Trump eyes 10 percent spending cuts, 20 percent slash of federal workers

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

Okay, I'll admit I was wrong. However, when Obama took office, the economy was tanking, the amount of money the government actually spends increased every single year under Bush, and Obama wasn't really responsible for the 2009 deficit. When it peaked at 10%, which is also the same year, Republicans decided that deficits do indeed matter. Strange that. The 2017 US deficit is forecast to be 2.6℅ of GDP. Also under Obama, total US government spending growth has actually been flat. 

A cyclical event like a recession is not an excuse for nor a fault of a president. Many presidents across history had to deal with that and many will in the future. Obama avoided it by kicking the can down the road(much like Clinton did) but that's for another post. Even excluding the 2009 deficit however, Obama's total deficit is still larger than Bush's. 

 

President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.

• FY 2017 - $441 billion projected.
• FY 2016 - $600 billion expected.
• FY 2015 - $438 billion.
• FY 2014 - $485 billion.
• FY 2013 - $679 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.587 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.

• FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
• FY 2008 - $459 billion.
• FY 2007 - $161 billion.
• FY 2006 - $248 billion.
• FY 2005 - $318 billion.
• FY 2004 - $413 billion.
• FY 2003 - $378 billion.
• FY 2002 - $158 billion.

Edited January 18, 2017 by OriZ

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Bush hid trillions in spending, but I'm sure most people already know that.

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

A cyclical event like a recession is not an excuse for nor a fault of a president. Many presidents across history had to deal with that and many will in the future. Obama avoided it by kicking the can down the road(much like Clinton did) but that's for another post. Even excluding the 2009 deficit however, Obama's total deficit is still larger than Bush's. 

 

President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.

• FY 2017 - $441 billion projected.
• FY 2016 - $600 billion expected.
• FY 2015 - $438 billion.
• FY 2014 - $485 billion.
• FY 2013 - $679 billion.
• FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
• FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
• FY 2010 - $1.587 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.

• FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
• FY 2008 - $459 billion.
• FY 2007 - $161 billion.
• FY 2006 - $248 billion.
• FY 2005 - $318 billion.
• FY 2004 - $413 billion.
• FY 2003 - $378 billion.
• FY 2002 - $158 billion.

The Bush recession was not just a cyclical down turn. It occurred because the housing market was was primed with lots of sub prime lending, the banking regulators were out to lunch, and a Bush Presidency that spent trillions on wars. And did I mention the Bush tax cuts?  What kind of idiocy was it to cut taxes, while exploding military spending? 

[Póg mo 1,749]

Before I forget, let me also point out that the Bush tax cuts were sold under the premise that tax receipts from increased sales would make up for any loss of revenue. Something happened in 2008 that effected that calculus, and hence the deficit in 2009 onwards. I am surprised people with economic backgrounds seem oblivious to this.

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Póg mo said:

The Bush recession was not just a cyclical down turn. It occurred because the housing market was was primed with lots of sub prime lending, the banking regulators were out to lunch, and a Bush Presidency that spent trillions on wars. And did I mention the Bush tax cuts?  What kind of idiocy was it to cut taxes, while exploding military spending? 

It was not "just" a cyclical downturn but had very little if anything to do with Bush. As a matter of fact I have already shown how stock prices in 2008 were wholly predictable by solely examining the high valuations a full 12 years prior(all the way back to 1996 under Clinton), and despite the market collapse(and we all know equities lead the economy and not the other way around) were very marginally beneath fair value, nowhere near as undervalued as most other downturns in history. The magnitude of the collapse was in direct correlation to the high valuations to start with. Kind of the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

 

 I agree and have made the point myself that the FED induced housing bubble played a role - same as the new bubble will in the coming downturn. But the only thing that changes every time are the excuses or catalysts(i.e. one time it's real estate, another time it's equities, another time it's something entirely different) but it is still an expected event at the very least once a decade and oftentimes more. 

 

As far as tax cuts...well the same is going to be done now, cut taxes and add to the military and yet despite all that - Obama STILL managed to add twice as much to the deficit as Bush. 

 

1 hour ago, Póg mo said:

Before I forget, let me also point out that the Bush tax cuts were sold under the premise that tax receipts from increased sales would make up for any loss of revenue. Something happened in 2008 that effected that calculus, and hence the deficit in 2009 onwards. I am surprised people with economic backgrounds seem oblivious to this.

That rarely ever really happens. Trump is saying the same thing now. It's not going to happen and we know it nevertheless it's besides the point.

Edited January 19, 2017 by OriZ

[Inikamoze 86]

Trump will be a very busy man vacuuming up all those spare green notes that are going to miraculously land in his lap over the next 4 years (proviso there is no impeachment before the full term). He won't care what's happening to the ordinary folk around him so stop kidding yourself that he actually will.

maybe I'm incorrect and him being fully divested from his business interests means he has nothing but the nations welfare at heart. 

Watch those flying porkie pigs overhead on Friday on the steps of Capitol Hill !

[TBoneTX 43,043]

11 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Prime rule 1 a chest . Never Never admit you are wrong. Deflect Blame a MDL or MDL and drive on 

English-only outside the regional forums!  Reported!!!

1 a chest

Is this like One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The official after oath ceremony dinner has been revealed!

 

 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

On 1/17/2017 at 5:15 PM, Nature Boy Flair said:

that may affect weekday posting on Chest 

It might because I come on here while working my federal job. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

22 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

It might because I come on here while working my federal job. 

Your not MDL . It's ok 

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 hour ago, cyberfx1024 said:

It might because I come on here while working my federal job. 

  Please don't ruin it for NB. He's worked hard on that shtick. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

16 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  Please don't ruin it for NB. He's worked hard on that shtick. 

It's nice when even the loyal opposition is concerned for your well being. I tell you what, save a couple of bad apples discarded into the squalor of the left ditch, swell bunch of folks here ?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Dakine10 said:

  Please don't ruin it for NB. He's worked hard on that shtick. 

No, it's been quite simple, truth be told.  But not everyone can admit to it.  I know Marvin never could.

Edited January 22, 2017 by IDWAF

[Dakine10 5,452]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

No, it's been quite simple, truth be told.  But not everyone can admit to it.  I know Marvin never could.

  

     We are talking about NB's claim that liberals are not here posting on federal holidays.  You seem to be talking about something else.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, Dakine10 said:

  

     We are talking about NB's claim that liberals are not here posting on federal holidays.  You seem to be talking about something else.

Most of it is done in jest, but you have to admit the MDR tends to own  Non business times