Biden agrees to "historic reductions in spending" to raise the debt ceiling

and that's why we're thirty trillion in the hole and climbing no matter how high the taxes are and everyone is complaining. You can't keep growing government at the expense of everything else and expect things to just be all hunky dory.

 

You mean like Ronnie blowing up spending, as he gutted revenues? Or Dubya giving 2 unfunded tax cuts (1 during war) and going into 2 wars without new funding? Maybe it was the Dubya/GOP Medicare Part D expansion in 2004 to "win" that didn't provide a single penny of revenues but will cost the general fund $119 billion this F/Y?

Or DIAPER DONNIE'S BLOWING UP SPENDING (DEFICITS) while gutting revenues?

 

you can't keep giving tax cuts for the rich and expect things to just be all hunky-dory.

Trickle down doesn't work, the rich just get richer, the poor poorer and the debt bigger

 

It's cute that people think Presidents and not Congress have the biggest control over our deficit.

 

Yes "cute" how right wingers want to blame the (D) President when things don't pan out but credit or blame Congress when they do.

Not getting much through Congress without a Presidents signature

 

The trickle down thing is an old BS argument from the late 1940s. It's really the only thing we have that works. You solutions are top down with crooks like the Clinton and Biden crime families getting rich by selling influence. Top down is also the system they have in Russia, China and every other dictatorship.

But you guys always say you are going to get it right. Just give us one more dictatorship, and we will have angels running the government, and the country will be perfect.

There are no angels, especially the ones who call themselves "socialists" and wealth redistributors. They most of it for themselves and leave you with the crumbs.

 

trickle down is a failure...

 

Neither one of them lowered the deficit because they ignored the liabilities incurred from receiving Social Security payments. In both cases, sequester had something to to down with "their lower deficits" because of fights with Congress over spending. They were the lucky recipients of fights with Congress.
Recipients

 

Where do you guys get all of these fancy illustrations? Do they come from a website supplied to you by the Democrat Party?

They are cute, but false.

 

Got it, you don't know the difference between debt and deficits

Deficits are YEARLY budgets. BJ Bill, That Guy From Kenya, Obama and the current Prez are the only ones to have lower deficits than the ones presented to them in the past 60 years.

You know LOWERING DEFICITS. BTW, BJ BILL HAD 4 BUDGET SURPLUSES, 3 AFTER VETOING THE GOP'S $792+ BILLION TAX CUT

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

 

The deficit goes both ways between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. But, it's ignorant to assume that Presidents having the biggest influence. They don't. You need to look at more than the letter next to the person in the White House.

 

This is why being informed about how budgets work is important. Taking Bill Clinton, for example, he was embroiled in bad publicity and Newt Gingrich got the entire Republican House on board with completely eliminating the deficit in seven years. Gingrich forced Clinton's hand and he did not have the political capital to get what he wanted.

 

I disagree, strongly. For some reason the GOP when their "in charge" have this habit of lowering revenues as they blow up spending. The Dems tend to get more revenues when they are in the White House

Wonder what it could be?

"Starve the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending by cutting taxes, to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending. The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States federal government and the programs it funds, using mainly American taxpayer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

On July 14, 1978, economist and future Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan testified to the Senate Finance Committee: "Let us remember that the basic purpose of any tax cut program in today's environment is to reduce the momentum of expenditure growth by restraining the amount of revenue available and trust that there is a political limit to deficit spending."

Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

 

LMAOROG. Sure that was Newt and the GOP *shaking head*

Wonder what changed when Dubya had the white house, were the GOP as fiscally restrained?

President Clinton's Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

• Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction over 5 years

Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation's fiscal discipline. The President's actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994 SEE THAT DATE?

"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

 

As our President has successfully negotiated a deal to avoid a catastrophic default, Democrats are overwhelmingly pleased that the two leading Republican candidates for President are Trump and Desantis.

Trump thinks a default is not a big deal!

Reuters reports, "In a televised CNN town hall appearance, Trump said Congress should claw back money allocated in Biden's domestic spending legislation. "If they don't ... you'll have to default," causing "a bad week or a bad day."

