US budget deficit running 11.8% higher this year

[FinnFox]

In a March 31, 2016, interview with the Washington Post, Donald Trump promised to eliminate the United States' $19 trillion in debt in eight years.
Trump later softened his promise by pledging to reduce a chunk, rather than the totality of debt, in an April 2016 interview with Fortune. Asked by how much, Trump failed to provide a figure.
"It depends on how aggressive you want to be," Trump said. "I'd rather not be so aggressive. Don't forget: We have to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. We have to rebuild our military, which is being decimated by bad decisions. We have to do a lot of things."

How's the reducing the deficit going? Not well, despite a strong economy. What could have possibly gone wrong? Maybe the Republican obsession with tax cuts for the rich.
How's the rebuilding infrastructure going? Not even started. Republicans don't believe in rebuilding infrastructure. They believe in tax cuts for the rich.

Right wing logic is so backwards. Cutting taxes is magically helping? Funny thing is how "much" wages rose after tax cuts. Seems like those decisions are only for the rich and rest can go and f*ck themselves - many times over... Maybe I'm asking stupid questions, but how economy is great while most of workers are pretty much outsiders as they can't benefit from that great economy? Personal experience has zero worth for all out there? Accepting unfair policies is just odd to me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They did. He signed it into law.

After the games played causing the shutdown.

 

[Michael Cole]

After the games played causing the shutdown.

What exactly is your point? If all you're saying is Democrats suck, then cowboy up and say so. If you have a cogent point to make, let's get back to who and how budgets become law.

You said House Democrats are spending too much. I reminded you that the president has veto power. That's the extent of our discussion. If you want to talk shutdown, fine. There was a stalemate, and Trump shut down the government. Not because the Democrats were spending too much, but because Congress refused to fund the wall.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What exactly is your point? If all you're saying is Democrats suck, then cowboy up and say so. If you have a cogent point to make, let's get back to who and how budgets become law.

You said House Democrats are spending too much. I reminded you that the president has veto power. That's the extent of our discussion. If you want to talk shutdown, fine. There was a stalemate, and Trump shut down the government. Not because the Democrats were spending too much, but because Congress refused to fund the wall.

The OP is blaming president Trump for the deficit. Spending bills originate in the house.

Looks like their fault to me, but you guys blame the president.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The OP is blaming president Trump for the deficit. Spending bills originate in the house.

Looks like their fault to me, but you guys blame the president.

And for 6 of Obama's 8 years the GOP controlled the House, and the spending.. But then, you, and the rest of the GOP blamed Obama, not the Republican controlled House..

Why is that?

 

[Lord of Planar]

And for 6 of Obama's 8 years the GOP controlled the House, and the spending.. But then, you, and the rest of the GOP blamed Obama, not the Republican controlled House..

Why is that?

I don't blame him for the spending, but I do point it out when such arguments start.

The ACA passes entirely by democrats cost quite a bit.

 

[Taylor]

Actually, if House spending bills are seen as exorbitant by Trump, he needs to find his veto pen.

The spending bills most responsible for the rising deficit were signed long before Trump was in office.

 

[Conservative]

And for 6 of Obama's 8 years the GOP controlled the House, and the spending.. But then, you, and the rest of the GOP blamed Obama, not the Republican controlled House..

Why is that?

What is total ignorance is assuming that all the debt Obama created was due to spending, IT WASN'T as his economic policies never created the promised or necessary job growth thus no new taxpayers. 4 million fewer taxpayers in 2009 and 3 million fewer in 2010 EVEN after the stimulus was signed in February 2009

Why is it you "slightly liberal" people have such loyalty to Obama when the actual data proves you wrong?

 

[Conservative]

Do average voters care about the Ukraine itself? Probably not. They might care more about the actions of their president as it relates to it though. If your premise is that economic results supersede using the power of the presidency for personal political gain, then I don't think the majority of people out there are willing to turn a blind eye; the polls suggest as much.

You mean the polls that show over 54% approval rating on the economy? If Obama was so popular and his economic policies so successful why didn't his legacy propel Hillary into the WH and Democrats in control of the Congress?

People will do what people always do, vote their own self interest which is what you will do as well. I wonder why people like you are guilty of keeping more of what you earn and want higher taxes? Why don't you send yours back?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I don't blame him for the spending, but I do point it out when such arguments start.

The ACA passes entirely by democrats cost quite a bit.

When it comes to the debt and deficit please make sure you point just as enthusiastically at the GOP, because history shows when they are in charge the debt and deficit is worse.

And BTW as a non-millionaire and is just a middle class working stiff(now retired) with 4 kids if you ask me what personality benefited me and my family more, tax cuts mostly for the rich and Corps that the Republican controlled gov't passed, or ACA that the Dems passed? I'll take ACA every single time, EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!

 

[Conservative]

“I have made that point over and over again which of course you refused to acknowledge but let me be clear, Obama's record was the problem, his 842 billion stimulus had nothing to do with entitlement spending but was supposed to create new taxpayers, IT FAILED,”

The entirety of Obama’s record is that he brought the US out of the worst recession since the Great Depression and handed Trump a climbing economy. Again, you can’t show any significant improvement in any trend rate under Trump vs Obama.

”4 million fewer in 2009 and 3 million fewer in 2010 not getting back to pre recession levels until 2014”

Revenue dropped 2008-2009 then increased every year thereafter. Regarding taxpayers, you give no evidence of what you claim, as usual. And you pick out one yr. Just one yr. That’s all you got. Do you have a link?

“that isn't the kind of economy that generates revenue to keep the deficits down”

But it did. That’s a fact.

“Obama also had zero interest rates to benefit his deficits and still added 9.3 trillion to the debt. Your loyalty to Obama and liberalism is on full display as also is your lack of understanding of the line items of the budget.”

Obama’s % annual increase in the debt, increase being a norm among every president, was lower than Bush2 and Reagan, and had a near $1T stimulus due to the Great Recession. What’s your problem? If you have a problem, include Bush2 and Reagan, neither of whom faced the economic turmoil that Obama had to face.

“Right now the entire 11.8% increase in the deficit is due to Interest expense becoming the 4th largest budget item and entitlement spending being 2/3 of the budget”

So what? Obama faced more problems than that and overcame them. You’re already making excuses for Trump. Classic Trump. Nothing is his fault. He’s the victim.

“You want specific numbers? I have given them to you over and over again only to be ignored. Use Google as it is normally a friend but not to radicals Google Budget of the United States”

And by using the internet I’ve found Trump is doing no better than Obama in economic trend. And you can’t prove otherwise.

“Not sure what your definition of support is but posting the budget, using bea.gov(Treasury data), and BLS.gov(employment/unemployment) data doesn't seem to meet your standards. Apparently you prefer left wing media reports and partisan House members rhetoric”

You mean like your non-existent taxpayer data you faked in this post? You can post all you want. You just can’t show any bottom line that translate to anything better for the avg American under Trump than under Obama. What you post doesn't support what you claim.

So tell me what Obama policies brought us out of recession in June 2009. The rest of your post is way too difficult to respond to as you have no understanding of how to use the quote function properly. It is interesting how trends matter to you more than actual dollars, why is that?

 

[Michael Cole]

The spending bills most responsible for the rising deficit were signed long before Trump was in office.

I'm sure there's truth to this. But my point is that you can't blame Pelosi for bills Trump signs into law.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm sure there's truth to this. But my point is that you can't blame Pelosi for bills Trump signs into law.

Then don't blame him for shutdowns.

 

[Michael Cole]

The OP is blaming president Trump for the deficit. Spending bills originate in the house.

Looks like their fault to me, but you guys blame the president.

You guys? I have guys?

I'm not blaming anybody. This is how government works.

The OP isn't blaming anyone either. The OP is about Trump's campaign promise, and whether he's kept it.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

What is total ignorance is assuming that all the debt Obama created was due to spending, IT WASN'T as his economic policies never created the promised or necessary job growth thus no new taxpayers. 4 million fewer taxpayers in 2009 and 3 million fewer in 2010 EVEN after the stimulus was signed in February 2009

Why is it you "slightly liberal" people have such loyalty to Obama when the actual data proves you wrong?

Why do you keep spewing the same garbage, the same lies that have be proven wrong over and over again.

Dozens of people here have pointed out your lies and BS, how you doctor facts and data to push your lies and partisan propaganda. Yet you keep coming back, spewing more lies.. We know your god Trump has no decency, but I got to ask you... Borrowing a line from the McCarthy era because that is who Trump and his hateful, lying, poorly educated followers remind me of...... :

'At long last have you left no sense of decency?'

 

[Michael Cole]

Then don't blame him for shutdowns.

What are you talking about? Everyone doesn't see the world through a lens of fault. I not only haven't blamed anyone for shutdowns - and this is important - I don't care who's to blame for shutdowns. I'm pragmatic, not litigious. Fix what's broke. We need more problem solvers and less lawyers.

 

[Conservative]

The econony was booming before Trump. Your selective factless rants wont change that. Unfortunately the average American is pretty stupid and can't remember back as far as 2016, and rely on miss information from people like you to "remember".....which is of course why you do it.

Sent from my Honor 8X

How are you coming on finding those economic numbers supporting your claim that Trump inherited a booming economy? Seems apparently these numbers that disagree with you obviously must be wrong even though they came from the official data sites, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.org. I can hardly wait for the data you are using to support your claim.

DP and Dollar change
2013 16974.9
2014 17527.7 552,8
2015 18224.8 697.1
2016 18715.0 490.2
2017 19519.4 804.4
2018 20580.2 1006.1 Notice the drop from 697 billion growth to 490 billion growth then the surge. Trump inherited the 18.7 economy that is now approaching 22 trillion


Then there is this which Trump inherited and the comparison today. Anyone that claims the GDP growth now is similar to what Obama had is the true hack and totally has no credibility

2016 GDP growth 490 billion 1.6% annual vs 804 billion annual growth to over a trillion in 2018-2019
Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.5% today

Employed 152.2 million January 2017 to 158.8 million today so 6 million job growth from 2008 to 2017(146 million to 152 million) is celebrated but 6.6 million growth I the last two years isn't!! LOL

U-6 in January 2017 9.3% vs 6.7% today? Wow!! 2.6% better U-6 obviously meaningless to you

Part time for economic reasons, 5.7 million January 2017 vs. 4.3 million today? Looks to me that incredible job growth you claim was boosted by part time jobs

African American unemployment 8.0% vs. 5.9% today? That explains the surge in support from African Americans for Trump

 

[Conservative]

SenorXm/Sirius;1071226548]Why do you keep spewing the same garbage, the same lies that have be proven wrong over and over again.

Do you have access to information that refutes what I have posted?

Dozens of people here have pointed out your lies and BS, how you doctor facts and data to push your lies and partisan propaganda. Yet you keep coming back, spewing more lies.. We know your god Trump has no decency, but I got to ask you... Borrowing a line from the McCarthy era because that is who Trump and his hateful, lying, poorly educated followers remind me of...... :

Dozens of radicals are delusional and believe something entirely different than what has actually happened. As for your claim I anxiously await you posting official data the refutes my claims which obviously show you to be one of those poorly educated liberal followers who vote based upon personality and not the record.

'

At long last have you left no sense of decency?'

So you believe the gov't creating dependence and debt is a sense of decency? Of course it is in your world as spending in the name of compassion is all that matters. According to the left the American people aren't smart enough to take care of themselves thus we need federal bureaucrats to do it for us. Does liberal arrogance ever have an ending?

 

[MSgt]

we don't need higher taxes.

Let's try to use some common sense:

- The GOP-led Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, giving permanent tax cuts to the wealthy and an insignificant temporary hand-out to you, which significantly reduced government revenue.

- The GOP-led Congress then immediately turned around and passed the 2018 budget, which significantly increased government spending.

- Because of this contradiction, which bankrupts businesses, the Treasury has had to issue more American bonds to foreign governments, namely China, in order to create revenue.

In the meantime, Trump's personal trade-war crusade targets China, which is also needed in order for Trump to deal with North Korea, causing American farmers to need bail-out money. With the U.S. deficit running 11.8% higher this year, after the GOP-led Congress and the Republican White House set this in motion, it seems to me that "we don't need higher taxes" is an especially stupid declaration. Even Bush knew that he had to raise taxes after twelve years of Reaganomics, which cost him his re-election because his Conservatives voters refused to do the very obvious and simple math. Ultimately, tax cuts are more of a selfish thing for Conservatives rather than a nation building tool. So, it seems clear enough: "We don't need" anymore Republicans pretending that they know their way around a checkbook because every single Republican President since Reagan has shrugged at the budget and pretended that it isn't tied to our Foreign Policy and national security.

From here, you wish to argue that Democrats just need to stop spending on social programs. This too, is an especially foolish declaration, because tax money belongs to the people. It was because capitalism and democracy failed in Europe that people began to turn towards Communism and Fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who understood that if they didn't offer some economic security to their respective populations that they too might fall to Communism's and Fascism's call. This is why both introduced social programs that helped encourage more confidence in the capitalist and democratic systems. You want to see people rebel? Take their tax money and then help the elite and the corporations **** them over as the economy tanks.

That argument about "spending Democrats" is merely the routine default from a person who really needs to cling to a false identity and his busted ideologies; and the type of partisan lie that is encouraged by a specific political party that is very guilty of blowing up debts/deficits and expanding the size of government, while offering ever increasing tax cuts and government subsidies to select corporations (socialism/fascism). <----A supposed anti-Conservative economic thesis. Conservatives have historically sacrificed vision and wisdom when it comes to protecting traditional thought patterns that have outlived their expiration dates. And when history can prove a valuable teacher, they abandon history's lessons as inconvenient.

Yes, we absolutely do need to increase taxes in order to repair and keep up with Republican economic contradictions.

 

[Conservative]

Let's try to use some common sense:

- The GOP-led Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, giving permanent tax cuts to the wealthy and an insignificant temporary hand-out to you, which significantly reduced government revenue.

- The GOP-led Congress then immediately turned around and passed the 2018 budget, which significantly increased government spending.

- Because of this contradiction, the Treasury has had to issue more American bonds to foreign governments, namely China, in order to create revenue.

In the meantime, Trump's personal trade-war crusade targets China, which is also needed in order for Trump to deal with North Korea, causing American farmers to need bail-out money. With the U.S. deficit running 11.8% higher this year, after the GOP-led Congress and the Republican White House set this in motion, it seems to me that "we don't need higher taxes" is an especially stupid declaration. Even Bush knew that he had to raise taxes after twelve years of Reaganomics, which cost him his re-election because his Conservatives voters refused to do the very obvious and simple math. Ultimately, tax cuts are more of a selfish thing for Conservatives rather than a nation building tool. So, it seems clear enough: "We don't need" anymore Republicans pretending that they know their way around a checkbook because every single Republican President since Reagan has shrugged at the budget and pretended that it isn't tied to our Foreign Policy and national security.

From here, you wish to argue that Democrats just need to stop spending on social programs. This too, is an especially foolish declaration, because tax money belongs to the people. It was because capitalism and democracy failed in Europe that people began to turn towards Communism and Fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who understood that if they didn't offer some economic security to their respective populations that they too might fall to Communism's and Fascism's call. This is why both introduced social programs that helped encourage more confidence in the capitalist and democratic systems. You want to see people rebel? Take their tax money and then **** them over as the economy tanks.

That argument about "spending Democrats" is merely the routine default from a person who really needs to cling to a false identity and his busted ideologies; and the type of partisan lie that is encouraged by a specific political party that is very guilty of blowing up debts/deficits and expanding the size of government, while offering ever increasing tax cuts and government subsidies to select corporations (socialism/fascism). <----A supposed anti-Conservative thesis. Conservatives have historically sacrificed vision and wisdom when it comes to protecting traditional thought patterns that have outlived their expiration dates. And when history can prove a valuable teacher, they abandon history's lessons as inconvenient.

Yes, we absolutely do need to increase taxes in order to repair and keep up with Republican economic contradictions.

How about being honest for the first time in your life, ALL TAXPAYERS got a tax cut and it isn't permanent because the Democrats wouldn't support making it permanent. The left wing agenda promoting class envy, jealousy, and politics of personal destruction don't give people like you much credibility when you post novels like yours

It does seem that you really have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn and my question which is never answered is why does that bother you so much? Can you explain to us what the Unified budget is, what the fourth largest budget item is, and how some rich person keeping more of what THEY EARN hurts you, your family, or the country?

Another basic question do you know what are mandatory and discretionary expenses are in the budget? Which ones the President controls and which ones only Congress controls? How about the taxes you pay and their purpose? Seems a real disconnect between reality and liberal ideology these days

 

[ludin]

Let's try to use some common sense:

- The GOP-led Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, giving permanent tax cuts to the wealthy and an insignificant temporary hand-out to you, which significantly reduced government revenue.

- The GOP-led Congress then immediately turned around and passed the 2018 budget, which significantly increased government spending.

Yes lets try to use some common sense. I would have had permanent tax cuts but democrats opposed it.
so I will blame them for my tax cuts going away. I actually enjoy my tax cuts and the fact that i have a bigger deduction and pay less.
Had the democrats stood up for the working guy like they claim then i would have had permanent tax cuts as the bill was supposed to contain.
that has nothing to do with my argument though. typical deflection fallacy.

- Because of this contradiction, which bankrupts businesses, the Treasury has had to issue more American bonds to foreign governments, namely China, in order to create revenue.

Actually it is the fact that the government is spending more money than it brings in.

In the meantime, Trump's personal trade-war crusade targets China, which is also needed in order for Trump to deal with North Korea, causing American farmers to need bail-out money. With the U.S. deficit running 11.8% higher this year, after the GOP-led Congress and the Republican White House set this in motion, it seems to me that "we don't need higher taxes" is an especially stupid declaration. Even Bush knew that he had to raise taxes after twelve years of Reaganomics, which cost him his re-election because his Conservatives voters refused to do the very obvious and simple math. Ultimately, tax cuts are more of a selfish thing for Conservatives rather than a nation building tool. So, it seems clear enough: "We don't need" anymore Republicans pretending that they know their way around a checkbook because every single Republican President since Reagan has shrugged at the budget and pretended that it isn't tied to our Foreign Policy and national security.

Democrats are in charge of the house.

From here, you wish to argue that Democrats just need to stop spending on social programs. This too, is an especially foolish declaration, because tax money belongs to the people. It was because capitalism and democracy failed in Europe that people began to turn towards Communism and Fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who understood that if they didn't offer some economic security to their respective populations that they too might fall to Communism's and Fascism's call. This is why both introduced social programs that helped encourage more confidence in the capitalist and democratic systems. You want to see people rebel? Take their tax money and then help the elite and the corporations **** them over as the economy tanks.

Now you are projecting my argument. My argument is that government wastes too much money. This has been proven by countless bi-partisan groups which show government could save 3.1 trillion
dollars in 5 years just by cutting waste. Government is too big. There are countless government programs that are fragmented across multiple departments and organizations.
we can save billions of dollars by consolidating those programs.
there is currently 500 some billion dollars in outstanding taxes.
not to mention that for some reason the IRS requires 11 billion dollars to run which to me is insane.
those are my actual arguments.

That argument about "spending Democrats" is merely the routine default from a person who really needs to cling to a false identity and his busted ideologies; and the type of partisan lie that is encouraged by a specific political party that is very guilty of blowing up debts/deficits and expanding the size of government, while offering ever increasing tax cuts and government subsidies to select corporations (socialism/fascism). <----A supposed anti-Conservative economic thesis. Conservatives have historically sacrificed vision and wisdom when it comes to protecting traditional thought patterns that have outlived their expiration dates. And when history can prove a valuable teacher, they abandon history's lessons as inconvenient.

Yes, we absolutely do need to increase taxes in order to repair and keep up with Republican economic contradictions.

The rest of your post is hyperbolic nonsense not worth addressing.
take your ad hominem lies elsewhere. they do not work here.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You mean the polls that show over 54% approval rating on the economy? If Obama was so popular and his economic policies so successful why didn't his legacy propel Hillary into the WH and Democrats in control of the Congress?

