Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Tbird19482 said:

For one thing a lot of these MANDATES were past into law YEARS ago.
and a lot of the people that were in office at that time are now dead.
and to answer your question the only person on here that is a fool and keeps making a fool of themselves are YOU
IF you had done some research and had read what I posted you would have known that most programs for the poor and people living just above and below the poverty level are Federal government mandates and fall under welfare and seeing they are Federally mandated programs they have to be paid for by the Federal Government before any money up and beyond them goes back to the states.
YOU are the one that keeps saying the states should take over these programs and if they did you can bet in the Red states they would be cut to the bone and the people on them in those states would go to other states that still provide them.
Just like they did back in the 50's before the Federal government steeped in and made it mantatory for all states to have a min. amount of welfare for their people.
Again I have to ask you and you have still NOT answered this question
WHY do you thing the larger Blue states should keep funding the smaller Red states?
Why shouldn't any Federal monies left over after these MANDATED programs are paid for go beck to the states on an equal per person basis?
Why do the smaller states get more back then the larger states do? and can use that money to fund their state Governments ?
IF the smaller states got back an equal amount per person they would have to raise their state taxes and the larger states could lower theirs.
Have a nice day

Click to expand...

None of what you posted answers the question that if you are so opposed to these programs why aren't you calling on your Democratic Candidates to repeal them as it doesn't matter when they were passed they still can be repealed. You seem to buy the rhetoric that the federal bureaucrats in D.C are the ones to handle social programs in your state and local community, why is that? you don't seem to understand personal responsibility at all nor TERM LIMITS. You don't like what is going on in your state or local community vote them out of office.

Again another question asked and avoided, what should the maximum percentage of ones income go to federal, state, and local taxes? Where does the state get its money when more of the citizens of that state's money goes to the bureaucrats?

You keep buying what you are told and ignore the true role of the federal gov't and the mandates that give them the power over the states. Why should a state take on those programs when the bureaucrats are giving them the money? Who retains the power when the federal bureaucrats control the mandates?

What federal mandates are being left after sent to the states? It continues to be obvious that you have no idea what federal mandates fund and how there is nothing left over after the money is spent

It does appear that you want the state and local governments to raise their taxes and keep the federal taxes high as well. Is that your position? How does raising state and local taxes as well as having high federal taxes benefit the states?

marke said:

Obama and democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for two years and proved tax hikes could not stimulate the economy. Facts don't lie.

Click to expand...

I have to ask just where do you get your " FACTS " from?

I would like to see what taxes you are talking about that Obama raised in the first two years in office?
Here are the only tax increases I can find before the Republicans took over the House in 2011

A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009,

Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010):

Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010):

I don't see a mess of tax increase in the first two years Obama was in office and the Dems had control of Congress
there were a LOT more tax increases from 2011 on when the Republicans had control of the House

you can read them here You are being redirected...

have a nice day

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Conservative said:

None of what you posted answers the question that if you are so opposed to these programs why aren't you calling on your Democratic Candidates to repeal them as it doesn't matter when they were passed they still can be repealed. You seem to buy the rhetoric that the federal bureaucrats in D.C are the ones to handle social programs in your state and local community, why is that? you don't seem to understand personal responsibility at all nor TERM LIMITS. You don't like what is going on in your state or local community vote them out of office.

Again another question asked and avoided, what should the maximum percentage of ones income go to federal, state, and local taxes? Where does the state get its money when more of the citizens of that state's money goes to the bureaucrats?

You keep buying what you are told and ignore the true role of the federal gov't and the mandates that give them the power over the states. Why should a state take on those programs when the bureaucrats are giving them the money? Who retains the power when the federal bureaucrats control the mandates?

What federal mandates are being left after sent to the states? It continues to be obvious that you have no idea what federal mandates fund and how there is nothing left over after the money is spent

It does appear that you want the state and local governments to raise their taxes and keep the federal taxes high as well. Is that your position? How does raising state and local taxes as well as having high federal taxes benefit the states?

Click to expand...

well first of all I never said I was against the Mandated programs for the poor and people living at below 130% of the poverty level you know the people YOU keep saying don't pay any FIT.
some of them working two jobs and have a spouse working too just to pay their bills and survive.
It is the inequity that is going on with the money left over that the Federal government returns to the states
and seeing there are more red states getting a lot more back then they pay in and they have more Representation in Congress, especially the Senate then the Blue over paying states have and any law the Blue states propose would not be passed by Congress
MY point is any money that is left over after the mandated programs are funded should go back to the states on a per person basis. NOT a very populated state get less back on a per person basis then a small red state
Just who paid the most in and is getting less back
IF a state pays more in on a per person basis then they should be getting more back on a per person basis NOT the other way around

Again as I have said before I would like to see the Fed. get out of all these mandated programs and just see how many Red states keep any of them and watch some of the people that are on these programs in those states running to the states that kept the programs
IF that happens I hope that the states that keep these programs put on Residency restrictions so a person and they would have to have lived in that state a year or two before they get to be on a program like that and put on time limits for how long they can stay on them( and not have it be like back in the 50's when states like NY had the RR of welfare systems and many people from the Red states started running there )
You can bet all heck will break loose in the Red states that have these programs now.
They will have to raise their state taxes to keep giving their people the programs they have now because they wouldn't be getting more back from the Federal Government then they pay in
have a nice afternoon

marke said:

How much increase did Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates pay when Obama raised their taxes and did Obama solve the national debt crisis by jacking up those rates? Obama presided over the doubling of the national debt in his 8 years. That just means that raising the taxes on the rich did nothing to get us out of debt.

Click to expand...

I have to ask IF Obama " doubled the National debt " as you say why wasn't it OVER 23 Trillion dollars when Trump took over?
The National debt on the day Obama took over the Budget and the debt was Over 11.9 Trillion dollars and if you X that by 2 it is OVER 23 trillion dollars almost 24 trillion dolars
You are just repeating a Republican LIE and have NOT bothered to do a little research before you repeated it
Here is the US Treasury web site you can look it up Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Just for your info Obama did not take over the budget and debt till Oct. 1 of 2009 and it was 10/01/2009 11,920,519,164,319.42 and on Oct 2 2017 ( a day after Trump took it over ) it was 10/02/2017 20,347,802,336,477.80 almost 3 TRILLION dollars short of doubling it
and even IF you took it from the day Obama took office it wouldn't be double
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08
01/20/2017 19,947,304,555,212.49

and doubling 10.6 Trillion dollars would have been 21.2 Trillion dollars

please stop repeating this Republican LIE
and have a nice day

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Tbird19482 said:

well first of all I never said I was against the Mandated programs for the poor and people living at below 130% of the poverty level you know the people YOU keep saying don't pay any FIT.
some of them working two jobs and have a spouse working too just to pay their bills and survive.
It is the inequity that is going on with the money left over that the Federal government returns to the states
and seeing there are more red states getting a lot more back then they pay in and they have more Representation in Congress, especially the Senate then the Blue over paying states have and any law the Blue states propose would not be passed by Congress
MY point is any money that is left over after the mandated programs are funded should go back to the states on a per person basis. NOT a very populated state get less back on a per person basis then a small red state
Just who paid the most in and is getting less back
IF a state pays more in on a per person basis then they should be getting more back on a per person basis NOT the other way around

Again as I have said before I would like to see the Fed. get out of all these mandated programs and just see how many Red states keep any of them and watch some of the people that are on these programs in those states running to the states that kept the programs
IF that happens I hope that the states that keep these programs put on Residency restrictions so a person and they would have to have lived in that state a year or two before they get to be on a program like that and put on time limits for how long they can stay on them( and not have it be like back in the 50's when states like NY had the RR of welfare systems and many people from the Red states started running there )
You can bet all heck will break loose in the Red states that have these programs now.
They will have to raise their state taxes to keep giving their people the programs they have now because they wouldn't be getting more back from the Federal Government then they pay in
have a nice afternoon

Click to expand...

NO, there are two issues here, first the budget which is funded by Federal income taxes in which 44% of income earners pay NOTHING in Federal Income Taxes and there is no justification for that even if it is $100 per year, SOMETHING. That affects the deficit

The second issue is Mandates which are for specific expenses authorized by the federal gov't. Those specific expenses are paid to the states based upon the demand thus specific demand so they know exactly what is being sent thus nothing is overpaid. You cannot seem to grasp either concept. The federal gov't has never used revenue as a reason to give a mandate thus the deficits that keep showing up therefore your argument about FIT being paid by the states creating givers and takers is irrelevant.

The real issue here is one you still don't understand. The federal bureaucrats want the power and aren't going to give it up, that keeps people dependent and keeps them buying votes. Try eliminating those programs by going to your Representatives in Congress and see what happens. Too many people believe the states cannot handle the programs but have been indoctrinated by the bureaucrats, they sure can if federal taxes were reduced to allow the states to raise their or better yet return the deductions for charities and let the charities do the work. Please stop telling me you know what states can and cannot do because you really don't know until they have the demand to do it.
w
Obama bailed out teachers with his stimulus thus "saving" jobs or so he said. Did the states ask him to do that with federal stimulus money? Were the states told to solve their own problems? If funding available through sales and property taxes to fund teachers? Think and stop buying what you are being told by bureaucrats who benefit from collecting tax dollars and giving it out

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Conservative said:

NO, there are two issues here, first the budget which is funded by Federal income taxes in which 44% of income earners pay NOTHING in Federal Income Taxes and there is no justification for that even if it is $100 per year, SOMETHING. That affects the deficit

The second issue is Mandates which are for specific expenses authorized by the federal gov't. Those specific expenses are paid to the states based upon the demand thus specific demand so they know exactly what is being sent thus nothing is overpaid. You cannot seem to grasp either concept. The federal gov't has never used revenue as a reason to give a mandate thus the deficits that keep showing up therefore your argument about FIT being paid by the states creating givers and takers is irrelevant.

The real issue here is one you still don't understand. The federal bureaucrats want the power and aren't going to give it up, that keeps people dependent and keeps them buying votes. Try eliminating those programs by going to your Representatives in Congress and see what happens. Too many people believe the states cannot handle the programs but have been indoctrinated by the bureaucrats, they sure can if federal taxes were reduced to allow the states to raise their or better yet return the deductions for charities and let the charities do the work. Please stop telling me you know what states can and cannot do because you really don't know until they have the demand to do it.
w
Obama bailed out teachers with his stimulus thus "saving" jobs or so he said. Did the states ask him to do that with federal stimulus money? Were the states told to solve their own problems? If funding available through sales and property taxes to fund teachers? Think and stop buying what you are being told by bureaucrats who benefit from collecting tax dollars and giving it out

Click to expand...

There you go again complaining about the people that are below the poverty level , some of them working two jobs and have a spouse also working just to get by and pay their bills and put food on their table not paying FIT but not saying a word about the 42 PLUS percent of all large Corporations that are making millions and BILLIONS in US profits not paying a cent
where is it fair that people who are at 130% of the POVERTY level or LESS pay FIT and a large Corporation NOT having to pay even ONE CENT in FIT?
and 100 dollars YOU talk about could be putting food on their table or keep their electric or gas on for another week or two so they don't freeze to death, again how about GE or Amazon pay a few million in FIT instead of NOTHING and reduce the debt that way
What is wrong with you?
You would rather see people starve to death or freeze to death then have a large Corporation making BILLIONS in US profits pay a little in FIT
and again I have to ask what do you NOT understand?
The Fed. government has mandated programs that they pay for out of our FIT and there is money left over and that money is split up unequally and sent back to the states
and as I have shown you many times that the RED states get a LOT more back AFTER those mandated programs are paid for and most Blue states do NOT get back any where near what they send in
That left over money should be sent back to the states on an equal per person percentage
and again as I have said before and you have said the Politicians in Washington do use federal money to bring pork to their states and get reelected. and seeing there are more Red states ( more Senators and there were a total of more Rep. in the House ) they can get more money going back to their RED state
and no matter what the Congressmen and Senators in Blue states want to do iF it cuts the pork that is going to RED states nothing is going to happen to correct these inequities
I can see you don't care about educating our Children, IF again you did some research you would have found that a LOT of that money went to the RED states and less went to the Blue states
Maybe iF those red states had to fund all of their state programs including paying their teachers and did NOT have more money coming back from the Fed. Government they would have to raise their taxes and NOT have the larger states have to pay for their state programs
Again I would love to see the Federal Government stop all their mandated programs and then we will see just what states care about their people
Let the states take back all these programs and I hope the larger Blue states that keep these programs put Residency rules in place ( you would have to live in a state a year or two before you could get any of these programs ) and put on limits for how long you can stay on them and see what happens.
That way things like what happened in the 50's where a lot of people from the southern states aren't running to NY or another Blue state to get welfare because their state wasn't giving them as much as NY or other states were
have a nice night

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Tbird19482 said:

There you go again complaining about the people that are below the poverty level , some of them working two jobs and have a spouse also working just to get by and pay their bills and put food on their table not paying FIT but not saying a word about the 42 PLUS percent of all large Corporations that are making millions and BILLIONS in US profits not paying a cent
where is it fair that people who are at 130% of the POVERTY level or LESS pay FIT and a large Corporation NOT having to pay even ONE CENT in FIT?
and 100 dollars YOU talk about could be putting food on their table or keep their electric or gas on for another week or two so they don't freeze to death, again how about GE or Amazon pay a few million in FIT instead of NOTHING and reduce the debt that way
What is wrong with you?
You would rather see people starve to death or freeze to death then have a large Corporation making BILLIONS in US profits pay a little in FIT
and again I have to ask what do you NOT understand?
The Fed. government has mandated programs that they pay for out of our FIT and there is money left over and that money is split up unequally and sent back to the states
and as I have shown you many times that the RED states get a LOT more back AFTER those mandated programs are paid for and most Blue states do NOT get back any where near what they send in
That left over money should be sent back to the states on an equal per person percentage
and again as I have said before and you have said the Politicians in Washington do use federal money to bring pork to their states and get reelected. and seeing there are more Red states ( more Senators and there were a total of more Rep. in the House ) they can get more money going back to their RED state
and no matter what the Congressmen and Senators in Blue states want to do iF it cuts the pork that is going to RED states nothing is going to happen to correct these inequities
I can see you don't care about educating our Children, IF again you did some research you would have found that a LOT of that money went to the RED states and less went to the Blue states
Maybe iF those red states had to fund all of their state programs including paying their teachers and did NOT have more money coming back from the Fed. Government they would have to raise their taxes and NOT have the larger states have to pay for their state programs
Again I would love to see the Federal Government stop all their mandated programs and then we will see just what states care about their people
Let the states take back all these programs and I hope the larger Blue states that keep these programs put Residency rules in place ( you would have to live in a state a year or two before you could get any of these programs ) and put on limits for how long you can stay on them and see what happens.
That way things like what happened in the 50's where a lot of people from the southern states aren't running to NY or another Blue state to get welfare because their state wasn't giving them as much as NY or other states were
have a nice night

Click to expand...

I have no reason to read novels from you. what the hell does a poverty level have to do with your own National Defense, Veterans Affairs, the legal system, Congress, and all the other discretionary line items in the budget including the interest on the debt?

There is absolutely no justification for any income earning American not to pay something in federal income tax. You think those people don't benefit from the 4.4 trillion dollar budget?

Priorities in this country are totally and completely screwed up including people IQ that make excuses for what someone else does it pay you have a wonderful night

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Who cares. We ain't never gonna pay it back anyhow.

Tbird19482 said:

I have to ask just where do you get your " FACTS " from?

I would like to see what taxes you are talking about that Obama raised in the first two years in office?
Here are the only tax increases I can find before the Republicans took over the House in 2011

A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On February 4, 2009,

Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010):

Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010):

I don't see a mess of tax increase in the first two years Obama was in office and the Dems had control of Congress
there were a LOT more tax increases from 2011 on when the Republicans had control of the House

you can read them here You are being redirected...

have a nice day

Click to expand...

Like I said, rich democrats talk about taxing the rich to solve America's debt problems but when they controlled the government under Obama they proved they were just blowing smoke. They proved they have no intention of trying to put their stupid 'tax the rich' schemes into play, demonstrating the fact that they know tax the rich schemes are nonsense.

Tbird19482 said:

I have to ask IF Obama " doubled the National debt " as you say why wasn't it OVER 23 Trillion dollars when Trump took over?
The National debt on the day Obama took over the Budget and the debt was Over 11.9 Trillion dollars and if you X that by 2 it is OVER 23 trillion dollars almost 24 trillion dolars
You are just repeating a Republican LIE and have NOT bothered to do a little research before you repeated it
Here is the US Treasury web site you can look it up Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Just for your info Obama did not take over the budget and debt till Oct. 1 of 2009 and it was 10/01/2009 11,920,519,164,319.42 and on Oct 2 2017 ( a day after Trump took it over ) it was 10/02/2017 20,347,802,336,477.80 almost 3 TRILLION dollars short of doubling it
and even IF you took it from the day Obama took office it wouldn't be double
01/20/2009 10,626,877,048,913.08
01/20/2017 19,947,304,555,212.49

and doubling 10.6 Trillion dollars would have been 21.2 Trillion dollars

please stop repeating this Republican LIE
and have a nice day

Click to expand...

I guess I should have said "Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. During his time in office he presided over a near doubling of the entire accumulated debt of all former administrations in American history."

Better?

marke said:

I guess I should have said "Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. During his time in office he presided over a near doubling of the entire accumulated debt of all former administrations in American history."

Better?

Click to expand...

So? As I've stated many times on this forum, the 2009 deficit was already projected at $1.2 trillion before Obama even said, "I do solemnly swear."

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

As pure information, Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. The cause was dropping revenues due to the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Of course, during severe recessions the least important aspect is deficits. The most being getting the unemployed working again.

Another aspect for those who thought then that debt was such a horrible problem (but don't seem to care now) is what should Obama have done about it? Should he have cut spending and made the recession worse or raised taxes and made the recession worse?

MTAtech said:

So? As I've stated many times on this forum, the 2009 deficit was already projected at $1.2 trillion before Obama even said, "I do solemnly swear."

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009

As pure information, Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. The cause was dropping revenues due to the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Of course, during severe recessions the least important aspect is deficits. The most being getting the unemployed working again.

Another aspect for those who thought then that debt was such a horrible problem (but don't seem to care now) is what should Obama have done about it? Should he have cut spending and made the recession worse or raised taxes and made the recession worse?

Click to expand...

It is true that most politicians, republicans included, stupidly think the debt is not a problem. America is in great danger of serious harm due to this type of political stupidity.

marke said:

It is true that most politicians, republicans included, stupidly think the debt is not a problem. America is in great danger of serious harm due to this type of political stupidity.

Click to expand...

Not exactly, Republicans during the Great Recession, when the cost of interest to the government was zero, were deficit hawks. Their deficit obsession was deeply destructive in the years that followed the global financial crisis, helping conservatives push for austerity measures that held back economic recovery for years. Now, they don't even bring up deficits. After all those proclamations that fiscal doom was coming any day now unless we cut spending on Social Security and Medicare, it’s remarkable how muted their response has been to a huge, budget-busting tax cut. It’s almost as if their real goal was shrinking social programs, not limiting national debt.

On the contrary, Democrats didn't care about deficits when there was 10% unemployment but now are supporting "paygo," a rule requiring that increases in spending be matched by offsetting tax increases or cuts elsewhere. This view is far more consistent with what economists argue.

But as with most complicated questions, the answer is, it depends. One surprising thing about the debt obsession that peaked around 2011 is that it never had much basis in economic analysis. On the contrary, everything we know about fiscal policy says that it’s a mistake to focus on deficit reduction when unemployment is high and interest rates are low, as they were when the fiscal scolds were at their loudest.

In the past few months a number of prominent economists, including the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and top economists from the Obama administration, have published analyses saying that even now, with unemployment quite low, debt is much less of a problem than previously thought.

It’s still a bad idea to run up debt for no good reason, say, to provide tax breaks that corporations just use to buy back their own stock, which is, of course, what the GOP did. But borrowing at ultralow interest rates to pay for investments in the future, infrastructure, of course, but also things like nutrition and health care for the young, who are the workers of tomorrow, is very defensible.

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Conservative said:

I have no reason to read novels from you. what the hell does a poverty level have to do with your own National Defense, Veterans Affairs, the legal system, Congress, and all the other discretionary line items in the budget including the interest on the debt?

There is absolutely no justification for any income earning American not to pay something in federal income tax. You think those people don't benefit from the 4.4 trillion dollar budget?

Priorities in this country are totally and completely screwed up including people IQ that make excuses for what someone else does it pay you have a wonderful night

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Just where do you thing people that are just getting by IF that are going to get this money from?
Work a third job and have their spouse work two?
When are you Republicans going to stop trying to take money from the poor and lower wage earners to cover for the large tax cuts you give to large Corporations and the rich?
and yes those programs have to be paid for I never said they wern't
But when you have people working 72 plus hours a week just to pay the bills and put food on the table they do not have anything left over like large Corporations do
As I said before just what would happen to these people if they had to pay an FIT and the Fed. stopped the mandated programs they need to help them get by and the states took them over and had to pay for them with state taxes.?
I bet there would be a lot of states dropping them altogether and the people that really need help would be moving to states that kept them
If that happens I hope the states that keep them put residency rules in place and put on time limits for being on them
Have a nice day

marke said:

I guess I should have said "Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. During his time in office he presided over a near doubling of the entire accumulated debt of all former administrations in American history."

Better?

Click to expand...

talking in dollars yes he did but he did not run it up more then all his Predecessors or doubled it like you say
IF he did wouldn't he have had to run it up more then the total debt he took over?
on Oct 1 of 2009 when he took it over it was 11.9 Trillion dollars so he would have had to run it up at least that much to have run it up more then all his predecessors combined and he didn't the Debt would have been over 23 Trillion when Trump took over and it wasn't
have a nice day

marke said:

I guess I should have said "Obama presided over the largest debt increase in US history. During his time in office he presided over a near doubling of the entire accumulated debt of all former administrations in American history."

Better?

Click to expand...

one more fact
Trumps first fiscal year has run the debt up MORE then what Obama did in 5 out of the 8 years he was in office and he is on track to run it up at least that much in his second year
IF he keeps on like this he will out pace Obama by a mile
have a nice day

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Oh, I don't know, maybe giving up cigarettes, drugs, cell phones, internet, computers and all the other things that aren't needed for survival. Seems that personal responsibility is a lost art to you and others as there is no justification for not paying something for the line items in the budget especially with all those mandates coming back to them.

I know I can count on your trying to force your representatives from continuing those mandates but at least you are no longer spouting the rhetoric that taxes should go back to the states based upon a percentage of what they pay.

Tbird19482 said:

one more fact
Trumps first fiscal year has run the debt up MORE then what Obama did in 5 out of the 8 years he was in office and he is on track to run it up at least that much in his second year
IF he keeps on like this he will out pace Obama by a mile
have a nice day

Click to expand...

Really? post the data to support that and then post the average Obama deficits vs. Trump's. You continue to show that you have no understanding of the budget or the line items in that budget. When exactly did the deficits start going under a Trillion dollars? Who was in charge of Congress at the time. Please post anything that Obama did to lower the deficit as I cannot find any budget request lower than the previous year or any department cuts? I anxiously await your response?

MTAtech said:

Not exactly, Republicans during the Great Recession, when the cost of interest to the government was zero, were deficit hawks. Their deficit obsession was deeply destructive in the years that followed the global financial crisis, helping conservatives push for austerity measures that held back economic recovery for years. Now, they don't even bring up deficits. After all those proclamations that fiscal doom was coming any day now unless we cut spending on Social Security and Medicare, it’s remarkable how muted their response has been to a huge, budget-busting tax cut. It’s almost as if their real goal was shrinking social programs, not limiting national debt.

On the contrary, Democrats didn't care about deficits when there was 10% unemployment but now are supporting "paygo," a rule requiring that increases in spending be matched by offsetting tax increases or cuts elsewhere. This view is far more consistent with what economists argue.

But as with most complicated questions, the answer is, it depends. One surprising thing about the debt obsession that peaked around 2011 is that it never had much basis in economic analysis. On the contrary, everything we know about fiscal policy says that it’s a mistake to focus on deficit reduction when unemployment is high and interest rates are low, as they were when the fiscal scolds were at their loudest.

