• 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. budget deficit balloons to $739 billion despite tariff revenue

pamak said:
And they can do this with a simple majority in both chambers

The article I posted was clear, and if you read it you saw the following...

GOP Congressman Floats Passing Border Wall Funding Through Budget Reconciliation

House and Senate leaders, however, could easily put together a so-called shell budget for the purposes of providing reconciliation instructions for legislation to appropriate border wall funding.

The question is whether that’s something Republican leaders would want to pursue.

Unless you want to argue that the Democrats let the Republicans in the Senate pass a budget resolution for the Tax Cuts even though they could block it, which of course contradicts the claim that the Democrats are somehow destined to obstruct everything republicans do!
If a budget resolution includes instructions for reconciliation, there is no need to have supermajority

If you want to argue that it was the lack of agreement among republicans, I am fine with it. I am just addressing the claim that it was somehow the Democrats who could block that legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes -- Democrats can and did block the legislation. The theory about using bait and switch to sneak a budget through is an interesting one, but Democrats are well aware of this tactic. It also would require near unanimous approval by Republicans -- which again isn't practical for this kind of legislation.
 
Conservative said:
Just like your claim that the deficit is ballooning and all due to Trump and gov't spending. Mandatory spending is a foreign concept to you
Click to expand...
Strange that you don't seem to understand that the mandatory spending was there before Trump and the deficit had started to grow again after years of declines, but the growth was modest. Here comes Trump with his giant tax cut trimming hundreds of billions annually from future revenue plus a big increase in defense spending and yes the deficit has ballooned primarily due to actions backed by Trump.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 
Bullseye said:
The article id dated January of 2018 - it has no relationship to tax cuts which only went into effect that month.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the republicans always wanting to cut social programs while pushing the idea of job creators for the industries receiving the subsidiaries. It's been going on for years and years. Corporate welfare, like what we're now handing out to the farmers. In other words, socialism. We the taxpayers paying for corporate americas perks.
 
George50 said:
Strange that you don't seem to understand that the mandatory spending was there before Trump and the deficit had started to grow again after years of declines, but the growth was modest. Here comes Trump with his giant tax cut trimming hundreds of billions annually from future revenue plus a big increase in defense spending and yes the deficit has ballooned primarily due to actions backed by Trump.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, mandatory spending has always been part of the budget and was part of the 9.3 trillion Obama added to the debt. Giant tax cuts really bother you why?? You couldn't care less about the deficit or the debt or you would have done something about it the last 8 years prior to Trump and you didn't. The gov't is going to spend money regardless of the revenue and there is no assurance that higher taxes would ever reduce the deficit as they have no interest in making tough choices to reduce spending. Bureaucrats love the power and create dependence which revenue provides. The Deficit hasn't ballooned due to anything Trump as done as the GDP growth, state and local revenues, charitable giving has more than offset the discretionary spending that Trump has authorized.
 
Conservative said:
Yes, mandatory spending has always been part of the budget and was part of the 9.3 trillion Obama added to the debt. Giant tax cuts really bother you why?? You couldn't care less about the deficit or the debt or you would have done something about it the last 8 years prior to Trump and you didn't. The gov't is going to spend money regardless of the revenue and there is no assurance that higher taxes would ever reduce the deficit as they have no interest in making tough choices to reduce spending. Bureaucrats love the power and create dependence which revenue provides. The Deficit hasn't ballooned due to anything Trump as done as the GDP growth, state and local revenues, charitable giving has more than offset the discretionary spending that Trump has authorized.
Click to expand...
Your following statement shows that you are completely unqualified to discuss deficits:

"The Deficit hasn't ballooned due to anything Trump as done as the GDP growth, state and local revenues, charitable giving has more than offset the discretionary spending that Trump has authorized."

State and local revenues and charitable giving have nothing to do with Federal deficits.

