• 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!

US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018

MTAtech

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
36,637
Reaction score
35,665
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=1]The Fiscal Times: US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018 [/h]
The U.S. Treasury said Monday it expects to issue about $425 billion in debt this quarter, raising its 2018 borrowing to more than $1.3 trillion, a 145 percent increase from the $546 billion issued in 2017.

The 2018 total would be the largest annual total since 2010, when the Treasury issued $1.586 trillion in debt.

“The debt binge is extraordinary by historical standards,” says The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham. “In only two years has the government borrowed more money, in nominal terms than — 2009 and 2010, when the country was grappling with the effects of the Great Recession.”
Click to expand...
I will wait for the conservatives here, who railed against Obama for allowing borrowing during the recession (e.g. what economists say you're supposed to do) to now justify massive borrowing at a time of record low unemployment (e.g. what economists say you shouldn't do.)

They can't blame Democrats, who have neither one House of Congress or the White House.
 
MTAtech said:
[h=1]The Fiscal Times: US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018 [/h]

I will wait for the conservatives here, who railed against Obama for allowing borrowing during the recession (e.g. what economists say you're supposed to do) to now justify massive borrowing at a time of record low unemployment (e.g. what economists say you shouldn't do.)

They can't blame Democrats, who have neither one House of Congress or the White House.
Click to expand...

Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.

It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.
 
MTAtech said:
[h=1]The Fiscal Times: US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018 [/h]

I will wait for the conservatives here, who railed against Obama for allowing borrowing during the recession (e.g. what economists say you're supposed to do) to now justify massive borrowing at a time of record low unemployment (e.g. what economists say you shouldn't do.)

They can't blame Democrats, who have neither one House of Congress or the White House.
Click to expand...

Oh so you'll support your representatives if they vote for massive spending cuts and a balanced budget? Else you're just a hypocrite spewing whataboutism.
 
The issue at hand is what is always is, the collision of economic principles and political interests.

The political reasons for lowering tax revenues were not about where we are in the economic cycle, and the results are during reasonably good economic times we are running large deficits. What this does it put us in a rough position if something were to happen in the next fiscal year or so. Having to issue $1.3 trillion in these economic conditions is never wise.

We would be having an entirely different conversation if we were facing aggregate demand problems in the economy suggesting the government spend more (for some economic fault reason.) When anyone says "all the sudden care about deficits and the debt" without mentioning the economy automatically void their own argument.
 
OrphanSlug said:
The issue at hand is what is always is, the collision of economic principles and political interests.

The political reasons for lowering tax revenues were not about where we are in the economic cycle, and the results are during reasonably good economic times we are running large deficits. What this does it put us in a rough position if something were to happen in the next fiscal year or so. Having to issue $1.3 trillion in these economic conditions is never wise.

We would be having an entirely different conversation if we were facing aggregate demand problems in the economy suggesting the government spend more (for some economic fault reason.) When anyone says "all the sudden care about deficits and the debt" without mentioning the economy automatically void their own argument.
Click to expand...

The debt and deficits have been an issue for many decades now.... it has nothing to do with the state of the economy... It was an issue during Bush, Obama, and Trump. It never faded away, because we have never addressed it...

Why?

No one wants to take the political hit. Because we are in for a major wake up call eventually, we are living above our means. Eventually we will no longer be able to kick the can down the road.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Oh so you'll support your representatives if they vote for massive spending cuts and a balanced budget? Else you're just a hypocrite spewing whataboutism.
Click to expand...
The reason for the deficits is the massive tax-cut on the wealthy and corporations, not spending. Besides, as I have repeatedly stated:

the federal government, in terms of spending, is an insurance company with an army. That's where the vast amount of federal spending resides, in five areas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense and interest on the debt. So, if someone is talking about reducing federal spending to lower debt, they are either talking about cutting the big five or they have no idea what they are talking about.
 
celticwar17 said:
The debt and deficits have been an issue for many decades now.... it has nothing to do with the state of the economy... It was an issue during Bush, Obama, and Trump. It never faded away, because we have never addressed it...

Why?

No one wants to take the political hit. Because we are in for a major wake up call eventually, we are living above our means. Eventually we will no longer be able to kick the can down the road.
Click to expand...

I am not denying that, what I am saying is the *amount* of deficits we are willing to run in relation to the economy tells us who is being most foolish.

In this case Republicans have gone off the deep end with fiscal irresponsibility. Needing to issue $1.3 Trillion in debt during these economic conditions is absolute lunacy.
 
MTAtech said:
The reason for the deficits is the massive tax-cut on the wealthy and corporations, not spending. t.
Click to expand...

I'll give you one thing- you're a persistent class warriors.

Tax-Cut-Budget-Balance-I.jpg


Apparently that tax cut for the rich isn't so massive and it has little to do with the deficit.


The tax cuts needed to tax our way back to somewhere near even , now THAT would be massive.

Factor in the amount of spending on the Dems' wish list ( universal health care) and that top line goes off the chart!Can you say hockey stick?
 
celticwar17 said:
Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.

It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.
Click to expand...

First, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the only president in modern history to run a surplus.
Second, during the economic downturn that isn't a time to cut spending or raise taxes -- unless you want a depression.
Third, the historical record shows that Democrats are far more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

usgs_line.php
 
KLATTU said:
I'll give you one thing- you're a persistent class warriors.

View attachment 67243349


Apparently that tax cut for the rich isn't so massive and it has little to do with the deficit.


The tax cuts needed to tax our way back to somewhere near even , now THAT would be massive.

Factor in the amount of spending on the Dems' wish list ( universal health care) and that top line goes off the chart!Can you say hockey stick?
Click to expand...
That graph is misleading. How? Because it presumes that the tax-cuts on the middle-class expire in the tenth year. It may be misleading in other ways too because the underlying data isn't provided.
 
MTAtech said:
First, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the only president in modern history to run a surplus. /quote]That's true, but don't forget that the GOP controlled both House of Congress for six of his eight years and forced him to move to the middle. They also force significant tax cuts on him during his second term which lead to those surpluses.

MTAtech said:
Second, during the economic downturn that isn't a time to cut spending or raise taxes -- unless you want a depression.[
Click to expand...
Keynes died long ago, and his "theories" have been minimally successful.
MTAtech said:
Third, the historical record shows that Democrats are far more fiscally responsible than Republicans.

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...
LOL, Notice the drastic drops - which party controlled the House, e.g. the budget writers, at that point. Hint - GOP has controlled the House since January 2011. ACA and the Stimulus, two monstrous money pits were passed previously.
Click to expand...
 
Bullseye said:
MTAtech said:
First, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the only president in modern history to run a surplus. /quote]That's true, but don't forget that the GOP controlled both House of Congress for six of his eight years and forced him to move to the middle. They also force significant tax cuts on him during his second term which lead to those surpluses.

Keynes died long ago, and his "theories" have been minimally successful.
LOL, Notice the drastic drops - which party controlled the House, e.g. the budget writers, at that point. Hint - GOP has controlled the House since January 2011. ACA and the Stimulus, two monstrous money pits were passed previously.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ah, so you say that spending dropped during Obama because Republicans were in control of the House. What's the excuse for when Bush was President and Republicans also controlled the House?

usgs_line.php


As for Keynes, your reply was nonsense. “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as FDR was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy, which had been steadily recovering up to that point, into a severe recession. According to Keynes, slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.

All over the Western world countries didn't take Keynes' advice and cut spending during their recessions. The U.S. did take his advice and rebounded when Europe, who didn't take his advice, stayed in a slump. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again. In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional conservative "wisdom" but conservatism typically is at odds with actual data.
 
MTAtech said:
That graph is misleading. How? Because it presumes that the tax-cuts on the middle-class expire in the tenth year. It may be misleading in other ways too because the underlying data isn't provided.
Click to expand...

It's from the CBO.
What does that 10 year non-sequitir have to do with large gap between spending and revenues either wit or without the tax cut?
 
KLATTU said:
It's from the CBO.
What does that 10 year non-sequitir have to do with large gap between spending and revenues either wit or without the tax cut?
Click to expand...

Because revenues close because the middle-class portion of the tax-cuts expire, raising more revenue. However, the rich and corporations still keep their tax-cuts.
 
celticwar17 said:
Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.

It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.
Click to expand...

We shall see.
So you agree those in power today do not care about deficits. Cool...
 
MTAtech said:
Ah, so you say that spending dropped during Obama because Republicans were in control of the House. What's the excuse for when Bush was President and Republicans also controlled the House?

usgs_line.php
Click to expand...
Your charts show exactly what I said. Oh, and back then I also criticized BUSH'S lack of spending control. Two quick points. Dems took full control in Jan of 2007, and Bush's FY 2006 deficit was $163 BILLION (yes "billion" with a "b"). Anything else?

MTAtech said:
As for Keynes, your reply was nonsense. “The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.” So declared John Maynard Keynes in 1937, even as FDR was about to prove him right by trying to balance the budget too soon, sending the United States economy, which had been steadily recovering up to that point, into a severe recession. According to Keynes, slashing government spending in a depressed economy depresses the economy further; austerity should wait until a strong recovery is well under way.
Click to expand...
LOL, what was Keynes SUPPOSED to say? "Oh, I was wrong"?

MTAtech said:
All over the Western world countries didn't take Keynes' advice and cut spending during their recessions. The U.S. did take his advice and rebounded when Europe, who didn't take his advice, stayed in a slump. And by acting on that anti-Keynesian belief, they ended up proving Keynes right all over again. In declaring Keynesian economics vindicated I am, of course, at odds with conventional conservative "wisdom" but conservatism typically is at odds with actual data.
Click to expand...
LOL, the US rebounded because of WW II - ask Nobel Lauriat Paul Krugman about that.
 
Casper said:
We shall see.
So you agree those in power today do not care about deficits. Cool...
Click to expand...

They certainly don't appear to be, do they?
 
KLATTU said:
They certainly don't appear to be, do they?
Click to expand...

Nope, maybe it is finally time for the GOP to point out which Conservative ideals they do still stand for it drop the title.
 
Bullseye said:
Your charts show exactly what I said. Oh, and back then I also criticized BUSH'S lack of spending control. Two quick points. Dems took full control in Jan of 2007, and Bush's FY 2006 deficit was $163 BILLION (yes "billion" with a "b"). Anything else?

LOL, what was Keynes SUPPOSED to say? "Oh, I was wrong"?

LOL, the US rebounded because of WW II - ask Nobel Lauriat Paul Krugman about that.
Click to expand...

Let's stop the hackery. You can see by the chart that there was a 50% increase in spending from the start of the Bush Admin to Dec 2006, all of which had a Republican House. You thesis is that Republican House control keeps spending down. The chart clearly disproves that thesis.

As for ending the Great Depression, you said that "the US rebounded because of WW II." Ok, what is WW II besides massive government spending? That's precisely a Keynesian principle. So, instead of disproving Keynesian economics, you unwittingly confirmed its viability.
 
celticwar17 said:
Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.
Click to expand...
Spending doesn't cause deficits. Spending more than you have causes deficits. We cut taxes and choose to bring in less revenue. That is why we have a deficit.

celticwar17 said:
It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.
Click to expand...
No, you're thinking of Conservatives. Democrats understand that a Deficit can and should be used to help turn around a bad economy, but once the economy has recovered you need to start paying down your debt. That has been the position of Democrats for a very long time now. That is precisely what Keneysian Economics tells us to do. If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016 we would almost certainly be running a surplus today. If you don't believe that then you really do not understand anything about liberals.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Oh so you'll support your representatives if they vote for massive spending cuts and a balanced budget? Else you're just a hypocrite spewing whataboutism.
Click to expand...

Deficits aren't caused by spending. They are caused by spending more than you bring in. Tax cuts caused this deficit not spending.
 
MrWonka said:
Deficits aren't caused by spending. They are caused by spending more than you bring in. Tax cuts caused this deficit not spending.
Click to expand...
Case in point -- a 50% cut in corporate tax receipts.

fredgraph.png
 
celticwar17 said:
Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.
Click to expand...
Democrats haven't spent the past 40 years insisting that deficits and debts are a major disaster. Republicans have -- and yet, they repeatedly increase spending while cutting taxes.

In fact, Obama was handed massive deficits as a result of Bush 43's policies (waging two wars while cutting taxes -- who does that?!?) and the worst economic downturn in decades. Deficits fell during the Clinton and Obama administration, mostly because the economy improved, and to a small extent because they raised taxes; Bush 43 turned the surplus into a deficit, had 3 years of falling deficits, then everything went off the rails.


It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.
Click to expand...
Wanna know what's even more amusing? Republicans scream bloody murder about debt when they don't occupy the White House. As soon as they have the Presidency, that goes right out the window. (Note, there are a few Republicans who are not happy about the Trump deficits, but they are nowhere near numerous, loud or influential enough to stop Republicans from passing their beloved Panacea Tax Cuts.)

Oh, and pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of most (not all, but most) Republicans and conservatives on this issue doesn't mean that it has become Issue #1 for the Democrats.
 
Visbek said:
Democrats haven't spent the past 40 years insisting that deficits and debts are a major disaster. Republicans have -- and yet, they repeatedly increase spending while cutting taxes.

In fact, Obama was handed massive deficits as a result of Bush 43's policies (waging two wars while cutting taxes -- who does that?!?) and the worst economic downturn in decades. Deficits fell during the Clinton and Obama administration, mostly because the economy improved, and to a small extent because they raised taxes; Bush 43 turned the surplus into a deficit, had 3 years of falling deficits, then everything went off the rails.



Wanna know what's even more amusing? Republicans scream bloody murder about debt when they don't occupy the White House. As soon as they have the Presidency, that goes right out the window. (Note, there are a few Republicans who are not happy about the Trump deficits, but they are nowhere near numerous, loud or influential enough to stop Republicans from passing their beloved Panacea Tax Cuts.)

Oh, and pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of most (not all, but most) Republicans and conservatives on this issue doesn't mean that it has become Issue #1 for the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Presidents have little to do with deficits.... it is congress who addresses the budget.

So anything you say talking about who controls the presidency in reference to deficits is wrong.

The years where we have the least amount of deficits are years where there is a Republican Congress and Democrat President.
 
MTAtech said:
Let's stop the hackery. You can see by the chart that there was a 50% increase in spending from the start of the Bush Admin to Dec 2006, all of which had a Republican House. You thesis is that Republican House control keeps spending down. The chart clearly disproves that thesis.
Click to expand...
ONCE AGAIN - I've criticized Bush plenty for his lack of spending control. Isn't it time you found some other argument besides "but Bush . . ."?

MTAtech said:
As for ending the Great Depression, you said that "the US rebounded because of WW II." Ok, what is WW II besides massive government spending? That's precisely a Keynesian principle. So, instead of disproving Keynesian economics, you unwittingly confirmed its viability.
Click to expand...
LOL, yeah, if you want to send five million troops in thousands of ships to fight throughout the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom