• 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!

Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Kushinator said:
You are making magical leaps of logic that lead to absurdity!

If we look at real disposable personal income growth, it has stalled:

fredgraph.png


And yet... the deficit grows under the guidance of a Republican controlled federal government.
Click to expand...
Actually, according the Y-axis label "percent CHANGE from a year ago" your chart shows a consistent year over year growth, and a distinct uptick from 2017.
 
Kushinator said:
I'm not making any assumptions.

Unless you believe we have suddenly solved the business cycle, the U.S. economy is poised to enter a recession around 2020-2021 (my estimate is that in q2 2021, we will be in a full recession).

Do you understand what demand means?
Click to expand...

Everything is an assumption. Believing in the business cycle involves making assumptions. You are schooled in the lingo, I am not, so I asked for a clarification.
 
Conservative said:
Then you explain what caused the recession if not people who bought houses with adjustable rates that they couldn't afford, greed of others both of which are personal responsibility issues.
Click to expand...

People were allowed to buy houses that they couldn't afford. For a long time, people made money buying houses that they couldn't afford. Of course, sooner or later the bubble had to burst. That's why there has to be effective regulation.

Here's how it works: You can afford a 200,000 house, but, with creative financing, you can buy one for $400,000, so you do. The expectation is that in a couple of years, either house will increase in value by 20%.

Now that $200,000 house is worth $40,000 more, a nice profit.
But that $400,000 house is worth $80,000 more. You sell the house, and pocket the money, less realtor's fees. The mortgage broker makes money, the realtor makes money, the customer makes money, it's a win win, right?

Meanwhile, those questionable mortgages were sold as good investments, which they were until they weren't.
Many people did win, until the whole house of cards crashed. Is it the fault of the individual home buyer?
 
Bullseye said:
Actually, according the Y-axis label "percent CHANGE from a year ago" your chart shows a consistent year over year growth, and a distinct uptick from 2017.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was an event that transpired in 2016. For some strange reason, real disposable personal income fell in the United States, but consumption remained steady:

fredgraph.png


The data highlights two distinct points.

1.) When we raised taxes on wealthy people it doesn't reduce real consumption.

2.) When we cut taxes on wealthy people it doesn't increase real disposable income.

We can also observe that the fall in oil prices led to a fall in real disposable income (2016), which is perplexing given the elastic nature of energy demand in the U.S..
 
Kushinator said:
Yes, there was an event that transpired in 2016. For some strange reason, real disposable personal income fell in the United States, but consumption remained steady:

fredgraph.png


The data highlights two distinct points.

1.) When we raised taxes on wealthy people it doesn't reduce real consumption.

2.) When we cut taxes on wealthy people it doesn't increase real disposable income.

We can also observe that the fall in oil prices led to a fall in real disposable income (2016), which is perplexing given the elastic nature of energy demand in the U.S..
Click to expand...
Uh, your chart is still showing year over year changes.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Everything is an assumption. Believing in the business cycle involves making assumptions. You are schooled in the lingo, I am not, so I asked for a clarification.
Click to expand...

Believing in the business cycle invokes the use of data.

c4080f31b0.png


I do assume we will continue to face economic contractions for the indefinite future because the data tells us so. We are currently in the midst of the longest economic expansion in the history of the United States. Now, do you believe the federal government has solved the business cycle?
 
Bullseye said:
So a flat line depicts constant growth.
Click to expand...

Whose claiming otherwise? The question: is this growth sufficient enough to justify tax cuts? Trump's stimulus package didn't address consumption if growth remains constant/flat/static.

We can also observe what happened when Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans.
 
Visbek said:
US News: National debt tops $22 trillion for first time, after Trump tax cut

Treasury Department:
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

$16,157,240,020,401 in Treasuries
$5,855,600,871,283 in Intragovernmental

Needless to say, the big drivers these days are the Trump tax cuts, and last year's spending bills.

The most likely short-term impact will be an increase in interest rates. In the medium term, it will probably make it harder to borrow in a recession.

Someone better hope that MMT is accurate....
Click to expand...

1. Obama added $9 trillion to the national debt. That's more than 1 tril per year in office. Trump added 2 tril in 2 years so he's going at a slower pace.

2. U.S. tax revenues are at their highest they've ever been. It's not a tax revenue problem. It never has been. It's a spending problem.

US Federal Tax Revenue by Year
 
Visbek said:
US News: National debt tops $22 trillion for first time, after Trump tax cut

Treasury Department:
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

$16,157,240,020,401 in Treasuries
$5,855,600,871,283 in Intragovernmental

Needless to say, the big drivers these days are the Trump tax cuts, and last year's spending bills.

The most likely short-term impact will be an increase in interest rates. In the medium term, it will probably make it harder to borrow in a recession.

Someone better hope that MMT is accurate....
Click to expand...

To further add...GDP growth is up, significantly during Trump's tenure.

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year
 
Visbek said:
US News: National debt tops $22 trillion for first time, after Trump tax cut

Treasury Department:
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

$16,157,240,020,401 in Treasuries
$5,855,600,871,283 in Intragovernmental

Needless to say, the big drivers these days are the Trump tax cuts, and last year's spending bills.

The most likely short-term impact will be an increase in interest rates. In the medium term, it will probably make it harder to borrow in a recession.

Someone better hope that MMT is accurate....
Click to expand...

To triple-down on this subject, wages growth is also at modern records, outpacing the rate of inflation.

Wage growth begins to outpace inflation;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/
 
Government predictions of the debt are an additional $13 billion by 2025 based on the addition of ACA, (affordable care act). Prediction made during the 1st year of the trump administration was in part because they expected no rise in the GDP, which is racing along at unexpected highs thanks to Trump.
 
Kushinator said:
:yawn:

fredgraph.png



I don't see anything significant.
Click to expand...

Then you're using **** data. Click the link. We jumped up during Trump's first two years. From 1.88% in Dec 31, 2016 to 2.47% in Dec 31, 2017 and then 3.00% in Sep 30, 2018. Also, you don't seem to read your own chart well. That shows a constant increasing trend.
 
Fishking said:
Then you're using **** data. Click the link. We jumped up during Trump's first two years. From 1.88% in Dec 31, 2016 to 2.47% in Dec 31, 2017 and then 3.00% in Sep 30, 2018.
Click to expand...

I'm using the right data... you're just too ignorant to know any better.
 
Kushinator said:
I'm using the right data... you're just too ignorant to know any better.
Click to expand...

I provided you with the data. I even copy and pasted it out for you, since you seemed to be too lazy to click the link.
 
Fishking said:
I provided you with the data. I even copy and pasted it out for you, since you seemed to be too lazy to click the link.
Click to expand...

Your unofficial data is pure trash. The Federal Reserve Economic Database is second to none, and sources everything from their appropriate origins.

For example, GDP data is complied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and is reported on a quarterly basis. As you can clearly observe, FRED imports the BEA database directly. Mutpl.com isn't an accredited database.

Do you have enough courage to admit your failure in both knowledge and reasoning?
 
Kushinator said:
Whose claiming otherwise? The question: is this growth sufficient enough to justify tax cuts? Trump's stimulus package didn't address consumption if growth remains constant/flat/static.

We can also observe what happened when Obama allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest Americans.
Click to expand...
"Justify tax cuts"? You think that answer will come from gazing and FRED charts?
 
Bullseye said:
"Justify tax cuts"? You think that answer will come from gazing and FRED charts?
Click to expand...

There wasn't additional growth in tax revenue.

There wasn't additional growth in consumption.

There wasn't additional growth in disposable income

All we really got to observe is three quarters of stimulus induced GDP growth while we are left with a reversion to the mean and $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see.

:thumbdown
 
Kushinator said:
:yawn:

fredgraph.png



I don't see anything significant.
Click to expand...
Your chart spans almost 40 quarters - you actually expect to see a huge level over two quarters?
 
Bullseye said:
Your chart spans almost 40 quarters - you actually expect to see a huge level over two quarters?
Click to expand...

What do you think will happen if i maximize the time series? Think we will see a huge level over a quarter or two? :lol:
 
Kushinator said:
What do you think will happen if i maximize the time series? Think we will see a huge level over a quarter or two? :lol:
Click to expand...
Huh? No, but the changes over a few quarters will be more evident. For instance
 
Bullseye said:
Huh? No, but the changes over a few quarters will be more evident.
Click to expand...

Wrong again:

As we maximize the time series, the growth outliers stick out like your lack of knowledge:

fredgraph.png


Hence, i don't see anything significant during Trumps tenure.
 
Kushinator said:
Wrong again:

As we maximize the time series, the growth outliers stick out like your lack of knowledge:

fredgraph.png


Hence, i don't see anything significant during Trumps tenure.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised, your chart only goes to 2015
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom