Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 10, 2019

The U.S. government deficit spiked 12 percent to $342 billion during the first two months of fiscal year 2020, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Gee, who would have thought that someone like Trump, with his perfect understanding of business and money, and his flock of kowtowing GOP lackeys would be able to bankrupt an entire country in such a short period of time.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Next up from Fox: How Social Security and Medicare are driving the budget deficit.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-10 04:40 PM | Reply

"Next up from Fox: How Social Security and Medicare are driving the budget deficit."

Don't forget: letting rich people keep more money will certainly tinkle down to, or onto, the rest of us.

#2 | Posted by contrecoup at 2019-12-10 09:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Interesting fact: Fox Business makes no effort to point out the reasons for the spike in deficits.

And a Republican Congresscritter from Oklahoma is foursquare against the larger deficits! At least as far as lip service is concerned.

He's the same guy who just voted to borrow an additional 10% of all the debt we've rung up since 1776, so forgive me if I believe he's a posturing pustule, full of kkkrap.

#3 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-10 09:56 PM | Reply

"It's the kind of thinking that only money can buy. "It's a vicious circle," says Stiglitz. "The rich are using their money to secure tax provisions to let them get richer still. Rather than investing in new technology or R&D, the rich get a better return by investing in Washington."

"We started talking about just cutting taxes and saying, Screw the deficit,'" Bartlett recalls. "We had this idea that if you lowered revenues, the concern about the deficit would be channeled into spending cuts."

It was the birth of what is now known as "Starve the Beast" " a conscious strategy by conservatives to force cuts in federal spending by bankrupting the country.

As conceived by the right-wing intellectual Irving Kristol in 1980, the plan called for Republicans to create a "fiscal problem" by slashing taxes " and then foist the pain of reimposing fiscal discipline onto future Democratic administrations who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward."

www.rollingstone.com

They are still propagating their cunning plan.......

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-10 10:09 PM | Reply

" who, in Kristol's words, would be forced to "tidy up afterward.""

In a just world, every one of those "architects" would have their wealth confiscated to pay for the debts they created.

And yeah, I'm looking at Cheney and Dubya, for resetting the fiscal sights of America from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-10 10:13 PM | Reply

- I'm looking at Cheney and Dubya, for resetting the fiscal sights of America from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

"Then came the election of George W. Bush, the first president of the Party of the Rich.

Within months of taking office, Bush delivered a tax break to the rich that trumps anything he accomplished through the actual tax code. "The most important thing the Bush administration did in the whole area of taxes," says Johnston, "was to kill tax harmonization."

"Tax harmonization" was economic jargon for a joint project by the world's developed countries to shut down offshore tax havens in places like the Cayman Islands. At the time, such illicit havens were costing U.S. taxpayers $70 billion a year.

For Republicans, going after big-time tax evaders should have been as American as apple pie. As Reagan once said of such cheats: "When they do not pay their taxes, someone else does " you and me."

But for Bush and other leaders of the Party of the Rich, blocking corporations from hiding their money overseas wasn't an act of patriotism " it was tyranny.

Rep. Dick Armey, the GOP majority leader, railed against tax harmonization as an effort to create a "global network of tax police."

One of Bush's biggest donors, Enron, was using a network of nearly 900 offshore tax hideaways to pay no corporate taxes " while reporting massive profits that later turned out to be fraudulent. In one of his first acts as president, Bush "basically vetoed the initiative," says Stiglitz.

The veto spurred a cavalcade of corporations " including stalwart American firms like Stanley Works " to pursue phony "headquarters" in Bermuda and other lax-tax nations. The move not only encouraged some of the world's richest companies to avoid paying any U.S. taxes, it let them book overseas-"expenses" that qualified them for lucrative tax deductions.

In one of the most notorious cases, GE filed for a $3 billion tax rebate in 2009, despite boasting profits of more than $14 billion.

But Bush wasn't content to simply make the world safe for corporate tax evaders: He also pushed to deliver $1.6 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals."

more at the RS link

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-10 11:11 PM | Reply

If the economy was doing as well as Republicans say it is why are they calling for the curtailing of the budget deficit?

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2019-12-10 11:13 PM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Liar ... when? when did it ever go down?

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-10 11:19 PM | Reply

"when? when did it ever go down? "

Dubya and Cheney were handed true surplus budgets by Clinton. It "didn't go down" because the first thing they did was reset the fiscal sights.

But no surprise: the guy who has admitted he prefers tax cuts over America refuses to educate himself on the damage people like him have caused.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-10 11:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"when did it ever go down?"

Mackris is such a moron, he's arguing against a point I didn't make. I said the fiscal sights were reset.

That means you owe me an apology for calling me a liar, --------. Dubya and Cheney ABSOLUTELY reset the fiscal sights.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-10 11:29 PM | Reply

Dubya and Cheney were handed true surplus budgets by Clinton. ...

#9 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The House controls the purse-stings. Which party controlled the House when W was handed a surplus by Clinton?

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 12:10 AM | Reply

he's arguing against a point I didn't make.

You said "surplusville", that implies the government paid down it debt via a surplus.

So what year did it go down?

Call me "--------" all you want, you are a liar, and you continually lie when its exposed.

#12 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-11 12:13 AM | Reply

"The House controls the purse-stings.'

Yes. Dennis Hastert(R) was the speaker.

"Which party controlled the House when W was handed a surplus by Clinton?"

That would be Republicans. The same folks who reset America's fiscal sights.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 12:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You said "surplusville", that implies the government paid down it debt via a surplus. '

I said "sights", you blithering idiot.

"you are a liar, and you continually lie when its exposed."

I said Dubya and Cheney reset America's fiscal sights. That's ABSOLUTELY TRUE, you dumbass --------.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 12:15 AM | Reply

"Which party controlled the House when W was handed a surplus by Clinton?"

That would be Republicans

Good for you to admit that.

The same folks who reset America's fiscal sights.

#13 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Agreed. The Bush-era GOP may be the most damaging governance of my lifetime (I was born in 1971).

Now, go on your Pavlovian-tirade about how I vote for the enablers...

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 12:21 AM | Reply

"Good for you to admit that."

Me?!? You thought it was the Dems.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 12:23 AM | Reply

No, I didn't. I knew full well that the GOP controlled the House when Clinton delivered a surplus to W.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 12:26 AM | Reply

And, before you explode, that same cast of characters embraced W's absurd "Compassionate Conservatism" once the power levers flipped.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 12:28 AM | Reply

Agreed. The Bush-era GOP may be the most damaging governance of my lifetime (I was born in 1971).

#15 | Posted by JeffJ

It WAS. But if you can't see the current GOP is far worse, you're a moron.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-11 12:30 AM | Reply

"I knew full well that the GOP controlled the House "

Bullschitt. You never would have asked me if that were the case. Especially not after proclaiming the House holds the purse-strings.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 12:35 AM | Reply

The House controls the purse-stings. Which party controlled the House when W was handed a surplus by Clinton?

#11 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

My recollection is the GOP controlled the House during that period of time.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 12:41 AM | Reply

"My recollection is the GOP controlled the House during that period of time."

Yeah...your recollection as of post #13

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 12:50 AM | Reply

"My recollection is the GOP controlled the House during that period of time."

Yeah...your recollection as of post #13

#22 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

You are misconstruing what I'm saying.

We both seem to agree that the House controls the purse-strings and thus has considerable control over the final budget.

During the '90's surplus the House was controlled by the GOP with Clinton as POTUS. Because POTUS ultimately signs off on the House-controlled budget, it was a shared success - yet you seem to attribute said surplus, which was derived in significant part to both the economic growth that preceded it and the peace dividend from ending the Cold War (a GOP accomplishment) wholly to Clinton. That just isn't the case. It's far more nuanced than that. Then, when W came into office during a recession (lower tax revenues) AND that occurred around the time of 9/11, deficit spending was warranted, short-term. Fine. But then, the GOP passed top-heavy tax cuts AND engaged in 2 extremely expensive wars, although said wars required congressional approval which included solid Dem support that is almost exclusively on the GOP.

Then we had the Obama years - how do you explain the almost unbelievable defects during those first two years when the Democratic Party controlled both chambers and the WH...you lay it exclusively at the feet of the GOP.

The insane flip-flop you display from 2000-2002 vs 2008-2010 is unbelievable.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 01:04 AM | Reply

"when W came into office during a recession"

STOP. He did NOT come into office during a recession, the recession started after that, and it was one of the mildest and shortest on record.

"wholly to Clinton."

Because it's called The Reagan Revolution, and not The Tip O'Neill Compromise. For better or worse, Presidents get the nod, unless they've been handed a flaming ball of schittt.

"But then, the GOP passed top-heavy tax cuts AND engaged in 2 extremely expensive wars"

Which was exactly what the GOP wanted to do. They even cut taxes DURING wartime, remember?

"Then we had the Obama years - how do you explain the almost unbelievable defects during those first two years when the Democratic Party controlled both chambers and the WH...you lay it exclusively at the feet of the GOP. "

Oh, FFS...Republicans handed off the wheel after driving the economic car off the cliff, and you're blaming OBAMA?!?!?! GTFOH. That's like blaming the anchor leg runner after #3 ran the wrong way, schitt in his pants, and dropped the baton during the handoff.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 01:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The insane flip-flop you display from 2000-2002 vs 2008-2010 is unbelievable."

Only you could blow the place up, and then blame the clean-up crew for taking too long to fix your --------.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 01:16 AM | Reply

Because it's called The Reagan Revolution, and not The Tip O'Neill Compromise. For better or worse, Presidents get the nod, unless they've been handed a flaming ball of schittt.

Yes. The problem is you conflate that standard (over-sized credit to POTUS) with a realistic (House controls the purse-strings) standard whenever factual reality contradicts your preferred narrative that the GOP is 100% horrible and the Dems are 100% pure. Before you lose your ----, YES I Was exaggerating. You frame it as 90/10 when it's much closer to even than that.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 01:39 AM | Reply

Which was exactly what the GOP wanted to do. They even cut taxes DURING wartime, remember?

Yes. I excoriated them for it at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-11 01:40 AM | Reply

"whenever factual reality contradicts your preferred narrative "

For factual reality, try Actual Math. Republicans reset the fiscal sights, got in two wars, and slashed taxes again. They were also at the helm when Dubya handed off the economy he'd just driven off the cliff. And now. they just voted to borrow another $2.3 Trillion, almost all to give away to the world's wealthiest 1%. And by World's wealthiest, I mean more American tax money is going to foreign investors than the middle class, especially when the code comes to full fruition.

90/10 is being generous.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 01:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I excoriated them for it at the time"

Oooooh, look at you. Excoriated them, right before you voted for them again. That'll teach 'em!

#29 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 01:46 AM | Reply

Under Bush it was the 2001 tax cut, but that only passed when 5 Dem senators crossed over to vote for it. 9/11 caused an unexpected skyrocketing in defense spending, jumping from 2.9 to 4.3% of GDP between 2001 to 2003. About a trillion bucks down on the hole on that one, while passing more tax cuts.

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-11 09:43 AM | Reply

Yes. I excoriated them for it at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

Your excoriation is worthless. You kept voting for them.

And in return, they cut taxes AGAIN, when every economist said they should be paying down the deficit instead.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-11 11:09 AM | Reply

And they became the cult of a con man who today said "abusing power is not even a crime."

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-11 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With YOUR support.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-11 11:10 AM | Reply

"who today said "abusing power is not even a crime.""

I wonder what the reaction would be if Obama had said the exact same thing?

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-11 11:15 AM | Reply

#34 the pinheads at Faux Snooze would've been apoplectic.

#35 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-12 10:25 AM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
Liar ... when? when did it ever go down?
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

2000 actually. I've explained this too you repeatedly but you evidently are too slow to remember or understand it.

We had a surplus. BUT because Social Security and other programs are required to take any surplus they have internally and buy treasuries with it, it causes the actual debt to go up. We actually had a surplus even without the social security surplus.

It's essentially like spending $20,000 on a credit card even though your paycheck was $100,000. Sure, your actual debt went up $20,000 technically but you still have a surplus of income.

Is it really that hard for you to understand? If so, please don't vote. You aren't smart enough.

#36 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-12-12 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every time Republicans are out of power they scream about debt and deficits.

Every time Republicans regain power, they massively increase debt and deficits with nary a peep.

#37 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-12 05:34 PM | Reply

"Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic."

Former President Bill Clinton

#38 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-12-12 07:10 PM | Reply

Is it really that hard for you to understand? If so, please don't vote. You aren't smart enough.

#36 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Trump loves his dumbass voters. The dumber the better.

Sad. We have become an Idiocracy.

All this stupid makes me thirsty!!

Pass the Brawndo.

Just like our President mutilates the truth Brawndo is a thirst mutilator!!

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-12 07:22 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort