• 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

Lol your saying the government makes net profits on it's investments? xD

Of course if you poor billions of dollars into random sectors SOME will work out...

The left is easily fooled by rhetoric and believe that programs like cash for clunkers, rebate checks are tax cuts. Waiting for the left to post those so called tax cuts for all to see but like with all requests for data you never get any
 
When you have a trillion and a half deficit BECAUSE you gave that completely unnecessary tax break to the rich, yes, you're spending. The debt goes up because of it, you do the math.

As for the hackneyed "allowing people to keep more of what they earn" blather, you wouldn't be able to earn jack **** without this government creating and enforcing fair markets with laws against theft and corruption being the foundation on which these acts of trust can occur. So, all the talk about earnings is just conservative arrogance, choosing to focus on your own small contribution rather than the impressive complexity of the system itself that you seek to starve or burden with debt.

A friend of mine said that it seems to be human nature for ten percent to oppose anything good. Put another way, on a bus carrying 100 people, ten of those people will want it to crash and burn just to get back at the ten percent who didn't pay full fare. That's how I see the conservatives, too angry and greedy and entitled to create anything bigger or better than what their money-centric morality can conjure.

I want to ride this bus to the end, even if some of the riders are children, elderly, the disabled or the ignorant, who didn't pay their own way. I think it's better that we all arrive safe rather than that we declare bus riding to be socialism and crash it or to start hurling disabled people from the bus. Where is the allegiance to humanity in the conservative thinking? All I detect is pettiness and hate.

Not really sure where you are getting your education but please find out the true role of the federal, state, and local governments because social engineering by the bureaucrats in D.C. buy votes but only create dependence thus creating career politicians.

It also appears that you have no understanding of the taxes you pay or their purpose. FIT cuts led to growth in FIT revenue, led to the creation of over 4.5 million jobs in the past 1 1/2 years thus growing FICA revenue, excise tax revenue, sales and property tax revenue in the states but like most big govt. liberals you want to believe the rhetoric and only focus on Federal Income taxes. Explain to us all how tax cuts led to increased FIT revenue per treasury? Notice you never post official treasury data to support your claims because your claims are bogus
 
Lol your saying the government makes net profits on it's investments? xD

Of course if you poor (sic) billions of dollars into random sectors SOME will work out...
We have different notions of "investments." Roads, bridges and canals are investments.

What made America great was public investment. It early on made universal education a goal; it invested in canals, railroads and highways. It also invested in telegraph, telephone and other new technology. All of these investments increased economic activity for the benefit of the country as a whole.

As for pouring billions into sectors hoping to make a profit, that's exactly what private venture capitalists do. Losing money is the risk one takes.
 
Please tell me how you grow federal income tax revenue and all other tax revenue and that causes a deficit? You people buy the media and left-wing spin as if you give a damn about deficits and debt but only when a republican is in the White House.

Let me know when Trump generates 9.3 trillion in debt like Obama did? You people really need to educate yourself on how to research treasury data because it makes you look foolish

There certainly is a loyalty to liberalism that I will never understand. For some reason you people are so upset when people get to keep more of their own money. Why is that? Is that the way you were raised?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Yes, I was raised by people who actually internalized the words of the Jesus character. They believed that spiritual beings had to be selfless. Why? Were you born a Vanderbilt or something? Do you fear that the poor people are coming to take away your privilege?

Consider the reality if our world with Kings living alongside the desperately poor and you'll understand how wrong you are. The rich aren't being robbed, they are the robbers with their hands full of loot. What a sick version of reality your paranoia and guilt concoct.
 
Yes, I was raised by people who actually internalized the words of the Jesus character. They believed that spiritual beings had to be selfless. Why? Were you born a Vanderbilt or something? Do you fear that the poor people are coming to take away your privilege?

Consider the reality if our world with Kings living alongside the desperately poor and you'll understand how wrong you are. The rich aren't being robbed, they are the robbers with their hands full of loot. What a sick version of reality your paranoia and guilt concoct.

There is no one more of a "Jesus character" than me as I put my actions to work in actually helping people. if you are truly a "Jesus Character" you would know that Jesus never FORCED anyone to give away anything but rather promoted free will. Just like with the U.S. Constitution, you put your own meaning to what Jesus did and what the Constitution stands for. You have zero credibility and so little understanding of what it means to have a neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being a federal bureaucrat. For some reason you believe that is the role of the Federal Govt. when it is actually your role and the role of your state and local communities

I probably give more to charity than you make and do so providing benefit that I see. Rather than just feeling good and thinking with the heart like you I put my money and my actions to work seeing the benefits of my efforts. As a first responder I saw first hand what it truly means to be a helping hand and a neighbor helping neighbor. You could learn a lot by doing research instead of buying rhetoric
 
Not really sure where you are getting your education but please find out the true role of the federal, state, and local governments because social engineering by the bureaucrats in D.C. buy votes but only create dependence thus creating career politicians.

It also appears that you have no understanding of the taxes you pay or their purpose. FIT cuts led to growth in FIT revenue, led to the creation of over 4.5 million jobs in the past 1 1/2 years thus growing FICA revenue, excise tax revenue, sales and property tax revenue in the states but like most big govt. liberals you want to believe the rhetoric and only focus on Federal Income taxes. Explain to us all how tax cuts led to increased FIT revenue per treasury? Notice you never post official treasury data to support your claims because your claims are bogus

Actually, you're the one who likes to ignore treasury data - for example the massive deficits that Trump and his merry band of Republicans are building. Your Trickle-Down economics is not working. It never did before, and it isn't working today.
 
Actually, you're the one who likes to ignore treasury data - for example the massive deficits that Trump and his merry band of Republicans are building. Your Trickle-Down economics is not working. It never did before, and it isn't working today.

Then prove my data wrong showing that the Treasury data supports your claims and the items in big deficits is due to Trump? Did Trump cut the Executive Branch Budget? Did Trump cause the interest rate increases that affected debt service? Did Trump authorize the automatic cost of living increases in SS and Medicare?

You post the same thing over and over again never backing up your statements with any data. Trump proposed a 2019 budget, have you even looked at it? If you truly care about the deficit and debt you would be supporting it, but doubt that is the case as all you care about is leftwing talking points and trashing Trump. You are looking foolish and I am embarrassed for you
 
Then prove my data wrong showing that the Treasury data supports your claims and the items in big deficits is due to Trump? Did Trump cut the Executive Branch Budget? Did Trump cause the interest rate increases that affected debt service? Did Trump authorize the automatic cost of living increases in SS and Medicare?

You post the same thing over and over again never backing up your statements with any data. Trump proposed a 2019 budget, have you even looked at it? If you truly care about the deficit and debt you would be supporting it, but doubt that is the case as all you care about is leftwing talking points and trashing Trump. You are looking foolish and I am embarrassed for you

The skyrocketing deficit is Treasury data, but you Trumpists love to ignore this. The Republicans won't be able to ignore it, after April of 2019, when it becomes quite evident that income to the Treasury has a significant shortfall due to the tax cuts for Billionaires. The Treasury secretary will be knocking on the Republican door!
 
The skyrocketing deficit is Treasury data, but you Trumpists love to ignore this. The Republicans won't be able to ignore it, after April of 2019, when it becomes quite evident that income to the Treasury has a significant shortfall due to the tax cuts for Billionaires. The Treasury secretary will be knocking on the Republican door!

There is a simple fact that you don't seem to grasp, Congress approves the spending and the legislation and budget deficits are NOT inherited, they are created by overspending the budget on controllable items that you don't seem to understand, Interest expense isn't controllable by the President and is inherited, Entitlement spending isn't controlled by the President and isn't inherited.

When you post that famous chart of yours and your cut and paste rhetoric you ignore the basic fact above. You also ignore that the GOP Controlled the Congress during most of the Clinton term including the last 6 years and the last two years of the Obama term but you also ignore the sequester year of 2013.

I feel sorry for liberals who are so passionate about an ideology that they ignore how to research data and even basic civics listed above
 
[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.

Yes, Trump is growing the deficit but democrats themselves want a lot more spending than Republicans. Free college, a basic income, Medicare for all (which I support), more infrastructure spending, all sound really expensive and will put us in more debt. Or democrats want crazy high taxes on all of us like Europe. Take your pick. Its likely going to be a mix of higher taxes and higher debt.

Also the debt is going to grow because of the natural expansion of our welfare problems. In 2015 it was 450 billion, in 2016 it was 550 billion, and the pre-Trump 2017 projection was 650 billion. It was projected that the deficit was going to pass 1 trillion by 2021 and eventually rise to 1.4 trillion. Also the interest on our debt is projected to rise from 250 billion today to almost 1 trillion in 10 years, and thats thanks to Obama who added half of the debt in our entire history in just 8 years.
 
Yes, Trump is growing the deficit but democrats themselves want a lot more spending than Republicans. Free college, a basic income, Medicare for all (which I support), more infrastructure spending, all sound really expensive and will put us in more debt. Or democrats want crazy high taxes on all of us like Europe. Take your pick. Its likely going to be a mix of higher taxes and higher debt.

Also the debt is going to grow because of the natural expansion of our welfare problems. In 2015 it was 450 billion, in 2016 it was 550 billion, and the pre-Trump 2017 projection was 650 billion. It was projected that the deficit was going to pass 1 trillion by 2021 and eventually rise to 1.4 trillion. Also the interest on our debt is projected to rise from 250 billion today to almost 1 trillion in 10 years, and thats thanks to Obama who added half of the debt in our entire history in just 8 years.
I tell people that before that quote numbers, they actually look at the numbers. These are the numbers on interest under Obama. Notice how interest costs syrocketed under Obama? Me neither.

usgs_line.php


Besides, you blame Obama for the debt under his presidency, which was mainly caused by lower revenue during the Great Recession. What should Obama have done back then -- cut unemployment insurance and SNAP, just as the unemployed need it the most -- or should be have raised taxes during a recession?

Regarding Democrats wanting more spending, Democrats have always funded programs, such as Obamacare, that they propose.
 
I tell people that before that quote numbers, they actually look at the numbers. These are the numbers on interest under Obama. Notice how interest costs syrocketed under Obama? Me neither.

usgs_line.php


Besides, you blame Obama for the debt under his presidency, which was mainly caused by lower revenue during the Great Recession. What should Obama have done back then -- cut unemployment insurance and SNAP, just as the unemployed need it the most -- or should be have raised taxes during a recession?

Regarding Democrats wanting more spending, Democrats have always funded programs, such as Obamacare, that they propose.

The reason the payments on interest didn't rise much under Obama was because interest rates are low. Once they begin to rise again, we will see payments on debt rise to 1 trillion. We obviously did need to go into debt to get us out of the recession but the stimulus bill was poorly spent and wasn't very effective in waking up the economy leading to a laggy economy with poor growth. In addition, it was a very bad idea to try to overhaul the healthcare system in the middle of a recession. This also cost Obama in the 2010 election which kept most of his ideas from passing. Also, he should have done more to cut spending once the worst of the crisis was over around 2012. Instead of having a 650 billion deficit when Obama left office, it should have been zero.
 
The reason the payments on interest didn't rise much under Obama was because interest rates are low. Once they begin to rise again, we will see payments on debt rise to 1 trillion. We obviously did need to go into debt to get us out of the recession but the stimulus bill was poorly spent and wasn't very effective in waking up the economy leading to a laggy economy with poor growth. In addition, it was a very bad idea to try to overhaul the healthcare system in the middle of a recession. This also cost Obama in the 2010 election which kept most of his ideas from passing. Also, he should have done more to cut spending once the worst of the crisis was over around 2012. Instead of having a 650 billion deficit when Obama left office, it should have been zero.

Before Obama put his hand on the Bible, the deficit was skyrocketing to $1.4 Trillion. The GW mess had to be straightened out, and it took about 3-4 years, but even then there were still the Bush lingering wars.

Facts:
1. Obama inherited the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression.
2. During his tenure, Obama more than halved the deficit.
3. Now, under Trump, the deficit is quickly heading back over $1 Trillion.
 
Before Obama put his hand on the Bible, the deficit was skyrocketing to $1.4 Trillion. The GW mess had to be straightened out, and it took about 3-4 years, but even then there were still the Bush lingering wars.

Facts:
1. Obama inherited the worst presidential pass-on since the Great Depression.
2. During his tenure, Obama more than halved the deficit.
3. Now, under Trump, the deficit is quickly heading back over $1 Trillion.

Obama did half the deficit, but that isn't that impressive when half is 650 billion. What needs to happen is that the deficit needs to be cut to zero so that when the next recession hits, we aren't starting with a high deficit. As I said before, the deficit was already heading to 1 trillion under Obama and had risen from 450 billion in 2015 to a projected 650 billion in 2017. It was projected to rise to 1 trillion by 2021, all things being equal, assuming no additional spending, and no recessions to speed it up. One problem with Obama is that he failed to cut spending. Federal spending rose from 3 trillion pre-recession to 4 trillion when Obama left office which prevented the deficit to come close to being filled.
 
There is a simple fact that you don't seem to grasp, Congress approves the spending and the legislation and budget deficits are NOT inherited, they are created by overspending the budget on controllable items that you don't seem to understand, Interest expense isn't controllable by the President and is inherited, Entitlement spending isn't controlled by the President and isn't inherited.

When you post that famous chart of yours and your cut and paste rhetoric you ignore the basic fact above. You also ignore that the GOP Controlled the Congress during most of the Clinton term including the last 6 years and the last two years of the Obama term but you also ignore the sequester year of 2013.

I feel sorry for liberals who are so passionate about an ideology that they ignore how to research data and even basic civics listed above

This is not exactly true at all. Though, because it comes from one of your partisan-devoted posts in which your primary concern is to be abrasive for the team, nobody should be surprised.

Bush, through such legislation as the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and Clinton, through legislation like the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, greatly helped lay the groundwork for the 1990s growth by putting sensible fiscal policy into place. Of course, trying to inject sensible fiscal policy is one of the reasons so many conservatives abandoned Bush's re-election bid, isn't it? And when it came to Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, every Republican in Congress voted against the bill. Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate. It was from these two base-level efforts by Bush and Clinton, that fiscal responsibility came to be more than just a Republican talking point in Congress. Growth was low during the early 1990s, but the spending cuts continued even as the economy strengthened through the rest of the decade. New technology and new avenues of production and earnings also factored in. But fiscal responsibility was largely due to Clinton having to make deals with the GOP, such as DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

So, stop talking complete **** and pretending that you alone master "civics" as you pervert the hell out of well-known history so that you can skew it towards your GOP altar of worship. But what fascinates me is how shamelessly hypocritical you are. Here you want people to think that a GOP-led congress is why the 1990s looked the way it did. And then you boast on your mastery of "civics." Yet, you will refuse to see how the GOP-led congress from 2014 to 2016, as the documented "Party of No," eventually influenced the down-tick of 2016 before removing itself as an obstruction to the economy so that Trump could tell the people that he alone "fixed" the economy for 2017.

2010 - 2.5%
2012 - 2.5%
2014 - 2.2%
2015 - 2.9%
2016 - 1.9% (Thanks GOP....and civics.)

2017 - 2.3% (Were it not for GOP games affecting 2016, this would have been higher.)

And what have our GOP-led congress and Executive managed to do? They significantly cut government revenue (tax-cut) and greatly increased government spending. This is Reaganomics, you know, the kind of trash that created the 1% through the Trickle-Down fantasy. But you feel sorry for liberals who are so passionate about an ideology that they ignore how to research date and even basic civics? Nothing you do involves actual research, you regurgitate right-wing pundits. And your understanding of a civic clearly comes with four tires. Do yourself a favor and shut the absolute **** up.
 
This is not exactly true at all. Though, because it comes from one of your partisan-devoted posts in which your primary concern is to be abrasive for the team, nobody should be surprised.

Bush, through such legislation as the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and Clinton, through legislation like the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, greatly helped lay the groundwork for the 1990s growth by putting sensible fiscal policy into place. Of course, trying to inject sensible fiscal policy is one of the reasons so many conservatives abandoned Bush's re-election bid, isn't it? And when it came to Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, every Republican in Congress voted against the bill. Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate. It was from these two base-level efforts by Bush and Clinton, that fiscal responsibility came to be more than just a Republican talking point in Congress. Growth was low during the early 1990s, but the spending cuts continued even as the economy strengthened through the rest of the decade. New technology and new avenues of production and earnings also factored in. But fiscal responsibility was largely due to Clinton having to make deals with the GOP, such as DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

So, stop talking complete **** and pretending that you alone master "civics" as you pervert the hell out of well-known history so that you can skew it towards your GOP altar of worship. But what fascinates me is how shamelessly hypocritical you are. Here you want people to think that a GOP-led congress is why the 1990s looked the way it did. And then you boast on your mastery of "civics." Yet, you will refuse to see how the GOP-led congress from 2014 to 2016, as the documented "Party of No," eventually influenced the down-tick of 2016 before removing itself as an obstruction to the economy so that Trump could tell the people that he alone "fixed" the economy for 2017.

2010 - 2.5%
2012 - 2.5%
2014 - 2.2%
2015 - 2.9%
2016 - 1.9% (Thanks GOP....and civics.)

2017 - 2.3% (Were it not for GOP games affecting 2016, this would have been higher.)

And what have our GOP-led congress and Executive managed to do? They significantly cut government revenue (tax-cut) and greatly increased government spending. This is Reaganomics, you know, the kind of trash that created the 1% through the Trickle-Down fantasy. But you feel sorry for liberals who are so passionate about an ideology that they ignore how to research date and even basic civics? Nothing you do involves actual research, you regurgitate right-wing pundits. And your understanding of a civic clearly comes with four tires. Do yourself a favor and shut the absolute **** up.

Well, let's see what they have done, 4.5 million jobs since January 2017, over 3% GDP ANNUAL GDP Growth for the first time since 2005, pre recession level U-6, significant reduction in Part time for economic reasons taking it below pre recession levels, Strong foreign policy by holding allies responsible for their own defense, and of course putting America first. His 2019 budget is another example that you and the left want to ignore. Are you supporting that budget?

As for the GOP Congress, Obama's deficit reduction has been touted, when exactly did that happen? As for GDP growth Congress reduced the Obama spending but couldn't do a thing about the Anti Growth EO's which you want to ignore because again basic civics is a foreign concept to you as maybe you have been out of this country too long

Keep buying the leftwing spin and ignoring the Treasury results. I find it quite interesting that you keep saying govt. revenue has been cut because of tax cuts yet never posting any data to support those claims. What is it about people like you who buy what you are told by the media but ignore official Treasury data at bea.gov. Another liberal who doesn't understand economic activity and the growth in other tax revenue streams because of tax cuts.

Getting fed up with liberals making wild claims and yet never backing up those claims, Federal Income Tax revenue UP in 2018, FICA tax revenue UP in 2018, Excise taxes UP in 2018, State sales and property taxes up in 2018, Estate taxes up in 2018. Corporate taxes DOWN in 2018 BUT bonuses, pay increases, pension and insurance payments up with corporate tax cuts reducing corporate profits thus corporate taxes as corporate employees keeping more of what they earn and having more contributed to their retirement and insurance need less of that big govt. you want to support
 
This is not exactly true at all. Though, because it comes from one of your partisan-devoted posts in which your primary concern is to be abrasive for the team, nobody should be surprised.

Bush, through such legislation as the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, and Clinton, through legislation like the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, greatly helped lay the groundwork for the 1990s growth by putting sensible fiscal policy into place. Of course, trying to inject sensible fiscal policy is one of the reasons so many conservatives abandoned Bush's re-election bid, isn't it? And when it came to Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, every Republican in Congress voted against the bill. Al Gore broke the tie in the Senate. It was from these two base-level efforts by Bush and Clinton, that fiscal responsibility came to be more than just a Republican talking point in Congress. Growth was low during the early 1990s, but the spending cuts continued even as the economy strengthened through the rest of the decade. New technology and new avenues of production and earnings also factored in. But fiscal responsibility was largely due to Clinton having to make deals with the GOP, such as DADT and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999.

So, stop talking complete **** and pretending that you alone master "civics" as you pervert the hell out of well-known history so that you can skew it towards your GOP altar of worship. But what fascinates me is how shamelessly hypocritical you are. Here you want people to think that a GOP-led congress is why the 1990s looked the way it did. And then you boast on your mastery of "civics." Yet, you will refuse to see how the GOP-led congress from 2014 to 2016, as the documented "Party of No," eventually influenced the down-tick of 2016 before removing itself as an obstruction to the economy so that Trump could tell the people that he alone "fixed" the economy for 2017.

2010 - 2.5%
2012 - 2.5%
2014 - 2.2%
2015 - 2.9%
2016 - 1.9% (Thanks GOP....and civics.)

2017 - 2.3% (Were it not for GOP games affecting 2016, this would have been higher.)

And what have our GOP-led congress and Executive managed to do? They significantly cut government revenue (tax-cut) and greatly increased government spending. This is Reaganomics, you know, the kind of trash that created the 1% through the Trickle-Down fantasy. But you feel sorry for liberals who are so passionate about an ideology that they ignore how to research date and even basic civics? Nothing you do involves actual research, you regurgitate right-wing pundits. And your understanding of a civic clearly comes with four tires. Do yourself a favor and shut the absolute **** up.

Oh, by the way, Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 because of the tax increases he signed his first year in office and it was the Contract with America that he signed that led us to the economic growth as the actual results show, results you want to ignore. For some reason tax increases are all people like you promote totally ignoring that the GOP Congress reduced the Clinton taxes with the Tax Relief Act of 1997
 
The reason the payments on interest didn't rise much under Obama was because interest rates are low. Once they begin to rise again, we will see payments on debt rise to 1 trillion. We obviously did need to go into debt to get us out of the recession but the stimulus bill was poorly spent and wasn't very effective in waking up the economy leading to a laggy economy with poor growth. In addition, it was a very bad idea to try to overhaul the healthcare system in the middle of a recession. This also cost Obama in the 2010 election which kept most of his ideas from passing. Also, he should have done more to cut spending once the worst of the crisis was over around 2012. Instead of having a 650 billion deficit when Obama left office, it should have been zero.

Yes, the reason the payments on interest didn't rise much under Obama was because interest rates are low -- and you know what? Those 10-year and 30-year bonds will stay low until they mature. So, if you are worried about NEW debt at higher interest rates, then you should be encouraging Congress and the President to lower the deficit, instead of increasing.

You stated that "the stimulus bill was poorly spent and wasn't very effective in waking up the economy leading to a laggy economy with poor growth," which is at odds with the facts. THE FACTS: The $787 billion package was not an infrastructure bill, but a catch-all response to the recession with infrastructure as a major part.

More than a third of it went to tax cuts. Medicaid spending and other help for health care made up the next largest component. Then came infrastructure, followed closely by education. The package mixed economic and social spending, helping states train displaced workers, for example, extending jobless benefits and assisting with low-income housing
.

While you {falsely} conclude that the stimulus was a failure because growth was slow, that's because the plan that could pass Congress was too small -- only $792 billion, spread out over two years in a $15 trillion economy. Economist Paul Krugman posted, in January 2009, his wonky reason why the stimulus was too small. It should have been twice as big.

Even at that, the economy rebounded quickly after the stimulus -- moving from -8.4% GDP growth to +4.5% 13 months later.

fredgraph.png
 
Oh, by the way, Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 because of the tax increases he signed his first year in office and it was the Contract with America that he signed that led us to the economic growth as the actual results show, results you want to ignore. For some reason tax increases are all people like you promote totally ignoring that the GOP Congress reduced the Clinton taxes with the Tax Relief Act of 1997
You have no idea why the House went Republican in 1994, you a just making up your own self-serving reasons. I remember those days well and the GOP ran on the bad economy, which they helped create by torpedoing Clinton's request for economic stimulus. The general public overwhelmingly wants taxes on the rich to rise -- something contrary to GOP donors. So, when the GOP is in control, they lower taxes on billionaires.

Fast forward from the 1990s to this month's midterm elections, where the GOP got its butt whipped.

The GOP has a fundamental political problem: its policies are unpopular. It wants to cut taxes on the rich and slash social benefits; voters want the opposite. So how can the GOP win? The answer has long been what I think of as a 3-D strategy: deception, distraction, and disenfranchisement. We saw all three this year.

Deception: We're going to protect preexisting conditions! Really! Just trust us and pay no attention to what we've actually done! And to be fair, this approach probably blunted D attacks on health care -- but not enough to prevent big losses over the issue.

Distraction: Look over there! Evil caravan! For a while this looked as if it was gaining traction, thanks to a disastrous performance by the mainstream media, which bought fully into an obvious ploy. But in the end it basically fell flat.

Disenfranchisement -- throwing people off the voter rolls and making it hard to vote -- almost certainly got Rs governors' races in GA and FL, plus the FL Senate seat and some state legislatures. It's really shameful that this is how US politics works now. And given the results, the GOP will do it even more aggressively next time. The logic of the situation is turning the GOP into the enemy of democracy, and we should all be very worried.
 
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?

That's so illogical. Less money in taxes = higher deficits. It's just basic economics. If you substantially reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest people and continue to pile up expenditures by the billions, it creates a huge economic bubble that's going to blow up sooner or late. It's economics fundamentals, 'what goes up must come down'. In short, the economy is suffering from an income and expense imbalance that is under growing pressure for a correction. The CBO was clear before the tax reform bill was passed. The massive tax cuts signed into law last December, (which Republicans said would pay for themselves), "will balloon the U.S. deficit in years ahead" according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's precisely what we're seeing happening, an exploding deficit.
 
[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.

Since we like to simplify things around here, allow me to simplify it for you:

5 facts about the national debt
 
Oh, by the way, Clinton lost the Congress in 1994 because of the tax increases he signed his first year in office and it was the Contract with America that he signed that led us to the economic growth as the actual results show, results you want to ignore. For some reason tax increases are all people like you promote totally ignoring that the GOP Congress reduced the Clinton taxes with the Tax Relief Act of 1997

Playing with our deficits and our debt is not a popularity contest. Clinton did the right thing, and a less-than-ZERO deficit resulted. Republicans are now living La-La land. Eventually educated Americans will see them for what they are, with their short-term wreck-America policies.
 
There is no one more of a "Jesus character" than me as I put my actions to work in actually helping people. if you are truly a "Jesus Character" you would know that Jesus never FORCED anyone to give away anything but rather promoted free will. Just like with the U.S. Constitution, you put your own meaning to what Jesus did and what the Constitution stands for. You have zero credibility and so little understanding of what it means to have a neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being a federal bureaucrat. For some reason you believe that is the role of the Federal Govt. when it is actually your role and the role of your state and local communities

I probably give more to charity than you make and do so providing benefit that I see. Rather than just feeling good and thinking with the heart like you I put my money and my actions to work seeing the benefits of my efforts. As a first responder I saw first hand what it truly means to be a helping hand and a neighbor helping neighbor. You could learn a lot by doing research instead of buying rhetoric

Jesus didn't force anyone to give anything but he did say to give unto Cesar what is Cesar's. He also said that the pursuit of money is the root of all evil. He also said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. He also didn't charge people to heal them. He didn't profit or "prophet" from war or illness the way modern conservative, christian HYPOCRITES advocate.

That all being said, I am an atheist. However, there is abundant wisdom in some of what the Jesus character said. Wealth can be a curse that, by its nature, invites moral compromise. When you talk about people "keeping more of what they make", let's be clear that taking more of it does not leave those people hungry, homeless naked or sick. They are those who already have more than they need. The progressive tax system is progressive (duh) and, thus, your concern for the bottom lines of millionaires is extremely ignorant, inhuman and disingenuous. You're nothing like Jesus.
 
That's so illogical. Less money in taxes = higher deficits. It's just basic economics. If you substantially reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest people and continue to pile up expenditures by the billions, it creates a huge economic bubble that's going to blow up sooner or late. It's economics fundamentals, 'what goes up must come down'. In short, the economy is suffering from an income and expense imbalance that is under growing pressure for a correction. The CBO was clear before the tax reform bill was passed. The massive tax cuts signed into law last December, (which Republicans said would pay for themselves), "will balloon the U.S. deficit in years ahead" according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's precisely what we're seeing happening, an exploding deficit.

Why don't you try teaching algebra to chimps while you're at it. This debate has gone on for decades and the right has, as such, been responsible for much more of this nation's onerous debt than a simple disagreement can explain. This is the territory of religious denial or tenacious stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom