• 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!

Budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, the highest in seven years

MTAtech

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
36,634
Reaction score
35,660
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=1]Budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, the highest in seven years[/h]
The U.S. government’s red ink for fiscal 2019 swelled past the $1 trillion mark in August, the first time that level has been eclipsed in seven years, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

The total shortfall rose to nearly $1.07 trillion, thanks to a difference between revenue and expenses of more than $214.1 billion in August. The government last saw that large of a fiscal deficit in 2012, when the gap was nearly $1.1 trillion.

During his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump promised economic growth that would easily take care of the tax cuts and new spending he planned. His 2017 tax break for corporations and individuals has helped contribute to a deficit that has grown from $584.6 billion in 2016.



Click to expand...
Are we great again yet?

Just like many of us said, the tax-cuts contributed to lower revenue that contributed to the higher deficit. Also, this puts to rest the myth that Democrats are the big spenders, as higher spending occurred when the Republicans were in full control.
 
MTAtech said:
[h=1]Budget deficit smashes $1 trillion mark, the highest in seven years[/h]
Are we great again yet?

Just like many of us said, the tax-cuts contributed to lower revenue that contributed to the higher deficit. Also, this puts to rest the myth that Democrats are the big spenders, as higher spending occurred when the Republicans were in full control.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, the myth that it is only the Democrats who are the big spenders is a very durable myth. It is still believed by a large percentage of the voters even though anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that it is false.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that Democrats aren't big spenders, only that Republicans are just as fiscally irresponsible as Democrats.
 
Obama's first 3 years were all more than this.

Takes money to fix past issues.
 
And BTW; if any of the far Left Dems get into office with their free-**** programs, Katy bar the door on deficit spending.
 
WCH said:
Obama's first 3 years were all more than this.

Takes money to fix past issues.
Click to expand...
Yes, because he inherited the Great Recession, causing revenue to fall by $500 billion a year. Unemployment was 10% too.

What’s your excuse for trillion dollar deficits when unemployment is at 3.7%?
 
WCH said:
And BTW; if any of the far Left Dems get into office with their free-**** programs, Katy bar the door on deficit spending.
Click to expand...

Your narrative that Democrats are the big spenders isn’t shown in the data. Below is spending during Bush and Obama. Just look at the slopes.

fredgraph.png
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, because he inherited the Great Recession, causing revenue to fall by $500 billion a year. Unemployment was 10% too.

What’s your excuse for trillion dollar deficits when unemployment is at 3.7%?
Click to expand...

Paying to upgrade the military after Obama for one. Like I said, Takes money to fix problems of the past.
 
MTAtech said:
Your narrative that Democrats are the big spenders isn’t shown in the data. Below is spending during Bush and Obama. Just look at the slopes.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

Obama 2009 to 2017.
 
WCH said:
Obama's first 3 years were all more than this.
Click to expand...

The unemployment rate is less than 4%. You simply believe what you're told.
 
WCH said:
And BTW; if any of the far Left Dems get into office with their free-**** programs, Katy bar the door on deficit spending.
Click to expand...

It's already happened (under the leadership of the GOP).
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, because he inherited the Great Recession, causing revenue to fall by $500 billion a year. Unemployment was 10% too.

What’s your excuse for trillion dollar deficits when unemployment is at 3.7%?
Click to expand...

Understanding and dealing with administration overlap has not been their strongest suit since Eisenhower.

The fact that the Senate and Presidency can’t lead on Infrastructure should be a Great Issue for Democrats.
 
January 10, 2017

Kushinator said:
Enacting a policy of permanent fiscal stimulus would surely boost economic output. With little means of obstruction in his path, combined with some powerful bargaining chips (the SCOTUS nomination comes first to mind), U.S. GDP can very will see a massive upswing during the initial phase of his presidency. However, given that labor market slack is minimal, how beneficial will persistent deficits that flirt with $1 trillion annually be for long term economic growth? If fiscal policy isn't cut back during periods of heavy economic growth, it has great potential to crowd out private investment, and severely reduce economic efficiency in the medium to long term.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WCH said:
In Obama's first 3 years, the deficit was more than the projected 2020 numbers.
Click to expand...

The unemployment rate is less than 4%. What was it during Obama's first three years?

:lol:
 
WCH said:
Pushing 10. We weren't discussing the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

That's the difference. We should see deficits grow when the labor market suffers, and see deficits fall as the labor market recovers.

But you think what you're told to think... And so this point will likely be difficult for you to comprehend.
 
It's ok because Captain Dip**** is dreamy.
 
WCH said:
Paying to upgrade the military after Obama for one. Like I said, Takes money to fix problems of the past.
Click to expand...

U.S. military spending from 2000 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars)

The increase in military spending was greater 2008 to 2009 than it was 2017 to 2018. The 2018 budget is less than the budget in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The real reason for the huge deficit is a tax cut with no corresponding spending cuts. Trump is no fiscal conservative, not even close. Your idea that it was "upgrading the military" is risible.
 
Kushinator said:
That's the difference. We should see deficits grow when the labor market suffers, and see deficits fall as the labor market recovers.

But you think what you're told to think... And so this point will likely be difficult for you to comprehend.
Click to expand...

"should"? That sounds confident.


Regardless, what I said still hold true.
 
Dittohead not! said:
U.S. military spending from 2000 to 2018 (in billion U.S. dollars)

The increase in military spending was greater 2008 to 2009 than it was 2017 to 2018. The 2018 budget is less than the budget in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The real reason for the huge deficit is a tax cut with no corresponding spending cuts. Trump is no fiscal conservative, not even close. Your idea that it was "upgrading the military" is risible.
Click to expand...

Why do we need to spend 600 billion every year on war? I just don't get it. Who in the world can touch us militarily? The answer is simple. War is good for business even when there isn't a war. We would rather spend money on war then ourselves. Unbelievable.
 
WCH said:
"should"? That sounds confident.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's how fiscal policy should play out.

Regardless, what I said still hold true.
Click to expand...

What you said is just a deflection from the failure of your ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom