Budget Deficit Jumps Nearly 17% in 2018

[Rogue Valley]

Budget Deficit Jumps Nearly 17% in 2018

---

It will only get worse.

The GOP loves to wreck the economy and then bitch when the incoming Democrats have to clean up their fiscal mess.

It's a formula they've used for decades.

 

[jonny5]

The decrease from a high of 93% to a low of 33% is relevant.

How so if they are collecting more taxes than ever before?

 

[jonny5]

Budget Deficit Jumps Nearly 17% in 2018

---

It will only get worse.

The GOP loves to wreck the economy and then bitch when the incoming Democrats have to clean up their fiscal mess.

It's a formula they've used for decades.

Yeah people have already posted that 16 times already in this thread. Add something new.

 

[Irwin Corey]

How so if they are collecting more taxes than ever before?

Compared to what dollars, today dollars are not what they used to be. Thanks FED!

 

[jonny5]

Compared to what dollars, today dollars are not what they used to be. Thanks FED!

Compared to any dollars since both side would be similarly affected. If the rich were paying less dollars because of inflation, then everyone else would likewise being paying less dollars because of inflation, since the rich are paying a larger share overall.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Compared to any dollars since both side would be similarly affected. If the rich were paying less dollars because of inflation, then everyone else would likewise being paying less dollars because of inflation, since the rich are paying a larger share overall.

What don't you understand about the difference between 93% and 33%? Nice theory … but wrong.

 

[jonny5]

What don't you understand about the difference between 93% and 33%? Nice theory … but wrong.

Not really a rebuttal. If you have an argument, make it.

<debate forum.

 

[poweRob]

Funny, I don't recall you being upset with the Obama trillion dollar deficits in 2009-2010-2011-2012 and the almost doubling of the debt of 10.6 that he inherited. Seems to me that the left always loves spending but probably is concerned that over 520 billion of the 2018 deficit isn't being spent on social programs but rather on the interest expense on previous Congressional spending and the 21 trillion dollar debt.

Read the thread. Keynesian economics. Spending to boost a stagnant economy. Then pull back as the economy gets rolling. That's what obama did. And it worked. Now we have dumbass trump cutting taxes, increasing spending when the economy was already doing well. This is what republicans do. Run the economy hot... create bubbles and dump the cleanup of said bubbles bursting on everyone else.

There's smart economics... then there is conservative economics.

 

[Conservative]

Read the thread. Keynesian economics. Spending to boost a stagnant economy. Then pull back as the economy gets rolling. That's what obama did. And it worked. Now we have dumbass trump cutting taxes, increasing spending when the economy was already doing well. This is what republicans do. Run the economy hot... create bubbles and dump the cleanup of said bubbles bursting on everyone else.

There's smart economics... then there is conservative economics.

The problem is you see the word spending and attach it regardless of context to Keynesian economics, spending that Obama did propped up the Public Sector and spending that Reagan did the private sector, which one benefited the economy? We have a private sector economy and this thread shows that neither you, the radical left, or Obama understood that reality. Cutting taxes benefits the private sector as it puts more money into the hands of the consumers. Maybe if you learned the components of GDP you would understand the concept.

The economy wasn't hot unless 1.6% and 1.2% GDP growth is hot in your world. That appears to be the problem with liberals, low expectations and low standards

 

[poweRob]

The problem is you see the word spending and attach it regardless of context to Keynesian economics, spending that Obama did propped up the Public Sector and spending that Reagan did the private sector, which one benefited the economy? We have a private sector economy and this thread shows that neither you, the radical left, or Obama understood that reality. Cutting taxes benefits the private sector as it puts more money into the hands of the consumers. Maybe if you learned the components of GDP you would understand the concept.

The economy wasn't hot unless 1.6% and 1.2% GDP growth is hot in your world. That appears to be the problem with liberals, low expectations and low standards

The problem is conservatives can't run an economy and history proves it.

 

[Mach]

Cutting taxes benefits the private sector as it puts more money into the hands of the consumers. Maybe if you learned the components of GDP you would understand the concept.

So why did it go mostly to the wealthiest Americans and corporations and not primarily to the other 90%, the much larger consumer base?
Which has a greater multiplier effect on the economy, reduces income disparity, and benefits the most people in real terms?

 

[JustHanging]

don't worry. the tax cuts will pay for themselves, and then some.

derp

I think this is what they're hoping the tariffs will do. A nice hidden tax that the base is paying, when they think they're getting a tax cut.


No wonder Trump loves the poorly educated.


Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'

 

[Conservative]

The problem is conservatives can't run an economy and history proves it.

Whose history, yours? You don't define history actual results do. You blame Republicans for everything bad ignoring Democratic contributions, how partisan and out of touch with reality.

I have posted over and over again the following results which again you want to ignore

Debt by President

Reagan 1.7 trillion
GHW Bush 1.4 trillion
GW Bush 4.9 trillion

Total 8.0 trillion in 20 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion
Obama 9.3 trillion

Total 10.7 trillion in 16 years

How do you explain these numbers?? Answer, you don't, you ignore them

 

[Conservative]

So why did it go mostly to the wealthiest Americans and corporations and not primarily to the other 90%, the much larger consumer base?
Which has a greater multiplier effect on the economy, reduces income disparity, and benefits the most people in real terms?

Answer me the question how do you give a tax cut to the 50% or so of people who don't pay Federal Income Taxes? Seems a question that you and others refuse to answer.

 

[Mach]

Answer me the question how do you give a tax cut to the 50% or so of people who don't pay Federal Income Taxes? Seems a question that you and others refuse to answer.

You answer my question with a question? This is why sensible people try not to respond to your trolling.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Not really a rebuttal. If you have an argument, make it.

<debate forum.

Worked for me. :2wave:

 

[Fruityfact]

Debt by President

GW Bush 4.9 trillion

Total 4.9 trillion in 8 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion

Total 1.4 trillion in 8 years

How do you explain these numbers?? Answer, you don't, you ignore them.
Literally anyone can cherry pick data...

 

[Vern]

Debt by President

GW Bush 4.9 trillion
Total 4.9 trillion in 8 years
Clinton 1.4 trillion
Total 1.4 trillion in 8 years
How do you explain these numbers?? Answer, you don't, you ignore them.
Literally anyone can cherry pick data...

He's using debt by inauguration day for President Obama and Bush but using treasury tables for Clinton. that's how he explains it.

Con, you're still not addressing why you use the official debt by fiscal year tables when discussing debt for Clinton but use the made up "debt by inauguration day" metric for President Obama. did you call the Treasury yet and ask where to find the "debt by inauguration day"? I guess they told you they don't have tables for made up metrics. anyhoo, you need to work on your "stimulus" deflection. The falsehoods were way too obvious. You used to be better with your dishonest deflections.

Using the treasury tables that Conservative is so fond of you get 6 trillion for Bush and 8.3 for president Obama. Which is pretty impressive considering he was handed the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits and bush was handed a surplus

So Clinton didn't add 1.4 trillion to the debt like Treasury shows?? Have you bothered to call Treasury and let them know your numbers are right and theirs are wrong?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2017
Still waiting for the Treasury data like that below to show how Reagan increasing FIT revenue by over 60% caused the deficits to triple?? Is that liberal logic?
What is it about people like you who get some misinformation in your heads and you refuse to admit when you are wrong as proven by actual fiscal Treasury data?

Con always asks a bunch of deflecting questions when he gets caught in a lie.

 

[Conservative]

Debt by President

GW Bush 4.9 trillion

Total 4.9 trillion in 8 years

Clinton 1.4 trillion

Total 1.4 trillion in 8 years

How do you explain these numbers?? Answer, you don't, you ignore them.
Literally anyone can cherry pick data...

What do you want me to explain, the cost of 9/11? The recession Bush inherited? The financial bubble started in the 90's that burst during his term? What does the Bush debt have to do with the current deficit for Trump's first year that included over 500 billion in debt service on inherited debt or the budget proposal for 2019 that requests actual spending cuts?

I posted the official data by President, you cherrypicked Clinton vs. Bush, why?

 

[Conservative]

He's using debt by inauguration day for President Obama and Bush but using treasury tables for Clinton. that's how he explains it.




Using the treasury tables that Conservative is so fond of you get 6 trillion for Bush

Use whatever date you want Vern and Obama blew every other President away in debt created. Post where the 6 trillion charged to Bush came from and please post for all of us the 2009 Congressional Approved Bush budget? Still waiting for someone from the left to post proof that Presidents can spend a dime without Congressional Approval. I await your answer Vern but like with most of your posts it is a long, long wait that never materializes

 

[Vern]

Use whatever date you want Vern and Obama blew every other President away in debt created. Post where the 6 trillion charged to Bush came from and please post for all of us the 2009 Congressional Approved Bush budget? Still waiting for someone from the left to post proof that Presidents can spend a dime without Congressional Approval. I await your answer Vern but like with most of your posts it is a long, long wait that never materializes

Oh and he also deflects and demands things when caught.

 

[Conservative]

Oh and he also deflects and demands things when caught.

Sorry Vern but pointing out and verifying your ignorance on the issues isn't deflection it is the truth something you have a problem understanding or even posting. What exactly have I demanded? Asked you for the 6 trillion debt information you posted on Bush and as of yet you have refused to provide. Could it be that it doesn't exist? Treasury is the keeper of the U.S. financial records and I am sure would provide you data to assist in answering the question as to where the 6 trillion came from but as usual Treasury data isn't of interest to you. Bet you don't feel that way about your bank account

 

[Conservative]

Oh and he also deflects and demands things when caught.

Vern, you are the one always talking about cherry picking dates so here is the link that will let you pick whatever date you want to determine the debt on that day. The real key then is to post the official spending results and authorization to support any claims. You see, there was no approved Bush budget for 2009 and his spending authority ran out in March 2009, Obama signed the 2009 budget in March 2009. TARP loans were in the amount of the Budget deficit, loans that were repaid AFTER March 2009, what did Obama Administration do with the money? You have a very selective and partisan opinion on every subject which is why you have zero credibility

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

 

[Bullseye]

So why did it go mostly to the wealthiest Americans and corporations and not primarily to the other 90%, the much larger consumer base?
Which has a greater multiplier effect on the economy, reduces income disparity, and benefits the most people in real terms?

When you cut tax rates, even when you reduce everyone's rate by exactly the same percentages those the pay the most will get a larger absolute amount. If you paid $100,000 and I paid $10,000 and we both got 5% cuts yours amounts to $5000 and my only $500; That still means you PAID $95,000 while I paid $9,500; you paid 91% of total tax revenue. Not a difficult concept.

And as mentioned above if you pay no income tax a reduction of ANY percentage is still zero. And if I recall correctly the bill also increased EITC which means SOME zero payers got MORE back.

 

[Fruityfact]

What do you want me to explain, the cost of 9/11? The recession Bush inherited? The financial bubble started in the 90's that burst during his term? What does the Bush debt have to do with the current deficit for Trump's first year that included over 500 billion in debt service on inherited debt or the budget proposal for 2019 that requests actual spending cuts?

I posted the official data by President, you cherrypicked Clinton vs. Bush, why?

Ahh yes, the massive recession Bush inherited vs the tiny economic pullback that Obama was handed.
You acknowledge the debt service(citation for 500 billion?), but never ever acknowledge the pullback in revenues experience by Obama.
You make literally every excuse under the sun for Bush, but then always gloss over the biggest recession in most people's living memory.
You're intellectually bankrupt dude.