• 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!

Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

You radicals never recognize just how poorly informed you are. In order to educate someone you have to be knowledgeable of the subject and you haven't proven that to be true. You want to educate people into the leftwing ideology based upon your own beliefs never addressing the data or actual results. That is indoctrination NOT education.

This guy is a one trick pony. Cracks me up. I tell you what, save yourself some typing, we will just assume that you will say this to every post and free you up.
 
This guy is a one trick pony. Cracks me up. I tell you what, save yourself some typing, we will just assume that you will say this to every post and free you up.

And as usual you will continue to post the same lies and distortions thread after thread hoping for a different result. Never have you posted data supporting your point of view, stunning passion for giving the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt and taking dollars out of your state coffers to do that. Where does the state get its money when citizens of your state send more to the federal govt.?
 
And as usual you will continue to post the same lies and distortions thread after thread hoping for a different result. Never have you posted data supporting your point of view, stunning passion for giving the bureaucrats that created the 21 trillion dollar debt and taking dollars out of your state coffers to do that. Where does the state get its money when citizens of your state send more to the federal govt.?

What data are you looking for that could possibly describe any position without comprehensive supporting data and analysis? You cherry pick data and then return triumphant. I follow the trend myself. Since Milton Friedman replaced Keynes as the economic guru of choice, we have been in a downward spiral in terms of average incomes, upward mobility, inequality, debt and so on. While one year may be interesting, the decades long path is evident to anyone without some ideological chip on their shoulder. It is true that we do engage in a hybrid Keynes/Freidman model but that ignores the truth that even Milton advised deficit spending to emerge out of recessions or avoid depressions. The main theme though of all economists in power has been to accept Milton and reject Keynes. Now we can compare eras quite easily, Keynes wins out over Milton. But economies today demand new ideas and upgrades which is what folks like MMT and several other similar movements are doing behind the scenes. You sir are locked into a dogmatic approach to economics, this is part and parcel of the conservative playbook long before Reagan. I realize your goals, McConnell just announced his plans to reduce SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits to reduce spending to afford the massive tax cuts he gave to corporations and the wealthy. I am far too old to buy your crap, you see, I actually give a damn about people, you don't.
 
What data are you looking for that could possibly describe any position without comprehensive supporting data and analysis? You cherry pick data and then return triumphant. I follow the trend myself. Since Milton Friedman replaced Keynes as the economic guru of choice, we have been in a downward spiral in terms of average incomes, upward mobility, inequality, debt and so on. While one year may be interesting, the decades long path is evident to anyone without some ideological chip on their shoulder. It is true that we do engage in a hybrid Keynes/Freidman model but that ignores the truth that even Milton advised deficit spending to emerge out of recessions or avoid depressions. The main theme though of all economists in power has been to accept Milton and reject Keynes. Now we can compare eras quite easily, Keynes wins out over Milton. But economies today demand new ideas and upgrades which is what folks like MMT and several other similar movements are doing behind the scenes. You sir are locked into a dogmatic approach to economics, this is part and parcel of the conservative playbook long before Reagan. I realize your goals, McConnell just announced his plans to reduce SS, Medicare and Medicaid benefits to reduce spending to afford the massive tax cuts he gave to corporations and the wealthy. I am far too old to buy your crap, you see, I actually give a damn about people, you don't.
What date? Fiscal year date and official data from Treasury. April 8 is outdated

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
There were so many other things happen. Revenue after a year or two remains the same 18.3% of GDP (or is it GNP?) We are so close to the top of the laffer curve, that tax rates have only a minuscule effect. We should cut taxes until it can be seen we went to far, and raise them again.

There is just zero evidence for that. Reagan brought taxes down from higher rates, and between 1981 and 1989, individual income taxes went up by 13%, inflation adjusted, and that includes several tax increases by Reagan post 1981. Clinton raised rates, which if we're at the peak should show tax revenue declines, but what we saw instead was revenue exploded versus prior periods, up by 66%, or 5X more than following the Reagan tax cuts. So, what happened with the Bush II tax cuts? Revenue collapsed by about 20% in the initial years, and even at the peak of the biggest bubble in generations, FY 2007 (prior to the collapse), individual tax revenues failed to EVER match receipts that peaked in 2000. It took until 2014, two years after the Bush II tax cuts expired on the upper income people to match receipts last seen in 2000 - 14 years of economic growth, zero increase in revenues.

So we're not anywhere close to the top of the Laffer Curve. There isn't an economist I've seen that thinks we are, and the argument at this point is just a lie to sell tax cuts to people who may be concerned about deficits, but it's still a lie, and the people pushing it know it's a lie. If you believe it I urge you to look at the data. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

What we need to do is both grow the economy and spend less on social program. This is what liberal oppose and conservatives try to do. We need to get people back to work in productive jobs which will never happen with such dramatic trade deficits and illegal immigration.

The GOP just pushed through tax cuts without a single Democratic vote, and given that spending cuts REDUCE deficits, they can cut spending at any time, many times with bare majorities in the House and Senate. They haven't. Spending has in fact increased, which it did under Reagan, and under Bush II. So you can believe what the GOP SAY or what they DO, and what they do is cut taxes, increase spending, blow up the deficit, and blame it on liberals...

This liberal mentality will be the death of America, creating a socialist republic of 50 states.

LOL, OK.
 
There is just zero evidence for that. Reagan brought taxes down from higher rates, and between 1981 and 1989, individual income taxes went up by 13%, inflation adjusted, and that includes several tax increases by Reagan post 1981. Clinton raised rates, which if we're at the peak should show tax revenue declines, but what we saw instead was revenue exploded versus prior periods, up by 66%, or 5X more than following the Reagan tax cuts. So, what happened with the Bush II tax cuts? Revenue collapsed by about 20% in the initial years, and even at the peak of the biggest bubble in generations, FY 2007 (prior to the collapse), individual tax revenues failed to EVER match receipts that peaked in 2000. It took until 2014, two years after the Bush II tax cuts expired on the upper income people to match receipts last seen in 2000 - 14 years of economic growth, zero increase in revenues.

So we're not anywhere close to the top of the Laffer Curve. There isn't an economist I've seen that thinks we are, and the argument at this point is just a lie to sell tax cuts to people who may be concerned about deficits, but it's still a lie, and the people pushing it know it's a lie. If you believe it I urge you to look at the data. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/



The GOP just pushed through tax cuts without a single Democratic vote, and given that spending cuts REDUCE deficits, they can cut spending at any time, many times with bare majorities in the House and Senate. They haven't. Spending has in fact increased, which it did under Reagan, and under Bush II. So you can believe what the GOP SAY or what they DO, and what they do is cut taxes, increase spending, blow up the deficit, and blame it on liberals...



LOL, OK.

Well done, you have more patience then I do. I gave up trying to show data with these folks, it falls on deaf ears but I commend you for the effort.
 
No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will equalize very close to 18.3%

That's not true, actually. There is nothing magic about 18.3% except I assume that's some long term average. We've been far above it and below it, and our developed country competitors somehow have tax burdens well into the 40% of GDP range.

But even if true, the projections after the Trump tax cuts is revenue at about 2% of GDP below that, or roughly $400B per year below the long term average. And we are projected to spend about 22% of GDP, hence projected deficits of 5-6% of GDP or $1 trillion+.
 
That's not true, actually. There is nothing magic about 18.3% except I assume that's some long term average. We've been far above it and below it, and our developed country competitors somehow have tax burdens well into the 40% of GDP range.

But even if true, the projections after the Trump tax cuts is revenue at about 2% of GDP below that, or roughly $400B per year below the long term average. And we are projected to spend about 22% of GDP, hence projected deficits of 5-6% of GDP or $1 trillion+.

These folks would be fascinated to see what our government did during WW1 and WW2, both wars saw the entire economy run by the government.
 
The issue really is about economics and how well the population understands macro. Of course we hope our politicians understand it but most of them are economic illiterates. These are very complex issues and experts can and will disagree but if you pick the right group, a consensus can emerge that works. The other missing element is a clear understanding of what the goals are for the nation and those who run it. The Fed has its clear mission, control inflation and full employment. It is debatable if they can do anything about employment but they try as best they can with the tools they have to use. Fiscal policy has far more tools, trade offs that would make most of us dizzy but there are minds out there that can manage this and yes, there are models that can help make sound decisions. Steve Keen has developed new models that include money to predict economies. Most other models ignore the role of money or debt, think about that for a minute.
What this implies is that both sides of the "debate" are honest brokers, who just have different views of economics. I don't believe that is true. The Republicans want tax-cuts for their billionaire donors. They don't care what argument they make in order to achieve that goal. The arguments made are almost always dishonest (i.e. tax-cuts will pay for themselves; tax-cuts will boost the economy; it is only fair to give the rich tax-cuts, since they pay most of the taxes.)

History has shown that those arguments are false.

Then, there is the blame when deficits arise. Ezra Klein Tweeted this:
‏ @ezraklein

The GOP agenda, in 3 simple steps:

Step 1: Cut taxes on corporations and the rich, increasing deficits

Step 2: Induce panic about high deficits, cut health care spending for the poor and elderly in response

Step 3: Repeat

Norman Ornstein added

Add Step 2-1/2: Rinse by getting gullible media to continue to take your claims at face value, call you fiscal conservatives, and blame both sides for deficits.


Democrats typically want higher taxes on the wealthy to provide programs for the poor and middle class. They argue that modest increases do not hurt the rich nor the economy, while greatly improving people's lives, economic productivity and benefits to the nation.
 
These folks would be fascinated to see what our government did during WW1 and WW2, both wars saw the entire economy run by the government.

You have most of your state run by the Democratic Govt. and look at the results, highest in poverty, homelessness, cost of living, among the highest in income inequality, lowest in quality of life and among the highest in the nation in debt. No question about it the federal bureaucrats who created the current debt would handle 50 states quite well.
 
What this implies is that both sides of the "debate" are honest brokers, who just have different views of economics. I don't believe that is true. The Republicans want tax-cuts for their billionaire donors. They don't care what argument they make in order to achieve that goal. The arguments made are almost always dishonest (i.e. tax-cuts will pay for themselves; tax-cuts will boost the economy; it is only fair to give the rich tax-cuts, since they pay most of the taxes.)

History has shown that those arguments are false.

Then, there is the blame when deficits arise. Ezra Klein Tweeted this:
‏ @ezraklein

The GOP agenda, in 3 simple steps:

Step 1: Cut taxes on corporations and the rich, increasing deficits

Step 2: Induce panic about high deficits, cut health care spending for the poor and elderly in response

Step 3: Repeat

Norman Ornstein added

Add Step 2-1/2: Rinse by getting gullible media to continue to take your claims at face value, call you fiscal conservatives, and blame both sides for deficits.


Democrats typically want higher taxes on the wealthy to provide programs for the poor and middle class. They argue that modest increases do not hurt the rich nor the economy, while greatly improving people's lives, economic productivity and benefits to the nation.

Every thread the same lies hoping beyond hope if you post it often enough it will come true. You are one of the most poorly informed posters in this forum never letting actual verifiable data, logic or common sense getting in the way of your personal opinions and indoctrinated beliefs.

Higher taxes on the wealthy does what to the wage inequality? Programs for the middle and lower classes? Really, what is your state doing? Where does your state get its money when more dollars go to the federal bureaucrats?

is there ever going to come a time when you answer direct questions or admit you are wrong?
 
Where exactly is that shown on your chart?? The line doesn't distinguish as to the cause just the fact that there was a deficit. To solve the deficit you have to attack the details and as I have posted Treasury data shows only a 4 billion dollar reduction of FIT revenue the first 6 months of 2018 with all of that in the first qtr.

You really don't have any understanding of civics and the true role of the three equal branches of govt. To you it is nothing but partisan rhetoric without data to support your claims Reducing deficits that still added 9.3 trillion to the debt isn't something to take pride in, like you are doing. I am waiting for you to post the line items in the budget from treasury that caused the deficits you are blaming on Republicans. No one party generated the current 21 trillion dollar debt but partisan beliefs won't allow you to recognize that reality nor the reality that almost all the 2018 deficit was due to Interest on the debt inherited and the mandatory increases authorized by Congress for the entitlement programs, things like cost of living increases to SS

What are you dense. Of course the deficit equals the difference of revenue minus expenses. :doh
 
What are you dense. Of course the deficit equals the difference of revenue minus expenses. :doh

LOL, so where is that starting deficit you claim exists with every President? And where is that statement about the difference between revenue and expenses equally the deficit?
 
Not to be outdone with his HUSH money lies, Trump's lies of a balanced budget will affect us and our children for many years to come.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ional-debt-in-eight-years-good-luck-with-that

Donald Trump told the Washington Post he would get rid of the national debt “over a period of eight years.”

And it's worse than that. He not only isn't balancing the budget. He is skyrocketing the deficit, and it will soon pass the $1 Trillion threshhold.

View attachment 67242135

Republicans hold all three legislative branches of government. They need only look into a mirror if they want to see irresponsible fiscal policy.

Let's see, Trump deficit led to 4 million new jobs created, more full time employment, 7.5% U-6, and GDP Growth over 3% annual, Obama's 9.3 trillion dollar debt led to 6 million jobs created, a 9.4% U-6, no fiscal year over 3%. Looks like Trump is getting a good return on the US investment vs Obama being a failure. And oh by the way 2018 was Trump's first budget that didn't anticipate 523 billion in debt service due to higher interest rates
 
Let's see, Trump deficit led to 4 million new jobs created, more full time employment, 7.5% U-6, and GDP Growth over 3% annual, Obama's 9.3 trillion dollar debt led to 6 million jobs created, a 9.4% U-6, no fiscal year over 3%. Looks like Trump is getting a good return on the US investment vs Obama being a failure. And oh by the way 2018 was Trump's first budget that didn't anticipate 523 billion in debt service due to higher interest rates

Well since the Obama deficit was all due to the Duhbya horror story, and after Obama got rid of the zombies, the Duhbya deficit started dropping through the floor - kind of discredits everything you just said, doesn't it. Unfortunately, the zombies are back, and Chump can't seem to get things going in a positive direction, can he? Maybe he should conslut with Bill Clinton or Al Gore.
 
What this implies is that both sides of the "debate" are honest brokers, who just have different views of economics. I don't believe that is true. The Republicans want tax-cuts for their billionaire donors. They don't care what argument they make in order to achieve that goal. The arguments made are almost always dishonest (i.e. tax-cuts will pay for themselves; tax-cuts will boost the economy; it is only fair to give the rich tax-cuts, since they pay most of the taxes.)

History has shown that those arguments are false.

Then, there is the blame when deficits arise. Ezra Klein Tweeted this:
‏ @ezraklein

The GOP agenda, in 3 simple steps:

Step 1: Cut taxes on corporations and the rich, increasing deficits

Step 2: Induce panic about high deficits, cut health care spending for the poor and elderly in response

Step 3: Repeat

Norman Ornstein added

Add Step 2-1/2: Rinse by getting gullible media to continue to take your claims at face value, call you fiscal conservatives, and blame both sides for deficits.


Democrats typically want higher taxes on the wealthy to provide programs for the poor and middle class. They argue that modest increases do not hurt the rich nor the economy, while greatly improving people's lives, economic productivity and benefits to the nation.

I certainly did not intend to make that implication insofar as conservative economists are concerned, they are nothing but shills for corporations and the wealthy.
 
You have most of your state run by the Democratic Govt. and look at the results, highest in poverty, homelessness, cost of living, among the highest in income inequality, lowest in quality of life and among the highest in the nation in debt. No question about it the federal bureaucrats who created the current debt would handle 50 states quite well.

I see none of that myself, live in a wonderful place filled with wonderful people of all persuasions. Yes we do have very high housing costs. It's largely due to the attractiveness of living here. California is doing well. As for quality of life, measured by what exactly? I would rather be broke in paradise then rich in a ****hole. Let me tell you a little fable...

A very driven workaholic saved up his money for his dream vacation to Mexico. He arrived exhausted and plopped himself down on the beach to chill out. Every day he watched as a man launched his panga into the surf coming back in a few hours laden with fish. His family was there to greet him and help him with the catch and get the panga back on shore. He repeated this every day to the workaholics amazement. Finally he had to say something to the man when he once again returned mid-day. Why do you come back so early when there is still lots of time to keep fishing? Senior, I fish to get food for my family and enough to sell for extra money and then come in to spend time with my family. The workaholic was shocked and explained to him that he was missing a huge opportunity. If only he would fish all day long he could sell more fish and get more money. Then he could buy another boat, hire a captain and get even richer as he grew. But senior, I don't understand why I would want to do that, I have everything I need right now. But you don't understand, if you worked harder you would have enough money to take a wonderful vacation like I am doing and live in style. But senior, I live here and do not need to work like a dog to enjoy my beach and this carefree lifestyle. You work to take a vacation in the same place where I live and enjoy life to the fullest.

When we escape the need for more we free ourselves from want because the need for more is a trap. Californians give up a lot to live here but most if not all of us would not trade it for any other place.
 
Last edited:
Well since the Obama deficit was all due to the Duhbya horror story, and after Obama got rid of the zombies, the Duhbya deficit started dropping through the floor - kind of discredits everything you just said, doesn't it. Unfortunately, the zombies are back, and Chump can't seem to get things going in a positive direction, can he? Maybe he should conslut with Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

Amazing how Bush with no budget authority created the deficit you are blaming him for and how the Democratic Controlled Congress which Obama was part of was powerless to stop him or could it be they were so interested in regaining the WH and power and they knew they had robots like you supporting them that they helped create the crisis blaming Bush solely?

Stunning partisanship and ignorance of civics, history, accounting, economics. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years so what do you want me to consult on? Democrats could help teach others how to indoctrinate people and blind them to reality
 
I see none of that myself, live in a wonderful place filled with wonderful people of all persuasions. Yes we do have very high housing costs. It's largely due to the attractiveness of living here. California is doing well. As for quality of life, measured by what exactly? I would rather be broke in paradise then rich in a ****hole. Let me tell you a little fable...

A very driven workaholic saved up his money for his dream vacation to Mexico. He arrived exhausted and plopped himself down on the beach to chill out. Every day he watched as a man launched his panga into the surf coming back in a few hours laden with fish. His family was there to greet him and help him with the catch and get the panga back on shore. He repeated this every day to the workaholics amazement. Finally he had to say something to the man when he once again returned mid-day. Why do you come back so early when there is still lots of time to keep fishing? Senior, I fish to get food for my family and enough to sell for extra money and then come in to spend time with my family. The workaholic was shocked and explained to him that he was missing a huge opportunity. If only he would fish all day long he could sell more fish and get more money. Then he could buy another boat, hire a captain and get even richer as he grew. But senior, I don't understand why I would want to do that, I have everything I need right now. But you don't understand, if you worked harder you would have enough money to take a wonderful vacation like I am doing and live in style. But senior, I live here and do not need to work like a dog to enjoy my beach and this carefree lifestyle. You work to take a vacation in the same place where I live and enjoy life to the fullest.

When we escape the need for more we free ourselves from want because the need for more is a trap. Californians give up a lot to live here but most if not all of us would not trade it for any other place.

Of course you do but it is easy for you to buy what others tell you as you live in that little bubble. The radical left has no interest in actual verifiable data and results as you continue to show. You really ought to get out more and see what is going on rather than acting like an expert on something you truly know nothing about.
 
Of course you do but it is easy for you to buy what others tell you as you live in that little bubble. The radical left has no interest in actual verifiable data and results as you continue to show. You really ought to get out more and see what is going on rather than acting like an expert on something you truly know nothing about.

Well lets see, I have been to over 70 countries in my life, lived abroad for 7 years, spent first half of my career in international sales, the last half working all across the Western USA in mostly rural America. I have read at least one newspaper almost every day since Watergate started, have read at least 4 or 5 thousand books, can't remember them all to be honest. I am currently reading several books, one which I really love called "Sapiens". I have been posting on blogs continuously since 2000. I think I can safely say that I have plenty of experience across the board in almost every culture you can imagine. What else you got buddy?
 
Well lets see, I have been to over 70 countries in my life, lived abroad for 7 years, spent first half of my career in international sales, the last half working all across the Western USA in mostly rural America. I have read at least one newspaper almost every day since Watergate started, have read at least 4 or 5 thousand books, can't remember them all to be honest. I am currently reading several books, one which I really love called "Sapiens". I have been posting on blogs continuously since 2000. I think I can safely say that I have plenty of experience across the board in almost every culture you can imagine. What else you got buddy?


I am sure the people living in poverty and homeless in California celebrate that
 
Amazing how Bush with no budget authority created the deficit you are blaming him for and how the Democratic Controlled Congress which Obama was part of was powerless to stop him or could it be they were so interested in regaining the WH and power and they knew they had robots like you supporting them that they helped create the crisis blaming Bush solely?

Stunning partisanship and ignorance of civics, history, accounting, economics. Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years so what do you want me to consult on? Democrats could help teach others how to indoctrinate people and blind them to reality

Part of being an adept president is surrounding yourself with a capable Administration. Not only were your boys, Cheney and Bush incompetent, but their entire Administration was inept. Maybe the worst ever. They used false information, so that they could sell Congress on an ill-advised war which was in synch with their PNAC Philosophy. The entire lot of them was in way over their head.
 
We agree that fiat money is indeed dependent upon the full faith and credit of this issuer. What is the basis for faith in the United States? What is the basis for believing that the United States dollar can be used to buy goods and services? Neither one has been affected by the expansion in money supply since 1973. Here we are trillions upon trillions of new dollars later and yet Tbills sell out every auction, inflation is low, employment is low, GNP is still growing, we avoided a depression and we will continue to borrow more money then we spend every single year. So I ask you and others who believe that the end is coming if we continue along this path to provide us with a reason why that disaster has not already happened. I am old enough to remember the deficit being a central theme in the election of 84. It was a them in 88, no new taxes got Clinton elected in 92, Newtie railed about it in 94, it wasn't much of an issue in 98, there was fear of paying down the debt too fast in 2000, 2004 saw us deeply in red but war was too patriotic to avoid, 2008 it went into a tailspin, 2010 we had little white people crying about it to no avail...the history of crying wolf is long and so far the wolf has never shown up.

Actually you also seem to forget several things as well.. you forget that in the 1990's.. we had a balanced budget act.. you forget that we actually balanced the budget.. you forget that Clinton ran on "no new taxes''.. but bush senior had gotten rid of tax loopholes and (hence the idea he had increased taxes). and Obama also reduced the deficit after he increased it to get up out of the recession. .. so while we have expanded our money supply.. we ALSO have had occasion to increase taxes... to reduce spending.. and so forth to keep that faith in the dollar.

You seem to forget that despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary.. the US HAS actually generally been fairly constrained when it comes to its spending and money creation.
 
Part of being an adept president is surrounding yourself with a capable Administration. Not only were your boys, Cheney and Bush incompetent, but their entire Administration was inept. Maybe the worst ever. They used false information, so that they could sell Congress on an ill-advised war which was in synch with their PNAC Philosophy. The entire lot of them was in way over their head.

I am not sure what your problem is but you have a lot of passion for this issue and are totally ignorant of content. "My" boys happened to be the president and vice president thus your "boys" as well. Total ignorance of civics, total partisanship of economics, history, accounting, and no ability to research doesn't do much for your credibility. The one way over his head was Obama, a community agitator with no management or executive experience and the results show. Amazing how Bush was so bad but generated more economic growth, more tax revenue, had better overall GDP growth, U-6 numbers, and debt than the one you want to tout but both are out of office and Trump is making Obama look like the amateur he truly was as the actual verifiable official results show, not your trumped up numbers out of context.
 
So when you have more money in your paycheck your budget deficit increases automatically? That is the leftwing claim because people keeping more of what they earn leads to more govt. spending, WHY?

Yes.. when the increase in money in your paycheck.. does not keep up with the interest you pay in the loans you have taken and are taking out. Yes it does increase your deficit. You just can't seem to grasp that point..
 
Back
Top Bottom