So Much For Fiscal Responsibility

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

of course it won't.

as long as dogmatic partisan assholes like Saorsa & Jeff blame the government that represents them for the failures of Saorsa & jeff to be independently thinking informed adults the government will suck.

[Bus Driver 1,105]

Suckers.

Think about this. The same congressional Republicans who over the previous eight years wanted everyone to believe they were fiscal conservatives hell-bent on balancing the budget and not increasing the national debt, sponsored, passed and then danced around the fire because of legislation that will result in a permanent $1 trillion deficit and a debt that will soar to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2028.

And...House and Senate Republicans were enabled by a GOP president who during his campaign said he would eliminate the deficit and completely pay off the debt.

[Raz'r 977]

It’s clear that Righties lie to get power, only care about power, and will say and do anything to keep power.

there is no rational debate with them that is even possible.

[Dog 46]

13 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Suckers.

Think about this. The same congressional Republicans who over the previous eight years wanted everyone to believe they were fiscal conservatives hell-bent on balancing the budget and not increasing the national debt, sponsored, passed and then danced around the fire because of legislation that will result in a permanent $1 trillion deficit and a debt that will soar to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2028.

And...House and Senate Republicans were enabled by a GOP president who during his campaign said he would eliminate the deficit and completely pay off the debt.

Yep...There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington.

[Sol Rosenberg 1,685]

[SloopJonB 2,567]

Clinton was the only POTUS in my lifetime (66 years) to run a surplus.

Those Republicans sure are the smart one with the money.

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

13 hours ago, Dog said:

Yep...There is no fiscal responsibility in Washington.

So when you going to stop supporting them Dog? They ain't going to change until people stop carrying their water day in, day out.

[Contumacious Tom 679]

1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

No President has ever had the power of the purse because Congress does.

We expect them to do stuff they're not even empowered to do and accept safe seats with lifetime incumbents where the rubber really meets the road.

[Dog 46]

14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Clinton was the only POTUS in my lifetime (66 years) to run a surplus.

Those Republicans sure are the smart one with the money.

Clinton was smart enough to sign a balanced butget proposed by a Republican congress.  We could use more of that kind of cooperation today.

[Raz'r 977]

7 minutes ago, Dog said:

Clinton was smart enough to sign a balanced butget proposed by a Republican congress.  We could use more of that kind of cooperation today.

First, congress would have to pass taxing and spending proposals that would reduce debt. Who’s been in charge of congress  for the last 8 years?

[Dog 46]

14 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

[Lark 495]

3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

He tricked Bush into tanking the economy and got elected when old timers in my county remembered the Great Depression and  planned victory gardens for a time the grocery stores would not be an option.   That made it easy for him to trick us by saving the banking system (but also the rich bankers), the US ability to manufacturer cars, and providing some low interest loans which were used by communities I lived in to revamp sewers and water mains.    Clearly we should have bought a few more missiles and bombed Syria.  

[Raz'r 977]

15 minutes ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

What’s that 2-word phrase again?

[Bus Driver 1,105]

39 minutes ago, Dog said:

Clinton was smart enough to sign a balanced butget proposed by a Republican congress.  We could use more of that kind of cooperation today.

Yep.

[Bus Driver 1,105]

29 minutes ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

To that, President Trump says "Hold my (root) beer....."

[Dog 46]

1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

To that, President Trump says "Hold my (root) beer....."

Ha!...And the beat goes on.  No fiscal conservatives in sight.

[Bus Driver 1,105]

1 minute ago, Dog said:

Ha!...And the beat goes on.  No fiscal conservatives in sight.

Sadly, no.

[Sol Rosenberg 1,685]

1 hour ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

Cite, showing deficit year before and year you reference, and the requests therefore?  

[SloopJonB 2,567]

2 hours ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

Fiscal conservatives CAUSED the fucking deficit you moron.

Jeezzuss you clowns are incredible. It's no wonder things like Trump happen when there is that level of stunned ignorance around.

[SloopJonB 2,567]

1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

What’s that 2-word phrase again?

Fucking Moron?

[Raz'r 977]

28 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Fiscal conservatives CAUSED the fucking deficit you moron.

Jeezzuss you clowns are incredible. It's no wonder things like Trump happen when there is that level of stunned ignorance around.

He knows. He lies. It’s what he does. It’s who he is.

[Dog 46]

48 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Fiscal conservatives CAUSED the fucking deficit you moron.

Jeezzuss you clowns are incredible. It's no wonder things like Trump happen when there is that level of stunned ignorance around.

No they didn't....Democrats and Republicans did.

[Bus Driver 1,105]

49 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Fiscal conservatives CAUSED the fucking deficit you moron.

Jeezzuss you clowns are incredible. It's no wonder things like Trump happen when there is that level of stunned ignorance around.

No, no, no. 

It happened on President Obama's watch.  All of it.  There was no deficit or debt prior to the Kenyan taking office.  And, the GOP gave him everything he wanted.

[RKoch 998]

6 hours ago, Dog said:

Obama's was a neat trick.... Generate a ludicrously huge deficit in his first year and then reduce it to a ridiculously huge deficit in subsequent years and claim he cut the deficit.

Fiscal conservatives are not fooled.

Apparently you are. How do you manage with half a brain?

[Dog 46]

4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Apparently you are. How do you manage with half a brain?

Bla...bla...bla...

[SloopJonB 2,567]

1 hour ago, RKoch said:

Apparently you are. How do you manage with half a brain?

Feeling generous today?

[Contumacious Tom 679]

The debt will grow whether or not the tax cuts stay

Quote

Of course the real problem is Congress' inability to cut spending. After passing the tax cuts last year, Republicans earlier this year approved a two-year spending plan that obliterated Obama-era spending caps once championed by Ryan and other budget hawks. In doing so, the GOP has signaled quite clearly that it does not give a damn about the deficit—despite years of claiming otherwise as Presidents Bush and Obama added to the national debt. And if Republicans don't care about the deficit, why should Democrats?

Unwillingness is not inability.

[Contumacious Tom 679]

Bipartisan Boondoggling
 

Quote

 

One of the most enduring consequences of the Trump years will be the one on full display in the Senate yesterday, as lawmakers voted 85–7 to pass a pair of budget bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1.

The bills will boost spending for the Pentagon and for a host of domestic programs within the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. It's all part of Congress' ongoing attempt to get a fiscal year 2019 budget onto Trump's desk before the end of September. While there are series of other bills that must be passed to complete the budget, the military and human services "mini-bus" accounts for about two-thirds of annual government spending.

The fact that Congress might actually pass a budget is rare enough to be notable on its own. But the part of the story that history will remember is how Republicans in the Trump years completely abdicated their demands for fiscal restraint. Thursday's vote is the latest in a series of bipartisan agreements to hike spending since Republicans and Democrats adopted a two-year budget framework in February. That deal hiked overall spending by $400 billion over two years, and everything since then—including yesterday's vote—has been about filling in the details.

Getting such broad bipartisan support for huge spending increases would have been unheard of a few years ago, when Republicans were building their brand by opposing the runaway spending of the Obama administration. But with Trump in the White House, it's been full speed ahead toward the inevitable fiscal reckoning.

 

We really need to get back to gridlock soon.

 

[Raz'r 977]

4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Bipartisan Boondoggling
 

We really need to get back to gridlock soon.

 

Shit. I agree with Tom on this.

[Olsonist 354]

15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Shit. I agree with Tom on this.

The alternative to passing these budget bills is a government shutdown. Ain't no gridlock quite like a government shutdown. Is that really your preference?

[Raz'r 977]

8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

The alternative to passing these budget bills is a government shutdown. Ain't no gridlock quite like a government shutdown. Is that really your preference?

My preference is a split gov’t which tends to negate the extremes from either side

[Olsonist 354]

However, we don't have a split government. The fascists have the WH and both houses of Congress. The voice of Koch is saying that passing a budget bill is somehow a bipartisan act. It isn't. That's just subtle bothsiderism. It's a Republican budget and Democrats voted for it in preference over a shutdown.

[Raz'r 977]

13 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

However, we don't have a split government. The fascists have the WH and both houses of Congress. The voice of Koch is saying that passing a budget bill is somehow a bipartisan act. It isn't. That's just subtle bothsiderism. It's a Republican budget and Democrats voted for it in preference over a shutdown.

Yes...

