Current US Federal Budget Deficit

[Conservative]

Your attempts to play taskmaster do not negate from your inability to make a coherent point. The data is available... you are more than welcome to do your own work.



Social Security contributions to the deficit have not yet materialized, as was stated... the inflow still exceeds the outflow. There will become a point where the trust fund will require repayment from the Treasury to make payments... but we have not crossed this line, and therefore your point is moot.

The 2018 deficit had nothing to do with SS, but was an instance of growing expenditures in the face of slowing receipts. Your lie stands.

LOL, still no explanation, what was FIT created to fund?? Slowing receipts?? Slowing in what?? 1.8 trillion in FIT And corporate taxes in 2018 to fund 1.2 trillion in ACTUAL Federal spending for discretionary items. Where is the deficit??

 

[Conservative]

Their purpose is to fulfill the policy goals of the government. Not sure why you think this is some unknown secret, even Trump lovers know that tax cuts have a purpose, they give money away to rich people and take it from poor people.

Yes, the policy goals of the gov't to fund the line items they create, none of which are SS, Medicare, Debt Service, or Transportation Expenses. You on the other hand want to raise taxes on the rich to fund those abuses by the bureaucrats charging a bunch of people many of whom may not be collecting SS and Medicare or using the roads and bridges? Typical liberalism and ignorance.

 

[Kushinator]

LOL, still no explanation, what was FIT created to fund??

I don't have to play your game. You are a known liar, and your post history is a testament.

That money that was borrowed left a hole in the trust fund that is now creating the deficit we had in 2018 and because people like you ignore that reality.....

This is a lie. You should own up to your dishonesty.

 

[Vadinho]

Yes, the policy goals of the gov't to fund the line items they create, none of which are SS, Medicare, Debt Service, or Transportation Expenses. You on the other hand want to raise taxes on the rich to fund those abuses by the bureaucrats charging a bunch of people many of whom may not be collecting SS and Medicare or using the roads and bridges? Typical liberalism and ignorance.

The policy goals of the governments for decades has been to fully fund the government including the entire government either by taxation or lending. It is always my goal to tax the rich more not for tax revenue purposes but to redistribute wealth away from the oligarchy so we do not end up with a landed gentry or permanent upper class. We could continue on this path towards having a landed gentry while making lives miserable down the line for the rest of the nation or we could reverse course and do something about it. I see all you want to do is lecture poor people on how lazy they are and unworthy of your attention. I actually want to help them because I know that being poor is a hell of a lot more work then being rich. I know plenty of very, very rich people. They don't work, they play.

 

[Conservative]

I don't have to play your game. You are a known liar, and your post history is a testament.



This is a lie. You should own up to your dishonesty.

Good wallow in your own ignorance, good riddance. I posted the link to the Treasury showing the budget approved/spent and then a link to the Treasury showing revenue received. You ignored both. Name calling is the only thing you do well as you have not proven that revenue collected in FIT and Corporate revenue isn't enough to fund the items created to be funded by FIT

 

[Conservative]

The policy goals of the governments for decades has been to fully fund the government including the entire government either by taxation or lending. It is always my goal to tax the rich more not for tax revenue purposes but to redistribute wealth away from the oligarchy so we do not end up with a landed gentry or permanent upper class. We could continue on this path towards having a landed gentry while making lives miserable down the line for the rest of the nation or we could reverse course and do something about it. I see all you want to do is lecture poor people on how lazy they are and unworthy of your attention. I actually want to help them because I know that being poor is a hell of a lot more work then being rich. I know plenty of very, very rich people. They don't work, they play.

Funding the gov't isn't the problem here as FIT is doing that, it is the entitlement programs and debt service that is the problem none of which were created by a shortage of FIT or Corporate taxes. You don't seem to grasp the reality of what taxes you pay and their purpose. FICA was NOT created to fund gov't expenses, it was created to fund retirement supplements and healthcare in old age, Trillions have been collected and trillions borrowed leaving that shortfall that is being created now as more is going out than coming in revenue collected by FICA.

Class envy and jealousy on full display

 

[Vadinho]

Funding the gov't isn't the problem here as FIT is doing that, it is the entitlement programs and debt service that is the problem none of which were created by a shortage of FIT or Corporate taxes. You don't seem to grasp the reality of what taxes you pay and their purpose. FICA was NOT created to fund gov't expenses, it was created to fund retirement supplements and healthcare in old age, Trillions have been collected and trillions borrowed leaving that shortfall that is being created now as more is going out than coming in revenue collected by FICA.

Class envy and jealousy on full display

Boy, you must have reading comprehension issues. Whenever the government does not have funds on hand from tax revenues, it gets that money from the auction of Tbills. It does this every week so that the full faith and credit of the government can never be questioned. It prefers to hold auctions instead of just issuing the currency because that is the way previous governments legislated rather then just allow the Treasury Department to pay bills without paying interest or having the Fed involved. The bills get paid, the money is found and there is never any doubt that more money cannot be found or created to meet obligations. The point you keep trying to make is legislative in nature, it has nothing to do with our ability to pay debts created by the government. Let me state this again so that maybe this time you will understand. The US government can never, ever go insolvent or default on its debts or not pay its bills due to lack of money. It could go into default politically but that has nothing to do with a lack of money, it would be the result of elected officials putting politics over payments.

 

[Conservative]

Boy, you must have reading comprehension issues. Whenever the government does not have funds on hand from tax revenues, it gets that money from the auction of Tbills. It does this every week so that the full faith and credit of the government can never be questioned. It prefers to hold auctions instead of just issuing the currency because that is the way previous governments legislated rather then just allow the Treasury Department to pay bills without paying interest or having the Fed involved. The bills get paid, the money is found and there is never any doubt that more money cannot be found or created to meet obligations. The point you keep trying to make is legislative in nature, it has nothing to do with our ability to pay debts created by the government. Let me state this again so that maybe this time you will understand. The US government can never, ever go insolvent or default on its debts or not pay its bills due to lack of money. It could go into default politically but that has nothing to do with a lack of money, it would be the result of elected officials putting politics over payments.

Again, do you know the difference between discretionary vs. mandatory budget items? Do you know the difference between operating expenses and entitlement expenses? Why don't you post for us the definition of both and that the operating expenses are the problem with the budget and created the deficits and debt?

The U.S. never will go insolvent, that is a reality but the reality is you and the radicals want to blame the deficit on the inability to collect enough income taxes and that is nothing but partisan BS. FIT and Corporate taxes are enough to fund OPERATING EXPENSES they aren't creating the deficit, entitlement spending and interest expenses are. Now if you want to post proof that isn't the case I will apologize for my error?

 

[Vadinho]

Again, do you know the difference between discretionary vs. mandatory budget items? Do you know the difference between operating expenses and entitlement expenses? Why don't you post for us the definition of both and that the operating expenses are the problem with the budget and created the deficits and debt?

The U.S. never will go insolvent, that is a reality but the reality is you and the radicals want to blame the deficit on the inability to collect enough income taxes and that is nothing but partisan BS. FIT and Corporate taxes are enough to fund OPERATING EXPENSES they aren't creating the deficit, entitlement spending and interest expenses are. Now if you want to post proof that isn't the case I will apologize for my error?

Again, if you think the government will choose to fund one and not the other due to tax revenue shortfalls, you must have missed the last 120 years of our history. Whether it is in one class or the other is immaterial to payment. You keep trying to make the macro economy into a business, it is not a business, it does not need to balance the books and it can never, ever run out of money for whatever it wants to buy.

 

[marke]

If
I think that adding to the debt in large amounts reduced the ability to respond when a crisis arises. Now, we are adding to debt beyond economic growth and asking the Fed to lower interest rates.

I believe that it’s fine to run a deficit if that deficit is lower than economic growth, as a p% of GDP.

But, will the debt sink us if we fail to service it?

 

[marke]

My answer is unchanged. Trump and Republicans added to deficits and debt at a time when the economy did not need that, and as such you are attempting to sidestep that discussion to talk about paying down debt.

Ironically deficits should go down and perhaps to the point of not needing to auction so much debt at this point of the economic cycle. If Trump and Republicans in the last Congress were really fiscal conservatives that would have been the move, we would see deficits continue to fall. Stress on Total Debt would be far less, but that is not what Trump wanted and what we ended up with was an increase in deficits and as such we are still breaking a few treasury auctions along the way.

A simple “yes” or “no” to your question ignores the fundamentals of economics, what fiat money systems are, the reality that the government is an active participant in our economy, and the very nature of fiscal and monetary policy decision making as a whole.

Try your game on someone else, it only makes you look foolish to try it with me.

America will end in fiscal bankruptcy because Americans will do nothing to avert disaster because they cannot grasp the fact that it is the debt which will bankrupt us, not the deficit.

 

[Vadinho]

America will end in fiscal bankruptcy because Americans will do nothing to avert disaster because they cannot grasp the fact that it is the debt which will bankrupt us, not the deficit.

Why? The Fed and Treasury can be told via an act of Congress to pay the entire debt off with a keystroke at any time we choose. Do you really think there is a pile of c-notes sitting around that pays the bills? It's all electronic entries, nothing more or less. In reality, the government could not collect a single penny and still pay in us backed currency any time we choose to make it so. What you are thinking of does not really exist but in the minds of politicians, it is not an issue of balancing a checkbook.

 

[Kushinator]

I posted the link to the Treasury showing the budget approved/spent and then a link to the Treasury showing revenue received. You ignored both.

You're confused with who you're responding to and quoting.

Name calling is the only thing you do well as you have not proven that revenue collected in FIT and Corporate revenue isn't enough to fund the items created to be funded by FIT

You told a lie. Show some responsibility and courage. Your opinion of what is funded by what revenue stream is not important.

 

[Bullseye]

Why? The Fed and Treasury can be told via an act of Congress to pay the entire debt off with a keystroke at any time we choose. Do you really think there is a pile of c-notes sitting around that pays the bills? It's all electronic entries, nothing more or less. In reality, the government could not collect a single penny and still pay in us backed currency any time we choose to make it so. What you are thinking of does not really exist but in the minds of politicians, it is not an issue of balancing a checkbook.

Sounds like your delving into the never-never land of Modern Money Theory. Reality is different.

 

[Conservative]

Again, if you think the government will choose to fund one and not the other due to tax revenue shortfalls, you must have missed the last 120 years of our history. Whether it is in one class or the other is immaterial to payment. You keep trying to make the macro economy into a business, it is not a business, it does not need to balance the books and it can never, ever run out of money for whatever it wants to buy.

And you are totally and completely confused as to the difference between operating expenses and mandatory entitlement expenses and how the Gov't used the entitlement money for operating expenses like the Vietnam War and then got addicted to that usage thus creating more dependence and power. Keep buying the leftwing spin and keep ignoring that FIT is indeed funding what it was intended to fund and SS and Medicare would have been fine had it not been borrowed and NOT paid back.

 

[Conservative]

You're confused with who you're responding to and quoting.



You told a lie. Show some responsibility and courage. Your opinion of what is funded by what revenue stream is not important.

Anything that you don't agree with is called a lie as that is all you do, name call. I posted the link to actual budget spending and revenue thus the only lie comes from people like you who refuse to admit when wrong. FIT never was intended to fund SS and Medicare or transportation expenses and is more than enough to fund the discretionary part of the budget. You call me a liar??? Prove me wrong???

 

[marke]

Why? The Fed and Treasury can be told via an act of Congress to pay the entire debt off with a keystroke at any time we choose. Do you really think there is a pile of c-notes sitting around that pays the bills? It's all electronic entries, nothing more or less. In reality, the government could not collect a single penny and still pay in us backed currency any time we choose to make it so. What you are thinking of does not really exist but in the minds of politicians, it is not an issue of balancing a checkbook.

I hope that is not what our lawmakers think, because if that is what they think then they have another thought coming, and it will not be very pretty. They cannot just print their own money any time they like to pay the US debts on the world market. Other nations must buy American dollars to pay their bills and if the US is going to print extra money to pay its own bills then other nations will end up paying more for US dollars with much less buying power. That is why other nations are scheming to come up with an alternative world currency in order to get off the US dollar.

What low information fiscal theorists apparently miss is the fact that if the US could just print itself out of debt then Congress is acting like a bunch of dummasses for fighting tooth and nail over raising the debt ceiling more and more every few months.

 

[OrphanSlug]

America will end in fiscal bankruptcy because Americans will do nothing to avert disaster because they cannot grasp the fact that it is the debt which will bankrupt us, not the deficit.

That is the rhetoric we are used to hearing now.

But you are still avoiding what Trump and Republicans in the last Congress did, clearly you have little to say about their additions to this issue.

 

[Conservative]

That is the rhetoric we are used to hearing now.

But you are still avoiding what Trump and Republicans in the last Congress did, clearly you have little to say about their additions to this issue.

the easy way out is your way, blaming Republicans for something you don't understand, the budget and spending. I asked what lies if have told and what I gt is silence which actually speaks volumes. You want to believe what you are told therefore what you are told is gospel

 

[OrphanSlug]

the easy way out is your way, blaming Republicans for something you don't understand, the budget and spending. I asked what lies if have told and what I gt is silence which actually speaks volumes. You want to believe what you are told therefore what you are told is gospel

Your own links, and the Treasury reports as well, all support what I am saying. Including the new additions to deficits and debt that Trump and Republicans in the last Congress are responsible for.

 

[Vadinho]

I hope that is not what our lawmakers think, because if that is what they think then they have another thought coming, and it will not be very pretty. They cannot just print their own money any time they like to pay the US debts on the world market. Other nations must buy American dollars to pay their bills and if the US is going to print extra money to pay its own bills then other nations will end up paying more for US dollars with much less buying power. That is why other nations are scheming to come up with an alternative world currency in order to get off the US dollar.

What low information fiscal theorists apparently miss is the fact that if the US could just print itself out of debt then Congress is acting like a bunch of dummasses for fighting tooth and nail over raising the debt ceiling more and more every few months.

i am not saying its the right thing to do, I am merely stating it is an option. But lets think about it for a second more. Why would we pay it down via taxation? Every dollar in surplus sent back to the Treasury is destroyed, it is gone forever until the Treasury decides to deficit spend again. Surely you must see this obvious truth. Now lets say the nation did pay off every bond holder tomorrow in the way I suggested. It would only put back the dollars the Fed took out in exchange for the Tbill or note. No new money is created, it is merely exchanged for notes paid in the same currency. So what would be the affect? Well, we would no longer pay interest on 23 trillion. Is that good? Not to an investor or holder of vast reserves of dollars looking for a home that is safe. As you said, if we decided to never hold debt in the form of Tbills, US dollars would be used to buy some other instrument in another currency. But then that issuer would be holding those dollars now. What would they do with them? Do you not see how the entire scheme is a giant circle made up of central banks who have been issuing currency whenever they want to pay debts in the same currencies? The harping about the total debt is really about harping about decades of spending that none of us wanted to fund via taxation. Thats it in a nutshell. What bad things happened because of it? Well, we went to war with Iraq. We spent trillions upon trillions on war making. We took care of older people's health, poor peoples health. We paid investors interest which was then recycled into the economy. We saved our banks and economy from a total collapse. All in all, it seems as if the total debt is really only a problem for people who want to cut future spending on things they do not like. On the left, its war making and tax cuts for rich people. On the right, its granny or your sister on SSI or that old lady in a nursing home.

 

[Conservative]

Your own links, and the Treasury reports as well, all support what I am saying. Including the new additions to deficits and debt that Trump and Republicans in the last Congress are responsible for.

Then post the data to prove that I am wrong. Your rhetoric is n=just your opinion

 

[Far right dem]

I'm interested to know more about your insightful post.

I'll start with the latter insightful revelation first. I usually like to believe I am a rather well read person, but I had no idea that President Obama was on the raid that killed UBL. Wow! So, if you could fill us in on his heroic actions that night, as you obviously have information about it that has been largely under-reported. I had no idea he was part of the SEAL teams! Again, Wow.

As to your former revelation about President Obama overwatching the greatest economic recoveries ever, I'd also love to read more from you that substantiates this claim.

Of special note is how President Obama was able to overwatch this "greatest economic recoveries ever" without any economic growth that would match such a claim.

For an example, here are the list of recessions and recoveries since 1930
--Great Depression: 1934 to 1937 saw 10.8%, 8.9%, 12.9%, and 5.1% GDP growth.
--1937 Recession: 1939 saw a recovery of 8% even before WWII came to call.
--Post WWII Recession (1945-1947): 1948 saw GDP growth of 4.1%
--1949 Recession: 8.7% and 8% GDP growth in 1950 and 1951
--1954 Recession: 7.1% GDP growth the next year
--1960-1961 Recession: 6.1% GDP growth in 1962 and annual growth of 4.8% each year for the next eight years.
--1970 Recession: Economic growth in 1971 slowly grew at 3.3% but was over 5% for the next two years.
--1974-1975 Recession: 5.4% growth in 1976
--1980-1982 Recession: Followed by 4.6% growth in 1983 and 7.2% growth in 1984
--1991 Recession: 3.5% growth in 1992
--2001-2002 Recession: Slowest recovery so far with 2.9% in 2003 but 3.8% in 2004

Now, if history serves us right, we see that the economy has historically bounced back with nearly 4% economic growth within two years from when each economic crisis bottomed out. So, if you can help explain to me how this "greatest economic recovery" never had a single year of economic growth of 3% or greater? In fact, the average of the previous 4 years after the economy bottomed out, GDP growth averaged an anemic 2.05%.

And while you are at it, outside of the America Reinvestment Act, can you cite me a single pro-economic growth piece of legislation that President Obama overwatched that led to this "greatest economic recovery"?

Thanks again for bringing us these two incredible revelations.

Nice try. obama gets credit for the kill. Bush had 8 years to kill obl but couldnt. Obama killed him in 2.

 

[Kushinator]

Anything that you don't agree with is called a lie

Another lie to cover for this lie:

That money that was borrowed left a hole in the trust fund that is now creating the deficit we had in 2018

I posted the link to actual budget spending and revenue thus the only lie comes from people like you who refuse to admit when wrong.

If this was true, you wouldn't continue to push your other lie about the interest expense.

FIT never was intended to fund SS and Medicare or transportation expenses and is more than enough to fund the discretionary part of the budget.

Your opinion does not matter.

Prove me wrong???

I've repeatedly proven you wrong... you just refuse to accept it.

 

[marke]

Why? The Fed and Treasury can be told via an act of Congress to pay the entire debt off with a keystroke at any time we choose. Do you really think there is a pile of c-notes sitting around that pays the bills? It's all electronic entries, nothing more or less. In reality, the government could not collect a single penny and still pay in us backed currency any time we choose to make it so. What you are thinking of does not really exist but in the minds of politicians, it is not an issue of balancing a checkbook.

Debts must be paid with real money created by labor, not with monopoly money.