• 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!

Deficit at Highest Level in 6 Years

Oborosen said:
I don't recall saying Bush wasn't at fault for any of this. Because we all know just how much money the war on terror caused, not to mention his other wasted efforts.

What has been pointed out, is that Obama is still a cause for plenty of this and the blame does not solely lay on Bush.

Do you not see that?
Click to expand...

who knows what you didn’t say about bush but you did try to shut down the conversation of what caused the massive deficits President Obama inherited with the dishonest and whiny “ if all you can do is blame bush blah blah blah intellectual dishonesty”. I simply ignored your deflections. I’m not clinging to a narrative so I don’t have to try to shut down an honest and intelligent discussion of the facts.

And O, I’m pretty sure the way you are very delicately addressing Bush’s “fault” concerning debt and deficits that you are only acknowledging the debt added under his term. I assume this because the first thing you seem to acknowledge is “ war on terror” as a cause of deficits. But good news O, we don’t have to discuss his tax cuts or his invasion of Iraq or his housing policies, we simply need to discuss the fact that the Great Bush Recession devastated revenues. Devastated revenues accounted for over half of the deficits added under President Obama’s terms.

But to answer your question, no, I don’t see it. You need to clearly delineate what it is you see. I saw flat spending and devastated revenues.
 
Conservative said:
Tho

Starving the federal govt. of revenue for areas they have no responsibility for is a good thing
Click to expand...

Yeah really. Starving the Govt of revenue is akin to staving Michael Moore of food. He could stand to lose a few. Bad argument.
 
Conservative said:
Starving the federal govt. of revenue for areas they have no responsibility for is a good thing
Click to expand...
That's merely based in a rejection of the idea that we need a government. Those that believe that we need a government agree that it needs to be funded. There are indeed moneyed people who have the money to provide for their own parks and police forces, who don't need the government. They are an elite. Most people require government services.

While poster Conservative asserts that government has "no responsibility" to provide certain services, government is not barred from providing those services and those services do millions of people good, in direct opposition to Conservative telling us they do no good. I would like Conservative to visit a senior center in Boca Raton and tell the seniors that it he thinks they shouldn't have Medicare. We'll never hear from Conservative again.
 
Bullseye said:
He ran trillion dollar deficits his first three budgets, he had commanding majorities in both houses - exactly how did the GOP stop him?
Click to expand...

With the exception of a bit of a bubble between 2008-2012, the increases in federal spending between 1998 and 2017 are nearly linear. The deficits were not caused by a drunken spending spree, they were caused by a collapse in revenues caused by tax cuts and the Recession.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND


After 9+ years I don't recall the specifics; just small positive signs. I know you guys love the the urban legend that if Obama hadn't stepped in unemployment would have gone to 100% and DGP to zero.
Click to expand...

So ... nothing of substance. It's just a feeling you have.
 
MTAtech said:
That's merely based in a rejection of the idea that we need a government. Those that believe that we need a government agree that it needs to be funded. There are indeed moneyed people who have the money to provide for their own parks and police forces, who don't need the government. They are an elite. Most people require government services.

While poster Conservative asserts that government has "no responsibility" to provide certain services, government is not barred from providing those services and those services do millions of people good, in direct opposition to Conservative telling us they do no good. I would like Conservative to visit a senior center in Boca Raton and tell the seniors that it he thinks they shouldn't have Medicare. We'll never hear from Conservative again.
Click to expand...

Another false radical statement on your part, no one has ever said we don't need a govt. but what we don't need is a 4 trillion dollar FEDERAL GOVT but you never address spending and always seem to look to the federal bureaucrats to implement what you cannot implement in your own state. our Founders understood that power corrupts and put all the power at the state with the exception of national defense. I do suggest you take a history course then a civics course.

You want the Federal Govt. to solve your state and local issues but that never happens so your answer is to throw more money at the problem. That solves nothing but increases debt.

Again, Radical liberals like you have no understanding of Medicare and SS or that they are funded by FICA(Payroll taxes) and totally ignore how that money is forced contributions and how it was used by those bureaucrats you support on items other than SS and Medicare. Again this is another issue you don't understand and is added to the list of the taxes you pay that you don't understand.

Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric, keep running up the debt, and keep ignoring personal responsibility. That is what leftists always do as you continue to think with your heart totally ignoring your brain, civics, or even history.
 
Critter7r said:
With the exception of a bit of a bubble between 2008-2012, the increases in federal spending between 1998 and 2017 are nearly linear. The deficits were not caused by a drunken spending spree, they were caused by a collapse in revenues caused by tax cuts and the Recession.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND




So ... nothing of substance. It's just a feeling you have.
Click to expand...

Stunning ignorance from a so called centrist. The economic recovery started in January 2009 long before Obama's stimulus that generated the worst recovery in . The electorate got it,, when will you
 
Conservative said:
Another false radical statement on your part, no one has ever said we don't need a govt. but what we don't need is a 4 trillion dollar FEDERAL GOVT but you never address spending and always seem to look to the federal bureaucrats to implement what you cannot implement in your own state. our Founders understood that power corrupts and put all the power at the state with the exception of national defense. I do suggest you take a history course then a civics course.

You want the Federal Govt. to solve your state and local issues but that never happens so your answer is to throw more money at the problem. That solves nothing but increases debt.

Again, Radical liberals like you have no understanding of Medicare and SS or that they are funded by FICA(Payroll taxes) and totally ignore how that money is forced contributions and how it was used by those bureaucrats you support on items other than SS and Medicare. Again this is another issue you don't understand and is added to the list of the taxes you pay that you don't understand.

Keep buying the leftwing rhetoric, keep running up the debt, and keep ignoring personal responsibility. That is what leftists always do as you continue to think with your heart totally ignoring your brain, civics, or even history.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am a radical because I believe in Social Security and Medicare. :roll: What it really means is that you would fit nicely in the John Birch Society -- a throwback that the world has long past it by.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, I am a radical because I believe in Social Security and Medicare. :roll: What it really means is that you would fit nicely in the John Birch Society -- a throwback that the world has long past it by.
Click to expand...

You may believe in it but don't understand it but will when you retire. Hopefully you won't lose a spouse who contributed for 35 years prior to collecting their share. Your radical rhetoric shows just how poorly informed you are but we all knew that by your posts on other subjects as well. SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes and then LBJ put that money into the general fund where it was used for everything other than SS/Medicare because more were paying in at the time than taking out. Where is your outrage over the use of that money or the very poor return that money generates, another subject you don't understand.

Someone who claims that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the federal govt. or now claiming that someone is going to take away your SS/Medicare without acknowledging that the money was spent on everything other than Medicare/SS doesn't have a lot of credibility. So keep posting and I will keep making you look foolish.
 
Conservative said:
You may believe in it but don't understand it but will when you retire. Hopefully you won't lose a spouse who contributed for 35 years prior to collecting their share. Your radical rhetoric shows just how poorly informed you are but we all knew that by your posts on other subjects as well. SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes and then LBJ put that money into the general fund where it was used for everything other than SS/Medicare because more were paying in at the time than taking out. Where is your outrage over the use of that money or the very poor return that money generates, another subject you don't understand.

Someone who claims that people keeping more of what they earn is an expense to the federal govt. or now claiming that someone is going to take away your SS/Medicare without acknowledging that the money was spent on everything other than Medicare/SS doesn't have a lot of credibility. So keep posting and I will keep making you look foolish.
Click to expand...

This is what I just don't get about you.

- A massive tax-cut combined with increased spending eventually equals new taxes for you.
- Tariffs eventually lead to increased prices.

So what exactly do you think you are going to keep? It seems to me that you are immediately, either going to send it right back to the government, or will need what little you are getting to pay for higher priced common goods. And shouldn't it be painfully obvious by now?...

- Who really got that massive (and permanent) tax-cut?
- Rolling back Obama-era environmental rules to unleash the oil tycoons (coal's nemesis)?
- Trade tariffs on the steel and aluminum industry?

Trump's not there for you. He is there for his select elite at your expense. In the mean time, he tosses out "wall" and "crooked Hillary" and "military" and whatever other tag line that keeps the flock entertained. It's a con game.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
This is what I just don't get about you.

- A massive tax-cut combined with increased spending eventually equals new taxes.
- Tariffs eventually lead to increased prices.

So what exactly do you think you are going to keep? It seems to me that you are immediately either sending it right back to the government or need what little there is to pay higher prices for common goods. And shouldn't it be painfully obvious by now?...

- Who really got that massive (and permanent) tax-cut?
- Rolling back Obama-era environmental rules to release the oil tycoons (coal's nemesis)?
- Trade tariffs on the steel and aluminum industry?

Trump's not there for you. He is there for his select elite at your expense.
Click to expand...

And here is what I don't get about you, it is always about tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn not the reality that over 60% of the spending is on social programs many of which are state and local problems. Your hatred and jealousy of anyone who makes more than you is quite obvious. Never bothered me at all which is probably why I have been successful.

Trump or any President doesn't change how I operate or how I feel. People keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense to the federal govt. no matter how many times you say it. Someone else or some corporation keeping more of what they earn doesn't affect me, my family, or the country nor does it hurt you so why is this even an issue?

If you continue to support bureaucrats who spend in the name of compassion but never generate compassionate results you are part of the problem, a main part but then that is true liberalism.

Your fear of tariffs just confirms how poorly informed you are with regard to our economy, Foreign governments like China have manipulated trading and currency for years and tariffs will hurt them a lot more than us in spite of the fear mongering by people like you.
 
Conservative said:
And here is what I don't get about you, it is always about tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn not the reality that over 60% of the spending is on social programs many of which are state and local problems. Your hatred and jealousy of anyone who makes more than you is quite obvious. Never bothered me at all which is probably why I have been successful.

Trump or any President doesn't change how I operate or how I feel. People keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense to the federal govt. no matter how many times you say it. Someone else or some corporation keeping more of what they earn doesn't affect me, my family, or the country nor does it hurt you so why is this even an issue?

If you continue to support bureaucrats who spend in the name of compassion but never generate compassionate results you are part of the problem, a main part but then that is true liberalism.

Your fear of tariffs just confirms how poorly informed you are with regard to our economy, Foreign governments like China have manipulated trading and currency for years and tariffs will hurt them a lot more than us in spite of the fear mongering by people like you.
Click to expand...

It is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to see the obvious, which is that significantly reducing government revenue, then increasing government spending, is a recipe for a disaster....without new taxes to compensate for that increased spending. And it is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to agree with the obvious, in which even the GOP agrees, that this trade tariff game is going to raise prices.

So again...what exactly do you think you are going to keep? Because, as I have argued since December, it looks to me that the government is ensuring that you keep none of it. The government declared in January that it needs your cut to increase spending. It seems to me that with increased prices on top of that, you are actually out more money. Can't say the same for the wealthy who got permanent cuts and can easily afford increased prices, though.
 
MSgt said:
It is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to see the obvious, which is that significantly reducing government revenue, then increasing government spending, is a recipe for a disaster....without new taxes to compensate for that increased spending. And it is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to agree with the obvious, in which even the GOP agrees, that this trade tariff game is going to raise prices.

So again...what exactly do you think you are going to keep? Because, as I have argued since December, it looks to me that the government is ensuring that you keep none of it. The government declared in January that it needs your cut to increase spending. It seems to me that with increased prices on top of that, you are actually out more money. Can't say the same for the wealthy who got permanent cuts and can easily afford increased prices, though.
Click to expand...
That is leftwing rhetoric and lies as we have never had a reduction in revenue from FIT cuts and that is treasury data regarding Reagan and Bush. Please research at bea.gov

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
MSgt said:
It is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to see the obvious, which is that significantly reducing government revenue, then increasing government spending, is a recipe for a disaster....without new taxes to compensate for that increased spending. And it is not fear mongering to use common sense in order to agree with the obvious, in which even the GOP agrees, that this trade tariff game is going to raise prices.

So again...what exactly do you think you are going to keep? Because, as I have argued since December, it looks to me that the government is ensuring that you keep none of it. The government declared in January that it needs your cut to increase spending. It seems to me that with increased prices on top of that, you are actually out more money. Can't say the same for the wealthy who got permanent cuts and can easily afford increased prices, though.
Click to expand...

Please tell me why there is a need for increased Federal Spending and why you aren't holding your state responsible for failure to solve social problems, all except SS and Medicare are state responsibilities? You seem to again be bothered by someone else keeping more of what they earn and the question is WHY??

Why is it that liberals always seem to know what someone else needs for their own personal expenses. When you say that the rich can easily afford increased prices where does that study come from? Sounds like a personal opinion boosted by leftwing radical rhetoric and jealousy
 
Originally Posted by Conservative

... SS and Medicare are funded by FICA taxes and then LBJ put that money into the general fund where it was used for everything other than SS/Medicare because more were paying in at the time than taking out. Where is your outrage over the use of that money or the very poor return that money generates, another subject you don't understand.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways, Con. That money either gets used for other functions and generates a small return (because it's invested in Treasury bills like the originators of SS prescribed), or it does not get used, sits in a vault gathering dust, and gets no return.
 
Conservative said:
The difference between me and you is that I don't whine and complain about what someone else has or pays in taxes and I certainly don't blame someone else for my own failures.
Click to expand...

That's really admirable. I really do admire your sense of independence and can-do attitude.

But do you really think that when someone fails and hits hard times, like if they lose a job or business, or face an unexpectedly catastrophic illness or injury that may threaten to completely devastate themselves or their family, that's it's always just their own failure? Or that if they do hit such hard times, they can always get out of it if they are just smart or hard working enough? Because that seems odd, and seems to suggest you don't have much experience with how things work in the real world. That has not been my experience with those I have seen who get into such bad places.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Please tell me why there is a need for increased Federal Spending and why you aren't holding your state responsible for failure to solve social problems, all except SS and Medicare are state responsibilities?
Click to expand...

Why are you OK with Medicare and SS?
 
Conservative said:
If you continue to support bureaucrats who spend in the name of compassion but never generate compassionate results you are part of the problem, a main part but then that is true liberalism.
Click to expand...

Well these conservatives were all about that, until all of a sudden they realized that they were getting some compassionate results they didn't want to part with.



So why don't you go tell these folks about how you want to enact Paul Ryan's conservative policies of getting rid of Medicare and SS for them too? Ask they why they are too stupid and lazy to go work for health coverage and a basic income for themselves in retirement and want big nanny government to provide it for them?
 
ataraxia said:
That's really admirable. I really do admire your sense of independence and can-do attitude.

But do you really think that when someone fails and hits hard times, like if they lose a job or business, or face an unexpectedly catastrophic illness or injury that may threaten to completely devastate themselves or their family, that's it's always just their own failure? Or that if they do hit such hard times, they can always get out of it if they are just smart or hard working enough? Because that seems odd, and seems to suggest you don't have much experience with how things work in the real world. That has not been my experience with those I have seen who get into such bad places.
Click to expand...

I really am not sure where you live but I always have talked about neighbor helping neighbor and I live in a state that does that. We have local charities that I assist and work with that always helps people who fall on hard times. That is the role of a neighbor, a state and local government, not the federal bureaucrats. In addition states have term limits so if you don't like what is happening work to change the leadership. TX is a great state and love living here.
 
ataraxia said:
Why are you OK with Medicare and SS?
Click to expand...

I am not but was FORCED INTO IT. I am now 71 years old and contributed for over 35 years, my return on that investment and my employers is less than 2%. My wife worked and contributed for 15 years but died at age 62. I got a check for $250 and the govt. kept her 15 years of contributions. Think that is fair?
 
ataraxia said:
Well these conservatives were all about that, until all of a sudden they realized that they were getting some compassionate results they didn't want to part with.



So why don't you go tell these folks about how you want to enact Paul Ryan's conservative policies of getting rid of Medicare and SS for them too? Ask they why they are too stupid and lazy to go work for health coverage and a basic income for themselves in retirement and want big nanny government to provide it for them?
Click to expand...


Healthcare is a personal responsibility issue and my state again shows up as one of the worst in the nation but that is a lie, it a state that has free healthcare for people who don't have insurance and has a free healthcare clinic for those without doctors. stop buying what you hear by bureaucrats who keep power with the support of people like you. when someone is uninsured it isn't the federal taxpayers that pay the bills it is the state and local citizens along with hospitals and medical facilities. States have the ability to provide their own healthcare like MA, Utah, Hawaii and a couple others have. If you want your state to have healthcare then fight for it at the local level. Obamacare has driven up healthcare costs and is a program that the federal govt. has no business administering.
 
Conservative said:
I really am not sure where you live but I always have talked about neighbor helping neighbor and I live in a state that does that. We have local charities that I assist and work with that always helps people who fall on hard times. That is the role of a neighbor, a state and local government, not the federal bureaucrats. In addition states have term limits so if you don't like what is happening work to change the leadership. TX is a great state and love living here.
Click to expand...

Charities are great. But they have never been enough. They have never been a replacement for a formal, robust, systematic system of safety nets. These can do a lot more than anyone can do by themselves. It's like thinking you can get rid of all traffic lights andthink that if everyone is just left free, things will work just as efficiently and safely. It doesn't.

Before the ACA, 40,000 Americans a year were DYING EVERY YEAR due to simple lack of access to healthcare. That's not to mention all those going blind or living with chronic pain. Before Medicare, many seniors were dying and living with easily treatable conditions because of lack of healthcare. Before regulations on child labor, the use of young children as young as 8 working 80 hour weeks under dangerous factory conditions was increasing, not decreasing. These programs were not adapted because things were working so well and neighbors were all helping neighbors. It was a disaster unparalleled in the developed world. No one lives like that. Where were your charities then?

And you keep talking about how proud Texas is and doesn't need no stinking federal government to help them because they are so proud and think that local and state governments should just do everything themselves. That's certainly what Ted Cruz was saying when hurricanes hit the east coast and left the area devastated. He actually voted to not give any federal funding or help to them.

But once the hurricanes hit Texas, they had the gall to actually be angry at the federal government for not helping them fast enough.

A closer look at Texas lawmakers asking for Harvey aid after opposing Sandy relief | NJ.com

Why the hypocrisy? I thought your charities and neighbors were enough down there in TX.
 
Conservative said:
Healthcare is a personal responsibility issue and my state again shows up as one of the worst in the nation but that is a lie, it a state that has free healthcare for people who don't have insurance and has a free healthcare clinic for those without doctors. stop buying what you hear by bureaucrats who keep power with the support of people like you. when someone is uninsured it isn't the federal taxpayers that pay the bills it is the state and local citizens along with hospitals and medical facilities. States have the ability to provide their own healthcare like MA, Utah, Hawaii and a couple others have. If you want your state to have healthcare then fight for it at the local level. Obamacare has driven up healthcare costs and is a program that the federal govt. has no business administering.
Click to expand...

The following is a formal statement from the Texas Medical Association:

Texas is the uninsured capital of the United States. More than 4.3 million Texans - including 623,000 children - lack health insurance. Texas' uninsurance rates, 1.75 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. Those who lack insurance coverage typically enjoy far-worse health status than their insured counterparts.
-The Texas Medical Association
Click to expand...

