What no post on today's budget report?

transporter

Well-Known Member
I am shocked!!!

Where is Gilligan? Where is comrade GURPS?? Where are all the other morons??

Treasury said federal spending in November was $411 billion, up 18 percent from the same month in 2017, while receipts were $206 billion, down 1 percent compared to November 2017.

The total deficit for the first two months of the current fiscal year has widened 51 percent, to $305 billion, compared to $202 billion in the first two months of the prior fiscal year.


U.S. government posts $205 billion deficit in November


How can receipts go down?? We had tax cuts!!

According to the statements of Ivy League Lite and comrade GURPS, the federal coffers should be OVERFLOWING with massive increases in revenue!! (Of course that has never happened...ever..but these idiots still believe in Santa too!)
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Do you really want what you are wishing for? Do you understand that Dems started all this mayhem? It began with FDR, who didn’t want to disclose he was handicapped. So much for fireside chats. Or, it began with carpetbaggers, or it is being perpetuated by elected officials like AOC, and the brain dead voters that elected her, and others that don’t know history. Obama’s campaign was on hope for change, but do you really want that change? Just wondering.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I am shocked!!!

Where is Gilligan? Where is comrade GURPS?? Where are all the other morons??




U.S. government posts $205 billion deficit in November


How can receipts go down?? We had tax cuts!!

According to the statements of Ivy League Lite and comrade GURPS, the federal coffers should be OVERFLOWING with massive increases in revenue!! (Of course that has never happened...ever..but these idiots still believe in Santa too!)

Given that pretty much every normal poster on here thinks the budget is out of control - even under Trump (shockers) - it is implausible you think we like the budget as is.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Why no post?

Who are you talking to? Most of us don't create threads at all.
Only Trump obsessed lunatics like yourself feel the compulsion to constantly drone on
about anything under the sun. You can search MY posts if you like, but in twenty years
I don't think I have ever started a post about the budget.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I am shocked!!!

Where is Gilligan? Where is comrade GURPS?? Where are all the other morons??


Did you have a POINT to Make besides Ad Hominem Attacks ...



According to the statements of Ivy League Lite and comrade GURPS, the federal coffers should be OVERFLOWING with massive increases in revenue!!

This is More of YOUR Fantasy, Supposition, Innuendo and Unfounded OPINION ... you imply actions or statements where there have been none.

Where did I EVER Say that ... it has been repeatedly said TAX Revenue is UP ... it has also been said their has been a increase in spending, so the Gov is still running a deficit


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

The Treasury Department reported this week that individual income tax collections for FY 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion. That's up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high. And that's despite the fact that individual income tax rates got a significant cut this year as part of President Donald Trump's tax reform plan.

[clip]

Does that mean Trump's tax cuts are fully "paying for themselves"? We wouldn't make that argument. But the faster economic growth is clearly offsetting at least some of their costs — which is precisely what backers said would happen.

What is unmistakable from the data, however, is that the Trump tax cuts are not entirely, or even mostly, responsible for the increase in the deficit. Blame for that rests squarely with spendthrifts in Congress — on both sides of the aisle — who refuse to bring federal spending under control.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Feds Collect Record Taxes Through November; Still Run $305.4B Deficit



(CNSNews.com) - The federal government collected record total tax revenues of $458,653,000,000 in October and November, the first two months of fiscal 2019, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

Even with these record tax collections, however, the government still ran a deficit of $305,394,000,000 for the first two months of the fiscal year. That is because while collecting a record $458,653,000,000 in taxes, the government spent $764,046,000,000.

The record $458,653,000,000 in federal taxes in October and November of fiscal 2019 was up $5,280,090,000 from the $453,372,910,000 in total taxes (in constant November 2018 dollars) that the federal government collected in October and November of fiscal 2018.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The simplest way to grasp the concept of cutting taxes to increase revenue is - seed corn.

Although farmers don't do a lot of this NOW - because of a lot of reasons - farmers in the past always had to save SOME of the corn
for next year's planting. While it takes some work to make seed corn out of the stuff you harvest, the concept is simple - if you don't save
some corn for seed, you can't plant next year. If you save MORE seed corn - and land isn't an issue - you will have a bigger harvest
next year.

The Dems always want to eat as much of the seed corn as they can. They operate under the premise that there's always a very limited
amount of wealth and you might as well spend it. But wealth is grown, and it needs money to keep it growing. Keep more money in the economy -
the seed corn - and it can get bigger next year. Consume more money - taxes - and it grows slower. I don't think there's any rational argument
that believes that more taxes means bigger economy. Not unless the government is the only employer.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The simplest way to grasp the concept of cutting taxes to increase revenue is - seed corn.

Although farmers don't do a lot of this NOW - because of a lot of reasons - farmers in the past always had to save SOME of the corn
for next year's planting. While it takes some work to make seed corn out of the stuff you harvest, the concept is simple - if you don't save
some corn for seed, you can't plant next year. If you save MORE seed corn - and land isn't an issue - you will have a bigger harvest
next year.

The Dems always want to eat as much of the seed corn as they can. They operate under the premise that there's always a very limited
amount of wealth and you might as well spend it. But wealth is grown, and it needs money to keep it growing. Keep more money in the economy -
the seed corn - and it can get bigger next year. Consume more money - taxes - and it grows slower. I don't think there's any rational argument
that believes that more taxes means bigger economy. Not unless the government is the only employer.

great analogy except for the fact that the dems were not in control of the budget for the last 2 years
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
projecting the republicans poor choices on the democrats does not make it true.

Proving even a broken clock can be right twice a day, you are mostly correct in this. Republicans gave appropriations bills - and the president signed them - that are horrific.

Of course, most of the spending (by far) is STILL Democrat spending, as it is welfare programs that are deemed non-discretionary. However, even the discretionary spending was horrific.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
great analogy except for the fact that the dems were not in control of the budget for the last 2 years

Why do we discuss anything with you? Who said I was talking about the last two - or the last twenty - years?

Dems are against tax cuts - they are ALWAYS for chowing down the seed corn.
I wrote absolutely nothing about the present situation. Just that Dems do not ever want them.
This is a generic observation - they want to spend more, they want to tax more and they detest the concept of cutting taxes.
They see it as giving money away.
They frequently bemoan the "loss" of money, presumably because they regard our income as their own.

They don't grasp the idea that more money left in the economy grows the economy, and MANY
have stated that more taxes *benefits* the economy.

I can't recall Dems at the national level EVER talking about spending less (except for and only including defense)
and they never want to cut the entire spending. They use weasel words like "investment" when they mean spending,
because what they call "investment" doesn't ever produce a return. To spend more, they want to tax more.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Why do we discuss anything with you? Who said I was talking about the last two - or the last twenty - years?

Dems are against tax cuts - they are ALWAYS for chowing down the seed corn.
I wrote absolutely nothing about the present situation. Just that Dems do not ever want them.
This is a generic observation - they want to spend more, they want to tax more and they detest the concept of cutting taxes.
They see it as giving money away.
They frequently bemoan the "loss" of money, presumably because they regard our income as their own.

They don't grasp the idea that more money left in the economy grows the economy, and MANY
have stated that more taxes *benefits* the economy.

I can't recall Dems at the national level EVER talking about spending less (except for and only including defense)
and they never want to cut the entire spending. They use weasel words like "investment" when they mean spending,
because what they call "investment" doesn't ever produce a return. To spend more, they want to tax more.

thats the point of the thread, not some distraction about past administrations. In fact you are making the OPs point for them by continuing this particluar line of deflection

Like i said you analogy is great except that you are ignoring the fact that its not democrats at this time. It has been republicans doing EXACTLY what you are talking about for the last 2 years. The democrats had no control over the purse strings. Lets place the blame for increased deficits and debt where it belongs.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
thats the point of the thread, not some distraction about past administrations. In fact you are making the OPs point for them by continuing this particluar line of deflection

Like i said you analogy is great except that you are ignoring the fact that its not democrats at this time. It has been republicans doing EXACTLY what you are talking about for the last 2 years. The democrats had no control over the purse strings. Lets place the blame for increased deficits and debt where it belongs.

I place it firmly on McConnell for not utilizing the nuclear option on ALL bills in the Senate. By not doing this, he continues to allow the Democrats to have defacto control of the Senate by being able to stall cloture, and thus make sure no good bill can get passed.

I also blame 3/4 of the state legislatures for not getting together and repealing the 17th amendment, thus putting themselves back involved in federal legislation and taking control of the out-of-control spending.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
thats the point of the thread, not some distraction about past administrations. In fact you are making the OPs point for them by continuing this particluar line of deflection.

I can't derail a thread like everyone else does?

A long time ago it was decided that deficit spending was ok - which kind of is a foregone conclusion, because I can't guess where a surplus could go if there was no debt to service.
GENERALLY - as long as revenue increases, inflation is modest and the deficits are low - this works well for anyone. For example, you have a business that is always growing, it doesn't make sense
to run a surplus - run a small debt with today's dollars, pay it off with tomorrow's lesser valued dollars. It's borrowing a dollar and paying it off with 95 cents. USE every dollar you
can lay hands on.

The government CAN do the same - but it's running up very high deficits, and two thirds of its budget is locked in to entitlements. And they grow in cost.
It MUST find a way to grow the economy so it can reap from it later, otherwise, it's going to choke.

Like a business which MUST pay staff or a household which MUST feed the family and pay the mortgage - there are other expenses which really can't be cut out.
SOME things you should NOT cut - you can cut the military - but it's like cutting on repairs to the house or cutting out medical expenses - SOONER or later, you will
pay the cost of your frugality.

We're running out of room to slash. Granted, we're talking about partitioning out a trillion dollars (the part that isn't entitlements), and we are TRYING to find a way
to slash a third of that off. The wall/border security actually is in the long term a return on our money.

Dems and Republicans disagree greatly over WHAT needs to be slashed - and Socialists don't want to slash ANYTHING, because they keep promising free things
we couldn't afford even if we doubled everyone's taxes.

I agree no one wants to see it done. Running on what needs to be done virtually ensures getting booted from office and being replaced by someone else who
wants to promise and spend more money.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I also blame 3/4 of the state legislatures for not getting together and repealing the 17th amendment, thus putting themselves back involved in federal legislation and taking control of the out-of-control spending.

Why do you think that will change it? I'm serious.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Now that the Dems control the house, we should see some dramatic debt shrinkage, right?

Are you sh1tting me?
MR talks a lot of trsh, but he knows that entitlements are our biggest debt builder, and the Dems aren't about to cut entitlements.
 
Top