Deficit escalates

[auburnatl1 6,020]

The  trump tax cuts were beyond stupid - you don’t friggin lower revenue when you’re bleeding cash.  And the happy land Biden push for never ending free stuff. WTF?! 

18% of your taxes this year will go to simply paying interest (ps china holds a ton of our debt so…). Next year it’ll be 20%. Do people understand where this trend goes?

We are missing the point - Trump and Biden are both historically incompetent disasters on the deficit.  If they were ceos, any board would fire them before tues - and that’d be kind).  But if people would rather debate who’s the bigger disaster and fixate on  EVs and fighters. Have at it. Ps It’s not one or even 5 things - its now past that.

The voters have to demand  it be a major issue (argue about pride parades later) because the 2 parties are not acting in the national interest.

 

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

14 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

18% of your taxes this year will go to simply paying interest (ps china holds a ton of our debt so…). Next year it’ll be 20%. Do people understand where this trend goes?

The debt thing is a bit hard to grasp and understand. Not to mention dry and boring. Agree 100 % with you on it being the more important topic than the pride parade, etc..

https://people.howstuffworks.com/5-united-states-debt-holders.htm

Now, it's important to understand that the U.S. doesn't owe that entire $34 trillion to its creditors, which include individuals, businesses and foreign governments who purchased U.S. Treasury bonds and securities. By December 2023, the government-incurred debt crossed the $7 trillion mark for intragovernmental holdings, which are funds the U.S. owes itself, mainly for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds [sources: Amadeo, U.S. Treasury

[TexasTiger 14,069]

26 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The  trump tax cuts were beyond stupid - you don’t friggin lower revenue when you’re bleeding cash.  And the happy land Biden push for never ending free stuff. WTF?! 

18% of your taxes this year will go to simply paying interest (ps china holds a ton of our debt so…). Next year it’ll be 20%. Do people understand where this trend goes?

We are missing the point - Trump and Biden are both historically incompetent disasters on the deficit.  If they were ceos, any board would fire them before tues - and that’d be kind).  But if people would rather debate who’s the bigger disaster and fixate on  EVs and fighters. Have at it. Ps It’s not one or even 5 things - its now past that.

The voters have to demand  it be a major issue (argue about pride parades later) because the 2 parties are not acting in the national interest.

 

Voters have to prioritize it. That ain’t happening any time soon.

And I wouldn’t bring it up if you didn’t seem to go so far over the top well beyond what is needed to make the point. “Never ending free stuff?” Beyond targeted student debt belief, what else are you referencing?

[auburnatl1 6,020]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Voters have to prioritize it. That ain’t happening any time soon.

And I wouldn’t bring it up if you didn’t seem to go so far over the top well beyond what is needed to make the point. “Never ending free stuff?” Beyond targeted student debt belief, what else are you referencing?

To avoid this debate - anything new we simply can’t afford. Anything. Promising a new program is irresponsible.

Free, half price, or (promised to be) paid for by Mexico.

And taxes will HAVE to go up. It’s just math.

Edited June 23 by auburnatl1

[Leftfield 3,307]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Tell me where I lied or Senator Kennedy lied:

 

This is the shorter version. 

 

Because you're both basing it on the Morgan-Stanley study that estimated the world would need to spend $50 trillion by 2050, not just the US (as I pointed out to you, at least a couple of times, in the climate thread months ago). If the economist referenced in the video above has done his own study, then I'd need to see the cited, because the Morgan-Stanley study is the only one I've seen that uses that number. And boyyyyy do conservatives love to use it - couldn't be because it's the highest projection out there, could it?

Having said that, David Turk is either an idiot, or was just completely freezing under pressure, because he handled that about as poorly as a person could. I'm not going to get into what he should have said, because I don't want to turn this into another climate change thread. Regardless, the $50 trillion is garbage. If you find that number someone else, and it applies only to the US, feel free to share it. Otherwise, since you've been told before that this is wrong, and I'm sure you've seen at least a summary of what the study said, you're lying.

 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

52 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

The debt thing is a bit hard to grasp and understand. Not to mention dry and boring. Agree 100 % with you on it being the more important topic than the pride parade, etc..

https://people.howstuffworks.com/5-united-states-debt-holders.htm

Now, it's important to understand that the U.S. doesn't owe that entire $34 trillion to its creditors, which include individuals, businesses and foreign governments who purchased U.S. Treasury bonds and securities. By December 2023, the government-incurred debt crossed the $7 trillion mark for intragovernmental holdings, which are funds the U.S. owes itself, mainly for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds [sources: Amadeo, U.S. Treasury

 Bottom line: we now pay much more for debt interest than Medicaid. In 2 years more than Medicare. And it’s barely discussed. Btw debt  interest must be paid before any other expenditure.

Edited June 23 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 14,069]

16 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

 Bottom line: we now pay much more for debt interest than Medicaid. In 2 years more than Medicare. And it’s barely discussed. Btw debt  interest must be paid before any other expenditure.

Need to get smarter with defense spending.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Need to get smarter with defense spending.

We are not in any position for an arms race. Itd be nice if China and Russia’s economies (both teetering for different reasons) crater soon. And Europe and Japan have to follow through with their defense increase commitments.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

In 1992 Clinton had a comprehensive plan- voters expected it. Bush didn’t. Perot prioritized the deficit (and to a lesser extent NAFTA) and changed to conversation. Republicans now have no interest in actually solving anything. They’ll say we can’t afford the programs they’ve always wanted to cut, but support tax cuts and defense increases. Democrats will point to those things and say “if we can afford X” we can afford Y.” We can’t afford either, unless and until we decide how to pay for it by cutting things and raising revenue.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

We are not in any position for an arms race. Itd be nice if China and Russia’s economies (both teetering for different reasons) crater soon. And Europe and Japan have to follow through with their defense increase commitments.

We spend too much by default. 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

In 1992 Clinton had a comprehensive plan- voters expected it. Bush didn’t. Perot prioritized the deficit (and to a lesser extent NAFTA) and changed to conversation. Republicans now have no interest in actually solving anything. They’ll say we can’t afford the programs they’ve always wanted to cut, but support tax cuts and defense increases. Democrats will point to those things and say “if we can afford X” we can afford Y.” We can’t afford either, unless and until we decide how to pay for it by cutting things and raising revenue.

Perot was a formidable ceo. Created and grew one of the most formidable and well run global services companies of its time.  But arrogant as hell. Clinton (with Gingrich) ran a very cost effective 2 terms.

Instead we have either a real estate sales guy or a chronic career politician. 

Trump is an obvious disaster for this  but Biden isn’t a great fit either. We don’t necessarily need a Churchill type … well, maybe we do.

[TexasTiger 14,069]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Perot was a formidable ceo. Created and grew one of the most formidable and well run global services companies of its time.  But arrogant as hell. Clinton (with Gingrich) ran a very cost effective 2 terms.

Instead we have either a real estate sales guy or a chronic career politician. 

Trump is an obvious disaster for this  but Biden isn’t a great fit either. We don’t necessarily need a Churchill type … well, maybe we do.

No serious candidate is breaking thru as long as MAGA-mania is strong. It would take a Perot- like independent to do it. At least until the deficit truly bites us in ways even ignorant Americans pay attention.

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

 

Because you're both basing it on the Morgan-Stanley study that estimated the world would need to spend $50 trillion by 2050, not just the US (as I pointed out to you, at least a couple of times, in the climate thread months ago). If the economist referenced in the video above has done his own study, then I'd need to see the cited, because the Morgan-Stanley study is the only one I've seen that uses that number. And boyyyyy do conservatives love to use it - couldn't be because it's the highest projection out there, could it?

Having said that, David Turk is either an idiot, or was just completely freezing under pressure, because he handled that about as poorly as a person could. I'm not going to get into what he should have said, because I don't want to turn this into another climate change thread. Regardless, the $50 trillion is garbage. If you find that number someone else, and it applies only to the US, feel free to share it. Otherwise, since you've been told before that this is wrong, and I'm sure you've seen at least a summary of what the study said, you're lying.

 

Typical of your responses; if I don’t agree with what is said it is a lie.

What ever study it came from; Senator Kennedy asked Turk the question, as Kennedy is trying to be fiscally responsible to the US tax payers, and Turk didn’t refute that it would cost a lot.  He never admitted it would cost $50 trillion, but the point is the Biden administration doesn’t even know what all the mitigation efforts will produce in terms of reducing the temps.

It is typical of spending under Biden; throw money at it because it sounds good and no follow through.  $40 something billion for high speed internet for rural areas and no one has benefited, $7.5 billion for EV charging stations with little results….This is a deficit escalation problem.  If there were results it would not be, but it is a lot of pie in the sky feel good is not helping balance any budget.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Typical of your responses; if I don’t agree with what is said it is a lie.

What ever study it came from; Senator Kennedy asked Turk the question, as Kennedy is trying to be fiscally responsible to the US tax payers, and Turk didn’t refute that it would cost a lot.  He never admitted it would cost $50 trillion, but the point is the Biden administration doesn’t even know what all the mitigation efforts will produce in terms of reducing the temps.

It is typical of spending under Biden; throw money at it because it sounds good and no follow through.  $40 something billion for high speed internet for rural areas and no one has benefited, $7.5 billion for EV charging stations with little results….This is a deficit escalation problem.  If there were results it would not be, but it is a lot of pie in the sky feel good is not helping balance any budget.

I agree many of the green initiatives are unrealistic and need to be completely reassessed. As well as ANY new spending. But if your only mindset is to blame the libs, then the violent truth is the #1 cause of the deficit explosion is Trumps tax cuts.  Disastrous. And it’s not even close. Btw where the hell do you keep getting $50 trillion? That’s half the entire planets GDP.  Somebody needs to YouTube a pre algebra class because that makes no sense

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

30 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I agree many of the green initiatives are unrealistic and need to be completely reassessed. As well as ANY new spending. But if your only mindset is to blame the libs, then the violent truth is the #1 cause of the deficit explosion is Trumps tax cuts.  Disastrous. And it’s not even close. Btw where the hell do you keep getting $50 trillion? That’s half the entire planets GDP.  Somebody needs to YouTube a pre algebra class because that makes no sense

As Lefty pointed out it is from a Morgan Stanley article from 2019.  Scary isn’t it.

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/investing-in-decarbonization

No, the subject is deficit escalation and I mentioned special interest groups are expensive.  Both sides have special interests that can cause the deficit to escalate and climate change can add a lot to the deficit.  The question would be; is it worth it?

I would think the #1 cause would be all the COVID give away programs we endured in the last 4 years.  Biden has had time to come up with a tax plan to deal with this, but instead hasn’t.  I don’t think anybody is serious about it.

[auburnatl1 6,020]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

As Lefty pointed out it is from a Morgan Stanley article from 2019.  Scary isn’t it.

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/investing-in-decarbonization

No, the subject is deficit escalation and I mentioned special interest groups are expensive.  Both sides have special interests that can cause the deficit to escalate and climate change can add a lot to the deficit.  The question would be; is it worth it?

I would think the #1 cause would be all the COVID give away programs we endured in the last 4 years.  Biden has had time to come up with a tax plan to deal with this, but instead hasn’t.  I don’t think anybody is serious about it.

I think if people really study the severity of the math and digest it - they’d figure out an increased tax plan and cut all proposed spending.

By Thurs.

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

At least until the deficit truly bites us in ways even ignorant Americans pay attention.

Bingo! No household can survive in harmony given equal debt we as a nation are experiencing. You are correct in us questioning it much more in the 90’s and early 2000. 
 

Be nice to have leaders focused on the problem but it seems to be a non issue. 

[arein0 1,101]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Bingo! No household can survive in harmony given equal debt we as a nation are experiencing. You are correct in us questioning it much more in the 90’s and early 2000. 
 

Be nice to have leaders focused on the problem but it seems to be a non issue. 

Hard to have a conversation about finances when we, as a nation, are pretty financially illiterate.

http://weforum.org/agenda/2024/04/financial-literacy-money-education/#:~:text=Financial literacy in the US&text=The index explores eight functional

[auburnatl1 6,020]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Bingo! No household can survive in harmony given equal debt we as a nation are experiencing. You are correct in us questioning it much more in the 90’s and early 2000. 
 

Be nice to have leaders focused on the problem but it seems to be a non issue. 

Imo politicians from each side feed their base a steady diet of primal, tribal, easy to digest cultural war topics that inflame and detract. The deficit, education?  Nope, we’re morons at that - let’s change the subject and fixate on transgender bathrooms or other cultural/religious detractions.. Topics that will fire people up and can be argued on your 5th drink. 

And we let the politicians get away with it. Or elect people who can’t possibly figure it out - Mtg and AOC?

 

Edited June 24 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 14,069]

18 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Imo politicians from each side feed their base a steady diet of primal, tribal, easy to digest cultural war topics that inflame and detract. The deficit, education?  Nope, we’re morons at that - let’s change the subject and fixate on transgender bathrooms or other cultural/religious detractions.. Topics that will fire people up and can be argued on your 5th drink. 

And we let the politicians get away with it. Or elect people who can’t possibly figure it out - Mtg and AOC?

 

You are sooo insistent on repeatedly drawing false equivalence when it’s not necessary for your point, so I’m going to keep calling bull****. MTG is pure culture war. AOC believes in identity politics, but is most animated by economic issues. You may disagree with them, but she is. No, the deficit is not her issue, but she’s not opposed to raising taxes to pay for the programs she wants.

 

[auburnatl1 6,020]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You are sooo insistent on repeatedly drawing false equivalence when it’s not necessary for your point, so I’m going to keep calling bull****. MTG is pure culture war. AOC believes in identity politics, but is most animated by economic issues. You may disagree with them, but she is. No, the deficit is not her issue, but she’s not opposed to raising taxes to pay for the programs she wants.

 

Well I respect your… consistency. Yes, Mtg is obviously a special kind of stupid and throw in certifiably nuts. But have ever actually listened to AOC speak? Respectfully you couldn’t teach that woman checkers. Simply follows the rudimentary tax the rich, spend like a banshee playbook. 

Neither imo is capable of resolving the budget. 

[TexasTiger 14,069]

2 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Well I respect your… consistency. Yes, Mtg is obviously a special kind of stupid and throw in certifiably nuts. But have ever actually listened to AOC speak? Respectfully you couldn’t teach that woman checkers. Simply follows the rudimentary tax the rich, spend like a banshee playbook. 

Neither imo is capable of resolving the budget. 

AOC has gotten increasingly shrill, I think, since being on the receiving end of so much venom, much over the top. I’m not sending her to deficit negotiations.

[CoffeeTiger 5,843]

The electorate is not going to elect anyone on a debt reduction platform until the debt is actually hurting everyday Americans in ways they can plainly see and understand. 

 

Everyone says they'd like to see the debt decreased. Few people would want to support the things politically that would be needed for that to happen. 

[Leftfield 3,307]

On 6/23/2024 at 8:13 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Typical of your responses; if I don’t agree with what is said it is a lie.

No. It's a lie because it's a lie. You know it not to be true, but you keep repeating it.

 

On 6/23/2024 at 8:13 AM, I_M4_AU said:

What ever study it came from; Senator Kennedy asked Turk the question, as Kennedy is trying to be fiscally responsible to the US tax payers, and Turk didn’t refute that it would cost a lot.  He never admitted it would cost $50 trillion, but the point is the Biden administration doesn’t even know what all the mitigation efforts will produce in terms of reducing the temps.

Nobody knows either of these (money and temps). They're absurd questions to ask - there are way too many variables. Sure, you could put a number on them just to make everybody feel good, and set yourself up for ridicule and Congressional crucifixion if the numbers end up drastically different (deniers saying "I told you so" if you estimate too low on money and too high on temps, supporters the same if the opposite). It's like saying you can predict what the stock market will be in 2050. 

I would also suggest you look into some of the costs of inaction.

And as mentioned before, the temperatures are not going to be reduced, they just won't increase as much as if we do nothing.

 

On 6/23/2024 at 8:13 AM, I_M4_AU said:

It is typical of spending under Biden; throw money at it because it sounds good and no follow through.  $40 something billion for high speed internet for rural areas and no one has benefited, $7.5 billion for EV charging stations with little results….This is a deficit escalation problem.  If there were results it would not be, but it is a lot of pie in the sky feel good is not helping balance any budget.

That's garbage and you know it. You don't think there's a problem, so you would complain about it no matter what.

Will freely admit government is often not efficient at implementing programs, but I'd have to research the specific examples you give here. Considering your preferred sources, I would guess there's more to the stories.

[homersapien 12,172]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/24/trump-biden-national-debt/

The national debt is ballooning. The next president probably won’t stop it.

The national debt is set to reach historic levels within years, but experts say neither President Biden nor Donald Trump has plans that would stabilize the U.S. financial future.

(Excerpts, emphasis mine)

Trump is pledging to extend the enormous package of tax cuts adopted on his watch and has discussed further reducing taxes for corporations. Biden, meanwhile, also wants to extend the Trump tax cuts for families earning less than $400,000 a year, while calling for nearly $1 trillion in fresh spending over the next decade on social programs — though Biden vows to cover those costs by raising taxes on the rich.

Neither candidate has made debt reduction a priority while in the White House, according to research released Monday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The debt grew by $8.4 trillion during Trump’s first term, while Biden so far has added $4.3 trillion, according to the group.

A large portion of the new debt under both administrations came from spending to combat the extreme economic hardship created by the coronavirus pandemic in early 2020. Mainstream conservative and liberal economists say that spending was necessary to prevent greater economic calamity.

Trump, however, also ran up the debt with other big-ticket items, notably his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cost $1.9 trillion, and two bipartisan budget laws that cost a combined $2.1 trillion, according to CRFB. Biden’s largest non-covid debt-financed initiatives were the $1.4 trillion spending laws for the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years and $620 billion of student debt relief. But the 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act that Biden negotiated with congressional Republicans knocked $1.5 trillion off the national debt.

Not counting pandemic spending, Trump added $2.5 trillion more to the debt than Biden has, according to the CRFB report.

“I think the question voters need to be asking is, who would prioritize getting the debt under control? And looking at the records of both candidates, nobody stands out as having been willing to make this an important priority so far,” said CRFB president Maya MacGuineas.

[see link for a chart breaking out expenditures by program]

 

A full extension of the tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Biden has proposed a limited extension of those tax cuts, plus higher rates on the rich and corporations, which his aides say would cut $3 trillion from the debt. Investments in child care, health care and affordable housing would make it easier for working parents, driving more economic growth, his administration says.

“This is a campaign that is just unserious when it comes to fiscal policy,” MacGuineas said.

The legislative battles will take place against a troubling fiscal backdrop. Last week, the CBO projected annual budget deficits of nearly $2 trillion for the foreseeable future. That mismatch between spending and revenue will drive borrowing ever higher, with the debt growing to more than $50 trillion by 2034 — or more than 122 percent of the nation’s overall economy — the CBO said.

Within the next three years, the agency reported that the debt would exceed 106 percent of GDP, blowing past the previous record set in the aftermath of World War II.

“I think this is a very dangerous situation for our country, and I’m not even a debt-phobiac,” said Stephen Moore, an economist at the right-wing Heritage Foundation and a Trump economic adviser. “I’ve done this for 40 years. That [CBO report] was the first one that really scared my pants off. There’s no bending of the curve down at all. It just keeps going up and up and up and up.”

Biden has said he would not consider cuts to Social Security and Medicare, the pension and health-care programs that face looming trust fund shortfalls and will take up larger shares of federal spending in the future. Trump has floated cuts to the programs, but quickly backpedaled and insisted he wouldn’t support reducing benefits.

The Republican Study Committee, a leading GOP caucus in the House, suggested cuts to social safety net programs in its 2024 budget.

“You’ve got to get growth up, because growth is what creates the revenues that you need to catch up with the spending,” Moore said.

But the economy grew 1.6 percent on an annualized basis in the first quarter of 2024, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and hitting the rates Moore says would help the budget might be tough. Growth rates would need to be exponentially higher to outpace the United States’ spending and borrowing needs, independent experts say.

A lower corporate tax rate would unlock that economic growth, some conservatives say. Trump recently suggested cutting the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, which would add between $150 billion and $200 billion more to the debt, according to federal estimates.

“There is no credible argument that we will be able to grow our way out of the problems that we are facing, and that becomes even harder if we continue to add more debt through further tax cuts or spending increases that are debt-financed,” MacGuineas said.

The Biden administration has accused Trump and Republicans of moving to curb the deficit only when Democrats are in office, running up trillions in debt during GOP control.

“After the prior administration increased the debt by a record $8 trillion and didn’t sign a single law to reduce the deficit, President Biden has signed $1 trillion of deficit reduction into law. While congressional Republicans want to blow up the debt again with $5 trillion in more Trump tax cuts, President Biden’s budget would lower the deficit by $3 trillion by making billionaires and biggest corporations pay their fair share and cutting spending on special interests,” White House spokesman Jeremy M. Edwards said in a statement.

Biden says his agenda could both fund new programs and trim the debt. He would offset the spending with large tax increases on the rich and major companies.

The Biden administration sees money-saving policies on Medicare and reduced spending on other “special interests,” such as fossil fuels, as a way to curb federal outlays, said Daniel Hornung, deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, in an interview.

“You’ve got to bring revenues in better line with expenditures,” Hornung said. “Obviously, there are two sides to that equation, and the president has proposed a budget that both brings up the amount of revenue we’re raising as a share of the economy through raising taxes on wealthy Americans and large corporations, and also brings down specific outlays that the federal government is making.”

The Trump campaign blasted Biden’s handling of the budget.

“In just three years, Joe Biden’s out of control spending created the worst inflation crisis in generations,” Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “The American people cannot afford four more years of Bidenomics. When President Trump is back in the White House, he will reimplement MAGAnomics and restore an economy that benefits all Americans.”

Independent budget experts are wary of both campaigns’ claims.

“Can I give them both C-minuses on debt policy?” Fichtner said.

The U.S. government owes $34.7 trillion, according to the Treasury, the vast majority of which is held by the public through bonds and other borrowing instruments. The cost of that debt keeps climbing as the government spends more — and must borrow more, because taxes and other revenue don’t cover all the spending.

The CBO projects that the annual U.S. deficit will reach $2.8 trillion by 2034, but that estimate only considers current law, and not Biden’s and Trump’s plans on taxation and spending or other changes that may arise over the next decade.

As the deficit grows, borrowing becomes more expensive through higher interest rates. And as those interest payments take up a larger share of the federal budget, they crowd out other investments that Congress and the president could make.

That has the potential of limiting economic growth, which depresses tax revenue — and could force the government to borrow even more, repeating the same cycle. This year, the government is forecast to spend $892 billion on interest payments alone.

“We have all the conditions where the fiscal situation could quickly become very dangerous,” MacGuineas said.

Such an outcome is probably years away, experts say. But the new debt figures are an early warning sign, especially since most economists don’t know the threshold at which lenders will start to balk at the United States’ debt load.

Edited June 24 by homersapien