Deficit 531 Billion So Far in FY2024

[EdwinWillers]

Tweety is a puppet who attempted a self coup.

Says all the sold-outs.

Besides, it's a bald-faced lie - and you should know that by now. But then, you aren't permitted to acknowledge the truth, neh? Just the Party line.

So sad.

 

[Helix]

Says all the sold-outs.

Besides, it's a bald-faced lie - and you should know that by now. But then, you aren't permitted to acknowledge the truth, neh? Just the Party line.

So sad.

It isn't. He's a puppet who attempted a self coup.

 

[AZRWinger]

Deficits are a byproduct of the private sector's refusal to pay better wages and invest in ways that create more employment. Instead, they will use their earnings to drive market valuations.

Indeed, DC isn't responsible for its spending. We'd be so much better off if bureaucrats with no private sector experience ran companies as jobs programs. A managed economy just like the one that produced such prosperty in the Soviet Union.

Companies can make Irish sandwiches with zero remorse, and the rest of society can fight over the crumbs.

So called Irish sandwiches, a tax evasion scheme, was ended in 2020. So typical of Marxist Democrats to argue for more regulation based on a problem already solved.

Leftists wail about pernicious corporate influence on politics but praise the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for passing over $400 million to election officials in 2020.

Some of the richest counties in the US are clustered around DC. But hey, all that deficit spending goes to help the poor and unemployed.

Without deficits, the unemployment rate would be 10%, 15%, 25%, until a bottom is reached.

so, we can borrow our way to prosperity? Makes no sense at all.

Talk is cheap. It's why Republicans will never work on deficit reduction when they are in power because doing so (cut spending) will necessarily damage the economy. Heaven forbid a rational tax policy is enacted to deal with excessive wealth concentration. Instead, spending will grow, taxes will be cut, and a narrative will be hammered until enough middle class people are grateful of shitty raises.

Heaven forbid a rational spending policy like a balanced budget amendment will be implemented. As history shows, increased tax revenues are more than offset by increased spending.

Reflexively attacking Republicans for not cutting the deficit is reckless demagoguery in light of Kim Jung Biden’s spending projection of a staggering $2 trillion in annual deficit spending for the next decade and beyond.

 

[Greenbeard]

Cut spending.

I think you’d first have to do something like cap eligibility to vote at age 65.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Remember when Biden used to boast about cutting the deficit in half? Well we all knew it was misleading, and the reality is the deficit keeps going up. Last year it was 2 trillion once you remove the student loan fuzzy math, and so far for 2024 its 531bn, 71bn more than last year at this time, there is no budget, no appropriations, we are still living off CRs, and theyre trying to borrow another 100bn to send to foreign countries.

And this is with higher tax revenues, up 8% compared to last year. As usual, the problem is spending is up even more, making last years deficit even worse, up 9%.

Has the GOP house done anything about it? Nope. The Senate? Nope. Biden? Dont make me laugh, he wants to spend even more. Fire them all.

Monthly Budget Review: January 2024

The federal budget deficit totaled $531 billion in the first four months of fiscal year 2024, CBO estimates—$71 billion more than the deficit recorded during the same period last fiscal year.

www.cbo.gov

OK. I'm finding it real difficult to care. Is there any reason I should? Can't think of any.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Indeed, DC isn't responsible for its spending. We'd be so much better off if bureaucrats with no private sector experience ran companies as jobs programs. A managed economy just like the one that produced such prosperty in the Soviet Union.

So called Irish sandwiches, a tax evasion scheme, was ended in 2020. So typical of Marxist Democrats to argue for more regulation based on a problem already solved.

Leftists wail about pernicious corporate influence on politics but praise the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for passing over $400 million to election officials in 2020.

Some of the richest counties in the US are clustered around DC. But hey, all that deficit spending goes to help the poor and unemployed.

so, we can borrow our way to prosperity? Makes no sense at all.

Heaven forbid a rational spending policy like a balanced budget amendment will be implemented. As history shows, increased tax revenues are more than offset by increased spending.

Reflexively attacking Republicans for not cutting the deficit is reckless demagoguery in light of Kim Jung Biden’s spending projection of a staggering $2 trillion in annual deficit spending for the next decade and beyond.

I'm a big fan of spending. (Especially if it benefits me.)

 

[99percenter]

Damn gop congress

 

[Kushinator]

Indeed, DC isn't responsible for its spending.

Strawman 1

We'd be so much better off if bureaucrats with no private sector experience ran companies as jobs programs.

Strawman 2

A managed economy just like the one that produced such prosperty in the Soviet Union.

Strawman 3... You're out!

So called Irish sandwiches, a tax evasion scheme

They are referred to as base erosion profit shifting strategies, e.g. the Dutch sammich, the Irish sammich, single malt, etc....

was ended in 2020. So typical of Marxist Democrats to argue for more regulation based on a problem already solved.

What regulation did I argue for? Be specific.

Leftists wail about pernicious corporate influence on politics but praise the Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for passing over $400 million to election officials in 2020.

Strawman no.4.

Some of the richest counties in the US are clustered around DC. But hey, all that deficit spending goes to help the poor and unemployed.

Difficult spending necessarily boosts the economy and ensures unemployment remains low.

so, we can borrow our way to prosperity? Makes no sense at all.

Strawman 5.

Heaven forbid a rational spending policy like a balanced budget amendment will be implemented.

It's political fodder used to rile up a base that has absolutely no comprehension of the subject. The strongest economy in the history of the world is not your household.

As history shows, increased tax revenues are more than offset by increased spending.

I will never deny that spending reform is necessary. But to pretend that we are just going to cut our way to a balanced budget is foolish.

Reflexively attacking Republicans for not cutting the deficit is reckless demagoguery

What happened? Did the GOP's balls fall off? They had the ability to reduce spending and cut deficits but chose not to. Why? Doing so would have wrecked the economic miracle of 2.5% rGDP growth.

Biden’s spending projection of a staggering $2 trillion in annual deficit spending for the next decade and beyond.

Deficits only matter when Republicans underperform during elections.

 

[jonny5]

Cut spending.

Dont feed him.

 

[jonny5]

I think you’d first have to do something like cap eligibility to vote at age 65.

Or just cut spending. For example, caps on medicaid spending would save a trillion over ten years.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-12/58164-budget-options-large-effects.pdf

 

[Greenbeard]

Or just cut spending. For example, caps on medicaid spending would save a trillion over ten years.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-12/58164-budget-options-large-effects.pdf

What is this game you’re playing? You’ve said many, many times that slowing per beneficiary cost growth to inflationary levels is not actually savings since the nominal cost of the program continues to increase.

This is exactly what’s been achieved in Medicare since the ACA passed in 2010. Yet you’ve been quite clear that the $4 trillion that cost slow down saved so far doesn’t count.

Now achieving the same thing in Medicaid would count as a trillion in savings in your world? Surely not!

But if so, time to take a few moments to marvel at what’s already been achieved in slowing per person cost growth in the ACA era. The long-term budget outlook has brightened considerably over the past 15 years for precisely that reason!

 

[yankintx]

It's cute when Republicans pretend they are STILL fiscally Conservative

Pull the other one bwahaha

 

[jonny5]

What is this game you’re playing? You’ve said many, many times that slowing per beneficiary cost growth to inflationary levels is not actually savings since the nominal cost of the program continues to increase.

This is exactly what’s been achieved in Medicare since the ACA passed in 2010. Yet you’ve been quite clear that the $4 trillion that cost slow down saved so far doesn’t count.

Now achieving the same thing in Medicaid would count as a trillion in savings in your world? Surely not!

But if so, time to take a few moments to marvel at what’s already been achieved in slowing per person cost growth in the ACA era. The long-term budget outlook has brightened considerably over the past 15 years for precisely that reason!

Because this example results in deficit reduction due to not adding more spending elsewhere. It only cuts. Wheras ACA resulted in deficit INCREASE, because it did add more spending in the form of insurance subsidies.

If you only took the medicare savings from ACA and did nothing else you might have a point. There are plenty of options, such as increasing the premium for Medicare B. By itself that would reduce the deficit by 500bn in ten years through more revenue for that program.

Youre right though, even better would be ACTUAL cuts, not just slowing the growth.

 

[AZRWinger]

I'm a big fan of spending. (Especially if it benefits me.)

So was the Weimar Republic until inflation caused by overspending caused it to collapse. But hey why should you care if groceries are 19% more expensive than when Biden was sworn in or when he revisited a fast food restaurant in South Carolina the price of the same meal was up 28% compared to 2016. Kim Jung Biden’s gonna take care of us, right?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Or just cut spending. For example, caps on medicaid spending would save a trillion over ten years.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-12/58164-budget-options-large-effects.pdf

At the cost of how many American lives?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

At the cost of how many American lives?

You dont wanna know.

Remember, these folks were ready to sacrifice Grandma and Grandpa to covid in order to avoid the hassle of dealing with it and losing a few shekels.

Let Grandma and Grandpa croak and "cap" healthcare for the elderly, but when it comes to a woman making her own reproductive decisions its "Every life is sacred!!!"

Unfudgingbelievable.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

So was the Weimar Republic until inflation caused by overspending caused it to collapse. But hey why should you care if groceries are 19% more expensive than when Biden was sworn in or when he revisited a fast food restaurant in South Carolina the price of the same meal was up 28% compared to 2016. Kim Jung Biden’s gonna take care of us, right?

This nation has been at war for decades nonstop and you're telling me my FREE BidenCare™ plan is going to bankrupt the nation eh? Turn it into the Weimar Republic?

LOL well that right theres not very convincing Friend, I don't really care for that.

 

[Nickyjo]

Cut spending.

Name your cuts.

 

[Greenbeard]

Because this example results in deficit reduction due to not adding more spending elsewhere. It only cuts. Wheras ACA resulted in deficit INCREASE, because it did add more spending in the form of insurance subsidies.

Saving $4 trillion and re-directing $1 trillion to coverage so 20+ million Americans can get care still leaves you with . . . $3 trillion in net savings.

 

[jonny5]

Saving $4 trillion and re-directing $1 trillion to coverage so 20+ million Americans can get care still leaves you with . . . $3 trillion in net savings.

Or 1 trillion in increased spending (since the savings are hypothetical). The goal is to reduce the deficit. ACA did not do that. Its worse than ever. We are spending more than ever on healthcare. Its more expensive than ever. Capping medicaid spending would reduce the deficit, if no other changes are made. But its not enough. We should also cut SNAP and SSI. This would reduce the deficit by 327bn in 10 years.

Option Component. This option would reduce the amount of mandatory federal funding for most income security programs by 15 percent. Most of those changes would take effect in October 2023. Changes to child nutrition programs would take place in July 2023 to coincide with the beginning of the school year.Many approaches could be used to reduce spending by 15 percent. For programs for which federal law specifies eligibility criteria and benefit amounts, such as SNAP and SSI, spending could be reduced by tightening eligibility criteria, which would reduce the number of recipients. Alternatively, the reduction in spending could be achieved through a broader decrease in benefits levels and administrative costs.

 

[jonny5]

At the cost of how many American lives?

None.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

None.

Sure, take money away from health care and no one's health is effected

Magically dairy dust

 

[AZRWinger]

You dont wanna know.

Remember, these folks were ready to sacrifice Grandma and Grandpa to covid in order to avoid the hassle of dealing with it and losing a few shekels.

Let Grandma and Grandpa croak and "cap" healthcare for the elderly, but when it comes to a woman making her own reproductive decisions its "Every life is sacred!!!"

Unfudgingbelievable.

Who are these folks denying medical care to the elderly? Obamacare was financed by slicing $90 billion from Medicare. The single greatest area of healthcare spending reduction under Obamacare is Medicare. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel spoke contemptuously about the "uproductive" lifestyle of retirees. But hey, blame Republicans it's easier than looking at the facts.

 

[jonny5]

Sure, take money away from health care and no one's health is effected

Magically dairy dust

ok

 

[Tbird19482]

That federal aid comes from the states taxes. Why are we giving money to the federal govt to give back to the state to build a turtle tunnel or a road or subsidize rent? Do away with it.

What? " That federal aid comes from the states taxes."
federal aid to states comes from the Federal taxes they collect NOT from state taxes.
State taxes stay in the state , Federal taxes go to Washington and then are distributed back to the states in the form of state aid.
and I would love to see the Federal government do away with state aid, if they did states like NY wouldn't be sending Billions of dollars to the Fed. and it would stay in the state and the Red states that depend on federal aid to run their states would have to raise their state taxes , and they would have to cut state programs even more , heck they don't fund some of them the way they should now
Have a nice day