• 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!

US Treasury to Borrow More Than $1.3 Trillion in 2018

:roll:




Translation: Thank you, George W. Bush.

Bush was in office 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?? Looks like the education system in this country failed a lot of people. Welcome to ignore
 
Bush was in office 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012?? Looks like the education system in this country failed a lot of people. Welcome to ignore

Ah, so the statement "the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year," was too complicated for you to understand. Thanks.
 
Republicans had total control of the government in 2016, in a booming economy. So, explain to us why the deficit needed to nearly double.

Republicans cut the Obama spending which you and others are now touting. Trump is the first President since Bush in 2005 to have 3% Annual Growth, something Obama never achieved during his 8 years and coming off the negative 2008/2009 GDP growth that is a disaster and a failed Presidency. Such loyalty and so little concern about your own credibility!
 
Ah, so the statement "the CBO issued a projection in January 2009, just days before Obama took office that the budget deficit would reach $1.2 trillion that year," was too complicated for you to understand. Thanks.

Bush had no budget for 2009 so how did Bush create that deficit without spending authority? included in the CBO PROJECTIONS were TARP spending and TARP was a loan to the banks completely paid back in 2009, what did Obama do with the repayments?

What isn't complicated for most people is context and understanding of civics. No President can spend a dime without Congressional Approval which Bush never got for his budget proposal. Keep spinning and keep being wrong
 
Republicans cut the Obama spending which you and others are now touting. Trump is the first President since Bush in 2005 to have 3% Annual Growth, something Obama never achieved during his 8 years and coming off the negative 2008/2009 GDP growth that is a disaster and a failed Presidency. Such loyalty and so little concern about your own credibility!

Facts on the ground do not match your fantasies.

united-states-gdp-growth.png


Fourth quarter 2018 will be in the 2's, taking the yearly avg below 3. /fail
 
Facts on the ground do not match your fantasies.

united-states-gdp-growth.png


Fourth quarter 2018 will be in the 2's, taking the yearly avg below 3. /fail

Another negative leftwing projection that is wrong. first of all fiscal year of the U.S. is from October to September which saw the GDP exceed 3% annual for the first time since 2005, secondly, even the calendar year will exceed 3% annual or isn't math something you understand either.

First qtr 2.2
2nd qtr 4.3
3rd qtr. 3.5
4th qtr 2.0 Your PROJECTION

total 12/4=3% growth

Why can't people like you admit when wrong?
 
Keep running when challenged with data

Obama's trillion dollar deficits, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 9.3 trillion added to the debt were never an issue for you, wonder why? Clinton's 1.4 trillion added to the debt wasn't of concern to you either but Reagan's 1.7 trillion apparently was. Partisan opinions by the left always trump official data from treasury

More lies and deceit.
 
Clinton didn't do that... it was a republican congress that did. The president doesn't really end up making the contents of the budget.... this is where people get it wrong every... single time. Presidents actually do very little in respect to what congress does.

What was Clintons budget deficits before the republicans took parts of congress?


Like I've said in other posts... this is how it works....

Democrat Congress, Republican President = Lots of Spending
Republican Congress, Republican President= Lots of Spending
Democrat Congress, Democrat President= Massive amount of Spending
Republican Congress, Democrat President= Least amount of spending

Why? Because Republicans only care about spending when a Democrat is president... and Democrats never care about spending.

It's not quite so simple:

https://www.thoughtco.com/approving-the-u-s-federal-budget-3321456

House and Senate Work Out Differences in Conference Committee
Since the spending bills are once again being debated and amended separately, House and Senate versions will have to go through the same conference committee process as the Budget Resolution. The conferees have to agree on one version of each bill capable of passing in both the House and Senate by a majority vote.

Full House and Senate Consider Conference Reports
Once the conference committees have forwarded their reports to the full House and Senate, they must be approved by a majority vote.


The Budget Act stipulates that the House should have given final approval to all of the spending bills by June 30.

President May Sign or Veto Any or All of the Appropriations Bills
As spelled out in the Constitution, the President has ten days in which to decide: (1) to sign the bill, thereby making it law; (2) to veto the bill, thereby sending it back to Congress and requiring much of the process to begin again with respect the programs covered by that bill; or (3) to allow the bill to become law without his signature, thereby making it law but doing so without his express approval.
 
The debt and deficits have been an issue for many decades now.... it has nothing to do with the state of the economy... It was an issue during Bush, Obama, and Trump. It never faded away, because we have never addressed it...

Why?

No one wants to take the political hit. Because we are in for a major wake up call eventually, we are living above our means. Eventually we will no longer be able to kick the can down the road.

We are not living above our means. We are living above our willingness to pay for spending we have obligated ourselves to pay for. For example, think of the fiscal situation we would be in today, had we just maintained the Clinton era tax rates and kept spending growth in line with where we were during the Clinton years. The difference today would be night and day. Medicare and Social Security would be solvent for decades longer than they are now. Debt service as a percentage of outlays would be a fraction what it is.

This notion that we are going to cut or privatize Medicare is nonsense. It is never going to happen. We have Medicare because the demographic it insurers, the old and sick, are not insurable in the private sector without massive subsidies. There is no way in hell that Aetna can ever sell your grandma a policy that she could ever afford, that they would not lose money on, without huge government subsidies. Thus, since we are never going to let the vast majority of our elderly go without health care and coverage, we will always have Medicare. So we need to just recognize that reality and accept we have to pay for it.

As to Social Security. Same thing, its nonsense to think we will ever privatize it or substantially cut it. Its not going to happen. We just need to accept that, and pay for it.

Take the cost of debt service out of the picture, and then compare our federal government outlays as a percentage of GDP to our peer nations. We are one of the lower ones. Unless you want to cut the Military in half, which is never going to happen, then there is not a lot of realistic opportunity to substantially reduce federal government spending. Thus we need to wake up, accept reality, and buck up and pay for our fiscal obligations.
 
We are not living above our means. We are living above our willingness to pay for spending we have obligated ourselves to pay for. For example, think of the fiscal situation we would be in today, had we just maintained the Clinton era tax rates and kept spending growth in line with where we were during the Clinton years. The difference today would be night and day. Medicare and Social Security would be solvent for decades longer than they are now. Debt service as a percentage of outlays would be a fraction what it is.

This notion that we are going to cut or privatize Medicare is nonsense. It is never going to happen. We have Medicare because the demographic it insurers, the old and sick, are not insurable in the private sector without massive subsidies. There is no way in hell that Aetna can ever sell your grandma a policy that she could ever afford, that they would not lose money on, without huge government subsidies. Thus, since we are never going to let the vast majority of our elderly go without health care and coverage, we will always have Medicare. So we need to just recognize that reality and accept we have to pay for it.

As to Social Security. Same thing, its nonsense to think we will ever privatize it or substantially cut it. Its not going to happen. We just need to accept that, and pay for it.

Take the cost of debt service out of the picture, and then compare our federal government outlays as a percentage of GDP to our peer nations. We are one of the lower ones. Unless you want to cut the Military in half, which is never going to happen, then there is not a lot of realistic opportunity to substantially reduce federal government spending. Thus we need to wake up, accept reality, and buck up and pay for our fiscal obligations.

We lack morality, we dont want to pay for what we use, so we say "Charge it to the Kids/Grandkids/Unborn, we dont give a ****!".

Because we suck.
 
We are not living above our means. We are living above our willingness to pay for spending we have obligated ourselves to pay for. For example, think of the fiscal situation we would be in today, had we just maintained the Clinton era tax rates and kept spending growth in line with where we were during the Clinton years. The difference today would be night and day. Medicare and Social Security would be solvent for decades longer than they are now. Debt service as a percentage of outlays would be a fraction what it is.

This notion that we are going to cut or privatize Medicare is nonsense. It is never going to happen. We have Medicare because the demographic it insurers, the old and sick, are not insurable in the private sector without massive subsidies. There is no way in hell that Aetna can ever sell your grandma a policy that she could ever afford, that they would not lose money on, without huge government subsidies. Thus, since we are never going to let the vast majority of our elderly go without health care and coverage, we will always have Medicare. So we need to just recognize that reality and accept we have to pay for it.

As to Social Security. Same thing, its nonsense to think we will ever privatize it or substantially cut it. Its not going to happen. We just need to accept that, and pay for it.

Take the cost of debt service out of the picture, and then compare our federal government outlays as a percentage of GDP to our peer nations. We are one of the lower ones. Unless you want to cut the Military in half, which is never going to happen, then there is not a lot of realistic opportunity to substantially reduce federal government spending. Thus we need to wake up, accept reality, and buck up and pay for our fiscal obligations.



The pay is correlated to our means...

The literal prosperity we enjoy is not possible no matter how much we pay. The spending is unsustainable no matter which way you look at it
 
The pay is correlated to our means...

The literal prosperity we enjoy is not possible no matter how much we pay. The spending is unsustainable no matter which way you look at it

So you are telling me that this country would be broke had we just maintained Clinton era tax rates?
 
So you are telling me that this country would be broke had we just maintained Clinton era tax rates?

I know this goes against everything the radical left tells you but Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt and it was a Republican Congress that cut his spending or it would have been worse.
 
I know this goes against everything the radical left tells you but Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt and it was a Republican Congress that cut his spending or it would have been worse.

Liars lie, and figures of liars lie.
 
Liars lie, and figures of liars lie.

Yet you have never posted Treasury data supporting your claims, If I lied and you prove it I will leave this forum. I post Treasury data over and over again and that is the only data that matters
 
Not like the Democrats would support any decrease in spending.

It's hilarious you all the sudden care about deficits and the debt.... it seems to be something people only care about when they are not in power.

There is spending and there is investment and the conservatives deliberately play dumb about that. Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy is spending, repairing the infrastructure, easing student loan costs and feeding/educating the next generation are investments.

The money squandered on stroking the rich and blowing up foreigners will never be justifiable. Obama was a thousand times the president that Trump is because he understood that distinction.
 
There is spending and there is investment and the conservatives deliberately play dumb about that. Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy is spending, repairing the infrastructure, easing student loan costs and feeding/educating the next generation are investments.

The money squandered on stroking the rich and blowing up foreigners will never be justifiable. Obama was a thousand times the president that Trump is because he understood that distinction.

Really? Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is spending by the govt.? It is the government's money first? I have never encountered so many people so poorly informed and educated on basic accounting and the budget of the U.S. Money squandered? You people seem to live in the wrong country. This country wasn't founded on the principles of someone else funding your personal responsibility items but that fact seems to escape people like you. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total inability to understand that people keeping more of WHAT THEY EARN isn't an expense and doesn't have to be paid for?
 
There is spending and there is investment and the conservatives deliberately play dumb about that. Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy is spending, repairing the infrastructure, easing student loan costs and feeding/educating the next generation are investments.

The money squandered on stroking the rich and blowing up foreigners will never be justifiable. Obama was a thousand times the president that Trump is because he understood that distinction.

Obama made terrible investments with his "stimulus". The government can't pick winners and losers...


What you don't understand.... we can't afford anything right now. The only "investments" you should be thinking about are investments that will NET profit and GDP... and nothing else. And please then reveal all your secrets about investing to everyone else so we can all get rich.

The only spending democrats are willing to part with is military... and that is really dangerous. I am not a military expert, nor are most Democrats.... nearly all... or all that I know of people who ARE military experts say we need the funding... or even more.
Idk about you, but I don't worry from a day to day basis on how close we are to WW3, and how quickly all our lives can change for the worse. That is the military's job, and of the little I do know from many years ago(I have spoken with friends of friends personally who were high-ranking secret intelligence executives of a select foreign country) that the world is standing on paper thin margin's on a daily basis.... and the public rarely ever knows.
The military is one of the things that is the actual job of a government... and I actually never criticize a President(Obama) and their actions as commander and chief until details become apparent many months to years after... because we as citizens simply do not know what is going on. (one exception is a president comes in with a preconceived agenda before becoming commander and chief.... and seems to simply make decisions(even if they are bad one's) regardless of the newly acquired information.

One of the most wise things I heard from many years ago was from Herman Cain, who was running in the republican presidential primaries. He was criticized for not having experience or many concrete views on foreign policy/military.... and his response was that how could he have a full clear position on foreign military policy without knowing the facts? Which is true.... no one knows the decisions and dilemmas a president is going to have to make as commander and chief until you are there as commander and chief.. unless of course you are directly a part of a presidents military staff.

My point out of all of this is... the calling for decrease in military spending has good intentions, and we have to figure out solutions to limit wasteful spending in the military.... but the reality is, we have no idea what is needed by enlarge to keep this country and the world safe... by the way... we are responsible for protecting Eureope... and South Korea, and Japan, and the Phillipines.... And people apparently don't like the fact of Trump wanting to have countries pay more of their fair share of the military budgets xD.. Democrats and libs want the best of all worlds, and that isn't possible
 
Last edited:
Clinton didn't do that... it was a republican congress that did. The president doesn't really end up making the contents of the budget.... this is where people get it wrong every... single time. Presidents actually do very little in respect to what congress does.
Ah, so it's the Republican Congress that is responsible for cutting spending, not Clinton. So, what's your excuse for the very same Republican Congress under Bush?

usgs_line.php
 
Obama made terrible investments with his "stimulus". The government can't pick winners and losers...


What you don't understand.... we can't afford anything right now. The only "investments" you should be thinking about are investments that will NET profit and GDP...
...
Obama's stimulus included 40% tax-cuts and the rest was either infrastructure plans or grants to state and local governments so they don't lay off teachers and police. Which of these investments were not wise? Moreover, keeping people working and infusing money into the economy DOES increase GDP.

Now, government can and does pick winners and losers. When Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum he's picking metal producers to be winners and picking consumers of metals, like auto manufacturers, as losers.
 
Really? Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is spending by the govt.? It is the government's money first? I have never encountered so many people so poorly informed and educated on basic accounting and the budget of the U.S. Money squandered? You people seem to live in the wrong country. This country wasn't founded on the principles of someone else funding your personal responsibility items but that fact seems to escape people like you. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and total inability to understand that people keeping more of WHAT THEY EARN isn't an expense and doesn't have to be paid for?

When you have a trillion and a half deficit BECAUSE you gave that completely unnecessary tax break to the rich, yes, you're spending. The debt goes up because of it, you do the math.

As for the hackneyed "allowing people to keep more of what they earn" blather, you wouldn't be able to earn jack **** without this government creating and enforcing fair markets with laws against theft and corruption being the foundation on which these acts of trust can occur. So, all the talk about earnings is just conservative arrogance, choosing to focus on your own small contribution rather than the impressive complexity of the system itself that you seek to starve or burden with debt.

A friend of mine said that it seems to be human nature for ten percent to oppose anything good. Put another way, on a bus carrying 100 people, ten of those people will want it to crash and burn just to get back at the ten percent who didn't pay full fare. That's how I see the conservatives, too angry and greedy and entitled to create anything bigger or better than what their money-centric morality can conjure.

I want to ride this bus to the end, even if some of the riders are children, elderly, the disabled or the ignorant, who didn't pay their own way. I think it's better that we all arrive safe rather than that we declare bus riding to be socialism and crash it or to start hurling disabled people from the bus. Where is the allegiance to humanity in the conservative thinking? All I detect is pettiness and hate.
 
When you have a trillion and a half deficit BECAUSE you gave that completely unnecessary tax break to the rich, yes, you're spending. The debt goes up because of it, you do the math.

As for the hackneyed "allowing people to keep more of what they earn" blather, you wouldn't be able to earn jack **** without this government creating and enforcing fair markets with laws against theft and corruption being the foundation on which these acts of trust can occur. So, all the talk about earnings is just conservative arrogance, choosing to focus on your own small contribution rather than the impressive complexity of the system itself that you seek to starve or burden with debt.

A friend of mine said that it seems to be human nature for ten percent to oppose anything good. Put another way, on a bus carrying 100 people, ten of those people will want it to crash and burn just to get back at the ten percent who didn't pay full fare. That's how I see the conservatives, too angry and greedy and entitled to create anything bigger or better than what their money-centric morality can conjure.

I want to ride this bus to the end, even if some of the riders are children, elderly, the disabled or the ignorant, who didn't pay their own way. I think it's better that we all arrive safe rather than that we declare bus riding to be socialism and crash it or to start hurling disabled people from the bus. Where is the allegiance to humanity in the conservative thinking? All I detect is pettiness and hate.
Please tell me how you grow federal income tax revenue and all other tax revenue and that causes a deficit? You people buy the media and left-wing spin as if you give a damn about deficits and debt but only when a republican is in the White House.

Let me know when Trump generates 9.3 trillion in debt like Obama did? You people really need to educate yourself on how to research treasury data because it makes you look foolish

There certainly is a loyalty to liberalism that I will never understand. For some reason you people are so upset when people get to keep more of their own money. Why is that? Is that the way you were raised?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Obama's stimulus included 40% tax-cuts and the rest was either infrastructure plans or grants to state and local governments so they don't lay off teachers and police. Which of these investments were not wise? Moreover, keeping people working and infusing money into the economy DOES increase GDP.

Now, government can and does pick winners and losers. When Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum he's picking metal producers to be winners and picking consumers of metals, like auto manufacturers, as losers.

Lol your saying the government makes net profits on it's investments? xD

Of course if you poor billions of dollars into random sectors SOME will work out...
 
Back
Top Bottom