So the deficit is up $700 billion in the first six months, but the CBO is predicting a $900 billion deficit for the full year. With the economy slowing dramatically and corporate profits declining, revenues will decline in the 2nd half of the year. Does anyone think spending will slow down? We are headed for at least a $1.2 trillion deficit. Thank God we have a fiscally responsible Republican president.
The federal budget deficit rose by $94 billion to $693 billion for the first half of fiscal 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday in its monthly budget review.
Revenues were up, by 1% to $1.5 trillion, but spending rose even more, by about 5% to $2.2 trillion.
The federal government is headed toward a deficit of about $900 billion this year, according to the CBO, which is Congress’ nonpartisan agency for budget and economic projections. Deficits are only supposed to grow in the years ahead because of a long-term mismatch between spending and revenues, sending the federal debt to the highest levels since World War II.
Corporate revenues fell about 15% in the first half of the year, the CBO said, because of the tax overhaul signed by President Trump in 2017 that lowered the corporate tax rate. Individual taxes, too, were down because of the tax cuts for individuals.
But those tax cuts were offset by growth in payroll taxes and added revenues from the tariffs Trump has imposed on trading partners.
Spending, meanwhile, grew for mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Defense spending also rose, as did interest payments on the debt.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Ain’t it great to have to have such a strong economy ? If it were any stronger we could be like Venezuela!
Since 1860, the same two political parties have been in power, we virtually no real challenge to their duopoly. When measures of freedom, liberty, economic security, spending, taxation, and other critical measures of importance to the citizens of the country are examined, one can clearly see that NOTHING really gets any better, regardless of which of these two are in power, either at the federal, state, or local levels. So why do they continue to receive support?
I am a strong believer that society would function far better without government at all (not no structure, just no force involved).
That being said, it is hard to argue with the way that parliamentary systems provide a far superior mechanism to provide improved representation of political values to the citizenry of the nation. It has been estimated by some polls that 16% of people say their are “libertarian” (whatever that actually means). Yet there is no way in hell, especially in a system where the size of the US House has been fixed since 1911, that anyone representing that party (or those values) could ever have a chance of winning (with the exception of Ron Paul, who still had to run as a republican). In a parliamentary system on the other hand, we might see a lower chamber that was 16% libertarian, and with enough pull that their principles would hold sway for any other party wanted to get legislation approved. Additionally in parliamentary systems, we see the rise of new political parties overnight, that can bring about serious change. Yes, one can argue that “stability” was the goal of our founders, but the Constitution has done little to protect the minority from the ravages of the majority, and the paper has been no match for the emotions of the ignorant masses. With so many wishing simply to HALT the progress of tyranny, a party promoting that concept would be a god-send, even if no additional freedoms were restored.
And most certainly, 435 House members are a grossly inadequate number to “represent” 321,000,000+ citizens. The ratio is now 1 member to anywhere from 750,000 to nearly 1,000,000, while when this nation was founded, it was 1 to around 30,000 citizens (with no blacks, women, or teenagers voting – making the ratio to voters way less). That is a MASSIVE decrease in “representation” that has happened without any Constitutional Amendment.
And when one compares the paltry sum the government was taking in and spending in the early days, compared to the multiple trillions it wastes today, the level of “representation” borders on the immoral. 50 sovereign states and NO federal tyranny would be a great place to start in correcting this injustice.
Lovin me some Mr. Liberty and that ain’t gay.
Yeah, but we moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
The Constitution lasted approximately four score and seven years.
If one thinks about the Whiskey Rebellion, one could argue four score and seven DAYS.
I’d be rich if only I had sold printing presses to the Washington.
UBI baby!!! Which candidate is offering the most right now?
His acronym is NOT POTUS …. its POS! Not being hard on him. Hitlery would have been the same … in terms of working fervently to destroy America.
Just to put things in perspective, do you think hillary would’ve declined to take her POTUS salary?
Since it is tax time, I want to share an old story: many years ago bil and hil’s tax return showed Schedule A itemized deductions for donations of bil’s underwear to charity at $1 per pair.
I think that about sums it all up as far as their virtue and love of country.
Whoops, my bad: it was $2/pair. From the folks who left the White House “broke”.
https://www.atr.org/ClintonsUnderwear
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we actually had a president who didn’t have an agenda that cost trillions upon trillions of dollars to enact? For sure the restoration of freedom, liberty, and a federal government sized within the very clear constraints of the Constitution we be a massive money SAVER. Why is that such an unpopular agenda in this country?
Because people are addicted to the social saftey nets. No one is getting elected to slash the Federal budget, I doubt anyone can get elected even promising to stop spending where it is now. That’s the reality, there is no fantasy land candidate that gets elected in modern America that will cut Medicare/Medicaid and SS. Maybe just maybe someone could get away with cutting back military spending, but even that’s questionable. It’s not just the people behind the curtain that want this stuff, its the masses as well. Anyone promising such a thing would get destroyed. Rand Paul made some attempt to be against deficits and he couldn’t take off. Its basically a choice between R’s who will spend us a bit slower into the abyss, or Dems who will hit us with a debt sledgehammer.
So I for one, take the slower destruction. It’s not as if we can actually truly balance the budget at this point with 70% of expenses being things people won’t go without. Maybe a candidate could cut back a bit on the MIC spending, but that is a jobs program as well. Military contracts are spread all over the country with lots of shops making parts for military stuff etc. Bottom line we don’t have a solvable problem, we have a predicament. The US Tititanic already hit the iceburg a long time ago, its just a matter of which Captain decides to be less authoritarian as we move into the icy waters. Who knows maybe AOC and the Dems will start pushing Amero’s as a magic money stream to pay for the dystopian future where we all freeze or starve to death.
It was a bit of a rhetorical question. But all good points. Indeed, anyone who actually promoted such things (as Ron Paul and other “libertarians” have), would be assassinated if they ever looked like they had any real traction among voters. And true, far too many are dependent on the “now” to care about the future. The coming collapse will fix all of that.
If Trump manages to get re-elected we’re going to have to start calling him MacGyver.
What is scarey is that this numbers are about as accurate as the labor statistics. We have passed the point of no return a long time ago. We could run a $100,000, 000,000 surplus for 220 years and barely pay off the debt.
Trillion schmillion. Now Quadrillion, that’s some money.
For my money (heh heh), the national “debt” will eventually become so burdensome that default on debt service will result and the dollar will cease to be the world’s “reserve” currency, ushering in an entirely artificial “global” currency issued by the BIS as the global central bank. Grim a possibility as that may be, it will force the USA into a long-overdue fiscal austerity that may actually be inspirational with respect to government and economic priorities.
The USA still has a good-sized population of responsible innovators who hopefully will rise to the challenges, among which will be the determination to override the rage of the FSA and its corporate cousins. All bubbles eventually burst; the trick will be not blowing a new one while putting a reasonable societal and governmental house in order.