DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

By Heather Long February 3


The National Debt Clock in New York City is shown last November.
The total is about $100 billion higher now. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters).

It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if you missed a small but important announcement from the Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year — Trump's first full year in charge of the budget.

That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal year 2017.

Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year.

Treasury mainly attributed the increase to the “fiscal outlook.” The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be lower because of the new tax law.

The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.

“We're addicted to debt,” says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.

What's particularly jarring is this is the first time borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, something Trump is advocating again.




Trump didn't mention the debt — or the ongoing budget deficits — in his State of the Union address. The absence of any mention of the national debt was frustrating for Goldwein and others who warn that America has a major economic problem looming.

“It is terrible. Those deficits and the debt that keeps rising is a serious problem, not only in the long run, but right now,” Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a former Reagan adviser, told Bloomberg.

The White House got a taste of just how problematic this debt situation could get this week. Investors are concerned about all the additional borrowing and the likelihood of higher inflation, which is why the interest rates on U.S. government bonds hit the highest level since 2014. That, in turn, partly drove the worst weekly sell-off in the stock market in two years.

The belief in Washington and on Wall Street has long been that the U.S. government could just keep issuing debt because people around the world are eager to buy up this safe-haven asset. But there may be a limit to how much the market wants, especially if inflation starts rising and investors prefer to ditch bonds for higher-returning stocks.

“Some of my Wall Street clients are starting to talk recession in 2019 because of these issues. Fiscal policy is just out of control,” says Peter Davis, a former tax economist in Congress who now runs Davis Capital Investment Ideas.

The Federal Reserve was also buying a lot of U.S. Treasury debt since the crisis, helping to beef up demand. But the Fed recently decided to stop doing that now that the economy has improved. It's another wrinkle as Treasury has to look for new buyers.

Tedeschi, the former Treasury adviser to the Obama administration, calls it “concerning, but not a crisis.” Still, he says it's a “big risk” to plan on borrowing so much in the coming years.

Trump's Treasury forecasts borrowing over $1 trillion in 2019 and over $1.1 trillion in 2020. Before taking office, Trump described himself as the “king of debt,” although he campaigned on reducing the national debt.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the U.S. deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2019 and stay there for a while. The latest borrowing figure — $955 billion — released this week was determined from a survey of bond market participants, who tend to be even faster to react to the changing policy landscape and change their forecasts.

Both parties claim they want to be “fiscally responsible,” but Goldwein says they both pass legislation that adds to the debt. Politicians argue this is the last time they'll pass a bill that makes the deficit worse, but so far, they just keep going.

The latest example of largesse is the GOP tax bill. It's expected to add $1 trillion or more to the debt, according to nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (and yes, that's after accounting for some increased economic growth).

But even before that, Goldwein points to the 2015 extension of many tax cuts and the 2014 delays in Medicare reimbursement cuts.

“Every time you feed your addiction, you grow your addiction,” says Goldwein.

There doesn't seem to be any appetite for budgetary restraint in Washington, but the market may force Congress' hand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...m=.d79b9119c5c4

Happy Birthday.

Spending is a big problem in US Government. I find it funny that the left now that trump is spending has a problem with the deficit, but didn't care for 8 years. And I find it funny that some on the right don't care we spending now. It truly shows how partisan we are.

I do think its crazy that we need to spend another trillion on infrastructure when we just did in 09? Where did all that money go? Not one road by me was fixed in that time. Bridges are falling apart and falling down, airports are in need major upgrades, our transportation system is a joke. This should not be a partisan issue, however it SHOULD have been taken care of with Obamas infrastructure plan, and yet it seems that money went missing.

I have no problem with spending $100 dollars to make $1,000.

That is what is happening today.

We are no longer borrowing to pay our enemies to pretend they are our friends and we are no longer funding foreign abortions. NATO is paying its way once again.

The welfare rolls are dropping, food stamp usage is dropping all while America expands economically with more jobs and increasing wages to come.

But, they hate any good news for us Americans lol

I posted this for the conservatives that are saying we don't have money to blow and need to run the country like a business. Looks like we're running it like a Trump business, should be bankrupt soon.

So as long as Trump spends it, you are all good. Got it.
FUnny how that story changed when the GOP took over.

Very stupid of Obama to spend himself out of a recession as well as funding two wars he was given. How inconsiderate. Did he not think that instead it'd be a better idea to make a giant tax cut, gutting our revenue stream in the process, and propose a multi-billion dollar wall. What was he thinking?

Actually, that is what they hope will happen. It hasn't yet.

When you weed your garden it will look less green in the beginning but the glorious fruit it produces afterward will make it all worth while.

Patience.

So 40, how are you going to spend your $1.50? You going to renew your Costco membership with your windfall too?

Here's a thought: Let's raise taxes. On EVERYBODY!!! Across the board. You make $10,000, you make $10 million - doesn't matter. EVERYONE gets to pay an additional 20%, or whatever is needed to have not only a balanced budget, but also enough tax money to start decreasing the deficit.

Let's do it!!

And then, next year, your taxes will go up again, because, you know, gov't. spending has to increase each year, right? People in gov't. need raises, budgets always go up, new programs always arise.

No exceptions. EVERYONE pays. And as I think about it, a 20% increase probably wouldn't be enough to do what I'm suggesting, so let's make it a 30% increase this year. That would be fair, and it would take care of your issue with tax cuts.

Gov't. spending should be cut? Hell no, it should increase. And you will gladly pay for it.

How about, we keep our budget unbalanced while starting to pay back foreign loans. Debt isn't a bad thing to operate on as a government, foreign debt is however.

And I think we can cut spending and should

No.

Taxes should go up so we get out of ALL debt. You are free to contribute extra to the gov't. at any time you choose.

Why keep our budget unbalanced while paying back foreign debt? I mean, honestly, to do that would take nothing but a swipe of the pen. "Here, foreign creditors, we are going to pay you off, while at the same time just adding the debt we owe to ourselves."

Brilliant idea.

Not.

That would be like you wanting to buy a business for $100,000, that would make only enough to pay you to run it. So, instead of borrowing from the bank which you'd have to repay, you just borrow it from yourself. Only problem is, you don't have it. But, debt is good, right??? Hey, you wouldn't owe anyone but yourself. And you couldn't repay yourself, but who cares, right?

Nope. We NEED to raise taxes an astronomical amount, and you'll sign up to pay more, right?

All debt is bad. UNLESS going into debt will enable you to, at an absolute MINIMUM, repay that debt. Absolute MINIMUM.

We just bought a new (used) vehicle. My wife is like you - happy as hell for the vehicle. I am different: We spent (borrowed some) on a depreciating 'asset' that will never repay us. That's bad debt.

'The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year'

To be expected by the self-proclaimed king of debt (Trump).

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-king-of-debt-224642

lol this post is so dumb it makes my brain hurt. Especially the last part where you think I would ever advocate buying a depreciating asset like a car, especially in today's era of manufacturign. But I gotta give it to you. I'm surprised you didn't buy the car flat out after leasing it. My ex's mother did that with her Trax. You remind me a lot of her.

You know we can't pay all of our debt tomorrow, right? If we had enough money to do it, it would be impossible. A fair amount of bonds have time limits before they can be cashed. What really gets governments destroyed is foreign debt to other countries or VC firms. Puerto Rico, Spain and Greece are all examples of how foreign debt can sink a territory/country.

Your example doesn't really work because a business cannot be ran like a government. The way they get their revenue is completely different. Governments should not be making a profit or generating a surplus on tax revenue. But I'm sure you know that. Right?

Also, I'm all for increasing taxes to help pay for the debt. Especially the corporate tax rate and the estate tax. I'm sure you do as well too. Afterall, wouldn't you want everyone to carry their fair share?

Da hell you talking about?

Talk about dumb?

Here:

We never leased it to begin with, Einstein.

I bet I know more about the car industry (sales wise) than you could ever dream about knowing.

Regardless, your ignorance on that is showing. And your ignorance on debt is showing.

Carry on.

Hey Hooked-On-Phonics, I never said you leased your car beforehand. That was the joke!

Let me ask you a question, Arch. Would you prefer living in a country with debt, no debt, or a surplus of cash? You would have the same exact life that you currently do in that country. I don't want you overthinking it.

I'm surprised you didn't buy the car flat out after leasing it.

Hooked on phonics? Where the hell do you come up with these stupid ass statements? Really.

do you not know what "didn't" means?

Yes. Define "didn't" in the context you used it.



Or will you try to say it was a joke.

Sure thing.

I'm surprised you didn't buy the car flat out after leasing it

I = Me and am = a state of being
I'm = I am in a state of being

surprised = a state of shock

I'm surprised = I am in a state of shock.

you = Arch and didn't = did not

I'm surprised you didn't = I am in a state of shock because Arch did not

buy a car flat out = really stupid

buying a car flat out after leasing it = doing something really, really stupid.

I'm surprised you didn't buy the car flat out after leasing it = I am in a state of shock that Arch did not do something really, really stupid.

You get the joke now? It's based off of dramatic irony if that helps. If you don't get it, well, I really can't spell it out anymore.

Anybody see the numbers from the bill that got signed?

I’m tired of hearing republicans complain about spending. Clearly it’s a lie.

Oh, and that makes two government shutdowns in one year....and we’re only in month two of 2018.

On the bright side they did extend two tax deductions that are going to save me $$$ on my 2017 taxes

Why we need term limits brother. Only Rand Paul and a scant few others stood against all this spending.

Doesn’t matter to them because they don’t live under the chains they put us in.

Reminds me of a Bible verse in Matthew: They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and put them on men’s shoulders but will not lift one finger to carry them!

Unfortunately the scum won't get voted out. Either no one will run against them in the primaries or if they do the local republican party will funnel all monies into the incumbants pockets. Then when you go into the general election it's against a lib and your options are crap and crapier.

Democrat, Republician, House, Senate, it matters not. They are all politicans who worry about their individual futures and fortunes, while caring less about truly doing what is right for their constituents.

As long as this group has the ability to enrich themselves and not be subject to their laws, term limits only means more people have the opportunity to take care of themselves.

Fiscal Conservative my butt..

Between this and the tax cuts, we are going to see a huge rise in the deficit. And just where is he going to get his infrastructure money from?

My take home pay increased $18.36 weekly.....the wife saw her biweekly check go up $41.02.....that is $155plus a month on our primary jobs.....I run consulting on the side and she picks up PRN shifts at another facility.....I have not counted those as the income fluctuates...
$1800plus in savings.....I will take it.


But keep believing the cherry picked stories about how horrible life is.

The first trillion was poorly spent I agree....but the population in the US fails to understand the scope of our infrastructure problem....another trillion won’t even put a dent in it. Failing sanitary sewer systems alone in the US would wipe out that trillion...forget storm sewers....forget water distribution....we have not discussed the treatment facilities....now roads??? Bridges??sidewalks??? Power grid? And let’s not forget the need for newer and better data service that is not even in the ground? Ports??? Air terminals??

So yea a trillion won’t cut it...likely need a trillion every year for a decade.

How did we get this way??? Failure to plan for replacement assuming stuff lasts forever. Take a brand new house. Everything is the same age... you don’t have to buy new appliances or provide upkeep typically. And you never squirrel money away for year 15 when every appliance in your new home needs replaced and you can’t figure out how to buy $20,000 dollars worth of appliances, furnaces, AC units and water softeners on your $60,000 salary that is already spoken for.

The steady investment has been fought for decades by the right. They really have no desire to invest in America's cities. The oldest and worst dilapidation of infrastructure exists in urban areas.

Let's see where these infrastructure dollars are actually spent and what they actually address before we believe they are actually going to go where they're needed the most.

They are needed in almost every small, medium, and large city, and village in the country. They are need in almost every county of every state.

So, is it up to the federal gov't. to pay for water lines, water plants, etc in these towns, cities/urban areas?

Arch is right.....the local communities are the true failures. they have kicked everything down the road hoping to get someone else to pay for it.

A city or town or county is just an extension of your home. And the people living there have refused to reinvest in their own "home". If your roof leaks do you fix it or wait till someone else does? If your window breaks do you leave it broke till someone else fixes it for you?

I work for a Municipality. My department has been active providing services that people are willing to pay for and we our financially sound. We costly pourr money back into out treatment facility and upgrade and replace equipment that that has been ignored for 40-50 years. Other departments hate us because of our cash flow. They want "free" grant money and sit and wait and wait and never get much done. They get jealous over our ability to spend. But they wont change the way they do business. We get asked why we dont ask for grants (welfare). Our response is we don't need any grants...we are self sufficient. My the night and day difference in the departments in my city is a microcosm of why US infrastructure is trash.

Thats a HELL of ALOT of CRUMBS!!!!!!

Did u Thank Donnie yet? ... ...

Ok, so we got the budget passed and it is way too much but we
needed to do what was necessary to fund our Military.

This is why we need more Republicans in Congress to stem the spending in the future.

If this could have been done with Republicans only, the Military would have been taken care of while social programs could be cut.

There is a pie chart floating around on social media but it is wrong.

The Truth...

If we look at all of federal spending:

• The "military" share, including spending on homeland security, shrinks from 57 percent to 16 percent.

• The "health" share zooms from 5 percent to 26 percent, once expenditures on Medicare and Medicaid are counted.

• Social Security -- a category not even included in the pie chart now circulating on social media feeds -- rises from 0 percent to 25 percent.

• Food and agriculture quadruples from 1 percent to 4 percent due to the inclusion of food stamps, a mandatory program, and agricultural income and price supports.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ng-internet-mi/

They won’t stem the spending in the future. They don’t stem it now, or even try. There were no cuts, just the next verse of massive increases. Just another raise in the debt ceiling to allow for it. Kicking the can down the road one more time. Our kids, kids are going to be truly screwed when these bills come due.

What an embarrassment our government is.

Very good link with the chart and explanations there 40.....i know many wont bother reading it though....and those that do will like say "so what".....math and logic flies in the face of emotions and fear

I don't know what type of answer you expect to get. But let's look at the reality of the situation. People with the means to leave the urban environment have done so for the most part. Property values have gone down in a lot of large cities. That has killed the tax base. The money does not exist to fix urban problems.

In the suburbs, quite the opposite has happened. At least the suburbs of these large cities. New homes were built and are continuing to be built. Property values are on the rise. The tax base is strong and getting stronger. This supplies these communities with the funds needed for upgrades.

The circumstances are such that either the federal government will come to the aid of urban areas or they will further crumble. Now yes, there are exceptions to that but by and large that is what's going on.

See, here's exactly what happens. Each party will cater these funds to best serve their constituents. Money will be funneled to appease the people who vote for them. The Democrats are no less guilty of this than the GOP is.

What it seems you are failing to recognize is that an infrastructure bill is no less responsible for helping the problems in urban areas than anywhere else. Now you can pick and choose what that entails and what it doesn't, but a trillion dollars SHOULD go a long way and it should be distributed equally. But neither party actually works that way.

That looks great on paper. But the ONLY Republican who stood up to stop the increase in the budget was Rand Paul. And he's a Libertarian.

The GOP spends like drunken sailors just like the Dems do. The evidence of that was just displayed right in front of your face.

A trillion wont even come close to doing much of anything. Let me demonstrate...My town is a town of about 6000....it has 45 miles of sanitary sewer that is in dire need of upgrades and replacements, the average cost of replacing these old sewers is about $70 linear foot (that includes restoration)...simple calculator stuff....we have 237,000 linear feet that needs attention..$70/ft...that is $16million for my town...this cost does not include manhole or catch basins which cost about $4500 each and we have almost 10,000 units in town...It does not cover the millions needed in treatment facility upgrades either..It also does not cover the 30 miles of needed storm sewers to get storm water off the sanitary system. It also does not include the 50plus miles of water lines that need replaced. or the 60 miles of road (and sidewalks)...this is just my one town. How many towns are there in the US over 6000 people that are in the exact same boat? 10,000? That's not even counting the 100,000 communities under 6000. Sanitary sewer monies alone will eat up $1 trillion dollars without even addressing any other above ground infrastructure.

AsI said earlier....$1trillion a year for decade would get us back to square one. Infrastructure funding is way way worse then you can even comprehend.....20 years in the wastewater and water utility business....