US budget deficit rises to $209 billion in November

So your solution is to create a fiscal crisis in order to force spending cuts? Make things worse in order to force a change.

As I said, that is the irresponsible approach. Reckless.

 

Oh? It's still only in the 'low' hundreds of billions?

Well, obviously, we need to open the borders even wider than they are now and bring in a few million more worthless peasants and parasites from the Third World and put them all on welfare programs at the same time that we provide even more tax cuts for über-wealthy people who pay damned little in taxes already (thanks to all their tax loopholes, tax shelters, write-offs, etc.)! Then maybe we could run the budget deficit up to something 'respectable' -- say, at least a TRILLION.

Hey, it's only money, and one thing the Federal Reserve combine has made crystal-clear since 2008 -- they can 'print' an ENDLESS supply of it, and flood the world with it!

 

Sure. Something needs to change. Hard to imagine the crisis which Democrats would create with "Medicare for All" or trillions of additional spending on a "Green Deal". Since we're going to have a financial crisis either way, I'd rather have the result be a smaller less expensive federal government which keeps their grubby hands out of peoples' paychecks.

I am a fiscal Libertarian. Taxation is theft.

 

And the dems did with Obama so don't confuse this is anything but normal. It needs to be addressed have the House cut spending and send it to the Senate.

 

lets see if we can spot the difference. Which president had the worst recession in 80 years to deal with? Obama. Which president had to deal with 10% UE, and tanking federal revenues due to the recession? Obama. Who inherited a steadily growing economy? trump. Who slashed revenue and increased deficit spending in good economic times, with a republican controlled congress and white house? trump.

 

And these deficits are ON TOP of those billions in TARIFFS Dirty Donald is collecting from American consumers.

 

So Democrats are criticizing that deficits are creeping upward under a president who keeps submitting budgets to decrease the debt, but will vote for any one of the candidates who are promising to add trillions of dollars of debt on top of current deficits. That makes sense.

 

As much sense as you saying trump will cut it in his second term.
He will cut education and food security but then raise the armed forces by double what he cut.

 

Yes because the tax cuts could pay off the debt in like a year or two.

 

And under a Democrat POTUS we'll be dodging HIND's and screaming "WOLVERINES" everywhere we go.

 

Bush "doubled" military spending in response to 911. Obama did not decrease military spending, so it's not just a Republican "thing". Bush and Obama kept us involved in endless wars. Trump is disengaging where we don't really belong and spending money to modernize our military with newer equipment and an investment in cutting-edge technology with Space Force being added to Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.

I'm sure Obama spent the military budget "wisely", though I'm not sure on what. He did decrease military spending a little during his second term, but Obama's military spending averaged higher during his administration than the average military costs during the Bush administration.

The federal government's core duties are to provide national security for the people against any threats from other nations, and to provide a functioning infrastructure for interstate commerce. Trump's doing a great job with military modernization, which is a bipartisan effort. If he gets 4 more years, I expect him to do more with our crumbling and neglected infrastructure.



https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/2018-u-s-military-budget-includes-support-3d-printing-117760/

 

I have no idea what you are referring to.

 

oh look, more spending justifications by the professed “fiscal libertarian” who asserts taxation is theft (but just when republicans do it)

Strange how similar y’all always are to one another.

 

There are very few powers which the founders of this country specifically named in the Constitution, such as providing for the common defense, regulation of commerce between states and other countries, and coining money. Bare bones basics. It doesn't make sense for every state in the country to each do these things individually. Most of what the federal government does today beyond the original limited scope specifically enumerated in the Constitution could be more efficiently handled at the individual, city, county or state level.

 

The welfare of the people wasn’t mentioned once?
You should check.

 

The founders thought that having government stay out of the way of the people was the best for the welfare of the people. They certainly did not set up the country as a model socialist welfare state. Correct me if you can find socialized government welfare in the Constitution.

 

OK... and who "fixed" it, rahl...? It wasn't Idiot "W" Bush, and it wasn't Idiot Obama, either. It was the central banks, here and throughout 'the West' -- the Federal Reserve combine, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, etc., etc.

They chose the path of crushing interest rates down to zero, 'printing' warehouses full of new money, 'rescuing' those the bankers deemed "too big to fail", bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of toxic corporate trash and other "assets", and enriched the same stock market criminals who brought on the Great Recession in the first place!

All Idiot Bush and Idiot Obama did was stand out of the Federal Reserve's bankers' way and let them completely subvert, pervert, and take over what had been a generally free-market economy. But, as a liberal Democrat, I'm sure you approved of this all the way! I've never met a liberal Leftist yet who ever expressed even the slightest disapproval of any of it....

 

So is welfare of the people mentioned in the Constitution?
Especially promoting it...?

 

I have no idea what this has to do with the fact that trump is EXPLODING the deficit again, in good economic times?

 

The founders laid out "generalized duties", followed by a very specific enumeration and limited set of powers entrusted to the federal government. The "general welfare" clause is a broad ideal. It is not one of the enumerated powers of government.

Hamilton was very clear in The Federalist No. 83 that the Constitution did not provide for general and unlimited powers. To the contrary, the power of government was to be strictly limited to a short-list of enumerated powers.

Hamilton wrote, "The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended."

The definition of "welfare" has changed over the last couple hundred years. The founders never intended the U.S. to be what we would call today a "welfare state".

 

The founders also advised that the constitution should be rewritten every nineteen years.

No one is advocating a welfare state — although when absolute automation approaches it will be necessary — they are advocating the duty of the government to promote the welfare of it’s citizens.

 

Certainly one can hope, but I don't see it happening. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. All sacred cows will continue to be funded no matter what happens. That includes funding for (dare I say it) Israel, a country that has attacked a US ship (Liberty) and killed US sailors, spies on the US (Pollard), and meddles in US politics (bypassing the President to interact with Congress). They are the chosen -- chosen to f*** the US taxpayer. But there are many other sacred cows for US slaves (taxpayers) to support.

 

Sure. Like the Constitutions in Africa and Latin America. The limited life Constitution works great for them, eh what?

 

It may as well have been rewritten throughout history with legislators and courts getting loser and loser with constitutional "interpretation" over time. The federal government was never intended to be some large clumsy powerful expensive behemoth, but that's what it has turned into.

 

Cut federal spending 50%.

Problem solved.