• 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

Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They're at it again. The supposedly fiscally responsible Party is balooning the deficit again. The same old sorry story. Trumps doing it. GW did it. Reagan did it. Cut taxes for billionaires and CEOs, and put the burden on the every day taxpayer.

US monthly budget deficit largest in 6 years - Mar. 12, 2018

New Treasury Department numbers show that the US government racked up a $215 billion deficit in February -- the largest monthly deficit in six years.
 
You forgot,, Obama did it..

djl
 
bmr528 said:
You forgot,, Obama did it..

djl
Click to expand...

Actually, the deficit was reduced substantially by Obama.

us_deficit_history.png

See the big dip after 2008. Had it not been for the Bush/Cheney wars, it would have probably been reduced further.
 
Yep, when you tax less and spend more then deficits increase. Spending of $371B/month and taxing at $156B/month creates a monthly deficit of $251B. Fixing this by increasing the stated taxation (withholding?) revenue alone would require about a 62% increase in taxation - are demorats seriously going to propose that?

Something seems amiss here. If the (average?) monthly deficit was really $251B then multiplying that by 12 would create an annual deficit of a tad over $3T. Of course, if you really got only (average?) $156B/month in tax revenue then multiplying that by 12 would yield annual tax revenue of only about $1.9T. With annual federal spending at about $4T that would leave a deficit of $2.1T. The numbers presented just don't jive with reality.

Could it be that using a single month's "withholding" is a BS figure to represent tax revenue? Businesses send in tax money quarterly (every three months) so, perhaps, February is not a "typical" month and in March (the end of a quarter?) the tax "withholding" will be much different (higher?).
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, when you tax less and spend more then deficits increase. Spending of $371B/month and taxing at $156B/month creates a monthly deficit of $251B. Fixing this by increasing the stated taxation (withholding?) revenue alone would require about a 62% increase in taxation - are demorats seriously going to propose that?

Something seems amiss here. If the (average?) monthly deficit was really $251B then multiplying that by 12 would create an annual deficit of a tad over $3T. Of course, if you really got only (average?) $156B/month in tax revenue then multiplying that by 12 would yield annual tax revenue of only about $1.9T. With annual federal spending at about $4T that would leave a deficit of $2.1T. The numbers presented just don't jive with reality.

Could it be that using a single month's "withholding" is a BS figure to represent tax revenue? Businesses send in tax money quarterly (every three months) so, perhaps, February is not a "typical" month and in March (the end of a quarter?) the tax "withholding" will be much different (higher?).
Click to expand...

I think Clinton\Gore had the right idea. The first step is to get the deficit down to below ZERO. They accomplished that (see previous graph). And then GW/Cheney came along.
 
Media_Truth said:
I think Clinton\Gore had the right idea. The first step is to get the deficit down to below ZERO. They accomplished that (see previous graph). And then GW/Cheney came along.
Click to expand...

Yep, I heard that (bolded above) from Captain Obvious. I also noted that if federal spending is to remain at over 20% GDP then federal taxation must be raised to that level (or more). Who, exactly, is proposing doing that? Yep, nobody because they would never be elected. Trump, on the other hand, was elected based on cutting taxes and increasing spending.
 
media_truth said:
they're at it again. The supposedly fiscally responsible party is balooning the deficit again. The same old sorry story. Trumps doing it. Gw did it. Reagan did it. Cut taxes for billionaires and ceos, and put the burden on the every day taxpayer.

us monthly budget deficit largest in 6 years - mar. 12, 2018

new treasury department numbers show that the us government racked up a $215 billion deficit in february -- the largest monthly deficit in six years.
Click to expand...

maga...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, I heard that (bolded above) from Captain Obvious. I also noted that if federal spending is to remain at over 20% GDP then federal taxation must be raised to that level (or more). Who, exactly, is proposing doing that? Yep, nobody because they would never be elected. Trump, on the other hand, was elected based on cutting taxes and increasing spending.
Click to expand...

Can you show me footage of a campaign promise, where Trump said he would increase spending?
 
Media_Truth said:
Can you show me footage of a campaign promise, where Trump said he would increase spending?
Click to expand...

He made it pretty clear he had every intention of spending a lot of money. Infrastructure and defense spending were two of his major pitches, and for a short time he pitched some form of universal healthcare. I doubt you could find very many Trump fans that voted for him because they thought he was fiscally conservative.
 
Media_Truth said:
They're at it again. The supposedly fiscally responsible Party is balooning the deficit again.
Click to expand...
While that does seem to be the case, I think we need to wait a little longer to see the full effects of the tax cuts.

We'll get a decent idea after 1 year, but it will really take 2 or 3 to get the full picture. In 2018, corporations and individuals will just start to adjust to the new policies; by 2020, entire swaths of corporate and individual income will be shielded from taxes.

That's assuming there is no major changes to broader economic conditions (e.g. recession) which will significantly impact the numbers.
 
Media_Truth said:
Can you show me footage of a campaign promise, where Trump said he would increase spending?
Click to expand...

Nope, but Trump did say that more military improvements, medical care insurance for "everyone" and increased border and interior immigration law enforcement would be done. You know that he would never say "I'm going to grow federal spending" because that is just not cool - you always say what you want (to add) in terms of federal improvements (never what that costs).
 
Visbek said:
While that does seem to be the case, I think we need to wait a little longer to see the full effects of the tax cuts.

We'll get a decent idea after 1 year, but it will really take 2 or 3 to get the full picture. In 2018, corporations and individuals will just start to adjust to the new policies; by 2020, entire swaths of corporate and individual income will be shielded from taxes.

That's assuming there is no major changes to broader economic conditions (e.g. recession) which will significantly impact the numbers.
Click to expand...

The tax-cuts were largely on the wealthy and corporations. Corporations are giving the lion's share as stock buy-backs, which does nothing for the economy as promised. There is also no historical evidence that giving tax-cuts to the wealthy help the economy either. What they DO, do is de-fund the government, which will be used by Republicans to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The extra borrowing will raise interest rates, which is a tax on home and car buyers.

So, there we have it. Trump said that he would payoff the debt in eight-years but is expanding it.
 
Visbek said:
While that does seem to be the case, I think we need to wait a little longer to see the full effects of the tax cuts.

We'll get a decent idea after 1 year, but it will really take 2 or 3 to get the full picture. In 2018, corporations and individuals will just start to adjust to the new policies; by 2020, entire swaths of corporate and individual income will be shielded from taxes.

That's assuming there is no major changes to broader economic conditions (e.g. recession) which will significantly impact the numbers.
Click to expand...

That's what Reagan said. That's what GW Bush said. Same song - same disgusting billionaire ploy. Funny, how FOX News is not talking about the deficit nowadays.
 
Media_Truth said:
Actually, the deficit was reduced substantially by Obama.

View attachment 67230065

See the big dip after 2008. Had it not been for the Bush/Cheney wars, it would have probably been reduced further.
Click to expand...

The same tired game of blaming Bush.. never gets old.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293

Depending on who you ask, President Obama added anywhere from $983 billion to $9 trillion to the national debt. Who's lying? None of them. That's because there are three ways to look at the debt added by any president.
Click to expand...
 
Oborosen said:
The same tired game of blaming Bush.. never gets old.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Click to expand...
In the words of the Lion King's Rafiki "The past can hurt." That doesn't make it any less true. The fact is that the deficit rose dramatically under Bush, in relatively good times. They also initially rose under Obama, but that was due to the economic collapse that made revenues dive. Once the economy started to mend, deficits dropped.
 
MTAtech said:
The tax-cuts were largely on the wealthy and corporations.... etc
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the tax change, combined with what we know of spending proposals, will cause deficits.

However, we do have to wait more than one quarter to say that it's shown up in federal balance sheets. I don't have a problem with making predictions, but we can't say that they have come true until they've come true.
 
Media_Truth said:
That's what Reagan said. That's what GW Bush said. Same song - same disgusting billionaire ploy. Funny, how FOX News is not talking about the deficit nowadays.
Click to expand...
Right, but again... We are still in the prediction stage. It's too early to say that it's had actual effects already. We have to look at 1-3 years to see the effects.
 
Media_Truth said:
Can you show me footage of a campaign promise, where Trump said he would increase spending?
Click to expand...

No, but he did promise a huge infrastructure plan, plus build a huge wall and spend more on the military. He also said something to the effect that the government can issue all the money that it wants to issue.

You can look up your own clips.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, when you tax less and spend more then deficits increase. Spending of $371B/month and taxing at $156B/month creates a monthly deficit of $251B. Fixing this by increasing the stated taxation (withholding?) revenue alone would require about a 62% increase in taxation - are demorats seriously going to propose that?

Something seems amiss here. If the (average?) monthly deficit was really $251B then multiplying that by 12 would create an annual deficit of a tad over $3T. Of course, if you really got only (average?) $156B/month in tax revenue then multiplying that by 12 would yield annual tax revenue of only about $1.9T. With annual federal spending at about $4T that would leave a deficit of $2.1T. The numbers presented just don't jive with reality.

Could it be that using a single month's "withholding" is a BS figure to represent tax revenue? Businesses send in tax money quarterly (every three months) so, perhaps, February is not a "typical" month and in March (the end of a quarter?) the tax "withholding" will be much different (higher?).
Click to expand...
You are correct in that looking at a monthly deficit will not reflect a yearly deficit. As you mentioned, revenues and expenditures are not spread out evenly.

However, the largest monthly deficit in six years may be noteworthy, especially since our economy is doing okay and there's not a real reason to run a deficit. Furthermore, our deficit this year was already expected to be higher than last year, and I believe that was before the tax cuts. According to analysis by the CBO during Obama's presidency, we were already expecting to run close to a trillion dollar deficit again by 2020 (various reasons, including aging population) and that was before tax cuts.

So, you are correct in that looking at just one month absent any other data is fairly worthless, but it can still an important note to make in ongoing observation.
 
bmr528 said:
You forgot,, Obama did it..

djl
Click to expand...

Obama inherited a very large deficit ($1T) due to a deep recession, two wars and tax cuts. The deficits steadily DECLINED during his administration.
 
Visbek said:
While that does seem to be the case, I think we need to wait a little longer to see the full effects of the tax cuts.

We'll get a decent idea after 1 year, but it will really take 2 or 3 to get the full picture. In 2018, corporations and individuals will just start to adjust to the new policies; by 2020, entire swaths of corporate and individual income will be shielded from taxes.
Click to expand...

... and both sides will figure out how to raise taxes in other areas (or even in the income tax code) in a few tiny ways over those 2-3 years without attracting too much media attention so they can say, "SEE??!! Look at those increasing revenues!! Must be because of those tax cuts 3 years ago!!"

That's assuming there is no major changes to broader economic conditions (e.g. recession) which will significantly impact the numbers.
Click to expand...

Right. Ya'll are hoping for a little recession that can be blamed on an interest rate hike, or some hurricane that blew through the Gulf states and then use the resulting increase in growth to say, "SEE??!! Told ya we'd get that growth rate above 3%!!" or some other such misdirection.
 
Visbek said:
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that the tax change, combined with what we know of spending proposals, will cause deficits.

However, we do have to wait more than one quarter to say that it's shown up in federal balance sheets. I don't have a problem with making predictions, but we can't say that they have come true until they've come true.
Click to expand...

I don't mind waiting to see what the tax-cuts will actually do, I just don't have much confidence they will be positive.

I just visited my doctor today. The practice has several doctors, located in a building that the doctors own. We got on the topic of taxes and she said that the accountant recommended turning the building into an LLC, owned by the doctors that rents the space to the medical practice. Then, raise the rent very high so the doctors aren't earning much as doctors -- the bulk of the income going to the real estate LLC. Since Trump's new tax-law favors real estate LLCs (no surprise there) they save a lot on taxes. Did they lower prices for patients; provide better medical care; or provide any economic benefit? No. It's just a paper scheme that saves high-earners tax money, with no benefit to society. Worse -- it reduces needed government revenue.
 
MTAtech said:
In the words of the Lion King's Rafiki "The past can hurt." That doesn't make it any less true. The fact is that the deficit rose dramatically under Bush, in relatively good times. They also initially rose under Obama, but that was due to the economic collapse that made revenues dive. Once the economy started to mend, deficits dropped.
Click to expand...

So how did Obama add to it by nearly 44%?
 
Media_Truth said:
They're at it again. The supposedly fiscally responsible Party is balooning the deficit again. The same old sorry story. Trumps doing it. GW did it. Reagan did it. Cut taxes for billionaires and CEOs, and put the burden on the every day taxpayer.

US monthly budget deficit largest in 6 years - Mar. 12, 2018

New Treasury Department numbers show that the US government racked up a $215 billion deficit in February -- the largest monthly deficit in six years.
Click to expand...



AND every time the result = RECESSION ..................... MAGA my ass ...................

Republicans HATE the average working class American but the folks that vote for them don't see it ............
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom