Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
As federal debt reaches $22.5T, partisan hack flip flops stance on deficit spending (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FF Ninja
- Start date
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
OK, I'll ask a couple direct questions:
- Why did you compare abstract legislative proposals to actual legislation as if they are the same?
- Why did you describe the tax cut legislation as a "one time thing" different from the Dem proposals when it contributes to the deficit every time someone pays taxes just like hypothetical college/student loan legislation would do every time someone goes to college?
- Why do you think the GOP has the higher ground on the deficit issues when the last four decades of data concerning deficits under Dem and GOP administrations suggests the exact opposite?
Interesting. Pray tell?
I know Boehner & Co. were being jerks but even a suboptimal deal for Obama politically would have been better for the country by putting guardrails in place.
Yeah. I'm not gonna play this game. Like I said earlier the blame game is counterproductive and at best it's a push for either side. If you want to point me in the direction of a recent serious Democratic proposal to address the national debt going forward I'm more than happy to take a look.
ETA: I was a big Paul Ryan fan if that helps explain my position.
Last edited by a moderator:
joffer
Footballguy
Seems there were several versions, each facing opposition on both sides. The original recommendation never received a supermajority of the commission so it never got a floor vote. Saying Obama had a chance to implement it and didn’t seems oversimplified.
Let's agree to disagree. Obama could have easily worked out a deal if he thought it was important. It wasn't a priority for him.
joffer
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You literally said "ask a direct question and I'll answer it." So I asked you three direct questions. And your response was "I'm not gonna play this game."
James Daulton
Footballguy
The intellectual dishonesty employed by the Trump right is stunning these days. To actually attempt to compare the increase in debt during Obama's term vs Trump's term is the height of pathetic partisanship.
One inherited the 2nd worst financial crisis the world has ever seen. The other inherited a stable, if sluggish, world economy. Yet Trump is on target to equal/exceed Obama's debt increase and the only people benefiting are the rich from their tax cuts and stock market increase. The vast vast majority of the country are benefiting via 1% real wage growth.
Yay regular guy!
One inherited the 2nd worst financial crisis the world has ever seen. The other inherited a stable, if sluggish, world economy. Yet Trump is on target to equal/exceed Obama's debt increase and the only people benefiting are the rich from their tax cuts and stock market increase. The vast vast majority of the country are benefiting via 1% real wage growth.
Yay regular guy!
joffer
Footballguy
Every new President faces challenges. Obama had a global financial meltdown. Trump had donors to bribe.
The intended purpose of all your questions was to allocate blame and/or characterize one party as superior to the other in having a plan to address this issue. Perhaps I shouldn't have offered my opinion (which was strictly that).You literally said "ask a direct question and I'll answer it." So I asked you three direct questions. And your response was "I'm not gonna play this game."
Far more important is that as a country we have an addiction and looming problem that could set us backward generations. I'm glad this thread was started since this topic needs to become a much bigger part of the 2020 election discussion.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The purpose of my questions was to challenge your opinion and the support you offered for it with contradictory facts and logic. Both of our posts seem like pretty standard message board stuff, but if you want to move on that's cool with me
yeah. If that's cool let's just move. Not to avoid the challenge just think it's more productive to call the past a draw. All good.The purpose of my questions was to challenge your opinion and the support you offered for it with contradictory facts and logic. Both of our posts seem like pretty standard message board stuff, but if you want to move on that's cool with me
Back to the general discussion...perhaps the biggest challenge in managing the debt is no one seems to know at what point the house of cards will come tumbling down. We just keep pushing into increasingly rarified air.
So what should be the guiding principle and/or metric used to manage the national debt going forward?
Historical debt/GDP ratio targeted by a certain date?
Balanced budget amendment?
Amendment against ever raising the debt ceiling again?
Moratorium against all new programs that can't prove themselves deficit neutral (or better?)
So what should be the guiding principle and/or metric used to manage the national debt going forward?
Historical debt/GDP ratio targeted by a certain date?
Balanced budget amendment?
Amendment against ever raising the debt ceiling again?
Moratorium against all new programs that can't prove themselves deficit neutral (or better?)
Stealthycat
Footballguy
quit spending money - there is the answer to the Govt overspending
Tax cuts are great - and I've said all along decreasing national debt ONLY works when they spend less than they take - our Govt hasn't done that in decades
blame Trump because he's sitting in the office yes - but as long as under his lead the deficit doesn't double like it did under Obama? that's a success
James Daulton
Footballguy
You're joking right? The deficit under Obama wouldn't have come close to doubling were it not for the financial crisis. And that's the bar you've set for Trump?
I can't imagine you actually believe this.
The Commish
Footballguy
True to your MO, this has nothing to do with the post you replied to. Glad to see things haven't changed.
Which year's deficit? Assuming $1.2 trillion is the mark for this year, Obama only surpassed that mark twice in 2010 and 2011. His other deficit years were all less than half that with the exception of 2012 at just over $1 trilion. And all the deficits during Obama's second term are less than the ones Trump has come in with thus far during his term. The trend here, of course, is the deficits have gone up consistently in one of the best economies this country has seen in years. Of course the economic factors are completely different between the terms. Obama's second term is far closer to Trump's first than Obama's first. That's not an excuse rather putting things into context. I know you aren't a fan of context, but it's there for others if they are interested in looking up the real information.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Since all Trump supporters seem to have forgotten what it was like in '09, let me show you guys the deficit by year and see if y'all can manage to relate the financial times with the deficit:
09 $1.4T
10 $1.3T
11 $1.3T
12 $1.1T
13 $0.68T
14 $0.49T
15 $0.44T
16 $0.59T
Do you Trump supporters notice a pattern? And btw, by the end of his 3 years Trump will have added almost $3.0B.
Thoughts?
09 $1.4T
10 $1.3T
11 $1.3T
12 $1.1T
13 $0.68T
14 $0.49T
15 $0.44T
16 $0.59T
Do you Trump supporters notice a pattern? And btw, by the end of his 3 years Trump will have added almost $3.0B.
Thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
sigh
don't arguing this - it doesn't matter what happens with the deficit and/or national debt .... and that's the truth. Ya'll would use any excuse possible ......if right now this administration had shaved one trillion off, you'd be giving credit to Obama. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
the debt added is on Clinton, Bush, GW, Obama and now Trump and cut it any way you want, blame or credit anyone you want, the bottom line is on the POTUS at the time.
don't arguing this - it doesn't matter what happens with the deficit and/or national debt .... and that's the truth. Ya'll would use any excuse possible ......if right now this administration had shaved one trillion off, you'd be giving credit to Obama. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
the debt added is on Clinton, Bush, GW, Obama and now Trump and cut it any way you want, blame or credit anyone you want, the bottom line is on the POTUS at the time.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Daulton
Footballguy
It's hard to converse with these kind of people. Trump trashed < 3% GDP growth, unemployment was fake and now either they're not important or they're suddenly real. They'll quote black unemployment being at "record" lows without noting that 80% of the reduction came on Obama's watch. It's incredibly frustrating "debating" Trump supporters.
The Commish
Footballguy
Trillion...not billion. He's on pace with Obama's first four years...a little lagging, but not by much. Difference being worst financial crisis since the GD vs best economy we've seen in decades, but that doesn't matter apparently.
James Daulton
Footballguy
How about you just stop saying "BOF SIDZ!!" and admit that what Trump said about the debt and what's he done make his comments pre-election a lie. And also that his increase of the debt during steady economic times is unprecedented. It's ok to criticize him once in a while.
James Daulton
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
There is no debate....and SC's MO will be "it doesn't matter" after he reads these two posts even though he's the one that engaged in the comparisons initially. If it doesn't matter it's illogical to make the comparisons.
ETA: The best part of the whole position is the claim of how serious he is about deficit spending. Turns out it's more like "im serious about it.....until I"m not" derp derp derp. And I'll throw this in again for the billionth time....this is bigger than one individual. If you want to point fingers point at the groups in charge when the bills are passed and spending is done.
Last edited by a moderator:
James Daulton
Footballguy
And to say it doesn't matter is bananas. When our debt service hits 20% of our budget, you can damn well bet it will matter.There is no debate....and SC's MO will be "it doesn't matter" after he reads these two posts even though he's the one that engaged in the comparisons initially. If it doesn't matter it's illogical to make the comparisons.
The Commish
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
joffer
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
For the billionth time -
The national debt is made up of four components. Three of the components are the result of democrats in office
The fourth and overwhelmingly largest component of the debt starts with ERTA and is continued by one GOP tax cut after another.
"PayGo" entitlements are not the cause of the debt!
And Paul Ryan - really? Calling nonsense "A Better Way" doesn't make it something other than nonsense.
The national debt is made up of four components. Three of the components are the result of democrats in office
- Ending the Great Depression
- Winning WWII
- Ending the Great Recession
The fourth and overwhelmingly largest component of the debt starts with ERTA and is continued by one GOP tax cut after another.
"PayGo" entitlements are not the cause of the debt!
And Paul Ryan - really? Calling nonsense "A Better Way" doesn't make it something other than nonsense.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
What happened to Trump's promise to eliminate the debt in 8 years? He's going the wrong way.
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Rand Paul seems to care so much about the national debt that he blocked the 9/11 responders bill over it.
Yet somehow Paul voted for the tax cut last year...
Yet somehow Paul voted for the tax cut last year...
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Paul got 580K from being tackled by a 5'4" 140lb neighbor. Lets not let him hit the lottery again.He needs to be punched in his spoiled brat privileged nuts.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah I listened to it. I like Joe, but he made the same complaints when Obama was President, and yet he never offers any solution. Like Rand Paul, Joe says we need to cut spending in order to balance the budget. OK, where? Crickets.
timschochet
Footballguy
That being said, I would like to state a principle here:
It is irresponsible to cut taxes if doing so will significantly increase the annual deficit.
Somehow, none of those who call themselves "deficit hawks" are ever willing to acknowledge this.
It is irresponsible to cut taxes if doing so will significantly increase the annual deficit.
Somehow, none of those who call themselves "deficit hawks" are ever willing to acknowledge this.
msommer
Footballguy
Of course not, because they believe in "trickle down" before anything else, it's borderline religious
timschochet
Footballguy
Trickle down is a separate belief from "cutting taxes creates more revenue for the state." Is the anyone who believes in the latter any longer?
I'm probably a card-carrying deficit hawk and I acknowledge it was irresponsible for Trump to cut taxes.
But I also don't believe it is a general "principle" that cutting taxes is a dumb thing to do. The reason it was dumb in 2017 is because the economy was already firing on all cylinders and did not need the stimulus of a tax cut.
Evidence for this is that very little tax cut benefits were used for corporate capital investment and/or consumption that unleashed any pent-up demand. Mostly dividends and stock buybacks. So IMO the economy will not grow at a faster rate than the deficit incurred.
Back in the Reagan era we were in a period of stagflation and the tax cut stimulus not only fueled consumption but also capital investment...which led to longer-term sustainable economic growth high enough to overcome the short-term deficit.
So no, I do not agree with your principle that cutting taxes is always irresponsible. IMO it is situationally-dependent.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 lead to a recession. The economic growth happened shortly after the largest tax hike ever (to that point) in 1982 and tax hikes of one form or another just about every year after that.
The first Reagan tax cut was in October 1981. The recession began in July of 1981. Therefore it doesn't make sense that the "tax cuts led to a recession," when said recession had begun three months earlier.
The top income marginal rate went from 70 per cent in 1981 to 28 per cent in 1986. Lots of other changes/reform in both directions along the way but the upper income tax cut is clear and undeniable.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The common explanation for the recession (at least historically) was that it was caused by the Fed and the bond markets being spooked that the tax cut would be inflationary driving up the already high cost of borrowing money for businesses and individuals (and giving ridiculous passbook savings interest in the other direction). When those pressures were removed with TEFRA in late '82 the markets and the Fed responded in early '83. Sure the economy was already fragile in early '81 after being terrible for most of the prior half dozen years plus some.PhantomJB said:
David Stockman in his The Triumph of Politics simply blamed the bond traders and not so much Paul Volker. Alan Greenspan taught this lesson to President-elect Clinton who then infamously muttered the words the "
bond traders" when he had to break some of his campaign promises to get the Fed to go along with his economic plans. In more recent times the "inflation premium" has been discussed in the context of not rearing its ugly head to much of a degree with recent tax cuts and whether or not the reactions of the past would happen again, but I don't think that is controversial that economies run on perception and the perception in 1981 was that there were the votes for the president "with a mandate" using the "boll wevils" in the House and the GOP majority in the Senate to get his tax cuts which was signed on Aug 13, 1981. And there was the belief that the "magic asterisk" was just 
. In other words the " bond traders" perceived correctly what was happening.And yes you are correct that all of the tax hikes after ERTA didn't undo the damage that ERTA did to the revenue contribution to the annual deficits that helped triple the national debt. In other words in net there was about a 1% of GDP revenue (tax) cut with ERTA being about -3 and the rest adding up to +2. Give or take! But no matter how it is sliced the economy responded positively to tax hikes and the threat of tax hikes but behaved poorly to the threat of tax cuts. Which is generally repeated throughout our history. Which should make sense that a tax cut which is paid for by selling bonds is still removing the same money that could be invested elsewhere from the economy, just changing the "who".
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother
Footballguy
I have a buddy that loved the Tea Party during the Obama years. Of course he is now a big Trump supporter and I never hear a peep about the deficit and size of the federal government.FF Ninja said:
The Commish
Footballguy
####, we see that here in the political forum. The BEST you'll get out of them is "I wish he wouldn't do it" while offering a full throated voice of support. It's absolutely hilarious to see the scurry away from the place they were hiding when Trump and this admin removes the talking point they have hidden behind for decades.
timschochet
Footballguy
I didn't write that it was always irresponsible. I wrote that if you have a huge debt and annual deficit, it's irresponsible.PhantomJB said:
Similar threads
