• 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!

The federal debt is headed for the highest levels since World War II, CBO says

MTAtech

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
36,634
Reaction score
35,659
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The federal debt is headed for the highest levels since World War II, CBO says
Government debt is on track to hit historically high levels and at its current growth rate will be nearly equal in size to the U.S. economy by 2028, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

By the end of this year, the ratio of federal debt to the United States' gross domestic product will reach 78 percent, according to the CBO, the highest ratio since 1950.
The debt is projected to grow to 96 percent of GDP by 2028 before eventually surpassing the historical high of 106 percent it reached in 1946.
Click to expand...
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...
Well, no **** Sherlock. Every minute we run annual deficits we are headed for more federal debt. Oh, about those tax cuts - they're working as planned; even though they've only been in effect since the start of the year tax revenue is up compared to last year at this time.
 
From the OP's article:
The CBO projects the Republican tax law passed last fall will add $1.84 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Republican leaders have argued the cuts will jump-start the economy, creating enough economic growth to offset much of the additions to the debt. But CBO and other nonpartisan analysts have repeatedly rejected that claim.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
From the OP's article:
Click to expand...


The CBO projects the Republican tax law passed last fall will add $1.84 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that the projection before this was that by the time the last Boomer dies the debt would be around $150 Trillion if we are allowed to borrow that much....

Adding another $2 trillion is dumb, but it is not likely to change the outcome....the disaster visits either way.
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...

Excellent! All that debt will super-stimulate the economy and since we Never Ever Ever Have To Worry about it Ever Coming Due Because LOL-A Government Budget Isn't Like Your Family Budget, there is no possible downside to massive deficits!


Right?



I've about gotten used to Republicans becoming Born Again Deficit Hawks every time they are out of power. If Democrats start doing it to, this is gonna get downright entertaining.


Messed up and dark, because we're gonna do nothing until the system starts to crash, but entertaining on the way down :)
 
45 said that hitting $24 trillion would be the end of our country and it's fast approaching.
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...

What do you think of debt increases under Obama?
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter when the repukes are in charge. If things change I GURANTEE it will be a talking point by the cons.
 
Bullseye said:
Well, no **** Sherlock. Every minute we run annual deficits we are headed for more federal debt. Oh, about those tax cuts - they're working as planned; even though they've only been in effect since the start of the year tax revenue is up compared to last year at this time.
Click to expand...
Tax revenue is up compared to last year at this time because people paid 2017 taxes in April 2018 under the old tax rates.
 
distraff said:
What do you think of debt increases under Obama?
Click to expand...
The debt increase under Obama was largely caused by revenue falling coupled with additional spending on the social safety net caused by the worst recession since the Great Depression. We now are near or at full employment. This shouldn't be happening. Once the recession was over, deficits fell by 75%.

usgs_line.php
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...

While I am not happy about the debt situation it seems a bit silly to take much stock in ANY 10 year forecast. The article you presented showed very few of the assumptions behind this projection. Economists can't agree on what GDP growth will be this year, yet you think this group or any group can project what GDP will be 10 years from now.

So a fun scare headline for the Washington Post and fodder for partisans on both sides to "debate".
 
distraff said:
What do you think of debt increases under Obama?
Click to expand...

Bush43 added about $5T to the national debt (ND) so Obama had to add about $9T to the ND in order to fix that but, if you look at additions to our ND as a percentage of ND increase per POTUS then they were both about the same so it was OK. With the recent historical trend of adding $14T to the ND over 16 years it is only fair, and quite precedented, for Trump to add $3.5T to the ND in each of his two terms in office without any adverse consequences - look it up.
 
MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.
Click to expand...

Lol...barrycare helped.
 
washunut said:
While I am not happy about the debt situation it seems a bit silly to take much stock in ANY 10 year forecast. The article you presented showed very few of the assumptions behind this projection. Economists can't agree on what GDP growth will be this year, yet you think this group or any group can project what GDP will be 10 years from now.

So a fun scare headline for the Washington Post and fodder for partisans on both sides to "debate".
Click to expand...

In the actual report, "CBO also anticipates that if current laws generally did not change, real GDP—that is, GDP with the effects of inflation removed—would increase by 1.9*percent per year, on average, over the next 30 years."
 
cpwill said:
It would be fun (but maybe too easy) to go find his old posts defending them.
Click to expand...
It's one thing to run deficits during a severe recession -- in fact, that's what economists say that you should do, to stimulate the economy in order to bring down unemployment -- it's another thing running high deficits during a time of near full employment.
 
MTAtech said:
In the actual report, "CBO also anticipates that if current laws generally did not change, real GDP—that is, GDP with the effects of inflation removed—would increase by 1.9*percent per year, on average, over the next 30 years."
Click to expand...

That is 30 years what about the next ten? When will we have the next recession? How deep will it be? What will the Federal Reserve's balance sheet look like in 3-5-10 years? Will productivity be increased versus the last decade?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that these folks are biased or dumb. Just the opposite. Just that it is very difficult to forecast as dynamic as the U.S. economy.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
Tax revenue is up compared to last year at this time because people paid 2017 taxes in April 2018 under the old tax rates.[/QUOTOL, Didn't they pay last years taxes under those same rates?
Click to expand...
 
Bullseye said:
Didn't they pay last years taxes under those same rates?
Click to expand...
Yes, 2017 taxes were paid in 2018 at the former rates. The new lower rates are effective Jan 2018 and will be paid Apr 2019.

The total of taxes from Jan 2018 to May 2018 was only about $40 billion more, not adjusted for inflation.
 
MTAtech said:
The debt increase under Obama was largely caused by revenue falling coupled with additional spending on the social safety net caused by the worst recession since the Great Depression. We now are near or at full employment. This shouldn't be happening. Once the recession was over, deficits fell by 75%.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

Yep, as the graph presented clearly shows, deficits (additions to the national debt) started to increase in 2016 which we can see were caused by Trump's (planned) tax cuts in 2018. We are now terribly concerned that annual federal deficits may approach that of 2012 when the POTUS won re-election because deficits of over $1T after the miraculous Obama recovery didn't matter then.
 
MTAtech said:
The debt increase under Obama was largely caused by revenue falling coupled with additional spending on the social safety net caused by the worst recession since the Great Depression. We now are near or at full employment. This shouldn't be happening. Once the recession was over, deficits fell by 75%.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...

Did you ignore the latter part of your graph where the deficit went from 450 billion to 650 billion under Obama after the recession was over?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Bush43 added about $5T to the national debt (ND) so Obama had to add about $9T to the ND in order to fix that but, if you look at additions to our ND as a percentage of ND increase per POTUS then they were both about the same so it was OK. With the recent historical trend of adding $14T to the ND over 16 years it is only fair, and quite precedented, for Trump to add $3.5T to the ND in each of his two terms in office without any adverse consequences - look it up.
Click to expand...

To fix that? Bush didn't cause the great recession, and its causes had little to do with anything Bush did specifically. A lot of the debt increase under Obama happened because of the recession but after the recession was over the debt rose from 450 billion to 650 billion. Obama didn't care about the debt. Also he proposed much higher spending than actually got spent so the debt would have been a lot higher if Obama had his way.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, 2017 taxes were paid in 2018 at the former rates. The new lower rates are effective Jan 2018 and will be paid Apr 2019.

The total of taxes from Jan 2018 to May 2018 was only about $40 billion more, not adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...
LOL, I think I've said several times it will take new tax rates to take effect.
 
distraff said:
To fix that? Bush didn't cause the great recession, and its causes had little to do with anything Bush did specifically. A lot of the debt increase under Obama happened because of the recession but after the recession was over the debt rose from 450 billion to 650 billion. Obama didn't care about the debt. Also he proposed much higher spending than actually got spent so the debt would have been a lot higher if Obama had his way.
Click to expand...

All that the POTUS can do about spending or revenue (the power of congress) is to either sign or veto their (passed at the last possible minute) annual 'budget' bills. Congress has decided that buying votes with borrowed funds is far more convenient than risking the wrath of taxpayers (especially those at the top who make such generous and patriotic campaign contributions) by playing those silly 'pay go' games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom