www.politico.com
I was being facetious. The same place all deficits come from, spending more than what's collected.
The U.S. economy requires persistent deficit spending to maintain a low rate of unemployment. That's the bottom line. If the private sector was creating more employment opportunities by higher levels of domestic investment, there would be more job holders paying enough taxes to put the budget back into balance. But it doesn't.
You mean 2020?
That was up to 30 years prior. I don't find you capable of following a simple discussion. There was more than enough revenue generated between 1998 and 2021 to cover all the cost of government including interest payments.
yes pre pandemic due to economicpolicies
The problem is yours, diversion, distortions, no context
Why waste time asking me these questions? If you have a point then make it.
It's simply a matter of fact. Why else would the U.S. economy require a $984 billion deficit to achieve the low unemployment rate in 2019? For some strange reason, the Trump economy couldn't eclipse 3% rGDP growth with deficits approaching $1 trillion, even with all of the tax cuts and deregulation. I'd be an angry mess too if i had a political obsession and it continued to let me down this much.
It wasn't any better than years prior.
I don't respond to posts that point out the fact here were surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with a bunch of questions about tax cuts from 2019. That's pathetic reasoning exemplifying zero ability to navigate a discussion. If you want to state that in 2000, about $150 billion of S.S. tax proceeds were in excess of outlays... go on right ahead. It doesn't negate the surplus years.
Nah...not worried about it. I expect it from the Biden pukes.
This your new little tag line? Not as good as dismissed honestly
I haven't dismissed you...yet.
Yes it is as you have been indoctrinated into believing we have a unified budget with all revenue and expenses being in the same category, not true at all
Because interest expense on the 20 trillion dollar debt inherited and mandatory cost of living adjustments to SSand Medicare. Gave you the breakdown many times, you ignored it
Yes, you keep promoting the false narrative of the left ignoring what deficits Clinton created. Proceeds were borrowed from SS and Medicare creating future interest expenses. You don't borrow from SS and Medicare you generate a better return for recipientsIt wasn't any better than years prior.
I don't respond to posts that point out the fact here were surpluses in 1998, 1999, and 2000 with a bunch of questions about tax cuts from 2019. That's pathetic reasoning exemplifying zero ability to navigate a discussion. If you want to state that in 2000, about $150 billion of S.S. tax proceeds were in excess of outlays... go on right ahead. It doesn't negate the surplus years.
From Wikipedia:
Trump's economy couldn't achieve deficit reduction much less actually achieving a balanced budget even with tax cuts and deregulation. I see why you're so angry and bitter all the time.
Your opinion is worthless.
Yes thanks for the definition confirming my statement, it was created by LBJ in the 60s and then rejected because SS and Medicare have no business being put on bundget
Your concern about a balanced budget is liberal hypocrisy as you contributed to less gov't revenue due to your high state and local taxes. Interesting how the budget breakdown posted ignores what actually caused the deficits because as usual you ignore the line items. In business you learn where the problem areas are and correct them, with baseline budgeting that is impossible because the line items are blurred and irrelevant to the left. What you still ignore is what was set up to fund SS and Medicare and it wasn't FIT
Thank you, coming from you that is a badge of honor
Your opinion doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is surpluses from 1998, 1999, and be 2000 were very much real.
You don't understand the definition of hypocrisy either.
You're the least respected member here for a reason.
It isn't my opinion it is reality that you want to ignore
LOL, your definition has no credibility, look in the mirror
And that has what to do with your inability to stick to the topic and present a coherent argument regarding SS and Medicare loans and debt service. The universal budget no longer exists
In SS and Medicare then lent to the Discretionary budget and spent violating the principles established in the late 30's Trust fund
Sorry but hypocrisy is someone claiming that the federal gov't isn't getting enough revenue while deducting high state and local taxes from your federal return
In this liberal forum with you? ROFLMAO
The CBO called them surpluses. Economists called them surpluses. Accountants called them surpluses. Only conman and his ignorant partisan hacks claim to the contrary.
You called me a hypocrite because of math an accounting. That's less than pathetic... borderline illiteracy is your mantra.
Things change... get over it.
That's literally the dumbest shit you've posted today. Like i said... borderline illiteracy mixed with extreme butt-hurt.
CBO isn't accurate, never has been, but the point remains, don't borrow the excess and no interest expense
What do you call someone who complains about the government not getting enough revenue and is part of the problem
Yes they do, high state and local taxes no longer deductible
Liberal arrogance is no excuse for liberal ignorance
It's not a matter of accuracy... even though the CBO is pretty accurate given the information they have at hand. Nevertheless, only ignorant cultists like yourself will deny reality because it hurts their partisan ego to see a balanced budget occur when a Dem is in the WH.
You have no point, just more and more incoherent rambling due to envy.
How much additional revenue was raised by cutting state and local tax deduction? This is one of your obsessions so it's on you to provide evidence to support your belief.
The information they have comes from Congress
Then we better stop now, done with your trolling and baiting
Treasury has that data, look it up. The real win was state and local coming from sales and property taxez
They use economic models to forecast. Nevertheless, you'll never be able to provide a coherent source that backs up the butt-hurt nonsense about surplus denial from '98 through 2000.
Report me or go kick rocks.
It's your argument. Why do you demand other people support your claims? You've lost once again.
What backs up my point is the official verifiable data showing the deficit for those years, you focus on only at the time the one side of the budget
No, prefer to make you look like the liberal fool the left wants
I have supported my claims, you post out of context charts without posting your source. Biden would have been totally responsible for any default with his 2.8 trillion deficit in 2021 and 1.4 trillion in 2022, projected at 1.5 trillion 2023 with his 6.9 trillion dollar budget
Some desperate Google search.
You're not capable... not in the slightest. In this exchange, I've once again showed the forum how pathetic and desperate your positions are.
With lies, fallacies, and no logical structure. You've shit the bed once again.
Another glaring example of your total lack of critical thinking and reading comprehension. If you don't understand what FRED encompasses....
He wasn't the one who was against raising the debt limit. So no, the deficits don't support this stage theory.
The facts are, we had a budget surplus. This is not debatable. Your denial of reality is a by product of your partisan hackery.