US budget deficit rises to $209 billion in November

the democrats couldn't stop them. they were against tax cuts, and republicans used reconciliation to get it passed. They could have also cut spending, but republicans don't care about deficit spending.

 

Grow the economy.

 

You have proven nothing other than you can post a link. That's a white flag.

 

Show how any party can cut spending using reconciliation. Why did we have the shutdowns if this is possible ??

 

lol

https://budget.house.gov/publications/fact-sheet/budget-reconciliation-basics

you remain refuted

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-in-november.565590/page-15#post-1071266373

 

1. The deficit is not reducing (on the contrary, it is growing)
2.The economic trends are consistent since 2010. There is no indication that Republican policies have had any material effect on economic performance.

 

The deficit is the result of spending which Democrats control.

Ask the American people if Trump’s Economic policies are working. Hillary lost because she promised 8 more years of Obamanomics.

 

The deficit is not one-sided. It is the result of income less expenses.

Republicans only care about reducing taxes (income for the federal government). They don’t actually care about the deficit.

I’ll be clear. I DO care about the deficit. I think spending should be controlled and even reduced. Because I care about the deficit, I think the Republicans have been completely irresponsible to reduce tax rates without addressing spending.

Unless spending is addressed, it is reckless to reduce tax rates.

Anyone who truly cares about the deficit must necessarily be opposed to tax cuts unless they are accompanied by corresponding spending cuts.

 

The deficit is the result of spending more than tax revenues. It’s a spending problem which Democrats refuse to address.

BTW how are federal tax revenues doing this year.

 

He took a debt of something like 1.6 trillion and ended with just a debt of 0.6 trillion. I could be some zero's off, but the point is,... his plan worked. It was working well.

Because Trump is failing on the trade war.

 

You mean deficit? First he was part of the Democrat Congress in 2007 and 2008 which took the Republican FY2007 deficit of a measly $161B to first $400B in FY2008 and then in FY2009 first as President-elect and then as President adding his spending priorities into that FY2009 deficit to $1,400B. He didn't inherit that or start there he helped create it. It it sayed over $1,000B for the next three years until the Republicans forced sequester and austerity on him which cut spending. His plan his stimulus was a total failure by his own measure of success and he never proposed anything else because he couldn't do a 180 like Clinton did and start supporting Republican policies.

Because of union labor cost and mismanagement and a failed policy to inject taxpayer money into which has cost of dearly. But his trade deal includes provisions to require a higher percentage of cars sold here be produced here. You do credit him for his trade policies don't you?

 

Then why are they the party that produced the budget surpluses of the late 1990's and the measly $161B deficit in FY2007 before handing the budget over to the Democrats. Where did they take it?

I agree there are too many RINO's in Congress but there are NO fiscal conservative Democrats and just listen to the HUGE spending increase in which the Democrat candidates want to engage.

If you are serious about the deficits and debt your best hope is to vote for conservative Republicans because voting Democrats is CERTAINLY not going to address it.

 

Obama inherited the subprime mortgage crisis of GWB. He indeed ran up a massive debt to solve it. And he went out of the WH with a debt slashed in half. Trump inherited an economy that went nice, and he is ramping up a massive debt.... with no clue how the debt is going to repaid.

The taxpayer money / dept got mostly repaid. That aint no failure. And management is paying their CEO something like 30 million bucks a year. So you know, the company must be doing great when they are able to afford that.

 

The Democrats held the Congress for two years before what did they pass to avert it? Bush took care of the financial crisis it was up to Obama to fix the mortgage problems and no his $800,000,000,000 failed stimulus was not about fixing mortgages.

Ahhh no....

"
The Treasury Department estimates that about $23 billion will never be repaid. For James Sherk, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, much of that is due to “incredibly generous treatment of the unions.” Sherk says the union’s retiree health benefit fund got about $21 billion more than it deserved compared to other creditors.. This is from a Tampa newspaper.

