• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. CBO says budget deficit to reach $590 billion for fiscal 2016

cpwill said:
Remember when this happened under Bush and it was UnPatriotic?
Click to expand...

Well, it is irresponsible to run deficits with a strong economy while fighting two major wars.
 
gdgyva said:
And when the fed finally stops screwing with rates, and they normalize back to the 5 percent range....what does that do to our already busted budget?
Click to expand...

The Fed doesn't engage in quantitative easing anymore. In fact, their balance sheet has continued to decline since the policy ended. However, interest rates have maintained low levels; you just cannot comprehend why this is so.
 
gdgyva said:
rates aren't going to stay this low forever

And our historical normal is around five percent

But then we have had times of much much higher rates....think back to Reagan era

I remember paying 15% for a car loan with perfect credit....young and stupid back then

I don't know when it will happen, but it will happen....they will go back up

And then our debt service is going to eat more and more of the budget

When? I dunno....3 years? 5 years? But it is coming
Click to expand...

Cool story brah
 
cpwill said:
So what happens when the cost of rolling over debt quintuples?
Click to expand...

The economy will be in a better position to deal with it.... or it won't quintuple.
 
cpwill said:
Remember when this happened under Bush and it was UnPatriotic?
Click to expand...

Not sure about that - stupid definitely, but I don't recall anyone calling it "UnPatriotic." Taking a 'surplus', two rounds of tax cuts, start a war, while growing domestic spending including the biggest entitlement expansion in decades doesn't sound like fiscal prudence to me, but them I'm not a republican for whom such stuff apparently makes perfect sense....|:roll:
 
cpwill said:
1. Entitlement Reform to bend the expenditure curve down
2. Regulatory and Tax Reform to increase revenues
Click to expand...

LOL, "reform" is a great word to use there. In point 1, what it always means is benefit cuts for the little people and in point 2 it always means tax cuts and regulatory relief for the wealthy, with the Laffer Curve promise that tax cuts will increase revenues!
 
JasperL said:
Not sure about that - stupid definitely, but I don't recall anyone calling it "UnPatriotic." Taking a 'surplus', two rounds of tax cuts, start a war, while growing domestic spending including the biggest entitlement expansion in decades doesn't sound like fiscal prudence to me, but them I'm not a republican for whom such stuff apparently makes perfect sense....|:roll:
Click to expand...

Fiscal conservatism at its finest.
 
99percenter said:
Fiscal conservatism at its finest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, honestly it was around there that I finally gave up on the GOP. I used to believe they cared about fiscal prudence, but after that it became obvious the party's only concern, with no qualification, was tax cuts. Clinton had just did what the GOP said they wanted - deliver years of solid economic and jobs growth, and a 'balanced' budget, and he was the devil incarnate as far as they were concerned because of the tax rate increases early on.

Cheney's famous quote is so good because it boils the GOP fiscal philosophy down into just a few words. "Deficits don't matter. We won =>Tax cuts are our due."
 
Kushinator said:
The economy will be in a better position to deal with it.... or it won't quintuple.
Click to expand...
Magic is gonna save us! Just like the 4-5% growth projections in all the Republican tax plans!

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Kushinator said:
The economy will be in a better position to deal with it.... or it won't quintuple.
Click to expand...
The 1970s never happened! Ignore stagflation behind the curtain!

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
The 1970s never happened! Ignore stagflation behind the curtain!
Click to expand...

The reasons behind stagflation are not a current risk for the future. Inflation expectations are anchored so low, mostly due to over supply, that it is strange to build policy on the basis of what happened in the 70's.
 
JasperL said:
Not sure about that - stupid definitely, but I don't recall anyone calling it "UnPatriotic."
Click to expand...

It was this really eloquent Senator fella. Running for President on a platform of "Hopey Change"...or "Change and Hope"... or something like that.

Whatever became of that guy? Boy, I bet he sure is furious about all the deficits we've had since...




Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
It was this really eloquent Senator fella. Running for President on a platform of "Hopey Change"...or "Change and Hope"... or something like that.

Whatever became of that guy? Boy, I bet he sure is furious about all the deficits we've had since...
Click to expand...

OK, so you had no point other than to bash Obama. Got it.... :roll:
 
Kushinator said:
The reasons behind stagflation are not a current risk for the future.
Click to expand...

Middle East is totes stable, then? Man, I work in DOD, you would have thought I would picked up on that...

Inflation expectations are anchored so low
Click to expand...

Housing always go up. I should take out a second mortgage to invest in MBS's.

The idea that inflation=a good economy, ergo we will be fine if the cost of debt rollover skyrockets is nuts.




Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
JasperL said:
LOL, "reform" is a great word to use there. In point 1, what it always means is benefit cuts for the little people
Click to expand...

:) Actually I have (for years, here) argued that we need to start by reducing benefits to upper income earners. I've also argued for increasing the minimum benefit, as current SS payouts give the least to those who need it the most, and the most who need it the least.

and in point 2 it always means tax cuts and regulatory relief for the wealthy, with the Laffer Curve promise that tax cuts will increase revenues!
Click to expand...

My own proposal is to make all income below 200% of the FPL FIT-free, and apply a perfectly progressive tax to monies earned above that marker. I think it would be wise to apply that higher rate to capital gains, in return for getting rid the corporate rate (encouraging businesses to invest in their business, rather than in accountants and congresscritters). The benefits to be found in reforming the individual tax code at current aren't so much in real rate reductions, but in tax code simplification.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK, so you had no point other than to bash Obama. Got it.... :roll:
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say that $535 billion worth of hypocrisy deserves some mocking :)

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
:) Actually I have (for years, here) argued that we need to start by reducing benefits to upper income earners. I've also argued for increasing the minimum benefit, as current SS payouts give the least to those who need it the most, and the most who need it the least.

My own proposal is to make all income below 200% of the FPL FIT-free, and apply a perfectly progressive tax to monies earned above that marker. I think it would be wise to apply that higher rate to capital gains, in return for getting rid the corporate rate (encouraging businesses to invest in their business, rather than in accountants and congresscritters). The benefits to be found in reforming the individual tax code at current aren't so much in real rate reductions, but in tax code simplification.
Click to expand...

When I have time later I'll respond to those points but in the meantime, I think you're in the wrong party. The actual GOP has no interest in doing anything but big tax cuts, witnessed by the tax proposals of every GOP candidate for POTUS - all of them $trillions over 10 years - and in absolute cuts to benefits with shifting benefits from the wealthy (really upper middle class by most counts) to the poor a non-starter.

I've been there - takes a while - but I think you might realize the Democratic party is more receptive to that kind of entitlement reform and tax reform.... ;)
 
JasperL said:
When I have time later I'll respond to those points but in the meantime, I think you're in the wrong party. The actual GOP has no interest in doing anything but big tax cuts, witnessed by the tax proposals of every GOP candidate for POTUS - all of them $trillions over 10 years - and in absolute cuts to benefits with shifting benefits from the wealthy (really upper middle class by most counts) to the poor a non-starter.

I've been there - takes a while - but I think you might realize the Democratic party is more receptive to that kind of entitlement reform and tax reform.... ;)
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you take a look at BetterWay :)

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
gdgyva said:
yeah...we conservatives are worry warts...

we save, and plan for rainy days....

we dont bury our heads in the sand and pretend that debt isnt an issue at all, and never will be

and you cant say for sure it wont be....hell, you cant even be 50% sure if you are truthful to yourself

it might not be for 5, 10, even 20 years....but there will come a day if we dont do something to stop the madness

but then that would be admitting a problem....a spending problem....and we cant have that now, can we?
Click to expand...

