Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade
-
but the Libs are actually bribing voters.
the dishonest inference is, that paying people on the leftwing side to protest, show up, etc... is the same as cash giveaways to communities, I think. Not the same thing.
-
but the Libs are actually bribing voters.
I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
-
Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn
A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.
Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.
I think you're confusing private donations with taxpayer funds,.
No, I'm not. You said bribe. Bribes can be offered with private funds. Last I checked, the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.
-
Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn
A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.
Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect.
Losing weight is a combination of the calories you intake and the calories you burn
A lot on here a going on about Dems wanting to eat much, and how we'll gain weight. But they're also proposing exercising more.
Trump has gained weight. Sure, he isn't eating any more, but he's working out less. Same effect.
-
Well, since Trump is set to exceed the deficits that occured during the Obama administration, you tell me.
Forbes: Trump’s Budget Deficits Could Almost Double Obama’s
"The first thing you notice when looking at the federal deficits from fiscal 2008 (the US government fiscal year ends in September) is that it increased by almost $1 trillion from fiscal 2008 (before Obama was elected) to fiscal 2009 (which was based on Bush’s last budget). It remained over $1 trillion per year for four years and got below Bush’s last years deficit in fiscal 2015. It continued to decrease until Obama’s last year and increased again in Trump’s first year in office."
- Fiscal 2007: $161 billion (next to last year of Bush’s second term)
- Fiscal 2008: $459 billion (beginning impact from the Great Recession)
- Fiscal 2009: $1.4 trillion (Obama’s first year, Bush’s budget and in the teeth of the Recession)
- Fiscal 2010: $1.3 trillion
- Fiscal 2011: $1.3 trillion
- Fiscal 2012: $1.1 trillion
- Fiscal 2013: $680 billion
- Fiscal 2014: $485 billion
- Fiscal 2015: $438 billion
- Fiscal 2016: $587 billion
Comparing Trump’s deficits to Obama’s
Similar to comparing Trump’s job growth during his 29 months in office to Obama’s last 29 months where Trump’s Presidency has generated almost one million fewer jobs, Trump’s federal deficits are projected to zoom past Obama’s when you combine the last four years of Obama’s Presidency to Trump’s first four years. In fact Trump’s could approach doubling Obama’s.
There are a few timeframes that are useful to analyze given that a new President doesn’t really have control the fiscal year they are elected and inaugurated and may have minimal impact the first full year. To account for the time lags, below are three rolling four year timeframes for Obama’s last four years in office and Trump’s first four years.
Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:
- 2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
- 2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
- 2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)
Under Trump:
- 2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
- 2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
- 2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)
As you can see the timeframes that use the actual last four years of Obama to Trump’s first four is actually the most favorable for Trump as his cumulative budget deficit is only $1,139 billion more. As time goes by Trump’s are worse by $1,586 billion and then $1,757 billion, respectively.
Let's not bury our head in the sand.
What platform are ALL the Dem Presidential hopefuls running on?
I'll help you out with that...freebies.
Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.
I don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.
So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.
Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.
I don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.
So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.
No, I'm not. You said bribe. Bribes can be offered with private funds. Last I checked, the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.
You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).
PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.
Most liberals can’t tell the difference.
-
Fauxcahontas is promising to erase trillions of dollars of college debt, while promising free healthcare for EVERYONE.
I don't think you have to be an accounting major to figure out how that's going to impact the national debt.
So yes, you're right that both Dems & Repubs have a hand at deepening the debt, but the Libs are actually bribing voters.
No, I'm not. You said bribe. Bribes can be offered with private funds. Last I checked, the mob sure as hell doesn't bother with the public treasury.
You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).
PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.
Most liberals can’t tell the difference.
You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).
PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.
Most liberals can’t tell the difference.
This was the best you could come up with? Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)
They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury. I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice. I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.
So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong. Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.
A bribe is a bribe. And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.
As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments. Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.
Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last. So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.
-
One thing that I believe has been documented is that liberals generally speaking are way more generous doling out tax payer dollars than they are with their own money where they are more tight fisted.
-
You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).
PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.
Most liberals can’t tell the difference.
This was the best you could come up with? Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)
They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury. I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice. I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.
So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong. Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.
A bribe is a bribe. And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.
As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments. Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.
Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last. So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.
This was the best you could come up with? Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)
They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury. I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice. I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.
So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong. Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.
A bribe is a bribe. And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.
As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments. Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.
Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last. So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.
yeah. no link, no source. Just make believe garbage to be twisted around like a pink fairy dust licorice stick.
I hate to think they make political funds out of being reimbursed for the murder of born and unborn children.
"Planned Parenthood Reveals How Much More Taxpayers Gave Them In 2018 Taxpayers contributed to an over $20 million increase in federal funds allocated to Planned Parenthood in 2018, according to the abortion organization’s annual report. "
-
Here's another link for ya, Tiam:
-
Wait, Tia...
You wanted more information
You looked for an unbiased source
And you learned something new???
I think you're doing it wrong. Just post a Heritage link and move on
-
You probably have trouble differentiating between the NRA and Planned Parenthood.
The NRA is a private entity that makes donations to DC politicians (that includes Dems too).
PP is funded by taxpayers and will make a $50 million donation to a Democratic nominee.
Most liberals can’t tell the difference.
This was the best you could come up with? Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)
They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury. I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice. I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.
So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong. Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.
A bribe is a bribe. And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.
As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments. Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.
Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last. So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.
This was the best you could come up with? Actually PP is a non-profit organization, that falls under a private-public adherence (no, they are not mutually exclusive terms at times)
They are not "funded" by taxpayers in the mindset that they have yearly budget allocated right out of public treasury. I had to look at a few sites to make sure I was getting unbias figures but the bulk of their operating revenue, almost 75% it looks like, is from private donations and government reimbursment for billed health care services like any other private practice. I actually didn't know any of that until I started looking up the info.
So your over simplified "explanation" borders on outright being wrong. Let alone compounded with the fact your comparison is a logical fallacy you won't own too.
A bribe is a bribe. And to believe that either major party is more or somehow less willing and capable to do such a thing is naive on a level I can't personally comprehend.
As for the donations to candidates - they aren't donations, they're investments. Like any other investor, putting money into a product to reap profit. It's wrong and shouldn't be allowed at such levels.
Given your responses thus far, I can't imagine your rebuttal will be anymore intelligent than the last. So I'll take my leave here and bid you a good day, sir.
Thanks for proclaiming your superior intellect...again, but us dimwits know where funding comes from.
Planned Parenthood receives over a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).
-
-
The Fiscal Times: Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade: CBO
The U.S. budget deficit is expected to top $1 trillion in fiscal year 2020 and remain above that level indefinitely, lifting the national debt over the next decade to its highest level since World War II, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday in its annual report on the nation’s fiscal and economic outlook.
CBO expects the deficit will rise from just over $1 trillion this year to more than $1.7 trillion in 10 years, averaging $1.3 trillion from 2021 through 2030. As a share of gross domestic product, the deficit is projected to rise from 4.3% next year to 5.4% in 2030.
“Not since World War II has the country seen deficits during times of low unemployment that are as large as those that we project—nor, in the past century, has it experienced large deficits for as long as we project,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel said in a statement accompanying the report. Swagel called the budget outlook “challenging” and “worrisome.”
As a result of the continuing deficits, the debt held by the public will rise from $17.2 trillion today, or 80% of GDP, to $31.4 trillion, or 98% of GDP, by 2030. “The long-term projections for the debt are higher than they were last year because the federal government's revenues are expected to decrease and spending is expected to increase due to legislation enacted by Congress in 2019,” the Washington Examiner’s Nihal Krishan explains.
- The deficit is rising despite healthy economic growth: The economy is in its 11th year of expansion, and CBO expects gross domestic product to grow by 2.2% this year, up 0.1 percentage point from its August estimate (but shy of the Trump administration’s 3% annual target). While deficits typically shrink during periods of prolonged economic growth, the budget shortfall has surged as the result of the 2017 Republican tax law and a series of spending increases passed by Congress and signed by President Trump. And CBO expects economic growth to slow to an average annual rate of 1.7% from 2021 through 2030.
- What’s widening the budget gap: More than half the current deficit is due to recent tax cuts and spending increases. Revenues are weaker than they would be without the 2017 tax overhaul, and federal spending is projected to grow faster than tax receipts, driven by increased spending for mandatory programs and interest payments on the debt, which CBO expects to rise as the government continues to borrow and interest rates eventually move higher. Spending for Medicare is expected to rise from $835 billion this year to more than $1.7 trillion by 2030, while outlays for Social Security are forecast to climb from just under $1.1 trillion to more than $1.9 trillion. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, points out that the annual shortfall for Social Security and Medicare benefits payments will rise from $440 billion to nearly $1.9 trillion. “That's the ballgame,” he tweeted.
- And deficits could be higher than CBO forecasts: The projections assume Congress will allow some of the 2017 tax cuts to expire as scheduled after 2025. If Congress extends the individual tax cuts, as it may be likely to do, the deficits and debt would be larger than CBO projects.
- Low interest rates buy the government some time: Lower-than-expected rates have thus far served to provide some fiscal breathing room, as interest cost come in lower than projected. “Since CBO’s last budget forecast in August 2019, projected interest costs have declined by $441 billion over a decade, reflecting rates that are 0.3 percentage point below the previous estimate,” The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin writes. But lawmakers have more than offset those gains, he explains: “loss of revenue from tax cuts enacted in December 2019 exceeded those savings, and CBO now projects budget deficits to be 1.3% larger than it did in August.”
Still, low rates may make addressing the short-term deficit picture less urgent. “To be sure, interest rates remain low today, suggesting that there is time to address our fiscal challenges and that fiscal policy could be used as a tool to address other challenges facing the nation, if the Congress chose to do so,” Swagel says in his statement. “But our projections also suggest that over the long term, changes in fiscal policy must be made to address the budget situation, because our debt is growing on an unsustainable path.”
But the deficits aren’t being used to invest in the future: “Trump is wasting these deficits,” Robert C. Hockett, a Cornell University professor who has advised Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on economic policy, told The Washington Post. “It’s fine to engage in deficit spending, but Trump has used them to give tax cuts to billionaires, which does nothing to increase the well-being of the vast majority of Americans or improve the nation’s productivity.”
The Fiscal Times: Budget Deficit to Top $1 Trillion a Year for Next Decade: CBO
-
Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.
???
Remember when the Tea Party and their supporters were foaming at the mouth over the federal deficit when Obama was in office?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
But when the deficit is growing at a faster pace than even under the Obama administration, yet it's a GOP president in office, it's crickets from the Tea Party and their supporters. Hmm.
???
I agree with you sir. I don't like the fiscal irresponsibility at all. I freely admit I don't have a deep knowledge of national and international economics and can't begin figure out how to solve it. I had hoped when the Republicans had all three branches of office they could have put the clamps on it but that didn't happen. And let's face it the great unwashed doesn't want financial responsibility either. Every time things get out of hand and the government shutdown kicks in people scream like stuck pigs.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login