33% Grwoth rate!! MAGA!!

transporter

Well-Known Member
US budget deficit FY 2016: $585B

US budget deficit FY 2017: $665B

US budget deficit FY 2018: $779B

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm

So under the combined "leadership" of the "fiscal conservatives" in the House and Senate with that inept, incompetent and unfit boob that sits in the WH, the federal budget deficit has risen 33% in just 2 years in a growing economy!!!

Now that's some kind of fiscal leadership for ya!!

MAGA!! MAGA!!!
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
US budget deficit FY 2016: $585B

US budget deficit FY 2017: $665B

US budget deficit FY 2018: $779B

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm

So under the combined "leadership" of the "fiscal conservatives" in the House and Senate with that inept, incompetent and unfit boob that sits in the WH, the federal budget deficit has risen 33% in just 2 years in a growing economy!!!

Now that's some kind of fiscal leadership for ya!!

MAGA!! MAGA!!!

He is just following Obama's lead, what are you bitching about.?

As if you would come back and answer.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I looked up Grwoth. Couldn't find anything. Let's us create our own definition for 'Grwoth'.

Grwoth: anger over not being able to define 'rigth'.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think we'll start to see that deficit go down in the next few years because of Trump's policies. There's "spending" and then there's "investment". I see what Trump's doing as investment, which costs money up front but pays for itself and then some in the long run.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I think we'll start to see that deficit go down in the next few years because of Trump's policies. There's "spending" and then there's "investment". I see what Trump's doing as investment, which costs money up front but pays for itself and then some in the long run.

The deficit is a constantly fluid number. Trans is purposely being deceptive in throwing past numbers out there to show that Trump has a spending problem.

If you go back to the beginning of Obama's presidency, you'll see his deficits far exceeded what we're seeing now:

2009 - $1.4 trillion
2010 - $1.3 trillion
2011 - $1.3 trillion
2012 - $1.1 trillion

Then suddenly in 2013 it took a huge dip to $680 billion. Why do you think this is? THE GOP TOOK CONTROL OF CONGRESS AND THE PURSE STRINGS.

Trans, you do know presidents don't spend; congress does. Presidents either sign the budget or veto it. Obama was smart to sign it in order to keep government running. You being this genius money person overlooked these very simple facts. Once again... you're a damn lying leftist hack. You only regurgitate what you're fed through your Soros sources.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
I think we'll start to see that deficit go down in the next few years because of Trump's policies. There's "spending" and then there's "investment". I see what Trump's doing as investment, which costs money up front but pays for itself and then some in the long run.

TJ does have a point, though. "Investment" is exactly what the liberals were saying they were doing, too.

A reduction in the amount taken from us (tax cuts) is but a very, very, very small part of this whole problem. Those reductions in the amount taken from citizens is sure to spur the economy, which will just as assuredly replenish the coffers from that reduction. However, when actual spending is increasing about 5%/year (ballpark average), the problem will only continue to get worse.

As always, the problem is SPENDING. Spending is determined by Congress (starting with the House), but signed by the president. You yourself said that Trump's signing of the budget last year was problematic for your support of him (as did just about every other smart person I know), and this next year (FY19) is worse, not better.

Psy's point of reduction in spending is very well taken, but it's very much like saying the lioness that kills us the slowest is the best because she's killing us the slowest. The killing of the US citizen's finances needs to STOP, not slow.

Think of the old joke of the cop - pulls over a guy for rolling through a stop sign. Guy says, "hey, I slowed down!" Cop begins beating him with his club - "you want me to stop, or slow down?"



Me, I want it to stop.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
then vote for ending base line budgeting ...... cut entitlements

To be fair, though, my point was that Congress should fix spending, and the president should VETO bad bills, not sign them.

A huge percentage of government SHOULD BE shutdown - permanently. Shutting down government is not a reason to sign unconstitutional bills.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
To be fair, though, my point was that Congress should fix spending, and the president should VETO bad bills, not sign them.

The problem is, there's enough instantaneous communication around that makes vetoes almost non-existent.
Nowadays, we know - usually - what the vote on a bill in the House or Senate WILL be before the vote happens.
We know what is in the bill before it reaches the floor, and the White House has already raised its objections before the vote happens -
and issued its approval or acceptance. So vetoes are generally rare, unless it is something passed by a hostile Congress in
spite of the fact it will be vetoed.

What WOULD be great is if they managed to get the process going a little faster, because it takes so very long to craft a bill,
and get the process moving that the fear of doing nothing helps to expedite a bad bill, and both sides sign off on something they're
not crazy about, because they want SOMETHING - because doing it OVER just takes too long.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
...and issued its approval or acceptance...

THIS is my problem with the last several presidents, including the current. Unconstitutional laws should not be approved/accepted/signed.

What WOULD be great is if they managed to get the process going a little faster, because it takes so very long to craft a bill, and get the process moving that the fear of doing nothing helps to expedite a bad bill, and both sides sign off on something they're
not crazy about, because they want SOMETHING - because doing it OVER just takes too long.

THIS is changeable every two years. It takes so long because of the rules established by congressional leadership. That is relatively easy to change every two years.

So, we all agree on this, and it doesn't change. Why not?

In my view/opinion, the reason it doesn't change is because the leadership is established by who the people are who are voted into congress. And, who gets voted into Congress is established by who runs in each district. The person who runs in each district is chosen ostensibly by the people but chosen amongst those who party leadership runs in a district, and the districts are established by gerrymandering of landmass by state legislatures for party purposes. In other words, the parties decide who runs, therefore who wins, therefore who leadership is, therefore how hard it is for Congress/government to work. It is in the parties' interests to keep it difficult, to keep we, the people, from believing it can change or be changed without outright revolution.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
What would be great is if a bill was written and no other bullsh1t was added to it.

Adding things to a bill that needs to be passed to get some BS added is wrong.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Obama is the only US prez that didn’t reach a yearly 3% GDP. Now, I understand his ‘Yes, we can!’ campaign slogan. It meant...blame the previous prez, and take credit for the current prez. Obama is disgusting. Go back to Kenya, and take your birth certificate with you. Period.
 
Last edited:
Top