straightUp Loc: California

Seems like an appropriate number, considering it's the first budget proposal under Trump. LOL

Now before any of you get all jumpy... I'm not putting the blame for the $80 billion deficit increase squarely on Trump. I've been saying for years that the effects that surface in one administration (especially in the first year) are often caused by previous administrations. But this is sort of my point. I can't even count the number of times I responded to charges that Obama is running up the debt with the explanation that it was mostly caused by Bush, not Obama.

I knew that I only had to wait for the first reports from the Treasury toward the end of Trump's first year in office to make my point and well, here it is. Despite all the panic about the deficit and the demands for a "businessman" to take charge... the deficit STILL continues to grow along with the national debt, which the current deficit has just pushed past the $20 trillion mark.

Let's see how this fits into the right-wing template of political commentary... "Under Trump, the debt has reached it's highest levels EVER!" Nice, huh?

So, I'll be interested in hearing what the Tea Party cultists who were SO rabidly concerned about the deficit when Obama was in office have to say now. So far, I'm hearing crickets, which furthers my suspicion that budget deficits and national debt never was as much a concern for them as it was just a way to trash Obama.

The other thing I'm interested in watching unfold is how the "fiscally responsible right" is going to reconcile with Trumps proposed $1.5 trillion tax cut in the face of a $666 billion deficit for 2017. Will they admit that cutting taxes by $1.5 trillion while only cutting 9% of the spending is NOT going to fix the problem or will they just continue their decent into rhetorical theories and patriotic gestures, leaving the facts and figures for "losers" like Sanders and the real consequences of insurmountable debt for our children?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-budget/u-s-fiscal-year-deficit-widens-to-666-billion-idUSKBN1CP2FS

Gatsby

Still on Obama's last budget year, aren't we?

straightUp Loc: California

More or less... which is the point I'm making... Perhaps you didn't catch that. Or perhaps you got distracted by the bigger message that recognizing the truth about budgets and presidents is a matter of political convenience to so many that entrench themselves in partisan warfare.

Bottom line is... economic situations don't reset every time a president takes office. The Bush administration played a significant role in committing the nation to levels of debt that exceed the ability for subsequent governments to easily fix. People need to understand that debts grow with or without additional spending. Records show that Obama actually spent less than the previous five presidents and yet because the debt continued to grow people assumed he was spending more.

This is one of the benefits to the Republican victory in 2016... letting reality catch up so we can point and say... "See? I told you so."

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

""Under Trump, the debt has reached it's highest levels EVER!" Nice, huh?



Not jumping here but that money was already spent before Trump took office. I will never see the debt under control, I doubt a 4 year old will unless congress stops the useless spending. Besides presidents don't spend, congress does.
https://www.snopes.com/national-debt-trump/
Things are headed in the right direction, maybe this is why Democrats are so hateful, and this take many years to even bring it back to 1990 levels.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I believe we all know that America is bankrupt and there is no way we can ever pay off $20 trillion in debt. The blame falls on us all. Someday the axe is going to fall and it will make all previous depressions seem like a holiday. Receiving the quarter allowance I received for the hard work I did around the house as a kid will be like a pot of gold. People are already squirreling away nonperishable food and investing in gold and silver held in hand. Want to know what's going to happen? Chaos, suffering on a scale previously unknown worldwide, death by every means imaginable, and no one will be screaming that free health care is a right, that homosexuality is a right, that women and minorities have special rights. That a 50" color TV is a right. The only recognized right will be an animalistic right to scratch for survival. You could wake up tomorrow and it could all begin with the rising Sun. Now we have something with which to really be concerned. And within six months you won't find a single rabbit, cat or loose dog. Then people will finally fall to their knees begging God's mercy. Eat, drink and be merry today........

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Yes, we are, but why should that matter to the "progressives"?

straightUp Loc: California

Nice to see you're catching up with me on this.


This is where you are incredibly misinformed.

Yes, according to the Constitution, Congress (NOT the president) controls the purse. But notice it's the presidents that submit budget proposals to Congress? So what do you call that? Congress fulfills their constitutional duty by approving or rejecting the president's proposals.

But that's just a technicality... What I am referring to when I say you are "incredibly" misinformed is that you seem to be 100% unaware of how the national debt continues to grow at a rate that dramatically exceeds the rate at which budget deficits contribute. Where is all this additional debt coming from if not from the deficit? Do you ever ask that question?

The answer is... presidents.

That's right, presidents have a method that is often referred to as "off-line spending". That means instead of following the route prescribed by the Constitution, (establish a budget and levy taxes to cover it) the alternative is to borrow money through the U.S. Treasury which is under the command of the president. Since Reagan, this has been the hallmark of Republican government for several reasons...

1. No Congressional oversight. So it's much easier to spend quietly without all the media attention.
2. No taxes needed (at least not until the money has to be paid back) So, they can campaign on the promise to cut taxes.

And here's what makes your ignorance of this fact so incredible...

The National Debt is NOT the result of "tax-and-spend" which is the constitutional recommendation but sadly an approach that only one of the two parties are following. You see, when you levy taxes to pay for spending there *IS* no debt because you're spending money that you actually have. The national debt is a direct result of spending MORE than we have. In other words, spending that isn't covered by taxes, so the money has to be borrowed. Some of this over extension is allowed to pass through budgets but the vast majority of it comes from free and easy offline spending.

Bush funded his wars almost entirely with off-line spending. Congress had very little to do with it. Obama was left with what Bush turned into a minimum wage government up to it's ears in expensive military commitments and ballooning debt.


I'm assuming the point you are trying to make here is that presidents are not responsible for the debt, but all this article is doing is discounting the credit that the conservative website "Truth Division" is giving Trump for pushing the debt from $19,947,304,555,212.49 on the day of his inauguration, to $19,844,938,940,351.37 on July 30th. But you already know this... You've already stated that the "money was already spent before Trump took office." So of course the claim is unfounded.

The article doesn't make the claim that presidents don't spend money, nor does it address the fact that according to the latest government reports the debt is projected to spike again, spilling over the $20 trillion mark.


Not if we think the answer is to cut taxes by 1.5 trillion while only cutting 9% of the spending.


Democrats are rightfully concerned. If there is any hate, it's probably because they're getting sick and tired of trying to explain basic economics to a population that seems more receptive to the economic fantasies that Republicans continue to harness as they rape the American people.


Yes, many years ...from the point where the American people finally figure out basic economics and elect a government that doesn't bullshit them about it... Let's see if that ever happens.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Where did Obama get all the money he spent without an approved budget or congressional approval? Oh I remember they didn't pass a budget until, was it his last year or last two years? His own people wouldn't pass his budget it was so outrageous, but still he managed to double the debt. And how was he able to pump 85 million a month, newly printed phony money, direct from the Fed into the economy, actually a QE 3, without congressional approval? And where did the bulk of that money go? To the rich of course. The Democrat hierarchy loves wall street while giving them a sly wink that they're evil and greedy.

straightUp Loc: California

So true... I couldn't have said it any better.


LOL... That was MY allowance when I was a kid... Mow the lawn, take out the trash... 25 cents. Of course 25 cents in 1976 is worth $1.05 today.


Guilty.


Yes.


Wow... Not exactly uplifting. ;)

Sadly, I can't find anything in your argument to dispute. Other than to point out the glaring absence of faith in humanity.

We probably have about 10-20 years before such dire conditions saturate the bulk of our population. Until then (and short of political revolution) the patterns developing now will continue to segregate and isolate our population into demographics that will be dehumanized and erased from the concerns of those not yet hit by the realities you describe. It's already starting which is why we have reactions like Black Lives Matter. The government is essentially saying no, they don't matter. There is already the sentiment that the unfortunate among us are responsible for their own doing. What I am seeing today is proof of how easy it will be for the powers that rule us to gradually disassemble our resilience as a united people.

Mike what we are talking about here is decline. It's something so few Americans ever want to admit, but we ARE in decline. This is how empires have always fallen... History often puts blame on specific leaders but in reality the decline of a nation is usually much bigger than any individual or even an entire government caught in the current.

In the most recent examples we saw the imperialism of European powers decline into systems cut off from their former empires and there was a noticeable increase in social systems to manage the crisis the people were facing. I think it's a great misfortune to be part of a culture that has been so conditioned to fear social systems at a time when we are about to take the same fall. I guess all we have left are prayers and guns.

Unless...

People with a stronger sense of social revolution can stand up to the predators and cannibals of the plutocracy and establish a more humane society where you don't have to be rich to be worth saving.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Cynthia

Good grief we did work hard for a quarter a week didn't we? And mowing the lawn was with a non-motorized push mower. God help us if we missed a few days, it was like pushing a butter knife thru a jungle. But what a nice cut those old rotary push mowers made. So thankful I do not own one of those antiques. I believe golf courses use that type of lawnmower, pulled in tandem by a tractor, because of the supremacy of the cut. I'm thinking out loud, remembering and rambling.

straightUp Loc: California

It would be nice if you read what I write before posting questions like this.... I *JUST* explained how off-line spending works.


You're memory is a little shaky... Obama's first budget request (for FY 2010) was passed by Congress on April 29, 2009.


Well, as I just indicated... his "own people" if that's what you're calling the Democrats that controlled the 111th Congress, DID pass his budget (and they found nothing particularly outrageous about it).

Also, the claim that Obama single handedly doubled the debt is exactly the kind of fallacy that I am trying to draw attention to in this topic. The claim is based on the egregious refusal to consider the real causes while depending on the simple-minded view that it happened during Obama's watch. With the latest deficit numbers being released just two days ago, the debt is now estimated to exceed $20 trillion... and that happened on Trump's watch. But look how the same people who slam Obama for doubling the debt are now coming up with excuses as to why Trump isn't responsible for the latest uptick. All of sudden ignorance isn't so convenient and NOW they're looking for other possible causes.

Fact is, the debt was projected to double before Obama even took office. Several factors play into this. Inflation for one, interest on debt being another and the fact that a LOT of the debt Bush took out was deferred.

For a more concrete view on Obama's fiscal behavior, have a look at the deficits for each of his budget requests... each one featuring smaller deficits than the previous.
Here are the numbers, expressed as a percentage of GDP...

2009 : -9.8% (this budget was actually proposed by Bush)
2010 : -8.7%
2011 : -8.5%
2012 : -6.8%
2013 : -4.1%
2014 : -2.8%
2015 : -2.5%
2016 : -3.3%

Not sure why it went up in 2016, but it's still less than half of what Bush proposed in his last year.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com


The problem Obama was having with Congress didn't happen until the Children of the Corn took over the House in 2012 and they vowed not to cooperate with the president in any way. It had nothing to do with good fiscal judgement Mike. It was 100% vengeance. The kind of blind fury that allows a House to threaten government shutdown unless they break the promises made by the previous government, which is exactly what defunding is... taking away money that was already promised to the American people.


Off-line spending Mike... How many times do I need to explain that? The difference is Obama did it to save the economy from complete destruction and he did it in the open where everyone knew what was going on. Bush did it to advance the global power of the oil industry and he did it covertly.


Unfortunately, yes. It was yet another example of why trickle-down doesn't work. The idea is that if you give the rich the big breaks some of it will trickle down to the people, but once again that assumption proved to be too idealistic.

What amazes me is that people like Trump are still using that same idiot notion to convince us that we can give all the tax breaks to the rich and through their good nature they will create jobs for Americans. I am constantly reminded by people like you that these concepts are rarely ever understood beyond their usefulness in political rhetoric.


Whatever happened to the claim that Democrats are socialists? ;)

straightUp Loc: California

Cynthia?


Yeah, I still remember those mowers. That and brooms and rakes, remember those? Now it takes a can of gas and a 3 HP combustion engine strapped to a Mexican to move a leaf.

straightUp Loc: California

So, I guess this is another one of those "uninteresting" topics... Funny how I can mention something like the national debt which was such a fire for the alt-right during the Obama years but now that Trump is in office, they just aren't interested. Kinda says a lot.

boatbob2

IF,ALL of the money,from income taxes,and other taxes, sent to our Treasury,was used to pay the national debt,it would take approximately 8 years to pay it off. NO WELFARE,NO FOOD STAMPS,NO GOVERNMENT BENNIES, ALL OF THE MONEY to pay off our debt.... such a damn shame............ I wouldnt loan our government 1 thin dime.........