Posted by Tina
The American people are already burdened by a near $19 trillion in debt. The interest on that debt is the most costly budget item we have now and that’s with interest rates being held in check by the Fed. They can’t do that forever.
You would think that the Democrat candidates would show some concern for this situation, President Obama did when he ran in 2008 saying of George Bush’s debt of nearly $10 trillion that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” So much for his credibility. But the group on stage at the debates on Tuesday ignored this issue and instead proposed adding to our debt with even more free government programs.
Hillary proposed a college tuition plan with a price tag of $350 billion over 10 years. She proposes to pay for it by cutting tax loopholes for the wealthy. Will she wipe them away with a cloth or will she have to depend on tax reform, cooperation with Republicans, to accomplish it? She also proposed $515 billion in new domestic spending over 10 years on energy and education. She’s counting on free preschool and a few more whirlygigs to put her in the White House. These won’t help our sagging economy or significantly improve our job situation.
Bernie was the big spending winner of the night, however. He wants “universal government-run health care, expanded Social Security and free tuition at public colleges.” The price tag for that insanity is $18 trillion over 10 years. The “College for All Act” pencils out at $109.9 billion in its first year alone.
Source: Rick Moran – The American Thinker.
Our government is already spending more than our private sector can produce. The debt alone has risen to 102.98 percent of what we as a nation produce. The average from 1940 to the present has been 61.38 percent. Clearly we are spending more than we can produce and more than we can afford!
Latest figures can be viewed in real time here.
We need a leader that knows how to put America on a path to robust growth. Not a single Democrat candidate knows how to do that and what’s worse, their proposed policies will lead to less job opportunity, continuing low and stagnant wages, greater dependence and debt, debt, debt!
Tina, will you stop telling bald-butted lies. It is sooooooo irritating.
“The American people are already burdened by a near $19 trillion in debt.”
The federal deficit has never been anywhere near $19 trillion. I don’t know. Maybe you are being lied to, and like it. But I’m telling you something, girl, they are talking about you … all over the internet. And these are last years’ numbers, even!
Stan Collender – Forbes
The deficit trolls came out in force in response to my two recent posts (take a look at the comments here and here) about the precipitously dropping federal deficit. In traditional online troll-like behavior, they either flat out refused to believe me, said the government was lying, said I was drinking the Kool-Aid, showed an extreme lack of knowledge about federal borrowing or repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t understand the difference between the deficit and debt.
The final numbers for 2014 announced yesterday by the U.S. Treasury show the federal deficit for the fiscal year that just ended did indeed fall as precipitously as I previously reported. As the report shows, the actual 2014 deficit was $483 billion, $3 billion less than what the Congressional Budget Office estimated a week ago.
For the record, $483 billion is $197 billion below the almost $680 billion deficit recorded in 2013. It’s also $930 billion, that is, close to $1 trillion, less than the largely recession-caused $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009. (Attention trolls: the Congressional Budget Office projected in early 2009, that is, before the start of the Obama administration, that, because of the recession, the deficit that year would be $1.2 trillion.)
In dollar terms, 2014 was the lowest federal deficit since 2008. And in the category most important to economists – the deficit as a percent of Gross Domestic Product – the 2014 deficit was 2.8 percent of GDP, the smallest since 2007.
There are several ways to look at this.
If you’re a troll, you refuse to celebrate the extraordinary reduction in the federal deficit that has happened in such a short time. The only comparable period in U.S. history was immediately after World War II when the budget went from a 29 percent of GDP deficit in 1943 to small surpluses in 1947-49.
If you’re a deficit scold, you ignore the deep deficit reduction that has taken place since 2009 and instead focus on the budget challenges that are ahead. What’s happened in the meantime, which was a prerequisite for getting what the scolds say they want, is given little-to-no importance.
***
So, Tina, what is with the ignoring? You can yowl $19 trillion til the cows come home, but anybody who looks into the matter will find out that you’re … not well informed … we’ll just say. I mean, why do you do this?
The word “troll” repeated over and over isn’t convincing, in fact, it makes this dude look like a hack.
The deficit has come down. That means government has spent less than it budgeted or less over budget than it previously spent…either way, it’s a good thing.
Democrats love to shove out their chests and take credit when things like this happen, being the blatant deceivers that they are. The truth, however, is that the deficit has come down because of the sequestration which the left fought tooth and nail and criticized roundly.
The sequestration is responsible for other good things according to Bloomberg:
Unfortunately the good news was only minimally helpful. We don’t have robust growth, unemployment continues to be a big problem and another recession is likely on the way. Sequestration alone is not enough. The economic policies that continue to drive this administration continue to keep the economy at a sluggish 2% at best.
Bill Clinton is praised for the fabulous economy he created. In reality his contribution (for which I give him due credit) was limited to his willingness to embrace right wing policies. He worked with the newly elected Republican Congress and declared “the ere of big government is over.” Had Democrat policies of high taxation and spending and Hillarycare been implemented instead America would never have seen the growth and job opportunity of the nineties.
A current popular talking point on the left is that America has always done well under democrat Presidents. In every single case deception is part of the story. Kennedy, for instance, did the right wing thing and lowered tax rates but I doubt if any “troll” for the left will admit to it.
Once again, Libby, you can go here to find that my figures were accurate. There’s a lot of good information there, including the ability to go back in time to see where the debt was in 2008, for instance, or how much of the debt individual taxpayers or citizens would owe if we had to “pony up” today! Look in the upper right hand corner for the way back feature.
You ask why I do this?
It should be quite clear by now I do it to make sure information is accurate for our readers.
Basically you called me a liar. I’d appreciate an apology but don’t expect one. It would be good enough for me if you would at least try to understand how the economy works at the most basic level. I care because it’s important to the people that we have a robust economy and good jobs and because I it’s important that our government operates responsibly.
Libby it’s no wonder you imagine that I lie.
I wrote: “The American people are already burdened by a near $19 trillion in debt.”
You wrote: “The federal deficit has never been anywhere near $19 trillion.
Do you see the difference? More important do you have any understanding at all of the difference and what it means?
Maybe you need to study this chart before you get all smarmy with me!
Gotta go. I’ll get back to the rest of your points IF any of them warrants similar attention.
Do you see the difference? More important do you have any understanding at all of the difference and what it means?
What do you expect. She drinks out of a skull cup? (And who knows what is in it?)
It is frightening that we have people voting who don’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt. I bet she probably votes for all the bond measures because she thinks bonds are free money.
Sadly it’s quite common in our citizenry, Bob. Education has failed us and our children miserably (on purpose by the hard core leftists running education).
That’s why we’re here Bob. We appreciate your comments and your interest.
Meanwhile They Escalate wars in the Middle East And our Arms Dealers Are Going caChinG! CaChing!
Our deficits let’s talk about where the come from.
Unfair trade deals to which there are 4 in waiting. Word is they are a bit better but still bad. NAFTA killed us. Ross Perot was 100% correct we heard that sucking sound of American Jobs.
2 Wars not on the books by GW while he cut revenue. What we Got from that Job Creating Tax cuts for the rich And Deregulation was a crash, loss of 750,000 jobs a month, and lost our manufacturing. Oh but thhey all hedged both sides and many got rich off crash!
you act like Obama created all this, like GW never existed that was a CONSERVATIVE Policy president!
Clinton Killed us with repealing Glass stegal, and NAFTA! He although still had a good economy .
Time to get real we have to rebuild ourselves, the rich only operate for investors and want slave labor. The markets want cheap over priced products, compliant workforce cause have to have increases every year off same amount of goods
If you buy Chinese goods do not ask where the jobs are cause you are creating them somewhere else on slave labor.
China is dumping low quality steel on us right now shutting down the last of our factories and only a handful of politicians you can not even name are trying to fight this illegal Chinese action.
Unite and be real we need to save this country. Vote for who you want but how can you not be united to stop crap like this? Because the rich RW guy making money off it says it’s OK? Someone Else’s fault? Save out stupid jobs by helping!
We spend more on Military and corporate subsidies for the few than anything else. Why pay taxes for the 1% to destroy us?
The deficit never comes up when Right wants war just because
Dewey war is being escalated whether or not we do anything. I suppose you’d prefer to simply allow the monsters to grow and spread their poison across the entire world? Children have become specific targets now in Israel. Children have always been targets of these monsters because it terrorizes adults.
When monsters such as these make war on the world we have only one choice that makes sense and that is defending ourselves and the helpless among us. Arms makers are bound to make money during times like this, that should be a no-brainer, and thank God there are people with the skills and know how to make them!
Our readers should know that defense spending, money to maintain the defense capability for our nation has not grown wildly in the decades since the fifties. Wars have been expensive. It’s unfortunate that we must defend ourselves from terrorist monsters and it’s unfortunate that ambitious tyrants continue to attempt to dominate in the world, but that’s the reality.
Defense of the nation is one of a few things the constitution laid out for the federal government to do. it was never the intent of the founders for the federal government to provide for the people in Marxist fashion, from each according to their means to each according to their need.
The model was tried by the Pilgrims who found that it encouraged sloth. Some folks decided they didn’t need to plant or hunt because they could just eat what others worked to provide. The colony nearly perished! The model is crap.
So it doesn’t bother me that we spend at the federal level to defend ourselves. That is the number one job of the federal government. It is up to us to hold them accountable for the expense.
NAFTA didn’t kill us. As all trade deals do, it benefited us in some ways more than others. It is important when we make trade deals that it’s generally a good deal for America.
read about the benefits of NAFTA here. An article with opposing opinions is available here.
My own opinion is that job losses attributed to NAFTA alone were impacted by other contributing forces, i.e., low wage opportunities in China and other nations outside of the NAFTA agreement. Union wages and benefits packages started hurting the bottom line of car manufacturers long before NAFTA. Those employees dug their own graves by being too greedy and not caring about the survival of the companies that hired them. Sad. Their greed drove other wages higher which looks good on the surface but they also drove PRICES for goods and services higher. Artificially pushing wages higher, when the market doesn’t support or justify it, never works to the overall benefit of workers.
Revenue to the government hit an all time high under Bush in 2007:
Numbers can be crunched to prove nearly any political position, especially when some of the information available is not disclosed. The Obama administration likes to say it’s created more jobs than Bush. What it doesn’t tell you is the number of jobs created are not keeping up with population growth…the demand for jobs. That has resulted in the number of long term unemployed up by 14% under Obama. He doesn’t tell you that many of the jobs created under his policies are low wage jobs. He doesn’t disclose the very high unemployment numbers that have existed for young blacks. In fact conditions in America have been dismal and all the happy talk in the world will not change the facts:
Things have not improved much since then, and we are likely headed for another recession.
Privatizing a portion of social Security would benefit future seniors greatly! the return on employee/employer investment in SS is dismal! Young people deserve to see their money work for them instead of becoming a slush fund for the government to use while they write IOU’s and call the funds solvent.
Wall street only benefits to the degree that investment creates greater opportunity. When companies benefit the economy grows and good jobs are produced…everybody wins. Under Keynesian policies the wealthy are the only ones benefitting, as they always do anyway. Main street Americans get the shaft as the last seven years illustrate.
Dewey you have a lot of facts. Some are accurate, some are wrong, and others are downright deceptive. The problem is you have no understanding of how it all works. You have no understanding about why policies work or don’t work. Until you get that, all of the facts in the world are meaningless.
The left touts Keynesian economics as superior but so far I haven’t heard or read a single explanation about how government spending and high taxes create a robust economy and good jobs. Care to give it a shot?
Time for me to go; back later.
BTW Tina you need to see how they pay for these things
You act like they just suggest and have no plan. Social security is easy raise the cap! What is it now 125,000? 118.500? Raise it to 1 million 500,000 what ever….. You know Ayn rand collected a social security check right?
Social security is socialism BTW. The GOP wants to privatize those tax dollars to their wall street funds to crash then the system will be gone. Expand your horizon with history.
If you don’t like their plans fine but to sit and say they have no way to pay for it is pure silly. It is time to raise the cap on Social security.
It is time to get rid of oil subsidies and many others. it is time to get rid of tax loopholes and the do nothing make money carried interest low tax rates.
There are ways to do this without affecting the economy or middle class. We pay taxes for us not the benefits of the 1%.
Again Tina Look at Baltimore…they pay state taxes higher than Fed tax. They get nothing for that money due to deep long history of corruption. Our tax dollars are diverted to corporations and the rich and we are shamed as if we are worthless.
Not to mention those seniors spend that money in their local communities. That helps the local economy and business. Especially if they shop at real local owned Biz which is disappearing.
Ayn Rand was smart to take SS…she was forced to pay into it. The money, such as it was, was hers!
Nice try Dewey, but raising the cap wouldn’t solve the problem with SS. It would force employers and those earning more than the cap to pay more in taxes, which seems to be the only solution the short sighted and ignorant seem able to imagine. But it would not make the program sustainable…or smart.
Tax the Rich, tax the rich…sounds like a bunch of babies whaaaaing and pounding the crib for a bottle. Well guess what? It’s time to drop the bad attitude, grow up, and actually learn how wealth is generated. It’s time to quit lying about how investment in the stock market, instead of social security, could greatly benefit employees.
This article from Heritage is old but the principles still apply:
It’s interesting that so many on the left want to deny investment in the stock market to private sector SS recipients when those who are in unions or work for government have been benefiting nicely from the stock market through their pension plans:
Why do you want to deny workers more money for their retirement and more profit from the money they are forced to pay into SS?
It’s time to tell the “tax the rich” socialists to shut the heck up. They don’t know how wealth, for anyone, is created. they are stuck in a bandit mentality, which is criminal, because taxing the rich to sustain SS benefits hurts the poor the most, both in lost opportunity and in less money for their retirement!
Ignorance is doing such harm to our society but especially those struggling to improve their futures. It must be stamped out!
But Tina, debt is not a crisis. Deficits, being unable to meet your debts, this is the problem. In fact, I don’t think “debt” is even quite the right work to describe the fact that we’ve incurred financial obligations, SS, Medicare, the military, what-have-you, into the future. This is perfectly safe and sane, as long as we are taking in the revenues to meet them.
The Shrub is to be reviled for signing “Part D” into law WITHOUT securing the necessary revenue, thereby engendering deficit spending.
But the fact that we propose to spend thus-and-such sum down the line on Social Security is cool, as long as revenues match expenditures.
I think that your “Debt Clock” was devised by persons intent on working you up into that “conservative” crisis mode, which you so enjoy … but maybe you shouldn’t.
Debt is not a crisis. Interest on the debt is. For the last seven years the Fed has kept interest rates low to curb inflation. (I guess they wanted to avoid the Jimmy Carter problem). Because they have done that interest payments on the debt have been manageable. This year we’ve paid over $2.4 trillion in interest on our debt. Imagine how that number will rise when interest rates go up…and they will. The Fed can’t do this song and dance routine forever:
“The Shrub is to be reviled for signing “Part D” into law WITHOUT securing the necessary revenue…”
Good Lord, your punching in the dark! The money for Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and all of the other programs have not been “secured” any better! That’s why they are unsustainable!!!
But at least market forces were incorporated into Part D that kept the program coming in UNDER BUDGET each year, at least under Bush.
“I think that your “Debt Clock” was devised by persons intent on working you up into that “conservative” crisis mode, which you so enjoy ”
“Crisis mode” is not a bad thing when conditions warrant. Crisi mode isnlt panic; it is an adult response to a actual problem.
I think you live in La La Land, which is why you think that tired old white man, Marx, was such a genius.
And just for good measure:
Salon – Bob Cesca
Following the first Democratic debate, Fox News and the broader conservative ecosystem erupted in a coordinated effort to paint the Democrats as frivolous spenders …. However, the … Republican Party has no choice but to dig deeply into the history books to find the last GOP president who actually bothered to leave the deficit in better shape than when he was inaugurated. Meanwhile, President Obama, like President Clinton before him, has seen the federal budget deficit fall by record numbers.
According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch site, the federal government ran up a deficit of $439 billion for the 2015 fiscal year. That’s 2.5 percent of GDP, which is the lowest level since 2007. Why is this significant? The Obama administration inherited a $1.4 trillion (with a “t”) budget deficit — driven in large part by stimulus spending meant to combat the financial crisis — which authorized George W. Bush in October 2008.
Since then, Obama has presided over a gradual $1 trillion-dollar reduction in the deficit. Insofar as deficit reduction is important — and remember, according to the rhetoric of the GOP over the past several years, it is very important — this is a massive achievement for the Obama administration. Massive. And neither he nor the Democrats will get any credit for it.
If Mitt Romney’s lies about the deficit in 2012 were a predictor of the GOP’s attack plan for 2016, we can expect to hear the Republican ticket attack both Obama and the Democratic nominee on this very issue. But they won’t cite deficit numbers because, well, they’re not nearly as dumb as they look. Instead, they’ll recycle the Romney tactic of conflating the deficit and the national debt — two entirely separate numbers.
For example, Romney said during his first debate against Obama in 2012: “The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it.” Well, no. The deficit wasn’t “doubled” at all. It was the debt that rose, but analysts have repeatedly shown that the chief drivers of national debt were George W. Bush’s wars, Medicare Part-D (a Bush-era policy) and the impact of the Great Recession — none of which was offset with higher taxes or spending cuts. Obama can hardly be blamed for all that.
Not insignificantly, though, the Obama administration’s deficit reduction has slowed the growth of the debt. In fact, the year-over-year increase in the debt has slowed to 10 percent. Compare that with the highest growth rate for the debt ever — 13.4 percent per year under, yes, Ronald Reagan. We’ll circle back to comparing the records of recent presidents in a second.
