- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: National debt tops $22 trillion for the first time as experts warn of ripple effects
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:20 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Budgets and spending does get changed during the FY, though. That ARRA was passed in Feb.
Look, I get that Obama should get some responsibility for the 2009 deficit based on ARRA, but let's think hypothetically here. Let's say the Rs controlled Congress. Do you really think we pass a minuscule stimulus package? Probably more tax cuts and somewhat less spending, but I just can't see a situation where we don't have a huge deficit in 2009.
I just think it's disingenuous not to factor in the economic and political realities of the time. Comparing 2009 to 2018 or something. It's just apples to oranges even if you disagree with how things were done by Democrats
As i said earlier, spending increased by over 5% (6%?) just between 2005 and 2006. Republican majorities and president. Well before the economy tanked.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 2:24 pm
3
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:29 pm to cahoots
quote:
Look, I get that Obama should get some responsibility for the 2009 deficit based on ARRA, but let's think hypothetically here. Let's say the Rs controlled Congress. Do you really think we pass a minuscule stimulus package? Probably more tax cuts and somewhat less spending, but I just can't see a situation where we don't have a huge deficit in 2009.
Do you understand that the following year (2010) the dems did not pass a budget, they took the previous years budget and added the automatic 5-6% increase and then deemed it passed. EVERY YEAR from 2009 till now, that money is being included every year and that money is compounding at 5-6 annually.
This is the reason why we don't see a budget peak in 2009 and then a drop in 2010. It just continues to grow. They kept it in the budget till it couldn't be removed.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:31 pm to wickowick
quote:
the following year (2010) the dems did not pass a budget, they took the previous years budget and added the automatic 5-6% increase and then deemed it passed. EVERY YEAR from 2009 till now, that money is being included every year and that money is compounding at 5-6 annually
link this bullshite
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:34 pm to cahoots
quote:
As i said earlier, spending increased by over 5% (6%?) just between 2005 and 2006. Republican majorities and president. Well before the economy tanked.
for 2018 q1 was up 4%, q2 was up 6%, and q3 was up 6%. likely we'll see 5%+ for the year there
tcja on top of it
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:35 pm to wickowick
quote:
Do you understand that the following year (2010) the dems did not pass a budget, they took the previous years budget and added the automatic 5-6% increase and then deemed it passed. EVERY YEAR from 2009 till now, that money is being included every year and that money is compounding at 5-6 annually.
This is the reason why we don't see a budget peak in 2009 and then a drop in 2010. It just continues to grow. They kept it in the budget till it couldn't be removed.
Can you show us some numbers? Spending actually decreased somewhat after 2009 (not seasonally adjusted). I don't see how there is a 5-6% increase every year
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:38 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
for 2018 q1 was up 4%, q2 was up 6%, and q3 was up 6%. likely we'll see 5%+ for the year there
tcja on top of it
2018 deficit is going to be far higher than 2017. Not even close.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:49 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:I can only assume the dude finally realized his error cause he went ghost!
If I were selling you a car, I'd tell you it's $200/month.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:51 pm to cahoots
quote:This converts it to basically a welfare program. Either way, CLEARLY, you can't make that change without grandfathering it. Either way, why not just gut SS entirely and replace it with a pure welfare program(again, you'd have to grandfather it).
I think the least painful cut is to first restrict SS in specific ways. For example, you shouldn't be able to collect more than you put in unless you are unable to provide for yourself otherwise. That seems pretty basic.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 2:55 pm to 90proofprofessional
I have linked the documents in the past, but it has been years. I am driving, so it will be later when I get home to be able to locate the documentation.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 3:44 pm to boogiewoogie1978
Tax cuts are poisonous. Out operating national debt is careering out of control, and although not begun by the republicans, it has been made geometrically worse by Trump's tax cuts.
The election results of 2018 must be carefully conned to reveal the sheer unpopularity of Trump's tax policy. Democrats not only gained a net 41 seats in the House, but recaptured State houses and governor mansions throughout the land.
The election results of 2018 must be carefully conned to reveal the sheer unpopularity of Trump's tax policy. Democrats not only gained a net 41 seats in the House, but recaptured State houses and governor mansions throughout the land.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 3:45 pm to tarzana
You are full of shite
Stop lusting after other people’s money
Stop lusting after other people’s money
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 3:59 pm to cahoots
quote:Thst takes out spouses and survivors insurance right off the top. Why do you hate women and children?
For example, you shouldn't be able to collect more than you put in unless you are unable to provide for yourself otherwise. That seems pretty basic.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:10 pm to cahoots
quote:By itself it was 22% of the budget, and over half of the deficit.
Look, I get that Obama should get some responsibility for the 2009 deficit based on ARRA
quote:So yes... let’s blame republicans for what they hypothetical might have done instead of Obama for what he actually did. Makes perfect sense.
let's think hypothetically here. Let's say the Rs controlled Congress. Do you really think we pass a minuscule stimulus package?
quote:You do realize the ARRA included huge payroll tax cuts right?
Probably more tax cuts and somewhat less spending,
quote:Of course not. You’ve made up a hypothetical in your head. That’s kinda like evidence, eh?
I just can't see a situation where we don't have a huge deficit in 2009.
quote:Oddly no one does this for Reagan, who arguably had a worse economic situation that had been lagging far longer. Nor do you do it for Bush43 who had a recession in 2001-2003. You’re exposed as f*ck.
I just think it's disingenuous not to factor in the economic and political realities of the time. Comparing 2009 to 2018 or something.
quote:So increase of 5% with declining deficits, and a growing economy. And you’re accusing others of not viewing thing in economic contests?
As i said earlier, spending increased by over 5% (6%?) just between 2005 and 2006. Republican majorities and president. Well before the economy tanked.
k. Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:16 pm to wickowick
quote:That is not true at all. The total stimulus package was about $750b spread out over several years, most in the first 3. A lot of it was in tax cuts and credits that contributed to the deficit but not to spending.
While that is true, most of that debt piled up is because of the stimulus money that was never removed from the budget. That money is still in the budget, still being added every year and compounding at 5-6% interest annually.
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:17 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
So yes... let’s blame republicans for what they hypothetical might have done instead of Obama for what he actually did. Makes perfect sense.
Dude shortyrob just went on a rant about how republicans hypothetically spend less than democrats do. You guys say all the time that they do (even when they don't). Hence this line.
quote:
You do realize the ARRA included huge payroll tax cuts right?
Yes, hence the use of the word more to indicate more of something that already was in the bill
quote:
Of course not. You’ve made up a hypothetical in your head. That’s kinda like evidence, eh?
Once again, I didn't bring up fricking hypotheticals. I am giving you my opinion because you guys have given me yours. I asked shortyrob to produce evidence of republicans controlling spending and you know what he gave me? Hypotheticals.
quote:
Oddly no one does this for Reagan, who arguably had a worse economic situation that had been lagging far longer. Nor do you do it for Bush43 who had a recession in 2001-2003. You’re exposed as f*ck.
You're comparing 2008 to Reagan and GHWB's admins. Wow.
quote:
So increase of 5% with declining deficits, and a growing economy. And you’re accusing others of not viewing thing in economic contests? k.
The deficit did not decline between 2005 and 2006. You are mistaken.
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:21 pm to cahoots
quote:Not all of the stimulus bill was spending. Some was tax cuts. Regardless you cannot point to *any* year (or series of years) where spending decline by an equivalent $787B.
Can you show us some numbers? Spending actually decreased somewhat after 2009 (not seasonally adjusted). I don't see how there is a 5-6% increase every year
I went back to 1980. Federal spending decreases only three years.
2009 +$535B
2010 -$60B
2011 +$145B
2012 -$66B
2013 -$82B
2014 +$51B
2015 +$182B
2016 +$164B
Did we have some recession in 2015 no one heard about?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:23 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I went back to 1980. Federal spending decreases only three years.
Right and that poster said spending was automatically increasing 5-6%. Clearly it did not. What am I missing?
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:23 pm to gthog61
quote:Leftists would do well to stop worrying about millionaires bank accounts and start worrying about the government’s trillions in debt.
Stop lusting after other people’s money
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 2/13/19 at 4:30 pm to cahoots
quote:1/ whataboutism at its finest. 2/ you’re substituting a hypothetical for reality.
Dude shortyrob just went on a rant about how republicans hypothetically spend less than democrats do
quote:No one typed your words for you as AFAIK. ShortyRob didn’t make you do that.
Once again, I didn't bring up fricking hypotheticals.
quote:Yeah. I am. You should have a look at employment patterns, fiscal policy, and the effects of outside borrowers. The US was GREATLY aided in 2008-2010 by the rest of the world flight to safety of the US Treasury. Your illiteracy is hampering you.
You're comparing 2008 to Reagan and GHWB's admins. Wow.
quote:It most certainly did.
The deficit did not decline between 2005 and 2006. You are mistaken.
Deficits
2004 -$412B
2005 -$318B
2006 -$248B
2007 -$160B
This post was edited on 2/13/19 at 4:39 pm
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News