CBO: Trillion Dollar Deficits are Back!!! #MAGA

[WTF2008]

Yes I equated them, during 8 damn years in office how often and on how many issues did people have to make excuses for Obama? Whether it's his never ending stream of dumbass tweets, the creepy way he talks about his own daughter, his bankruptcies or lying about simple sh*t like the size of his inauguration crowd. Trumptards always have an excuse up and ready to go and we are only a year into President Trumps administration.

Totally. You go girl.
Keep on keeping on.

 

[WTF2008]

No more is needed for someone who can make such an idiotic statement. I´m certainly not discussing economics with a partisan hack who has a mickey mouse level understanding of the subject.

Oh shit. Didn't realize I was talking to an economic expert.

 

[Prutfis]

Oh shit. Didn't realize I was talking to an economic expert.

A toddler could see how moronic your statement was.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

As usual the Trump bots have no real thoughts on Trump and the GOPs total aboutvface on running up the deficit. Sonething they blasted Obama for.

Just another day for conservatives.

 

[PEB]

It's pretty funny people are surprised by this but according to President Trump that giving these Corporate tax breaks would help generate new business growth offsetting a larger defect that would happen under his plan. He all but admitted this fact when he was appearing at the carrier plant "The one that ended up cutting more jobs then I was supposed to do". The best part is a weakening dollar and a growing defect under his plan with little indication that jobs are coming back.

 

[Joe]

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think we have a revenue problem when it comes to government, we have a spending problem. I think this omnibus bill was a monstrosity. Both parties are performing very badly when it comes to spending.

This is a meaningless platitude combined with dishonest general bothsidesism as a defense of specific policies. Surely, even if neither party is satisfying your desire to reduce debt, you can acknowledge a massive difference between the two of them.

Democrats have a pretty clear position--long-term reductions in debt with short-term adjustments based on the needs of the economy. The belief was that we needed temporarily higher deficits to combat the recession after 2009 (note, BTW, that the deficit peaked in Bush's last year), and that we should offset those temporarily higher deficits with long-term reduction (and no president has done more to reduce long-term debt than Obama--he even topped Clinton).

What's the Republican position on debt? Seems to be that it is an existential threat when a Democrat is in the WH and that we should greatly expand when a Republican is in the WH. There is simply no justification for the Trump cuts. As a country, we're not getting anything out of it. We're just borrowing money to give to rich heirs and investors.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This is a meaningless platitude combined with dishonest general bothsidesism as a defense of specific policies. Surely, even if neither party is satisfying your desire to reduce debt, you can acknowledge a massive difference between the two of them.

Democrats have a pretty clear position--long-term reductions in debt with short-term adjustments based on the needs of the economy. The belief was that we needed temporarily higher deficits to combat the recession after 2009 (note, BTW, that the deficit peaked in Bush's last year), and that we should offset those temporarily higher deficits with long-term reduction (and no president has done more to reduce long-term debt than Obama--he even topped Clinton).

What's the Republican position on debt? Seems to be that it is an existential threat when a Democrat is in the WH and that we should greatly expand when a Republican is in the WH. There is simply no justification for the Trump cuts. As a country, we're not getting anything out of it. We're just borrowing money to give to rich heirs and investors.

So saying that I think we should reduce government spending and that I think both parties spend too much is dishonest? You're such a hack, and it is hard to take you seriously.

My position has been consistent. Obama spent too much money and now I think Trump is likewise spending too much money. Trillion dollar deficits when we aren't in a national crisis seem incredibly irresponsible to me, regardless of the party passing the spending bill.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So saying that I think we should reduce government spending and that I think both parties spend too much is dishonest? You're such a hack, and it is hard to take you seriously.

It's "hard to take me seriously" because I make points that are challenging to you, and you lack the integrity to just change your view when you see that, isn't it? Do you think your paraphrase is honest?

I said that the bothsidesism from you is dishonest because there is an enormous difference between the two parties on the issue, and you glossing over that. Instead of criticizing the specific actions that have caused enormous boom-time deficits (the Trump tax cuts), you're making some kind of general comment about politics. If you actually care about deficits, you have to admit that Democrats are way better on the issue.

My position has been consistent. Obama spent too much money and now I think Trump is likewise spending too much money. Trillion dollar deficits when we aren't in a national crisis seem incredibly irresponsible to me, regardless of the party passing the spending bill.

Presidents don't generally affect spending much on a year-to-year basis (Obama was able to get a bump for two years). Long-term deficit-impacting policies from Obama were a tax hike and the ACA (the cuts to Medicare waste were part of that), and they both had the impact of greatly reducing deficits. Trump's impact was signing the tax cuts that are greatly increasing deficits. You see the issue there? Obama reduced deficits drastically and Trump increased them, and you're saying that they're the same on the issue. Not honest.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

eh, when it starts out with excuse making, its not worth reading. The president is responsible for what happens on his watch.

So you don't see a difference in the economy Obama inherited compared to the one Trump inherited?

 

[kpt018]

Presidents don't generally affect spending much on a year-to-year basis (Obama was able to get a bump for two years). Long-term deficit-impacting policies from Obama were a tax hike and the ACA (the cuts to Medicare waste were part of that), and they both had the impact of greatly reducing deficits. Trump's impact was signing the tax cuts that are greatly increasing deficits. You see the issue there? Obama reduced deficits drastically and Trump increased them, and you're saying that they're the same on the issue. Not honest.

This is exactly right and what is frustrating about these conversations is the difference you point out should be fairly obvious and easy for people to see. There are plenty of occasions where policy is really complex and it's not quite clear without doing some homework what the outcomes are, but this comparison is not that!

 

[Seano]

So you don't see a difference in the economy Obama inherited compared to the one Trump inherited?

Record high debt and trade deficit? Yes, I see it. Difference is that I expect Trump to be held responsible for how the economy goes under his watch.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It's "hard to take me seriously" because I make points that are challenging to you, and you lack the integrity to just change your view when you see that, isn't it? Do you think your paraphrase is honest?

No, you are hard to take seriously because you make every conversation about cheap point scoring and asserting your own superiority against those you perceive as being on the other side. You are the ultimate partisan, to the extent that you must critique criticisms of the right wing if they come from the wrong people. That's why you spend so much time and energy making impersonal arguments personal. And issues about government spending instead become issues of my own honesty or integrity.

No objective observer would not call my honesty or integrity into question for my post in this thread: criticizing a move by a party I generally defend after criticizing the other party for similar reasons:

I don't think we have a revenue problem when it comes to government, we have a spending problem. I think this omnibus bill was a monstrosity. Both parties are performing very badly when it comes to spending.

See those points? I believe every one of them. And I've been making those points consistently for years now. There's no honest way to infer dishonesty.

You are being unserious and hackish, which is sadly characteristic. This is especially unfortunate as I think it is evident that you have a lot to bring to the table when it comes to poltico-economic discussions, but you undercut yourself with your own pettiness.

 

[zebby23]

Luckyshot, Quequeg, and Kong can't help themselves.

Hey rip, I saw you posted the same graphic here on Sherdog that you did on Twitter.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Record high debt and trade deficit? Yes, I see it. Difference is that I expect Trump to be held responsible for how the economy goes under his watch.

An economy in free fall for Obama and a booming economy for Trump .

Just acknowledge it , it's fact

Conservatives on this board were freaking out about Obama's deficits and now it's mostly crickets.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Trump probably thinks he can just declare bankruptcy like he does in real life .

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, you are hard to take seriously because you make every conversation about cheap point scoring and asserting your own superiority against those you perceive as being on the other side. You are the ultimate partisan, to the extent that you must critique criticisms of the right wing if they come from the wrong people.

That doesn't even make sense. It's a self-refuting allegation.

That's why you spend so much time and energy making impersonal arguments personal. And issues about government spending instead become issues of my own honesty or integrity.

I would actually much prefer to discuss the nuts and bolts of this issue, but your constant dishonesty is an obstacle to it.

No objective observer would not call my honesty or integrity into question for my post in this thread: criticizing a move by a party I generally defend after criticizing the other party for similar reasons:

Here's what I think is dishonest:

1. The bothsidesism. This thread is about how deficits have spiked in the wake of the Trump tax cuts. You're deflecting from the topic to incorrectly claim that both sides have increased deficits.
2. When I called out the dishonesty in 1., you pretended to believe that I was saying that I said that your belief that spending should be reduced is dishonest. You know that wasn't what I said, but you felt that saying it could score cheap points for you, right?

You are being unserious and hackish, which is sadly characteristic. This is especially unfortunate as I think it is evident that you have a lot to bring to the table when it comes to poltico-economic discussions, but you undercut yourself with your own pettiness.

"Beig hackish" as used by people like you just means "disagreeing with Inga," does it not?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

"Beig hackish" as used by people like you just means "disagreeing with Inga," does it not?

Nope. I don't take it personally when others disagree with me. It's one of my strengths.

I say you are hackish because of the consistently petty and hackish nature of your responses to me. There are many people who disagree with me right here itt who are not petty hacks.

 

[Rod1]

So saying that I think we should reduce government spending and that I think both parties spend too much is dishonest? You're such a hack, and it is hard to take you seriously.

My position has been consistent. Obama spent too much money and now I think Trump is likewise spending too much money. Trillion dollar deficits when we aren't in a national crisis seem incredibly irresponsible to me, regardless of the party passing the spending bill.

I agree, but saying America doesnt has a revenue problem is short-sighted.

Cutting revenue without cutting spending and running the credit card creates a massive moral hazard.

 

[Seano]

An economy in free fall for Obama and a booming economy for Trump .

Just acknowledge it , it's fact

Conservatives on this board were freaking out about Obama's deficits and now it's mostly crickets.

Look, I've said it a 1000 times. I believe the president is responsible for what happens when he's in office. Fact is Obama left us with record high debt and deficit and you guys are calling Trump out for it.

Everything bad that happened during the Obama admin was Bush's fault and then he gets credit over 25% of the way through the next presidents term for anything good that happens. Its a fucking joke.