The GOP and conservatives certainly play the role of chicken little when it comes to debt, but they never seem to mind digging a deeper hole and haven't made any serious proposals to address it. There is a spending problem and they're part of it, but we aren't anywhere near the fiscal apocalypse of being eaten alive by interest.
 
cpwill said:
Middle East is totes stable, then? Man, I work in DOD, you would have thought I would picked up on that....
Click to expand...

No, but the U.S. is economy, and the global economy in general, is far more advanced than it was during the OPEC embargo period. Furthermore, our reliance on fossil fuels will continue in it's decline, as technology advances.

Housing always go up. I should take out a second mortgage to invest in MBS's.

The idea that inflation=a good economy, ergo we will be fine if the cost of debt rollover skyrockets is nuts.
Click to expand...

Then you are not thinking about the impact inflation has on debt.
 
Napoleon said:
The GOP and conservatives certainly play the role of chicken little when it comes to debt, but they never seem to mind digging a deeper hole and haven't made any serious proposals to address it.
Click to expand...

You been in a political hole the last 6 years? 2010 through 2016.
 
Kushinator said:
No, but the U.S. is economy, and the global economy in general, is far more advanced than it was during the OPEC embargo period. Furthermore, our reliance on fossil fuels will continue in it's decline, as technology advances.
Click to expand...

Continue it's decline? Huh. How many barrels of oil did the world consume in 1977?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration claims that between 1980 and 2014 we went from 63,122,000 barrels to 91,253,000, a rather significant increase.

Then you are not thinking about the impact inflation has on debt.
Click to expand...

It lowers the cost of paying it. So long, of course, as you are actually paying it, and not rolling it over while adding onto it year after year. Under that scenario, of course, the impact on interest rates hikes the cost of the rollover, and ensures that each subsequent year's costs will be greater as well.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Ah yes, Paul Ryan's "Roadmap" dud. Like I said, no serious proposals.
Click to expand...
:shrug: just because it wouldn't be yours doesn't make it not a serious proposal to reduce spending.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
gdgyva said:
The U.S. budget deficit is expected to grow to $590 billion in fiscal year 2016 due to slower than expected growth in revenues and higher spending for programs including Social Security and Medicare, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.

The estimate, which is $56 billion larger than CBO's forecast in March, shows the deficit increasing in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009. CBO said the deficit is expected to be $152 billion higher than in 2015 and will equal 3.2 percent of economic output.

The deficit peaked at $1.4 trillion in 2009 and shrank to $485 billion in 2014.

The nonpartisan research agency also said that debt held by the public will amount to nearly 77 percent of gross domestic product by the end of 2016, three percentage points higher than last year and its highest ratio since 1950.

U.S. CBO says budget deficit to reach $590 billion for fiscal 2016 - AOL

and our grandkids keep getting deeper and deeper into debt

one of these days, those iou's will come do

the rates will jump, and all hell will break loose

and i pity those that will have to deal with it
Click to expand...

There is a lot of confusion about the debt and deficit in this forum. The deficit is what creates the debt and adds to it. There are also two parts of the deficit thus the debt, public debt and inter-government holdings. The Treasury reports both and we pay debt service which is not the fourth largest budget item on both or thus the combined debt which today is 19.4 trillion dollars. Anyone touting the public debt ignores the total debt and what taxpayers are paying

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

CBO is reporting public debt and the left will tell you that Inter-government holdings is paying debt service to ourselves. Think about it this way, you contribute to SS and Medicare through your payroll taxes. The govt. spends that contribution on items other than SS and Medicare thus replaces that shortfall with IOU's. To record the spending of your SS contribution the govt. replaces that shortfall with IOU's. The govt. then prints Treasury bonds to sell to Americans and foreign governments which then secures those IOU's. Those Treasury bonds are due with interest and thus are included in the interest expense on the budget so think about it. You are contributing to SS and Medicare then paying for the interest on those Treasury bonds. Does that make sense to anyone?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom