Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you’re personally making over $100,000 do you care about the debt? If the millionaires aren’t worried and if people making $20k aren’t worried why are you?And when did "conservative" come to mean being ok with rampant overspending and huge debts?
Sad.
Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
***smiles***and now - insults and name calling.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.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.Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.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.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.
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....
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.
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.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.
great. to me you running at trump going BAD TRUMP but refusing to baseline it - well that's a problem to me.***smiles***and now - insults and name calling.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.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.Your first mistake is in thinking I'm a Democrat....I did not like Obama..and screamed a lot of things at him.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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
When your wallet is flat..and you have to ask for money every day to survive...we call that broke..a broke person is a poor credit risk..and our good faith and credit are all the really secures our debt.
The current administration has committed to a course of action that will reduce revenue--while at the same time touting increases in spending--notably building up the military..This constitutes, "too much" in my mind..and in the minds of many. Comparing to past Presidents is irrelevant because the context changes..thus motivations and needs change.
All sides in this could point their fingers and cry 'Hypocrite'..because all sides have done it. It seems, though..that some wish to excuse current poor decision making by pointing out past poor decision making--when I see this I believe that someone is being intellectually dishonest..as anyone knows..prior bad behavior by one person does not excuse bad behavior by another.
It's odd that you would think my reasoning comes from the left..when I advise fiscal responsibility and smaller Govt.. I have always associated those traits with Conservatism..in fact, I call myself a fiscal conservative still. Has that become a Left thing now?
It seems very hard to keep up...with all the spin--you see..I think Trump is the RINO--and his fiscal policies are going to hurt our country.
You don't think so..fine But those whining about Obama this..and Clinton that...are part of the problem..IMO.
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."
Only if you omit funding government.Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
$1.4 trillion.What was Bush highest deficit,
Only if you omit funding government.Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.Only if you omit funding government.Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.
we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.Only if you omit funding government.Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.
You’re still confused? Either the Congress passes a budget and the president either approves it or doesn’t; or Congress can’t agree on a budget themselves and pass nothing for the president to sign. In the latter case, the Congress either passes a continuing resolution which the president can sign; or the government shuts down./—-/ 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.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./-----/ 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?/---/ Get a clue will ya?Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes.
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.
You remain drunk. The Senate was Republican for ¾ of Reagan’s 2 terms and Reagan, who had the final say of all bills, was also Republican. So who do rightards blame for spending??/——/ Only the democRAT congress spent the money. Dig up drunken sot Tip O’neil And scream at him.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?/---/ Get a clue will ya?Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes./---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?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?
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
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.
the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.Only if you omit funding government.Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.
3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.
Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".
No, it was "theft".
Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.
Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.
/——/ The Congress who load the budget with pork. Are you new to how Washington has worked for decades?You remain drunk. The Senate was Republican for ¾ of Reagan’s 2 terms and Reagan, who had the final say of all bills, was also Republican. So who do rightards blame for spending??/——/ Only the democRAT congress spent the money. Dig up drunken sot Tip O’neil And scream at him.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?/---/ Get a clue will ya?Yeah, after Reagan increased taxes./---- Revenue increased starting in 1984 and through 1990. So what's your point Spanky?
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
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.
Democrats, of course.
the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.Only if you omit funding government.Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.
You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.
Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.
the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.Only if you omit funding government.
You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.
Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.
So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.
simple income redistribution. the right wing is for bigger government through bigger government debt.This is what Lying Trump and the Republicans did. They reached into the pocket of the taxpayers, then said "hey we're giving everyone a tax cut isn't that great!" Then they charged $1.5 trillion to the taxpayer's credit card, then gave a huge tax cut to the wealthy and corporations and raised the lowest tax bracket from 10% to 12%. In other words they just transferred a huge amount of taxpayer wealth from taxpayer's pockets to the pockets of the filthy rich.
