This is worth remembering the next time we get a Democratic president and the GOP, the media, the Very Serious People and the rest of the establishment start screaming about how the Democrats have to stop their big spending ways and cut the deficit:
Mick Mulvaney’s progression from debt-hysteric, government-shutting Freedom Caucus insurgent to debt-increasing budget director: a play in five short acts.
1. “The only place it would make sense to borrow money to solve a debt crisis is Washington, D.C. You wouldn’t do it, I wouldn’t do it.” —Mick Mulvaney, 2011.
2. “You can’t just like spending that your party wants and dislike spending that the other party wants.” —Mick Mulvaney, November 2016.
3. “Is Trump going to get a little deference [on deficits] because he’s in the same party? Perhaps.” —Mulvaney, also November 2016.
4. “Right now we are nearly $20 trillion in debt, but Mick is a very high-energy leader with deep convictions for how to responsibly manage our nation’s finances and save our country from drowning in red ink.” —President Trump, as quoted in the Washington Post, “Trump names Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a fiscal hawk, to head budget office,” December 2016.
5. “When asked if the deficit will be mentioned in #SOTU speech, chief of staff Mulvaney said “nobody cares,” per attendee.”
Of course every Democratic president since Carter has cut the deficit while in office. Every single Republican president since Nixon has increased the deficit, most of them dramatically.
Another triumph of deregulation! More Mulvaney:
WASHINGTON—The Trump administration said Wednesday it will overhaul an Obama-era payday loan regulation, unveiling a proposal to remove a lending requirement that would have made it difficult for companies to offer high-cost consumer loans.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the move said it would postpone until November 19, 2020 the date when the payday lending rule goes into effect.
Consumer groups have called for tough steps to rein in payday loans, saying high interest rates often force borrowers to roll over their loans repeatedly at disproportionately high costs. The industry says the loans provide much-needed funds for consumers who couldn’t otherwise borrow money to pay bills and cover emergencies.
A typical two-week payday loan comes with a $15 fee for every $100 borrowed and has an annual interest rate of nearly 400%, according to the CFPB. Over a dozen states effectively ban payday loans by imposing rate caps that make the business unviable. Among them are states like South Dakota and Montana that adopted such restrictions in recent years.
CFPB officials acknowledged that payday loans can be very costly, but said that does not make them legally questionable. “The high price of a product or not is not per say an indication that something is abusive or unfair,” said CFPB official in a briefing with reporters.
The payday loan industry has been among the beneficiaries of the Trump administration’s effort to change policies at the CFPB. Under Mick Mulvaney, the former acting director currently serving as White House chief of staff, the bureau withdrew a lawsuit against a group of payday lenders that allegedly failed to disclose the true cost of loans and dropped investigations into other cases.
This is how the Trump regime tries to help Americans, the majority of whom can't afford a $400 unplanned expenditure, in the rigged economy.
Some related background on Mulvaney:
President Donald Trump’s rumored pick to temporarily head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a conservative budget-cutter who once called the agency a “sick, sad” joke.
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is, according to reports from Bloomberg and CNN, under consideration to become interim director of the federal government’s consumer watchdog after current director Richard Cordray steps down later this month. Mulvaney has made little secret of his distaste for the agency in the past.
“It’s a wonderful example of how a bureaucracy will function if it has no accountability to anybody,” Mulvaney, a former South Carolina representative, said in a 2014 interview with the . “It turns up being a joke, and that’s what the CFPB really has been, in a sick, sad kind of way, because you’ve got an institution that has tremendous authority over what you all do for a living.”
This is the financial industry swamp creature the Trump regime has put in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
I’ve never used a pay day loan scheme but I watched a couple documentaries about them. Horrible things. It’s not just the rate which is rediculous it’s the wording they use to fool people into they had to pay at different times. I know you are writing trump is lifting regulation on them but they are still around. The ones that were doing the truly evil shit to people were using Indian reservations as “headquarters” thinking they could avoid prosecution. I think the big dude behind pay day loans is doing life in federal prison and his codefendant brother killed himself.
While most U.S. presidents over the past 75 years have run budget deficits for many if not all of their years in office, there are four whose deficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidents who have run the largest deficits through 2017 are Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Determining Who Ran the Largest Deficit
There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years, and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget deficit was $6.69 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years, and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
I’d be ok with deficit spending on infrastructure if done right. Doing it sooner will save rather than kicking it down the road. It needs to be done. Whenever I visit out west the appear to have much better roads and transit. Too many areas around here are going to shit. What ever happened to Obama’s shovel ready projects.
Last edited by walrus; 02-07-2019 at 05:41 PM.
When Obama left office the deficit was under $500 billion. If he'd reduced it further it just would have given the GOP more revenue to give tax cuts to the top one percent so Obama made a conscious decision not to reduce it further, remembering when Bill Clinton turned a record deficit created by Bush 41 into the first budget surplus in a century in his eight years, and then saw Bush 43 take office and take the budget surplus and turn it into a near two trillion deficit that Obama inherited. Like I said, since the fucking Ford administration every Republican has increased the deficit while in office and every Democrat has decreased it.
This is actually a teachable moment for you. You've obviously posted those numbers because you think that it shows that Obama rang up the debt rather than somebody like Reagan who only added $1.4 trillion. But that was back when $1.4 trillion was a lot of money. When Reagan took office the national debt was $700 million so Reagan basically trebled the national debt in eight years despite inheriting an almost balanced budget. Any kind of source you find that doesn't express historical comparisions in current day dollar values or as percentages of GDP and so on is purposely misleading for whatever reason. It would take several pages to list all the bullshit and trickery they managed to fit into a few sentences so I'm just going to illustrate it with a couple of points and leave it at that.
You're dodging my questions.
Which market is a Ponzi scheme? Why does twenty trillion of debt show whatever it is is a joke?
Here is a breakdown maybe you won’t cry about
Started Presidency: $965 billion
Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Increased 184% or 13.9% per year
Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)
Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Increased 36% or 4.0% per year
Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Increased 93% or 8.5% per year
Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
Increased 78% or 7.5% per year
When you talk about inheriting shit do you know what was going on in the US when Reagan took office. Or you just say Reagan had
Oh Kirk you just want to talk about the deficit. What are you trying to say. Trump bad right. Kirk, do you know who ran shit when Clinton was in office, and here is a teachable moment for you. His name was Newt Gingrich. He created the contract with America and got it passed despite Clinton. So yeah obama only increased the debt 78% even though he campaigned about how bad it was. You continue to show how little you know.
Last edited by walrus; 02-08-2019 at 10:08 PM.
See Kirk there are things you don’t understand about the US. Look in the constitution about who has power of the purse strings as we say here. You look at Obama, Clinton, Trump but we have separate branches of government here. The balanced budget act did not come from the White House. It’s actually the reason I don’t think Trump will be able build the border walls with emergency powers, the executive lacks the power of the purse. So when you want to go back to each administration and look at numbers realize it’s not as simple as Obama or Trump or since Ford this or that. It’s not how our Country works. I don’t expect you do get that right away, it takes a while, it’s a lot of reading and mostly experience. Charts are helpful but there is shit behind the charts that give it meaning you idiot.
Kirk, the increase on taxes which Bill Clinton was able to get passed without a republican vote, well here is an article from Forbes, it’s an old article, but as you can see it has a different view on somethings. Often, there are views other than yours Kirk, and believe it or not, you aren’t always right.
And Kirk, although you can’t have discussion with the insults, put downs, realization that other views exist. Your answer to all is taxes. Why not smaller government. How much redundancy to we have? These government shutdowns are for nonessential workers and look at how many people it effected. By the way I don’t mean to sound cold but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them. They will come back and receive all back pay accumulated. Private sector doesn’t get that. You are out the door and good luck. It could start through attrition and get rid of some waste we have that only benefits lobbyists groups. You saw Schumer and Nancy want to make corporate tax cuts eliminated unless corporate buybacks are limited or taken away. I said, when we talked about it I did think if the cuts to federal taxes were the only thing that accounted for corporate growth this year than next year could be a problem but these things usually have a few years to have an effect. I said before went trump started this he put some caps on buybacks I don’t think he or congress would have the power to enact such a thing. Buybacks aren’t all bad. If you can buy a company for less than it is worth I’d buy it as well. Buy low sell high.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)