Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[Conservative]

Now, you do have a point. Spending is done by Congress. That's true, BTW, whether the occupant of the White House has an R or a D next to his name. It's even true when the POTUS is not really an R. Maybe he's a T, I'm not sure.

The R or the D only are talking points as the left and you continue to ignore the line items in the budget and what caused the 2018 deficit. You claim spending but haven't supported that claim that the spending was done by Trump

 

[SmartCat]

Interesting how the opinions of yours and others you want to believe aren't supported by the official sites like NBER. Suggest you learn how to research and stop letting the left make a fool out of you. The American people got it, when will you?

Official economic results don't resonate in your world and probably never will

https://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/142060

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham, March 2008

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
How to Disagree

--------

If you understand the article you linked to, please explain it in your own words. If you can't do that, you do not understand it.

 

[SmartCat]

That is your opinion and you have yet to answer the question, first of all how much are the bureaucrats going to get out of taxing the rich more and how does that benefit you, your family or the country?

When you say the economy benefits you mean the federal bureaucrats gaining more power and creating more dependence. Sorry you are in such need of the federal bureaucracy

I have already explained, while documenting my factual assertions using The Wall Street Journal and the United States Department of Commerce that when Democrats dominate the United States there has usually been more growth in the per capita gross domestic product, the job market, and even the stock market.

Tax cuts for the rich only benefit the rich. For the rest of us they mean cuts in programs that benefit us, tax increases, and/or more natinal debt. That should be so obvious I do not need to document it. Tax increases for the rich have historically had the opposite effect.

 

[SmartCat]

And debt grew under Clinton and Obama so what is your point? Why is the 1.7 trillion Reagan added to the debt much worse than the 1.4 trillion Clinton added? Still waiting for the revenue numbers from you showing tax revenue reductions to the federal govt. BEA.gov will provide you the information you are looking for and you aren't going to like the numbers

Clinton and Obams did not raise taxes on the rich nearly as high as they should have. Nevertheless, under both yearly deficts declined. Clinton left office with a budget surplus.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The R or the D only are talking points as the left and you continue to ignore the line items in the budget and what caused the 2018 deficit. You claim spending but haven't supported that claim that the spending was done by Trump

Nor have you supported the claim that spending was done by Obama. Spending, in fact, is done by Congress. I think I already said that, though.

 

[Conservative]

Nor have you supported the claim that spending was done by Obama. Spending, in fact, is done by Congress. I think I already said that, though.

What happened under Obama was the loss of 4 million employed individuals in 2009 and that had nothing to do with Congress. In 2010 that was 3 million still lost, then Obama created part time jobs for economic reasons further hurting FIT revenue. Deficits are reduced by a loss of revenue just like more more spending. The 842 billion Obama stimulus was indeed spending. Obama's poor economic policies didn't create the promised jobs thus the promised taxpayers. Trump is creating taxpayers, full time employment unlike Obama

 

[Dittohead not!]

What happened under Obama was the loss of 4 million employed individuals in 2009 and that had nothing to do with Congress. In 2010 that was 3 million still lost, then Obama created part time jobs for economic reasons further hurting FIT revenue. Deficits are reduced by a loss of revenue just like more more spending. The 842 billion Obama stimulus was indeed spending. Obama's poor economic policies didn't create the promised jobs thus the promised taxpayers. Trump is creating taxpayers, full time employment unlike Obama

Four million jobs lost under Obama, or before Obama's first term due to the recession? Obama and his Democratic Congress inherited a dismal economic scenario. Trump, on the other hand, took over at a time of growth. How long that growth will last is anyone's guess. Trump having backed off on his absurd trade war with China should help, though, I'll give him that.

 

[Conservative]

Four million jobs lost under Obama, or before Obama's first term due to the recession? Obama and his Democratic Congress inherited a dismal economic scenario. Trump, on the other hand, took over at a time of growth. How long that growth will last is anyone's guess. Trump having backed off on his absurd trade war with China should help, though, I'll give him that.

Obama inherited a Democratic Congress that passed his stimulus almost day one, he signed it in February 2009 and was sold on being a shovel ready job creator. He also inherited NO 2009 budget so he had total control effective day 1 and the results don't warrant yours or anyone else's support.

Your ignorance of data is stunning, what was the economic growth that Trump inherited? Looks to me like 18.9 trillion GDP to 20.7 GDP 2017-2018 is quite substantial showing that the Trump policies are working.

This seems to be a typical act from you. Not going to play your games or the games of the radical left any more. Stick to the topic and the official economic results from bea.gov, bls.gov and stop playing games or posting left wing talking points

 

[Kushinator]

Your ignorance of data is stunning, what was the economic growth that Trump inherited? Looks to me like 18.9 trillion GDP to 20.7 GDP 2017-2018 is quite substantial showing that the Trump policies are working.

That you purposefully ignore the 2 million + full time jobs that were created in 2016 renders your position as unworthy. The U.S. economy has been creating 2 million annual jobs since September 2011:

Nonetheless, i have absolutely zero faith in your ability to understand the data provided.

 

[Conservative]

That you purposefully ignore the 2 million + full time jobs that were created in 2016 renders your position as unworthy. The U.S. economy has been creating 2 million annual jobs since September 2011:

Nonetheless, i have absolutely zero faith in your ability to understand the data provided.

What you want to believe a job loss and then returning is a new job, that is the fallacy of liberalism and why you have zero credibility.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2008 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143292 143362 143316 143635 143882 143999 144264 144326 144418 143537 144479 144778
2014 145122 145161 145673 145680 145825 146267 146401 146522 146752 147411 147391 147597
2015 148113 148100 148175 148505 148788 148806 148830 149136 148810 149254 149486 150135
2016 150576 151005 151229 150978 151048 151164 151484 151687 151815 151939 152126 152233
2017 152076 152511 153064 153161 152892 153250 153511 153471 154324 153846 153917 154021
2018 154430 155215 155178 155181 155474 155576 155965 155542 155962 156562

Obama was hired to get us back to pre recession levels of 146 million employed, that didn't happen until 2014 and he had a Democratic Congress and his stimulus almost day one. People like you look at the recession numbers and not the poor economic results generated by the Obama policies. A job lost returning isn't a job gain. Fro 146 million to 152 million is 6 million NEW jobs created in 9 years, Trump 4.5 million in less than two

 

[Kushinator]

What you want to believe a job loss and then returning

What the **** does this even mean? A job loss and then returning???

is a new job

A new job is a new job. Such a desperate attempt at ambiguity is driven by both dishonesty and partisanship.

that is the fallacy of liberalism and why you have zero credibility.

Ahhh, i see! The fallacy of liberalism is that a job loss and then returning is a new job. :lamo

This is an earth shattering development that changes the way we view everything!

Obama was hired to get us back to pre recession levels of 146 million employed

He was? Who made this determination? You!

that didn't happen until 2014

And he achieved your requirement, but just not at your arbitrary point in time.

and he had a Democratic Congress and his stimulus almost day one.

Stimulus, no matter the type, takes time to disburse and circulate.

Even tax cuts will take years to impact subsequent consumption and investment. In an environment where people are losing jobs (6 million jobs were lost between August 2008 and 2009), cutting taxes is less efficient than increasing expenditures. You're simply too ignorant of macroeconomics to understand.

A job lost returning isn't a job gain.

:lol:

Fro 146 million to 152 million is 6 million NEW jobs created in 9 years, Trump 4.5 million in less than two

For one, you're using an improper data set.

Secondly, within the constructs of your ridiculous example, Trump wasn't handed an 8 million job hole. You are nothing if dishonest.

 

[Conservative]

What the **** does this even mean? A job loss and then returning???



A new job is a new job. Such a desperate attempt at ambiguity is driven by both dishonesty and partisanship.



Ahhh, i see! The fallacy of liberalism is that a job loss and then returning is a new job. :lamo

This is an earth shattering development that changes the way we view everything!



He was? Who made this determination? You!



And he achieved your requirement, but just not at your arbitrary point in time.



Stimulus, no matter the type, takes time to disburse and circulate.

Even tax cuts will take years to impact subsequent consumption and investment. In an environment where people are losing jobs (6 million jobs were lost between August 2008 and 2009), cutting taxes is less efficient than increasing expenditures. You're simply too ignorant of macroeconomics to understand.



:lol:



For one, you're using an improper data set.

Secondly, within the constructs of your ridiculous example, Trump wasn't handed an 8 million job hole. You are nothing if dishonest.

Neither was Obama and Obama had a Democratic Congress. no budget, and his stimulus passed almost day 1. You are clueless when it comes to data. Employment 146 January 2008, 142 January 2009, 138 by the end of fiscal year 2009. Learn how to read labor data

 

[Conservative]

What the **** does this even mean? A job loss and then returning???



A new job is a new job. Such a desperate attempt at ambiguity is driven by both dishonesty and partisanship.



Ahhh, i see! The fallacy of liberalism is that a job loss and then returning is a new job. :lamo

This is an earth shattering development that changes the way we view everything!



He was? Who made this determination? You!



And he achieved your requirement, but just not at your arbitrary point in time.



Stimulus, no matter the type, takes time to disburse and circulate.

Even tax cuts will take years to impact subsequent consumption and investment. In an environment where people are losing jobs (6 million jobs were lost between August 2008 and 2009), cutting taxes is less efficient than increasing expenditures. You're simply too ignorant of macroeconomics to understand.



:lol:



For one, you're using an improper data set.

Secondly, within the constructs of your ridiculous example, Trump wasn't handed an 8 million job hole. You are nothing if dishonest.

No, sorry an employment loss that returns isn't a new job created. 146 million Americans employed in January 2008, with population growth and that booming stimulus 138 million were working January 2010 and at the end of his term 152 million meaning 6 million new jobs created since January 2008. Trump, 4.5 million in less than two years. It truly is sad to see someone who believes they are so smart look so poorly informed and educated.

 

[Kushinator]

Let it be shown you were unable to address anything you decided to quote.

Neither was Obama

You just pulled the job loss created nonsense out of your ass, and already you're abandoning the basis of the argument? From August 2008 to 2009, more than 6 million jobs had been lost.

Obama had a Democratic Congress. no budget, and his stimulus passed almost day 1.

This doesn't negate anything i've said.

You are clueless when it comes to data. Employment 146 January 2008, 142 January 2009, 138 by the end of fiscal year 2009. Learn how to read labor data

Nonfarm Payrolls is the appropriate data set. Your ignorance is on full display.

 

[Kushinator]

Why do you find it so difficult to make quality posts? You've quoted an entire post twice to address a single statement (without saying anything different).

No, sorry an employment loss that returns isn't a new job created.

An employment loss that returns is a meaningless string of words. You are pulling **** out of your ass in desperation.

146 million Americans employed in January 2008, with population growth and that booming stimulus 138 million were working January 2010 and at the end of his term 152 million meaning 6 million new jobs created since January 2008. Trump, 4.5 million in less than two years. It truly is sad to see someone who believes they are so smart look so poorly informed and educated.

You are using an improper data set out of both stubbornness and ignorance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Obama inherited a Democratic Congress that passed his stimulus almost day one, he signed it in February 2009 and was sold on being a shovel ready job creator. He also inherited NO 2009 budget so he had total control effective day 1 and the results don't warrant yours or anyone else's support.

Your ignorance of data is stunning, what was the economic growth that Trump inherited? Looks to me like 18.9 trillion GDP to 20.7 GDP 2017-2018 is quite substantial showing that the Trump policies are working.

This seems to be a typical act from you. Not going to play your games or the games of the radical left any more. Stick to the topic and the official economic results from bea.gov, bls.gov and stop playing games or posting left wing talking points

The topic is Trump and his balanced budget, is it not? When might we see this actually take place? So far, all we see is a return to trillion plus deficits. That's hardly going to make America great again, is it?

 

[Conservative]

The topic is Trump and his balanced budget, is it not? When might we see this actually take place? So far, all we see is a return to trillion plus deficits. That's hardly going to make America great again, is it?

2019 will be Trump's second budget request and shows cuts, headed in the right direction. You see what you want to see but never answer direct questions what line items made up the 2018 deficit?

 

[Dittohead not!]

2019 will be Trump's second budget request and shows cuts, headed in the right direction. You see what you want to see but never answer direct questions what line items made up the 2018 deficit?

Well, let's see, since you're interested in what Trump wants to cut:




According to this, what will take the biggest hit, should Congress go along with his cuts, would be the State Department, EPA, Small Business Administration, Agriculture and a few others.

However, it also states:

But the budget is an important signal of the administration’s priorities. After many years promoted as Republican orthodoxy, eliminating the federal budget deficit is not an element of this budget. To pay for additional defense spending, the border wall and an infrastructure plan, funding would be cut from many executive departments and agencies, including big cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

And it also states that his cuts are unlikely to pass.

So, he's just shifting money from one place to another, or proposing to do so.

 

[Conservative]

Well, let's see, since you're interested in what Trump wants to cut:




According to this, what will take the biggest hit, should Congress go along with his cuts, would be the State Department, EPA, Small Business Administration, Agriculture and a few others.

However, it also states:



And it also states that his cuts are unlikely to pass.

So, he's just shifting money from one place to another, or proposing to do so.

Shifting responsibility back to the states is always a problem for left-wing radicals but that is what our Founders created a small central government with power at the state level. Your problem is you don't understand state and local responsibilities nor do you understand that if fewer dollars go to the federal bureaucrats there is more dollars for the state to spend on local and state social programs and problems

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Dittohead not!]

Shifting responsibility back to the states is always a problem for left-wing radicals but that is what our Founders created a small central government with power at the state level. Your problem is you don't understand state and local responsibilities nor do you understand that if fewer dollars go to the federal bureaucrats there is more dollars for the state to spend on local and state social programs and problems

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

He's not shifting responsibilities from the fed to the states. He's shifting money from one part of the federal government to another.

Moreover, his "cuts" are unlikely to be approved, while his increases just might, thus increasing the size and power of the federal government once again.

If it is "left wing radicals" who are building a powerful central government that the founders never intended to have happen, then virtually everyone we've elected to office is a "radical leftist," and that includes Trump and his minions.

There are no fiscal conservatives in Washington, just a few who pretend to be.

 

[Bullseye]

The topic is Trump and his balanced budget, is it not? When might we see this actually take place? So far, all we see is a return to trillion plus deficits. That's hardly going to make America great again, is it?

Sadly, a "balanced budget" is nothing more than a campaign slogan for politicians - of either party. To make spending less that revenue would mean cutting spending by over 25%

 

[Conservative]

He's not shifting responsibilities from the fed to the states. He's shifting money from one part of the federal government to another.

Moreover, his "cuts" are unlikely to be approved, while his increases just might, thus increasing the size and power of the federal government once again.

If it is "left wing radicals" who are building a powerful central government that the founders never intended to have happen, then virtually everyone we've elected to office is a "radical leftist," and that includes Trump and his minions.

There are no fiscal conservatives in Washington, just a few who pretend to be.

You seem to be missing the point and have done nothing but blame Trump for the entire 2018 deficit without data to support your claims, data like the line items in the budget and what items are over budget and created the deficit. Suggest you find out or label yourself a liberal. Trump has cut what he has the authority to cut and submitted a budget with actual cuts, name for me another President that submitted actual cuts to the budget?

 

[Greenbeard]

According to this, what will take the biggest hit, should Congress go along with his cuts, would be the State Department, EPA, Small Business Administration, Agriculture and a few others.

Perhaps some of the costs of State should at least be allocated to the Saudis if we're going to convert State to a propaganda outlet for them.

 

[Media_Truth]

2019 will be Trump's second budget request and shows cuts, headed in the right direction. You see what you want to see but never answer direct questions what line items made up the 2018 deficit?

If Trump has such a great budget plan, why didn't he execute it before he cut taxes for billionaires, and started skyrocketing our deficit?

 

[Conservative]

If Trump has such a great budget plan, why didn't he execute it before he cut taxes for billionaires, and started skyrocketing our deficit?

Probably because the tax cuts grew Federal, State, and local tax revenue thus having nothing to do with the deficit. You are totally clueless regarding the line items in the budget and what actually created the deficit for 2018, Trump's first budget year