In the past few months a number of prominent economists, including the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and top economists from the Obama administration, have published analyses saying that even now, with unemployment quite low, debt is much less of a problem than previously thought.

It’s still a bad idea to run up debt for no good reason, say, to provide tax breaks that corporations just use to buy back their own stock, which is, of course, what the GOP did. But borrowing at ultralow interest rates to pay for investments in the future, infrastructure, of course, but also things like nutrition and health care for the young, who are the workers of tomorrow, is very defensible.

Click to expand...

Democrats will publish their opinions about what makes good fiscal policy but reasonable Americans should not be misled to support free-spending, debt-ignoring nonsense.

Obama's ambitious plan was to solve the recession in his first 3 years in office. He failed miserably. In spite of democrat claims that Obama was the genius and his plan would have worked, Trump is still doing more in 3 years than Obama did in 8 to improve our economy. Democrat economists should give it a rest.

Tbird19482 said:

talking in dollars yes he did but he did not run it up more then all his Predecessors or doubled it like you say
IF he did wouldn't he have had to run it up more then the total debt he took over?
on Oct 1 of 2009 when he took it over it was 11.9 Trillion dollars so he would have had to run it up at least that much to have run it up more then all his predecessors combined and he didn't the Debt would have been over 23 Trillion when Trump took over and it wasn't
have a nice day

Click to expand...

More debt was added during Obama's term than had ever been added under any other single president in history.

Tbird19482 said:

one more fact
Trumps first fiscal year has run the debt up MORE then what Obama did in 5 out of the 8 years he was in office and he is on track to run it up at least that much in his second year
IF he keeps on like this he will out pace Obama by a mile
have a nice day

Click to expand...

You may be right. Trump may catch and pass Obama in running up the US debt. Anyone who does not see the serious danger in that is not very wise. Modern candidates should not be worried that the weather will destroy our civilization in 12 years. They should be worried that our debt will destroy our civilization long before the weather turns bad enough to do it.

Conservative said:

Really? post the data to support that and then post the average Obama deficits vs. Trump's. You continue to show that you have no understanding of the budget or the line items in that budget. When exactly did the deficits start going under a Trillion dollars? Who was in charge of Congress at the time. Please post anything that Obama did to lower the deficit as I cannot find any budget request lower than the previous year or any department cuts? I anxiously await your response?

Click to expand...

Well Here read it for yourself
Deficit by Year: Compared to GDP, Debt, and Events
2013 679 Billion
2014 485 Billion
2015 435 Billion
2016 585 Billion
2017 665 Billion
End of the Obama budgets
trump takes over
2018 779 Billion
2019 EST. 1,091 Trillion

US Deficit by President: What Budgets Hide

2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b
Trump's Economy: The Federal Budget Deficit Is On A Path To $1 Trillion

Trump national debt, deficit compared to Obama, Bush, Clinton - Business Insider

In raw terms, Trump added the second-most debt of any recent president. According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)

That is less than the $3.46 trillion added between Obama's inauguration in January 2009 and February 11, 2011, but it is more than the $676 billion added under Bush and the $617 billion added under Clinton in their first 752 days as president.

So it looks like Trump is on his way to running up the debt MORE then Obama did
and I have posted the info from the Treasury website many times showing what the debt went up under Obama

His first year ( the worst year because of the recession ) was 1,65 Trillion
2nd year 1,23 trillion 3rd year 1,275 Trillion 4th year 671 BILLION 5th year 1,08 trillion
6th year 326 BILLION 7th year 1.4 Trillion and 8th year 879 Billion
Hope that helps
Have a nice afternoon

Tbird19482 said:

Well Here read it for yourself
Deficit by Year: Compared to GDP, Debt, and Events
2013 679 Billion
2014 485 Billion
2015 435 Billion
2016 585 Billion
2017 665 Billion
End of the Obama budgets
trump takes over
2018 779 Billion
2019 EST. 1,091 Trillion

US Deficit by President: What Budgets Hide

2009 $1,413 $1,632 9.8% Stimulus Act
2010 $1,294 $1,905 8.6% Obama tax cuts / ACA / Simpson-Bowles
2011 $1,300 $1,229 8.3% Debt crisis
2012 $1,087 $1,276 6.7% Fiscal cliff
2013 $679 $672 4.0% Sequester / Government shutdown
2014 $485 $1,086 2.7% Debt ceiling
2015 $438 $327 2.4% Defense = $736.4 b
2016 $585 $1,423 3.1% Defense = $767.6 b
2017 $665 $672 3.4% Defense = $817.9 b
2018 (est) $779 $1,217 4.0% Defense = $890.8 b
Trump's Economy: The Federal Budget Deficit Is On A Path To $1 Trillion

Trump national debt, deficit compared to Obama, Bush, Clinton - Business Insider

In raw terms, Trump added the second-most debt of any recent president. According to the Treasury data, the US added $2.07 trillion — $2,065,536,336,472.90 to be exact — in new debt between Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017, and February 11, when the country pushed past $22 trillion. (The US added another $2.8 billion through February 15, the latest daily figures available.)

That is less than the $3.46 trillion added between Obama's inauguration in January 2009 and February 11, 2011, but it is more than the $676 billion added under Bush and the $617 billion added under Clinton in their first 752 days as president.

So it looks like Trump is on his way to running up the debt MORE then Obama did
and I have posted the info from the Treasury website many times showing what the debt went up under Obama

His first year ( the worst year because of the recession ) was 1,65 Trillion
2nd year 1,23 trillion 3rd year 1,275 Trillion 4th year 671 BILLION 5th year 1,08 trillion
6th year 326 BILLION 7th year 1.4 Trillion and 8th year 879 Billion
Hope that helps
Have a nice afternoon

Click to expand...

What happened with a Democratic Congress in 2009-2010 and a Democratic Senate in 2011 and 2012? Any idea what happened in 2013, SEQUESTER, how about 2014-2015-2016?? Republican Congress. Look you can try to rewrite history but you cannot change it.

What exactly did Obama do to lower the deficits in the years you want to tout? You are nothing more than a partisan liberal who makes things up as you go along to suit your ideology. What is it about liberals that create this kind of loyalty and total ignorance of data and policies?

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Conservative said:

Oh, I don't know, maybe giving up cigarettes, drugs, cell phones, internet, computers and all the other things that aren't needed for survival. Seems that personal responsibility is a lost art to you and others as there is no justification for not paying something for the line items in the budget especially with all those mandates coming back to them.

I know I can count on your trying to force your representatives from continuing those mandates but at least you are no longer spouting the rhetoric that taxes should go back to the states based upon a percentage of what they pay.

Click to expand...

Just where have I ever said they were needed for survival ?
and I will assume that you are one of the Republicans that call them the " Obama phones" when he have very little to do with starting that program, that program was started YEARS before he took office.
These are some of the programs that you can bet would be eliminated in many states if the Federal government stopped the mandated programs to help the poor and had the states take them over with no funding from the FED.
but seeing there are more Senators in RED states ( because there are more RED states then blue ) they will keep these programs because their states get more money back from the Federal Gov. then they send in
and again I ask you why do you think it is fair that these states get more back then they send in after the Mandated programs are paid for
have a nice day

Re: National Debt Tops $22 Trillion

Tbird19482 said:

Just where have I ever said they were needed for survival ?
and I will assume that you are one of the Republicans that call them the " Obama phones" when he have very little to do with starting that program, that program was started YEARS before he took office.
These are some of the programs that you can bet would be eliminated in many states if the Federal government stopped the mandated programs to help the poor and had the states take them over with no funding from the FED.
but seeing there are more Senators in RED states ( because there are more RED states then blue ) they will keep these programs because their states get more money back from the Federal Gov. then they send in
and again I ask you why do you think it is fair that these states get more back then they send in after the Mandated programs are paid for
have a nice day

Click to expand...

LOL, so tell me how many Blue state representatives voted against the mandates and support to red states? You are simply too partisan for words along with being very poorly informed. How do you know that state are getting back more than required for the federal mandates? Do you know what the mandates are and if not why don't you find out? All are for specific purposes and go directly to benefits of individuals, there is nothing left over to return to the gov't.

You want the mandates lifted, see how much support you get from the Democrats in Congress who now control the House where that legislation can begin