Trumponomics

[JohnnySavage]

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Then why did I just see a headline that tax revenues were at a record pace?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I dunno. I just report the news!

But if history is a lesson, the Trump Business Model is to borrow as much money as possible, then leave someone else holding the bag.

 

[TalkRadio1]

US budget deficit expands to $779 billion in fiscal 2018 as spending surges

A spike in defense spending, as well as increases for Medicaid, Social Security and disaster relief, contributed to the increase.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/us-...illion-in-fiscal-2018-as-spending-surges.html

 

[HisArpy]

Then why did I just see a headline that tax revenues were at a record pace?

Records revenues don't offset record breaking spending.

Remember what he said when Trump signed the tax bill? That the only reason he was signing was because we needed to fund the military and that if it weren't for that he'd veto it because of all the pork spending in the bill?

The spending isn't Trump's fault. Blame Congress.

 

[SpeareChucker]

I think the news here is that Congress spends money faster than it takes it in.

 

[HisArpy]

I think the news here is that Congress spends money faster than it takes it in.

That ain't news.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Records revenues don't offset record breaking spending.

Remember what he said when Trump signed the tax bill? That the only reason he was signing was because we needed to fund the military and that if it weren't for that he'd veto it because of all the pork spending in the bill?

The spending isn't Trump's fault. Blame Congress.

I think the news here is that Congress spends money faster than it takes it in.

Both at 9:36

 

[TalkRadio1]

Federal budget deficit surges to highest level in 6 years at $779 billion

More importantly, most estimates suggest that the deficit will worsen as spending on Social Security, Medicare and other programs increase with the aging baby boomer population.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...es-to-highest-level-in-6-years-at-779-billion

 

[SpeareChucker]

That's why the Democrat Oblimo wishes they would just die...

 

[HisArpy]

That's why the Democrat Oblimo wishes they would just die...

Me too. That old guy in the next bed farts in his sleep.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Hey, I fart in my sleep, but I don't snore!

 

[Kirkrapine]

Then why did I just see a headline that tax revenues were at a record pace?

Where did you see it?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Where did you see it?

Drudge

The link is in red; it stands out.

 

[Wrong Element]

Mitch McConnell had an interesting comment about all this. He blamed the deficit on entitlement spending — no surprise there — but he went to say that the reason it's so hard to cut entitlements right now is that Republicans control everything. In other words, they do want to cut entitlements, but they need someone else to take the political hit for it.

 

[Comshaw]

Records revenues don't offset record breaking spending.

Remember what he said when Trump signed the tax bill? That the only reason he was signing was because we needed to fund the military and that if it weren't for that he'd veto it because of all the pork spending in the bill?

The spending isn't Trump's fault. Blame Congress.

Bullshit. If he saw the spending as excessive, he could have vetoed it, sent it back and held their feet to the fire. Instead, because his party was the one who voted for it, he used the dodge of 'Well we have to fund the military' to sign it into law. The budget has two responsible parties: the members in congress who voted for it and the president who signed it into law. Neither party gets a free pass because of an excuse that doesn't hold water. So yes it is at least 50% his fault if not more, because he had the power to force congress to trim it or get the votes to pass it over his veto and didn't use it. It's as simple as that.

I think the news here is that Congress spends money faster than it takes it in.

I never understood this and probably never will. The conservatives, when not in power, rail against the "tax and spend" liberals insisting that most taxes are bad, all tax cuts are good, cuts in spending is an absolute necessity, and an increase in the deficit no matter how small will bring our country to it's knees. Sounds logical right? It does to me. Decreasing the deficit while decreasing the tax burden on the people is a good thing.

The problem comes in when they do get to power. What happens? First, tax cuts, that's good. Next, reduction in spending to balance the budget and start to reduce the deficit. All of sudden things hit a snag. All that prior talk of reducing spending goes right out the window when they are faced with cutting things out of the budget. Couple that with pork barrel increases in their favorite programs and all of a sudden the fucking deficit sky rockets.

So while the conservatives call the liberals "tax and spend" politicians, they turn out to be "Reduce taxes and increase spending anyway" politicians.

In a nut shell: for years the Republicans have railed against taxes, spending and an increased deficit, promising that when we put them in power they WILL do something about all three. Now that they have the power, they come through with one out of three. So is defaulting on 2/3rds of a promise lying? Or partial lying (if there is such a thing)? Or just shoveling political bullshit to get to power? They haven't done a damn thing about the deficit or overall spending. Why is that?


Comshaw

 

[adrina]

Deficits don't matter again?

A definitive pattern here....

 

[Kirkrapine]

I think the news here is that Congress spends money faster than it takes it in.

It's a Republican Congress -- if they won't be fiscally responsible, who will?!

 

[Kirkrapine]

I remember when Ross Perot ran for POTUS, his plan was to cut the deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes. Sensible, no? At least if you agree the deficit is really the main problem.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Okay, a couple of you have now just brought up the fact that conservatives won't cut entitlement spending, and they won't, no one ever will. In a two-party system where social media rules, it is sudden death, sudden stop, the way to unviability politically. It would be a political suicide that would be rendered a pyrrhic victory by the replacement party as they gave the people back everything they believed that was promised to them in perpetuity. Both parties, in order to purchase votes have engaged in a mutual suicide pact; we're not going to cut back, but we're going to promise more; universal health care, free tuition, education for illegals, extended maternity leave for both parents and for new dog owners, the list of gimmes just never ends. The 17th Amendment ended any brake upon this situation. The truth is, people vote in their own immediate interests without regard to the future confident that the short gain is exactly the same as a long gain. [See Bastiat, The sophism of the Broken Window]

 

[SpeareChucker]

I remember when Ross Perot ran for POTUS, his plan was to cut the deficit by cutting spending and raising taxes. Sensible, no? At least if you agree the deficit is really the main problem.

Tell me how spending gets cut when most of it is entitlement spending and how raising taxes actually raises revenue. Remember globalism? A lot of money will simple flee high taxes and profit handsomely from the act.

 

[Kirkrapine]

The 17th Amendment ended any brake upon this situation.

What's that have to do with anything?

 

[spacekowboy]

But, but Obamacare! But, but Bailouts!

 

[SpeareChucker]

What's that have to do with anything?

Honestly?

It put the Senate up to the popular vote just like the Congress meaning that the Senate was no longer a check on either the passions of the mob or the excesses of the Federal Government in defense of the states but was instead just an appendage that rubber-stamped the passions of the mob in order to maintain office.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Honestly?

It put the Senate up to the popular vote just like the Congress meaning that the Senate was no longer a check on either the passions of the mob or the excesses of the Federal Government in defense of the states but was instead just an appendage that rubber-stamped the passions of the mob in order to maintain office.

Well, the state legislatures ain't exactly paragons of fiscal responsibility either!