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk
 
bongsaway said:
Where is paul ryan the policy wonk fiscal warrior when we need him? Fiscal conservatives. I get a good chuckle every time I hear those words.
Click to expand...

Fiscal conservatism is not a concern whenever there's someone with an "R" after their name in office. Remember all the angry tea-baggers during Obama's term? Where did they go?
 
bongsaway said:
It has everything to do with the republicans always wanting to cut social programs while pushing the idea of job creators for the industries receiving the subsidiaries. It's been going on for years and years. Corporate welfare, like what we're now handing out to the farmers. In other words, socialism. We the taxpayers paying for corporate americas perks.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the trite, clichéd mantras. They never go out of style. :roll:
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think perhaps we should give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and cut the poorest Americans benefits even more.

Clearly what the situation calls for and it is clearly the only way to deal with the situation.
Click to expand...


to some who don't know you, sarcasm might not be obvious (sarcasm is delivered mainly by body language), so an appropriate emoji to aid in the sarcasm delivery, is a good idea.
 
lurchadams said:
Fiscal conservatism is not a concern whenever there's someone with an "R" after their name in office. Remember all the angry tea-baggers during Obama's term? Where did they go?
Click to expand...

To the southern border to stop the caravans?
 
OscarLevant said:
to some who don't know you, sarcasm might not be obvious (sarcasm is delivered mainly by body language), so an appropriate emoji to aid in the sarcasm delivery, is a good idea.
Click to expand...

I think that’s more a statement about the state of the political discourse in America than about the way I presented my sarcasm.

To my sensibility what I said is outlandish to the extreme... But I suppose yes, there are many on the left wing right wing American politics hamster wheel that think “yeah, that is the only solution”.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think that’s more a statement about the state of the political discourse in America than about the way I presented my sarcasm.

To my sensibility what I said is outlandish to the extreme... But I suppose yes, there are many on the left wing right wing American politics hamster wheel that think “yeah, that is the only solution”.
Click to expand...

That's why I took it as sarcasm, because it sounded so preposterous, but...

I don't know anyone on the left (extreme or otherwise ) that would support that view But on the right, that, apparently, is precisely what their platform is.
 
OscarLevant said:
Truth is not a cliché, and should be repeated often.
Click to expand...
Then start repeating some truths instead of the mindless clichés you continually resort to.
 
dcsports said:
Yes -- Democrats can and did block the legislation. The theory about using bait and switch to sneak a budget through is an interesting one, but Democrats are well aware of this tactic. It also would require near unanimous approval by Republicans -- which again isn't practical for this kind of legislation.
Click to expand...

The Democrats tried to block the tax cuts but it passed. My point is that when republicans were united (as in the case of tax cuts), they could easily bypass democrats using the budget reconciliation tactic. Of course, for other budget related issues which involved immigration or other issues where even republicans did not have a united voice, they could not bypass obstruction.
 
Bullseye said:
Then start repeating some truths instead of the mindless clichés you continually resort to.
Click to expand...


Many clichés are rooted in truth.

I think this one is appropriate, here:

"You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

See, only a fool cannot see the truth in that statement, a fool will foolishly focus on it being a cliché and miss the point, which proves the veracity of the cliché.
 
OscarLevant said:
Many clichés are rooted in truth.

I think this one is appropriate, here:

"You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

See, only a fool cannot see the truth in that statement, a fool will foolishly focus on it being a cliché and miss the point, which proves the veracity of the cliché.
Click to expand...
Or to paraphrase: You can lead a liberal to the facts but you can't make him understand them.
 
OscarLevant said:
No, the reverse is true, here are the facts, but you will ignore them:


Presidential Data 2016



Bullseye!
Click to expand...
LOL, you think data collected and spun by a Democrat support site whose stated purpose is "building a Progressive Majority since 1985" are FACTS? You truly believe the President is the sole driver of the economy? If so, why did Obama spend so much time in the ditch. No "bullseye" just what comes out the opposite end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom