Economy US Deficit highest in 6 years ...and increasing!

[Dramovitch]

"The federal budget deficit has surged to $779 billion in fiscal 2018, its highest level in six years as President Donald Trump’s tax cuts caused the government to borrow more heavily in order to cover its spending.

The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit climbed $113 billion from fiscal 2017. Debt will likely worsen in the coming years with the Trump administration expecting the deficit to top $1 trillion in 2019, nearly matching the $1.1 trillion imbalance from 2012 [used to combat the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.]

“By cutting taxes in 2017 when the economy was already quite strong, Congress and the administration not only missed a golden opportunity to begin to address the fiscal problem, they actually made the problem worse,”​

https://apnews.com/044c01a171894e74b8f1b327c6350961

This government transfers money directly to the elites (large and permanent tax cuts), provides government subsidies for failing private businesses (that are loyal to you-know-who or who provide kickbacks to his super-pacs, is this Venezuela?), and balloons the deficit.

The middle class are endlessly burdened with disproportionately high taxes, increasing inflation and worsening health and education systems. The goal posts get further and further away as they say. The American dream is dying.

The US was once a leader for healthcare and education — now it ranks 27th in the world
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-ranks-27th-for-healthcare-and-education-2018-9

What happened to real fiscal conservatives? Everyone is too emotionally distracted by identity politics to notice what is really going on....

Divide and Conquer. Control the money. Control the media. Control the minds of the people.
It happened in Russia. Now it's here.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Thanks, Obummer.....

 

[7437]

It's almost like conservatives dont stand for anything

 

[Hognoxious]

Typical libtard thread. Blame the deficit on tax cuts and not on an over bloated government. All of a sudden the socialists come out and act like they want a balanced budget. Sorry TS, anyone that works a decent job is over taxed even after the tax cuts.

 

[Lead]

It's maddening. If you want a path to a balanced budget, who do you vote for. In 2016, there wasn't a single candidate that had the aim of closing the deficit even by the end of their second term and that's in great economic conditions like this.

Then you add Trump just doesn't seem to give a fuck at all. He might be the most indifferent to debt than any other president before him and what's he even have to justify it right now? Bush had a war. Obama had a Great Recession. Trump is just the last roar of the boomer generation not giving a fuck.

 

[Lead]

Typical libtard thread. Blame the deficit on tax cuts and not on an over bloated government. All of a sudden the socialists come out and act like they want a balanced budget. Sorry TS, anyone that works a decent job is over taxed even after the tax cuts.

It works both ways though. Do you want a balance budget? If so, then criticize this asshole for not doing it when this is the easiest time in the past 16 years to do it. He's ramped up military spending for little reason and given a large tax cut. He has no intention of addressing the deficit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's maddening. If you want a path to a balanced budget, who do you vote for. In 2016, there wasn't a single candidate that had the aim of closing the deficit even by the end of their second term and that's in great economic conditions like this.

Then you add Trump just doesn't seem to give a fuck at all. He might be the most indifferent to debt than any other president before him and what's he even have to justify it right now? Bush had a war. Obama had a Great Recession. Trump is just the last roar of the boomer generation not giving a fuck.

Clinton's proposals would have closed the deficit a lot. As a practical matter, note that Republicans only oppose spending when a Democrat is in the WH, and she would have blocked a crazy tax cut.

 

[Lead]

Clinton's proposals would have closed the deficit a lot. As a practical matter, note that Republicans only oppose spending when a Democrat is in the WH, and she would have blocked a crazy tax cut.

I can say I believe she at least wouldn't have risen the debt as fast as Trump has. And yes, I'm well aware of how none of them care when they gain power. There's always just some new need to for military spending. Just keep saying we need more military spending regardless of the situation or levels. It's moronic.

 

[Hognoxious]

It works both ways though. Do you want a balance budget? If so, is then criticize this asshole for not doing it when this is the easiest time in the past 16 years to do it. He's ramped up military spending for little reason and given a large tax cut. He has no intention of addressing the deficit.

The problem is a spending issue though. Governments waste money. Higher taxes won't cut the deficit. TS also fails to note spending increases that were already built in each year already in advance. Is there a politician that will tackle the issue? Not really, because it is political suicide.

 

[Hognoxious]

Clinton's proposals would have closed the deficit a lot.

What the hell are you smoking?

 

[AndroidRage]

It's maddening. If you want a path to a balanced budget, who do you vote for. In 2016, there wasn't a single candidate that had the aim of closing the deficit even by the end of their second term and that's in great economic conditions like this.

Then you add Trump just doesn't seem to give a fuck at all. He might be the most indifferent to debt than any other president before him and what's he even have to justify it right now? Bush had a war. Obama had a Great Recession. Trump is just the last roar of the boomer generation not giving a fuck.

Why would he care about debt? All he has ever done in the past was declare bankruptcy.

 

[Lead]

The problem is a spending issue though. Governments waste money. Higher taxes won't cut the deficit. TS also fails to note spending increases that were already built in each year already in advance. Is there a politician that will tackle the issue? Not really, because it is political suicide.

This is where I get annoyed with people because this is simply math. Both cutting spending and increasing taxes reduce the deficit. Both increasing spending and decreasing taxes increases the deficit. You can argue which is better but to say one doesn't help at all is a cop out. Military spending got revamped a ton once Trump took office and tax cuts followed. The GOP control both the house and senate during that time. Those increases to the deficit are on them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can say I believe she at least wouldn't have risen the debt as fast as Trump has. And yes, I'm well aware of how none of them care when they gain power. There's always just some new need to for military spending. Just keep saying we need more military spending regardless of the situation or levels. It's moronic.

Not just that. The debt would have shrunk. I don't think there's any question because it was on track to shrink with no action.

I also think it's clear that it's not symmetrical. The incentives are different. Democrats like some spending programs and fear that deficits imperil them, while Republicans (elected officials) want tax cuts for the rich almost exclusively. They see deficits as pressuring spending cuts (which are generally unpopular). So they cut taxes to increase deficits, which they think will lead to spending cuts to be followed by more tax cuts for the rich.

 

[Hognoxious]

This is where I get annoyed with people because this is simply math. Both cutting spending and increasing taxes reduce the deficit. Both increasing spending and decreasing taxes increases the deficit. You can argue which is better but to say one doesn't help at all is a cop out. Military spending got revamped a ton once Trump took office and tax cuts followed. The GOP control both the house and senate during that time. Those increases to the deficit are on them.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I am for a small government, Governments abuse power and waste money, that is what they do. If you give them more of your paycheck, they will just waste it on growing the government larger.

 

[Lead]

Not just that. The debt would have shrunk. I don't think there's any question because it was on track to shrink with no action.

I also think it's clear that it's not symmetrical. The incentives are different. Democrats like some spending programs and fear that deficits imperil them, while Republicans (elected officials) want tax cuts for the rich almost exclusively. They see deficits as pressuring spending cuts (which are generally unpopular). So they cut taxes to increase deficits, which they think will lead to spending cuts to be followed by more tax cuts for the rich.

Are you talking shrinking in the sense of Debt to GDP.

And yea, this is why I don't understand how Reagan is praised for that strategy. It failed but is presented like it was fiscally responsible. He did jack shit but it's that same formula of "well he would've handled it but we need more military spending". I forget what the strategy was called. Starve the beast?

 

[ScottE]

The problem is a spending issue though. Governments waste money. Higher taxes won't cut the deficit. TS also fails to note spending increases that were already built in each year already in advance. Is there a politician that will tackle the issue? Not really, because it is political suicide.

So just double down and increase spending while decreasing tax revenue. Because that is what is occurring under the GOP. Their undertaking efforts that are balooning the debt at a time where it should not be increasing which means next recession there is less to pull from to help alleviate it.

They're maxing out the credit card to give a very small minority permanent and substantial tax breaks. They don't actually have a plan to decrease government spending because the only places they want to pull money from are programs that the citizenry actually values enough to hold them somewhat accountable for.

But you'll criticize Democrats who actually have thought out policies that don't rely on breaching 5% annualized growth to not wildly underfund itself.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are you talking shrinking in the sense of Debt to GDP.

And yea, this is why I don't understand how Reagan is praised for that strategy. It failed but is presented like it was fiscally responsible. He did jack shit but it's that same formula of "well he would've handled it but we need more military spending". I forget what the strategy was called. Starve the beast?

Yes, shrinking various debt ratios. Nominal debt is pretty irrelevant.

Yeah, starve the beast. Doesn't work but it does reward legislators and their friends.

 

[Lead]

We will have to agree to disagree here. I am for a small government, Governments abuse power and waste money, that is what they do. If you give them more of your paycheck, they will just waste it on growing the government larger.

Okay. The second step here is saying Trump and the GOP did the opposite of what you wanted them to and realizing there isn't a clear party that wants to address the deficit, let alone make cuts to the size of it. I think both parties agree to not have small government because the majority of citizens like their social programs and military dominance. They don't have to agree with everything that gets funded but the silent agreement is both parties will allow each to go through.

 

[Hognoxious]

But you'll criticize Democrats who actually have thought out policies that don't rely on breaching 5% annualized growth to not wildly underfund itself.

What policies are these? The Dems want an over bloated government too. Their social program increases won't allow it. Sorry bro, I think you're living in a fairy tale.

 

[Lead]

Yes, shrinking various debt ratios. Nominal debt is pretty irrelevant.

Yeah, starve the beast. Doesn't work but it does reward legislators and their friends.

What GDP growth was assumed for that?