It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm not sure who's been selling the narrative that all Republicans are deficit hawks. There's been pretty clear divisions in the Republican party for years. The media loves to play them up in bad times, saying the party is in discord, chaos, can't get anything done, etc. Then when they want to bash, it's time to pretend they all have the same policy positions. They don't, even on spending.

As for me, spending is out of control and major reform is needed.




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: face23785




Pentagon and intelligence officials had been telling Washington for years that we needed to prepare for scenarios like that, but no one took them seriously. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. It explains all this in great detail.



So then is it possible that "Washington" intentionally dismissed the advice of the intelligence community because "They" whomever "They" may be knew that "They" would not be able to orchestrate what would later be the biggest terroristic (false flag) attack this country has ever seen. If "They" allowed the military to set up standard defensive operating procedures then "Their" evil plot would never hit the target.


There's a forum for that drivel. This thread is about the real world.
edit on 13 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
The number you are proposing is from garbage that isn't being entertained by Trump. He does not have total control over everything. He relies on many who are from the past administration and the present RINO's to present something that is not irrational. It will take time. Mean while we will continue to be fleeced by those who can't get enough.a reply to: Southern Guardian



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: gimcrackery

Now, now, you know how this works. When Obama was President, the President isn't responsible for anything. Now that Trump is in office, Congress and the bureaucracy don't exist. The President runs the entire government single-handedly.



posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: havok

LOL.......I love it.




posted on Feb, 13 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

I'm sure they'll reach that carrot at the end of the stick any day now!



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Trump seems to be just like everyone else in washington. Just louder and more obnoxious.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Funny math in the article. Obamas budget for FY 1016 $3.999 trillion (requested) $3.853 trillion (actual) 20.9% of GDP.Now for FY 2017 Total expenditures: $4.147 trillion (requested); 21.5% of GDP
Deficit: $503 billion
Submitted: February 9, 2016
Submitted by: Barack Obama

OK so now we have Trump's 1st budget $4.4 trillion so we are talking about $.253 trillion increase. But projections estimates it will be only 19.41 GDP. So compared to income Trump is going to spend less. Now realistically doesn't matter I don't believe it until I see it. However claiming he increased the budget by 7 trillion is just fantasy.
edit on 2/14/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Who? How about the national Republican Party itself. Here's something from the 2000 Republican Party Platform, when they were trying to reclaim the presidency after the Clinton years.

We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.


The 2004 platform, when a Republican was still the President, doesn't even mention the phrase "balanced budget" much less "Balanced Budget Amendment". However, here's something from the next election when they were trying to get a new Repub to claim the Presidency (from the 2008 Republican Party Platform). It actually has an entire section called "A Plan to Control Spending" which goes into a laundry list of budget slashing proposals.:

A Plan to Control Spending

Republicans will attack wasteful Washington spending immediately. Current procedures should be replaced with simplicity and transparency. For example:

We favor adoption of the Balanced Budget Amendment to require a balanced federal budget except in time of war.


And here's something from the 2012 Republican Party Platform:

Living Within Our Means: A Constitutional Budget

Republican Members of Congress have repeatedly tried to reform the budget process to make it more transparent and accountable, in particular by voting for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, following the lead of 33 States which have put that restraint into their own constitutions. We call for a Constitutional amendment requiring a super-majority for any tax increase with exceptions for only war and national emergencies, and imposing a cap limiting spending to the historical average percentage of GDP so that future Congresses cannot balance the budget by raising taxes.


And here's something from the 2016 Republican Party Platform:

Balancing the Budget

The federal fiscal burden threatens the security, liberty, and independence of our nation. The current Administration's refusal to work with Republicans took our national debt from $10 trillion to nearly $19 trillion today. Left unchecked, it will hit $30 trillion by 2026. At the same time, the Administration's policies systematically crippled economic growth and job creation, driving up government costs and driving down revenues. When Congressional Republicans tried to reverse course, the Administration manufactured fiscal crises — phony government shutdowns — to demand excessive spending. The Administration's demands have focused on significantly expanding government spending and benefits for its preferred groups, paid for through loans that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. This is the path to bankrupting the next generation.

The Republican path to fiscal sanity and economic expansion begins with a constitutional requirement for a federal balanced budget. We will fight for Congress to adopt, and for the states to ratify, a Balanced Budget Amendment which imposes a cap limiting spending to the appropriate historical average percentage of our nation's gross domestic product while requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions only for war or legitimate emergencies. Only a constitutional safeguard such as this can prevent deficits from mounting to government default.

Sure, individuals within a political party will have differing opinions on specific policies. But the national party speaks for the party as a whole & the national party is literally who I've been singling out in my posts. Do you disagree with that?

Although you have to admit that it's funny how their official party platforms keep talking about a "balanced budget amendment", yet now that they have both chambers of Congress, the presidency, and the majority of State governorships & State legislatures, we haven't heard a word about them proposing to pass that amendment lol. Just face it, they're all talk when it comes to federal deficits balanced budgets at the federal level. But low and behold, if Dems regain control of the Presidency in 2020, Repubs will suddenly remember that they're supposed to care about balanced federal budgets.
edit on 14-2-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
When it comes to actually Presidenting, Trump seems to be terrible



What do you consider good? I would say Trump makes a bad politician...and I don't think that is terrible though.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

Although you have to admit that it's funny how their official party platforms keep talking about a "balanced budget amendment", yet now that they have both chambers of Congress, the presidency, and the majority of State governorships & State legislatures, we haven't heard a word about them proposing to pass that amendment lol. Just face it, they're all talk when it comes to federal deficits balanced budgets at the federal level. But low and behold, if Dems regain control of the Presidency in 2020, Repubs will suddenly remember that they're supposed to care about balanced federal budgets.


The problem is Trump IS the third party that was forced down the republican throats. lol

Trump wants to fix things that for the last 50 years neither party was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole...all that professional politician thing with the vast majority.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is it he's fixing exactly? Pardoning big banks for crimes and then giving them a permanent tax cut isn't fixing the problem, it's making it worse.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

He's not 3rd party; he's a Republican. He ran as a Republican, won the Republican nomination, won the presidency as a Republican, filled his administration with Republicans, and has been appointing and recommending conservative judges and appointees. And both chambers of Congress are still controlled by Republicans, too.

Yet they still have "conveniently" ignored their previous spiels about balanced budgets and a balanced budget amendment. No amount of deflecting is going to change that.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


]He's not 3rd party; he's a Republican. He ran as a Republican, won the Republican nomination, won the presidency as a Republican, filled his administration with Republicans, and has been appointing and recommending conservative judges and appointees. And both chambers of Congress are still controlled by Republicans, too


He's also endorsed Republicans including Mitt Romney in 2012, McCain in 2008. He's also donated to Republican campaigns as well. Funnily enough he donated to a good number of Democrats as well including Hillary in her senate run in 2000. Hillary hasn't changed her political positions since she ran for senate. Ain't that funny?

a reply to: Xtrozero

BS. He's far from third party. That doesn't fly.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Did North Korea write this perspective?

Bad propaganda..
edit on 14-2-2018 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is it he's fixing exactly? Pardoning big banks for crimes and then giving them a permanent tax cut isn't fixing the problem, it's making it worse.


You are rather off with the whole bank thing...He didn't pardon anything...he delayed rulings for 10 years to very specific areas for very specific reasons. The area that he addressed was only retirement fund managers. If he didn't do what he did they would need to shut down retirement funds, is that what you want to see?


edit on 14-2-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Xtrozero

He's not 3rd party; he's a Republican. He ran as a Republican, won the Republican nomination, won the presidency as a Republican, filled his administration with Republicans, and has been appointing and recommending conservative judges and appointees. And both chambers of Congress are still controlled by Republicans, too.

Yet they still have "conveniently" ignored their previous spiels about balanced budgets and a balanced budget amendment. No amount of deflecting is going to change that.


And not a single republican supported him until he won the nomination...hmmm He had to run one way or the other...not going to win on an actual 3rd part ticket, as we all know.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: [post=23143225]enlightenedservant

BS. He's far from third party. That doesn't fly.


He is as close as you can get to a 3rd party and still win...He has worked with the Dems already outside of the republicans and is willing to do it again. If the Republicans will not give him what he wants he will easily go to the Dems if they could do it.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Have you all forgotten the proposed budget from both democrats that ran against Trump? One was almost double this!

Good Lord people how quickly you forgot and pivot when the ball is in the other court.
Sad...
*smh*

And you leftists defending Bill Clinton I suggest researching NAFTA to start. He achieved what Regan could only dream. Quit telling yourself there is a difference between these bureaucrats. There is not.



posted on Feb, 14 2018 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



And not a single republican supported him until he won the nomination...hmmm He had to run one way or the other...not going to win on an actual 3rd part ticket, as we all know.

Not a single Republican? Quit lying LOL. So all of the registered Republican voters who voted for him in the primaries don't count? Oh yeah, there's also an entire wikipedia article listing notable people who endorsed Trump during the primaries (HERE). Perhaps you should take a look at some of the names before you continue. The detailed list includes former or current US Senators, members of the House of Representatives, governors, State officials, State legislators, and more.




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join