Mnuchin Announces The Country Could Be Broke By September

[El Correcto]

There is a model state for that... California
It's the 5th largest economy in the world, and is currently running a $15 billion dollar surplus.
Kansas... didn't show too well in trickle down mode.

I don't care what economic theory you want to point to, the scoreboard is pretty hard to deny.

It’s not hard at all. I don’t even have to look up how the commies managed to run a surplus, it’s probably a fluke, a windfall from the private sector booming.

They will readjust, increase spending and begin going deeper in debt after the windfall doesn’t happen again. They will spend like drunken Marxists, trust me that “budget surplus” pisses them off. It shows they are failures at the only thing they can accomplish in this world, pissing away other people’s money. They didn’t manage to spend it all so now we got to hear about proposals to buy illegal aliens healthcare.

 

[brownmonster]

It’s not hard at all. I don’t even have to look up how the commies managed to run a surplus, it’s probably a fluke, a windfall from the private sector booming.

They will readjust, increase spending and begin going deeper in debt after the windfall doesn’t happen again. They will spend like drunken Marxists, trust me that “budget surplus” pisses them off. It shows they are failures at the only thing they can accomplish in this world, pissing away other people’s money. They didn’t manage to spend it all so now we got to hear about proposals to buy illegal aliens healthcare.

Alrighty then.

 

[newfie]

The promise of 4% annual GDP growth for perpetuity which has never happened and likely never will happen was the lie Trump and his minions used to sell the scam to the clueless masses. .

has happened quite often

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

has happened quite often

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

Under Democrats?
And never under Trump?
Is that your point?
Lulz

 

[bacha29]

has happened quite often

US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

Thanks for confirming what I said Newf. Notice what I said ....."for perpetuity" meaning that it will happen EVERY quarter and thanks to the data you have so graciously provided the fact that it has never happened is right there for all to see. Yet in order to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts a 4% annualized GDP growth is required every quarter of every single year . What do you think the odds are of that happening? And when it doesn't happen which indications are it will be quire often the rate of federal borrowing increases accordingly.

 

[newfie]

Thanks for confirming what I said Newf. Notice what I said ....."for perpetuity" meaning that it will happen EVERY quarter and thanks to the data you have so graciously provided the fact that it has never happened is right there for all to see. Yet in order to offset the revenue loss from the tax cuts a 4% annualized GDP growth is required every quarter of every single year . What do you think the odds are of that happening? And when it doesn't happen which indications are it will be quire often the rate of federal borrowing increases accordingly.

yes it has happened many times and no Manuchin never said it would happen for perpetuity . that argument is totally ridiculous to make since Manuchin would never forecast a future democratic administration continuing favorable economic results.

your intent was to make an irrelevant futuristic argument to diminish what has been strong GDP results in the present?

 

[Meat]

This country has been bankrupt for years, don't attempt to lay it at the feet of the current administration, even the last. Let's go smart guy, explain how you unload now.

[/QUOTE]

I generally don’t engage those that cannot grasp a simple concept such as bankruptcy (net debt exceeds net assets) in conversation - this country is not currently bankrupt, nor has it been bankrupt for years - but I suppose, against my better judgment, I’ll deviate from this policy this one time.

My post was merely pointing out how close to the edge the economy is (you seemed to miss my follow up post which states this is a systematic problem that has persisted over decades and various administrations).

I think it’s reasonable to point out how the current administration has contributed to the malaise. After all, Trump said his policies would lead to balanced budgets within a decade, and we are looking at trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see - sad (BTW, next years 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is AFTER substantial cuts to social spending)

At this pace, extrapolated over eight years, the national debt will increase almost as much under Trump than it did under Obama. At least Obama had somewhat of an excuse as he was dealing with the fallout from a global economic crisis. What’s the excuse for such debt when the economy is “arguably the greatest ever”?

A: there isn’t one. This country is in dire, dire shape.

 

[bacha29]

yes it has happened many times and no Manuchin never said it would happen for perpetuity . that argument is totally ridiculous to make since Manuchin would never forecast a future democratic administration continuing favorable economic results.

your intent was to make an irrelevant futuristic argument to diminish what has been strong GDP results in the present?

Strong results? You meaning borrowing to make up the revenue shortfall? You got that right. We'll see about those so called "strong results" when earnings season starts this week along with forward looking guidance which is not expected to be very encouraging. What Manuchin has to say about GDP growth doesn't matter 4% every quarter every year is what is needed to offset the revenue loss.

 

[newfie]

I think it’s reasonable to point out how the current administration has contributed to the malaise. After all, Trump said his policies would lead to balanced budgets within a decade, and we are looking at trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see - sad (BTW, next years 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is AFTER substantial cuts to social spending)
[/QUOTE]

so your argument is the president and not congress control the budget?

 

[newfie]

What Manuchin has to say about GDP growth doesn't matter 4% every quarter every year is what is needed to offset the revenue loss.

so now once challenged you're moon walking away from your original quote of Manuchin?

 

[Meat]

I think it’s reasonable to point out how the current administration has contributed to the malaise. After all, Trump said his policies would lead to balanced budgets within a decade, and we are looking at trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see - sad (BTW, next years 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is AFTER substantial cuts to social spending)

so your argument is the president and not congress control the budget?[/QUOTE]


The recent budget proposal submitted by Trump contains a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit AFTER significant cuts are made to social spending.

 

[newfie]

so your argument is the president and not congress control the budget?

The recent budget proposal submitted by Trump contains a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit AFTER significant cuts are made to social spending.[/QUOTE]

the proposal that moves the social spending from one bucket to another that dems love to try to rebrand as a cut in social spending? is this the tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth tactic you liberals love to employ? Sourced below from your liberally biased politifact site.

"What experts say

Beyond the raw numbers, though, these figures are misleading, experts told us.

"Those numbers only count the ‘takes’ and not where the money is going," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit budget analysis group.

About $1.2 trillion of the savings from Medicaid and Obamacare would be redirected to block grants for states, Goldwein said. The federal government currently matches state Medicaid costs without a cap. Trump’s budget would use a formula to give each state a fixed amount for Medicaid each year. If costs go above that amount, states would have to cut services or bear the cost."

Did Trump try to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Republicans arguing that we never run a balanced budget so it's ok for them to not even try.

Just hypocrites making excuses.

Losers.

 

[Meat]

The recent budget proposal submitted by Trump contains a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit AFTER significant cuts are made to social spending.

the proposal that moves the social spending from one bucket to another that dems love to try to rebrand as a cut in social spending? is this the tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth tactic you liberals love to employ? Sourced below from your liberally biased politifact site.

"What experts say

Beyond the raw numbers, though, these figures are misleading, experts told us.

"Those numbers only count the ‘takes’ and not where the money is going," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit budget analysis group.

About $1.2 trillion of the savings from Medicaid and Obamacare would be redirected to block grants for states, Goldwein said. The federal government currently matches state Medicaid costs without a cap. Trump’s budget would use a formula to give each state a fixed amount for Medicaid each year. If costs go above that amount, states would have to cut services or bear the cost."

Did Trump try to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

[/QUOTE]

Misleading? All the articles I read on the subject mentioned the 1.2 trillion that would be redirected (it has not been determined what programs will “benefit” from the redirection). This, however, still results in substantial cuts to overall social spending (1.5 trillion?).

So, in summation, the proposed budget which contains a 1.1 trillion shortfall indeed came directly from Trump, and it indeed contains significant cuts to social spending.

 

[bacha29]

the proposal that moves the social spending from one bucket to another that dems love to try to rebrand as a cut in social spending? is this the tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth tactic you liberals love to employ? Sourced below from your liberally biased politifact site.

"What experts say

Beyond the raw numbers, though, these figures are misleading, experts told us.

"Those numbers only count the ‘takes’ and not where the money is going," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit budget analysis group.

About $1.2 trillion of the savings from Medicaid and Obamacare would be redirected to block grants for states, Goldwein said. The federal government currently matches state Medicaid costs without a cap. Trump’s budget would use a formula to give each state a fixed amount for Medicaid each year. If costs go above that amount, states would have to cut services or bear the cost."

Did Trump try to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

Misleading? All the articles I read on the subject mentioned the 1.2 trillion that would be redirected (it has not been determined what programs will “benefit” from the redirection). This, however, still results in substantial cuts to overall social spending (1.5 trillion?).

So, in summation, the proposed budget which contains a 1.1 trillion shortfall indeed came directly from Trump, and it indeed contains significant cuts to social spending.[/QUOTE]
Indeed . Many such programs are mandated by law to be fully funded. Every Trump budget calls for significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other similar social programs but because they are mandated by law and require full funding the question is who and how will the funding shortfall be made up? The answer is obvious......The states will have to make it up by either raising state taxes or taking funding requirements and passing them down to guy at the bottom....county and local municipalities .
Right now the federal deficit for the fiscal year is running at about 4% of GDP and that's why you need the 4% GDP growth. However for the 2020 fiscal it's expected to exceed 5% of GDP. The percentages are now getting into the numbers
experienced during recessions when gross receipts were down and federal government dumping mountains of money into the economy in an effort to slow and hopefully stop the recession before asset values reached flat out zero and into a full blown depression from which escaping would be difficult if not impossible.

Given that we're borrowing at these levels at a time of growth you have to stop and think about what measures if any congress, the president and the Fed will have at their disposal to combat the next recession especially if it's at the levels experienced just a decade ago.

 

[Meat]

Misleading? All the articles I read on the subject mentioned the 1.2 trillion that would be redirected (it has not been determined what programs will “benefit” from the redirection). This, however, still results in substantial cuts to overall social spending (1.5 trillion?).

So, in summation, the proposed budget which contains a 1.1 trillion shortfall indeed came directly from Trump, and it indeed contains significant cuts to social spending.

Given that we're borrowing at these levels at a time of growth you have to stop and think about what measures if any congress, the president and the Fed will have at their disposal to combat the next recession especially if it's at the levels experienced just a decade ago.[/QUOTE]

The “arrows” of cutting taxes, lowering interest rates and deficit spending have long been shot.

 

[rickyb]

Waaahhhh military spending that is around 500-600billion and one of the original functions of the federal government.

Just ignore the 3-4 trillion on social programs and spending that is a relatively new thing to the country.

the empire is over 1 trillion every year. 600 billion number excludes a bunch of costs.

 

[floridays]

I generally don’t engage those that cannot grasp a simple concept such as bankruptcy (net debt exceeds net assets) in conversation - this country is not currently bankrupt, nor has it been bankrupt for years - but I suppose, against my better judgment, I’ll deviate from this policy this one time.

My post was merely pointing out how close to the edge the economy is (you seemed to miss my follow up post which states this is a systematic problem that has persisted over decades and various administrations).

I think it’s reasonable to point out how the current administration has contributed to the malaise. After all, Trump said his policies would lead to balanced budgets within a decade, and we are looking at trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see - sad (BTW, next years 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is AFTER substantial cuts to social spending)

At this pace, extrapolated over eight years, the national debt will increase almost as much under Trump than it did under Obama. At least Obama had somewhat of an excuse as he was dealing with the fallout from a global economic crisis. What’s the excuse for such debt when the economy is “arguably the greatest ever”?

A: there isn’t one. This country is in dire, dire shape.[/QUOTE]
You continue to talk too much. I'll play your silly game.
As long as a nation can print currency, bankruptcy will never happen, in legal terms.
In reality and concrete terms this nation can never meet it's obligations, period...
In my state of reality I consider that state of affairs to be a definition of bankruptcy.
There is no chance in hell this nation can meet it's obligations without printing fiat money.

We are bankrupt.
Live in your reality.

 

[bbsam]

I generally don’t engage those that cannot grasp a simple concept such as bankruptcy (net debt exceeds net assets) in conversation - this country is not currently bankrupt, nor has it been bankrupt for years - but I suppose, against my better judgment, I’ll deviate from this policy this one time.

My post was merely pointing out how close to the edge the economy is (you seemed to miss my follow up post which states this is a systematic problem that has persisted over decades and various administrations).

I think it’s reasonable to point out how the current administration has contributed to the malaise. After all, Trump said his policies would lead to balanced budgets within a decade, and we are looking at trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see - sad (BTW, next years 1.1 trillion dollar deficit is AFTER substantial cuts to social spending)

At this pace, extrapolated over eight years, the national debt will increase almost as much under Trump than it did under Obama. At least Obama had somewhat of an excuse as he was dealing with the fallout from a global economic crisis. What’s the excuse for such debt when the economy is “arguably the greatest ever”?

A: there isn’t one. This country is in dire, dire shape.

You continue to talk too much. I'll play your silly game.
As long as a nation can print currency, bankruptcy will never happen, in legal terms.
In reality and concrete terms this nation can never meet it's obligations, period...
In my state of reality I consider that state of affairs to be a definition of bankruptcy.
There is no chance in hell this nation can meet it's obligations without printing fiat money.

We are bankrupt.
Live in your reality.[/QUOTE]
My guess is you’ll forget all of this once Democrats are in power again.

 

[newfie]

the proposal that moves the social spending from one bucket to another that dems love to try to rebrand as a cut in social spending? is this the tell the lie often enough and it becomes the truth tactic you liberals love to employ? Sourced below from your liberally biased politifact site.

"What experts say

Beyond the raw numbers, though, these figures are misleading, experts told us.

"Those numbers only count the ‘takes’ and not where the money is going," said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-profit budget analysis group.

About $1.2 trillion of the savings from Medicaid and Obamacare would be redirected to block grants for states, Goldwein said. The federal government currently matches state Medicaid costs without a cap. Trump’s budget would use a formula to give each state a fixed amount for Medicaid each year. If costs go above that amount, states would have to cut services or bear the cost."

Did Trump try to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

Misleading? All the articles I read on the subject mentioned the 1.2 trillion that would be redirected (it has not been determined what programs will “benefit” from the redirection). This, however, still results in substantial cuts to overall social spending (1.5 trillion?).

So, in summation, the proposed budget which contains a 1.1 trillion shortfall indeed came directly from Trump, and it indeed contains significant cuts to social spending.[/QUOTE]

moving the money from one part of the budget to another is not a cut.

if you move your monthly budget from your beer fund to your pot fund its still in your budget and you're still getting a buzz