Federal deficit soars 32 percent to $895B

a reply to: xuenchen

Trumps done more for us ...

I feel dirty just typing this, but in this case not only was Dick Cheney right but he was more honest than 99% of politicians.

Deficits don't matter, at least in the way most people assume. The majority of time a deficit is both necessary and beneficial to the economy.

Can a deficit be too large (or indeed to small), absolutely. However you can't measure that by looking at the deficit, but by looking at other economic indicators.

None of which detracts from the hypocrisy of politicians of either party who rant about the deficit in opposition, but happily maintain or increase it in power.

I now need to go take a long shower for saying Cheney was right.

Obama, Obama, Democrats, your team.

It's been a lovely discussion guys. As per usual, no dispute on the point of the OP, just deflection.

So how are the two parties different again?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: 1947boomer


Qauntitative easing, pumping billions into the market to keep interest rates low, absolutely fubaring anyone in the middle class that was trying to plan for retirement.

On top of continuing Bush's To big to fail, Obama could have done the right thing and pushed to stop the bailouts of big banks and mortgage companies instead he rolled over then doubled down by vowing to keep the interest rate low costing people who had managed to put money away quite a lot of cash over his 8 years.

To big to fail and qauntitative easing are linked, because it was pretty much the last arrow in the quiver for the fed.

Obama along with Hillary served the donor class on wall street.
Trump and his deficit spending is rewarding the same people.
The two parties are a lot different wiith what comes out of their mouthes to placate the clueless but on policy and action they are the same.

originally posted by: xuenchen

But ??

Russians !! 💥🤪💥

Russia sure backed the right horse!


MRGA!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

While we're at it, let's look at where these increases were specifically...

The largest increases were in the following categories:

In total, spending for the three largest mandatory programs increased by 4 percent:

Outlays for Social Security benefits rose by $39 billion (or 5 percent), because of increases both in the number of beneficiaries and in the average benefit payment.

Medicare spending increased by $22 billion (or 4 percent) because of increases both in the number of beneficiaries and in the amount and cost of services. The increase in spending was partly the result of an additional reconciliation payment made to Medicare Advantage plans to account for unanticipated spending increases in the current calendar year.

Medicaid outlays rose by $13 billion (or 4 percent), in part because more new enrollees were added through expansions of coverage authorized by the Affordable Care Act.

Outlays for net interest on the public debt increased by $55 billion (or 19 percent), partly because of a higher rate of inflation. To account for inflation, the Treasury Department adjusts the principal of its inflation-protected securities each month by using the change in the consumer price index for all urban consumers that was recorded two months earlier. That adjustment was $34 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2017 but $60 billion so far in the current fiscal year.

The remaining increase reflects higher interest rates and larger debt in the first 11 months of 2018.

Spending for military programs of the Department of Defense rose by $33 billion (or 6 percent).

The government received $20 billion less in total payments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resulting in higher outlays (included in “Other” in the table below and revised downward from last month’s estimate of $22 billion to reflect year-to-date net transactions).

Outlays of the Department of Homeland Security (included in “Other” below), increased by $21 billion (or 48 percent), largely because of activities related to disaster relief.

www.cbo.gov...

a reply to: Deetermined

So the military got a 50% larger increase than mandatory spending, and inflation is making the outstanding debt more expensive. So the way to deal with the debt is to... increase spending while cutting tax income?

That's 895 Billion reasons why the Queen and Baron Rothchild own the US.

Where were you when Federal deficit spending exploded from 2006-2010?

That was to save the country. Trump is doing it because he's corrupt- big difference.

originally posted by: CB328

Where were you when Federal deficit spending exploded from 2006-2010?

That was to save the country. Trump is doing it because he's corrupt- big difference.

Keynes is beyond some folks' comprehension. He only saved the world after the 14-45 War.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: 1947boomer


"Qauntitative easing, pumping billions into the market to keep interest rates low, absolutely fubaring anyone in the middle class that was trying to plan for retirement.

"On top of continuing Bush's To big to fail, Obama could have done the right thing and pushed to stop the bailouts of big banks and mortgage companies instead he rolled over then doubled down by vowing to keep the interest rate low costing people who had managed to put money away quite a lot of cash over his 8 years.

To big to fail and qauntitative easing are linked, because it was pretty much the last arrow in the quiver for the fed.

I honestly would like to hear your explanation for exactly why low interest rates FUBARed anyone in the middle class planning for retirement.

I went through the Obama years planning for retirement and low interest rates seemed to be fairly irrelevant. Yes, it was true that if you had money in savings accounts, the return on that account was about equivalent to putting your money in a Mason Jar and burying it in the back yard. On the other hand, the cost of borrowing money for--let's say--buying a car were as low as at anytime in my 70+ year life. It was kind of a wash.

During those years when I was planning for retirement, I put my money in mutual funds and 401K accounts that basically tracked the growth in the stock market. I experienced positive and useful amounts of equity growth during almost every year. The annualized growth under Obama was in the same range as under George W Bush and Bill Clinton and slightly better than Trump's, so far (although Trump has been in office less than 2 years, so his statistics are not as significant, yet).

I am now happily retired, having met my net worth goals. I repeat--low interest rates didn't seem to be factor.

Also, I once again point out that by the time Obama took office the bailout plan that was cooked up under the Bush administration had already:
1) Bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
2) Watched Lehman Brothers go bankrupt
3) Watched Bank of America gobble up Merrill Lynch
4) Bailed out AIG
5) Watched Washington Mutual collapse and get gobbled up by JP Morgan
(That all happened inSeptember, 2008)
6) Bailed out AIG again
7) Leaned on Wells Fargo to buy Wachovia
(That was October, 2008)
8) Bailed out AiG again
9) Pumped more money into Freddie Mac
10) Bailed out Citigroup
(That was November, 2008)
11) Announced that Chrysler and GM would receive bailout assistance to avoid bankruptcy
(That was December, 2008)
12) Bailed out Bank of America
(That was January, 2009, before Obama took office)

So what, exactly, are you suggesting? That Obama should have worked to unravel all of those agreements which had the effect of averting a depression which would have been as big as or bigger than the great depression of 1929, instead turning it into a recession which was in recovery within a year or two? Not only did Obama and Congress not want that to happen, the President had no authority to make that happen. Obama could not have done that even if he had wanted to.

I'm seriously trying to figure out exactly what you think could have been done differently and why you think the outcome would have been better?

Never mind. Have fun, kids.