Meanwhile, contra Romney, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, and he did. It took him five years instead of four, but he did it. Suffice to say, when you hear the GOP talk about government spending, listen for their deliberate swapping of the terms “deficit” and “debt.” They do it a lot.
How exactly did Obama manage to slash the deficit so drastically? It’s true that Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since January 2011 (along with the Senate this term) and those years have been marked by aggressive GOP attempts to roll back the welfare state, punctuated by episodes of legislative brinksmanship that ultimately resulted in the dreaded sequester. But that only tells a part of the story.
Nearly every bill signed by the president has included offsets to make the spending deficit neutral. Why? Because it’s been the law of the land ever since President Obama signed the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in February 2010, which mandates that new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue. Yes, a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress passed this legislation. Guess how many congressional Republicans voted for the law. Zero. Not one.
Libby, today Obama as much as pronounce Hillary’s innocent of any wrong doing re emails. Do you agree with this? Should a president, any president, get ahead of a federal investigation and render a conclusion?
You realize that the FBI has not concluded their investigation, so to accuse the Benghazi committee of dragging things out seem unfair.
Libby: “President Obama, like President Clinton before him, has seen the federal budget deficit fall by record numbers.”
Maybe…but if they did it was only after enacting republican policy when the public put Republicans in control of the House, where spending happens!
But how do you explain this:
Also as I explained earlier the sequestration that you liberals HOWLED about is responsible for lower deficit spending!
Such contrived “fixes” would not even be necessary if not for overspending by “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” leaders who idiotically think they can create wealth and a growing economy and jobs by SPENDING! Insanity!
PAYGO?
Here’s the scoop on that slight of hand arrangement:
Government also claims SS is secure because they pretend the IOU’s involved are assets!
Oh and by the way, another Obama slight of hand was to structure Obamacare s the pain didn’t lick in fully until he’s long gone. he arranged to saddle the next president with that bad news!
Can you Radical Marxists do anything without deception and tricks? No, sadly you can’t. Your economic philosophy is a grand deception and the ideals that nail it together a house of shared misery.
Any comparison to the Benghazi hearings, we will not discuss. That question is settled.
As to the emails, the question is quite straight-forward. Any niggling over what was or was not classified is just that … niggling.
The straight-forward question is: does Hillary’s decision to remove herself from government infrastructure (on account of her exalted … what-the-eff-ever) constitute a lapse in judgment (not to mention humility) rendering her unsuitable for the presidency?
Frankly, I’m inclined to think … yes. It seems to me to be an extension of the hubris … short-sighted hubris … that caused her to botch our best shot at universal healthcare … way back when.
Which is to say, she may have obtained quantities of knowledge during her tenure as Secretary of State, but fundamental questions of character leave her yet vulnerable. And it’s character that withstands the blandishments of the nation’s “security establishment” … and forestalls, unto the very last possible moment, WWIII.
Bernie … I’m going with Bernie.
Agreed on all points except the last one, Libby. What Clinton lacks in ethics Sanders lacks in leadership ability. I’d mention the other candidates featured at the debate but no one would know who I’m talking about. We really have an incredible dearth of options this time.
Hillary’s campaign ads on TV are so phony, so emotionally driven and manipulative. Totally lacking in substance. It’s the kind of drivel that gives candidates a bad name, not that she had to do much to get that.
Libby the question isn’t just, “…Hillary’s decision to remove herself from government infrastructure…constitute a lapse in judgment (not to mention humility),” the question is more serious: What laws and statutes were broken when Hilary made this decision?
18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a)
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates,
obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so
takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper,
document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer
of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any
judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book,
document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals,
removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any
office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term
“office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired
officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
A “separation form is also required upon leaving office. Last I heard Hilary admitted she had nit signed it. FOX News:
I have to disagree on Hillarycare as well. The plan was rejected by the healthcare industry and by the people. Hillary also got in trouble for holding meetings in secret, as I recall.
I don’t blame you for rejecting Hillary.
“… the question is more serious: What laws and statutes were broken when Hilary made this decision?”
Alas, you’ve already shot your credibility all to hell over the Benghazi investigation, and I like to think Gowdy & Co. will not be permitted to waste yet more millions of our monies on this.
Silly me.
Time will tell Libby.
The problem with your opinion is that it is based on what you know rather than on the final report and findings from information gathered in the House hearings. You have no idea what has been said by most of the witnesses. To the extent that its possible information is being withheld until the investigation is complete.
So no, the credibility of the hearing is not “shot,” nor is mine, whichever of the two you meant.
Hope represents a low level of intention…just keep hoping this doesn’t all blow up in your faces next year.