I understand that. The President submits his budget in Feb but the last time a budget was completed with all relevant bills was about 20 years ago
You were on the board of education and don't know the different between extent and extant? Odd.
Look at how that is calculated. Anyone who declares bankruptcy who has $1 of medical debt is labeled a medical bankruptcy. That's silliness. The reality is that if you are poor/middle class you have a very limited max OOP on an annual basis and little to no premium exposure. Any "medical" bankruptcy is pretty damned rare or one of self creation.
If you can't cover a max OOP as an adult, I don't feel bad for you.
Again, being economically and civics challenged isn't a valid excuse for making posts and proving the point. As stated there are two parts of the budget, Discretionary spending and Mandatory spending with Mandatory spending be Inter-government expenses mostly SS and Medicare. Borrowing money from SS and Medicare and spending it on the discretionary budget creates the deficit which we had under Clinton with the total budget. I have posted this time and time again, only to be ignored by the left. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric and recognize that Clinton added over 1.4 trillion to the debt. Pay attention to the message and not the messengerThe Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. FULL ANSWER This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit...www.factcheck.org
It's sad that the reality is Biden would be forced to negotiate.What happened to it?
Reality.
Biden was never going to get a clean debt bill. Regardless of how many times he may have called for it.
Everyone postured, and then Biden took McCarthy into a room to discuss how to do the deal. Biden managed to preserve most of his program, subject to a couple of delays and means testing requirements.
McCarthy presumably got a few things he could hand to his members to take back home to voters. Everyone wins, to some extant.
That’s what good negotiation looks like.
Biden still has the cards. Teh GOP could undermine their own Speaker. Chaos would surely ensue.
And since the whole deal is in the hands of the House Rules Committee right now, the spotlight (and the blame) has now shifted to the GOP.
I found this on the web, but it doesn't really matter. Point is, its late nearly all the time:Actually, it was 2008.
After Mitch McConnell pre emptively announced that he was going to use the Budget debate to hold the new President hostage, the President took the weapon away from him by not submitting a budget at all. (The Budget Act of 1974 does not make it a requirement!).
Biden always stated he wanted a clean bill. Why did he run away from that, and bend over for the Republicans?Biden has always said he wanted a bipartisan bill and that is what he got. The point is that the GOP's 4/27 bill was basically gutted or dramatically reduced and Biden was able to protect most of his policies
In addition to that even if the hard right reject the bill there are at least 100 Democrats who are willing to pass it which would overly make up the GOP lost votes
The Senate is also expected to pass it and McConnell already has said he supports the bill.
Members of two major centrist groups – the New Democrat Coalition and Problem Solvers Caucus – are expected to largely support the plan, according to multiple sources. That represents roughly 100 Democrats, which could be enough to offset the losses from members of the hard-right who are furious over McCarthy’s dealmaking. On Monday, New Democrat coalition Chair Annie Kuster came out in support of the debt deal, endorsing a yes vote to her 99-member moderate caucus.
“Despite a divided government, President Biden has achieved a bipartisan agreement that will save our country from default until 2025 and protect our nation from economic collapse, while also preventing cuts to key programs that millions of Americans rely upon,” Kuster wrote.
Several members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus have already harshly criticized the plan, vowing to try blocking it from passage.
Here's what's in, what's out of the debt limit bill to avert US default
The details of the deal between President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy are out. The 99-page bill produced from their agreement Sunday would avoid a federal default while limiting government spending. But the two leaders still have to persuade Congress to pass the bill. Both sides...apnews.com
We can agree to disagree. I suggest you read the bill to understand how Biden protected the key elements of his priorities.Biden always stated he wanted a clean bill. Why did he run away from that, and bend over for the Republicans?
Biden folded like a wet towel, came to the table, and gave Republicans the win they needed. Now they can say they manhandled the president, they negotiated in good faith to cut the budget and they now know Joe will fold in the future and give up gains bit by bit.
Democrats and the President backing a Republican bill just goes to show that their bills are popular.
Dumb.
Biden always stated he wanted a clean bill. Why did he run away from that, and bend over for the Republicans?
Biden folded like a wet towel, came to the table, and gave Republicans the win they needed. Now they can say they manhandled the president, they negotiated in good faith to cut the budget and they now know Joe will fold in the future and give up gains bit by bit.
Democrats and the President backing a Republican bill just goes to show that their bills are popular.
Dumb.
Ah, leftist spin. In other words, reported facts.No, Reuters put a Leftist spin on the story.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/sea...-in-2014-heres-how-its-turned-out-so-far.html
factcheck.org is recognized as reporting, well, facts. The fact that you don’t like their reply means nothing to the rest of the world.Again, being economically and civics challenged isn't a valid excuse for making posts and proving the point. As stated there are two parts of the budget, Discretionary spending and Mandatory spending with Mandatory spending be Inter-government expenses mostly SS and Medicare. Borrowing money from SS and Medicare and spending it on the discretionary budget creates the deficit which we had under Clinton with the total budget. I have posted this time and time again, only to be ignored by the left. Stop buying the liberal rhetoric and recognize that Clinton added over 1.4 trillion to the debt. Pay attention to the message and not the messenger
Fact checking never resonates with you as it destroys your narrative, such loyalty to the D and yet such ignorance of the D policies and results. Tell me exactly how Biden would be blameless with a default with his 2.8 trillion dollar 2021 deficit, 1.4 trillion 2022 deficit, Potential 1.5 trillion 2023 deficit, and 6.9 trillion dollar 2024 budget?factcheck.org is recognized as reporting, well, facts. The fact that you don’t like their reply means nothing to the rest of the world.
The fact is that you asserted that Clinton didn't have a surplus. Reliable factcheck organizations said you were wrong. End of story. Nothing else in your post is relevant at all -- especially my "loyalty to the Democratic Party."Fact checking never resonates with you as it destroys your narrative, such loyalty to the D and yet such ignorance of the D policies and results. Tell me exactly how Biden would be blameless with a default with his 2.8 trillion dollar 2021 deficit, 1.4 trillion 2022 deficit, Potential 1.5 trillion 2023 deficit, and 6.9 trillion dollar 2024 budget?
The reality is Clinton didn't have a surplus as you are ignoring Inter-Government holdings. Reliable fact check doesn't give you the accurate picture as they too ignore the debt Clinton added which I have posted over and over again, only to be ignored. Why is this even an issue with youThe fact is that you asserted that Clinton didn't have a surplus. Reliable factcheck organizations said you were wrong. End of story. Nothing else in your post is relevant at all -- especially my "loyalty to the Democratic Party."
It was pre nonsense, refusing to accept that revenue exceeded outlays by redefining legal accounting practices.Again the source or messenger always trumps the message
That's all you do is ignore data unless it fits your partisan narrative.Keep ignoring the data
Unlike you who refuses to address inter-government holdings and the impact on interest expensesIt was pre nonsense, refusing to accept that revenue exceeded outlays by redefining legal accounting practices.
Since you don't post any links apparently arrogance on display believing that people believe your bs because it is simply youThat's all you do is ignore data unless it fits your partisan narrative.
This should be common knowledge.Citation needed.
Unfortunately for your point, the data tells another story.I would point out that a large driver of the low unemployment rate is the decline in participation.
You're trying to claim that the public sector is crowding out private investment... or do i have it mixed up?That indicates that there is too much federal cash being injected into the system, you are effectively pricing out domestic private labor through federal policies.
This is speculation:You sir are the one speculating.
While reducing federal spending would impact labor markets, I don't think the trade off is worth it.
What's the difference between original legislation and that of today?The original SS legislation in 1937 required "excess" funds be used in sham purchases of special purpose bonds owned exclusively by the Federal government. It's not a trust fund it's an unsecured IOU.
It's an asset for S.S. to draw upon when it begins running deficits.Worse, Treasury accounts for the trust fund as an asset.
By law, FICA surpluses become special Treasury debt.Clinton and the Democrats deliberately ignore the liability created by spending SS trust fund cash to create a budget surplus.
They weren't siphoned... instead, they continue to be paid interest and will become more of a future liability. What was the alternative? Could S.S. surpluses have been used to purchase existing public debt? Sure, but that doesn't account for what happens to these funds upon maturity as they wouldn't be sitting in a cash account.Siphoning off SS funds into the general fund
It correctly depicts current revenue less current outlays.inflates the amount of general revenue
That was by design going back to 1982.The IOU bonds have to be paid from current revenues today and for the foreseeable future. The Clinton achievement relied on kicking the can down the road.
He just happens to allow for confirmation bias.Don’t even bother to Google this guy. He has no government or political experience at all. He’s just a guy who does coding somewhere in Colorado.
He is not an economist either.
I didn't refuse to address inter-governmental holdings. You did! When i asked you to show S.S. surpluses in years where there were fiscal budget surpluses, you quietly backed away without acknowledging any of it. For example, in 2000, public debt increased by $18 billion yet the S.S. trust fund grew by something like $153 billion.Unlike you who refuses to address inter-government holdings
That's why you have no respect among the people who post here.and the impact on interest expenses
I posted citation from the OMB via FRED, but you're too ignorant to comprehend what's being presented, nor will you accept the reality even after i walk you through it as though i'm speaking to a 5 year old.Since you don't post any links
because the reality is there are two parts of the deficit, public and inter-government holdings. you want to focus on public and ignore that when you take money out of Inter-government holdings and use that money on budget you have created a long term debtI didn't refuse to address inter-governmental holdings. You did! When i asked you to show S.S. surpluses in years where there were fiscal budget surpluses, you quietly backed away without acknowledging any of it. For example, in 2000, public debt increased by $18 billion yet the S.S. trust fund grew by something like $153 billion.
Obviously, if you take money from SS and Medicare, what do you do with it, spend more outside the line items of the budgetReconcile the glaring hole in your accounting theory. Furthermore, are you really trying to say that every single budget deficit is actually more than it was reported? That's the gist of your theory... and it's utter garbage.
You keep saying that but you haven't established yourself with any credibility, just liberal arroganceThat's why you have no respect among the people who post here.
Tax cuts stimulate consumer spending and that boosts state, local revenue along with charitable giving. You obviously need the massive central gov't and most dependent liberals do as wellTax cuts, spending increases, etc... all impact long term interest rate trajectories, as does the current state of the economy. Grasping at clouds while in the ocean is the best you have to offer.
And I gave you Treasury data and reality which obviously is above your ability to comprehend.I posted citation from the OMB via FRED, but you're too ignorant to comprehend what's being presented, nor will you accept the reality even after i walk you through it as though i'm speaking to a 5 year old.
This should be common knowledge.
Unfortunately for your point, the data tells another story.
But don't take it from me. Run ANOVA on the data to find the correlation and p value.
Show your work... provide citation. And no, a weirdo spouting off ignorance will not suffice.because the reality is there are two parts of the deficit, public and inter-government holdings.
Again... show your work.you want to focus on public and ignore that when you take money out of Inter-government holdings and use that money on budget you have created a long term debt
See above.Obviously, if you take money from SS and Medicare, what do you do with it, spend more outside the line items of the budget
The entire forum (other than a handful of MAGA cultists) laugh in your face.You keep saying that but you haven't established yourself with any credibility
That's an excuse. Tax cuts reduce revenue.Tax cuts stimulate consumer spending
State and local tax revenue is literally tied to the strength of economic output.that boosts state, local revenue
What you gave didn't support your theory, which is why the weirdo citation. Why does the OMB state there was a surplus while you reject their claim?And I gave you Treasury data and reality which obviously is above your ability to comprehend.
Causation requires correlation. Nevertheless, you should have been well aware of the data prior to asking for citation.Correlation is not causation.
No, that's your strawman. I'm saying that developed world economies do not generate the level of investment necessary to foster an employment environment that allows for balancing of budgets. You have already accepted my claim by requesting citation on common knowledge.So, your argument is that a long standing decline in labor force participation has nothing to do with a decline in unemployment?
Already have, many times, no sense continuing this. Tax cuts do NOT reduce revenue particularly at the state and local level but as I posted and you ignored, FIT, CIT, Excise taxes were over two TRILLION Dollars in 2018-2019. Further what you want to ignore are the almost 7 million new taxpayers created and those people paid FIT, Excise Taxes, Sales Taxes, property taxes. Big federal gov't liberals like you will never understand the private sector or the role of state and local governmentsShow your work... provide citation. And no, a weirdo spouting off ignorance will not suffice.
Again... show your work.
See above.
The entire forum (other than a handful of MAGA cultists) laugh in your face.
That's an excuse. Tax cuts reduce revenue.
State and local tax revenue is literally tied to the strength of economic output.
What you gave didn't support your theory, which is why the weirdo citation. Why does the OMB state there was a surplus while you reject their claim?
| Table 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures | ||||
| [Billions of dollars] | ||||
| Bureau of Economic Analysis | ||||
| Last Revised on: May 25, 2023 - Next Release Date June 29, 2023 | ||||
| Line | 2018 | 2019 | ||
| Line | ||||
| 1 | Current receipts | 3586.9 | 3706.3 | |
| 2 | Current tax receipts | 2029.5 | 2113.6 | |
| 3 | Personal current taxes1 | 1615 | 1701.8 | |
| 4 | Taxes on production and imports2 | 163.8 | 174.8 | |
| 5 | Excise taxes | 109.3 | 95.8 | |
| 6 | Customs duties | 53.3 | 77.8 | |
| 7 | Other | 1.3 | 1.3 | |
| 8 | Taxes on corporate income | 225 | 210.5 | |
| 9 | Taxes from the rest of the world | 25.7 | 26.5 |
Nope! You post poorly formatted data snapshots.Already have
Only if you ignore inflation, population growth, and economic growth.Tax cuts do NOT reduce revenue
There is no such thing as discretionary budget. You made that up as a means of ignoring the law and legal accounting definitions.Discretionary budget was 1.4 trillion and debt service 500 billion per previous links.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?