Congress Approved $2.4 Trillion In Additional Debt During Fiscal Year 2018: Watchdog

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. higher paid labor also creates more in demand.

a positive multiplier effect is what we need.

I'm not right wing

It makes no sense to take money from some people to give to others who refuse to work

The Broken-Window Fallacy | Robert P. Murphy

all you seem to know is right wing propaganda. your reasoning is fallacious. it is not a broken window fallacy and you failed to recognize it; it is a Solution to an existing social dilemma.

the Proof is, you cannot take any "high ground with your opposing view". You need a better argument.

capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. the power to provide for the general welfare is general enough, to solve for that inefficiency under pure capitalism.

The broken window fallacy applies here you're just too dense to see it

What sense does it make to take money from people who are working to pay people like you who refuse to work?

Doing so reduces the money available for people who work thus reducing their spending power and their ability to save and does nothing to grow the economy

Under capitalism, capital needs to circulate to ensure liquidity in our markets regardless of employment Status.

Automatic stabilization of our First World economy is the goal.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not that much difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to spending our hard earned money
and money we don't even have. It really is a shame

There's a huge difference.

Dems tax and spend. Low or no deficits.

Repubs cut taxes and spend. High deficits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not right wing

It makes no sense to take money from some people to give to others who refuse to work

The Broken-Window Fallacy | Robert P. Murphy

all you seem to know is right wing propaganda. your reasoning is fallacious. it is not a broken window fallacy and you failed to recognize it; it is a Solution to an existing social dilemma.

the Proof is, you cannot take any "high ground with your opposing view". You need a better argument.

capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment. the power to provide for the general welfare is general enough, to solve for that inefficiency under pure capitalism.

The broken window fallacy applies here you're just too dense to see it

What sense does it make to take money from people who are working to pay people like you who refuse to work?

Doing so reduces the money available for people who work thus reducing their spending power and their ability to save and does nothing to grow the economy

Under capitalism, capital needs to circulate to ensure liquidity in our markets regardless of employment Status.

Automatic stabilization of our First World economy is the goal.

And, higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

And by you getting money from other people for not working they have less money to circulate so the net sum of money in circulation does not change it is just moved to other sectors.

and getting paid for not working has nothing to do with labor because you are NOT in the labor pool if you are getting pain not to work so if you want to contribute get a fucking job

You don't have an economic argument; you have an emotional argument.

I have one too. Only lousy Christians have a problem bailing out the Poor.

There was no emotion in that argument at all except for your whining that you want to get paid for not working

and FYI I am not a Christian

and if you refuse to work and are poor it's your fault and no on else.

 

[theHawk]

Dems ran up the debt nearly ten trillion, doubling the overall debt.

Bullshit. Stimulus added 800 billion, but our debt increase was primarily caused by tax-cuts, unfinanced wars and Great Recession.

Nice monkey math. We’re not talking about hypotheticals or “taking into account...”, we’re talking about the actual deficit. Dems have never demonstrated the ability to decrease it. You might want to accept the fact that the “Bush tax cuts” were extended by Dems that had a super majority in Congress and signed into law by your beloved Hussein.

 

[g5000]

Dems ran up the debt nearly ten trillion, doubling the overall debt.

Bullshit. Stimulus added 800 billion, but our debt increase was primarily caused by tax-cuts, unfinanced wars and Great Recession.

Nice monkey math. We’re not talking about hypotheticals or “taking into account...”, we’re talking about the actual deficit. Dems have never demonstrated the ability to decrease it. You might want to accept the fact that the “Bush tax cuts” were extended by Dems that had a super majority in Congress and signed into law by your beloved Hussein.

Deficits steadily declined while Obama was in office.

Deficits have accelerated astronomically while Trump has been in office.

It took Obama eight years to lower the deficit to less than half a trillion dollars.

It took Trump one quarter of the time to explode our deficits back to a trillion dollars, in an up economy.

You can dance and jig and contort yourself all you like, but after eight years of whining non-stop about Obama's spending, I have yet to hear a single pseudocon utter so much as a single syllable of criticism toward Trump's equally, if not worse, spending habits.

You cannot wash off that kind of hypocrisy. Not matter how hard you try.

 

[g5000]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off. It is a permanent stain on every Trumpie.

 

[S.J.]

I posted a link to the US Fucking government's own site for tracking the debt, how much more credible would you like

The Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't get any more credible than that.

Since the GDP was not canceling out the previous deficit, one would need to do more than just cancel out the change in the deficit, which by the way is way more than 22 billion. The 2017 deficit was 665 billion, the deficit for the first 283 days 2018 is $1,109,539,370,085, which puts us on pace for a total deficit for CY18 of
$1,431,031,343,042, which will even top Obama for the largest deficit ever.

First, I never said the deficit increase was $22 billion. Can't you read?
Second, you keep insisting my claim was that the GDP growth increase cancels out the entire deficit. It's not what I said and you know it.
The argument from the left was that Trump's tax cuts would increase the deficit. The Republican's argument was that a modest increase in the GDP would cancel out that INCREASE (not the EXISTING deficit). You're either stupid and can't grasp that very plain logic, or you're just too dishonest to admit you're misstating what I said because it's the only way you can make an argument against what I actually said. I think maybe it's a little of both (stupidity AND dishonesty).

It is clear you have no clue what you are talking about, you cannot provide any or your own numbers or calculations, you just keep parroting the party talking points.

I haven't parroted ANY talking points, I stated FACTS and backed them up with a link to the CBO. You don't like those facts because they prove you wrong, so you ignore them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not that much difference between republicans and democrats when it comes to spending our hard earned money
and money we don't even have. It really is a shame

There's a huge difference.

Dems tax and spend. Low or no deficits.

Repubs cut taxes and spend. High deficits.

Uhhhh....Obama has some crazy deficits...they were not low nor “no”.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

 

[bendog]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

Well Reagan's were premised upon a peace dividend.

Trump is a charlatan who sees trade as an opportunity to find strawmen enemies. But some in his administration want a strategic focus on Jina, while freetrading with others.

I don't really see the gop longrane goals on anything else besides possibly slowing the growth of non-white citizens.

 

[g5000]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does. That's what the $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures each year do.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

and FYI the debt was not reduced by 1 cent since Reagan left office

The debt has not been subtracted from since the Coolidge administration

 

[g5000]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

False dichotomy, retard.

Nice try.

 

[KissMy]

Republicans are the party of Borrow & SPEND MORE!!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

The stench of the steadfast refusal to criticize Trump's spending will never wash off.

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

False dichotomy, retard.

Nice try.

FYI the debt was not reduced by 1 cent since Reagan left office

The debt has not been subtracted from since the Coolidge administration

The fact that you said the debt was paid down after the fall of the Soviet Union is telling

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans are the party of Borrow & SPEND MORE!!!

That distinction belongs to both parties

as far as debt both parties love to run it up the only thing they love more is complaining about the other party running up debt

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well Reagan's were premised upon a peace dividend.

But, it was motherfucking expensive, and he spent on other shit. Dude gave congress a blank check.

Trump is a charlatan who sees trade as an opportunity to find strawmen enemies. But some in his administration want a strategic focus on Jina, while freetrading with others.

It is my understanding that Trump's strategy is to force a mutual tariff-free trade agreement. He is using the threat of tariffs to force it. We are in a much better position to force that arrangement than any other country, but for some reason, our leaders, on both sides, have done a shit job of leveraging our position.

I don't really see the gop longrane goals on anything else besides possibly slowing the growth of non-white citizens.

This deserves no response. What complete horseshit. Why don't give us an example?

 

[g5000]

I am reminded of the same stench brought on by Reagan's spending.

And G5000 said he didn't have a problem with Reagan running up the debt

As I explained to you just a few days ago, goldfish, there is good debt, and there is bad debt.

If you borrow money to buy a tractor, debt is good. You are able to produce goods, pay off the debt with the sale of those goods, and walk away with a profit. And people are able to eat.

If you borrow money for hookers and blow, that is bad debt. You have nothing to show for it but an STD and an ever increasing addiction.

Borrowing money to defeat the Soviet Union, good debt. This was followed by a booming economy which was able to reduce our debt.

Borrowing money to interfere in the free market and increase the cost of housing, bad debt. That's what the mortgage interest deduction does.

We have an ever increasing addiction to bad debt. Bigly.

Uh huh

You are either a so called debt hawk or you are not

You are not.

False dichotomy, retard.

Nice try.

FYI the debt was not reduced by 1 cent since Reagan left office

The debt has not been subtracted from since the Coolidge administration

The fact that you said the debt was paid down after the fall of the Soviet Union is telling

The debt was well on its way to being paid off...until Dubya came along.

Yet another example of a Democratic President lowering the deficit and then a Republican Congress and Republican President accelerating the debt.

As Dubya himself said, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

 

[theHawk]

Dems ran up the debt nearly ten trillion, doubling the overall debt.

Bullshit. Stimulus added 800 billion, but our debt increase was primarily caused by tax-cuts, unfinanced wars and Great Recession.

Nice monkey math. We’re not talking about hypotheticals or “taking into account...”, we’re talking about the actual deficit. Dems have never demonstrated the ability to decrease it. You might want to accept the fact that the “Bush tax cuts” were extended by Dems that had a super majority in Congress and signed into law by your beloved Hussein.

Deficits steadily declined while Obama was in office.

Deficits have accelerated astronomically while Trump has been in office.

It took Obama eight years to lower the deficit to less than half a trillion dollars.

It took Trump one quarter of the time to explode our deficits back to a trillion dollars, in an up economy.

You can dance and jig and contort yourself all you like, but after eight years of whining non-stop about Obama's spending, I have yet to hear a single pseudocon utter so much as a single syllable of criticism toward Trump's equally, if not worse, spending habits.

You cannot wash off that kind of hypocrisy. Not matter how hard you try.

I do criticize it, I definitely think they need to cut a lot of spending.

I’ve yet to hear what your big solution is.