The Trump Economy

[Koko78]

20 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Since Obama left office, Trump's military spending and tax cuts for the rich have increased the deficit by over 100%.

 

Wow, I did not know that 90% of taxpayers are now considered "rich".

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lies, lies and statistics. Military spending was increased for a reason. Tax cuts for nearly everyone were for a reason. We don't deal in bumper sticker bs here, so be better.

 

Sure.

 

But the deficit is now $1.1 trillion dollars.

 

From 2009 to 2017 all the right cared about was the debt and deficit. The Tea Party formed to protest government spending.

 

Where are those people now? Where's the outrage over Trump ballooning the deficit to the level it's at, despite the economy doing better than it's ever done over the past 50 years. 

 

When economies grow, governments typically reduce the deficit in an attempt to pay down debt. When things are really good, you usually save for a rainy day.

 

Trump is doing the exact opposite, and the deficit is going to be completely out of control when things inevitably slow down. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by jrober38

[plenzmd1]

5 hours ago, Foxx said:

because, you know... quantitative easing. amiright?

you might be the guy to help me understand that better...is there a way to explain that me in layman terms? Seems like about 6 months ago there was a very discussion on here, i forget who the main gyus were, but it was a really insightful conversation about that subject..but i old now and need a refresher?

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Lies, lies and statistics. Military spending was increased for a reason. Tax cuts for nearly everyone were for a reason. We don't deal in bumper sticker bs here, so be better or go back to the country you came from, fix it and then come back and show us how it's done.

What are lies? please point out the lies about the deficit exploding under Trump and he is seeking a doubling of the limit because his own freakingtreasuryy secretary is telling that is what is gunna happen]

 

I will wait for your answer.. i am guessing  will be along the lines of 

 

 

1) More Lies

2) Orangemangad

3)MSM is mean to Trump and Trumpers..thats not fair

4) Hilary and Bill are causing the deficit to explode under Trump

 

or some other such nonsense.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

you might be the guy to help me understand that better...is there a way to explain that me in layman terms? Seems like about 6 months ago there was a very discussion on here, i forget who the main gyus were, but it was a really insightful conversation about that subject..but i old now and need a refresher?

What are lies? please point out the lies about the deficit exploding under Trump and he is seeking a doubling of the limit because his own freakingtreasuryy secretary is telling that is what is gunna happen]

 

I will wait for your answer.. i am guessing  will be along the lines of 

 

 

1) More Lies

2) Orangemangad

3)MSM is mean to Trump and Trumpers..thats not fair

4) Hilary and Bill are causing the deficit to explode under Trump

 

or some other such nonsense.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

I'm disappointed in your characterization of me in the above manner. I'm better than that and you know it. Obama ignored our military needs and threw money at bs programs with no hope for positive results. Trump had to restore our military readiness and get the economy moving. All I did was reject the use of slanted and cherry picked statistics.

[plenzmd1]

3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm disappointed in your characterization of me in the above manner. I'm better than that and you know it. Obama ignored our military needs and threw money at bs programs with no hope for positive results. Trump had to restore our military readiness and get the economy moving. All I did was reject the use of slanted and cherry picked statistics.

his argument is that the deficit is exploding under Trump, you said lies, and thats it. There is just no argument the deficit is exploding..now much smarter guys than me on here say its no big deal..i dont understand that. 

 

I do know the WAPO had a article today that implies Trump understands its an issue, is planning massive spending cuts, but not until 2020 is over. 

 

I like much of what Trump has done for the economy, the tax cuts were not necessary and in my mind were misguided..this deficit was predicted by most.

[Foxx]

58 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

you might be the guy to help me understand that better...is there a way to explain that me in layman terms? Seems like about 6 months ago there was a very discussion on here, i forget who the main gyus were, but it was a really insightful conversation about that subject..but i old now and need a refresher?...

PLenz, not sure what the question here is.

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Sure.

 

But the deficit is now $1.1 trillion dollars.

 

From 2009 to 2017 all the right cared about was the debt and deficit. The Tea Party formed to protest government spending.

 

Where are those people now? Where's the outrage over Trump ballooning the deficit to the level it's at, despite the economy doing better than it's ever done over the past 50 years. 

 

When economies grow, governments typically reduce the deficit in an attempt to pay down debt. When things are really good, you usually save for a rainy day.

 

Trump is doing the exact opposite, and the deficit is going to be completely out of control when things inevitably slow down. 

Kick the can. Every Congress does it. No one wants to be the one to suggest America cuts an entitlement program. Can you imagine the ads with Grannie living on the street? And Congress figured out a few years back that it is better not to pass a budget - "better" for pork that is - than to pass one. Watch what comes out of the next debt ceiling bill. That will be a doozy.
 

The U.S. Federal Budget for FY 2020 is $4.7 trillion. That's $2.8 trillion in mandatory spending which includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. There's $1.4 trillion in discretionary spending that includes Defense, Education, and Energy. Interest payment on national debt is $479 billion.

</snip>
 

Federal Spending Breakdown
 

Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress.
 

The interest payments on the national debt consume 10% of the budget. These are also required to maintain faith in the U.S. government.

The remaining 30% of spending goes toward discretionary spending. This pays for all federal government agencies. The largest is the military.

Mandatory Spending
 

The mandatory budget will cost $2.841 trillion in FY 2020. Mandatory spending is skyrocketing because more baby boomers are reaching retirement age. By 2030, one in five Americans will be older than 65.

</snip>
 

Interest Payments on the National Debt
 

In FY 2020, interest payments on the national debt are estimated at $479 billion. That's enough to pay for 10 Justice Departments. It's also one of the fastest growing expenses.
 

By 2029, it will more than double to $823 billion, becoming the third-largest budget item after Social Security and Medicare. It's not a mandatory program, but it must be paid to avoid a U.S. debt default. These estimates will increase as interest rates continue rising.
 

</snip>
 

When you get to the bottom of this article, it is very interesting. It shows who were the top 5 (#3 will astound you!). There are links to stuff like historical debt, etc if you want to deal with lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 

• Trump (estimated over 8 years) increase 30% over Obama's last budget
• Obama 74% increase over W's last budget
• W 101% increase over Clinton's last budget
• Clinton 34% increase over Poppie Bush's last budget
• HW 54% increase over Reagan's last budget
• Reagan 186% increase over Carter's last budget
 

On and on back through Woodrow Wilson. Who increased the debt the least by percentage? Truman (3%).

No new president is accountable for the budget deficit in his first year in office ('cause he's stuck with the last guy's budget).
 

The Best Way to Measure Debt by President
 

You can measure the debt by a president by summing up his budget deficits. The president is responsible for his budget priorities.

The deficit by president reveals how much deficit was in each year's budget.
 

The terminology sounds similar, but a difference exists between the deficit and the debt by a president. All presidents can employ a little sleight of hand to reduce the appearance of the deficit. For example, they can borrow from federal retirement funds.
 

</snip>
 

The Top Five Contributors by Percent
 

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Percentage-wise, President Roosevelt increased the debt by the largest amount. Although he only added $236 billion, this was a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt level left by President Herbert Hoover.
 

Woodrow Wilson: President Wilson was the second-largest contributor to the debt, percentage-wise. He added $21 billion, which was a 727 percent increase over the $2.9 billion debt of his predecessor. Wilson had to pay for World War I. During his presidency, the Second Liberty Bond Act gave Congress the right to adopt the national debt ceiling.
 

Ronald Reagan: President Reagan increased the debt by 186 percent. Reaganomics added $1.86 trillion. Reagan's brand of supply-side economics didn't grow the economy enough to offset the lost revenue from its tax cuts. That was partly because Reagan increased the defense budget by 35 percent.
 

George W. Bush: President Bush added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest dollar amount. It was the fourth-largest percentage increase. Bush increased the debt by 101 percent from where it started at $5.8 trillion on September 30, 2001. That's the end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget.

Barack Obama: Under President Obama, the national debt grew the most dollar-wise. He added $8.588 trillion. This 74 percent increase was the fifth-largest. Obama's budgets included the economic stimulus package. It added $831 billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects.

The Obama tax cuts added $858 billion to the debt in two years. Obama's budget increased defense spending to between $700 billion and $800 billion a year. Federal income was down, thanks to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[plenzmd1]

18 minutes ago, Foxx said:

PLenz, not sure what the question here is.

what exactly is quantitative easing  and why the deficit does not matter anymore. T

 

here where two folks on this thread debating both sides, and both were making good quality arguments, and i though i learned a lot..but the 60 Minutes must have attcked those brain cells...and if i could use the search function on here maybe I could find that discussion again LOL

 

Was hoping maybe one of the gents was you

[3rdnlng]

10 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

what exactly is quantitative easing  and why the deficit does not matter anymore. T

 

here where two folks on this thread debating both sides, and both were making good quality arguments, and i though i learned a lot..but the 60 Minutes must have attcked those brain cells...and if i could use the search function on here maybe I could find that discussion again LOL

 

Was hoping maybe one of the gents was you

Try TPS and TYTT. The conversation may have been between them.

[Foxx]

49 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

what exactly is quantitative easing  and why the deficit does not matter anymore. T

 

here where two folks on this thread debating both sides, and both were making good quality arguments, and i though i learned a lot..but the 60 Minutes must have attcked those brain cells...and if i could use the search function on here maybe I could find that discussion again LOL

 

Was hoping maybe one of the gents was you

quantitative easing was created by the government to kick start the economy after the financial meltdown of 2008. it entailed the government buying... government bonds (and mortgage backed securities). possibly put another way, creating money/digi-dollars out of thin air. through 4 rounds, i believe the estimate is that somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars was created out of thin air.

 

at the time, there were many arguments for and against it. one of the main ones against it was that they were debasing the value of the USD by increasing the supply with nothing tangible to back it other than the faith of the US. i guess that in today's terms, that it has not come home to roost in the form of inflation (of any sorts) could be construed as evidence that debt does not matter.

 

i'm sure @TPS and @GG might have slightly different takes.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Foxx

[Foxx]

of course, being the world's reserve may have contributed to inflation not roosting.

 

i know Japan had been doing the QE thing prior to 2008, but i am under informed on whether or not that resulted in inflation of any sorts there. i also do know that the EU began QE in i think, 2015 through to 2018. maybe it was a case of the major western economies each doing so that prevented one from hyper-inflating against the other fiats of the world.

[plenzmd1]

22 minutes ago, Foxx said:

quantitative easing was created by the government to kick start the economy after the financial meltdown of 2008. it entailed the government buying... government bonds (and mortgage backed securities). possibly put another way, creating money/digi-dollars out of thin air. through 4 rounds, i believe the estimate is that somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars was created out of thin air.

 

at the time, there were many arguments for and against it. one of the main ones against it was that they were debasing the value of the USD by increasing the supply with nothing tangible to back it other than the faith of the US. i guess that in today's terms, that it has not come home to roost in the form of inflation (of any sorts) could be construed as evidence that debt does not matter.

 

i'm sure @TPS and @GG might have slightly different takes.

TY..and yes i believe it  was those guys..it was very informative discussion

[/dev/null]

Well said Foxx

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

Trump's ...tax cuts for the rich have increased the deficit by over 100%. 

Let me be clear. I’m one of the ‘rich’. When Obama raised my taxes because he said it would help get the country get of the recession I didn’t burn down a building or break any windows. I paid more taxes. Now that the recession is over it’s only fair that Trump lowered my upper rate back to where it was before the recession. No? So stop your relentless bitching! If YOU want to pay more...please do so! Nobody’s stopping you.

[GG]

51 minutes ago, Foxx said:

quantitative easing was created by the government to kick start the economy after the financial meltdown of 2008. it entailed the government buying... government bonds (and mortgage backed securities). possibly put another way, creating money/digi-dollars out of thin air. through 4 rounds, i believe the estimate is that somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars was created out of thin air.

 

at the time, there were many arguments for and against it. one of the main ones against it was that they were debasing the value of the USD by increasing the supply with nothing tangible to back it other than the faith of the US. i guess that in today's terms, that it has not come home to roost in the form of inflation (of any sorts) could be construed as evidence that debt does not matter.

 

i'm sure @TPS and @GG might have slightly different takes.

Sometime this weekend. 

[TPS]

23 hours ago, Foxx said:

quantitative easing was created by the government to kick start the economy after the financial meltdown of 2008. it entailed the government buying... government bonds (and mortgage backed securities). possibly put another way, creating money/digi-dollars out of thin air. through 4 rounds, i believe the estimate is that somewhere around 3.5 trillion dollars was created out of thin air.

 

at the time, there were many arguments for and against it. one of the main ones against it was that they were debasing the value of the USD by increasing the supply with nothing tangible to back it other than the faith of the US. i guess that in today's terms, that it has not come home to roost in the form of inflation (of any sorts) could be construed as evidence that debt does not matter.

 

i'm sure @TPS and @GG might have slightly different takes.

@plenzmd1  the above might be the thread, then again we've done this topic to death in many places...

QE doesn't necessarily create money, most of it created bank reserves which had no impact on the economy. 

 

Deficits never really mattered.....

 

 

 

[GG]

18 hours ago, TPS said:

@plenzmd1  the above might be the thread, then again we've done this topic to death in many places...

QE doesn't necessarily create money, most of it created bank reserves which had no impact on the economy. 

 

Deficits never really mattered.....

 

 

 

 

You know better than to make this statement.   

 

What did the banks do with the $$ trillions of new reserves pumped onto their balance sheets?   Did they stash it under the mattress?

[TPS]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

You know better than to make this statement.   

 

What did the banks do with the $$ trillions of new reserves pumped onto their balance sheets?   Did they stash it under the mattress?

Stashed under the Fed’s mattress, who started paying interest on excess reserves in 2009. 

 

With th the exception of vault cash, the majority of bank reserves were (and still are) “held on accounts with the Fed.”  

[GG]

6 minutes ago, TPS said:

Stashed under the Fed’s mattress, who started paying interest on excess reserves in 2009. 

 

With th the exception of vault cash, the majority of bank reserves were (and still are) “held on accounts with the Fed.”  

 

And if I looked at the balance sheets of the major money center banks from 2010 to 2018, that will show me a significant increase of reserves held at the central bank?  All other asset & liability accounts would stay relatively constant?

[TPS]

7 minutes ago, GG said:

 

And if I looked at the balance sheets of the major money center banks from 2010 to 2018, that will show me a significant increase of reserves held at the central bank?  All other asset & liability accounts would stay relatively constant?

Yes and No.  As a share of total assets, "cash" went from <2% pre-crisis to to > 10% post.  Securities and Loans fell by 10% of TA (mostly loans).

So, yes, reserves increased, and No, the share of other assets fell.