Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion

[Dittohead not!]

Ever hear of a concept called Return on Investment? spending money and getting a return on that like reduced illegal immigration costs?? Sounds like something of value to me

Interesting how liberals like to refer to government spending as "investments." Not all investments pay off, particularly when they're leveraged by borrowing. It's time to start paying off those investments before we start making any more.

Plus, the prospectus on this one doesn't look very honest to me. Claims of savings are highly exaggerated.

 

[Conservative]

Interesting how liberals like to refer to government spending as "investments." Not all investments pay off, particularly when they're leveraged by borrowing. It's time to start paying off those investments before we start making any more.

Plus, the prospectus on this one doesn't look very honest to me. Claims of savings are highly exaggerated.

Not surprising how someone from California doesn't understand the term. When you invest money and get a benefit from that investment it is a return on investment. Lowering immigration costs is a return, just like the peace dividend and destruction of the Soviet Union was a return on investment for defense spending under Reagan.

 

[Conservative]

Interesting how liberals like to refer to government spending as "investments." Not all investments pay off, particularly when they're leveraged by borrowing. It's time to start paying off those investments before we start making any more.

Plus, the prospectus on this one doesn't look very honest to me. Claims of savings are highly exaggerated.

We don't need a wall, right?

Another reason California should never be allowed to elect our President due simply to the population and its support for illegals. You must be so proud

Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn'''t honor ICE detainer, feds say | Fox News

 

[Kushinator]

The interest expense was 523 MILLION dollars, that is reality and a fact JACK according to Treasury, you have a problem with it, I gave you the contact information

You don't understand the term net interest. Interest expense is the gross yield in terms of dollars of all debt issuance less inflows. When we factor out state and local interest, cash in-flows, etc..., the line item expense for fiscal year 2018 becomes $324 billion.

I've corrected you on this error more times than i can remember. Why do you continue to push a lie even after you've been shown the truth?

 

[Conservative]

You don't understand the term net interest. Interest expense is the gross yield in terms of dollars of all debt issuance less inflows. When we factor out state and local interest, cash in-flows, etc..., the line item expense for fiscal year 2018 becomes $324 billion.

I've corrected you on this error more times than i can remember. Why do you continue to push a lie even after you've been shown the truth?

So again you want to ignore Treasury numbers and to you the number is more important than the issue. How much did debt service go up in fiscal year 2018? What was the fiscal year 2018 deficit? Are you going to sit here an tell us that most of the 2018 deficit increase wasn't due to interest expense? Intellectual honesty isn't something you have very much of

 

[Kushinator]

So again you want to ignore Treasury numbers

I'm not ignoring Treasury numbers. I'm pointing out the fact that you're using the wrong data set... and that you're doing it purely on the basis of partisanship.

to you the number is more important than the issue.

Accuracy is important. We can't have people making random false claims and basing their arguments around these claims as though they are facts. You are wrong and don't have the courage to admit it.

How much did debt service go up in fiscal year 2018?

$62 billion

What was the fiscal year 2018 deficit?

$779 billion

Are you going to sit here an tell us that most of the 2018 deficit increase wasn't due to interest expense?

Yes. And i've already addressed this.

Expenditure growth was outpacing revenue growth, hence we have an increased deficit. The issue is primarily the failure of the GOP controlled government to cut any expenditures because they feared for political losses in November. A political party that rallied for 8 years on the basis of small government, reduced spending, etc.... presided over consistent deficit increases. Next years deficit will be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your party failed you.

Now you want to project this failure in every thread pertaining to government finance.

 

[Conservative]

I'm not ignoring Treasury numbers. I'm pointing out the fact that you're using the wrong data set... and that you're doing it purely on the basis of partisanship.



Accuracy is important. We can't have people making random false claims and basing their arguments around these claims as though they are facts. You are wrong and don't have the courage to admit it.



$62 billion



$779 billion



Yes. And i've already addressed this.

Expenditure growth was outpacing revenue growth, hence we have an increased deficit. The issue is primarily the failure of the GOP controlled government to cut any expenditures because they feared for political losses in November. A political party that rallied for 8 years on the basis of small government, reduced spending, etc.... presided over consistent deficit increases. Next years deficit will be in the neighborhood of $1 trillion. Your party failed you.

Now you want to project this failure in every thread pertaining to government finance.

Then there is no further reason to discuss this issue with you as most of the increase in deficit from 2017 was indeed interest expense and very little to do with spending and none of it was due to Trump.

Revenue growth covered any discretionary spending increases and tax cuts boosted consumer spending thus state and local revenue exploded

Big govt liberals like you will never steal enough taxpayer money to satisfy your desire for the nanny state



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Kushinator]

Then there is no further reason to discuss this issue with you as most of the increase in deficit from 2017 was indeed interest expense

You're still refusing to grasp the mechanics behind budgeting: Revenue - Expenditure < 0 = deficit

Given that you and your fellow Trump fluffers told us these tax cuts would pay for themselves by creating so much economic activity that any lost revenue will have been made up by new revenue generated. It just didn't happen like you predicted. Instead, revenue growth fell, expenditures increased, and you try to pass the buck simply to defend the failure of your partisan agenda.

and very little to do with spending and none of it was due to Trump.

Trump was the President during a Republican controlled Congress. You want to ignore the results.

Revenue growth covered any discretionary spending increases and tax cuts boosted consumer spending thus state and local revenue exploded

Revenue growth was a paltry $13 billion.

Big govt liberals like you will never steal enough taxpayer money to satisfy your desire for the nanny state

Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion of what others think. So take that uninformed, bias, partisan nonsense and shove it.

 

[Bullseye]

You're still refusing to grasp the mechanics behind budgeting: Revenue - Expenditure < 0 = deficit

Given that you and your fellow Trump fluffers told us these tax cuts would pay for themselves by creating so much economic activity that any lost revenue will have been made up by new revenue generated. It just didn't happen like you predicted. Instead, revenue growth fell, expenditures increased, and you try to pass the buck simply to defend the failure of your partisan agenda.



Trump was the President during a Republican controlled Congress. You want to ignore the results.



Revenue growth was a paltry $13 billion.



Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion of what others think. So take that uninformed, bias, partisan nonsense and shove it.

I don't recall anyone saying the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" IN A YEAR. Got a link?

 

[Conservative]

You're still refusing to grasp the mechanics behind budgeting: Revenue - Expenditure < 0 = deficit

Given that you and your fellow Trump fluffers told us these tax cuts would pay for themselves by creating so much economic activity that any lost revenue will have been made up by new revenue generated. It just didn't happen like you predicted. Instead, revenue growth fell, expenditures increased, and you try to pass the buck simply to defend the failure of your partisan agenda.



Trump was the President during a Republican controlled Congress. You want to ignore the results.



Revenue growth was a paltry $13 billion.



Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion of what others think. So take that uninformed, bias, partisan nonsense and shove it.

Since tax cuts aren't an expense and the American taxpayers aren't employees of the federal gov't there is nothing to pay for. People keeping more of what they earn really bothers you and the rest of the radicals. Your ignorance of basic accounting is staggering almost as bad as your belief in big gov't. You can try to bully your liberal friends but you aren't going to bully me. Your liberal arrogance and ignorance of the private sector gives you zero credibility and for some reason you think I should give a damn about what you think about me. I don't so let me be clear about that

 

[Kushinator]

Since tax cuts aren't an expense and the American taxpayers aren't employees of the federal gov't there is nothing to pay for.

Refer to interest expense for proof there are costs of deficits.

People keeping more of what they earn really bothers you and the rest of the radicals.

Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion of what others think.

Your ignorance of basic accounting is staggering.

of a fiscal deficit?

Revenue - Expenditure < 0 = deficit

You can try to bully your liberal friends but you aren't going to bully me. Your liberal arrogance and ignorance of the private sector gives you zero credibility and for some reason you think I should give a damn about what you think about me. I don't so let me be clear about that

Blah blah blah, nobody gives a **** about your opinion of others.

 

[Kushinator]

I don't recall anyone saying the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" IN A YEAR. Got a link?

There has been a lot of discussion on another thread regarding GW Bush causing deficits. The reality is that GW Bush alone created nothing and had a lot of help with the deficits due to a Congress that supported all the spending and a Congress of which Barack Obama was part of the last two years supporting TARP funding but now blaming Bush for that funding.

There are a lot of confused people who claim to be knowledgeable about economics but as proven most are poorly educated and lack a basic understanding of how our economy works. We have a consumer driven economy with over 60% of our Gross Domestic Product due to consumer spending and consumers do not spend when they do not have money or jobs.

GW Bush, JFK, and Ronald Reagan understood that reality and both cut taxes and with those tax cuts stimulated economic growth by allowing people to keep more of their money. Then the people did what they always do, spent it or saved it, both helped the economy. Spending stimulated job creation because people were required to make the products people wanted and saving provided banks with investment capital to lend for business growth.

The tax cuts allowing people to spend their money created more taxpayers to fund the federal govt. and greater corporate profits and more tax revenue generated. Job holders pay federal, state, and local taxes and the more job holders you have the more govt. revenue you are going to get. GW Bush, Ronald Reagan, and JFK cut tax rates for all taxpayers, not just the rich as the left would have you believe. All people that paid taxes got a tax cut as it should be.

Here is the link to the U.S. Treasury Website that supports my claim. This link is to the 2008 govt. revenue. To find out yearly revenue just change the date to whatever year you want to see

Financial Management Service: A Bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury

Here are the numbers for income and corporate taxes after the Bush tax cut went into effect in July 2003
2008 2006 2004 2003 2002
Individual Income tax 1,145.7 927.2 808.9 793.7 858.3
Corporate Taxes 304.3 278.3 189.4 131.8 148.0

Total 1,450.0 1205.5 998.3 925.5 1006.3

Notice what happened prior to the Bush tax cut in 2003 with 2002 revenue.

What is happening now is govt. revenue is dropping due to high unemployment and Obama's answer is to spend trillions to pump up the public sector. The Public Sector cannot drive the U.S. economy unless Obama has its way and takes over the entire economy. Obama is destroying incentive in the private sector and will put private business out of business and that will affect inflation as you have more govt. employees trying to buy fewer goods and services and that causes inflation.

Now I understand leftwing individuals will never buy this thread but then leftwing supporters of obama have proven to be economically challenged as evidenced by actual results of leftwing economic policy especially that which we have today. No leftwinger has been able to explain how govt. revenue went up AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

You and your financial/economic illiterate Trumpettes make it way too easy.

 

[Bullseye]

You and your financial/economic illiterate Trumpettes make it way too easy.

Carry on dreaming in your own little world. If you knew TWICE as much as you do now you'd be barely over the functional illiterate threshold. But go ahead, toss up a few more FRED charts that you don't even understand and toss out a few insults - that'll make you a DP financial expert. :roll:

 

[Kushinator]

Carry on dreaming in your own little world. If you knew TWICE as much as you do now you'd be barely over the functional illiterate threshold. But go ahead, toss up a few more FRED charts that you don't even understand and toss out a few insults - that'll make you a DP financial expert. :roll:

Your inability to provide anything of substance pertaining my statements of the topic is noted. If you wish to post your opinion of me, by all means do it somewhere else.

 

[Conservative]

You and your financial/economic illiterate Trumpettes make it way too easy.

Get used to it for another 6 years, your arrogance is destroying you and the liberal party

 

[Kushinator]

Get used to it for another 6 years, your arrogance is destroying you and the liberal party

Just like a permanent Republican controlled Congress:

I do want to thank you for all that you are doing to make it a permanent GOP majority in Congress by promoting the lies from the left that are uncovered by the electorate especially when they get their paychecks with more spendable income. You lost the election in 2016 because Congressional Representatives ran on the Obama record and the public rejected it, now you are going to run on the following slogan, "I tried to prevent those Republicans from allowing you to keep more of what you earn, VOTE FOR ME!" Sounds like a winning slogan to me, for the GOP!

Anymore predictions?

:lamo

 

[Bullseye]

Your inability to provide anything of substance pertaining my statements of the topic is noted. If you wish to post your opinion of me, by all means do it somewhere else.

LOL, providing substance to your vapid blather is a waste of time. You've done nothing but post charts spanning thirty years to show nothing happened in two or three quarters. And don't grasp why they show little.

 

[Kushinator]

You've done nothing but post charts spanning thirty years to show nothing happened in two or three quarters.

Actually, i posted two time frames: post great recession and then the max (just to highlight your analysis capabilities).

And don't grasp why they show little.

You can't explain how they show little. No matter how you stack it, tax cuts have not lead to the consumption levels promised to grow the economy enough to offset the revenue loss. Hence, they've resulted in increased deficits.

 

[Conservative]

Just like a permanent Republican controlled Congress:



Anymore predictions?

:lamo

Nope, been pretty good at the ones I make.

 

[Conservative]

Actually, i posted two time frames: post great recession and then the max (just to highlight your analysis capabilities).



You can't explain how they show little. No matter how you stack it, tax cuts have not lead to the consumption levels promised to grow the economy enough to offset the revenue loss. Hence, they've resulted in increased deficits.

Not one of your charts shows context and context matters, Obama's part time jobs for economic reasons, a stimulus program that saw employment drop 4 million in 2009 and 3 million in 2010, 4.2 trillion added to GDP in 8 years, 6 million job growth from 146 million in January 2008 leaving us at 152 million employed. It is your blather that shows how easy it is to indoctrinate people who claim to be so smart and show their arrogance with every post

 

[tecoyah]

Thread: Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion


Yet my tax refund shrinks....weird.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1 We don't need a wall, right?

Another reason California should never be allowed to elect our President due simply to the population and its support for illegals. You must be so proud

2 Man who shot at California cop previously deported, arrested but cops wouldn'''t honor ICE detainer, feds say | Fox News

1 Right.
2 And there is absolutely no evidence at all that a wall would have kept him out.

 

[Tbird19482]

Thread: Nationl Debt Tops $22 Trillion


Yet my tax refund shrinks....weird.

It is finally coming out that a lot of people are getting smaller tax returns and some are having to pay more because of the so called tax cut ( and the little bit they got in their pay checks is not covering the increase.)
fact is for a family of 3 or more people who used the standard deduction last year are paying more this year if the use the standard deduction again this year.
The republicans and Trump didn't bother to tell people that they were taking the personal exemption away
Yes they increased the standard deduction by 11300 dollars but took away 12150 in personal exemptions from a family of three so their taxable income ( the amount of income you have to pay taxes on ) went up 850 dollars
and you can add 4050 dollars to that for each person in the family over 3 people
ex a family of 4 will pay on 4900 dollars more this year then last
and remember how Trump and the Republicans said it was a great tax cut for a family of five
well if they took the standard deduction last year they could deduct 12700 dollars standard deduction and 20250 dollars in personal exemptions for a total of 32950 dollars and if they use the standard deduction this year all they can deduct is 24000 that means their taxable income goes up 8950 dollars and if they are in the 10% tax bracket that means their taxes will go up 895 dollars
As I have said many times if that is what they call a tax cut I do not want to see what they call a tax increase
Have a nice day

 

[Conservative]

1 Right.
2 And there is absolutely no evidence at all that a wall would have kept him out.

And you cannot prove that it wouldn't have kept him out

 

[Kushinator]

Not one of your charts shows context and context matters, Obama's part time jobs for economic reasons, a stimulus program that saw employment drop 4 million in 2009 and 3 million in 2010, 4.2 trillion added to GDP in 8 years, 6 million job growth from 146 million in January 2008 leaving us at 152 million employed.

Repetition of incoherence isn't debate worthy, as i've already addressed this nonsense more times than i care to count. Deficits growth with Republicans and fall with Democrats. That's a fact.