[Contumacious Tom 679]

1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

The alternative to passing these budget bills is a government shutdown. Ain't no gridlock quite like a government shutdown. Is that really your preference?

So there's no alternative involving sane spending, just insane spending or nothing?

I doubt that's true but would take nothing.

[Olsonist 354]

There is some insane spending in there (F35, ...). But it isn't Bipartisan Boondoggling. It is Republican Boondoggling. They have a majority in the House where spending bills originate. They have a majority in the Senate. They have the White House. It is Republican Boondoggling. We regret the confusion.

Indeed Tom's confusion is earily similar to Jeff+Guy trying to blame Shitstain on Democrats. However, thems were Republican votes with Russian help that elected our everlasting embarrassment.

[Lark 495]

I'm with Olsonist on this.    I haven't looked at the spending bill but am sure I disagree with many of the priorities and some of the spending (military growth) entirely.   I am also sure there are many sound investments, spending that would actually produce a return, that are being skipped in the claim its more frugal to buy weapons.   Its still better to vote for a flawed bill then to risk default like Cruz tried under Obama, and better then one of those stupid shutdowns that increases costs of programs and produces no net savings for the taxpayer.   The world already sees us as the spoiled rich kid having a temper tantrum when he's not bullying the more advanced children on the playground.    Even if the Democrats had the power to bring the US to default like the Republicans tried a few years ago that does not mean they should.   Our 'normal' response of shutting down the government because the idiots in Washington cannot figure out a compromise will only make matters worse.    That said, I can understand any hypothetical representative with ethics and a conscience (I know it strains credulity) abstaining from a bad bill. 

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

23 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

ndeed Tom's confusion is earily similar to Jeff+Guy trying to blame Shitstain on Democrats. However, thems were Republican votes with Russian help that elected our everlasting embarrassment.

He's not confused, he's an asshole. It's an asinine position of "all spending is bad" taken for the pure glee in standing on the shoulders yelling "I told you so". Other people in the country - Republicans & Democrats - have different spending priorities. Without acknowledging their wishes and engaging with some sort of compromise, it's just grandstanding nihilistic masturbation. 

[Olsonist 354]

I'll add that with McCain's passing, that it would take one Republican Senator to provide a split government. As I've said before, Republicans are offended by Shitstain's style but they are ecstatic with his substance. A Republican Senator switching sides is not going to happen. Nor are Tom, Jeff or Guy calling for this to happen.

But instead we get the Bipartisan Boondoggle and Democrats elected Shitstain malarkey.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 658]

18 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I'll add that with McCain's passing, that it would take one Republican Senator to provide a split government. As I've said before, Republicans are offended by Shitstain's style but they are ecstatic with his substance. A Republican Senator switching sides is not going to happen. Nor are Tom, Jeff or Guy calling for this to happen.

But instead we get the Bipartisan Boondoggle and Democrats elected Shitstain malarkey.

Why do you think that someone has to switch parties for their efforts at reform to be seriously considered?  Seems to me that O is stuck on the idea that there can't be progress until he's personally satisfied that the other guys have been properly punished. 

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why do you think that someone has to switch parties for their efforts at reform to be seriously considered?  Seems to me that O is stuck on the idea that there can't be progress until he's personally satisfied that the other guys have been properly punished. 

A Republican Senator has to vote with the Ds for change to happen, because math. 50 Rs, 47 Ds, 2 independents. Until one of the Rs is willing to vote with the Ds nothing changes.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 658]

Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

A Republican Senator has to vote with the Ds for change to happen, because math. 50 Rs, 47 Ds, 2 independents. Until one of the Rs is willing to vote with the Ds nothing changes.

I agree - and O - I took your comment about "switching sides" to mean leaving the R party and joining the Ds.  If I was mistaken - let me know. 

[Olsonist 354]

22 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Why do you think that someone has to switch parties for their efforts at reform to be seriously considered?  Seems to me that O is stuck on the idea that there can't be progress until he's personally satisfied that the other guys have been properly punished. 

Why?

We really need to get back to gridlock soon.

Tom doesn’t get his gridlock without a Republican Senator switching sides. But maybe y’all don’t actually want gridlock and instead just want credit for thinking about gridlock. You know, a political participation trophy.

I meant handing the Majority Leadership to Schumer. You don’t get any credit for anything short of that.

Yes, I do agree that Republicans need to be punished for electing and supporting Shitstain.

[Raz'r 977]

1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I agree - and O - I took your comment about "switching sides" to mean leaving the R party and joining the Ds.  If I was mistaken - let me know. 

Does the current Republican Party legislature actually pass laws you support? If so, you should stay R. If not, you may consider what many have already done.

[A guy in the Chesapeake 658]

12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Does the current Republican Party legislature actually pass laws you support? If so, you should stay R. If not, you may consider what many have already done.

In this administration?   

There's only been one piece of legislation proffered that I thought should have been enthusiastically supported by both sides of the aisle, and that was the attempt to fix DACA w/legislation.   "What many have done"?  Sorry - I find much to be upset with on the "D" side of the house as well - and "not as bad as Trump" isn't enough to get me to do a party-line switch.   I'll keep banging the drums for what I want, and will support it w/out regarding to the indiviual's party affiliation when/if I see someone espousing those values. 

I can't ever see myself aligning with the liberal agenda - I think that many of the social issues we are struggling with in the country now are a result of poorly analyzed, shortsighted, but, well intended liberal attempts to "do something now", without taking the time to review the effectiveness of the chosen approach and make corrections beyond " it just needs MORE of what's not working already".   The powers that be think that they will continue to strengthen a dependent voting bloc - "who will protect you from those nasty evil Republicans if you don't vote for us?"  Y'all should see what taking a demographic for granted got ya last time.   

That said - I can indeed see myself supporting some specific initiatives that are liberal pets, while continuing to oppose many of the ideas that I think are harmful, not fully vetted, or simply a stupid expenditure of tax dollars. 

 

[phillysailor 917]

4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I can't ever see myself aligning with the liberal agenda - I think that many of the social issues we are struggling with in the country now are a result of poorly analyzed, shortsighted, but, well intended liberal attempts to "do something now", without taking the time to review the effectiveness of the chosen approach and make corrections beyond " it just needs MORE of what's not working already".   The powers that be think that they will continue to strengthen a dependent voting bloc - "who will protect you from those nasty evil Republicans if you don't vote for us?"  Y'all should see what taking a demographic for granted got ya last time.   

That said - I can indeed see myself supporting some specific initiatives that are liberal pets, while continuing to oppose many of the ideas that I think are harmful, not fully vetted, or simply a stupid expenditure of tax dollars. 

Hmm sounds like A LOT of Democrats would agree with all of this. 

[Raz'r 977]

4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In this administration?   

There's only been one piece of legislation proffered that I thought should have been enthusiastically supported by both sides of the aisle, and that was the attempt to fix DACA w/legislation.   "What many have done"?  Sorry - I find much to be upset with on the "D" side of the house as well - and "not as bad as Trump" isn't enough to get me to do a party-line switch.   I'll keep banging the drums for what I want, and will support it w/out regarding to the indiviual's party affiliation when/if I see someone espousing those values. 

I can't ever see myself aligning with the liberal agenda - I think that many of the social issues we are struggling with in the country now are a result of poorly analyzed, shortsighted, but, well intended liberal attempts to "do something now", without taking the time to review the effectiveness of the chosen approach and make corrections beyond " it just needs MORE of what's not working already".   The powers that be think that they will continue to strengthen a dependent voting bloc - "who will protect you from those nasty evil Republicans if you don't vote for us?"  Y'all should see what taking a demographic for granted got ya last time.   

That said - I can indeed see myself supporting some specific initiatives that are liberal pets, while continuing to oppose many of the ideas that I think are harmful, not fully vetted, or simply a stupid expenditure of tax dollars. 

 

Sounds like an Independent who can't let go....

[A guy in the Chesapeake 658]

3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Sounds like an Independent who can't let go....

Probably a pretty accurate assessment. 

[Contumacious Tom 679]

13 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Thursday's vote is the latest in a series of bipartisan agreements to hike spending since Republicans and Democrats adopted a two-year budget framework in February.

At least, that's what the article said. Maybe it's true that TeamD isn't currently participating but I'd say our out of control spending is a long term Duopoly problem/creation. TeamR certainly gets most of the credit now.

 

6 hours ago, Olsonist said:

We really need to get back to gridlock soon.

Tom doesn’t get his gridlock without a Republican Senator switching sides.

I may just get it in the midterms. I remain hopeful that TeamD can take at least one house of Congress. I don't care which one but the Senate seems more likely.

[Sol Rosenberg 1,685]

Peace and quiet at last.  All the barking Dogs left the Fiscal Responsibility Express.  

Quote

The federal deficit hit $895 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2018, an increase of $222 billion, or 32 percent, over the same period the previous year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The non-partisan CBO reported that the central drivers of the increasing deficit were the Republican tax law and the bipartisan agreement to increase spending. As a result, revenue only rose 1 percent, failing to keep up with a 7 percent surge in spending, it added.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/406040-federal-deficit-soars-32-percent-to-895b

 

Good times indeed.  As I like to ask during both democRAT and American administrations..."Who's paying for it?"  

[Olsonist 354]

Trickle down is gonna work this time. Belief me!

Both sides like to spend money. Hell, I like to spend money. But Republicans like to spend on credit. Trickle down. This war will pay for itself. 

[Sol Rosenberg 1,685]

2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Trickle down is gonna work this time. Belief me!

Both sides like to spend money. Hell, I like to spend money. But Republicans like to spend on credit. Trickle down. This war will pay for itself. 

If we give the Job Creators (hallowed be thy names) tax cuts, and then cook up some good military action so that we can borrow in everyone's name, launder the money through military action so that we can redistribute more money to the Job Creators (peace be upon them), we can REALLY get the economy going like gangbusters, and have another tax cut.  

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

So apparently Donnie Dipshit's answer to the deficit was "just run the presses - print money".

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/trump-once-considered-just-printing-money-to-lower-the-national-debt-woodward-reports.html

He also wanted to make money by borrowing it cheaply.. and holding it. How the fuck can anyone term this guy a "business genius"?

[Lark 495]

7 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So apparently Donnie Dipshit's answer to the deficit was "just run the presses - print money".

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/11/trump-once-considered-just-printing-money-to-lower-the-national-debt-woodward-reports.html

He also wanted to make money by borrowing it cheaply.. and holding it. How the fuck can anyone term this guy a "business genius"?

He is deep in debt.   So is his son in law.   Printing money and increasing inflationary pressure as he has done with his policies is actually shrewd  from the Trump family perspective, especially if he borrows at fixed rates.   Maybe he’s smarter then I thought.   

[Ishmael 1,773]

33 minutes ago, Lark said:

He is deep in debt.   So is his son in law.   Printing money and increasing inflationary pressure as he has done with his policies is actually shrewd  from the Trump family perspective, especially if he borrows at fixed rates.   Maybe he’s smarter then I thought.   

He probably has his own presses ready to go.

[SloopJonB 2,567]

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

 How the fuck can anyone term this guy a "business genius"?

Nobody does except him.

He's consistently fucked up for most of his life. I mean he went bankrupt owning a casino FFS. A business model where people come in and give you their money for essentially nothing - and he went broke. He was so bad that he had to go to Russian oligarchs for loans - legitimate lenders wouldn't touch him.

Truly a stable genius.

[Contumacious Tom 679]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:03 PM, SloopJonB said:

Nobody does except him.

He's consistently fucked up for most of his life. I mean he went bankrupt owning a casino FFS. A business model where people come in and give you their money for essentially nothing - and he went broke. He was so bad that he had to go to Russian oligarchs for loans - legitimate lenders wouldn't touch him.

Truly a stable genius.

Only Congress could give a guy like that more money. And last week, they voted overwhelmingly to do exactly that.
 

Quote

 

Congress just passed a $150 billion spending bill—the first of three to be considered in the coming days—with bipartisan support and without significant opposition from the leadership of either party. The bill passed 377-20 in the House on Thursday afternoon, after clearing the Senate with a 92-5 vote on Wednesday.

That's a mere 25 "nays" (20 of them Republicans, five Democrats) on a major spending bill that promises to add to billions to the deficit. A spending bill that passes less than 48 hours after the CBO revealed that America's budget deficit had grown by $220 billion during the current year.

There is clearly no appetite in Congress for addressing the deficit. What strikes me as more worrying is the complete lack of concern on the part of the public. Is it because Trumpism has consumed the populist right and redirected its anger about government spending into endless culture war outrages? Is it that the public has become numb to the threat of trillion-dollar deficits, to the point where that symbolic threshold has lost it's power to spur action? It's probably a bit of both of those things, combined with the fact that Republicans only seem to care about deficits when Democrats are in charge—a phenomenon that boosts Democratic calls for more spending when they control things.

 

If only we didn't have such acrimony and partisanship, Congress could work together in a bipartisan way to get things done.

Um, wait, they overwhelmingly just did. Again. And again I am reminded of the virtues of gridlock.

[Contumacious Tom 679]

$854 billion here, $854 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking...

Hey, there's gang rape trains in another thread!

Justin Amash wondered on Twitter whether Trump meant it when he said he'd never sign such a boondoggle again.

I don't wonder. Big government marches on. He'll sign.

[Sean 594]

 

In FY 2018: Debt Up $1,271,158,167,127; Feds Borrowed $8,172 Per Every American With a Job

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/fy-2018-debt-1271158167127

[Dog 46]

1 minute ago, Sean said:

 

In FY 2018: Debt Up $1,271,158,167,127; Feds Borrowed $8,172 Per Every American With a Job

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/fy-2018-debt-1271158167127

Madness!

[Sol Rosenberg 1,685]

I remember when it hit one trillion. You’d have thought it was the end of the world. Lonely days on the Fiscal Responsibility Express. Nice and quiet with plenty of leg room. 

[SailBlueH2O 439]

13 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

In FY 2018: Debt Up $1,271,158,167,127; Feds Borrowed $8,172 Per Every American With a Job

 

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/fy-2018-debt-1271158167127

Truly FRIGHTING !!!

[Sean 594]

No big deal. Deficit spending is only bad when Democrats do it. What we need is another tax cut for the wealthy. 

[Dog 46]

22 minutes ago, Sean said:

No big deal. Deficit spending is only bad when Democrats do it. What we need is another tax cut for the wealthy. 

What we need is less spending.

[Steam Flyer 1,019]

2 minutes ago, Dog said:

What we need is less spending.

Why don't we have it? The party of fiscal responsibility is in control right now

-DSK

[SailBlueH2O 439]

7 minutes ago, Dog said:

What we need is less spending.

Never going to happen....but we don't need so much government.....need to eliminate whole departments and agencies ....state and local governments see what the big boys have and get and model their governments after that....there are incentives from top to bottom to grow year over year...ask for more..get more....this massive deficit should bother both party bases, of course very few politicians will advocate that......I am not in NY but heard the Libertarian Governor candidate interviewed on the radio yesterday and was very impressed.

This guy..I have not listened to this vid..just pulled and posted 

 

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

so if we can't reduce spending - maybe we need to raise taxes?

[Contumacious Tom 679]

12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why don't we have it? The party of fiscal responsibility is in control right now

-DSK

I'd say because the Duopoly party is more than capable of blessed bipartisanship when it really matters, as the overwhelming vote totals above demonstrate.

TeamR gets a little grumpy about spending when there's a TeamD President. It's worse when we have a TeamR President because we have to rely on TeamD to get grumpy about spending.

[SailBlueH2O 439]

12 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so if we can't reduce spending - maybe we need to raise taxes?

Dramatically reduce the size and scope of government in our lives...taxes will go down proportionally .....rein is deficit spending which is where the greatest abuse takes place...deficit spending was once for large infrastructure type projects...the concept has spilled over to social "programs"

[Raz'r 977]

2 hours ago, Dog said:

What we need is less spending.

Spending has been the same % of GDP for 5 decades. What’s changed?

[Dog 46]

10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Spending has been the same % of GDP for 5 decades. What’s changed?

Bullshit

[Olsonist 354]

2 hours ago, SailBlueH2O said:

Dramatically reduce the size and scope of government in our lives...taxes will go down proportionally .....rein is deficit spending which is where the greatest abuse takes place...deficit spending was once for large infrastructure type projects...the concept has spilled over to social "programs"

Social Security is pay as you go with FICA taxes. The Iraq+Afghanistan Wars were emergency funding, AKA straight to debt, until the Kenyan put it on normal budgeting and (ISYN) Republicans attacked him for increasing the deficit.

[Grrr... 187]

4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit

You're about () close to being on permanent ignore.  Because you're an idiot.

Government spending as a percent of GDP has hovered between 34 and 38% for about the last 50 years - except for roughly a 3 year time span where it bounced up to 43%.  So Raz'r's statement is pretty much true, unless you're a semantical dickhead.

[Olsonist 354]

5 minutes ago, Dog said:

Bullshit

Dog is allergic to facts.

[dacapo 257]

1 minute ago, Grrr... said:

You're about () close to being on permanent ignore.  Because you're an idiot.

Government spending as a percent of GDP has hovered between 34 and 38% for about the last 50 years - except for roughly a 3 year time span where it bounced up to 43%.  So Raz'r's statement is pretty much true, unless you're a semantical dickhead.

Alex, I'll take Semantical dickheads for $1000 please..........

[Dog 46]

[Grrr... 187]

4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Hey dipshit.  Federal spending is in red.  Notice how that portion of the graph has NOT GROWN SINCE 1950?  By your OWN evidence.  And NO one here was talking about the state level (incuding you).

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

Dog is allergic to facts.

I'm close to 100% certain this exact argument has been had with Dog before. It's a good thing with the runaway deficits the children will get to pay higher taxes for no services.

[Grrr... 187]

3 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm close to 100% certain this exact argument has been had with Dog before. It's a good thing with the runaway deficits the children will get to pay higher taxes for no services.

Well, he should have just figured it out since he posted it himself.  But just wait for the backpedal where he claims to have been including state spending when he said we need to cut.... Nevermind.  I don't have the spare time to argue with people who are either that willfully ignorant or just that lazy.  Ignore is a wonderful feature.  He can talk to people with the energy to call him on his constant stupidity.

[Contumacious Tom 679]

2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so if we can't reduce spending - maybe we need to raise taxes?

They'll spend something over 100% of any amount they can collect, so increasing the amount collected makes the problem worse, not better.

[Mismoyled Jiblet. 757]

4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

They'll spend something over 100% of any amount they can collect, so increasing the amount collected makes the problem worse, not better.

That's factually incorrect, but thanks for playing "knee jerk reactionary".

[Olsonist 354]

30 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm close to 100% certain this exact argument has been had with Dog before. It's a good thing with the runaway deficits the children will get to pay higher taxes for no services.

Dog doesn't give a shit about deficits as long as they're Republican deficits.

[SloopJonB 2,567]

5 hours ago, Dog said:

Madness!

No problem - just inflate until burgers cost $50 and a cheap car is $50K

Problem solved.

[SloopJonB 2,567]

1 hour ago, Grrr... said:

You're about () close to being on permanent ignore.  Because you're an idiot.

Government spending as a percent of GDP has hovered between 34 and 38% for about the last 50 years - except for roughly a 3 year time span where it bounced up to 43%.  So Raz'r's statement is pretty much true, unless you're a semantical dickhead.

He's a pretty ordinary dickhead.

Maybe a little on the dumb side but otherwise?

[A guy in the Chesapeake 658]

26 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

No problem - just inflate until burgers cost $50 and a cheap car is $50K

Problem solved.

Like Australia?  Well, the burgers are only $15, but, price a Honda Civic. 

[Dog 46]

2 hours ago, Grrr... said:

Hey dipshit.  Federal spending is in red.  Notice how that portion of the graph has NOT GROWN SINCE 1950?  By your OWN evidence.  And NO one here was talking about the state level (incuding you).

Hay moron. The claim I called bullshit on was that government spending as a percent of GDP has remained constant. It has not.

[Raz'r 977]

3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Hay moron. The claim I called bullshit on was that government spending as a percent of GDP has remained constant. It has not.

Fed Spending has been flat for decades. Your whine was about the fed deficit. Quit dancing, idiot.

[Grrr... 187]

23 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Fed Spending has been flat for decades. Your whine was about the fed deficit. Quit dancing, idiot.

So... either he intentionally included state when everyone here was (obviously) talking federal... and that makes him an intentional asshole.

Or he just didn't understand or couldn't be bothered to double check his claims... and that make him an unintentional asshole.

See where I'm going with this? 

I called this backpedal 2 hours ago.