Federal deficit grows by 32% to $900B

I knew this was coming when during the passing of the Tax Bill, every economist in the nation said that the math didn't add up.

There is just no way you can balance a budget when you slash about 45% of the nations revenue by giving away tax breaks for the rich and famous!

I also knew this was coming when back in April and March, when the Russians cashed in 84% of their US treasury Bonds to the tune of many billions of dollars that once were helping to finance our debt.

Once we get Trump out of harms way, I believe we offer Russia a deal they can't refuse.

If the Oligarch wants their sanctions lifted, they may want to purchase those treasury bonds back and stay out of the campaign smearing business!
 
evince said:
that is like saying its OK if you don't have a job


just control all that money you spend on food and shelter


"if you don't spend"


"you don't need money"


you have to maintain the house


You have to prepare for the future generations



running a budget where you never barrowed is a stupid idea for a nation


debt is a tool
Click to expand...

No, debt is debt. True, there is so-called 'good' debt, and there is also the 'bad' debt. What't the difference?

Good debt creates more wealth than it takes to pay off the debt.
Bad debt does not.

Governments do not produce wealth. They do not produce anything. They are costs. They are there to keep thieves and murderers at bay. When they BECOME thieves and murderers, that's a problem.

Much of the debt incurred by the government is bad debt. It is used to maintain a level of spending beyond their means for things like Senator Boondoggle's monument to government waste. It is used to give money away to people that likewise don't produce anything (like the generational welfare crowd).

Can a government have good debt? Sure! Borrowing to build roads pays for itself in improved economies, and the resulting tax revenue increase pays for the debt and plus. Creating NASA and going to the Moon created tremendous wealth in this country. NASA today isn't what it once was then, of course. The Arpanet project by DARPA was a good investment. Look at the wealth created out of thin air for that!

Bad debt is not a tool. It's a ball and chain.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
I knew this was coming when during the passing of the Tax Bill, every economist in the nation said that the math didn't add up.
Click to expand...
Bigotry (a compositional error involving people as the class). That is a fallacy. Not every economist said the math didn't add up.
Adolf_Twitler said:
There is just no way you can balance a budget when you slash about 45% of the nations revenue by giving away tax breaks for the rich and famous!
Click to expand...
45% of the nations revenue wasn't 'given away'. Tax breaks went mostly to the middle and lower tax brackets, not to the rich and famous.
Adolf_Twitler said:
I also knew this was coming when back in April and March, when the Russians cashed in 84% of their US treasury Bonds to the tune of many billions of dollars that once were helping to finance our debt.
Click to expand...
A lot of foreign investors are cashing in their bonds. Those bonds are retiring. They either buy new bonds, or they don't. Foreign investors, including governments, are still buying U.S. bonds.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You Republitards need some new slogans and bury the old trickle-down gun-in-every-classroom crap you been tryin' to sell us from the past!

That crap just make you sound stupid like Donald Trump now! LOL!
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur fallacy. The argument I made was, "Price controls don't work. They always cause shortages."
 
Into the Night said:
No, debt is debt. True, there is so-called 'good' debt, and there is also the 'bad' debt. What't the difference?

Good debt creates more wealth than it takes to pay off the debt.
Bad debt does not.

Governments do not produce wealth. They do not produce anything. They are costs. They are there to keep thieves and murderers at bay. When they BECOME thieves and murderers, that's a problem.

Much of the debt incurred by the government is bad debt. It is used to maintain a level of spending beyond their means for things like Senator Boondoggle's monument to government waste. It is used to give money away to people that likewise don't produce anything (like the generational welfare crowd).

Can a government have good debt? Sure! Borrowing to build roads pays for itself in improved economies, and the resulting tax revenue increase pays for the debt and plus. Creating NASA and going to the Moon created tremendous wealth in this country. NASA today isn't what it once was then, of course. The Arpanet project by DARPA was a good investment. Look at the wealth created out of thin air for that!

Bad debt is not a tool. It's a ball and chain.
Click to expand...

you don't get the final decision on that one


that is for the people to decide how they will run the nation


If you don't use debt wisely you don't get rich

If you don't use debt like the financial tool it is you never get much of anywhere


Corporations run debt all the time to build into the future


so should the government


the people want those things you don't want


they want roads


schools

bridges

police hospitals

firefighters


clean water


clean air


regulations on corporations who have proven over and over again they refuse to place people first


they use all the infrastructure

so your idiot rants is meaningless
 
"...there are deficits because spending is the problem...." PP #528
Click to expand...
- piffle -

Deficit means spending exceeds revenue.
It would be just as true to say: ...there are deficits because insufficient revenue is the problem... .

Slashing spending is the refrain of the ignorant. President Trump declared NATO obsolete, and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. After Trump was informed of his folly he flip-flopped.

Certainly with a budget as big as that of the U.S. there's room to $cut.

But every status quo has a constituency. How do you think we got here?
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You'd be surprised what Democrats think these days. But, yes, Democrats like the idea of a flat tax- always have really.

As for the bottom feeders and dregs you are tunnel visioned on, let them draw their limited handouts, because the Democrats intend to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 and no one will want to limit themselves to welfare anymore- not when you can draw $15.00 an hour and make $3200 a month.

You know it's not rocket science- never has been. All we ever needed was a minimum wage that keeps up with inflation to get people off of welfare!
Click to expand...

What we need is for those with skills so low they have to beg for a minimum wage increase to do is stop begging that someone give them $15/hour for $2/hour skills. It must be sad for you knowing that the only way you could ever get that amount is for a law to be passed.
 
Democrats with three digit IQs definitely do NOT like the flat rate tax idea.

The progressive income tax is the mainstay of a civilized nation and even a semi-civilized one like ours.

As for Banjofuck, if it weren't for him, I wouldn't know that food stamps could be used to pay for internet access.
 
CFM said:
What we need is for those with skills so low they have to beg for a minimum wage increase to do is stop begging that someone give them $15/hour for $2/hour skills. It must be sad for you knowing that the only way you could ever get that amount is for a law to be passed.
Click to expand...

Dude, the minimum wage only means, "I would pay you a lot less, if I only could".

The last time we set a minimum wage for $7.30 back in 1992, you could still buy a brand new car for $12K- you could buy a brand new 3 bedroom house for $68K.

Let me just do the math for you. Basically, the price of homes or cars have tripled since then. So, even if the minimum wage was to keep up with inflation, we should actually be paying $21.90 an hour as a minimum wage just to keep up.

You cannot have a country that allows prices to triple for everything bought and sold in the country- except the cost of labor. Labor may be just another commodity, but it has a cost to it, and that cost should always keep up with inflation.

Government can't just protect the interests of big business and totally ignore the concerns of workers, consumers, and families. When you do that, we are back in the days of sweatshops, monopolies, labor disputes, runaway inflation, poverty, and despair. That is not democracy- that is plutocracy!

You cannot have a country that allows business to take advantage of cheap labor, by allowing cheap labor to even exist in the first place, just because the labor market has no one in the government looking after the worker's interests as well.
 
CFM said:
What we need is for those with skills so low they have to beg for a minimum wage increase to do is stop begging that someone give them $15/hour for $2/hour skills. It must be sad for you knowing that the only way you could ever get that amount is for a law to be passed.
Click to expand...

Our predatory capitalists have another way currently up and running; you subsidize their workers so that they as employers don't have to pay them enough to live on.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#6a17112b720b

Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize Amazon’s growth
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2017/sep/07/taxpayers-shouldnt-subsidize-amazons-growth/

Taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing the growth of Amazon, the world’s largest internet-based retailer. Our public policy shouldn’t bend toward giving handouts to a company that had a revenue of almost $136 billion last year, and whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, has a net worth hovering around $90 billion, making him one of the richest people on the planet.

But outrageously, that’s exactly what’s happening across America. Governments are buying into the fallacy that using corporate welfare to attract Amazon is going to be beneficial to our communities and offset millions of dollars in subsidies. In Baltimore, Amazon received $43 million in subsidies. In Jacksonville, Fla., the subsidy windfall for Amazon has topped $26 million. Joliet, Ill. has handed the company more than $30 million in subsidies, in Kenosha, Wis., subsidies have topped $32 million, and in the state of Pennsylvania, Amazon has been granted subsidies of more than $22 million.

All told, since 2015, Amazon has benefited from at least $241 million in tax abatements, infrastructure improvements and other subsidies in dozens of places, selling the idea that when Amazon comes to town, it will help everybody. But what are taxpayers and communities getting for their money and depleted tax base?

These subsidies help Amazon drive retailers and other competition out of the market by selling products, even at below its own cost. The company is selling more and more of its own products and promoting them over the third-party goods that helped build their business model. With its own products, distribution network and ability to drive competitors out of business, we see the dark underpinnings of a vast monopoly that has the power to permanently change our economy and eliminate our choices and the free market as we know it.
Click to expand...
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Dude, the minimum wage only means, "I would pay you a lot less, if I only could".

The last time we set a minimum wage for $7.30 back in 1992, you could still buy a brand new car for $12K- you could buy a brand new 3 bedroom house for $68K.

Let me just do the math for you. Basically, the price of homes or cars have tripled since then. So, even if the minimum wage was to keep up with inflation, we should actually be paying $21.90 an hour as a minimum wage just to keep up.

You cannot have a country that allows prices to triple for everything bought and sold in the country- except the cost of labor. Labor may be just another commodity, but it has a cost to it, and that cost should always keep up with inflation.

Government can't just protect the interests of big business and totally ignore the concerns of workers, consumers, and families. When you do that, we are back in the days of sweatshops, monopolies, labor disputes, runaway inflation, poverty, and despair. That is not democracy- that is plutocracy!

You cannot have a country that allows business to take advantage of cheap labor, by allowing cheap labor to even exist in the first place, just because the labor market has no one in the government looking after the worker's interests as well.
Click to expand...

The minimum means the government tells a business they have to pay someone more than they're worth. Businesses should be able to pay someone whatever the business wants.

The skills it took to do a minimum age job in 1992 are the same ones it takes to do the same job today. Sorry, no improvement in skills, no increase in pay.

While you may support it, I don't support the concept of 'I breather, therefore, someone owes me more'.

Sure you can have that country. If you continue to give people something just because they exist, there is no incentive to get better.

When you offer cheap skills, you get a lower pay.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Our predatory capitalists have another way currently up and running; you subsidize their workers so that they as employers don't have to pay them enough to live on.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#6a17112b720b

Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize Amazon’s growth
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2017/sep/07/taxpayers-shouldnt-subsidize-amazons-growth/
Click to expand...


Easy solution. Stop providing social welfare. Deal?

If someone isn't making enough to live on, they should improve their skills. No one owes them a living.

Are you saying if social welfare didn't exist Walmart would pay people more?
 
evince said:
you don't get the final decision on that one
Click to expand...
I am not making a decision. I am describing what is.
evince said:
that is for the people to decide how they will run the nation
Click to expand...
I am not talking about a decision. Remember, we are not a democracy in the United States.
evince said:
If you don't use debt wisely you don't get rich
Click to expand...
I already described this, and what 'wisely' is.
evince said:
If you don't use debt like the financial tool it is you never get much of anywhere
Click to expand...
I already described this too.
evince said:
Corporations run debt all the time to build into the future
Click to expand...
Sometimes good debt, sometimes bad debt.
evince said:
so should the government
Click to expand...
I have no problem with good debt.
evince said:
the people want those things you don't want
they want roads
Click to expand...
I never said I don't want roads.
evince said:
schools
Click to expand...
I never said I don't want schools. The federal government has no authority over schools.
evince said:
bridges
Click to expand...
I never said I don't want bridges. They are part of the roads you say I don't want.
evince said:
police
Click to expand...
I never said I don't want police.
evince said:
hospitals
Click to expand...
I never said I don't want hospitals. The federal government has no authority over creating hospitals.
evince said:
firefighters
Click to expand...
Firefighters are not federal government.
evince said:
clean water
Click to expand...
Clean water is not created by any government.
evince said:
clean air
Click to expand...
Clean air is not created by any government.
evince said:
regulations on corporations who have proven over and over again they refuse to place people first
Click to expand...
Little needed. Corporations that do not place their customers first die.
evince said:
they use all the infrastructure
Click to expand...
So?
evince said:
so your idiot rants is meaningless
Click to expand...
You seem to carry a lot of anger and assume a rant where there is none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top