White House: “Deficit Reduction Is Not A Worthy Goal”


“Most importantly because deficit reduction is not a worthy goal onto itself,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today. “This is all about making our economy stronger, making it more productive and allowing it to create even more jobs. That is the most important thing when it comes to economic policy as far as the President is concerned.”

File this under “things people who aren’t in the generation who will have to pay back the national debt say.”

You could argue, I suppose, that President Obama wants to grow the economy in order to pump up tax revenues and reduce revenues that way. And, you know, sure. That makes a certain sort of sense. The problem, of course, is that it’s hard to grow the economy when a) we keep upping the amount of debt tax revenues from economic activity must pay off by a $1 trillion/year clip and b) approach deficit reduction with higher taxes that, in turn, restrict the very sort of economic activity we hope to encourage.

Deficit reduction is a worthy goal, in and of itself, because it slows the growth of the government that the economy must support. The only thing better would be deficit elimination to the point of debt reduction, which would mean that we’d be moving the burden that government represents to the economy backward.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • Guest

    Sacrificing deficit reduction in favor of economic growth? Sounds exactly what Republicans were arguing to support their deficit exploding Bush tax cuts. Of course, now that a Democrat is pursuing that line of reasoning, Republicans and Rob oppose it.

    • Onslaught1066

      The breakfast of liberal chumps everywhere.


    • yy4u2

      Yawn. What guest is eluding to…”Bush did it. Bush spent a lot and I hated it. My guy Obama has spent a brazillion more but that’s ok.” Partisan hack and whack job, the one, the only, Hanni. Raining there? That would explain your need to opine here since no homeless people or bus stop patrons are available to stroke your mental prowess.

      • Guest

        Boooring. Your posts are so dull there’s really no point wasting time crafting insults when your life so apparently so pathetic the best use of your time is to sit on your computer insulting people on a second-rate blog.

        • Onslaught1066

          “insulting second-rate people on a blog”

          There, fixed that for you.

          No thanks necessary, but if you ever happen to stumble across a fact while on your daily meandering, please feel free to post it here.

          • Guest

            Oh Onshat, you’re such a sh*thead! Hopefully when you finally die of a self inflicted gun shot wound, you’ll look fondly back on the time you spent on a sh*tty blog writing sh*tty insults. Honestly, since you’ve never contributed positively to this or any other endeavor, killing yourself would actually be one of the few meaningful things you could yet achieve. Thankfully you’re pathetic life will be forever incapsulated with your posts here-

          • Onslaught1066

            You mean the way Vince Foster died of a self inflicted shotgun wound to the back of his head?

            Any ol’ fact will do, if you happen to stumble across one that is.

    • sbark

      where does a govt get the money to spend?…………who can make decisons more efficiently

      The simple fact is, the government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. And this act of taking turns out to be economically destructive. It reduces the market’s incentives
      The Love for a big central all powerful govt…….is a direct indication of the contempt a person has for his fellow citizens.

      • Guest

        Yes, making sure people don’t starve and the nation can defend itself is a direct indication of the contempt of a person has for his fellow citizens. You’re so smart, shart! Please respond with more nonsense.

        • sbark

          oh…..now your for defense spending after the left wants to gut it to bare bones for entitlement spending………….just because then the Govt can take it from the private economy?……..you smell of hypocrisy

          Well at least you for a moment for the one purpose the Constitution gives the fed govt………..for a moment, for convienience of the moment

          …….people starve to death—–good greif—its another indication the Left has total contempt for the ave. person that they think cannot make decisions without a govt nanny to care for them cradle to the grave.

          Nobody minds helping the truely helpless……….its when the left expands welfare and free stuff to the lazy, the shiftless, the fraudulent in exchange simply for the expectation of votes that betrays your lack of loyalty to the USA as a society.

          • Guest

            Thanks for conceding that helping people and defending the nation are not contempt of other persons and effectively conceding I am right, shart!

        • mickey_moussaoui

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ idiot^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    • Hal513

      Lunch break??? Brahahaha!

      • ellinas1

        Happy New Year, Harpy.

        • Hal513

          Happy New Year goat f*cker

          • Hal109

            Hanni, you are still a fraud and a loser!

          • Hal513

            I’m not hanni…but your description of him is CORRECT!!!

          • Hal109

            Hanni, you are a classless fraud.

          • Hal992

            Flamer, you are a classless anti-American.

          • Hal109

            Sure, if you say so.

            Since you are obsessed with flamers, check out “Surfing Global Waves” at 30:46. What do you think? Flamer or not?


          • ellinas1

            Happy New Year, Harpy.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Bush had record tax returns (highest in history) during two years of his administration during the second term. You are a friggin’ usefull IDIOT

      • Guest

        LOLOLOL! What a retard, revenue plummeted after the Bush tax cuts. Thanks for again bravely posting on this second rate blog despite your severe mental handicaps. LOL RETARD!!!

        • willieB

          Revenues were up. sh*t eater.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Not only were they up, they climbed consistently until they peaked in 2007 at the highest level the federal government has ever collected in dollars.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          Guess the guest really is the retard afterall….harhar

    • Geoff

      Are we then in agreement? Bush spent like a drunken sailor and it was the wrong thing to do? So Obama doubling down with Bush tactics is the right thing to do. So in your mind 2 wrongs will make a right

      • mickey_moussaoui

        nice try but stupid assumption. Bush was a big spender but the tax breaks DID work. Obama is a much worse spender and his policies are NOT working. BTW, the fiscal cliff deal that Odumbo just signed actually make most of the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT. Odufus just pulled a fast one on you leftards…again

        • geoff

          Sorry Mickey, not a leftart. Just asking guest why they always blame Bush, when all Obama has done was double/triple down on Bush’s spending. I agree, we had 6 to 7 great years under Bush.
          Here is an interesting take in regards to the debt ceiling.
          “Let’s say, you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….. and your home has sewege all the way up to your ceilings. What do you think you should do…… Raise the ceilings, or remove the @#!$?”
          Read that the other day and had to laugh!!!!

          • robbyp

            Was the year bush almost crushed the us and global economy one of those great years, rightart?

          • Geoff

            That was the year the dems took control of the house and senate. Bush tried unsuccessfully to end Fannie and Freddie’s corrupt mortgage backed security fraud which destroyed the global economy. It was however bush’s fault that he didn’t end those programs b4 the collapse. And I assume that u firmly beleive that raising the debt ceiling over n over without cuts will somehow bring our countryback to economic prosperity?

  • Clarence A. Herz

    Money taken out of the private sector and put into government slows economic groth. Econ 101

    • sbark

      one could teach that concept to gradeschoolers with just telling them to share their lawnmowing income with a lazy friend more than once…………
      ……but it seems there is no way to c onceptualize that for a leftist……..

  • sbark

    If the size of deficits does not matter, the size of the fed debt doesnt matter, never submitting a budget as per the constitution doenst matter, and the amount of printed money doesnt matter………………
    …….why not just stop taxation across the board………..and simply do all of the above to infinity?
    ……appears taxation is just for power and control, its not really needed for Leftwing fiscal economics at all.

    • $8194357

      No risk dhimmi taxpayer investment capital.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Exactly what has this administration done to increase the economic growth of the overall economy? Did Obamacare grow the economy? NOPE. Did the stimulus grow the economy? NOPE. Did the GM bailout of the auto union worker grow the economy? NOPE. Did all those solar companies Obama pissed away money on grow the economy? NOPE. Did Fast and Furious grow the economy? NOPE. Did all those thousands of pages of NEW Tax rules grow the economy? NOPE. Did raising the SS tax on 77% of the working folks grow the economy? NOPE. Did paying billions of dollars to public sector workers from the stimulus grow the economy? NOPE……..WTF are these retards selling? Democrats are KILLING the economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Guest

      Facts disagree with you. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth. Since Obama took office, the GDP (the best measure of the economy) has consistently had positive growth. In addition. Before Obama took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, currently we are averaging 125,000 in gained jobs per month. Also the stock market has *doubled* in value since Obama took office http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia2000.html it dropped down to 6500 and it is now about 13400.

      Pretty much every way of measuring the economy shows improvement.

      You can argue that it’s not good enough, you can argue that a different strategy may have worked better (hard to prove, but you could argue it reasonably). You can even argue that the government should reduce the deficit (it’s down 20% since it’s peak and projected to be down an addition 50% by the end of 2014), and I would agree that we should spend more responsibility. But note, not all debts are bad. If you were to start a business or even buy a house, the first thing you do… take out a loan (that’s debt). That debt is an investment in future gains. Which is exactly how many economist view things like the stimulus, short term losses in exchange for long term gains.

      But you cannot argue that that the economy isn’t better now than it was before he took office, This is math and the numbers speak for themselves. I would say the same thing if a republican had been president for the past 4 years, because like I said, the math says things are better. It’s that simple.

  • Yogibare

    Ah yes, G.W.Bush ran up 4 trillion dollars of debt in 8 years. Obama has matched that in 4 years, and is on track to hit about 9 to 10 trillion by the end of his 8 years. But then, that is a different story isn’t it?

  • http://randysroundtable.blogspot.com/ Randy G

    Mr. Shipman is the perfect mouthpiece for Barry, they both hate America and love big Government.

  • $8194357

    On the backs of American dhimmi taxpayers….
    No risk investment capital…

    Who gets your social security when you die?

    I didn’t do the math, or check the math on this, but I think that people really need to stop calling SS an entitlement like it is a dirty word.. I think of it more as repaying a loan that the government borrowed from us.



    This is another example of what Rick Perry called “TREASON in high places” !!! Get angry and pass this on!

    Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500.

    If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98.

    If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

    The folks inWashington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had..

    Entitlement, Phooey! I paid cash for my social security insurance!!!! Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

    Congressional benefits GRRRrrrrrrrrr
    Free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?

    We’re “broke” and can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless

    In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile , and Turkey . And now Pakistan ……. home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

    Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government pours Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

    They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries.

    Sad isn’t it?

  • $8194357

    Manufacturring a narritive and rebrand the emotions based agenda.

    Take any basic liberal death-based agenda,

    and add a crisis to exploit.

    1. Destroy the traditional family;

    2. Undermine religion and co-opt it;

    3. Confiscation of guns;

    4. Control of health care;

    5. Control of the media;

    6. Control of education.

    Soviet goals stated in 1962

    The U.S. is a Marxist revolutionary wet-dream emotion-driven
    dream come true hoodwinking the hysterical useful idiots.

  • Stuart

    Seems like nothing will stop the Democrats from driving us deeper in debt. Yet they are champions of the little guy they say. No budget for going on five years, and passing the problem to my children and their children at about $70,000 a person.
    I’m hoping the Democrats still consider my children and their children as individual people. Definitions are tricky when it comes to this administration !

    • Guest

      You blame Democrats, but let’s look at the last 30 years (literally my whole lifespan). EVERY Republican president has increased the deficit.

      Every one of them has left the office with the debt growing at a faster rate than when they started. Not only that, but they’ve all increased it more than the Democrats did. Here’s some data.

      To be fair, there are conflicting reports out there, but they are all in the same ballpark.

      (R) Reagan: 1981 – 1988 ($90 B -> $252.06 B) +180%

      (R) Bush I: 1989 – 1992 ($252.06 B -> $399.31 B) +58%

      (D) Clinton: 1993 – 2004 ($399.31 B -> 0.17 B) -99.9%!

      (R) Bush II: 2001 – 2007 (0.17 B -> 1017 B) +500000%! (approx, I rounded down)

      (D) Obama: 2008 – 2012 (1017 B -> 1224 B) +20%

      (D) Obama: 2013 – 2013 (1224 B -> 901 B) -25%! (projected, see http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/federal_deficit)

      I point out percentages, because the raw number of the debt is misleading due to inflation. The debt/deficit as a percentage of the GDP is the best way to measure how the debt hurts the economy because it automatically negates inflation (1 B in 1980 is comparable to about 2.7 B today, so Regan having a deficit of 250B is comparable to Obama have a deficit of about 500B, etc.)

      Meanwhile, Clinton got rid of the deficit and actually had a surplus. This is why Obama wants the tax rates to be what they were while Clinton was in office… it worked. As for Obama, if things go as projected we will end up with the deficit down about 20% at the end of 2013. It gets even more interesting once the war in Afghanistan ends, the 2014 budget is projected to have a deficit of about 600B. Down an additional 40+%.

      I agree with you that we both want a balanced budget, we both want the dollar to stay strong and have the economy grow. But the conservatives have failed entirely in this regard.

      I am all for fiscal responsibility and getting the government to spend responsibly. But the republicans don’t have a history of delivering on that. In fact they have a history (at least in my lifetime) of consistently outspending the Democrats.