It's an apple. You can keep saying banana. But it's an apple. Texas' public health is among the worst in the nation. The Texas Medical Association says that. It's third world. In fact, most third world countries do better. And no, the neighbors and charities are not helping enough to be a substitute for a decent and competent government.
 
ataraxia said:
Charities are great. But they have never been enough. They have never been a replacement for a formal, robust, systematic system of safety nets. These can do a lot more than anyone can do by themselves. It's like thinking you can get rid of all traffic lights andthink that if everyone is just left free, things will work just as efficiently and safely. It doesn't.

Before the ACA, 40,000 Americans a year were DYING EVERY YEAR due to simple lack of access to healthcare. That's not to mention all those going blind or living with chronic pain. Before Medicare, many seniors were dying and living with easily treatable conditions because of lack of healthcare. Before regulations on child labor, the use of young children as young as 8 working 80 hour weeks under dangerous factory conditions was increasing, not decreasing. These programs were not adapted because things were working so well and neighbors were all helping neighbors. It was a disaster unparalleled in the developed world. No one lives like that. Where were your charities then?

And you keep talking about how proud Texas is and doesn't need no stinking federal government to help them because they are so proud and think that local and state governments should just do everything themselves. That's certainly what Ted Cruz was saying when hurricanes hit the east coast and left the area devastated. He actually voted to not give any federal funding or help to them.

But once the hurricanes hit Texas, they had the gall to actually be angry at the federal government for not helping them fast enough.

A closer look at Texas lawmakers asking for Harvey aid after opposing Sandy relief | NJ.com

Why the hypocrisy? I thought your charities and neighbors were enough down there in TX.
Click to expand...

Look, I live and ran a Red Cross shelter in Houston during Harvey so your article is nothing more than leftwing spin as are most of your posts. Certainly don't listen to the people who live here and experienced the support but buy what you are told.

When a natural disaster hits that affects all Americans, healthcare isn't a national disaster it is personal responsibility. When you grow up you are going to realize as I did that liberalism is a cancer that destroys incentive and initiative. Take any basic investment calculator, put your contributions and your employers contributions in it and see how much you will have from SS when you retire and that money then would be yours. You buy what you are told and ignore someone like me who spent 35 years in the business world and is now 71 years old. It is that arrogance that is going to make you dependent for life.
 
ataraxia said:
The following is a formal statement from the Texas Medical Association:



It's an apple. You can keep saying banana. But it's an apple. Texas' public health is among the worst in the nation. The Texas Medical Association says that. It's third world. In fact, most third world countries do better. And no, the neighbors and charities are not helping enough to be a substitute for a decent and competent government.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that is why millions of people keep moving here, no insurance, low wages, and high pollution. Absolutely stunning how arrogant the left is. If things were so bad people wouldn't flocking to the state that has among the highest population growth in the nation. People in TX have a choice and continue to pick choice over liberal social spending which is why it is one of the lowest cost of livings in the nation. I am not going to defend TX to people like you who don't live here. I have for over 25 years so Ic an honestly tell you that the left is jealous that TX will never be a blue state and people love the govt. they have for if they didn't they understand personal responsibility and would leave
 
Critter7r said:
With the exception of a bit of a bubble between 2008-2012, the increases in federal spending between 1998 and 2017 are nearly linear. The deficits were not caused by a drunken spending spree, they were caused by a collapse in revenues caused by tax cuts and the Recession.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND
Click to expand...
LOL "Between 2008 and 2012" so HALF his term including two years his party had absolute control of Congress. I suggest you look at CBO's historic budget figures. Do you seriously claim the Stimulus was NOT a spending spree. Cash for Clunkers?


critter7r said:
So ... nothing of substance. It's just a feeling you have.
Click to expand...
Nope, memories I have of reading scores of analyses discussing various economic metrics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom