 per year. This "deal" reduces our debt from 5.9 trillion to 4 trillion over the next ten years. Now, people like you want us to believe that this equation equals the President raising the debt by 4 trillion over the next ten years. Do you think that the Republicans in Congress who the President was negotiating with were the ones who wanted to raise taxes in that room? No, of course not. Hence the term "deal."

So in essence the Republican party fought tooth and nail to keep as many of the Bush Tax Cuts in place that they could and now they are accusing the President of increasing the debt by 4 trillion over the next ten years. This is just plain bull shit and intellectually dishonest on their part and yours for supporting them. If it were up to the Republicans every one of those debt increasing tax cuts would have been left in place and we would be looking at 5.9 trillion in debt increase over the next ten years. The entire Republican party has been hanging their hats on the Bush Tax Cuts and their virtues and how the economy cannot grow without them, blah, blah, blah, blah.......and now, these same people (and this includes you) want us to believe that the President is somehow responsible for the mess that a Republican President and congress created in 2001 and 2003.

You might fool some people with that line of crap but I ain't one of'em my friend.

 

I understand it perfectly. Using the baseline which reverted back to the Clinton rates we would had 5.9 trillion dollars less in deficit spending. Obama's policy decisions to keep some tax cuts and let others expire result in 4 trillion dollars more in deficit spending over the baseline.

You like to play this game where you ignore the thing that was going to happen (all tax cuts expire) and bring forth this idea that was never going to happen (no tax cuts expire) and try to compare that to the deal. It is a lie.

Obama's policy decision adds 4 trillion to the debt over the next ten years. It is a fact, and you trying to play this game where Obama's pen strokes are the responsiblity of anyone other than him is intellectually dishonest. You may not beleive in accountability but I do.

Obama has had 4 years to change the course of the budget, but he has failed to even push one forward. He didn't even look at the one passed by the House in 2011.

And don't take this as an absolution of republican policies. They have been terrible too, but Obama is the guy who signed the bill that results in 4 trillion dollars of deficit over the next ten years.

 

You say you understand but then you turn around and prove that you really do not understand. You say all of this as if Obama did all of this with one quick, stroke of his pen, but that is incorrect. Given the fact that the dems have been the champions of increasing taxes and the repubs have been the champions of making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, I doubt seriously that Obama didn't want to raise more in revenue than he was able to accomplish. It's called compromise. And in case you haven't noticed the opposition hasn't been exactly cooperative. I don't know how to make that any more clear to you. I hear what you are saying but what you are saying isn't truthful. In fact, it sounds alot like the Republican spin machines talking points.

I am pissed at Obama too but I am pissed that he didn't let us go over the cliff and let ALL Bush Tax Cuts expire then get a retroactive bill after the fact. I am also pissed that there were no spending cuts involved in the deal. The sequester cuts have still yet to be dealt with but should be in the next few months. Either way, I don't want you to get the wrong idea that I am a big fan of this deal because I'm not. That said, to say that Obama is increasing the debt by 4 trillion over the next decade is dishonest. Obama was the guy arguing for higher taxes and to repeal all of the Bush Tax Cuts except those under $250,000; not the one arguing to extend those costly tax cuts. Obama was on the right side of this argument.

 

If there had been no compromise the deficit over the next ten years would have been what? The answer is current projection - 4 trillion dollars.

Obama's policy decision adds 4 trillion to the deficit. How is this so hard to grok. He agreed and signed off on a compromise that was not substantially different than everything he wanted.

Why do you need to blame this on republicans? They aren't in power. Obama signed off on this cluster fuck. At some point he has to take responsiblity for it.

 

If there had been no compromise we would have added 5.9 trillion to the debt over the next decade. Because of the compromise it is 1.9 trillion less than that. 5.9 is more than 4 by 1.9. I don't like the deal but 1.9 trillion in savings is better than none.....which is what the Republicans were asking for.

I still contend that the Republicans have absolutely no interest in curbing spending. In March when the sequester takes effect we will find out how much they really want spending cuts. Mark my words on this my friend: The Republicans will do everything in their power to stop those spending cuts. Mobius has already disagreed with me about this so I guess we will all have to wait and see how that part of this equation gets handled. In case you were wondering, the sequester cuts would cut defense and entitlements by a trillion over the next decade and would effectively bring our budget into balance one we are out of Afghanistan next year.

 

What is important is that that's another 1.9 that has to be added to the baseline your initial article was about along with at least 200 billion in sequestration that weren't cut. We all know, the aren't going to cut the entire amount of sequestration and everyone pretty much assumes we won't hit the deficit numbers he outlines in the next few years. So the bottom line is, no, we are not close to even stabilizing our debt to gdp ratio even though it is near historic highs.