Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
why...because personal greed at the very top is at an all time high....they could care less about the country...
Government debt is exploding. Here’s the danger
The Trump administration is testing just how much government debt is too much.
Washington is set to return to annual budget deficits of $1 trillion or more. The only other time this happened was from 2009 to 2012, as a bad recession hit, tax revenue plunged and Congress passed aggressive stimulus programs to mitigate the damage. Annual deficits fell after that, hitting $438 billion in 2015. In the last complete fiscal year, the deficit was $666 billion.
Deficits are going much higher—and this time, there’s no recession. In fact, the economy’s in good shape. Still, the tax cuts signed by President Trump at the end of 2017, along with a big new boost in military and domestic spending, will send annual deficits soaring to close to $1 trillion in 2018, and probably beyond $1 trillion in 2019 and 2020.
Will that cause a problem? Nobody knows for sure, but there’s some unknown point at which excessive government borrowing will hurt the broader economy and possibly even cause a recession. “Too much government debt crowds out private lending,” says Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at investing firm RSM. “The private sector has to pay a lot more, it slows the pace of investment and hiring, and you get slower growth. The governing party just added $3 trillion to what the ******* are going to have to pay back, and the ******* have no idea what’s happening to them.”
Economists used to think the threshold for government debt was lower than it appears to be. As the federal debt approached, then exceeded, 100% of the nation’s GDP, some investors feared borrowers would begin to doubt Uncle Sam’s ability to pay back all that money, and demand higher interest rates. But that hasn’t happened, and that’s one big reason Congress seems willing to pile on the debt to fund just about every pet project in Washington.
The recently approved spending bill eliminates budget caps imposed in 2011, and it will add about $320 billion to the national debt during the next decade. That comes after a tax-cut bill likely to add another $1.5 trillion to the debt during the same time. And most analysts expect “temporary” tax cuts enacted last year to become permanent, pushing the total tally of new debt to around $3 trillion over a decade. The national debt is now 19% larger than the entire U.S. economy, a gap that will continue to grow.
On a per capital basis, the national debt amounted to $19,948 per person in 2000, and $43,733 in 2010. By 2019, it will be around $68,000 per person:
What’s the problem with that? Sooner or later, all that government debt could essentially flood the credit markets, pushing the price of government securities down and the yields, or interest rates, up. Investors will simply demand more in return for loaning the government money. Rising rates will make it harder and costlier for private-sector businesses to borrow and invest. They’ll hire less, at the same time borrowing costs are rising for consumers. That’s one way for an economic expansion to slow down or end, and a recession to start.
As interest rates rise, the government itself will have to pay more to borrow. Net interest costs only account for about 7% of all federal outlays right now, which is low, historically, even though the national debt is at a record high. That’s because interest rates have been so low. But interest payments will shoot up as interest rates rise, which will leave less federal money for social programs, defense, roads, bridges and everything else. The government can raise revenue quickly in an emergency, by raising taxes. But that in itself can cause a recession if it happens too abruptly.
The recent stock-market selloff probably doesn’t reflect this concern, at least not yet. Stock prices have been falling because inflation seems to be heading higher than investors expected up till now. That’s based on recent data, not on projections involving future levels of federal debt. Congress didn’t even pass the latest spending bill until the recent selloff was underway.
But concerns are mounting. Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones, for instance, wrote in a recent letter to investors that he’d rather hold “hot burning coal” than Treasury bonds, because of the “detrimental effects excessive public sector borrowing has on the economy.” In his letter, he referred to the 1980s, another period when tax cuts and spending led to a surge in government borrowing and federal deficits.
President Ronald Reagan is remembered for the big tax cut he signed in 1981 and for a large boost in military spending. Yet the national debt rose by 188% during his time in office, and Reagan raised taxes three times to deal with concerns about excessive government debt. The national debt rose another 52% during the next four years, under George H. W. Bush, and a recession contributed to his defeat in 1992. Bill Clinton and his first Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, put an end to the explosion in government debt, at least until the 21st century arrived.
If Trump’s additions to the debt become truly problematic, we’ve probably got a year or two before the trouble begins. “I’m expecting a sugar high over the next 6 quarters,” says Brusuelas. “But we ought to know by 2019.” By then, the Federal Reserve will have signaled whether it feels more aggressive monetary tightening is necessary to deal with the corrosive effects of too much debt. If it does, it could make the latest selloff seem tame.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/government-debt-exploding-heres-danger-203654548.html
Government debt is exploding. Here’s the danger
The Trump administration is testing just how much government debt is too much.
Washington is set to return to annual budget deficits of $1 trillion or more. The only other time this happened was from 2009 to 2012, as a bad recession hit, tax revenue plunged and Congress passed aggressive stimulus programs to mitigate the damage. Annual deficits fell after that, hitting $438 billion in 2015. In the last complete fiscal year, the deficit was $666 billion.
Deficits are going much higher—and this time, there’s no recession. In fact, the economy’s in good shape. Still, the tax cuts signed by President Trump at the end of 2017, along with a big new boost in military and domestic spending, will send annual deficits soaring to close to $1 trillion in 2018, and probably beyond $1 trillion in 2019 and 2020.
Will that cause a problem? Nobody knows for sure, but there’s some unknown point at which excessive government borrowing will hurt the broader economy and possibly even cause a recession. “Too much government debt crowds out private lending,” says Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at investing firm RSM. “The private sector has to pay a lot more, it slows the pace of investment and hiring, and you get slower growth. The governing party just added $3 trillion to what the ******* are going to have to pay back, and the ******* have no idea what’s happening to them.”
Economists used to think the threshold for government debt was lower than it appears to be. As the federal debt approached, then exceeded, 100% of the nation’s GDP, some investors feared borrowers would begin to doubt Uncle Sam’s ability to pay back all that money, and demand higher interest rates. But that hasn’t happened, and that’s one big reason Congress seems willing to pile on the debt to fund just about every pet project in Washington.
The recently approved spending bill eliminates budget caps imposed in 2011, and it will add about $320 billion to the national debt during the next decade. That comes after a tax-cut bill likely to add another $1.5 trillion to the debt during the same time. And most analysts expect “temporary” tax cuts enacted last year to become permanent, pushing the total tally of new debt to around $3 trillion over a decade. The national debt is now 19% larger than the entire U.S. economy, a gap that will continue to grow.
On a per capital basis, the national debt amounted to $19,948 per person in 2000, and $43,733 in 2010. By 2019, it will be around $68,000 per person:
What’s the problem with that? Sooner or later, all that government debt could essentially flood the credit markets, pushing the price of government securities down and the yields, or interest rates, up. Investors will simply demand more in return for loaning the government money. Rising rates will make it harder and costlier for private-sector businesses to borrow and invest. They’ll hire less, at the same time borrowing costs are rising for consumers. That’s one way for an economic expansion to slow down or end, and a recession to start.
As interest rates rise, the government itself will have to pay more to borrow. Net interest costs only account for about 7% of all federal outlays right now, which is low, historically, even though the national debt is at a record high. That’s because interest rates have been so low. But interest payments will shoot up as interest rates rise, which will leave less federal money for social programs, defense, roads, bridges and everything else. The government can raise revenue quickly in an emergency, by raising taxes. But that in itself can cause a recession if it happens too abruptly.
The recent stock-market selloff probably doesn’t reflect this concern, at least not yet. Stock prices have been falling because inflation seems to be heading higher than investors expected up till now. That’s based on recent data, not on projections involving future levels of federal debt. Congress didn’t even pass the latest spending bill until the recent selloff was underway.
But concerns are mounting. Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Tudor Jones, for instance, wrote in a recent letter to investors that he’d rather hold “hot burning coal” than Treasury bonds, because of the “detrimental effects excessive public sector borrowing has on the economy.” In his letter, he referred to the 1980s, another period when tax cuts and spending led to a surge in government borrowing and federal deficits.
President Ronald Reagan is remembered for the big tax cut he signed in 1981 and for a large boost in military spending. Yet the national debt rose by 188% during his time in office, and Reagan raised taxes three times to deal with concerns about excessive government debt. The national debt rose another 52% during the next four years, under George H. W. Bush, and a recession contributed to his defeat in 1992. Bill Clinton and his first Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, put an end to the explosion in government debt, at least until the 21st century arrived.
If Trump’s additions to the debt become truly problematic, we’ve probably got a year or two before the trouble begins. “I’m expecting a sugar high over the next 6 quarters,” says Brusuelas. “But we ought to know by 2019.” By then, the Federal Reserve will have signaled whether it feels more aggressive monetary tightening is necessary to deal with the corrosive effects of too much debt. If it does, it could make the latest selloff seem tame.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/government-debt-exploding-heres-danger-203654548.html
Awww what's a little money laundering between old friends huh?
although for you right wingers I'm sure it is perfectly honest
'Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale
ABC News
A leading Senate Democrat has called on the Treasury Department to turn over banking and real estate records related to Donald Trump’s 2008 sale of a six-acre Palm Beach estate to a Russian billionaire – a real estate flip that yielded Trump $95 million after paying $41 million for the property just four years earlier. “It is imperative that Congress follow the money and conduct a thorough investigation into any potential money laundering or other illicit financial dealings between the president, his associates, and Russia,” wrote Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee that is investigating 2016 election meddling. The transaction between Trump and Russian ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e4fd6069-7a90-36c0-842d-60283a1c961b/'follow-the-money':-senator.html
although for you right wingers I'm sure it is perfectly honest
'Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale
ABC NewsA leading Senate Democrat has called on the Treasury Department to turn over banking and real estate records related to Donald Trump’s 2008 sale of a six-acre Palm Beach estate to a Russian billionaire – a real estate flip that yielded Trump $95 million after paying $41 million for the property just four years earlier. “It is imperative that Congress follow the money and conduct a thorough investigation into any potential money laundering or other illicit financial dealings between the president, his associates, and Russia,” wrote Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee that is investigating 2016 election meddling. The transaction between Trump and Russian ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/e4fd6069-7a90-36c0-842d-60283a1c961b/'follow-the-money':-senator.html
Nolte — Climate of Hate: CNN Repeatedly Provides National Platform for Nazis and Klansmen
If you take a good look around, the only major news outlet regularly offering its imprimatur to Nazis and Klansmen is the far-left CNN. Unfortunately, the anti-Trump’s channel’s goal is not a misguided view of free speech-for-all. Rather, it is just another attempt on CNN’s part to achieve its sinister political goals through the mainstreaming and legitimizing of hate.
It was CNN that gave Arthur Jones, a full-blown Nazi and Holocaust-denier, a national platform earlier this week. Until then, no one had everheard of Jones. He is just some despicable nobody local-bigot from Illinois running a futile congressional campaign in the hopes his stunt will give him bigger opportunities to promote his vile views, which CNN was all too happy to provide.
CNN’s validation of Nazis and Klansmen does not stop there. CNN’s top anti-Trump commentator, Jake Tapper, has made a cottage industry out of offering a former-Klansman and current white supremacist a national profile.
Without Tapper and CNN promoting him and his views, David Duke would be a historical footnote, the Louisiana racist who spent 30 years grasping for the spotlight with various political runs, and did manage to squeak three years into the state house. Without Tapper and CNN working as his PR firm today, though, no one would consider Duke relevant or even remember him.
Nevertheless, Tapper seems smitten with the idea of a relevant David Duke, even eager to award him and his noxious views the validation of a national platform.
Just a few days earlier, Tapper promoted Duke’s message and the fact that he has a Twitter account.
Tapper’s most infamous and humiliating Duke-spreading occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign when the dishonest State of the Union host attempted to smear Trump for not disavowing Duke. The only problem with this pious harangue is that Tapper failed to inform his audience that, over the years, Trump had previously disavowed Duke, and had just done so less than 24 hours before the Tapper hit job.
Throughout much of the campaign, Tapper was obsessed with awarding Duke a national platform. Things got so bad that by September Trump’s campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson finally scolded Tapper over it, “The only reason David Duke even has a platform is because CNN keeps talking about it.”
No kidding.
In fairness, it is not just Tapper. Last August, CNN’s Erin Burnett used an entire segment of her primetime hour to gift Duke and his Twitter account with the national spotlight.
A search for “David Duke” at CNN.com yields 228 hits — most of them within the last year. The most CNN-ish of these stories is unquestionably the one titled, “Could Charlottesville open a door for Russia?”
There is just no question that CNN is desperate to make national figures out of despicable and marginal men — and I do mean marginal. Even with CNN’s non-stop promotion of his account, Duke has not even managed to attract more than 50,000 Twitter followers. In fact, before CNN decided to turn him into a national superstar, Duke was forgotten, a nobody, a resident of the ash heap, a pimple on the butt of irrelevancy.
There is absolutely nothing newsworthy in quoting and promoting men who have no impact, no following, and represent no one, other than a meaningless rabble of fellow irrelevants.
So why did CNN choose to pull a white supremacist and Nazi out of total irrelevance as a means to award them with a national platform?
The answer is just as disturbing as the question.
For starters, it is important to point out that CNN is not using sensationalism to chase ratings. We know this because this approach has only proven to be a ratings disaster. Over the past year, CNN slipped from a comfortable second place, to last place behind Fox News and MSNBC.
And CNN is not just in last place, CNN is in last place by a country mile. While Fox grabs 3 to 4 million primetime viewers and MSNBC 1.5 to 2 million, CNN rarely cracks a million. No, unfortunately, this is not about ratings.
As Breitbart News has tirelessly documented over the last five years, CNN has repeatedly spread hatred and division, most especially racial division and even violence. This is a left-wing political tactic, a well-honed partisan weapon, a strategy to manufacture the kind of crises that benefit the left politically, that empower central authority through chaos.
Therefore, by providing evil men with a national platform, CNN gives the false impression these pigs enjoy a following, which can deliver two results advantageous to Democrats: 1) Racial minorities are deceived into believing Nazis and Klansmen are mainstream figures. 2) Racist idiots are deceived into believing Nazis and Klansmen are mainstream figures.
The boiled down answer is even simpler: CNN is evil.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...des-national-platform-for-nazis-and-klansmen/
If you take a good look around, the only major news outlet regularly offering its imprimatur to Nazis and Klansmen is the far-left CNN. Unfortunately, the anti-Trump’s channel’s goal is not a misguided view of free speech-for-all. Rather, it is just another attempt on CNN’s part to achieve its sinister political goals through the mainstreaming and legitimizing of hate.
It was CNN that gave Arthur Jones, a full-blown Nazi and Holocaust-denier, a national platform earlier this week. Until then, no one had everheard of Jones. He is just some despicable nobody local-bigot from Illinois running a futile congressional campaign in the hopes his stunt will give him bigger opportunities to promote his vile views, which CNN was all too happy to provide.
CNN’s validation of Nazis and Klansmen does not stop there. CNN’s top anti-Trump commentator, Jake Tapper, has made a cottage industry out of offering a former-Klansman and current white supremacist a national profile.
Without Tapper and CNN promoting him and his views, David Duke would be a historical footnote, the Louisiana racist who spent 30 years grasping for the spotlight with various political runs, and did manage to squeak three years into the state house. Without Tapper and CNN working as his PR firm today, though, no one would consider Duke relevant or even remember him.
Nevertheless, Tapper seems smitten with the idea of a relevant David Duke, even eager to award him and his noxious views the validation of a national platform.
Just a few days earlier, Tapper promoted Duke’s message and the fact that he has a Twitter account.
Tapper’s most infamous and humiliating Duke-spreading occurred during the 2016 presidential campaign when the dishonest State of the Union host attempted to smear Trump for not disavowing Duke. The only problem with this pious harangue is that Tapper failed to inform his audience that, over the years, Trump had previously disavowed Duke, and had just done so less than 24 hours before the Tapper hit job.
Throughout much of the campaign, Tapper was obsessed with awarding Duke a national platform. Things got so bad that by September Trump’s campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson finally scolded Tapper over it, “The only reason David Duke even has a platform is because CNN keeps talking about it.”
No kidding.
In fairness, it is not just Tapper. Last August, CNN’s Erin Burnett used an entire segment of her primetime hour to gift Duke and his Twitter account with the national spotlight.
A search for “David Duke” at CNN.com yields 228 hits — most of them within the last year. The most CNN-ish of these stories is unquestionably the one titled, “Could Charlottesville open a door for Russia?”
There is just no question that CNN is desperate to make national figures out of despicable and marginal men — and I do mean marginal. Even with CNN’s non-stop promotion of his account, Duke has not even managed to attract more than 50,000 Twitter followers. In fact, before CNN decided to turn him into a national superstar, Duke was forgotten, a nobody, a resident of the ash heap, a pimple on the butt of irrelevancy.
There is absolutely nothing newsworthy in quoting and promoting men who have no impact, no following, and represent no one, other than a meaningless rabble of fellow irrelevants.
So why did CNN choose to pull a white supremacist and Nazi out of total irrelevance as a means to award them with a national platform?
The answer is just as disturbing as the question.
For starters, it is important to point out that CNN is not using sensationalism to chase ratings. We know this because this approach has only proven to be a ratings disaster. Over the past year, CNN slipped from a comfortable second place, to last place behind Fox News and MSNBC.
And CNN is not just in last place, CNN is in last place by a country mile. While Fox grabs 3 to 4 million primetime viewers and MSNBC 1.5 to 2 million, CNN rarely cracks a million. No, unfortunately, this is not about ratings.
As Breitbart News has tirelessly documented over the last five years, CNN has repeatedly spread hatred and division, most especially racial division and even violence. This is a left-wing political tactic, a well-honed partisan weapon, a strategy to manufacture the kind of crises that benefit the left politically, that empower central authority through chaos.
Therefore, by providing evil men with a national platform, CNN gives the false impression these pigs enjoy a following, which can deliver two results advantageous to Democrats: 1) Racial minorities are deceived into believing Nazis and Klansmen are mainstream figures. 2) Racist idiots are deceived into believing Nazis and Klansmen are mainstream figures.
The boiled down answer is even simpler: CNN is evil.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...des-national-platform-for-nazis-and-klansmen/
only natural the two biggest trump supporters on here would do the trump thing and alter the original
It goes to show just what kind of news Briebart is.......they fired Bannon for speaking out against trump....but they aren't biased or anything...kind of like Hannity? and Fox
Or Maddow and MSNBC
you may find this hard to believe......but I have never watched either one!
The first time I saw her I thought it was a SNL type spoof. Can't believe people take her seriously. I used to watch Hannity only because he would have Newt Gingrich on. Not that I always trusted or agreed with him but he at least had a different perspective. But I don't 't like extremists and Hannity is as wacky as Maddow. The only person I follow is Greg Gutfeld. He's the smartest person on TV and very funny to. Plus he isn.'t a rigid extremist.
don't get me wrong...I don't follow most of CNN...but I like jake tapper....I watched the gal on @ 6 on cnn a few times.....only because I saw where she dated a lot of black guys...then married a white and had a baby....hahahh...true!
I'll look for her
Erin? something like that....saw a bunch of pics of her with blacks...was going to save and post on this site...now can't find the pics...this computer got way to many pics stored on this thing
Schiff hits back at Trump: What you call 'political' are actually called facts
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Saturday hit back at President Trump after the president defended his decision to block the release of a memo from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
"Mr. President, what you call 'political' are actually called facts, and your concern for sources and methods would be more convincing if you hadn't decided to release the GOP memo ('100%') before reading it and over the objections of the FBI," tweeted Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...called-facts/ar-BBIXDLv?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Saturday hit back at President Trump after the president defended his decision to block the release of a memo from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
"Mr. President, what you call 'political' are actually called facts, and your concern for sources and methods would be more convincing if you hadn't decided to release the GOP memo ('100%') before reading it and over the objections of the FBI," tweeted Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...called-facts/ar-BBIXDLv?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp
For months and months, our fake news media have been freaking out over a meeting Donald Trump Jr. took with a Russian lawyer in the hopes of getting some dirt on Hillary Clinton. Again and again, we have been told that this is the smoking gun of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Of course, that is nonsense. Moreover, Don Jr. and the others in attendance caught on to the scheme within a few minutes, and as far as we now know, that was the end of that.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of others, who actually have colluded with the Russians as a means to dig up dirt on Trump.
Here are seven American politicians and institutions who have or are at least suspected of colluding with the Russians as a means to destroy President Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...titutions-actually-guilty-colluding-russians/
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of others, who actually have colluded with the Russians as a means to dig up dirt on Trump.
Here are seven American politicians and institutions who have or are at least suspected of colluding with the Russians as a means to destroy President Trump.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...titutions-actually-guilty-colluding-russians/
Similar threads