That's the poll you keep fixated on, but ignore the broader one which shows that approval rating on the economy doesn't help Trump's overall rating. I mean, one can look at an employees performance appraisal and say they do one thing right, but ignore the 5 other things they do wrong. The thing is if that one thing that's done right isn't helping their general case then it doesn't mean much at all. Of course your assumption is that people only vote on the economy and nothing else, but I think in this case, Trump has managed to shoot himself in the foot enough to make most people wonder. I'm not going to have this devolve into another "why didn't Hillary get elected" because it's been gone over enough.

People will do what people always do, vote their own self interest which is what you will do as well.

Sure, but those self interests will vary widely; everything from socio-economic standing to location, will affect what those interests are.

I wonder why people like you are guilty of keeping more of what you earn and want higher taxes? Why don't you send yours back?

Send it back to what end? That sounds childish. As I've stated previously, I don't mind paying higher taxes if they're going to be used to improve the lot of people with less opportunities; you know, the old "gotta spend money to make money" approach. By making the essentials like healthcare and education more attainable, I'm paying more so that others can move up to the middle class easier. A better educated and healthier middle class, means a great consumer base for a variety of industries. All of those folks dreading the growth of automation would at least have a fighting chance of getting the training an education required for more technical jobs.

In the end though, it comes down to very different philosophical approaches. My parents gave up comfortable lives in their native country to come here to work hard and take a lot of crap so that I could have better opportunities at success. In that same spirit of wanting to improve opportunity, I feel we should do the same for our fellow citizens. Not just because it's the compassionate thing to do, but because it has very practical applications and ensures our own country's success. Resting on laurels and saying "I got mine, screw you" isn't something I can live with, nor does it make sense.

 

[Conservative]

That's the poll you keep fixated on, but ignore the broader one which shows that approval rating on the economy doesn't help Trump's overall rating. I mean, one can look at an employees performance appraisal and say they do one thing right, but ignore the 5 other things they do wrong. The thing is if that one thing that's done right isn't helping their general case then it doesn't mean much at all. Of course your assumption is that people only vote on the economy and nothing else, but I think in this case, Trump has managed to shoot himself in the foot enough to make most people wonder. I'm not going to have this devolve into another "why didn't Hillary get elected" because it's been gone over enough.



Sure, but those self interests will vary widely; everything from socio-economic standing to location, will affect what those interests are.



Send it back to what end? That sounds childish. As I've stated previously, I don't mind paying higher taxes if they're going to be used to improve the lot of people with less opportunities; you know, the old "gotta spend money to make money" approach. By making the essentials like healthcare and education more attainable, I'm paying more so that others can move up to the middle class easier. A better educated and healthier middle class, means a great consumer base for a variety of industries. All of those folks dreading the growth of automation would at least have a fighting chance of getting the training an education required for more technical jobs.

In the end though, it comes down to very different philosophical approaches. My parents gave up comfortable lives in their native country to come here to work hard and take a lot of crap so that I could have better opportunities at success. In that same spirit of wanting to improve opportunity, I feel we should do the same for our fellow citizens. Not just because it's the compassionate thing to do, but because it has very practical applications and ensures our own country's success. Resting on laurels and saying "I got mine, screw you" isn't something I can live with, nor does it make sense.

Trump's overall rating is influenced by the 24/7 media and radical bashing but is irrelevant at this point. No Democrat to focus on but you seem to not understand what drives people. Can you explain why NO PRESIDENT in history has lost re-election with an over 50% approval rating on the economy? What was Bush's approval rating in 2004 on the economy?

You seem to also not grasp the problem with spending in the name of compassion. Your parents worked hard as did mine to give me a better life. You don't create a better life by making people dependent on liberalism and bureaucrats in D.C. Your problem is you believe spending in the name of compassion is all that matters, but what about results? Why don't results matter? Destroying incentive is what the left does and I am sure that even though your parents worked hard at giving you a good life they also used some tough love at times.

Do you not understand that charitable giving results from people keeping more of what they earn? Do you believe charities in your local community are better to solve social problems than a national program from D.C.?

 

[bradt99]

Let's try to use some common sense:

- The GOP-led Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, giving permanent tax cuts to the wealthy and an insignificant temporary hand-out to you, which significantly reduced government revenue.

- The GOP-led Congress then immediately turned around and passed the 2018 budget, which significantly increased government spending.

- Because of this contradiction, which bankrupts businesses, the Treasury has had to issue more American bonds to foreign governments, namely China, in order to create revenue.

In the meantime, Trump's personal trade-war crusade targets China, which is also needed in order for Trump to deal with North Korea, causing American farmers to need bail-out money. With the U.S. deficit running 11.8% higher this year, after the GOP-led Congress and the Republican White House set this in motion, it seems to me that "we don't need higher taxes" is an especially stupid declaration. Even Bush knew that he had to raise taxes after twelve years of Reaganomics, which cost him his re-election because his Conservatives voters refused to do the very obvious and simple math. Ultimately, tax cuts are more of a selfish thing for Conservatives rather than a nation building tool. So, it seems clear enough: "We don't need" anymore Republicans pretending that they know their way around a checkbook because every single Republican President since Reagan has shrugged at the budget and pretended that it isn't tied to our Foreign Policy and national security.

From here, you wish to argue that Democrats just need to stop spending on social programs. This too, is an especially foolish declaration, because tax money belongs to the people. It was because capitalism and democracy failed in Europe that people began to turn towards Communism and Fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who understood that if they didn't offer some economic security to their respective populations that they too might fall to Communism's and Fascism's call. This is why both introduced social programs that helped encourage more confidence in the capitalist and democratic systems. You want to see people rebel? Take their tax money and then help the elite and the corporations **** them over as the economy tanks.

That argument about "spending Democrats" is merely the routine default from a person who really needs to cling to a false identity and his busted ideologies; and the type of partisan lie that is encouraged by a specific political party that is very guilty of blowing up debts/deficits and expanding the size of government, while offering ever increasing tax cuts and government subsidies to select corporations (socialism/fascism). <----A supposed anti-Conservative economic thesis. Conservatives have historically sacrificed vision and wisdom when it comes to protecting traditional thought patterns that have outlived their expiration dates. And when history can prove a valuable teacher, they abandon history's lessons as inconvenient.

Yes, we absolutely do need to increase taxes in order to repair and keep up with Republican economic contradictions.

Well, too bad then. If dems ever get back in power which I doubt will happen anytime soon, they can reverse the tax cut for the wealthy.

 

[PeteEU]

How are you coming on finding those economic numbers supporting your claim that Trump inherited a booming economy?

Because you will just ignore it as usual.

Seems apparently these numbers that disagree with you obviously must be wrong even though they came from the official data sites, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.org. I can hardly wait for the data you are using to support your claim.

We have been down this road before.

DP and Dollar change
2013 16974.9
2014 17527.7 552,8
2015 18224.8 697.1
2016 18715.0 490.2
2017 19519.4 804.4
2018 20580.2 1006.1 Notice the drop from 697 billion growth to 490 billion growth then the surge. Trump inherited the 18.7 economy that is now approaching 22 trillion

No idea what this means or where it comes from, and THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM! You hide behind this **** time and time again pushing unknown unverified numbers that tell people nothing because no one understands the way you set it up. I know where you are getting it from, so why dont you just link the original file instead of doing a piss poor copy and paste?

Then there is this which Trump inherited and the comparison today. Anyone that claims the GDP growth now is similar to what Obama had is the true hack and totally has no credibility

But it is similar..it is YOU that ignore facts.

2016 GDP growth 490 billion 1.6% annual vs 804 billion annual growth to over a trillion in 2018-2019

Again cherry picking and selective outrage. Why only 2016? Why not 2015 or 2014? Or Obamas whole term?

Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.5% today

Yes and more cherry picking. Unemployment is a lagging indicator and depending on who you talk too, this lag is 6 months to a year. So you should be comparing July 2017 to today. And even worse on the cherry picking bull****... why dont you compare when Obama took office and the peak unemployment? oh yea because that would totally ruin your narrative.. going from 10% unemployment to 4.7 to 4.3 is a hell of a lot better than going from 4.7/4.3 to 3.5.. or are you one of the people who only cheer on the last guy in a 4x4 relay race?

You continue to cherry pick your numbers over and over again in a vain attempt to prove Trumps record is better than the black guy before him. You fail every time.

And here is a help on how to do it right. US unemployment 2009-2019