Bipartisanship In Drowning Us In Debt -- Um, No Thanks
Jonathan Turley writes about the one place President Trump and the Democrats come together -- "unlimited spending":
Both parties have torn balance budget limit to shreds as they throw hundreds of billions of dollars around like soundbites. As a result, the respected Congressional Budget Office (CDO) is now projected that debt could reach 92 percent of the GDP within ten years. In other words, an economic meltdown caused by politicians who act like children in spending without any notion of how we will actually pay for these programs....In the meantime, presidential candidates are pledging everything from free college to new homes if they are elected.
What is most disturbing is that CBO released its projections and nobody cared. There was virtually no coverage and members of Congress and the White House are joined in avoiding the subject of our crippling, runaway debt.
A tidbit from the Trump administration's version of the required "supplemental update of the Budget, commonly known as the Mid-Session Review":
Without reform, trillion dollar deficits will continue throughout the budget window, and will drive debt to more than $33 trillion by 2029. The trend of growing deficits can be reversed only through concerted efforts of spending restraint and restoring Government to the proper size. The 2020 Budget provides a clear roadmap for fiscal responsibility, proposing over $2.9 trillion in spending reductions--more proposed spending reductions than any previous adminis- tration in history--while still providing key funding increases for critical national priorities such as border security and national defense, veterans' healthcare, childcare and rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure.
Turley quotes from another passage of the document:
"Debt would reach 92 percent of GDP by the end of the next decade and 144 percent by 2049. That level of debt would be the highest in the nation's history by far, and it would be on track to increase even more."The fact is that both Trump and Pelosi will be out of office by then -- celebrated by their hardcore constituencies. This will become a problem for someone else -- and of course the country. The world itself will be impacted by a collapsing U.S. economy but again that could a decade away -- an eternity for politicians who share narcissistic DNA.
What I don't understand is how grown adults who can do basic math vote any of these clowns into office.
If your finances looked like our country's would you be going on myriad spending sprees -- or cutting whatever costs possible and looking to sell the family silver and maybe grandma's old gold teeth?
And then there's this:
“If your finances looked like our country's would you be going on myriad spending sprees”
Unfortunately many would, IF they could get someone to loan them the money. Just look at student loan and housing bubble.
Tried to get people to care about debt, got called racist by “unbiased” press. Not as much increase as wanted gets labeled drastic and murderous
Joe j at July 22, 2019 4:30 AM
"...What I don't understand is how grown adults who can do basic math vote any of these clowns into office...."
Because no one cares about the national debt. Their paychecks don't bounce, food is still very reasonably priced and always available. Gasoline is always available, again at very reasonable prices. There are no runs on banks, no inflation to speak of, no currency devaluation, other countries are still buying our debt and the dollar remains the default currency around the world.
Joe Voter cares about social issues, having a job, medical care and illegal immigration. To Joe, the national debt is an abstract for accountants and policy wonks.
And I don't wish to throw my vote away. I vote for the lesser of two evils, and right now, at this moment in time, the GOP is that lesser evil. I abhor debt, but the national debt is what it is, and few politicians anywhere seem inclined to do anything about it.
I'll never ever ever vote for a Democrat ever again. If I don't vote GOP, who does that leave me with?
I get that you are concerned about the debt. Joe Voter isn't. Let me reiterate a point I made last week; it's time for you to go into the Heartland and ask people why they voted for Trump, or why they didn't, and why they aren't terribly concerned about an abstract like the national debt. It might be an eye-opener for you.
roadgeek at July 22, 2019 4:54 AM
If I could print money, I would make drunken sailors look like penny-pinching bastards. The only downside to it is at the end.
How did the USofA go broke, dad?
Well, son, gradually then suddenly.
It'll all be sunshine and roses, right up until no one wants to buy your debt. We're also the de facto currency of world business, which gives some wiggle room.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 22, 2019 6:50 AM
It'll all be sunshine and roses, right up until no one wants to buy your debt. We're also the de facto currency of world business, which gives some wiggle room.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 22, 2019 6:50 AM
The correction is going to come when California, and a few other states go bankrupt, and all those massive pensions are taken over by the RTC.
The surest way to repudiate your debt has always been ginning up inflation.
After that, you start a war to cover your tracks.
Invest in ammo, guns, propane, and freeze dried food. It is going to get ugly out there folks.
Darwin’s law wins out in the end. Every time.
Isab at July 22, 2019 7:01 AM
I get that you are concerned about the debt. Joe Voter isn't. Let me reiterate a point I made last week; it's time for you to go into the Heartland and ask people why they voted for Trump, or why they didn't, and why they aren't terribly concerned about an abstract like the national debt.
The Tea Party people sure seemed to, and swore it was their one issue. Then they vanished. Poof!
Kevin at July 22, 2019 7:19 AM
Begin at year 1 a.d. Spend $1,000,000 per day every day for the next 2019 years. You still will not reach $1 trillion. And yet our debt is now $22 trillion.
How did that happen ?
Nick at July 22, 2019 7:43 AM
How did that happen ?
Nick at July 22, 2019 7:43 AM
The magic of compound interest. And politicians buying votes with your money.
Isab at July 22, 2019 8:21 AM
“The Tea Party people sure seemed to, and swore it was their one issue. Then they vanished. Poof!“
Have the unbiased media label you as racist and ignores or twists what you say. And they eventually vanished.
Joe j at July 22, 2019 8:29 AM
Have the unbiased media label you as racist and ignores or twists what you say. And they eventually vanished.
I have no idea what this means, but it seems to indicate it's The Media's Fault, which is a useful all-purpose excuse for anything anybody doesn't like these days — but doesn't really account for the fact that all the issues the Tea Party claimed to care about are worse today, but they've vanished. Poof!
Kevin at July 22, 2019 8:41 AM
It's not bipartisanship spending us into the poorhouse. And it's not political parties. It's we the voters who keep putting these profligate spenders into office.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." ~ Walt Kelly
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2019 9:08 AM
The correction is going to come when California, and a few other states go bankrupt, and all those massive pensions are taken over by the RTC.
The correction will come when RTC pays 5 cents on the dollar for those retirees. If they're paying anything at all.
Those people who gamed the system by working massive amounts of overtime in the last couple of years should be prime candidates for that haircut.
but doesn't really account for the fact that all the issues the Tea Party claimed to care about are worse today, but they've vanished. Poof!
You can thank the progressive god-king Obama for that.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/05/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior/
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action. Obama weaponized the 4th branch of government to use against those he deemed his enemies. The belief in the progressive sphere being we'll always be in power.
Then Trump happened.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 22, 2019 9:38 AM
I don't think California will ever be bankrupt. It has a bigger debt than Greece and yet it never seems to run out of money to spend on pet projects.
Sixclaws at July 22, 2019 11:13 AM
California used to have its tax policy subsidized by the federal government through federal deductions for state and local income taxes. Now that the deduction has been reduced, we may see influential Californians pushing back on high state income taxes. That'll put a crimp in the money supply.
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2019 11:21 AM
You can thank the progressive god-king Obama for that.
But the progressive god-king Obama has been out of office for nearly three years! We have a record high federal budget! And the debt is higher than it's ever been!
And still the Tea Party seems to have vanished.
Poof!
Kevin at July 22, 2019 11:41 AM
Ron Paul was the last person to campaign on this issue; he got 10% in the GOP primary, and they orchestrated a maneuver to deny his caucus from Minnesota and then paint Ron Paul supporters as racist. Who is the "they"? The McCain-Romney wing of "respectable" Republicans.
The TEA Party was co-opted by big-government types like Dick Army. You stop being a grass-roots movement when you have a registered lobbying group like Freedomworks in Washington DC.
The horns of the dilemma are:
- With our unending wars, we force the world to accept dollars at gunpoint, yet
- The unending wars have been the cover for the massive ballooning of federal spending this century.
Who is a legitimately anti-war candidate?
Barack Obama lied, expanded US overseas entanglements, and started more wars and double-tap drone-struck more people than all previous Peace Prize winners combined.
Ron Paul ran on disowning and disavowing the "Bush Wars", and, again, he only got 10% of the GOP primary voters.
Trump was a legitimate anti-war candidate. The verdict is still out whether he'll be the most anti-war president we've had, but that hasn't cut the expenses. Now, I remember being told we'd have war with everyone at the start of 2017 because of his bumbling, and that didn't happen. He avoided the ground war in Syria (although I disapprove of any involvement in Syria, and I can't understand how we're still in Syria if Trump said - pull out - how did Bolton override?). Yet, he hasn't struck the flags and brought the boys home from the Obama-Bush battlefields. I know we were told Trump was going to cause nuclear war with North Korea (roll the time machine back to 2017), and it is clear that, so long as Trump is in office, he and Chairman Kim are friends, and the US West Coast won't be bombed by North Korea. I like to think he is doing the "Rocket Man" rope-a-dope with Iran, so that he can become friends with the Ayatollah, but I don't know if that will work, and Bumbling May is already sleepwalking NATO into war with Iran.
When I look at the Democrats, I only trust Gravel or Gabbard to actually end the wars. One is excluded from the debates, and the other is called a Nazi because she's got Trump doves giving her money.
The budget would look a lot more balanced if we weren't at a constant state of war. So many of the yoots graduating from college and entering the workforce have accepted that America is perpetually at war. I remember that sweet, beautiful time when America was in its post-Cold-War peace, as it should be, in the 90s, and when wars took less than 100 hours. Yet, we had to invent new big bads - e.g., Russia, to be an existential enemy, and so, since Trump saw no reason for that, we have half the country thinking that Russia "hacked our Democracy" "worse than Pearl Harbor" in spending $160,000 on left-leaning Facebook ads - far less "hacking our Democracy" than the EU or Israel or Ukraine or Japan or China or Mexico.
El Verde Loco at July 22, 2019 11:47 AM
Conan the Grammarian:
It's not bipartisanship spending us into the poorhouse. And it's not political parties. It's we the voters who keep putting these profligate spenders into office.
Ross Perot was the only one who cared about the debt, and he's getting to be too too dead to vote for. Last election I voted not so much for Trump as against Hillary. She spelled out quite clearly what she wanted to do when she got in, and I didn't see how we could pay for it.
Who can I vote for now? Should I throw away my vote on one of the "other" candidates down at the bottom of the ballot? The Demicans and the Republocrats both have profligate spending policies.
kenmce at July 22, 2019 3:07 PM
That's one of the problems. We've been voting for big spending candidates who promise rainbows and unicorns for so long, that's all either party will offer us.
Conan the Grammarian at July 22, 2019 4:27 PM
Trump promised to cut spending if he's re-elected. That is sooooo convenient; he can put off any real heavy lifting until that hypothetical time after January 20, 2021. But that is NOT GOOD ENOUGH! He should be making efforts to cut NOW, and even abandon the ridiculous promise that he made to save Social Security as it is. After all, if he can abandon the promise to send DACAs back, he can certainly abandon the genuinely ludicrous promise to preserve a system that's given us tens of trillions of bucks in unfunded liabilities.
mpetrie98 at July 22, 2019 5:01 PM
Here's the fundamental problem with the federal budget: Tax collections just cover entitlement programs and interest on the federal debt, with maybe $150M left over. Just paying for government operations and overhead takes up most of the rest of that. So to cover the deficit and put the budget in the black, you'd have to nearly eliminate all "discretionary" spending -- which is nearly everything else the government does. The military. Regulatory agencies. Environmental cleanup. The Justice Department. Infrastructure. Small business loans. Student loans. Education funding. Science research. Low-income housing. The Postal Service. Amtrak. The State Department. The Commerce Department. Et cetera.
I think the last window we had to solved the problem without a big economic upset closed 15-20 years ago. The day is coming when we will be faced with a very hard decision, and the economic and social impact will be severe no matter what we choose.
Cousin Dave at July 23, 2019 7:23 AM
Yes Kevin the Tea Party went poof and now spending is worse than ever. You are complaining that people who got crushed and then had their branding coopted didn't accomplish their goals?
Man, Saturn went out of business and won't sell me cars any more! That is terrible of them.
As for Trump reducing spending, congress sets the budget. There is zero wiggle room on that statement. The president has next to zero control over the budget. Any promises Trump makes about raising or lowering spending are worthless for that simple reason, presidents don't set the budget. Read the constitution if you don't believe me. It is all covered there quite clearly. Any Pelosi-Trump budget agreements are worthless. Once again the president doesn't set the budget. It doesn't matter what Trump says. He has no control over that. A McConnell-Pelosi budget agreement is real. They have the ability to add and remove things, increase and decrease spending. But Trump only gets to veto or not the whole package. If he vetos then the government shuts down.
Ben at July 24, 2019 12:28 PM
Leave a comment