The total, when every cost is included, we are down $49 billion and the unions and special interests won—we got the shaft. Worse, the union, the UAW, which bankrupted GM actually got a gift of 40% of the company they killed. “Now on to the bankruptcy proceedings. Obama extorted a deal from GM bondholders who were owed 27.2 billion dollars. Their settlement gave them 10% of GM or about 3.6 billion. The other 23.6 billion could be written off by the bondholders. The average effective corporate tax rate 26% means taxpayers lost another $6.136 billion. Total cost to date 16.636 billion dollars. To add insult to injury, the UAW got a 40% stake in GM or about 14.4 billion dollars.”
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/ca...al-cost-of-general-motors-bailout-49-billion/

If you don't pay your CEO that much you won't be doing great but the fact is they are still laying off and shrinking. There cost are too high and they can't compete in the sedan/SUV market with the Japanese/Korean even European cars built here. It should have gone through a bankruptcy and reorganized and losing the union contracts.

 

Spending problem or revenue problem?

Both!

Revenues per capita comparison in constant dollars.

Sources;

1. Monthly Treasury Statement, previous issues
2. U.S. Population - Worldometers
3. U.S. Inflation Calculator

a. FY2000 Total Receipts; $2.025 trillion
b. U.S. Population, Sep 30th 2000; 281,710,909
c. Revenues per capita; $7,188
d. Revenues per capita in today's dollars; $10,736

a. FY2007 Total Receipts; $2.586 trillion
b. U.S. Population, Sep 30th 2007; 300,608,429
c. Revenues per capita; $8,602
d. Revenues per capita in today's dollars; $10,670

a. FY2016 Total Receipts; $3.267 trillion
b. U.S. Population, Sep 30th 2016; 323,015,995
c. Revenues per capita; $10,114
d. Revenues per capita in today's dollars; $10,838

a. FY2019 Total Receipts; $3.462 trillion
b. U.S. Population, Sep 30th 2019; 329,064,917
c. Revenues per capita; $10,520

FY2000 versus FY2019; a difference of $216 per capita
FY2007 versus FY2019; a difference of $150 per capita
FY2016 versus FY2019; a difference of $318 per capita

Question; A significant difference?

Answer; Of course!

329,064,917 x $318 = $104.6 billion

CONCLUSION: We primarily have a spending problem, and a revenue problem

RESPONSE FROM THE PARTISAN PEOPLE; Revenues per capita comparison in constant dollars....Not a fair comparison!

Yeah, right!......What about;

As a percent of GDP?......you will lose
Average receipts per employed in constant dollars?......you will lose

 

Budget deficits are the result of too much government spending.

Why would anyone consider evaluating spending and revenues as a % of GDP ?? Why would anyone consider evaluating spending and revenues per captita ??

 

In addition to the above, LET'S BE HONEST;

Trump inherited several REVENUES/EXPENDITURES/GDP growth related negative factors, examples;

1. A record high student loan debt/delinquencies/defaults, and millions of Americans with student debt can't qualify for a mortgage, thus, definitely not a + for the economy.

2. A very high trade deficit, and "Net Exports" is a GDP component.....Exports add to GDP, whereas Imports subtract, thus, higher the GDP, higher the wages/profits/revenues.

3. A growing fiscal demand from our boomers. Trump inherited the largest group of boomers turning 65. Obama's daily average over 8 years; 10,500, Trump's daily average over 8 years; 12,500

4. Net Interest; Obama's managed to keep his Net Interest at $250 billion....due to the Fed lowering rates, whereas Trump's Net Interest increased to $380 billion.

5. Clinton's/Bush's/Obama's FICA excess contributions have vanished. In fact, Bush's excess contributions boosted his revenue growth rates by at least 3%.

 

Protests like that normally don't do anything. Besides this isn't a Republican issue it's the house that has the final say on spending.

 

GWB was at the helm. It was his economic policies. Deal with it.

I wrote... mostly repaid.
So that's a yesh.

I don't care about a billion here and there. The number is in the trillion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#371d2e591917
Obama came in, and wrapped up 1.4 trillion in debt.
He left with 0.7 trillion in debt. A plan than worked.
Donald is at what.. 1.4 trillion?

The costs aint that high... since they are still paying their CEO a fabulous salary of 30 million bucks. His wingman probably aint doing that shabby as well. And you are basically claiming that such a salary is right, and they should cut the salary at the bottom to cut cost. It's not really founded besides your opinion, now is it? What do you care if the salary of that failing CEO is cut in half. He would be doing just fine. Heck, we can cut it in half again for all I care.