The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

[danielpalos]

Only if you omit funding government.

You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.

we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

[Doc1]

You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.

we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

 

[danielpalos]

we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

That is the republican doctrine; y'all have no room to talk.

 

[leftwinger]

Analysis | The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

Recession in 2019? It only makes sense that the man who made his fortune with other people's money is still all about borrowing:

"It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.


Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.
The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again."

/----/ After Obozo decimated the military, Trump has to rebuild it. Same thing happened to Reagan and GWB.

This is why the debt has jumped?? But..we have done nothing yet to rebuild..that is still in the future!

Blaming this on your favorite whipping boy is not going to work here. BTW...Obama did not 'Decimate' the military. His administration did spend less..they also did less. There was a draw-down from post-9/11 levels--not quite the same thing at all.

You just wish to ignore that reduced revenues are going to result in even more borrowing....and the result may well be a recession.

while you ignore obama printing money like it was going out of style?

funny you get onto people for the blame game but obama blamed bush for at least his first 4 years.

What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? Obama is the past...although I will point out that he had to deal with a recession so bad, history calls it "The Great Recession". What and who Obama "blamed" has no relevance here.
My point..and the point of the article, is that Decreased Revenue, coupled with increased spending, will result in a higher deficit and an increased dependence on borrowing. The pie in the sky assertion that the ramped- up economy will make up for the shortfall is ludicrous.

If you have something that shows me that I'm wrong..please post it.

20%*$18T = $3.6T
20%*$20T = $4.0T.......grow GDP. Grow baby grow.

Putting GOVT workers on paperwork/retirement at $250K does not grow the GDP. Cut GOVT, cut spending. Put money back into the hands that build wealth. Makes sense to me. But I'm a Rube and a "supply-side-huckster" or so I've been told here on USMB.

 

[Doc1]

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

That is the republican doctrine; y'all have no room to talk.

No, I have shown you what Madison has to say about it. He proves you wrong...but you knew that. I think this one explains you best.

"“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”"

You'd love to have unlimited power to take whatever you want.

 

[danielpalos]

the general welfare may only induce the general prosperity via a positive multiplier effect. The general welfare must do that; the general warfare may not.

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

That is the republican doctrine; y'all have no room to talk.

No, I have shown you what Madison has to say about it. He proves you wrong...but you knew that. I think this one explains you best.

"“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”"

You'd love to have unlimited power to take whatever you want.

Then why does the right wing believe their is a power to provide for the general warfare and common offense?

That is not the common defense or general welfare.

 

[Doc1]

So them taking more of my money and giving it you makes YOU more "prosperous"? Unfortunately for you the Banks prefer general warfare.

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

That is the republican doctrine; y'all have no room to talk.

No, I have shown you what Madison has to say about it. He proves you wrong...but you knew that. I think this one explains you best.

"“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”"

You'd love to have unlimited power to take whatever you want.

Then why does the right wing believe their is a power to provide for the general warfare and common offense?

That is not the common defense or general welfare.

Sorry, the Government believes that, not just one "side". Including your precious Hillary Not even a good play on words there kid, it shows your immaturity. Madison says your position is ludicrous.

 

[leftwinger]

Trump and the GOP actually "borrowed" two trillion from the Middle Class telling them "Oh, you'll get your money back as tax cuts and bonuses and wage increases.

3 million are getting bonuses. Wow, so many, that's like 1.7% of the entire US work force.

Turns out it wasn't "borrowing".

No, it was "theft".

Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.

Only if you omit funding government.

You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.

we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

I don't think it is human? Possibly a word generator posting in random threads. "end the war on drugs"

 

[danielpalos]

it is for the general welfare, not the general warfare. the poor simply circulating money is what causes a positive multiplier effect. it doesn't require a work ethic from the Age of Iron.

Naaa, here let Madison explain it to you.

"
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”



“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

Original Intent: The General Welfare

You're wrong, I think you know that but I also think you need to misinterpret it so you can justify taking whatever you want from others.

That is the republican doctrine; y'all have no room to talk.

No, I have shown you what Madison has to say about it. He proves you wrong...but you knew that. I think this one explains you best.

"“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”"

You'd love to have unlimited power to take whatever you want.

Then why does the right wing believe their is a power to provide for the general warfare and common offense?

That is not the common defense or general welfare.

Sorry, the Government believes that, not just one "side". Including your precious Hillary Not even a good play on words there kid, it shows your immaturity. Madison says your position is ludicrous.

Just you being clueless and Causeless. Providing for the general welfare is not Any reason whatsoever. It means, it does not include the general malfare or the common offense.

 

[danielpalos]

Tax Cut worked out pretty well for me.

Only if you omit funding government.

You'll have to excuse me, I don't really care whether you get your welfare or not.

we don't need to fund the general warfare, either.

Yawn. This seems to be the only argument you have for everything. Hell you even want to use the "General Welfare Clause" to get rid of our borders.

I don't think it is human? Possibly a word generator posting in random threads. "end the war on drugs"

only the party of large government wants a drug war.

 

[Cellblock2429]

This is what Lying Trump and the Republicans did. They reached into the pocket of the taxpayers, then said "hey we're giving everyone a tax cut isn't that great!" Then they charged $1.5 trillion to the taxpayer's credit card, then gave a huge tax cut to the wealthy and corporations and raised the lowest tax bracket from 10% to 12%. In other words they just transferred a huge amount of taxpayer wealth from taxpayer's pockets to the pockets of the filthy rich.

/——/ Ahhhh the old “charge tax cuts on the credit card” Liberal rant again. Running out of things to post? Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

 

[NYcarbineer]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

 

[danielpalos]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

It interferes with their propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Cellblock2429]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

You don't think that if the government cuts revenues by billions that they can't figure out they're going to have less revenue?

WTF?

 

[Cellblock2429]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

You don't think that if the government cuts revenues by billions that they can't figure out they're going to have less revenue?

WTF?

/——/ Have you ever seen a department store have a sale? Do they get an increase or decrease in revenue? Do they attract new customers who then buy non sales items? Do you have a clue how the economy works?

 

[danielpalos]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

You don't think that if the government cuts revenues by billions that they can't figure out they're going to have less revenue?

WTF?

/——/ Have you ever seen a department store have a sale? Do they get an increase or decrease in revenue? Do they attract new customers who then buy non sales items? Do you have a clue how the economy works?

do they have sales until they are insolvent?

 

[Cellblock2429]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

You don't think that if the government cuts revenues by billions that they can't figure out they're going to have less revenue?

WTF?

/——/ Have you ever seen a department store have a sale? Do they get an increase or decrease in revenue? Do they attract new customers who then buy non sales items? Do you have a clue how the economy works?

do they have sales until they are insolvent?

/——/ Well it looks like I’m debating an idiot on economics. Sorry folks, I should have known better.

 

[danielpalos]

For a month the Trumptards have been crowing about how much more money businesses were keeping, and handing out to their employees, and American taxpayers were seeing less withheld in their paychecks,

and then these same tards are mystified that the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall!

Do. the. math.

/-----/ " the government is now looking at a revenue shortfall" And they are always wrong. Why do you listed to the very same corrupt career hacks that got us into this mess?

You don't think that if the government cuts revenues by billions that they can't figure out they're going to have less revenue?

WTF?

/——/ Have you ever seen a department store have a sale? Do they get an increase or decrease in revenue? Do they attract new customers who then buy non sales items? Do you have a clue how the economy works?

do they have sales until they are insolvent?

/——/ Well it looks like I’m debating an idiot on economics. Sorry folks, I should have known better.

on what side of the curve are on we on, for tax cuts to keep working?