• 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!

Deficits are exploding – and neither party seems to care

No, they are not and repeating a falsehood does not make it any truer. Ronna McDaniel is Chairwoman of the Republican Party and Thomas Perez is the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

You might want to start by giving the US Constitution a read since you clearly know absolutely nothing about the budget or how it is passed. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 states:

You are relatively new here and really need to understand that this poster is a legend in his own mind here, truly the smartest person in the forum, never wrong and amazingly brilliant when it comes to every subject never wrong on any issue. You will learn that over time and even though your response is completely accurate, accuracy doesn't matter to a self proclaimed independent who shows just how independent he is on every issue promoting left wing policies and agendas.
 
OprphanSlug most eloquently (and patiently) broke down the situation in a way i could only wish to convey. The thread could have ended there:



Are you open to reading the entire thread?

Backs up what I said exactly. Except I said it in fewer words.
 
No, they are not and repeating a falsehood does not make it any truer. Ronna McDaniel is Chairwoman of the Republican Party and Thomas Perez is the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

You might want to start by giving the US Constitution a read since you clearly know absolutely nothing about the budget or how it is passed. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 states:

Attempts to cower behind the Constitution will continue to fail.
 
When has either side given a rats ass about our deficit spending? Republicans and Democrats alike are big government, big spending, big debt parties. It's only an issue when the other guy is in office.

I will give Ronald Reagan a break on this. Although he was against large deficits, he nevertheless ran up one, but it caused the fall of the Soviet Union, which went bankrupt attempting to keep up with our military spending. The rest of them? No breaks. They only give a damn about deficits when the other party is in office.
 
This answer is precisely what I am talking about when it comes to your credibility.

Agreeing with something Trump did as a matter of principle does not remove how things really work. "SS and Medicare have no business being part of the deficit (i.e. budget)" is a political position you may have, but all government ran funds operate the same way meaning your rhetoric is useless.

No matter how you think it should work every single cent coming into Social Security (for example) is immediately exchanged for special issued intergovernmental debt every single day, with those funds ending up in the general ledger. All as a matter of law. Also, every single dollar paid out of Social Security is paid for by cashing in aged special issued intergovernmental debt down to the cent with that check coming from the general ledger. Every transaction between the Social Security "Trust Fund" and the general ledger is reported, and the "Status" of the Trust Fund comes down to the trend in how much of that special intergovernmental debt is held down to the penny. Based on the economy and relation of inbound to outbound tells us the health of the Fund.

What that means is from a budget position every source of revenue ends up in a giant pool just as every expenditure comes out of that pool. Any action taken by the government that impacts any revenue or expenditure determines their relation and results in either deficit or surplus. Social Security is not excluded, nor is Medicare. They all matter, none are excluded no matter how clever your argument is that they should be. They are not, period. Mandatory, non-mandatory, by department, by fund, whatever else... it is all spending, all outlays. Revenue from Corporate Taxes, Individual Taxes, Fees, Withholding for Social Security or Medicare... it is all revenue, all in the pool of the general ledger. All as a matter of law.

The point of this conversation is lowering revenue from any source and keeping spending the same or increasing for any, many, or all areas of spending results in new deficits and additions to Debt.

It does not matter if some politician wanted something that did not happen, what did happen in terms of revenues and outlays is what matters to our deficit or surplus condition. Your own example illustrates what Republicans in the 115th did. Deficits are increasing for a multitude of reasons, you do not get to save Trump's tax cuts from the discussion just because ideologically you agree with them... those cuts did not occur in a vacuum and deficits jumping was impacted by his cuts, just as it was impacted by other things that make up a fiscal year result.

Again, your own source confirms all this. Nothing in the entire PDF supports your political desire for "what it should be." You can claim all you want that one action is good, the others are bad, and ignore the fiscal year result... but it kills whatever credibility you had left when you use the very source that tells us the actual results of all the President and associated Congresses actions.

State governments run this bond racket, too. California takes in Cap and Trade money and allocates it for environmental causes. Then they write bonds and swap out the money. So when you have a politically worthy cause (like getting re elected) you apply to the state to buy those bond back to fund your project.

This is how California has turned Cap ‘N Trade into to Pork ‘N Trade.
 
Yes, all by law, legal but that doesn't change the fact that the deficit is skyrocketing because of SS, Medicare, and Interest expenses, NOT Trump spending!!

They are counting on us Baby Boomers to hurry up and die off and save your sorry asses. Well, guess what? I plan to live forever - So far, so good!
 
Democrats are better with the deficit than the republicans.
 
Democrats are better with the deficit than the republicans.

You are probably the more poorly informed individual in this forum, Obama had a Democratic Congress 2009-2010, two trillion dollar deficits, had a Democratic Senate in 2011-2012, trillion dollar deficits, GOP Congress 2014 and 2016, deficits all under 1 trillion dollars! That is reality, yours is totally and completely biased, partisan, and based upon total ignorance of data
 
You are probably the more poorly informed individual in this forum, Obama had a Democratic Congress 2009-2010, two trillion dollar deficits, had a Democratic Senate in 2011-2012, trillion dollar deficits, GOP Congress 2014 and 2016, deficits all under 1 trillion dollars! That is reality, yours is totally and completely biased, partisan, and based upon total ignorance of data

He is making the same civically ignorant mistake most voters make by associating the President with congressional spending. It is not helped by the fact that most presidential candidates make spending promises that only Congress can keep. Like "Read my lips, no new taxes!" or "I will build that wall!"
 
He is making the same civically ignorant mistake most voters make by associating the President with congressional spending. It is not helped by the fact that most presidential candidates make spending promises that only Congress can keep. Like "Read my lips, no new taxes!" or "I will build that wall!"

What is so sad is that civics doesn't seem to be a subject being taught in schools these days which is creating very poorly educated people on how our gov't works.
 
You are probably the more poorly informed individual in this forum, Obama had a Democratic Congress 2009-2010, two trillion dollar deficits, had a Democratic Senate in 2011-2012, trillion dollar deficits

Obama inherited the Lesser Depression (A.K.A. The Great Recession). Between 2006 and 2009, households lost more than $7 trillion in equity (in terms of real estate). That's a 54% decline in the span of 3 years.

fredgraph.png


GOP Congress 2014 and 2016, deficits all under 1 trillion dollars!

The recovering economy and tax increases helped boost revenue. This is undisputable fact.



That is reality, yours is totally and completely biased, partisan, and based upon total ignorance of data

You are the forum embodiment of partisan ignorance.
 
What is so sad is that civics doesn't seem to be a subject being taught in schools these days which is creating very poorly educated people on how our gov't works.

That goes back to the Democrat unconstitutional creation of the Department of Education in 1980. They made civics in public schools optional, when they had been mandatory before. Some public schools continued to teach basic civics disguised as either "Social Studies" or "History" classes, but by 1984 the majority of public schools stopped teaching basic civics altogether. Which is why today we have civically illiterate morons and gullible idiots who think Presidents are responsible for congressional spending or can somehow keep a promise that only Congress can keep.

Unless basic civics is taught again in public schools, I hold no hope for the future of this nation.
 
Obama inherited the Lesser Depression (A.K.A. The Great Recession). Between 2006 and 2009, households lost more than $7 trillion in equity (in terms of real estate). That's a 54% decline in the span of 3 years.

The recovering economy and tax increases helped boost revenue. This is undisputable fact.

You are the forum embodiment of partisan ignorance.

The Democratic Party created the recession, and then made it even worse while Obama was President before being replaced by Republicans in 2010. The 2008-2016 recession was also not nearly as bad as the 1974-1984 recession. To hype it as "The Great Recession" is pure leftist partisan garbage and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Furthermore, the economy never recovered while Obama was President. Not a single year while Obama was President did the GDP ever reach an annual 3% growth.
 
Obama inherited the Lesser Depression (A.K.A. The Great Recession). Between 2006 and 2009, households lost more than $7 trillion in equity (in terms of real estate). That's a 54% decline in the span of 3 years.

fredgraph.png




The recovering economy and tax increases helped boost revenue. This is undisputable fact.





You are the forum embodiment of partisan ignorance.

You can try to rewrite history but you cannot change history, Obama inherited a Democratic Congress, TARP, no budget and the calendar shows we came out of recession before his stimulus was spent. Keep trying to prop up failure while showing that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are
 
The Democratic Party created the recession, and then made it even worse while Obama was President before being replaced by Republicans in 2010. The 2008-2016 recession was also not nearly as bad as the 1974-1984 recession. To hype it as "The Great Recession" is pure leftist partisan garbage and has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Furthermore, the economy never recovered while Obama was President. Not a single year while Obama was President did the GDP ever reach an annual 3% growth.

Partisan drivel isn't an argument.
 
You can try to rewrite history but you cannot change history, Obama inherited a Democratic Congress, TARP, no budget and the calendar shows we came out of recession before his stimulus was spent. Keep trying to prop up failure while showing that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are

Your opinions are not a substitute for empiricism or anlysis. Never in the history of the world did so much wealth vanish into thin air. Never in history did did the financial system bare such a strain. During the 1930's, there wasn't this much real estate or general financing.. Let alone the international interconnectivity.
 
Your opinions are not a substitute for empiricism or anlysis. Never in the history of the world did so much wealth vanish into thin air. Never in history did did the financial system bare such a strain. During the 1930's, there wasn't this much real estate or general financing.. Let alone the international interconnectivity.

There is a difference between paper wealth and real wealth, but you don't appear to know the difference. I didn't lose a dime during the so called "depression" but then again I am not nearly as smart as you think you are. I gave you what Obama inherited which you ignored as you always do make you a complete waste of time and typical left leaning liberal who has no understanding of the private sector at all and certainly no understanding of history
 
Corporate taxes are down due to reinvestment. The China tariffs are causing US mfg’s to purchase new equipment to take advantage of filling the supply chain China is priced out of. That “lost” corporate money comes back in wages due to increased hiring.
Corporate taxes are down due to the tax-cut in Dec 2017. The savings largely went to stock buybacks, not investments in plant and equipment.
 
The Democratic Party created the recession

How is that? The GOP controlled the House and the Senate from January 1995 through January 2007. Bush was President from 2001-2009, and controlled the regulators during the entire period of the housing and debt bubble through the crash. How did the Democratic party create the recession from their minority position in Congress and with a Republican in the White House?

This should be interesting.

and then made it even worse while Obama was President before being replaced by Republicans in 2010.

Well, of course! :roll:

The 2008-2016 recession was also not nearly as bad as the 1974-1984 recession.

You're making up your own definition of 'recession' so it's kind of hard to evaluate that claim. What I can do is see real GDP growth, which was +36% for 1974-1984 and only 13% for the 2008-2016 period, so it's unclear on what basis you're making that claim.

To hype it as "The Great Recession" is pure leftist partisan garbage and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

It was the most severe recession since the Great Depression. That's just a fact. I guess reality has a liberal bias? :confused:

Furthermore, the economy never recovered while Obama was President. Not a single year while Obama was President did the GDP ever reach an annual 3% growth.

We've not hit that arbitrary target under Trump either. We might this year - we'll see.
 
There is a difference between paper wealth and real wealth, but you don't appear to know the difference. I didn't lose a dime during the so called "depression" but then again I am not nearly as smart as you think you are. I gave you what Obama inherited which you ignored as you always do make you a complete waste of time and typical left leaning liberal who has no understanding of the private sector at all and certainly no understanding of history

So in other words, you have nothing but partisan spewage....
 
He is making the same civically ignorant mistake most voters make by associating the President with congressional spending. It is not helped by the fact that most presidential candidates make spending promises that only Congress can keep. Like "Read my lips, no new taxes!" or "I will build that wall!"

The President can certainly influence spending and taxes - he's got the veto pen, and a big podium to swing public opinion and provide leadership.
 
So in other words, you have nothing but partisan spewage....

Keep running from the real issue here showing that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are or want others to believe you are. Wealth doesn't disappear value may and did in the short term. You own a stock and the value drops doesn't mean you still don't own the stock. Not sure where you got your education but you really ought to keep it a secret
 
That goes back to the Democrat unconstitutional creation of the Department of Education in 1980. They made civics in public schools optional, when they had been mandatory before.

Reagan was elected in 1980 and took office in 1981, and his people controlled the Department of Education for the next eight years. Was Reagan incapable of reversing that decision? Seems unlikely. Do you have cites for this? And curriculum is a state and local matter. How did the DoE impose these new rules?

Some public schools continued to teach basic civics disguised as either "Social Studies" or "History" classes, but by 1984 the majority of public schools stopped teaching basic civics altogether. Which is why today we have civically illiterate morons and gullible idiots who think Presidents are responsible for congressional spending or can somehow keep a promise that only Congress can keep.

Unless basic civics is taught again in public schools, I hold no hope for the future of this nation.

Do you have evidence for any of those claims? For example, here's a discussion that shares your concerns in fact but contradicts your claims:

Forgotten Purpose: Civics Education in Public Schools

Contrary to Popular Belief, the Problem isn’t that Students Receive No Civics Education.

All 50 states require some form of instruction in civics and/or government, and nearly 90 percent of students take at least one civics class. But too often, factual book learning is not reinforced with experience-based learning opportunities like community service, guided debates, critical discussion of current events, and simulations of democratic processes.
 
Back
Top Bottom