The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

[jc456]

Analysis | The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

Recession in 2019? It only makes sense that the man who made his fortune with other people's money is still all about borrowing:

"It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.


Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.
The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again."

why can we afford a drug war?

/----/ We need to stop democRATs from selling drugs to children. That's why.

The right wing is for lager government, not smaller government, now?

the right wing is for lager government and has been since before the days of Regan.

The last true Conservative president was Coolidge.

well actually trump is more conservative.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

well actually trump is more conservative.

Trump is not even a conservative, let alone more conservative. At best Trump is a populist who will say and do whatever he thinks will make people cheer the loudest for him.

 

[Doc1]

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

/----/ " history calls it The Great Recession". " History calls it? Well I called HISTORY and he had no idea what you're talking about.
View attachment 175042

Did you? Are you sure you didn't smoke dope and called your uncle instead?

The Great Recession | Federal Reserve History

/----/ Written by Robert Rich -- how is that "HISTORY?" Just his opinion. You idiot. BTW Obozo declared the recession over in 2010. Not so great, eh? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

Moron, recessions are not "announced" they have a technical definition.

Great Recession was over in the middle of 2009, when GDP growth resumed and RECOVERY phase began.

You didn't even read the piece by Bernanke.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Analysis | The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

Recession in 2019? It only makes sense that the man who made his fortune with other people's money is still all about borrowing:

"It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.


Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.
The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again."

/----/ After Obozo decimated the military, Trump has to rebuild it. Same thing happened to Reagan and GWB.

This is why the debt has jumped?? But..we have done nothing yet to rebuild..that is still in the future!

Blaming this on your favorite whipping boy is not going to work here. BTW...Obama did not 'Decimate' the military. His administration did spend less..they also did less. There was a draw-down from post-9/11 levels--not quite the same thing at all.

You just wish to ignore that reduced revenues are going to result in even more borrowing....and the result may well be a recession.

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

i find it ironically funny when the left screams out OBAMA IS IN THE PAST, HUSH! when said obama bitched at bush for 4+ years and blamed him. i didn't see you tell obama "hey, bush is in the past..." did i just miss it? asking because i'm sure you're consistent.

Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.

My question remains..why are YOU fixated on him? I find it ironic that so many feel that deflection is the only answer to difficult questions.

I note with amusement that you completely skipped answering my question....

 

[iceberg]

/----/ After Obozo decimated the military, Trump has to rebuild it. Same thing happened to Reagan and GWB.

This is why the debt has jumped?? But..we have done nothing yet to rebuild..that is still in the future!

Blaming this on your favorite whipping boy is not going to work here. BTW...Obama did not 'Decimate' the military. His administration did spend less..they also did less. There was a draw-down from post-9/11 levels--not quite the same thing at all.

You just wish to ignore that reduced revenues are going to result in even more borrowing....and the result may well be a recession.

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

i find it ironically funny when the left screams out OBAMA IS IN THE PAST, HUSH! when said obama bitched at bush for 4+ years and blamed him. i didn't see you tell obama "hey, bush is in the past..." did i just miss it? asking because i'm sure you're consistent.

Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.

My question remains..why are YOU fixated on him? I find it ironic that so many feel that deflection is the only answer to difficult questions.

I note with amusement that you completely skipped answering my question....

my first reply is - where did i call you a democrat? i don't believe i did. however, i wasn't here for much of the obama years and didn't pay much attention to who's who.

i find it funny you bitch at my deflection right after you deflected yourself. it's as if you find it ok to do it but get upset when someone else does it.

and i note with amusement most of the things you say as you didn't answer my question either.

 

[Doc1]

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

/----/ " history calls it The Great Recession". " History calls it? Well I called HISTORY and he had no idea what you're talking about.
View attachment 175042

Did you? Are you sure you didn't smoke dope and called your uncle instead?

The Great Recession | Federal Reserve History

/----/ Written by Robert Rich -- how is that "HISTORY?" Just his opinion. You idiot. BTW Obozo declared the recession over in 2010. Not so great, eh? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA

Moron, recessions are not "announced" they have a technical definition.

Great Recession was over in the middle of 2009, when GDP growth resumed and RECOVERY phase began.

This sums up Bernanke's "speech".

"Financial stability policy encompasses, as the first line of defense at least, a range of microprudential and macroprudential tools, both structural and varying over the cycle, supported by enhanced monitoring and analysis of potential risks to systemic stability. Clearly, understanding and applying the lessons of the crisis will take some time yet; both theorists and practitioners of central banking have their work cut out for them."

He just told you that they still don't know WHAT to do to prevent another recession.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This is why the debt has jumped?? But..we have done nothing yet to rebuild..that is still in the future!

Blaming this on your favorite whipping boy is not going to work here. BTW...Obama did not 'Decimate' the military. His administration did spend less..they also did less. There was a draw-down from post-9/11 levels--not quite the same thing at all.

You just wish to ignore that reduced revenues are going to result in even more borrowing....and the result may well be a recession.

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

i find it ironically funny when the left screams out OBAMA IS IN THE PAST, HUSH! when said obama bitched at bush for 4+ years and blamed him. i didn't see you tell obama "hey, bush is in the past..." did i just miss it? asking because i'm sure you're consistent.

Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.

My question remains..why are YOU fixated on him? I find it ironic that so many feel that deflection is the only answer to difficult questions.

I note with amusement that you completely skipped answering my question....

my first reply is - where did i call you a democrat? i don't believe i did. however, i wasn't here for much of the obama years and didn't pay much attention to who's who.

i find it funny you bitch at my deflection right after you deflected yourself. it's as if you find it ok to do it but get upset when someone else does it.

and i note with amusement most of the things you say as you didn't answer my question either.

Idiot! What question? What did I deflect from, pray tell? Your stupid contention that somehow there is a 'tit for tat' going on..where everything that happens now is somehow Ok because Obama did___________? I do not care about Obama..and what he did or did not do...BTW..sure..you implied I'm on the left..but you hide from that and say you did not paint me as a Democrat...I guess you just can't own your intent...fair enough.

How is the hell does Obama have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

Again...
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

Do you believe this to be true..or not? Simple question...yet you don't have the intellectual chops to answer it simply and honestly?

How sad.

 

[BluesLegend]

Even the CATO institute, a flagrantly right wing Libertarian think tank contradicts you. The CBO was projecting those deficits before Obama was even elected. The 2009 fiscal year didn't begin until October 2009.

AND...wait for it...Democrats controlled spending since 2007. I'm going to keep reminding you dishonest hacks.

You see my question is, does it matter? We are in the spot we are in period, keep shuffling blame and it continues. The real question is when will we as americans quit allowing this and hold the current reps responible for what they do! I ask you again are you against deficits? If so are you willing to vote out your rep if they do not act regardless of thier political party?

Holy shit a rational question. The answer is no, it does not matter. Idiot politicians have sunk us so far in debt there is only one solution. Spending cuts would be like shooting spit wads at the problem now. The only solution is to grow our way out of the mess, economic growth and not marginal growth like we had over the past 8 years while piling on another $13 trillion dollars but serious economic growth. The kind of growth Trump is pushing.

Here are a couple of sobering facts...no country or group of countries are wealthy enough to bail out the U.S. You can bail out a Greece size country, but there's not safety net for the U.S. Second, every major world power in all of human history has failed and gone belly up every last one of them so don't think it can't happen to the U.S.

That or cancel the Debt to The Fed which is entirely legal, since they are a Contractor, and Federal Reserve Notes are Private Bank Notes and Instruments of Debt and ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL CURRENCY.

Simply tell the fed they have made $100 Trillion on the US taxpayer for allowing us to use their bank notes, and they should be happy with that.

Game over.

Print Treasury Notes again, and fractionally back them with precious metals.

See I love this solutions instead of blame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Real answers to real fucking problems it almost gives me goose bumps! I feel as though I traveled back into time when people sat and thought about solutions instead of blame. People are spitting out possible solutions! I fucking love it! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem with his solution is this would devalue our currency and probably start a war or something nearly as bad. $6.3 trillion of our debt is held by other countries, printing fake money and pretending to pay them back would not go over well. China already bitched and saber rattled when the Fed printed $3 trillion during the Obama administration to fund his deficit spending. This notion that we can just forgive debt owed is what politicians use to excuse all the borrowing in the first place that's a warning flag right there.

 

[BluesLegend]

Holy shit a rational question. The answer is no, it does not matter. Idiot politicians have sunk us so far in debt there is only one solution. Spending cuts would be like shooting spit wads at the problem now. The only solution is to grow our way out of the mess, economic growth and not marginal growth like we had over the past 8 years while piling on another $13 trillion dollars but serious economic growth. The kind of growth Trump is pushing.

Here are a couple of sobering facts...no country or group of countries are wealthy enough to bail out the U.S. You can bail out a Greece size country, but there's not safety net for the U.S. Second, every major world power in all of human history has failed and gone belly up every last one of them so don't think it can't happen to the U.S.

That or cancel the Debt to The Fed which is entirely legal, since they are a Contractor, and Federal Reserve Notes are Private Bank Notes and Instruments of Debt and ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL CURRENCY.

Simply tell the fed they have made $100 Trillion on the US taxpayer for allowing us to use their bank notes, and they should be happy with that.

Game over.

Print Treasury Notes again, and fractionally back them with precious metals.

See I love this solutions instead of blame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Real answers to real fucking problems it almost gives me goose bumps! I feel as though I traveled back into time when people sat and thought about solutions instead of blame. People are spitting out possible solutions! I fucking love it! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1% cut across the board. I've said that many times in here. solutions have been given until I get laughter from the left who want their illegals.

Leave the left out of it and explain your 1% acoss the board more please!

cut spending on every program 1%. That is a huge decrease in spending.

That's $40 billion, there was over $400 billion reported in government waste and fraud in 2016 alone now that would be a huge decrease.

 

[Dragonlady]

well I have history.

Well, some people spend too much time looking backwards and thus nothing ever changes.

I chose trump. you can't get more out there than that vote. so I still have history. My vote mattered.

Did Trump win the state you live in?

nope? Neither did any third party candidate. I live in one of the worst states in the country. Illinois. My guy still won cause I championed my vote over the internet to others to vote for him. I spoke with many people outside my state. and those states did win.

I'm not afraid to tell anyone I voted for trump. It was the correct vote to save the country. you can see how weekly.

Russian troll farm workers like you didn’t vote for anyone. But you’re correct when you say you convinced many others to vote for him.

Notice how pleased with the result all the troll farmers are.

 

[iceberg]

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

i find it ironically funny when the left screams out OBAMA IS IN THE PAST, HUSH! when said obama bitched at bush for 4+ years and blamed him. i didn't see you tell obama "hey, bush is in the past..." did i just miss it? asking because i'm sure you're consistent.

Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.

My question remains..why are YOU fixated on him? I find it ironic that so many feel that deflection is the only answer to difficult questions.

I note with amusement that you completely skipped answering my question....

my first reply is - where did i call you a democrat? i don't believe i did. however, i wasn't here for much of the obama years and didn't pay much attention to who's who.

i find it funny you bitch at my deflection right after you deflected yourself. it's as if you find it ok to do it but get upset when someone else does it.

and i note with amusement most of the things you say as you didn't answer my question either.

Idiot! What question? What did I deflect from, pray tell? Your stupid contention that somehow there is a 'tit for tat' going on..where everything that happens now is somehow Ok because Obama did___________? I do not care about Obama..and what he did or did not do...BTW..sure..you implied I'm on the left..but you hide from that and say you did not paint me as a Democrat...I guess you just can't own your intent...fair enough.

How is the hell does Obama have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

Again...
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

Do you believe this to be true..or not? Simple question...yet you don't have the intellectual chops to answer it simply and honestly?

How sad.

and now - insults and name calling. right on queue.

you keep arguing in a circle and get upset when i don't follow along. sorry, but i don't. you want to say "obama is yesterday, let's talk about what *I* want to talk about" then show off your butthurt when i don't follow along.

and i don't play the intent. sure i took it from a vantage point you were arguing from the left - mostly because *to me* you were. you say not, great. you're not. but to me, you still are. we can either talk things out and figure out our differences or we can get upset and do the IDIOT and insult parade that never ends well.

when you, and the left, talk about trumps spending, i find it funny because i don't recall the left giving a shit on what obama spent $ on. yet, as a collective culture we're here to oppose anything and everything from the other side and yes, we de-volve into a "tit for tat" situation where we must pay people back for the mythical crimes they committed against us. it's a crap situation that we'll never get out of if we keep pretending only the other side has problems or is lacking in perfection.

so no. i won't talk about how trump spends too much w/o putting it in perspective. if we don't put it in perspective, ie - use previous accounts of how much was spent and for what, you have zero way of knowing if "too much" is being spend, now do you?

so you tell me - if we can't compare what trump is spending to past presidents, how do you know he's spending too much?

this should be fun.

 

[jc456]

well actually trump is more conservative.

Trump is not even a conservative, let alone more conservative. At best Trump is a populist who will say and do whatever he thinks will make people cheer the loudest for him.

and yet he is more conservative. you should actually read

 

[Faun]

Notice the gymnastics the Right has to do to get the loss in revenue from St Ronnie's tax cuts to look better. 1981 was actually the last year of revenue before the Reagan tax cuts, which were retroactive to July, so if you take the 1981 revenue and add back the retroactive tax cut you will have the actual revenue for 1981 before tax cuts and that would be the real base of $1,054.8 billion from which to calculate the lost revenue from Reagan's tax cuts. With those real numbers it took 6 years to finally increase before tax cut revenue.

The chart from your link:

/----/ Say what?

Ahhh yes, the right-wing perpetual dumb act.
The first half of 1981 was taxed at pre Reagan cuts rate, had the whole year been taxed the same the revenue would have been $1,054.8 billion therefore the real pre Reagan tax cut base is $1,054.8 and not $956.0 billion.
I know it involves math, but do you get it now?

/---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?

Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes.

/---/ Get a clue will ya?
President Reagan raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility, but the overall tax burden went down during his presidency.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia

And by “fiscal responsibility,” you mean tripling the national debt? Maybe you should try thinking for yourself instead of letting Wikipedia do your thinking for you?

Regardless, Reagan cut taxes in 81 and 82. Revenue fell in 82 and 83. His two biggest tax increases came in 82 and 84, and revenues increased from 84 and on.

 

[Faun]

Ahhh yes, the right-wing perpetual dumb act.
The first half of 1981 was taxed at pre Reagan cuts rate, had the whole year been taxed the same the revenue would have been $1,054.8 billion therefore the real pre Reagan tax cut base is $1,054.8 and not $956.0 billion.
I know it involves math, but do you get it now?

/---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?

Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes.

/---/ Get a clue will ya?
President Reagan raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility, but the overall tax burden went down during his presidency.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Reagan never came close to fiscal responsibility.

/-----/ President Reagan couldn't spend one dime without the approval of the democRAT congress led by the drunken sot Tip O'neill. So what are you yammering about?

You have that backwards. The Congress passes legislation. To become law the president has to sign off on it. Congress is the body who can’t spend a dime with out the president’s approval, tacit or expressed, without a congressional override, which was never the case during the Reagan years.

 

[jc456]

well I have history.

Well, some people spend too much time looking backwards and thus nothing ever changes.

I chose trump. you can't get more out there than that vote. so I still have history. My vote mattered.

Did Trump win the state you live in?

nope? Neither did any third party candidate. I live in one of the worst states in the country. Illinois. My guy still won cause I championed my vote over the internet to others to vote for him. I spoke with many people outside my state. and those states did win.

I'm not afraid to tell anyone I voted for trump. It was the correct vote to save the country. you can see how weekly.

Russian troll farm workers like you didn’t vote for anyone. But you’re correct when you say you convinced many others to vote for him.

Notice how pleased with the result all the troll farmers are.

when you can't argue on a message board.

 

[danielpalos]

Idiocy. When did Obama "increase the deficit by over half"

What was Bush highest deficit, what was Obama's, there you have it.

Bush's budget for 2009 - 1.3 Trillion defict.

...anything else?

Obama was president in 2009 and Democrats controlled congress and spending from 2007 to 2010. Facts are not your friend. Push me further and we'll discuss Obama's Fed printing another $3 trillion dollars to prop up the Obama economy and what Obama blew $800 billion in so called stimulus money on.

The rich had to get bailed out.

from what?

lousy capital lifestyle choices.

 

[Dragonlady]

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

i find it ironically funny when the left screams out OBAMA IS IN THE PAST, HUSH! when said obama bitched at bush for 4+ years and blamed him. i didn't see you tell obama "hey, bush is in the past..." did i just miss it? asking because i'm sure you're consistent.

Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.

My question remains..why are YOU fixated on him? I find it ironic that so many feel that deflection is the only answer to difficult questions.

I note with amusement that you completely skipped answering my question....

my first reply is - where did i call you a democrat? i don't believe i did. however, i wasn't here for much of the obama years and didn't pay much attention to who's who.

i find it funny you bitch at my deflection right after you deflected yourself. it's as if you find it ok to do it but get upset when someone else does it.

and i note with amusement most of the things you say as you didn't answer my question either.

Idiot! What question? What did I deflect from, pray tell? Your stupid contention that somehow there is a 'tit for tat' going on..where everything that happens now is somehow Ok because Obama did___________? I do not care about Obama..and what he did or did not do...BTW..sure..you implied I'm on the left..but you hide from that and say you did not paint me as a Democrat...I guess you just can't own your intent...fair enough.

How is the hell does Obama have anything to do with the topic of this thread?

Again...
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

Do you believe this to be true..or not? Simple question...yet you don't have the intellectual chops to answer it simply and honestly?

How sad.

and now - insults and name calling. right on queue.

you keep arguing in a circle and get upset when i don't follow along. sorry, but i don't. you want to say "obama is yesterday, let's talk about what *I* want to talk about" then show off your butthurt when i don't follow along.

and i don't play the intent. sure i took it from a vantage point you were arguing from the left - mostly because *to me* you were. you say not, great. you're not. but to me, you still are. we can either talk things out and figure out our differences or we can get upset and do the IDIOT and insult parade that never ends well.

when you, and the left, talk about trumps spending, i find it funny because i don't recall the left giving a shit on what obama spent $ on. yet, as a collective culture we're here to oppose anything and everything from the other side and yes, we de-volve into a "tit for tat" situation where we must pay people back for the mythical crimes they committed against us. it's a crap situation that we'll never get out of if we keep pretending only the other side has problems or is lacking in perfection.

so no. i won't talk about how trump spends too much w/o putting it in perspective. if we don't put it in perspective, ie - use previous accounts of how much was spent and for what, you have zero way of knowing if "too much" is being spend, now do you?

so you tell me - if we can't compare what trump is spending to past presidents, how do you know he's spending too much?

this should be fun.

Obama was trying to put the

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Say what?

Ahhh yes, the right-wing perpetual dumb act.
The first half of 1981 was taxed at pre Reagan cuts rate, had the whole year been taxed the same the revenue would have been $1,054.8 billion therefore the real pre Reagan tax cut base is $1,054.8 and not $956.0 billion.
I know it involves math, but do you get it now?

/---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?

Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes.

/---/ Get a clue will ya?
President Reagan raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility, but the overall tax burden went down during his presidency.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia

And by “fiscal responsibility,” you mean tripling the national debt? Maybe you should try thinking for yourself instead of letting Wikipedia do your thinking for you?

Regardless, Reagan cut taxes in 81 and 82. Revenue fell in 82 and 83. His two biggest tax increases came in 82 and 84, and revenues increased from 84 and on.

/——/ Only the democRAT congress spent the money. Dig up drunken sot Tip O’neil And scream at him.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?

Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes.

/---/ Get a clue will ya?
President Reagan raised taxes eleven times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility, but the overall tax burden went down during his presidency.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Reagan never came close to fiscal responsibility.

/-----/ President Reagan couldn't spend one dime without the approval of the democRAT congress led by the drunken sot Tip O'neill. So what are you yammering about?

You have that backwards. The Congress passes legislation. To become law the president has to sign off on it. Congress is the body who can’t spend a dime with out the president’s approval, tacit or expressed, without a congressional override, which was never the case during the Reagan years.

/—-/ And what do DemocRATS do when a republican president threatens to veto a budget and shut down the government? Go ahead, think real hard and tell us.

 

[deanrd]

Analysis | The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

Recession in 2019? It only makes sense that the man who made his fortune with other people's money is still all about borrowing:

"It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.


Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.
The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again."

Still much lower that 2009 - 2012 when we had a community organizer as president, and for all that it did squat for the economy.

Wrong again, idiot. This is the level of unfunded spending that Republicans said would destroy the US economy under Obama in an economic freefall.

The instability the tax cut is creating is already affecting the stock market. People are selling off and getting out before the coming crash.

Putin is laughing manically at the mess Trump is inflicting on your government.

Trump and the GOP could be doing this on orders from Putin.