As the job market improves and unemployment falls, one of the central attacks from Romney/Ryan against President Obama has to do with the deficit. The attack overlooks Paul Ryan's role in creating the massive deficit, the inconvenient fact that Romney hasn't presented a deficit-reduction plan, and the problem that the Romney/Ryan agenda would appear to make the deficit significantly worse, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
It's worth noting, then, that as of today, the U.S. federal budget deficit has shrunk -- a lot.
I put together this new chart reflecting the deficit over the course of the last four years. It starts with the figures released in 2009, when the deficit reached a record high of $1.4 trillion. Why is the column in red? Because, thanks to fiscal years, Obama inherited a deficit of nearly $1.3 trillion from Bush/Cheney the moment he took the oath of office.
This year, however, according to the official data published by the Treasury Department, the deficit was $1.089 trillion.
When the president's critics spin this, they'll say, "The deficit was over $1 trillion again," and that will be accurate. What the criticism fails to note, however, is that (a) the deficit is now much smaller than it was when Obama took office; (b) this is the smallest deficit we've seen in four years; (c) this new figure represents an improvement of over $200 billion since last year; and (d) the main drivers of the remaining deficit are Republican policies.
I should note that all of this is predicated on the assumption that deficits are something bad to be avoided, and that a shrinking deficit is necessarily encouraging news. There's a competing school of thought -- which I'm sympathetic to -- that suggests the deficit is currently too small, and that given economic conditions, interest rates, and the current yield of Treasuries, we should be borrowing far more and investing that money in job creation.
But for the purposes of political conversation, such an argument is probably a non-starter; the public has come to believe a deficit that's getting smaller is good news.
If so, Obama has something to brag about -- very few presidents of the last generation can say they managed to shrink the deficit by over $200 billion, even during difficult economic times.
Leave a Comment:
Cue Republicans rebuking good news in 3-2-1...
I should chime in at this point.
If you don't print money or tax income then you need to borrow it or rub a magic lamp.
Money has to come from somewhere. Romney says he will get the money by cutting spending. Budget cuts are called austerity, which works like this:
Romney and Ryan both said they can't explain what they want to cut because "it's complicated".
It's only complicated because you can't explain a lie, and the lie will only become more obvious as more information is provided.
Lying sack of Mitt.
Lyin' Ryan.
I soooooo want to see MSNBC put this in front of the voters before Noremember.
And they keep bringing up Ronald "Alzheimer's" Reagan as if he is some kind of superhero that saved the whole universe from utter destruction.
If this is your hero ........ then OMG!!!
You forget he cut funding for mental health facilities, that caused alot of mental patients to live on the street... ie: homeless people began a reality all across the nation.
Crackhead Awards
Is just scratching the surface, but a damn good start, the 0.01% OWN this country and the "Sheep" just cannot grasp that,,,???
Bet they can name every player on their favorite team though,,,,,,,,
Gee, I can see that Jack Welsh is gonna have a conniption fit over this "conspiracy" by the Treasury & Obama White House to collaborate to make these numbers go down....Hahahahaha
They can say whatever they like - OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!!!
LOL
"those Chicago guys" ya know.
I agree that given the interest rates we should be borrowing more and investing that money in job creation such as fixing our crumbling infrastructure (e.g. American Jobs Bill), but that's about as likely as the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. Or, more to the point, Republicans joining in with Democrats to actually try to address the problems this country faces.
Borrowing, indeed, Haddie!
The world is awash with cash looking for a safe haven, and we are it- even as we pay those seekers negative interest rates!
Put,say, 500 billion a year over the next 4 years into infrastructure (i.e. roads, energy, education, etc) and the money will flow back into the treasury as workers- AKA tax payers- celebrate their new found wealth.
This needs to be hit on in the debate(s).
It was. Ryan said Obama has doubled the deficit.
FY2008, not included in the graph, had a deficit under 500 billion. President Obama took office 3 months into FY2009 and had opportunity to impact spending, etc. FY2009 included the addition of over 800 billion in stimulus spending yet the deficit didn't come down by 800 billion the following year.
So, it was "hit on in the debates." Fy2008 deficit: under 500 billion. This year's deficit from the chart above: over 1 trillion. That's double.
We can always count on dishonesty from the rondon gop , bushs last fiscal year budget went into march of 2009 , and since the gop are all about irresponsible governing , they never even passed a budget for their last year in office , obama also allowed war spending onto that budget , instead of playing gop accounting tricks , for people like rondon to dry hump years later like this , and blame obama for bush ineptness and spending
Your a tool and a troll rondon , you and your party think you are never held accountable for your lies , but here on this blog you are busted all the time , being a chicken $hit and , running and hiding after these comments , does not work
I don't run and hide.
So this is the standard of responsible governing - passing a budget? How is this administration doing on passing a budget. Last year's budget went down 97-0 in the Senate, not a single Democrat vote. This year's budget failed in the house 414-0, not a single Democrat vote.
So, who is running and hiding now? Let's find out...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/05/buddy-roemer/obama-submitted-budgets/
Right wing talking points sound great until the whole story comes out. Just sayin.
I see you run from all kinds of these comments in here rondon , now your going to tell us another lie about a republican , who supposedly put obamas budget up for a vote , that is even worse than your 1st lie lol
Gimmicks and filibusters is what passes as responsible governing for you once again , you must have been in hog heaven when bush and the gop ruled dysfunctional
Ummm, sure bring up that the Dems are cheering $1 trillion budget deficits! Go for it!
Ummm, sure when you bring up that the republicans are incapable of keeping the deficit under control, want to increase spending WITHOUT paying for it, and want to give the biggest breaks to the wealthy, which adds to the deficit. Go for it!
Facts are important!
Facts are important. I wonder why FY2008, the year before President Obama took office wasn't included? Could it be because it would illustrate that he DOUBLED the budget deficit? Naaaa, we know that's a lie.
2008 isn't terribly relevant. The economy feel off the cliff on Bush's watch, and this caused a huge decrease in revenues, which fueled the deficit. And, of course, the 2009 budget was enacted before Obama took office. But, WTH, facts don't matter, do they?
You hit it right on the head, Rick. Great job.
Obama was in office for over 2/3rds of FY2009. He increased spending over FY2009 budget. But, WTH, facts don't matter, do they?
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Well, that's inconvenient.
(For the Republicans.)
We need to stress the difference beetween deficit and debt. The national debt had increased, the deficit is smaller. But the R s keep saying Obama doubled the deficit. AND what;s the deal with calling the Afghanistan and Iraq wars "emergencies" and not including the $$$$ in the budget???? We need to call that out and make a graph showing that too.
We need to stress the difference beetween deficit and debt.
Never understand that comment. Yes the debt and deficit is different...for a year. This years deficit becomes part of the debt the next year - well actually almost immediately. But for some reason "we" always like to point out the debt and deficit are "different"...like they have nothing to do with each other - oh sure we spent $1 trillion more than we took in, but that's the deficit for this year. Like there is some unknown procedure or calculation that will not let the current deficit become part of our ongoing debt. Yeah right.
As for the the wars and emergencies no being in the budget. Does it really matter since we have not stuck to the so-called budget for a number of years anyway (hence the deficits). I cannot think of one major federal project that ever hits it's budgeted numbers.
The national debt is increasing for the same reasons the deficit ballooned: two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts and the Medicare prescription plan passed under Bush. Obama has decreased the deficit and is trying to do the same for the debt. But Republicans refuse to consider rolling back the tax cuts and insist that the debt and deficit be reduced from only domestic spending. This is not going to happen in this session or the next in Congress. Even if Republicans control Congress and the White House, any attempts to make big cuts in domestic spending alone is going to result in a lot of angry voters in two years. And that would mean a lot of Republicans will be leaving Congress and many state governments. Republicans are postponing the inevitable tax increases. They are waiting for the Dems to roll over on the spending cuts without tax increases. But that will all change on January 1 when the tax cuts end and the sequester begins. That means a tax increase and a spending cuts without any action by Congress. Dems are just biding their time until the elections. There are limits to budget reconciliation because it cannot be used to accomplish permanent changes in the tax and spending structure; it is a budgetary band-aid for temporary fixes.
I personally are for a pretty big increase on taxes - we have to learn to pay for what we need and want (I do seperate those on purpose). So IMO I really don't care if it is the Democrats or the Republicans or Druids for that matter that finally bite the bullet and increase taxe AND decrease spending to start tackling this. We have to stop deficits - or at least make them relatively small because if we don't we will not decrease our debts.
Let's compare Bush deficits with Obama's for a change.
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/OBAMAFAILDEFICITSCBO.jpg
Interestingly FY 2009 started only four months before Obama took office and includes the nearly trillion dollar stimulus. Of course if you're going to blame 2009 on Bush, you have to blame 9/11 on Clinton.
PJ Media is a media company and operator of an eponymous conservative opinion and commentary website.
Try again, blanks.
Just like you believe all the garbage spin from Huffington Post I suppose?
I don't visit the HuffPo website, so you will need to try again there, fluffy.
This looks great until you realize that FY2009 had more than 800 billion in extra stimulus spending, yet the following years only go down by about 200 billion.
Also, FY2009 was the first year Obama had the opportunity as President to impact spending and the budget. If you look back at FY2008, the year Obama was a senator and Bush was president, you see that the budget deficit was below 500 billion. That year was conveniently left off the chart.
Why? Because then it would show that....Obama actually doubled the deficit.
Facts do matter.
just repeating myself here
two weeks before our president was sworn into office the cbo projected the fy2009 deficit to be $1.2 trillion dollars...mostly due to the collapse of the republican economy. [this estimate did not include any spending or tax reduction proposals from obama.]
bush almost tripled the deficit in his last full year in office, when it jumped to $455 billion; up from $161 billion in fy2007.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/
i'll add that there wasn't $800 billion in stimulus spending...that number includes about $250 billion in tax cuts
So the reason the anual budget deficit went up when President Obama came into office, was because the Bush budgets did not include any war spending. All the war costs were off budget during the Bush administration. They added to the larger national debt, but were not included in the yearly figures. President Obama thought it was dishonest to operate this way, so added our annual costs for the wars to the annual budgets. Voila! Huge increase in annual budgets. Ouch.
Links are your friend:
http://www.whatisobamadoing.com/day-31-raises-deficit-by-implementing-transparent-accounting/
Russell, you can't just look at deficit in a bubble either. If I make $20,000 a year but have a 5,000 shortfall from "my budget" that's different from someone making $50,000 a year who has a 5,000.
So, here's an article comparing deficit based on GDP (who much the country produced).
Article link.
uh, our president's spending relative to gdp looks bad because gdp contracted 8.9% in 4Q2008 and 6.7% in 1Q 2009 due to the collapse of the republican economy...
see graph at this link
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
The sad thing is that it doesn't matter what facts, charts, or historical data is shown, the GOP and their followers will deny it and figure out a way to put a negative twist on it. THAT is the one thing the GOP does very well. It breaks my heart to see so many people blindly pull our great country down through ignorance and hate. I served this country and volunteered to sacrifice my life for her and it's just sickening to watch this happen. Why can't they just learn to read? Why can't they just...oh never mind...
stampr, why wasn't fy2008 included in this chart?
You're a one trick pony, RobDon. Try reading other remarks and you might learn something.
RobDon, will Forbes do for an answer to your question about fy2008?
The article is succinct, there's a graph, and the first few paragraphs address your question.
Because Obama wasn't President in 2008.
This has been another installment of simple answers to stupid questions.
I doubt it.
- Bob Weir/John Barlow - "Black Throated Wind"
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
Correct. And the deficit was under 500 billion. Obama was President in 2009 (over 2/3 fy2009) and the budget deficit doubled.
Needmorecoffee, I've seen this article. Thanks. The only way you get Obama as the "smallest government spender" is if you start at a baseline that included 800 billion dollars of stimulus spending.
If you look at the previous year that did not include the stimulus, Obama is way ahead of the others.
the day our president was sworn in the deficit was $1.2 trillion...on sept 30th it was $1.4 trillion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Russell, that was a prediction, a forecast, not a deficit.
Then why was the forecast so high compared to Bush's previous budget at the time he left office? Was it because of spending that Bush had already requested...or did they have a crystal ball to predict what Obama would spend? (Clue: this question has a real, empirical answer.)
RobDon, it's a FACT that the budgets in Bush years, the Iraq war was NOT included. What were all those "emergency spending bills" for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/weighing-the-ir/
Vote Democratic..... An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
It will take decades to undo the GOTP agenda
Who was President from January 20, 2009 until September 30, 2009 -- the end of the federal government fiscal year . . . wait it . . .
a) Barack Hussein Obama, or
b) President George W. Bush
The correct answer will inform you upon whose desk the budget buck stopped!
the day our president was sworn in the deficit was $1.2 trillion...on sept 30th it was $1.4 trillion
hopefully, this answer will inform you upon whose desk the budget buck stopped
So, dickhead, you are now on THIS site. LOL!!!!!
So at 12 midnight January 20 2009, eight years of disaster is supposed to be immediately corrected.
Got it.
Right wing trolls are amazing in their logic.
*PRESIDENT* Barack Hussein Obama. I love how the crazy right wingers emphasize the fact he doesn't have a typical white anglican name. Sorry we aren't an all white christian nation.
You may not agree with him, but for christ's sake, have a little respect, he is the president, and has therefore achieved more in life than you, being someone who has nothing better to do than argue with strangers online.
wigginm, they often don't capitalize his name as a show of disrespect as well. It's a fetish they have.
He has incresed spending Rach. The end of the Iraq war is the only reason the yearly deficit has decreased. And..... what about the National deficit 16,000,000,000,000. Plese stop this nonsense and spinning and help us solve this problem. Obama is not the guy sorry>
Link please?
Here's mine.
Do you mean Steve? He wrote this post, not "Rach." Reading comprehension is important.
National deficit of 16,000,000,000,000? I don't think so. lol
...and yet.....
Cheney/Goldman Sachs Gregg, the architects of the largest case of elder financial abuse…the Deficit Reduction Act 2005 passed in reconciliation. They (R’s) reduce their deficit off the backs of hapless elders with dementia entering nonprofit nursing homes (a captive audience) with a “tax” of $300+ a day each until they are penniless.
This formula gave my State of Massachusetts an extra $250+K from an elderly couple here where apparently Massachusetts Medicaid also gets to “count in” their VA Pension (which apparently is a deal in Massachusetts that is not a deal in every state)and trump a family members POA, VA Fiduciary and Contract with the elderly couple.
In this group of circling birds are the law firms who have attained POA and VA Fiduciary with elderly couples who apparently are not trumped by (and able to question, or ignore, mistakes and get paid to do so) the State’s Medicaid Office. A family member with these documents who question anything are labeled “over-the-top” or “just duplications” by the nonprofit's attorney and a Judge in Massachusetts (part of the Massachusetts tag team).
Also under their Blue Shield policy (which they are required to still pay for along with their Medicare premium) they still have prescription coverage but were forced to Medicare D by the State when Medicaid kicked in. Think about that!
Unreimbursed medical expenses since 2003, $770K. Legal fees, $70K. Why wasn’t $550K enough? Ask Cheney/Goldman Sachs Gregg….and demand that Romney release his tax returns to demonstrate the “free stuff” he gets away with in tax breaks which the elderly with dementia disproportionately make up for in Massachusetts.
Wake up Massachusetts middle class elders entering nonprofit nursing homes!
Wake up Massachusetts middle class elders entering nonprofit nursing homes! Massachusetts is ass and underwear with Mitt as he laughs all the way to the bank to deposit his Federal refund with your money…..
Part of the problem when you try and discuss large amounts of money like this their eyes glaze over and they start drooling, like Homer Simpson looking at a donut.
what would a chart look like if you also put in the last 4 years of the bush administration?
It would look somthing like this, Mary.
for fy 2005 the deficit was $318 billion, fy2006 it was $250 billion, fy2007 it was $161 billion, fy2008 it was $455 billion.
3 1/2 months later it was $1.2 trillion
This topic is funny. We are now justifying that the deficit is just barely over $1 Trillion (1,000 Billion) and that is sooooo much better than say $1.2 Trillion. Whoopee. It's not like it is so much more manageable when you get closer to "just" ONE Trillion dollars. Amazing how reality has shifted to where smaller Trillion dollar deficits are no big deal. I also like the modern fiscal term "quantatative easing".
What is really funny is to come on this thread under the guise of caring about the deficit, while ignoring that the republicans are the ones who explode the deficits, and the democrats are the ones who shrink the deficit.
Really funny.
Well, not really.
Donna, where did I ignore that fact? I said the same thing about deficits/debt back when Bush was doing it. I don't care who or why this happened at this point, we just need to tackle it and stop or at least minimize our overspending. Do you not agree that this amount of overspending is not good if it continues. And before you respond - I am all for increasing taxes on the rich folks along with some spending cuts.
All of your posts deny the fact, skippy.
And Obama is tackling it.
You just don't like the fact that he is.
Hey DonnaDarko, what's with all the name calling? It's really ridiculous.
skip is one that comes on here and says the D's and R's equally bad or doesn't actually praise Rs, so therefore in his thinking, he is innocent of being partisan. Because the perfect is better to seek than what can get.
