May budget deficit hits record $207.8 billion

Trump is spending like a princess with a credit card. Total for the year is not projected to be 900 Billion.

 

I am reminded of a previous thread posted on these forums

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-records-160-3-billion-april-surplus.555626/
@MolonLabe2009


I mean, those of us who are informed of when the federal government collects most of it's tax revenue knew we were not likely to suddenly break away from our projections for a $1 trillion deficit just because there was a surplus for April. The reality is since the tax breaks were implemented, we set a new course that would more than double our deficit. More than this, the year prior to the tax break GDP growth was outpacing our national debt growth, but now our national debt growth is outpacing our national GDP growth, and the gap is mostly only going to widen if we don't make significant changes soon. There's political fantasy, and then there is reality.. this is reality

 

To a point. He also had the stimulus package on his expenditure side, which was a big spend. That said, his deficit attack was pretty significant over his two terms, thanks to the sequestration that occurred as well.

 

You think that money would be put in a mattress or buried in the back yard or something? Can I take it then you do not object to the current federal deficits and debt and see no reason to cut either?

 

I remember well the Romney Clown as he was campaigning barely 2 years after Obama took the fiscal helm. He blamed Obama for the 2009 deficit of 1.4 Trillion - a deficit Obama had almost nothing to do with as it was created in Bush's last fiscal year.

Romney was supposedly the "Business candidate" - blaming Obama for the high unemployment rate and poor economy.

When Obama took office the ship was on fire.

1) The housing bubble had collapsed
2) The stock market had collapsed from 14,000 down to 6500 due to the housing market collapsing
3) Revenue dropped from 2.7 Trillion down to 2.1 Trillion (which accounted for 600 billion of the 2009 deficit). Revenue did not recover to pre crash levels for 4 years.
4) The deficit was 1.4 Trillion dollars
5) The financial crisis hit - literally months after Obama took office. Commercial paper markets froze. Most folks do not know what this means. If you are GE - and get a contract to build a 5 billion dollar nuclear power plant - you don't have the money to get the project going in the bank - you borrow it from the commercial paper markets.

If these markets are closed - The project does not get done.

Given the above - how is it that the so called "business candidate" can not figure out that the labor market is going to take a hit. There is a difference between legitimate criticism of one's opponent and complete clown car antics.

 

"“We will know in year eight, nine or 10 what revenues it brought in to the government over time. So it’s way too early to tell,” Brady said."

Revenues are up $50B of the same period last year, spending is up about 4 times that. It's a SPENDING problem so which Democrats running for President vow to cut spending or at least the rate of growth of spending? What have the House Democrats offered?

 

Allegedly from Cheney when discussing spending and the wars. Did deficits matter during WW2? And what did those tax rate cuts produce? Soaring revenue increases hitting 15% and a paltry $161B deficit.

 

A tax policy that would not result in the single largest year to year increase to the federal budget deficit.

 

Yes he and his fellow Democrats took the 2007 Republican deficit of $161B to $1,400B and the stimulus was a total bust. Then they kept the deficit over $1,000B for the next four years. And the Democrats OPPOSED sequestration and austerity the Republicans pushed.

 

It's SPENDING that is growing faster than revenues which are $50B ahead of this time last year. And that largest year was 2009, in just two years from the Republican $161B AFTER the tax rate cuts produced record revenue increases to $1,400B with the Democrats 10% spending increase in 2008 and then 20% in 2009.
And BTW Clinton tried the tax rate increase thingy his first years in office and slowed the rate of revenue increases. Gingrich and Kasich bailed him out with their tax rate cuts and spending restratint.

 

This is not "allegedely"!! Cheney said it, your side owns it:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

And don't give us more of your $161 billion cherry picked BS, which has been challenged by numerous posters many times, yet you keep coming back with it, as if it absolves your hero GWB from the absolute financial disaster he bestowed on this country and his successor with his ill-fated tax cuts for the rich.

 

No, the stimulus wasn't a total bust. It kept things from getting worse then it ended up being. I've explained this numerous of times.

Also, you are right, that Democrats opposed it. Which was weird, considering it was the brain child of Obamas White House. Democratic opposition to Austerity in general I suppose.

 

By their own goals and measure if was a total bust because unemployment kept getting worse. According to his own report on it it was to hold unemployment to 8% for one month and then a rapid fall, instead unemployment soared to 10% and stayed over 9% for the next three years only getting back to 8% after, which is horrible, after four years. The job lose rate bottomed out January of 2009 the month Obama took office and long before the stimulus was even passed and the recession ended the following June before anything was implemented. Obama threw out have a sequester as a scare tactic not thinking the Republicans would take him up on it and then as the clip showed warned against it's passage.

So right now convince me the Democrat House or any of the Democrat Candidates are going to cut spending or even restrain spending and get the budget back under control versus the Republicans.

 

Alleged to have said it in a book and the $161B was the last Republican deficit after falling rapidly from the $400B peak after the recession. Sorry you can't make it go away. The Republicans mostly did the proper things before, during and after the 2001 recession which helped mitigate it's depth and length and got us into a full recovery with soaring tax rate increases, full employment and rising incomes. That with the spending restraint had us heading back to a surplus until the Democrats took back the Congress.

 

So your whole argument about the success of the stimulus is based on the fact that it didn't live up to the initial projections? That's just stupid.

Second, No it didn't. The Job loss bottomed out in March of 09, one month after the stimulus was signed by Obama

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
(i'm not sure if that auto-sets the years that I have it set, between 07 and 10. If it doesn't, set the graph to start in 07 and end in 10 and you'll see the same as I do)
You'll notice that the biggest drop in Jobs was -803 in March, and then continued to shed jobs (though not at that level) throughout the year (other then one month where 12k were gained, and that was at the end of the year)

And you would be correct that Sequestration was created as a scare tactic. To scare Congress into getting their crap together and getting a deal done to avoid the debt ceiling showdown, as the Obama/Boehner grand bargain was kiboshed by the Republicans who wanted to only cut from domestic social programs rather then the military. He did warn against it's passage because he felt it would kneecap the economy. Obviously that didn't happen, so yes, he was wrong about it. Though, to be fair, the full scope of Sequestration wasn't felt because it was blunted by congress

https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/understanding-sequester-update-2018

I'm curious to see if they will allow it to hit full force in 2020 or not. Which, I guess, leads to your second point

Honestly? I don't think either is willing to feel the brunt of cuts to that which is special to them. The repubs won't allow reductions to military spending (even when the military says they don't need as much), and the Dems wont' allow reductions to social program spending/Medicare etc.

I'm at the point where I've realized that the Dems and the Rs are at a point where neither has the best interests of the country in mind, and only works to their partisan (and donor) base. So there ya go, I admit the Dems now suck as bad as I see the Rs.

 

the stimulus punished savers and owners by rewarding those in debt.

that is what printing money and lowering interest rates does.

 

Running d's?
How about current R prez or R congress leadership? What have any of them offered?
Why don't you care?

 

How so what spending cuts are they discussing?

 

A 10% cut over all departments do you support that? Continued support for economic growth policies which have helped produce one if the best economies ever with more people working than ever paying more taxes on growing wages and salaries and more economic growth to produce more capgains tax revenue.

You know how the Republicans balanced the budgets in the late 1990's and produced the paltry deficits mid 2000's.

So what is the Democrat House proposing? What are the leading Democrat Presidential candidate proposing? Heck they are even mentioning deficits and the debt. Why don't you care?

 

And Today you learned that "tax policy" and "spending cuts" are different.

But to your point, many are proposing that we cut spending by limiting the amount of money spent on Trump's golfing excursions to his own privately golf clubs.

 

January by the White House's own chart the month he took office and long before any of the stimulus was even enacted. And it utterly failed to do why he said it would do.


https://mobile.twitter.com/ObamaWhiteHouse/status/817389383074639874

"Take that 14.4 million job growth number. That sounds impressive doesn't it? But that job growth is stretched over almost six full years, during which time the working age population grew by 15.8 million.

In that respect, we've lost ground on jobs under Obama.

What's more, that 14.4 million increase in jobs is measured against when the job market hit rock bottom in February 2010. If you compare the current number of jobs to the previous jobs peak in January 2008 -- which is how job growth is normally measured -- the number of private-sector jobs has increased just 5.6 million.

During that time, the population grew by more than 20 million. In other words, there's a jobs gap of more than 14 million."
https://www.investors.com/politics/...rowth-the-chart-obama-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

It wasn't anything Obama did as with austerity. He and the Democrats fought even slowing the rate of grown of spending and even now want HUGE increases.

Well you'll have to choose one or the other. China is expected to surpass our military forces within a decade and I've had not heard any of our military or military experts say we don't need the proposed increases. Yes there are debates over certain specific projects but not overall.

We need more fiscal conservatives and fewer liberal government pays for everything Democrats and RINO's with no spines. You'll find those on the Republican side certainly not the Democrat side or their candidates.

 

Wait a minute, you keep chanting “Bush reduced the deficit to $162B”, and you keep saying “We don’t have a revenue problem”, however, according to my calculations, compared to Trump, Bush collected more revenues as a percent of GDP, and/or, in today’s dollars, near $1,000 more per employed.

My question to you; Did Bush’s soaring revenues/double digit revenue growth rates helped reduce his deficit?

Next question; Would Bush’s revenues, as a percent of GDP/per employed help reduce Trump’s deficit?

 

So you are more interest in partisan bullshit then solving anything.. Figures. I am fully aware the difference between Tax policy and spending cuts.. But Tax policy be it raising or lowering taxes does nothing if you outspend what you bring in.. Simple ****ing concept.. So instead of stupid pot shots discuss the topic for once eh?

 

Yeah, i'm gonna take BLS's stats over the White House Propaganda machine, thanks very much. So no, March is where it peaked, and it continued to lose jobs until the new year (save for Nov, which was a blip compared to the losses).

Some good points, but those seem to focus solely on the affects, rather then the 'why's.

Found this today, which has a great meta-analysis of a multitude of studies on the 'why's of the stagnant recovery

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5959048/

The reasons for the protracted recovery are complex and not really partisan in nature, but the culmination of multiple issues with the Job and Labor markets in the US that were brewing for decades.

Tax and Spend or Cut and Spend. I don't see much difference between the two. While the sequestration might have been the 'threat' that Obama made, It also convinced me that cutting wasn't nearly the apocalypse it was thought to be (so point to you for that. Never thought I'd say it though lol). Where we would diverge is where to cut.

I don't see either as being any more or less fiscally responsible then the other. Dems want to tax and spend. Rs want to cut and spend. The 'fiscally responsible' types just want to cut social programs rather then focusing on the entire budget and adjusting where necessary.

If that's the choice, I'll always come down on the side of those wanting to protect lower and middle classes, rather then those who want to make big corporate tax cuts without any notion on how to pay for them.

Personally, I think Trump and congress should allow pork back in bills. Yes it leads to a lot of silliness in projects and the like, but it also gave Congress a reason to work together on bills rather then the growing divide that permeates all of US Politics.

As for the military, I am fully on board with the Anti-China train, but Russia is on that train as well, and this divide between rightly recognizing Chinas bad actions, and ignoring Russias, is absolutely ridiculous as they are both moving towards a different style of military actions/war that's more technological then traditional 'ground troop' style actions

I thought this quote was very revealing
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...th-shrinks-in-2020-budget-as-army-faces-cuts/

 

Why did you dodge the question?
What cuts has the CURRENT prez proposed?
What CUTS has the CURRENT group of Congress, GOP Senate, proposed?
What CUTS did the entire GOP put forth when they had that 2 yr budget window? HINT: They RAISED spending hire. The fact you still believe R's are for less spending is extremely guilible at the very least.