So, we ended with a deficit below 1 trillion, just barely, at 984.4 billion. Revenue was up a respectable 133.7B but was eclipsed by a spending increase of 338.5B for a deficit increase of 204.5B.
But this should at least quiet the claim that the tax cuts caused the deficit.
| FY '19 | 3,462,125 | 4,446,581 | 984,383 |
| FY '18 | 3,328,391 | 4,108,111 | 779,914 |
| 133,734 | 338,470 | 204,469 |
Thanks much Tim!
(over) spending needs to be cut.
However:
"The deficit has now swelled nearly 50 percent since Mr. Trump took office and it is projected to top $1 trillion in 2020. It did not hit $1 trillion in fiscal 2019, which ended Sept. 30, but that was largely the result of Mr. Trump’s tariffs on trading partners like China, which brought in more than $70 billion in revenue.
The grim fiscal scorecard shows how far the Republican Party, under Mr. Trump, has strayed from conservative orthodoxy, which long prioritized less spending and lower deficits. After years of railing against federal spending while President Barack Obama was in office, Republicans have largely followed the president’s lead in cutting budget deals with Democrats that have increased overall government spending.
Annual budget deficits have now increased for four consecutive years, the first such run since the early 1980s. That is a sharp rebuke to Mr. Trump, who promised as a presidential candidate to eliminate deficits within eight years by cutting spending and expanding the economy."
I agree strongly with pj.
If you can't cut the deficit during the best economic times, like those that we have right now......... then you can never cut the deficit.
Over the last 4 decades, the debt has grown the fastest during republican administrations.
Trump is following in their footsteps and not following thru with this particular promise. Maybe his mindset in the real estate business where he bankrupted several times is affecting his judgement?
Or he's being like all the other politicians on this. Give people today lots of goodies to get elected and screw people of tomorrow that will eventually pay the price......and they will.
BTW, regarding those great tax cuts. We paid an extra $4,000 in 2018 vs 2017 with the same income, thanks to the changes in the rules on itemizing.
We itemized +had the standard deduction before. Now, they raised the minimum to itemize to right at the number that we would itemize at, so we can't itemize anything and just take the standard deduction.
Everybody that didn't itemize before get a huge boost from the high standard deduction except people like us. No more mort interest, prop tax and other items.
Any guesses on how high up the blue will make it on the chart below before bad things start happening? Or maybe, the question should be, when we hit the next recession, will we have already maxed out on how high the blue can go without it contributing to an increasingly burdensome dynamic?
It WILL happen, so this is not an IF it happens but more of a WHERE and WHEN will it happen.
I guess there are too many variables, like the strength of the economy, interest rates and the chance for a miracle............that government will suddenly wake up and massively start paying down the debt(none of the dem
Here's another chart that isn't so pretty:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/facts-about-the-national-debt/
The nation’s debt is
Updated: September 23, 2019 - 5:44 AM
" There have been three primetime presidential debates totaling 12 hours with 297 questions asked. And not a single one — not one — was about our deficit or debt. With our national debt currently the highest it’s ever been as a share of the economy except right after WWII, how can it be so willfully ignored?
I am on the board of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is headed by Mitch Daniels, Leon Panetta, Tim Penny, and Maya MacGuineas. We are an organization of dedicated, nonpartisan numbers nerds asking the responsible question: How can we restore fiscal sanity in Washington?"
That article used the typical dem gambit that the fy'08 budget belongs to pubs. While technically true, the budget was passed by a dem congress signed by Obama after he added a do nothing 800+billion stimulus. 08 was by far the largest deficit in raw dollars, percentage of GDP, percentage or any other measure you care to use, that we've ever seen with a close second, third and fourth in the following years.
Spending has to be brought under control and congress has to do it.
"08 was by far the largest deficit in raw dollars, percentage of GDP, percentage or any other measure you care to use, that we've ever seen with a close second, third and fourth in the following years."
And '08-'09 was the worst recession since the Depression.
Yeah, hence that wildly productive 800+ billion stimulus that accomplished nothing other than nearly tying the deficit of '19 all by itself. In 10, 11, 12, we were in solid recovery mode. Each year exceeded '19 without adjusting for inflation. Only in America could a president (D) be credited with reducing the deficit each year he's in office with no mention of his starting out with a staggering chart buster.
https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-us-federal-budget-deficit-3321439
Only in this bizarro world could conservative Pubs be cheering a prez for accelerating deficits during/after a record-long expansion.
I don't recall cheering for deficits from/for anyone. My recurring theme is that we need to get spending under control.
I just feel a compelling need to present facts and data when I see an article attempting to present the Obama deficits for anything other than what they were.
"I don't recall cheering for deficits from/for anyone."
Didn't say you or anyone was cheering for deficits, but you and many seemingly former deficit hawks sure seem to be cheering for Trump.
Gosh PJ. I'm not cheering for Trump. I don't cheer for anyone. I cheer for ideas and results. I think the tax cuts were good and are starting to show a lot of benefits. I think the spending is bad and could cause problems.
But I think we are veering into NTR territory, so this will be my last word on this.
You always seem to want to have the "last word"... :-)
I understand that congress has a lot to say about this too, however, if you want just the facts:
1. Republican administrations since Reagan have racked up more debt than Democrats.
2. Clinton had some great things going for him and had a Republican Congress that helped to keep the debt from increasing as much as Republican presidents, but the guy that really messed up on the debt was Bush 2. Really, really messed up. Perfect opportunity to pay down the debt but he gave the potential surplus back in tax cuts and grew the debt even more. The bs Iraq war increased the debt too.
3. Those going after Obama on the debt increasing have to pretend a couple things didn't happen(but they did).
a. There was a severe recession that had to be dealt with from the get go which resulted in the debt increasing at a much greater rate early in his reign. You may disagree with his spending at that time but nobody can deny that its much easier to balance the budget with good times and almost impossible during a recession.
b. Even with the recession, Obama's spending was not greater than any of the republicans of the last 40 years. You can't criticize him as if this was something unique in the last 40 years.
4. Trump is growing the deficit as much as anybody and there are 2 bad elements that specifically make it worse than previous presidents to some extent.
a. His platform called for cutting the debt. He has done a wonderful job fulfilling or trying to fulfill most promises but on this one, I give him a D- on a grading scale of A-F. Most politicians will say anything to get elected(the current crop of dems are promising things and manufacturing facts from an alternate universe), however, since Trump has tremendous negatives with his style of communicating, being very mean and divisive as well as continually exaggerating and getting facts wrong..........his tremendous offsetting positives in the form of his wonderful agenda..........takes a hit in the national debt promise being not just unfullfilled by seemingly doing the opposite.............at least for me.
b. Considering the strength of the economy, which affords the government better opportunities to balance the budget, maybe a D- is being generous. However,this comes from somebody that considers the national debt a huge issue(me). For those that think the debt can keep doubling indefinitely, he would likely get a passing grade.
It's interesting the the dems, in 3 debates did not even get asked that question and none of them are running on balancing the budget.
This could be because their alternate universe economic and otherwise plans would adversely affect any attempts to balance the budget because one of the biggest question has been how they will fund some of this stuff. If some of this stuff is going to cost double digit trillions, there is not way they can balance the budget.
Regardless, none of them have been president but the past 6 presidents have records for us to judge them by and that's what the above statements are based on.
What they show to me on the national debit
Democrats = bad policies/budgets
Republicans =VERY bad policies/budgets
Maybe we'll through the looking glass? If Powell listens to Trump and drops rates into negative territory (like they are in Europe), then increasing the deficits (and debt) would mean the gov would get more $ from lenders, which would shrink the deficits and the debt... :-)
USA Deficit
Started by wglassfo - Oct. 27, 2019, 1:42 a.m.
Does anybody think USA citizens should worry about the trillion dollar budget deficit
I think the time to worry about the deficit has long time come and gone
Social Security is the largest budget expenditure
Followed by the estimated 2019-2020 military spending of 989 billion Then you can go down the list to lesser numbers
1st of all where do you find a trillion dollars for a balanced budget. I suppose you could do a 10% across the board cut and/or freeze spending at 2019 levels
If you froze spending would those on social security vote out enough of their congress persons to tip the balance of power. The military industrial lobby could freeze out anybody who voted for less military spending. It would take a lot of brave souls to do even that much budget cutting and those who did vote to cut spending would likely have to consider what to do after a failed re-election
Trump keeps on with his trade war with china. What will he gain in the bigger picture
He said the USA can not be the piggy bank to the world
Well if the china thing was resolved even stevens [which it won't], that is a drop in the bucket of the larger deficit And do you really think the USA can stop the technology going to china. Heck you folks gave most of it to china for free when you out sourced manufacturing jobs to china for cheaper labour. That was the time to think about technology going to china. Today, china is more of a leader in new technology than compared to yrs past. Today china doesn't need technology from the USA unless it should happen to be netflix or some thing important like that. You gave the store away for free and now you want it back.
Well good luck with that
Do you really think a trade deal with china will do very much for the USA. A person might as well spit in the wind as try to win anything on either side with this stupid trade war. A deal will not be a winner no matter what kind of a deal it is. It certainly wob't suddenly balance the budget. I know you say you had to do it
My question is what do you hope to gain??
Billions of soybeans sold to china?? You know china will buy the cheapest commodity on the market
So back to deficits.
You know if you tried to raise taxes enough, that would put you into recession so quick, it would make you head spin
Reducing spending is a no go for multiple reasons
What is left to do??
You know good and well you will never re-pay the debt. You will simply monitize the debt. Which leads to a race to the bottom.
The USA is BK and you know it
If you can't re-pay your debt, does that not mean you are BK???
So keep on printing money as that is your only hope
One day those who own the most gold will make the new rules
Does anybody know if the USA has enough gold, because you had better hope so if you want to survive the day of reckoning. That day will come when a major currency loses faith with the world and faces a run on it's banks deposits.
If the country is a major, big enough country, and is forced to print fiat to avoid an inability to pay the depositors back their money, then you know something bad is coming
That is the time when deficits don't matter and the countries or country with the most gold will write the rule book
Has anybody done an audit of the amount of physical gold the USA owns and has in storage, that is not leased out or other wise owned by other countries
When the USA went off the gold standard I think that is when the USA started the down hill slide to BK. Maybe before the USA went off the gold standard the writing was n the wall. I dunno
I could be wrong, but I don't think deficits really matter all that much.. I think it will likely take a long time to find out if deficits really are something to be concerned about, in the USA or any other major country with a reasonably large economy You can have as many zeros as you want, what does it really matter. Faith in your currency is what really matters. That is when you worry about the number of zeros. If the number of zeros get out of balance with the rest of the world, then you might worry about a loss of faith in your currency.
That is why I don't think deficits make a darn bit of difference, in the world of finance, assuming a reasonable balance with other major economies.. The world either accepts your little piece of paper or it doesn't. Settlements either get made or they don't. Plain and simple
If the world has faith in your currency that is the only thing anybody has to worry about. I think the world will accept USD for a very long time.
More good thoughts on the debt in the article below.
I will also add for Tim, that after looking at the 2nd graph above, debt as a % of GDP, it does look like Obama was in a league of his own with regards to it soaring higher for that metric.
However, Trump has continued down that path and it doesn't get him off the hook and it also means Obama is no outlier in that category anymore.
Trump and the National Debt
https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans-to-reduce-national-debt-4114401
You all do a fine job with your stats and finger pointing at past and present presidents
But no where in this conversation have I seen any thing where the rubber meets the road
As in where would you cut spending to the tune of 1 trillion dollars
Or more than 1 trillion if you want to pay the debt down
Some might suggest less spending on endless wars
Well you saw what happened to Trump when he pulled a few military people out of Syria, and that cost nothing compared to what you folks want to do
He didn't even bring them home, just re-located and the top blew of the hen house
So instead of pointing fingers at congress and presidents, maybe an idea to save a trillion dollars or more would be helpful
And by the way how many in congress who would vote to reduce spending would get re-elected
So stop with the moaning and griping and give us some ideas, numbers etc. on reducing spending by a trillion dollars or more that is acceptable to the voters
It can't be done
Prove me wrong
"So instead of pointing fingers at congress and presidents, maybe an idea to save a trillion dollars or more would be helpful
And by the way how many in congress who would vote to reduce spending would get re-elected
So stop with the moaning and griping and give us some ideas, numbers etc. on reducing spending by a trillion dollars or more that is acceptable to the voters
It can't be done
Prove me wrong"
Thanks Wayne!
Of course it can be done and you even mentioned one great idea. Military spending is the perfect place to start but there are numerous other elements to achieving this.
There are also numerous sites and sources that give us a wonderful, very achievable blue print for balancing the budget. It would be very unpopular of course and people/politicians will not do it because they are living selfishly for today and not caring enough about the future or for many people, think that we will never have to pay a price and that this will go on forever and ever.
Here are 2 good sources that tell us what needs to be done.........with specifics. I don't agree with all of it(like the 2nd one suggests a carbon tax)
Blueprint for Balance: A Federal Budget for FY 2019
https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/blueprint-balance-federal-budget-fy-2019
REPORT | September 2018A COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL BUDGET PLAN TO AVERT A DEBT CRISIS
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-BR-0918.pdf
Sorry that you think that I'm just moaning and griping. You will note that the 2nd report is 32 pages long and detailed and comes from somebody that does this for a living.
I can't be an expert on everything, so even if I was getting paid big bucks instead of just generously contributing things here that I do know, I'm afraid that you would be disappointed with my attempt to match this professional report..........so you will just have to accept what I am able to provide you with Wayne.
And you are welcome to disagree with every statement that I make and state those disagreements strongly as long as there are no personal attacks. Hopefully you won't leave because of us not being in agreement but it appears that people here only depart over me not hating Trump but maybe on this topic, we might get somebody to leave because I strongly oppose Trump.......hopefully not you.
"Well you saw what happened to Trump when he pulled a few military people out of Syria, and that cost nothing compared to what you folks want to do."
IMHO not a good example. The widespread outrage over pulling the troops out of Syria had virtually nothing to do with the actual numbers of troops being pulled out or the cost saving. It everything to do with it a a (figuratively) stabbing in the back the Kurds, who had been loyal to the US, since Bush invaded Iraq and working hand in hand with US forces, had done most of the heavy lifting (losing 10's of thousands fighters in the process) beating ISIS back.
Hi pj
I agree the Syria example was not a good example
It just came to mind 1st
However, Trump has been accused of being a puppet for Puttin for a long time
Amy time he suggests pulling troops back home the howls of out rage are intolerable
This really baffles me as to why anybody would spill blood in somebody else's war. I also think regime change is stupid. All you do is make more enemies
An example of military spending that does make sense to me is a presence in the south china seas or the Strait of Hormez. And the south china sea is a 50/50 in my book. That is 1000s of miles away and the supply logistics are intolerable. But we do have allies in the region so I suppose it has to be done. You also have to consider new technology needs to be funded, secret ops to stop terrorists is necessary, plus stuff I don't know about, so how much could you save. A lot, I would think, but I don't have any stats on savings in that dept. except Trump would lose the 2020 if he cut back on military spending, so he really can't do that. One thing I wonder about and is wasteful. Every NASCAR race has a fly over of military jet planes or bombers. Is the expense equal to the patriotic feelings those planes generate?? I dunno
So the problem remains for MM and his report, which will be much more extensive than my small thoughts.
Yes I will agree with the report, even without reading it. Your word is enough for me.
But:
You really think you can show me a congress who will vote to reduce spending by anything close to a trillion dollars/yr let alone pay down the debt
There is a world of difference between what is possible and what will happen
Congress can't or won't reduce spending by anything even close to a trillion dollars/yr
This discussion about a reduction of spending, to the tune of a trillion dollars/yr. has nothing to do with reality in the real world.
This discussion is wishful thinking, at best.
My statement remains correct
It won't be done
However, there is nothing wrong with a discussion on what should be done
In theory, if they held spending increase to at or below inflation, revenue growth would eventually offset. Would take most of 10 years, but assuming reasonable economic growth, it would work.
Thanks much for your thoughts.
Wayne, I agree with you that it will not be done.
As shown before, in the 3 democratic debates with dozens of questions and hours of discussing numerous, key topics to what is important to our country according to the moderators, politicians and American people, there was not even 1 question or discussion on the national debt.
It won't be addressed under this political environment.
Hi Tim
I don't have any numbers to agree or disagree with you but your idea would be a reasonable approach
The problem as I see with your proposal is all the folks collecting SS
If they were asked to take less the howls would blow the top off the hen house. SS is the largest part of the budget and any savings in SS would be a realy big step in the right direction. But the people collecting SS[ I suspect] represent a fairly large voting block. If one party wants to cut SS and the other doesn't then you can guess who those people would vote for. Probably enough to swing an election, although there would be another group that sees the need for some austerity, and your idea is not a draconian cut in spending
So: Who knows. I suspect it would come down to who can make the best sales pitch
Of all the ides floated on this topic I think you have proposed the best solution, if only people would see the reason for some austerity, which we will never know unless it is tried in an election
Maybe our best hope is Trump gets re-elected and then makes good on some promises as he won't have to worry about another election. The problem is: his track record on spending so far is not so good, but he has to work with the Dems and another battle with the Dems is the last thing he needs, at this time
Great idea Tim if only congress would see your point of view
We have the same problem in our country only we have a double whammy
Our carbon tax is not fair to everybody and will not promote high GDP growth
Then to make matters worse, we have a minority gov't and I suspect the king makers will have no problem increasing spending