There are times when I agree with him on other matters, but I truly, truly disagree that both parties are equally bad.
Oh Rachel, you are a fierce woman in news and I tape your show every day. Can we just say to Romney/Ryan, Liar, liar pants on fire, because that is what they are putting out to the public. Please also let Chris Mathews know (and I know he won't care) that I put a halt to his facebook messages, because I feel he is just being too negative since the President's debate last week. I also noticed this again last night when I returned home from the Florida Obama Office where I watched the debates. I have been volunteering at the Obama office for a few months now, mostly making phone calls, and I do believe that Obama and Biden will prevail and we will see 4 more years. Thank you again for always being calm in the face of crazy. I moved to Florida with my husband from Manhattan in 2007 and it has taken me this long to find the kind of female friends that I have known since I lived in New York for 30 plus years. Keep on reporting. Your viewers are devoted to you.
Using real figures and facts, how drool! Celebrate the rivival of imagination! Go with the flow as these right wingers weave a magical robe of utopian dreams and Mad Hatter fantasies. Why settle for truth when you have pre-formed fabrications that serve you better?
"Timothy Leary's dead---No,no,no he's been reincarnated a republican"
This is EXTREMELY interesting when a liberal-leaning organization like MSNBS chooses to cull the data and only show data beginning in 2009....FOLKS, this is when the mess began!....when OBAMA took office! It is absolutely wonderful (and, vote-gathering) for the Dems to show deficits are down compared to 2009. Who among you have the GUTS to compare these deficits to ANY earlier year!!???....please...pick ANY earlier year. Certainly not any Dems hoping for B.O.'s re-election have the first clue.
Oh wow, mikey! LOL!
You obviously can't read or lack the ability to understand:
It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budgetincreased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.
The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
This was posted further up the thread, so I guess you aren't reading the comments, with is sad but hardly surprising, considering that all you are here to do is to troll and all....
Paul S. Campbell.....please cut your LSD habit out before you vote....really, just for the rest of us.
I find it LUDICROUS, that MSNBC runs a story about some wonderful federal budget improvement since 2009 (When, as some of you may recall, Obama took office). The man has been spending TRILLIONS....yep, a trillion is one thousand billion, or, one million million! Can we stop and compare the horrible deficit to some other year?.....maybe 2005, 2006, or 2007????
A remarkable case of projection there, mikey! LOL!!!!
Wow!! DONNA EDMOND!! Just saw your comment. What planet could you possibly be living on? "Democrats are the ones shrinking the deficit?" REALLY?......REALLY? Where is one shred of evidence? I see nothing but INCREASED deficits, into the Trillions of Dollars under Democrats. Please, show me, with some detail, where I am wrong!! Anything!!....just some facts, please.
You must have missed the op , imagine that? LMAO
mikey how embarrassing for you :(
You obviously haven't READ the story you are commenting on.
Reading is fundamental, mikey.
I suggest you try to read for comprehension as well.
So, go back and read the post and try again, troll.
I don't think Mike knows what a deficit is.
Once again , the gop flee the scene of their own stupidity and propaganda
The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request by President George W. Bush to fund government operations for October 2008 – September 2009.
The financial cost of the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations.
The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began. "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change." [2] This final bill also featured 7991 earmarks totaling nearly 5.5 billion dollars.
2009 (2009) Budget of the United States federal government
‹ 2008 · · 2010 ›
Submitted by
George W. Bush
Submitted to
110th Congress
Total revenue
$2.7 trillion (requested)
$2.105 trillion (enacted)[1]
Total expenditures
$3.107 trillion (requested)
$3.518 trillion (enacted)[1]
Deficit
$407 billion (requested)
$1.413 trillion (enacted)[1]
Debt
$12.867455 trillion (requested)
Deficit
With projected receipts less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately $400 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $11.4 trillion. The actual spending signed into law in the final bill was increased by over $400 billion. And actual tax receipts totaled approximately $2.1 trillion, $600 billion less than the $2.7 trillion expected. The actual deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion.[3]
I'll bet neocons are kicking themselves, what did we miss? What else can we obstruct to destroy the American economy?
Steve, Ed Tufte would be proud (and I am too) that you did not make this graph look outrageously better by having the y axis placed at -500 billion. You rock.
The republican administration always spends more money than a democrat administration. That's why I can't understand the green party - they should be in the Democratic party. I think the green party has another agenda. They don't care how much the government spends, they just don't want any social programs.