This year, the deficit is projected by the Treasury Department to exceed $1 trillion, an increase from $779 billion last year. That comes as the United States’ national debt exceeds $22 trillion.
Four years ago, when a slew of Republicans were running for president, then-candidate Donald Trump was among those calling for urgent action, saying of the budget deficits: “We're going to bring it down big league and quickly.”
But under Trump as president, deficits have grown: Through the first eight months of this budget year, the budget deficit totals $738.6 billion, an increase of 38.8 percent over the same period last year.
Among reasons for the deficit: the Trump-backed $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2017 and the sharp increases in spending for the military and domestic programs passed by Congress in 2018.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/defici … ms-to-care
I don't believe you'll get many comments from the right on this topic, IB. Especially as you used a Fox News source for your info.
In 2008 the debt was about 9.7 Trillion
In 2016 the debt was about 19.9 Trillion for a growth of just over 10 trillion
2019 the debt is about 22 Trillion...if the 2016 to 2019 growth pattern holds, the debt will be ~ 26 Trillion by 2024 for a total growth of 6 Trillion over 8 years. If this is in fact what happens, then we have a reduction in the over spending by almost half...which is a baby step in the right direction...so now we need to cut out the remaining over-spending and start on the reducing aspects...
There are many ways we could theoretically do this, but I seriously doubt it would ever happen, as it would hurt the chances of a politician getting re-elected.
That figure also happens to be the current national debt ceiling.
As a result the Treasury is currently only able to pay the government's bills by using "special measures" (stopping lesser priority payments to ensure the debt is paid).
The CBO says:
". . . if the debt limit is not raised or suspended again after it is automatically reset on March 2 , the Treasury will probably run out of cash near the end of fiscal year 2019 or early in fiscal year 2020" (1)
The federal government's fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30. So the CBO is predicting the country will default on its debts between September to November 2019.
Welcome to the next debt crisis. It's not being picked up much at the moment, but just watch as the MSM latch on to it soon.
"So the CBO is predicting the country will default on its debts between September to November 2019."
Now why would you say that? Isn't this the exact same scenario we've faced every year for the past decade or so? The feds run out of money and the debt ceiling must be raised...and so far hasn't defaulted on a debt. Why would you say the CBO predicts this year will be different and they WILL default?
"Isn't this the exact same scenario we've faced every year for the past decade or so?"
"Debt ceiling wars" have mostly been avoided in recent years by suspending the ceiling. It was suspended in 2013 (twice), then 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015 - 2017, and 2018/19.
You're most likely thinking of the political battles over appropriations Bills. That's not the same as the debt ceiling issue.
"Why would you say the CBO predicts this year will be different and they WILL default?"
The CBO isn't predicting the country will default. It's predicting the government will run out of money between September and November if the debt ceiling is not raised.
Likewise, I never said the country "WILL" default (where'd I say that?) I just quoted the CBO's prediction, but I'm happy to give an opinion.
In my opinion, the risk of the debt ceiling not being raised in time to prevent a default is higher with Donald Trump as president than it would be if he wasn't. That's based on everything I know about Donald Trump and the current administration.
"The CBO isn't predicting the country will default."
"So the CBO is predicting the country will default on its debts between September to November 2019."
Both statements are from your posts and are in complete conflict with each other. Which is true?
Your quote of the send statement is incomplete, which hides the fact it is not only a contradiction, but also a further clarification of the first statement. The full quote is:
"The CBO isn't predicting the country will default. It's predicting the government will run out of money between September and November if the debt ceiling is not raised".
In other words the CBO is not predicting whether or not the the ceiling will be raised, it is predicting what will happen if it is not. If any part of the full comment is not clear, let me know so I can clarify further.
Assuming you now understand the CBO's prediction, I reiterate I have not said the country "WILL" default, as you have claimed. I merely repeated the CBO's prediction, clarified it, then gave my opinion that the risk of the debt ceiling not being raised in time to prevent a default is higher with Donald Trump as president than it would be if he wasn't.
As I said, that opinion is based on everything I know about Donald Trump and the current administration, and I stand by it.
Some experts like "Bond King" Jeffrey Gundlach say the huge current growth in deficits and federal debt means the next recession will be worse than 2008.
Excessive debt means the government can't borrow as much to re-stimulate the economy.
https://marketrealist.com/2019/05/why-g … recession/
There are a variety of things that will impact the 'next recession'.
Technology, we have essentially moved away from physical money... banks no longer have vaults filled with gold or even notes. Their wealth is little more than numbers on a computer... their wealth is actually the debt owed them by those who have taken out loans and continue to pay them.
Now should this system collapse, and nations revert to a gold backed system, the global economy as it exists would be finished. More likely a trade/production based system would emerge in which those nations that can produce the most food and goods would still have the most economic might and influence.
In which case, America would still be at or near the top, combined with the largest military force, making for situation where no matter what the scenario, so long as it is not end-of-times nuclear war, America will remain on top for the remainder of our lifetimes.
It's sad isn't it? Neither party is able or, it seems, willing to do anything about yearly debt, and that lack of action keeps driving the national debt through the ceiling.
Bush, Obama and now Trump have pushed the US debt so high that paying it down will never happen.
You're absolutely right - neither party is interested in anything but spending ever more. And when a president (or politician) finds a real need for cash there is never any discussion about cutting other costs. Witness our failing infrastructure that no one cares to fix, preferring to buy votes with more giveaways rather than provide what the nation desperately needs.
I agree with you Wilderness, but the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by asking for a serious discussion on reparations to the descendants of slaves when reparations were made to those who chose to take them right after the Civil War. It seems like they offer this as bribes to black voters, and nothing ever comes of it except to lose some white votes to Republicans. When will they ever learn?
Well Doris, the old "Forty acres and a mule" never materialized, and the blacks stayed in a state worse than slavery until the 1950's under the sharecropper's rule. It only took a century for them to have their Civil Rights recognized.
I was young at the time but couldn't help notice many didn't have running water or even electricity in the old sharecroppers shacks. Even if they made a good crop they often ended up owing the commissary more than they made.
The land owner issued script which could only be used on overpriced articles at the farm commissary, another way to get the money back the landowner "shared" with the sharecropper at the end of the year.
There's a lot to be considered in the reparation discussion. Most people don't have a clue how many black families suffered long after the Civil War was over.
Again, Randy, you come to the rescue. While Abe Lincoln and the Republicans in Congress wanted to see that the new freedmen received some compensation and a hand up to get a fair start, Andrew Johnson as President was firmly opposed and while always hating the former planter class, he hated the freedmen even more and undermined every attempt to help them.
Yes, American history in this regard is quite ugly and there is no sugar coating it. Reparations is a bad idea because it is politically unpalatable and divisive, but for many to think that that the African American experience and attacks upon them for at least a 100 years after the Civil War was a mere blip in history or just an inconvenience is the product of naive thinking.
I appreciate your standing tall in regards to the truth, because that acknowledgement is where it all starts and when the healing can begin.
It's easy to sweep the many perils black people faced under the rug, but it's still there with many still alive, remembering--or never forgetting-- the conditions they faced at the hands of disreputable land owners during this time.
You see many claiming they didn't profit from this tragic period, even though they have no idea how the system used worse than slavery tactics to make a profit from their labor.
Yes, no one rational person is going to say that events that occurred yesterday is not going to have an effect on your circumstance today.
While reparations may be politically wrongheaded, morally they are not. Wealth is accumulated over time and generations, when you are structurally denied the Right and opportunity to participate toward your own betterment for so long there will be consequences.
It is simplistic to dismiss these matters as things that just happened in the distant past when the effect of the actions resonate well into the 20 th century, with vestiges that remain today.
People say that they are not responsible for subjugation of Native Americans here because they were not alive during the numerous Indian Wars on this continent. It is an easy excuse, if you are truly sorry are you prepared to return the land that was stolen or acknowledge that having the stolen land in your possession worked to your advantage, regardless of who stole it?
I will go with the next best thing, while reparations are unmanageable can I get an acknowledgement of the need to level the playing field for all of us relative to white supremacy and white privilege, dampening some of its power and influence. Thus taking the wind from the sails of "good ole boys", making the current system a little less rigged? If Warren offers to do this, that is a start down the right path.
Again, thanks for your attention.
Why should anyone 'be sorry'?
How was the land stolen?
Nations throughout history fought for 'land', this was the way the world always was, what early Americans did was no different than what anyone else did... regardless of race, religion or creed.
It was in fact the empires of England, France, and Spain that profited from the early efforts that 'stole the land', so if anyone needs to pay reparations, perhaps it should be those nations.
"It was in fact the empires of England, France, and Spain that profited from the early efforts that 'stole the land', so if anyone needs to pay reparations, perhaps it should be those nations"
So, what about the "latter" efforts, Ken, who should pay for those?
Were the decendents of white indentured servants subject to a century of de jure and de facto Jim Crow sort of segregation and discrimination? Much of it officially state sanctioned.
How about no one.
How about the reality that no one owes you anything in this life.
How about you take the hand you are dealt, not make excuses, and make the best out of life you can.
Or you can sit around feeling a victim about something that happened to your ancestors, and feel cheated, defeated, or wanting someone to pay for the life you've been dealt.
For some people, there will never be reparations enough, for most however, they get on with their lives and make the best of it they can.
With that attitude, Ken, we all would still be in chains. Would there ever be a reason to pursue equality and justice in your world or do these words of wisdom that so easily flow from you just apply to the "others" and not the good ole boys?
This entire concept will probably get nowhere because of the state of denial of so many of you. But, I am going to push for the candidates that at least have a clue.
Would we (still be in chains)? The settlers walking 2,000 miles to new ground didn't think so. Neither did the millions of entrepreneurs that have built new businesses and products. Neither has anyone that educates themselves to a new career. Even the sale of a house and purchase of a new one shows that trying very often produces change, while we know that sitting back, doing nothing, and expecting someone else to put out the effort usually does not help much - the biggest "progress" there is to create a lifetime of charity.
That response makes no sense... but then again, neither does an expectation that someone owes you something because of what you believe happened to your ancestor.
My attitude is the opposite of what keeps people in chains, expecting hand outs (aka reparations) is what shackles people and prevents them from taking responsibility for their own lives.
Helping people in need is one thing... providing assistance and opportunity is fine... reparations is an ignoble idea fostered by those who want to entice the ignorant to support them with the idea of something for nothing.
Isolated bubble perspectives.
EVERYONE faced perils back then... during the American Civil War, 100,000 soldiers died from diarrhea or dysentery.
During the Revolutionary War they were offed by the thousands by Smallpox, Dysentery, Malaria, etc.
Between one-half and two-thirds of European immigrants to the Thirteen Colonies between the 1630s and the American Revolution came under indentured servitude... like slaves, many died in the boats before they ever got to America, many others died from conditions placed upon them while they were indentured.
Most European descendants in America today, about 98% of them are not descended from slave owners. They are far more likely to be descendants of those who faced years of slave like conditions as indentured servants.
And what about all those descendants of slaves and slave owners?
For example Thomas Jefferson who had children with at least one of his slaves, Jefferson freed all of Hemings' surviving children. Three of the four entered white society as adults. Descendants of those three identified as white. How does that break down for reparations?
And what about the opportunity the descendants have today?
Would they have the lives and opportunity today in whatever country they came from, that they have here in America?
And lets not make this about the color of one's skin, there are plenty of people in America today that are not of European descent that have no history of slavery. Indeed there were plenty people of non European descent that had their freedom in the Northern States long before the Civil War was ever fought.
And what of those of non-European descent that owned slaves?
Free black slave holders could be found at one time or another “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” historian R. Halliburton Jr. observed. That black people bought and sold other black people raises “vexing questions” does it not?
Lets not delve too deeply into the issue, or else the real truths start to come out.
Why are you fearful of "real truths", Ken? And as far as people being better off here than in their native countries, can you predict what their countries would be like today if slavery didn't strip these places of the strongest and brightest? Counting the thousands who didn't make the sea voyage, I think the lack of such people surely had an effect on the regions.
I am not.
You are responding to some of those truths.
They do not coincide with your reparations theory very well.
Tough to justify reparations when 98% or more of those of European descent in America are not descended from slave-owners and up to a half of them are descendants of indentured-servitude.
"Would they have the lives and opportunity today in whatever country they came from, that they have here in America?"
Don't you find this a bit arrogant, Ken, to assume that the lives of those abducted would have been worse had they remained in the country from which they were abducted?
The enslavement was a small price to pay to live modern day America? What price did the whites pay?
You keep bringing up the infinitesimal percentage of blacks who own slaves, did these blacks later bring the terror in the next century after the Civil War upon themselves?
Your "real truths" mitigate and sugar coat the grave nature of the issue at hand.
I don't see anyone as asking for a serious discussion; just trying to buy black votes by pandering to the greed of some. No one can possibly be serious about forcing people that are innocent of doing anything wrong, weren't even around when the wrong was done, to pay money to people that weren't wronged and weren't around when the wrong was being done.
There is a reason for this, and it is of design.
The Dollar was taken off the 'Gold Standard' and was no longer backed by anything real in 1971.
Inflation became the new norm, prior to this the fractional reserve banking system was used, now we use a credit creation system with no legitimate legal reserve requirement, where the central bank can create those reserves, and banks can create their own 'money'.
Fractional reserve banking did not create inflation, did not allow for the creation of massive amounts of unsecured and unbacked credit, the entire economy today is based on nothing but 'good faith' and 'belief'.
That is why the multi-trillion dollar deficit doesn't really matter, because if the system in place continues, twenty years from now 22 Trillion dollars will only be worth 220 Billion dollars of 'buying power' and therefore not a relevant amount.
The average cost of a median home in 1970 was $17,000...
Today the average cost is around $170,000...
The House hasn't changed any, the value of the dollar has.
The reverse is true for debt, if you have 22 Trillion dollars of debt today, it will only be worth 220 Billion dollars tomorrow, as the value of the dollar becomes less and less.
So much for the idea of "tax and spend" Democrats.
I don't see any advantages at having the GOP at the helm, they, after all, have their own sacred cows that are responsible for out of control spending.
"Fiscally responsible Conservatives", that is one wives tale that can be shelved
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Gee. I've been led to believe it's all Obama's fault.Guess that's simply NOT TRUE!http://youtu.be/LcvLHHMC4iI
by SheriSapp 4 years ago
Why do the liberals insist on more deficit spending when the nation is BROKE?Why do the liberals REFUSE to understand that the deficit spending MUST be stopped or the nation will become premanently bankrupt?
by Flightkeeper 9 years ago
The nation's debt leapt $166 billion in a single day last week, the third-largest increase in U.S. history; the one-day increase for June 30 totaled $165,931,038,264.30 - bigger than the entire annual deficit for fiscal year 2007. This means that nearly $1,500 of debt was added for every U.S....
by qwark 8 years ago
A billion:A billion seconds ago it was 1959!A billion minutes ago jesus alledgedly lived!A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the stone age!A billion days ago no one walked upon the earth on 2 feet!Now, consider 1000 times a billion: a trillion... and try to visualize our national...
by Sophia Angelique 7 years ago
From Forbes Magazine.http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … ack-obama/Quote: "So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
Let me be consistent and bring up the topic of our debt, which was doubled under Obama’s 7 years to $20 trillion and now under the first year of the Trump administration is rising to $20.5 trillion. It is Congress’s mandate to control spending. Let’s hope they have some backbone and say no to...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|