Spreading debt bubble devours Trumpland: Fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans

[Andylusion]

That works for me. What do you want to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Farm subsidies? Green energy funding? Education? What specifically do you want to cut?

I would start with a 2.5 percent across the board cut every year for the next 5 years. That is from every department in the US Government to include the DOD.

Let the departments decide where to cut, they know where the waste and abuse is.

I would also immediately end the "use it or lose it next time" mentality that forces department to spend every dime given because they are afraid of losing it on the next budget. When I was in the Corps we would go "shopping" every September to make sure we spent every time, and starting in August I would have to schedule cross country flights for the pilots even if they did not need the flight time to spend every dime of our TAD and fuel money.

After those 5 years I would then start on more strategic cuts.

What you experiences is true of every single government run anything. That is universally true. Every single department, is zero incentive to be frugal, because if you don't spend every dime the government gives you, then is both makes it impossible to make the case you need more money, and it gives critics the case that you don't need as much as you were given, because you the fact you didn't spend it, means you didn't need it.

The only reason you hear about waste in the corps, but not as much in any other government agency, is simply because of the people who know about it.

People that are in the FBI for example, are in the FBI for a career that will last a life time. They are not going to report waste, because they don't want to blow their promotion, or even risk losing their careers.

People in the military, are there, and then they leave. I've heard dozens of stories like your.

But the truth is, all government agencies operate this way. At the end of the fiscal year, they spend every dollar they have. You can't risk having money left over, and then something happens and you need more funding, and ignorant politicians go.... but you didn't even spend all the money from last year, so why do you need more?

Cutting defense is really risky. The problem with doing that, is if a conflict breaks out, and we need to intervene, the cost to setup a new weapons plant, is many times more expensive, than keeping an existing plant open.

The cost to setup a new Air Force base, is many times more expensive than maintaining an existing base.

I happen to go to an old air force base, that had been decommissioned under Clinton, and within 10 years, the entire field and runways were all completely unusable. If they ended up needing that base, it would cost millions of dollars in renovations, whereas if they had maintained it, it could have lasted decades longer. Just weeds alone, will destroy the runway, if no one seals it, and clears it.

Now I'm open to the idea we can cut the military.... but we need to be a little more thoughtful than just a blanket cut.

The pattern we've seen in history, is that we cut the military in the 70s, and then Reagan had to rebuild it which was very expensive. Then Clinton cut the military in the 90s, and Bush had to rebuild it, which was very expensive. Then Obama cut the military, and now Trump is rebuilding it.

It would have been cheaper and more cost effective, if we had just maintained a steady budget on the military, without cutting everything and having to rebuild it over and over.

It would be even cheaper not to start decade long wars that are not needed and to not invade sovereign nations that were no threat to us.

Just a thought...

*sigh*....

The Rockefeller report, which as the name suggests was headed by Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, concluded that all of the information we had at the time we went into Iraq, suggested that everything Bush said was justification for going into Iraq, was true.

That's a fact. Not debatable. If you want to argue with an investigation by Congress on the intelligence we had going into Iraq, be my guest. But until that conclusion is overturned, Bush was reacting to the best intel we had.

I get it, that it is easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight. But at that time, the intel said that Saddam was in fact pursuing WMDs, and working relations with terrorist groups.

Now if you have a magic 8 ball the reveals all secrets, so we can avoid any possible wrong information, by all means contact the government, and provide the infallible source of international intelligence.

Until then.... this garbage complaint about how we should not have done X and Y, when you were not there, and didn't see the information Bush saw..... yeah grow up.

 

[Andylusion]

Isn't this debt economy global?

as well as cumulative ......

???

~S~

I don't know exactly what you mean by a global debt. Are you saying that many countries are running a debt? Yes.

But you seem to be referring to US debt, and saying it's global.

No, not so much. US debt, is just that. There is nothing global about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Until then.... this garbage complaint about how we should not have done X and Y, when you were not there, and didn't see the information Bush saw....

Just one little problem, there. And please don't take this to reflect on MY opinion or support of the invasion of Iraq:

Prior to the invasion, Bush received reports that the intelligence he was relying on was not only unreliable, but likely false. We know this for a fact.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That works for me. What do you want to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Farm subsidies? Green energy funding? Education? What specifically do you want to cut?

I would start with a 2.5 percent across the board cut every year for the next 5 years. That is from every department in the US Government to include the DOD.

Let the departments decide where to cut, they know where the waste and abuse is.

I would also immediately end the "use it or lose it next time" mentality that forces department to spend every dime given because they are afraid of losing it on the next budget. When I was in the Corps we would go "shopping" every September to make sure we spent every time, and starting in August I would have to schedule cross country flights for the pilots even if they did not need the flight time to spend every dime of our TAD and fuel money.

After those 5 years I would then start on more strategic cuts.

What you experiences is true of every single government run anything. That is universally true. Every single department, is zero incentive to be frugal, because if you don't spend every dime the government gives you, then is both makes it impossible to make the case you need more money, and it gives critics the case that you don't need as much as you were given, because you the fact you didn't spend it, means you didn't need it.

The only reason you hear about waste in the corps, but not as much in any other government agency, is simply because of the people who know about it.

People that are in the FBI for example, are in the FBI for a career that will last a life time. They are not going to report waste, because they don't want to blow their promotion, or even risk losing their careers.

People in the military, are there, and then they leave. I've heard dozens of stories like your.

But the truth is, all government agencies operate this way. At the end of the fiscal year, they spend every dollar they have. You can't risk having money left over, and then something happens and you need more funding, and ignorant politicians go.... but you didn't even spend all the money from last year, so why do you need more?

Cutting defense is really risky. The problem with doing that, is if a conflict breaks out, and we need to intervene, the cost to setup a new weapons plant, is many times more expensive, than keeping an existing plant open.

The cost to setup a new Air Force base, is many times more expensive than maintaining an existing base.

I happen to go to an old air force base, that had been decommissioned under Clinton, and within 10 years, the entire field and runways were all completely unusable. If they ended up needing that base, it would cost millions of dollars in renovations, whereas if they had maintained it, it could have lasted decades longer. Just weeds alone, will destroy the runway, if no one seals it, and clears it.

Now I'm open to the idea we can cut the military.... but we need to be a little more thoughtful than just a blanket cut.

The pattern we've seen in history, is that we cut the military in the 70s, and then Reagan had to rebuild it which was very expensive. Then Clinton cut the military in the 90s, and Bush had to rebuild it, which was very expensive. Then Obama cut the military, and now Trump is rebuilding it.

It would have been cheaper and more cost effective, if we had just maintained a steady budget on the military, without cutting everything and having to rebuild it over and over.

It would be even cheaper not to start decade long wars that are not needed and to not invade sovereign nations that were no threat to us.

Just a thought...

*sigh*....

The Rockefeller report, which as the name suggests was headed by Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, concluded that all of the information we had at the time we went into Iraq, suggested that everything Bush said was justification for going into Iraq, was true.

That's a fact. Not debatable. If you want to argue with an investigation by Congress on the intelligence we had going into Iraq, be my guest. But until that conclusion is overturned, Bush was reacting to the best intel we had.

I get it, that it is easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight. But at that time, the intel said that Saddam was in fact pursuing WMDs, and working relations with terrorist groups.

Now if you have a magic 8 ball the reveals all secrets, so we can avoid any possible wrong information, by all means contact the government, and provide the infallible source of international intelligence.

Until then.... this garbage complaint about how we should not have done X and Y, when you were not there, and didn't see the information Bush saw..... yeah grow up.

And this is why we can never spend any less on our military...why we spend more than the next 9 nations combined.

Of course Congress found the war valid, they fucking voted for it. You think they were going to out themselves?

Invading Iraq will go down as one of the greatest blunders in the history of the world. We took our eye off of the real target, we disrupted an entire region that is still feeling the pain from our actions and we unleashed ISIS on the world...something that would not have happened if we did not invade Iraq.

This does not even take into account the 2.4 trillion and counting that invading Iraq cost of, the nearly 5000 dead US service members, and the more than 40,000 inured which will continue to cost our country.

But hey yeah...defend your man Bush...he was not manipulated in the least by his "advisers".

 

[eagle1462010]

That works for me. What do you want to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Farm subsidies? Green energy funding? Education? What specifically do you want to cut?

I would start with a 2.5 percent across the board cut every year for the next 5 years. That is from every department in the US Government to include the DOD.

Let the departments decide where to cut, they know where the waste and abuse is.

I would also immediately end the "use it or lose it next time" mentality that forces department to spend every dime given because they are afraid of losing it on the next budget. When I was in the Corps we would go "shopping" every September to make sure we spent every time, and starting in August I would have to schedule cross country flights for the pilots even if they did not need the flight time to spend every dime of our TAD and fuel money.

After those 5 years I would then start on more strategic cuts.

On Discrestionary Spending ONLY.

You can't cut MANDATORY SPENDING...........which is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.......

That is why it will not work........put on the breaks a little......but we are still gonna go off the tracks.

 

[Andylusion]

That works for me. What do you want to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Farm subsidies? Green energy funding? Education? What specifically do you want to cut?

I would start with a 2.5 percent across the board cut every year for the next 5 years. That is from every department in the US Government to include the DOD.

Let the departments decide where to cut, they know where the waste and abuse is.

I would also immediately end the "use it or lose it next time" mentality that forces department to spend every dime given because they are afraid of losing it on the next budget. When I was in the Corps we would go "shopping" every September to make sure we spent every time, and starting in August I would have to schedule cross country flights for the pilots even if they did not need the flight time to spend every dime of our TAD and fuel money.

After those 5 years I would then start on more strategic cuts.

What you experiences is true of every single government run anything. That is universally true. Every single department, is zero incentive to be frugal, because if you don't spend every dime the government gives you, then is both makes it impossible to make the case you need more money, and it gives critics the case that you don't need as much as you were given, because you the fact you didn't spend it, means you didn't need it.

The only reason you hear about waste in the corps, but not as much in any other government agency, is simply because of the people who know about it.

People that are in the FBI for example, are in the FBI for a career that will last a life time. They are not going to report waste, because they don't want to blow their promotion, or even risk losing their careers.

People in the military, are there, and then they leave. I've heard dozens of stories like your.

But the truth is, all government agencies operate this way. At the end of the fiscal year, they spend every dollar they have. You can't risk having money left over, and then something happens and you need more funding, and ignorant politicians go.... but you didn't even spend all the money from last year, so why do you need more?

Cutting defense is really risky. The problem with doing that, is if a conflict breaks out, and we need to intervene, the cost to setup a new weapons plant, is many times more expensive, than keeping an existing plant open.

The cost to setup a new Air Force base, is many times more expensive than maintaining an existing base.

I happen to go to an old air force base, that had been decommissioned under Clinton, and within 10 years, the entire field and runways were all completely unusable. If they ended up needing that base, it would cost millions of dollars in renovations, whereas if they had maintained it, it could have lasted decades longer. Just weeds alone, will destroy the runway, if no one seals it, and clears it.

Now I'm open to the idea we can cut the military.... but we need to be a little more thoughtful than just a blanket cut.

The pattern we've seen in history, is that we cut the military in the 70s, and then Reagan had to rebuild it which was very expensive. Then Clinton cut the military in the 90s, and Bush had to rebuild it, which was very expensive. Then Obama cut the military, and now Trump is rebuilding it.

It would have been cheaper and more cost effective, if we had just maintained a steady budget on the military, without cutting everything and having to rebuild it over and over.

It would be even cheaper not to start decade long wars that are not needed and to not invade sovereign nations that were no threat to us.

Just a thought...

*sigh*....

The Rockefeller report, which as the name suggests was headed by Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, concluded that all of the information we had at the time we went into Iraq, suggested that everything Bush said was justification for going into Iraq, was true.

That's a fact. Not debatable. If you want to argue with an investigation by Congress on the intelligence we had going into Iraq, be my guest. But until that conclusion is overturned, Bush was reacting to the best intel we had.

I get it, that it is easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight. But at that time, the intel said that Saddam was in fact pursuing WMDs, and working relations with terrorist groups.

Now if you have a magic 8 ball the reveals all secrets, so we can avoid any possible wrong information, by all means contact the government, and provide the infallible source of international intelligence.

Until then.... this garbage complaint about how we should not have done X and Y, when you were not there, and didn't see the information Bush saw..... yeah grow up.

And this is why we can never spend any less on our military...why we spend more than the next 9 nations combined.

Of course Congress found the war valid, they fucking voted for it. You think they were going to out themselves?

Invading Iraq will go down as one of the greatest blunders in the history of the world. We took our eye off of the real target, we disrupted an entire region that is still feeling the pain from our actions and we unleashed ISIS on the world...something that would not have happened if we did not invade Iraq.

This does not even take into account the 2.4 trillion and counting that invading Iraq cost of, the nearly 5000 dead US service members, and the more than 40,000 inured which will continue to cost our country.

But hey yeah...defend your man Bush...he was not manipulated in the least by his "advisers".

No, actually that isn't why we spend 9 times the rest of the world. There are two basic reasons we spend more than the rest of the world....

The first reason we spend more money on the military than anywhere else, is simply because we have the best military.

That might sound trite, but it's simply the truth.

Let me give you a comparison. It's not perfect because prices change constantly, but Intel CPUs.... Intel has an i9, and i7 and i5 and i3. Best I can find the cheapest i9 CPU is $1,000. Cheapest i7 is $300, i5 $200 and i3 $100.

So let me ask you, why is there such a massive, huge gap between the top end and everything else? It's really simple. The bleeding edge of new tech is always the most expensive, and this is generally because the companies have to earn back the hundreds of millions they poured into research and design on a new product.

But after that product has been out 5 years to 10 years, the they have recuperated that cost, and price goes down dramatically.

This is how everything works. Same is true with the military. We generally don't give our top of the line, bleeding edge, weapons to even our allies.

We have the best planes, the best tech, the best tanks, and so on. We're using the top end of weapons tech, which combined with superior training and tactics, is what allows our men to accomplish the goal, with the fewest casualties.

It's just like buying a new sports car, or buying a 3 year old sports car. Yeah, both of us are buying an expensive sport car, but you are going to pay significantly more money, because you bought the newest model, and I did not.

So that is one very significant reason our military costs more. Remember, most countries in this world, are not designing their own tanks, and planes. Most are either buying soviet, or now Russian built tanks and planes, or they are buying our older model equipment.

And then the other side is simply that many countries in this world are not spending nearly as much on defense, as they would.... if we did not exist.

And that's simply a problem of, why should I spend money on my own defense, when the US is guaranteeing my defense? It's one of the things that Trump was a little miffed about, and I think there is some justification for that.

A perfect example was Obama and Libya. Now I am not talking about whether we should have been involved, or about Benghazi.

I'm talking about when Obama at one point said the Europe should take the lead in dealing with conflicts in their area of influence, and an advisor who in an interview said the now infamous "lead from behind" statement.

My point isn't that Obama's stance was bad, but rather that Europe was pathetic. They couldn't lead the charge in Libya. They can't really lead the charge anywhere. They did nothing at all about the Russian invasion of Georgia, and they have done precious little about the hostile take over of Crimea, or Donetsk in the Ukraine.

In fact, I think it was specifically because of how badly Europe fumbled the ball in Libya, that gave Putin the balls to have a full scale invasion. Libya's army was a joke, largely made up of outdated soviet era weapons, and what few tanks and planes that were newer, often were non-functioning.

This is because Gaddafi himself worked to undermine the military to prevent any possible coup. Yet somehow with such a massive advantage to European military power, they still managed to be humiliated by how pathetic their response was.

And it is my view, that the reason Europe is completely incompetent at dealing with anything in their area of influence, is simply because they have not needed to be militarily competent, because the US as always been there for them.

But then again it isn't surprising. The Europeans have always looked to the US to do any work that needs done, only to spin around and criticize whatever we did. Why spend money on your own military, when you can just save the money, and have the Americans deal with any problems?

Again, this is something that Trump has been arguing against, and I think with good cause.

 

[OnePercenter]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

This is ridiculous. If people are borrowing too much, then the problem is they are borrowing too much. Has nothing to do with the economy.

I have no degree, no certs, no trade skills. Despite that, I have no debt, and haven't had debt for almost 10 years now. I'm an hourly worker.

You want to know how to do that? Spend less than you make. If a low-wage worker like me can do that, anyone can.

Has nothing to do with the economy, or cost of living, or wage growth.

And honestly if your cost of living is higher than your wage, then the problem is in your mirror. Either get a second job, get a better job, or stop spending so much.

Doesn't matter what president is in office, if you are irresponsible with your money.

You sound like a business-worshiping cultish religion of Libertarianism moron.

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

 

[OnePercenter]

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

So, the Repub house was responsible for 6 trillion of the 9 trillion that was added under Obama?

Weird how you never correct all those people that blame Obama for doubling the debt, you know like the post right above yours. And not only do you not correct him, you actually agreed with him.

It is almost as if you are nothing but another mindless partisan sheep

Make up your mind on whether deficits are bad. Before Obama, the biggest deficit was $400 Billion. For the first 3 years of Obama's presidency, he was blowing $1.3 Trillion dollar deficits.

Now you have Trump, and magically deficits are bad? You have no credibility. If deficits are bad, where were you people when Obama was blowing the nation debt up? You didn't care then, did you? Because you liked Obama.

Now Trump is acting like Obama on deficits, and you want to pretend it is bad now? Why wasn't it bad then? You guys are just hypocrites.

Before bushco crashed the economy the biggest deficit was $400 Billion.

 

[OnePercenter]

Make up your mind on whether deficits are bad. Before Obama, the biggest deficit was $400 Billion. For the first 3 years of Obama's presidency, he was blowing $1.3 Trillion dollar deficits.

Now you have Trump, and magically deficits are bad? You have no credibility. If deficits are bad, where were you people when Obama was blowing the nation debt up? You didn't care then, did you? Because you liked Obama.

Now Trump is acting like Obama on deficits, and you want to pretend it is bad now? Why wasn't it bad then? You guys are just hypocrites.

Deficits were bad under Obama also, one of the reasons I rank him as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. I have been preaching agasint deficit spending since the days of Reagan.

So, yes I did care then (and no I did not like Obama) and I care now. It is people like you that are the hypocrites, people that cared when it was Obama but changed their values as soon as an (R) got back into the White House.

Why were deficits bad under Obama?

 

[OnePercenter]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Make up your mind on whether deficits are bad. Before Obama, the biggest deficit was $400 Billion. For the first 3 years of Obama's presidency, he was blowing $1.3 Trillion dollar deficits.

Now you have Trump, and magically deficits are bad? You have no credibility. If deficits are bad, where were you people when Obama was blowing the nation debt up? You didn't care then, did you? Because you liked Obama.

Now Trump is acting like Obama on deficits, and you want to pretend it is bad now? Why wasn't it bad then? You guys are just hypocrites.

Deficits were bad under Obama also, one of the reasons I rank him as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. I have been preaching agasint deficit spending since the days of Reagan.

So, yes I did care then (and no I did not like Obama) and I care now. It is people like you that are the hypocrites, people that cared when it was Obama but changed their values as soon as an (R) got back into the White House.

Why were deficits bad under Obama?

Deficits are always bad. Maybe in time of emergency they are palatable, but other than that there should be no such thing.

What gives the government the right to spend my kids and grand-kids money?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Because people paid less in taxes, thus tax revenue went down.

This is not real complicated.

 

[Oddball]

*sigh*....

The Rockefeller report, which as the name suggests was headed by Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, concluded that all of the information we had at the time we went into Iraq, suggested that everything Bush said was justification for going into Iraq, was true.

That's a fact. Not debatable. If you want to argue with an investigation by Congress on the intelligence we had going into Iraq, be my guest. But until that conclusion is overturned, Bush was reacting to the best intel we had.

I get it, that it is easy to sit here with 20/20 hindsight. But at that time, the intel said that Saddam was in fact pursuing WMDs, and working relations with terrorist groups.

Now if you have a magic 8 ball the reveals all secrets, so we can avoid any possible wrong information, by all means contact the government, and provide the infallible source of international intelligence.

Until then.... this garbage complaint about how we should not have done X and Y, when you were not there, and didn't see the information Bush saw..... yeah grow up.

Lest we forget that this is the same "intelligence community" that has spent the last number of years spying on Americans and lying about it, perpetrating false flag operations, sweeping numerous felonious activities of the ruling class under the rug, ad nauseum.....It's as likely that they could have been lying to Bush and the rest of the world as not.

 

[Denizen]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Your IQ is bottom 1%?

 

[OnePercenter]

Make up your mind on whether deficits are bad. Before Obama, the biggest deficit was $400 Billion. For the first 3 years of Obama's presidency, he was blowing $1.3 Trillion dollar deficits.

Now you have Trump, and magically deficits are bad? You have no credibility. If deficits are bad, where were you people when Obama was blowing the nation debt up? You didn't care then, did you? Because you liked Obama.

Now Trump is acting like Obama on deficits, and you want to pretend it is bad now? Why wasn't it bad then? You guys are just hypocrites.

Deficits were bad under Obama also, one of the reasons I rank him as the 2nd worst POTUS ever. I have been preaching agasint deficit spending since the days of Reagan.

So, yes I did care then (and no I did not like Obama) and I care now. It is people like you that are the hypocrites, people that cared when it was Obama but changed their values as soon as an (R) got back into the White House.

Why were deficits bad under Obama?

Deficits are always bad. Maybe in time of emergency they are palatable, but other than that there should be no such thing.

What gives the government the right to spend my kids and grand-kids money?

Deflection from you!

Deficits were bad under Obama because Bushco and Corporate America crashed the world economy.

 

[OnePercenter]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Because people paid less in taxes, thus tax revenue went down.

This is not real complicated.

Didn't tax revenues for 2018 go up?

 

[OnePercenter]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
PUBLISHED FRI, NOV 29 20199:16 AM ESTUPDATED FRI, NOV 29 201912:08 PM EST
Janet Alvarez

Personal loans are growing at an 11% annual clip, according to Experian, faster that student loan or credit card balances.

Borrowers with excellent credit can achieve savings by using personal loans for large projects, like home improvement.

Credit card debt can be consolidated into a personal loan, but origination fees, potentially high interest rates and lack of perks make this a less appealing option for borrowers with a lower credit score.

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards
It’s the fastest-growing debt category in the country, but if you are thinking student loans or credit cards, you’re wrong.

Personal loan balances now exceed $300 billion, as of the second quarter of this year, according to Experian, a whopping 11% yearly increase. For good reason, too, as personal loans can help to consolidate credit card debt, or make funds available for major projects, such as a home remodeling effort. For many of us, the allure is hard to ignore, but personal loans do differ in some key ways from other types of credit you might use, such as credit cards. It’s important to understand the key differences before signing on the dotted line.

Interest rates vary dramatically
As compared to credit cards, personal loan interest rates can vary much more dramatically, according to research by ValuePenguin. In fact, some borrowers with excellent credit may qualify for loans with interest rates as low as 5% or 6% with some lenders. On the other hand, borrowers with poor credit may encounter rates higher than the average credit card, sometimes exceeding 30%. ...

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Your IQ is bottom 1%?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Denizen]

The personal debt bubble is growing and devouring Trump's fantasy land as the whole US economy is fueled by debt.

The borrowing public has decided that what is good for the goose is good for the Trumpist.

The growing resort to personal loans may also reflect the fact that living costs are rising faster than wages.

The budget is in deficit by $ 1trillion annually and growing, the Federal debt has grown by ~$ 2.3 trillion since Trump's inauguration.

The economy is fueled by debt which is buying imported foreign goods as the trade deficit is still rising despite being offset by growing oil and gas exports. US manufacturing and investment is down.

Donald Trump's fantasy land economy is a humungous debt bubble waiting for a prick. Is Donald Trump the prick?

The fastest-growing debt category in U.S. is not student loans or credit cards

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Because people paid less in taxes, thus tax revenue went down.

This is not real complicated.

Didn't tax revenues for 2018 go up?

If tax revenue went up for 2019 it means that the middle and lower classes are paying more because the wealthy and corporations got a tax cut.

Column: A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good

... The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has just published a deep dive into the economic impact of the cuts in their first year, and emerges from the water with a different picture. The CRS finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages, haven’t contributed to a surge in investment, and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer.
The negligible (at best) economic impact of the cuts shouldn’t surprise anyone, the CRS says. “Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend,” its analysts write. “Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.”
There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or relative to GDP growth. Ordinary workers had very little growth. ...

 

[OnePercenter]

The democrat House writes the Budget, so WTF is Nancy and the democrats doing about the budget deficit? <nothing but making it bigger>

Trump cut taxes for the wealthy which has had a big effect on tax revenue.

Why?

Because people paid less in taxes, thus tax revenue went down.

This is not real complicated.

Didn't tax revenues for 2018 go up?

If tax revenue went up for 2019 it means that the middle and lower classes are paying more because the wealthy and corporations got a tax cut.

Column: A devastating analysis of the tax cut shows it’s done virtually no economic good

... The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has just published a deep dive into the economic impact of the cuts in their first year, and emerges from the water with a different picture. The CRS finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages, haven’t contributed to a surge in investment, and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer.
The negligible (at best) economic impact of the cuts shouldn’t surprise anyone, the CRS says. “Much of the tax cut was directed at businesses and higher-income individuals who are less likely to spend,” its analysts write. “Fiscal stimulus is limited in an economy that is at or near full employment.”
There is no indication of a surge in wages in 2018 either compared to history or relative to GDP growth. Ordinary workers had very little growth. ...

Federal tax revenues went up slightly in 2018 due to tax being paid on deferred income.

As far as fiscal stimuli......tRump screwed the pooch. If you're not wealthy or corporate, you're the pooch.

 

[Toro]

Consumer debt is still well below prior peaks.

Wrong again...at least you are consistent.

View attachment 292570

Relative to GDP, consumer debt is well below the prior peak. Absolute levels don’t really matter.