$3.5T Not As Big As You Might Think

[Rambunctious]

Trump didn't write the budget nor did he have much of anything to do with it. While I agree when you are $30 trillion in debt you don't give millionaire's tax breaks to buy cars, Trump didn't strip squat.

Not true...he took the salt away from the rich...don't you remember the dems in NY and NJ screaming their greedy lungs out over it...Trump took goodies from wealthy and you dems don't even know it....nice media we have in America....

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

On top of the 28-30 trillion we already owe. We need to paydown debt, not create more. It destabilizes the economy, weakens the dollar and it leads to more debt.

Of course, it does.............................when a democrat is in office.
When a republican is in office, it's called..................capitalism.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Not true...he took the salt away from the rich...don't you remember the dems in NY and NJ screaming their greedy lungs out over it...Trump took goodies from wealthy and you dems don't even know it....nice media we have in America....

Yeah, I remember.

December 24, 2017
President Trump kicked off his holiday weekend at Mar-a-Lago Friday night at a dinner where he told friends, "You all just got a lot richer," referencing the sweeping tax overhaul he signed into law hours earlier.

The president has spent many weekends of his presidency so far at the "Winter White House," where initiation fees cost $200,000, annual dues cost $14,000, and some of the most affluent members of society have the opportunity to interact with the president in a setting while many Americans cannot.

 

[Godboy]

Or Republican.

That doesn't change the fact that we're talking about $350 B a year. Less actually because of savings in the bill.

Youre fucking delusional.

 

[Rambunctious]

Yeah, I remember.

December 24, 2017
President Trump kicked off his holiday weekend at Mar-a-Lago Friday night at a dinner where he told friends, "You all just got a lot richer," referencing the sweeping tax overhaul he signed into law hours earlier.

The president has spent many weekends of his presidency so far at the "Winter White House," where initiation fees cost $200,000, annual dues cost $14,000, and some of the most affluent members of society have the opportunity to interact with the president in a setting while many Americans cannot.

Trump said that to wealthy earners...people who own businesses and work for a living...the dems seem only interested in protecting their donors and the non working wealthy...the people that have zero income but are super rich.....

 

[pknopp]

Not true...he took the salt away from the rich...don't you remember the dems in NY and NJ screaming their greedy lungs out over it...Trump took goodies from wealthy and you dems don't even know it....nice media we have in America...

Being that I'm not a (D) may be a part of your confusion here.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Trump said that to wealthy earners...people who own businesses and work for a living...the dems seem only interested in protecting their donors and the non working wealthy...the people that have zero income but are super rich.....

Sure Trump did.
The gaslighting is in the Trumptards DNA.

 

[hadit]

Trump didn't write the budget nor did he have much of anything to do with it. While I agree when you are $30 trillion in debt you don't give millionaire's tax breaks to buy cars, Trump didn't strip squat.

The bottom line remains, the president can't strip anything out of the spending bills sent his way. All he can do is sign or veto the whole thing, and that's why Congress keeps sending up those massive omnibus spending bills stuffed to the gills will garbage spending.

 

[pknopp]

The bottom line remains, the president can't strip anything out of the spending bills sent his way. All he can do is sign or veto the whole thing, and that's why Congress keeps sending up those massive omnibus spending bills stuffed to the gills will garbage spending.

Trump supporters want to give him credit for things they like but not the $8 trillion debt.

 

[Papageorgio]

Of course, it does.............................when a democrat is in office.
When a republican is in office, it's called..................capitalism.

Neither side is any different when it comes to running up the debt. It isn’t smart and if morons can’t get over ”well the other side does it.” That is the problem, neither side wants to take any responsibility for the massive debt. This is what happens when a two party system works for the rich and special interests in stead of the people who voted them in.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Neither side is any different when it comes to running up the debt. It isn’t smart and if morons can’t get over ”well the other side does it.” That is the problem, neither side wants to take any responsibility for the massive debt. This is what happens when a two party system works for the rich and special interests in stead of the people who voted them in.

True but only ONE party are self-described "conservatives", that consistently, whine about spending and the debt/deficit, when they are not in office, they have done it since they lost to Clinton, decades ago.

 

[basquebromance]

first it's 3.5 trillion then it's 2.9 trillion then it's 1.5 trillion...i've lost count...maybe after Sleepy Joe loses to Trump in 2024, he can become the new host of "The Price Is Right"!

 

[vege57]

It actually costs $0.

Left wing math.

What they mean is that they are spending zero dollars of their money

 

[basquebromance]

Democrats control Washington but cannot govern.

 

[Lesh]

Not true...he took the salt away from the rich...don't you remember the dems in NY and NJ screaming their greedy lungs out over it...Trump took goodies from wealthy and you dems don't even know it....nice media we have in America....

That wasn't the rich. They did well with Trump's tax cuts.

You're talking about middle class folks who lost tax deductions. Cost be $2500/year. I am by no means rich

 

[Lesh]

This is a deficit economy

That's HOW it works.

And the government...unlike any other entity, ONLY pays the interest on loans.

Our national debt only costs us $370 billion. Less than half what we pay for Defense.

IF this 3.5T were added to the debt that interest payment (and that is not the case...very little will actually be added to the debt) it would be what? $420B?

Hardly unaffordable

 

[Papageorgio]

True but only ONE party are self-described "conservatives", that consistently, whine about spending and the debt/deficit, when they are not in office, they have done it since they lost to Clinton, decades ago.

That makes no difference to me, they both spend money we don’t have. I find both parties claim crap they are and are really not. Both are disgusting an neither should be trusted. The rich take care of their own first. That is all this bill is about.

 

[Papageorgio]

This is a deficit economy

That's HOW it works.

And the government...unlike any other entity, ONLY pays the interest on loans.

Our national debt only costs us $370 billion. Less than half what we pay for Defense.

IF this 3.5T were added to the debt that interest payment (and that is not the case...very little will actually be added to the debt) it would be what? $420B?

Hardly unaffordable

Keep repeating it lemming. It is going to comeback and bite us and there will be no easy fix.

The Economic Impact

Learn how rising national debt impacts your wallet, making borrowing more expensive. Take action to secure a sustainable fiscal future for crucial investments. Sign the pledge today.

www.itsuptous.org

Our National Debt

America’s fiscal health and economic strength are closely linked. Learn more about the drivers of our national debt and its economic impact.

www.pgpf.org

 

[Lesh]

Keep repeating it lemming. It is going to comeback and bite us and there will be no easy fix.

The Economic Impact

Learn how rising national debt impacts your wallet, making borrowing more expensive. Take action to secure a sustainable fiscal future for crucial investments. Sign the pledge today.

www.itsuptous.org

Our National Debt

America’s fiscal health and economic strength are closely linked. Learn more about the drivers of our national debt and its economic impact.

www.pgpf.org

The crowding out effect has been discussed for over a hundred years in various forms. During much of this time, people thought of capital as being finite and confined to individual countries, which was largely the case due to lower volumes of international trade compared to the present day. In that context, increased taxation for public works projects and public spending could be directly linked to a reduction in the capacity for private spending within a given country, as less money was available.

The Crowding Out Effect vs. Crowding In​

On the other hand, macroeconomic theories such as Chartalism and Post-Keynesian posit that government borrowing, in a modern economy operating significantly below capacity, can actually increase demand by generating employment, thereby stimulating private spending as well. This process is often referred to as "crowding in."


The crowding in theory has gained some currency among economists in recent years after it was noted that, during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, massive spending on the part of the federal government on bonds and other securities actually had the effect of reducing interest rates.1

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The crowding out effect has been discussed for over a hundred years in various forms. During much of this time, people thought of capital as being finite and confined to individual countries, which was largely the case due to lower volumes of international trade compared to the present day. In that context, increased taxation for public works projects and public spending could be directly linked to a reduction in the capacity for private spending within a given country, as less money was available.

The Crowding Out Effect vs. Crowding In​

On the other hand, macroeconomic theories such as Chartalism and Post-Keynesian posit that government borrowing, in a modern economy operating significantly below capacity, can actually increase demand by generating employment, thereby stimulating private spending as well. This process is often referred to as "crowding in."


The crowding in theory has gained some currency among economists in recent years after it was noted that, during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, massive spending on the part of the federal government on bonds and other securities actually had the effect of reducing interest rates.1

The crowding in theory has gained some currency among economists in recent years after it was noted that, during the Great Recession of 2007–2009, massive spending on the part of the federal government on bonds and other securities actually had the effect of reducing interest rates.1

Massive buying of bonds (by the Fed) reduced rates? DUH!