DeSantis says Republicans were wrong in avoiding a catastrophic default!

The Hill reports, "Prior to this deal … our country was careening towards bankruptcy. And after this deal, our country will still be careening towards bankruptcy,” DeSantis said on “Fox & Friends.”

DeSantis speaks only to friendly media. He avoids the respected news media, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the like.

Trump and Desantis seem challenged by stark reality.

 

ABC reports. "The reviews are starting to come in as details emerge about the debt ceiling agreement reached by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

"Some of the earliest objections are coming from Republicans, the most conservative members of Congress, particularly members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus.

“I think it's a disaster!” tweeted Matt Rosendale, R-Mont.

“Fake conservatives agree to fake spending cuts,” tweeted Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

"This ‘deal’ is insanity," tweeted Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.

"Some Democrats dislike what is roughly a spending freeze on non-defense programs next year and chafe at work requirements.

"Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called it terrible policy Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

“However, it is bad policy. I told the president that directly, when he called me last week on Wednesday, that this is saying to poor people and people who are in need that we don’t trust them,” Jayapal.

Conclusion: When the extreme right is complaining and the extreme left is complaining, it has to one hell of a good piece of legislation.

 

The only time the rich don't get richer is when we're all starving. You cannot tax your way to prosperity.

 

This isn't a shut down. It isn't even a rise or lowering of the borrowing limit. It allows unlimited borrowing for the next two years and doesn't fix the problem of overspending. It is the politicians' way of telling the public they fixed something. They didn't. Business as usual. It will pass with flying colors.

 

society can't tax cut for the rich their way to prosperity, our debt is proof of that

 

Clinton's tax hike in 1993 didn't balance the budget. In fact, years after that he was still in a deficit, and his administration's official prediction from the Office of Management and Budget was more deficits each year into the future with no prediction of these tax hikes ever resulting in a balanced budget or a surplus. And this was the rosiest prediction available since it was the fluff from his own administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_United_States_federal_budget#:~:text=authorized by congress.-,Deficit/Surplus,enacted legislation of $164 billion.

Clinton never balanced the budget. His proposals and tax hikes continued to result in more debt. This isn't hard to fact-check. The numbers are publicly available. The budget didn't get balanced until Newt Gingrich took control. Our GDP is now about four times larger, which would make this a deficit of about $600B when thinking about it in today's dollars. The fact that you think this huge deficit was somehow a surplus is beyond ridiculous.

 

Gawd you wingers, DEFICITS (or surpluses like all 4 of BJ Bill's) ARE YEARLY BUDGETS, debt's are culmitave deficits. More money coming into Gov't in a F/Y than going out creates a YEARLY SURPLUS IN THE BUDGET

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

 

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the “largest tax increase in history.” It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/


When Bill Clinton took office in January 1993, the federal budget deficit was projected to be $310 billion that year, or about 5 percent of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office was also projecting that five years later, in 1998, the federal budget would still be in the red to the tune of $357 billion, or 4.5 percent of GDP. At the time, the CBO called the deficit outlook, “grim.”

...Just five months prior, the Congressional Budget Office projected a 1998 deficit of $360 billion. One month after the bill passed, the CBO’s new estimate of the 1988 deficit was down to $200 billion. The CBO explained the dramatic improvement this way: “For the first time in two and one-half years, the deficit projections have taken a decided turn for the better… The reconciliation act deserves most of the credit for the improvement over the long run.” Indeed, of the $160 billion improvement from March to September of that year, CBO directly credited OBRA with $143 billion. In fact, OBRA turns out to have been the single largest contributor to the 1998 surplus.

After OBRA, the second largest contributor to fiscal improvement over the period was the rapidly strengthening economy.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/not-so-fast-newt/

 

Current revenues post tax cuts are the highest as a percent of GDP ever, nearly 24%, that's higher than the 1950's. No amount of revenue will ever fund all the government leftists want.

 

First their was a large tax increase. It was 3.5. it was inconsequential especially at the level it was set. Larger and you get nothing. Because

And both had some thing no Republican president ever had. A Republic Congress for six years...

 

Put it off until after the next election, I know. Another reason we need term limits to defeat career lifelong politicians.