• 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:
:wassat1:

It goes back to 1947.....
Click to expand...


He thinks your chart stops at 2015. For some reason he is unable to grasp that the graph extends about 3 years past the 2015 tick mark.
 
Amelia said:
He thinks your chart stops at 2015. For some reason he is unable to grasp that the graph extends about 3 years past the 2015 tick mark.
Click to expand...

He doesn't know how to read a graph.
 
Kushinator said:
Blah blah blah blah. Nobody ****ing cares what you think.




Since when does accuracy of ones statement matter? :lamo

It matters if it was mostly due to interest expense!!! For fiscal year 2018, the line item expense grew by $62 billion while the fiscal deficit grew by $124 billion.

In fiscal year 2017, total revenue was $3.644 trillion.

In fiscal year 2018, total revenue was $3.654 trillion... or a $10 billion increase! That's 0.27% That doesn't even begin to make up for the loss of purchasing power due to inflation (BTW, do you know how to calculate that loss? Nope).

How does this work out in your head??? Donny promises to balance budgets, cut taxes, grow the economy, and all we get is a $790 billion deficit, 3% rGDP growth for ONE year, and $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see.

Thanks Donny! :thumbdown



You posted the wrong Treasury data. That's not their fault you are too ignorant to know what these data sets actually measure.



Blah blah blah, nobody ****ing cares.



This is not my belief. You are just lying again because you've lost and it's all you have to offer along with hypocrisy and ignorance.



No it is not!!!! To me, it is important federal revenue increase just on the basis of inflation alone. Then we have to take on the fact that our country continues to grow, and that government will grow as a result. You may not agree... but that's too bad. That is the reality. And when we slash our ability to generate sufficient revenue to reduce the deficit in growth times, we will be equally ****ed when the next recession hits.



No i do not. If you increase taxes on the most wealthy individuals, they won't face an impending budgetary constraint requiring reduced consumption. You don't know what i want, but like to talk about it.

Why do you continue to ignore my statements, quote me, and then absurdly go on a rant about what i (kushinator) want? That's not a response... it's a waste of time. But i do have fun pointing this out to you and the forum.



This is the one honest (segment) thing you've written.

You lose again.
Click to expand...

What exactly have I lost?? Suggest you get some help understanding the term INTEREST EXPENSE, then maybe a civics class so you can learn how the Congress works and how a President cannot spend a dime without Congressional Approval

You really think a lot of yourself and your importance in this forum.. I don't really give a damn what you think or what you post as you are nothing but a partisan arrogant liberal hack whose posting style shows why liberalism keeps losing elections

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
 
Kushinator said:
The which party has control of congress argument fails. Perhaps you'd like to try again?
Click to expand...

Which party controlled the Congress when Obama claimed such an improvement in deficit reduction? My argument fails?? LOL
 
Dittohead not! said:
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?
Click to expand...

There were many causes of the financial crisis and a lot of people to blame, the left wants it solely on Bush and that is a lie
 
Kushinator said:
:yawn:

fredgraph.png



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

That's because quarters don't matter, yearly numbers do
 
Kushinator said:
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?
Click to expand...

OMG, another example of pure arrogance, GDP Will be up 2 trillion dollars in the first two years of the Trump Administration and grew 4.2 trillion the entire Obama Administration and that includes the massive stimulus gov't spending program which added to the GDP. Just admit it, you are clueless?
 
Conservative said:
There were many causes of the financial crisis and a lot of people to blame, the left wants it solely on Bush and that is a lie
Click to expand...

Barney Frank admitted in 2012 that he had acted stupidly in 2005 by supporting Fannie and Freddie when conservative lawmakers told him bad dealings in those entities were threatening to bring down Wall Street.
 
Kushinator said:
He doesn't know how to read a graph.
Click to expand...

And you don't know how to post data, pretty charts but no dollars on it just percentage changes and quarterly change means nothing, dollar changes means everything. Trump 2 trillion dollars in 2 year, Obama 4.2 trillion in 8, those are real numbers and real impact on the American people and our economy

Bush GDP Growth 10.2 trillion to 14.7 trillion

Obama 14.7 trillion to 18.9 trillion

Trump 18.9 trillion to 20.9 trillion with fourth qtr. projections added or 1.7 trillion thru the third qtr. 2018

You lose again

Bea.gov
 
marke said:
Barney Frank admitted in 2012 that he had acted stupidly in 2005 by supporting Fannie and Freddie when conservative lawmakers told him bad dealings in those entities were threatening to bring down Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Yes and Jaime Gorelick and Franklin Raines, big Democratic supporters benefited with huge bonuses
 
Kushinator said:
Blah blah blah blah. Nobody ****ing cares what you think.




Since when does accuracy of ones statement matter? :lamo

It matters if it was mostly due to interest expense!!! For fiscal year 2018, the line item expense grew by $62 billion while the fiscal deficit grew by $124 billion.

In fiscal year 2017, total revenue was $3.644 trillion.

In fiscal year 2018, total revenue was $3.654 trillion... or a $10 billion increase! That's 0.27% That doesn't even begin to make up for the loss of purchasing power due to inflation (BTW, do you know how to calculate that loss? Nope).

How does this work out in your head??? Donny promises to balance budgets, cut taxes, grow the economy, and all we get is a $790 billion deficit, 3% rGDP growth for ONE year, and $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see.

Thanks Donny! :thumbdown



You posted the wrong Treasury data. That's not their fault you are too ignorant to know what these data sets actually measure.



Blah blah blah, nobody ****ing cares.



This is not my belief. You are just lying again because you've lost and it's all you have to offer along with hypocrisy and ignorance.



No it is not!!!! To me, it is important federal revenue increase just on the basis of inflation alone. Then we have to take on the fact that our country continues to grow, and that government will grow as a result. You may not agree... but that's too bad. That is the reality. And when we slash our ability to generate sufficient revenue to reduce the deficit in growth times, we will be equally ****ed when the next recession hits.



No i do not. If you increase taxes on the most wealthy individuals, they won't face an impending budgetary constraint requiring reduced consumption. You don't know what i want, but like to talk about it.

Why do you continue to ignore my statements, quote me, and then absurdly go on a rant about what i (kushinator) want? That's not a response... it's a waste of time. But i do have fun pointing this out to you and the forum.



This is the one honest (segment) thing you've written.

You lose again.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, more charts, no supporting data thus no context, here is what really matters

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates

Apps Test | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Obama GDP 18.9 trillion from 14.7 trillion in 8 years

Trump 18.9 trillion to 20.7 trillion in one year plus 3 qtrs. 1.8 trillion which will go over 2 trillion in two years following next week's release of 2018 GDP. This is the economic growth you want to ignore and if you bothered to do some actual research you would realize that 2018 was a banner year for GDP growth

You lose again as a big gov't, radical leftwing liberal
 
Conservative said:
Yes and Jaime Gorelick and Franklin Raines, big Democratic supporters benefited with huge bonuses
Click to expand...

Many corporate chiefs were forced to give up bonuses earned before the collapse, but not Franklin Raines, the black democrat darling who 'earned' more than $100 million in bonuses for cooking the books at Fannie Mae leading up to the disastrous collapse. The government not only allowed Raines to keep his bonuses, but he was also given a generous severance package and the government paid all the legal bills arising from his criminal activities at Fannie Mae.
 
Conservative said:
Don't need any stats as tax cuts or people keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense thus don't have to be paid for.
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Have you ever looked at a financial statement? The biggest operating expenses of any business is payroll and that payroll has to be paid for. Do you believe the American taxpayers are employees of the Federal Gov't? If they are then their pay is an expense, if not it isn't so what is there to pay for?
Click to expand...

You are avoiding the issue again, and then doubling down on trying to look at the Federal Government as something else. All of your questions cannot possibly be arrived at from my comments in this thread (and others) to date. Moreover, you are trying to imply things based on a political argument and absent economic reasoning.

What I have tried to do is layer my posts with empirical data and analytics from various sources including what you like to use. Like the Treasury, or CBO, or White House reported numbers, the Fed, etc. The moment you respond with not needing stats and trying to change the argument you are conceding the debate.

So I'll ask again... what stats do you have to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves?

And that has nothing to do with turning the government into a business or turning the taxpayer into an employee of the government.
 
OrphanSlug said:
You are avoiding the issue again, and then doubling down on trying to look at the Federal Government as something else. All of your questions cannot possibly be arrived at from my comments in this thread (and others) to date. Moreover, you are trying to imply things based on a political argument and absent economic reasoning.

What I have tried to do is layer my posts with empirical data and analytics from various sources including what you like to use. Like the Treasury, or CBO, or White House reported numbers, the Fed, etc. The moment you respond with not needing stats and trying to change the argument you are conceding the debate.

So I'll ask again... what stats do you have to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves?

And that has nothing to do with turning the government into a business or turning the taxpayer into an employee of the government.
Click to expand...
What part of a financial statement don't you understand? Taxpayers aren't employees of the federal government thus aren't an expense. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Expenses are paid for not keeping one's own money thus tax cuts have no reason to be paid for

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
What part of a financial statement don't you understand? Taxpayers aren't employees of the federal government thus aren't an expense. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Expenses are paid for not keeping one's own money thus tax cuts have no reason to be paid for

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It does not matter how many times you repeat this as if you've discovered gold. The government is not a business.

Back to the matter at hand, what stats do you have to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves?
 
OrphanSlug said:
It does not matter how many times you repeat this as if you've discovered gold. The government is not a business.

Back to the matter at hand, what stats do you have to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves?
Click to expand...

No, gov't isn't a business and they don't own the cash that the taxpayers earn. They are giving the taxpayers nothing as there is no cash outlay because of tax cuts thus there is nothing to pay for.

You are showing how easy it is to indoctrinate far too many people. for some reason you believe there is a correlation between tax revenue and gov't expenses believing that tax cuts cause expenses to rise and that couldn't be further from the truth. Tax cuts have nothing to do with expenses other than making people less dependent on gov't thus should reduce expenses.
 
OrphanSlug said:
It does not matter how many times you repeat this as if you've discovered gold. The government is not a business.

Back to the matter at hand, what stats do you have to support that tax cuts have paid for themselves?
Click to expand...

Here is what you want to ignore

Apps Test | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

able 3.2. Federal Government Current Receipts and Expenditures
[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Last Revised on: December 21, 2018 - Next Release Date January 30, 2019
Click to expand...

Line Current receipts

2016

Q1 3,447.2

Q2 3,448.4

Q3 3,491.8

Q4 3,514.4

2017

Q1 3,572.4

Q2 3,538.8

Q3 3,590.3

Q4 3,533.6


2018

Q1 3,428.3

Q2 3,456.2

Q3 3,543.2
Click to expand...

On top of this increase in Federal Revenue are record revenue to state and local governments, record charitable contributions, record S&P Dividends, record consumer spending, 2.9 million jobs created and 1.2 trillion added to GDP.

Looks like a pretty good return on investment to me
 
Conservative said:
There were many causes of the financial crisis and a lot of people to blame, the left wants it solely on Bush and that is a lie
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who the "left" is or why they solely blame Bush. I don't solely blame Bush, and have posted nothing to indicate I do.
 
Conservative said:
And you don't know how to post data, pretty charts but no dollars on it just percentage changes and quarterly change means nothing, dollar changes means everything. Trump 2 trillion dollars in 2 year, Obama 4.2 trillion in 8, those are real numbers and real impact on the American people and our economy

Bush GDP Growth 10.2 trillion to 14.7 trillion

Obama 14.7 trillion to 18.9 trillion

Trump 18.9 trillion to 20.9 trillion with fourth qtr. projections added or 1.7 trillion thru the third qtr. 2018

You lose again

Bea.gov
Click to expand...
We all lose again. How much longer can the government keep paying the interest on that burgeoning debt? Meanwhile, hyper partisans just want to blame the other party for an endemic problem than neither party is willing to address.

I thought Trump was supposed to be a conservative, and his opposition liberals. Not so. There are no conservatives in Washington.
 
Conservative said:
No, gov't isn't a business and they don't own the cash that the taxpayers earn. They are giving the taxpayers nothing as there is no cash outlay because of tax cuts thus there is nothing to pay for.

You are showing how easy it is to indoctrinate far too many people. for some reason you believe there is a correlation between tax revenue and gov't expenses believing that tax cuts cause expenses to rise and that couldn't be further from the truth. Tax cuts have nothing to do with expenses other than making people less dependent on gov't thus should reduce expenses.
Click to expand...

It also does not matter how many times you repeat the same political argument, you end up ignoring political and economic reality.

The fact is the budget condition year to year is a matter of tax revenues to outlays. Both have to be balanced against aggregate demand indicators at the time, and no matter what you say the federal government is an active participant in the economy with its spending being a matter of GDP math. If you lower government spending from one year to the next you lower that number calculated into GDP.

If you make the political argument that there should be less taxation but then again do nothing for spending (which tends to be the real result political ideology aside,) then the net effect is the direction of deficit all the while ignoring aggregate demand. Since we tend to run a deficit year on year with very few exceptions anyway, you tax less and spend more or even the same you add to deficits. The reason is always the same, tax revenues on a trend line have an interrupt to some other line.

This happens time and time again. Reagan, Bush 43, Trump all the same.

If you take the political argument that there should be less taxation, or the rich should keep more to "trickle down," or whatever else the economic argument is what did that do to aggregate demand and what did that do to the federal budget. You matter your political take, the onus is on you to produce proof that trickle down economics works or that tax cuts pay for themselves. You've yet to do so.

You do not get to isolate the government from the economy only when politically convenient for you to do so. I provide empirical data from the same sources you use and more, you respond with rhetoric claiming you've won the debate on a level absent both political and economic reality.

And all the while you've taken the victory lap... spending still occurs, and deficits go up. Just as Trump is doing right now with his tax cuts.

We can continue to have a semantic debate about tax cuts coming to a cost to the budget all you would like, but it *still* does not remove the political and economic reality that those tax cuts will escalate our deficit, in turn will escalate the amount of Debt held by the Public (breaking auction records that you have zero answer to,) and will in turn add to Total Debt even faster (which is the point of this thread.)

And you have zero to offer in actual data to support the change, just the rhetoric.
 
Kushinator said:
:wassat1:

It goes back to 1947.....
Click to expand...
So do I, what's your point? We're talking about something that's happened in the last few quarters - a mere blimb on 70 years worth of data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom