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.

 

Trump's MASSIVE budget deficits

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: timequake

Ok, you win. If you like Pelosi's tax cuts and increased military spending then make sure the House doesn't flip back to being Republican.



Shoot and a miss... You're still either not getting it or deliberately playing Ignorant. The tax cut didn't put us into dept. Military spending didn't put us into debt. The programs that have been putting us into debt have been around for a long time, getting fatter all the time. Yet you only see "Trump bad"
edit on 4-3-2020 by timequake because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Can someone remind me how much the national debt rose under Obama's 8 years?

Maybe ask how much it rose in 3 years, that would be fair..comparing apples to apples.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
Shoot and a miss... You're still either not getting it or deliberately playing Ignorant. The tax cut didn't put us into dept. Military spending didn't put us into debt...


Of course the new tax cuts and spending didn't "put us into debt" (we were clearly already in debt), they increased the national deficit to add a trillion dollars per year to the debt that we already had.

All you're doing is showing that you don't understand the difference between the national debt, and the annual deficit.
edit on 3/4/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

our issue with the deficit is a spending issue, not taxation issue. We spend way more than we bring in, and the tax cuts, while it didn't help, doesn't change the fact that we are spending WAY more than what we are making. Trumps cuts, along with him streamlining regulation helped business which increased the future tax base. That said, I by no means am a Trump fan. However his economic policies are America first, they are sound, and I agree with them.

The issue that we have is that we spend 3 Trillion in Mandatory spending on Military, SSI, Medicaid, medicare. Then we spend another 1.4 Trillion Discretionary spending, Basically to keep the lights on, pay for special projects, NASA, and all the other stuff. We only bring in 3 Trillion per year. So to fix the issue, you either cut military, which Republicans in congress won't do, Cut SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, which Dems and Repubs won't do, or cut all the other stuff, which would grind us to a halt.

One way to fix some of it is socialized medicine, however, the Dems seem to own that theatre, and their concept would bankrupt up. The other way is to cut military, which we can't do, because we use our military to keep our friends and enemies in line. Sure we can go isolationist, but if we did, then we are at the whims of the next superpower, namely Either the EU or China, or a rebuilt USSR. None of those are appealing to America.

Next, the president does not decide on what money is spent where. All he does is offer a suggestion, then Congress basically rips it apart and decides what they want to do. If anyone is responsible for the deficits blame all future and past presidents AND Congress people. THEY are to blame for allowing spending to get where it is at. All Trump can do is roll with it.

Is he a tool, yes. Is he an idiot, ABSOFREAKINGLOOTLY, however put blame where it actually belongs. This is not something you can blame trump for the other idiotic things he has done, which he deserves. Rebuilding the economy, is something he did, by deregulation, and tax cuts. Now if you want to look at the other side, in that he cut environmental protection, catered to the far right, and overall is a joke. Ok, yes I agree with you there. This is not an assessment I agree with you with though.

Camain



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:15 PM
link   
At seventeen trillion when he inherited this deficit, there is about 850 billion interest on the loan a year if five percent interest is paid on that loan. It is hard to make headway on a loan like that. Just to pay the interest, they would have to raise every workers taxes a real lot. Everyone would have to pay around four grand a year in interest alone.

Our country is in deep dodo.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Can someone remind me how much the national debt rose under Obama's 8 years?


Here are the numbers, from www.thebalance.com...

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74% increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.

FY 2017 - $671 billion
FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion
FY 2015 - $327 billion
FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion
FY 2013 - $672 billion
FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion
FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion
FY 2009 - $253 billion.

Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act ( www.thebalance.com... ), which spent $253 billion in FY 2009.9 This rare occurrence should be added to President Obama's contribution to the debt.

Donald Trump: Trump plans to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term.8 That's a 25% increase from the $20.245 trillion debt at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. If he remains in office for a second term, he plans to add $9.1 trillion for both terms. Trump had promised to eliminate the debt during his campaign ( www.thebalance.com... ) .

FY 2021 - $1.276 trillion
FY 2020 - $1.281 trillion
FY 2019 - $1.260 trillion
FY 2018 - $1.271 trillion



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

Thank you. That's how it's done.


Obama was responsible for 2010 through 2017. (with proper amendment for the Economic Stimulus Act)

edit on 3/4/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: kasalt

Clinton did nothing to lower the Deficit. That my friend was Reagans trickle down economics coming to fruition.


The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the “largest tax increase in history.” It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. -- www.factcheck.org...

By contrast, "Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cuts have helped billionaires pay a lower rate than the working class for the first time in history. In 2018 the richest 400 families in the US paid an average effective tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of American households paid a rate of 24.2%..." -- www.theguardian.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: timequake
Shoot and a miss... You're still either not getting it or deliberately playing Ignorant. The tax cut didn't put us into dept. Military spending didn't put us into debt...


Of course the new tax cuts and spending didn't "put us into debt" (we were clearly already in debt), they increased the national deficit to add a trillion dollars per year to the debt that we already had.

All you're doing is showing that you don't understand the difference between the national debt, and the annual deficit.



What I'm "doing" is trying to explain that the debt--the accumulation of decades of deficits--is not "Trumps" fault. But keep trying. You'll get it one day. If you stop deflecting, anyway.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=24992658]kasalt[/pos

Can you show me on the doll where the rich person hurt you?

This thinly disguised class warfare bull crap is right out of Bernie's Little Red Book.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: [post=24992658]kasalt[/pos

Can you show me on the doll where the rich person hurt you?

This thinly disguised class warfare bull crap is right out of Bernie's Little Red Book.


Hold on, who said anything about "class warfare" besides you? Are you saying that merely stating historical facts is "class warfare"?



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: kasalt
The national debt has increased to the tune of an additional $3,000,000,000,000.00 (3 trillion dollars) since Trump took office. That amounts to upwards of $100,000.00 for every man, woman, and child in the country. I'd like to ask each of you, how has your life been benefited by all of this increased expenditure?

According to Forbes, President Trump was handed an economy that was growing. In 2017, his first year in office, the deficit grew to $666 billion. It was $984 billion last year and is projected to be over $1 trillion in 2020 at $1.02 trillion. If the 2020 projection is accurate, this will be a 74% increase in the budget deficit in just four years... -- www.forbes.com...

The economy under Trump is supposedly better than it was in the 1990s under President Clinton, and yet Clinton was able to not only balance the budget but create a budget surplus, while Trump is running trillion-dollar deficits.

Trump's budget is "The Largest Budget Deficit With A Strong Economy" according to a Forbes headline. "At the projected 4.6% for fiscal 2019 it will be the largest in a non-recession year, and the red line shows it will only be worse..." -- www.forbes.com...

If we are living in "the strongest economy in the history of the world" (according to Trump), then how is Trump running record-high budget deficits during such a great economy? The answer is because of Trump's tax cuts to the rich: "Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cuts have helped billionaires pay a lower rate than the working class for the first time in history. In 2018 the richest 400 families in the US paid an average effective tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of American households paid a rate of 24.2%..." -- www.theguardian.com...

The GOP had initially argued that lower taxes for the rich would lift the economy enough to make up for the loss in federal revenue. But key Republicans have since walked back the long-standing claim that the 2017 package would pay for itself. -- markets.businessinsider.com... In other words, the Republicans lied to you when they said that tax cuts to billionaires would pay for Trump's deficits. It's merely a variation of Reagan's "Trickle-down economics" lie.

Meanwhile, we hear absolutely no complaints from the Republicans about Trump's budget deficits or the national debt because Trump is a Republican. Republicans only care about budget deficits and the national debt when the president is a Democrat. That's when Republican hacks come out of the woodwork and complain about how deep in debt we are as a nation, and how we can't afford to pay for what Democrats want. But when a Republican is in the White House, Republicans forget about all of the deficit and debt rhetoric and they spend, spend, spend! The only question is, what are the Republicans spending all of that money on? They certainly aren't spending it for the benefit of the American public!





Every country is in the red except some quasi island countries. If you think it's so horrible go move to those island countries and see how you like it. I assure you, you will hate it.

Not every US state has poor fiscal health. Most of the poor health ones are Democrat strongholds. Some states even have a budget surplus. As for Clinton balancing the budget, he didn't do much. We about damn near were in the black already. All he did was cut some programs, one being the GI BILL for a couple semesters which I remember because I could not afford college even though I fcvking earned it already. He also cut funding for a LIGO in TX even though it was damn near built. The one in La ended up finding gravity waves years later.

Be careful what you wish for is all I can say. The budget can be balanced at anytime. Just remember, it's going to impact you directly or people you know and you will get pissed off just like me.


edit on 4-3-2020 by Stupidsecrets because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

You're the one who is attacking the wealthy and successful.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kasalt

You're the one who is attacking the wealthy and successful.


Hang on, are you saying that merely stating historical facts is "attacking the wealthy and successful"?



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kasalt

originally posted by: carewemust
In the fall we'll be able to make things better by installing Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders in the White House.


Make no mistake about it: No matter who wins in November, the national debt will continue to increase. But at least if Bernie wins, a little more of that money might get spent on people who could actually benefit from it (low and middle income folks), rather than having it get spent on you-don't-know-who for you-don't-know-what.


You must not understand Bernie's plan. It calls for MASSIVE taxes on almost everyone. Not necessarily on wages, but to pay for everything he wants to give away free it's going to require all sorts of taxes on everything else. And blame the House and Senate for sending every president a budget to sign - or not. The president doesn't write the bill, congress does. They are the ones driving up our deficit, not Trump.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: kasalt

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kasalt

You're the one who is attacking the wealthy and successful.


Hang on, are you saying that merely stating historical facts is "attacking the wealthy and successful"?


Your opinion-filled diatribe against tax cuts is painfully obvious.

I'm just calling bull* on your weak attempt to push for a Bernie presidency.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
What I'm "doing" is trying to explain that the debt--the accumulation of decades of deficits--is not "Trumps" fault


Which is a straw man argument because I never claimed that "the debt" was Trump's fault.

What I said is that he promised to eliminate the national debt, and that such a claim is right up there with "Mexico paying for the wall"... it ain't happening.

Starting today, he would have to take us from a 1 trillion annual deficit to a 4.5 trillion annual surplus. That's a 5.5 trillion swing, and then he would somehow need to maintain that 4.5 trillion annual surplus for the next 5 years to even get close to eliminating the national debt.... not happening.

But keep trying. You'll get it one day if you stop with the straw man arguments and address what's actually been posted instead.
edit on 3/4/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

I said it and posted repeatedly when Obama was president and righties were crying, I'll say it again with Trump as president and lefties crying.

The raw dollar numbers don't matter. If they did, people would freak out about having a $40,000 mortgage, because in 1930, you would never be able to afford that.

Debt to GDP is where its at:



Its been better, and its been MUCH worse.



And projections (for what its worth)



ETA: I just realized I hate these charts, because of the scale (starting at 90% in the first one, for example, makes the change look far more drastic.) Pay attention to the scale and the numbers, not the exaggerated look of the charts.
edit on 3/4/2020 by dogstar23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kasalt

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kasalt

You're the one who is attacking the wealthy and successful.


Hang on, are you saying that merely stating historical facts is "attacking the wealthy and successful"?


Your opinion-filled diatribe against tax cuts is painfully obvious.

I'm just calling bull* on your weak attempt to push for a Bernie presidency.


The first statement I posted is nothing more than a quote from "FactCheck.org":


The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the “largest tax increase in history.” It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers.


Link to source: www.factcheck.org...

The second quote I posted comes from an article in The Guardian, which cited research from University of California at Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman calculate in their new book, The Triumph of Injustice:


Donald Trump’s $1.5tn tax cuts have helped billionaires pay a lower rate than the working class for the first time in history. In 2018 the richest 400 families in the US paid an average effective tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of American households paid a rate of 24.2%


Link to source: www.theguardian.com...

If you think that either of those two quotes are factually incorrect, then I invite you to post the correct information and cite your source.



posted on Mar, 4 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

It's a bias that you ignore the benefits that have come from the tax cuts.

Benefits that have enabled people from every economic class to improve.

Again, nice try.

Go ahead and get a job and collect a pay check from a poor person.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join