Spending and Deficits: A Discussion With Budget Director Mick Mulvaney…

With the economy expanding, many people have asked about the White House initiatives to tackle the debt and deficit.  Today the White House was fully engaged on that very topic.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney discusses spending and deficits with Stuart Varney.

This entry was posted in Budget, Economy, Election 2018, Legislation, President Trump, Uncategorized, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Spending and Deficits: A Discussion With Budget Director Mick Mulvaney…

  1. MIKE says:

    Another rock star named ‘Mick’.

    Liked by 13 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      He really is! Stuart Varney is out to lunch for asking whether the Federal Government would be willing to allow student loan debt to be forgiven. I absolutely loved Mick’s answer. To many of these students go to colleges they can’t afford and more importantly major in areas that are completely useless in the real world.

      Our President is going to hold Congress to cutting our spending. I actually think we will see a major reduction in military spending ($100 Billion Dollar) and $200 Billion Dollars from every other agency combined.

      Liked by 2 people

      • GB Bari says:

        You’re absolutely right!

        The student loan / loan forgiveness program is nothing other than buying Dimmocrap votes from young Americans (and many non-Americans). It is a crime that Republican taxpayers are forced to have their tax dollars used to purchase Dimmocrap votes. It is also driving up tuition costs at worst and helping to keep them high at best.

        If families were forced to use conventional banking rules to qualify for borrowing tuition costs then colleges would be forced to reduce tuition and fees to remain solvent.

        For example, my undergraduate engineering degree at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore 30 years ago cost a total of $11,100 over 6 years and 112 credits of evening, weekend, and summer classes (I had matriculated with 24 credits from an associate degree). I was working full time and required no tuition loans to pay the tuition, fees, and book costs. Today, without loans, I could not afford that same degree despite earning six times what I earned while attending evening classes. It is unreal.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Jan says:

          Agree. I worked my day job full-time & went to law school at night at about $99/hour. But today, I question why, when the tuition/student living is so high, why don’t you study.& get a degree online. What is it that makes college tuitions so high today? I look at my undergraduate campus degree at $365/semester way back in the early 70’s and I think today, why would I incur the current university rate & get no skills that I can exit on to & get hired at a decent salary. We obviously over-emphasized a college degree, which prepares you to do nothing, & lost track of that you don’t have to go to college to get a 6 or 7-figure income if you just want to work hard enough.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. feralcatsblog says:

    How about cutting the FBI’s budget by 95% ?

    Liked by 13 people

  3. Pam says:

    I think Mulvaney has exceeded the expectations of many. Who knew a man could juggle two major offices within the administration and do it so well!

    Liked by 16 people

  4. Bamalaker says:

    That was fun. Mick makes the nerdy stuff look fun.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. Elizabeth Carter says:

    I know we are in good hands with Mick Mulvaney.
    Great job.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    “Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney discusses spending and deficits with Stuart Varney.”

    I notice that this week the White House has been giving some nice access to the people at Fox Business News, who do a fair job in reporting and covering the MAGA agenda for the U.S. economy.

    Those three regulations cited near the end are HUGE!

    #1 regulating roadside ditches as “navigable waterways” (for what? toy boats?)

    # 2 CAFE standards for automobiles. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy would have had us driving 1000 pound plastic and cardboard wheez-boxes soon.

    # 3 Rescinding coal regulations designed by the BHO administration to kill the coal industry, despite the massive investment over the decades in scrubbers and other technology to clean up emissions.

    Liked by 7 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Thanks for posting some details D_I!

      These are pretty significant as they will affect a lot of people.

      Especially the miniature mariners who navigate those drainage ditches! I would really be curious what the ultimate objective was of the clowns who advocated for that regulation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Stillwater says:

        I wonder if that law affects a farmer’s ability to manage water on their own property through the use of different structures (chains of ponds, lakes, dams, swales) to retain or slow down flow of water through the landscape so that the landscape retains water for longer periods (over/through dry spells). If so, then I can see how corrupt globalist gov. entities might use that law or a similar law to harm farmers.

        I keep thinking back to what happened in Bolivia where laws were written so that people were no longer allowed to collect water on their own landscape/roof/etc. and had to pay for it. There was an American company from San Francisco that was heavily involved over there oppressing the people in this regard. I don’t remember the details but there are similar attempts to do that in this country.

        I also seem to recall there was an Oregonian man who built a beautiful man made lake and habitat and was put in jail and his property seized even though he had letters from the appropriate gov. agency beforehand saying what he wanted to do beforehand was okay. The Gov. and corrupt judges really coveted his property so they took it by hook and crook.


      • Stillwater says:

        The Oregon man I mentioned above was Gary Harrington.


  7. 4sure says:

    Mick Mulvaney is a lot like Trump. He tells it like it is and is not PC. Does not hem and haw. Just answers the questions and dispenses w/the BS. He needs to be groomed for Pots 2024. Maybe come back to SC and run for Gov. in 2022.

    I was not a Mulvaney fan when he was in congress, but am 100% all in now. He is a little soft on immigration and that’s why I was not a fan. Don’t see too many SC DC critters who are hard liners on immigration.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. prenanny says:

    Reducing CAFE standards crap WOO HOOO.
    While your dealing with auto sector how about 2 airbag option that owner of vehicle can lock when not in use. if someone steals my auto and crashes it, I would like to see them go through windshield .
    A case could also be made for an analog auto that is EMP resistant for National Security, I know how to back-up and can read maps do not want or need all the computers and screens.


  9. Suzanne says:

    I ❤️ Mulvaney. The man is seriously smart. Perhaps if the RINOS were at all serious about cutting spending they could send the budget through on reconciliation.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. permiejack says:

    This administration has no problem talking about the difficult issues and this one is very difficult. PDT had to have planned for years to tackle this debt issue. The solution is his out of the box thinking.

    Not to change the topic but Martin Armstrong had an interesting take on how to support social security and our debt.

    “Before 1971, the debt could not be used as collateral for loans such as Savings Bonds. If you needed the money, you were forced to cash them in. Under this system, it was logically less inflationary to borrow than to print because you were not increasing the money supply under traditional economic theory. However, post-1971, you buy T-Bills and post them as collateral to trade futures.

    The distinction between borrowing and printing has been turned upside down. A national debt is now worse than printing economically because it is money that now pays interest forever. Once debt became collateral, then it lost its distinction as separate from the money supply. Since there is no intention of ever paying off the national debt, we have a money supply that is outstanding which pays interest and blows the government budget into deeper and deeper deficits every year.

    What is never discussed is the fact that US debt is also the reserve currency of nations – not paper dollars. That means that the interest we pay is exported and it stimulates foreign economies – not domestic.“


    So in other words the interest we pay on almost 1.2 trillion dollars of us treasuries that China alone holds, helps to finance their one road one belt initiative.

    List of countries and amounts of our debt they own.


    Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      I guar-on-tee you that 95% of people with whom your I speak every week likely have no clue about the impact of the national debt in terms of direct cost out of their wallets (tax dollars spent to pay interest on foreign-held bonds rather than on tangible, USA citizen-benefitting expenditures).

      Liked by 1 person

  11. L4grasshopper says:

    I think Mulvaney is one of the Trump Adminstration’s All Stars.

    That said — there really is nobody in the Federal government of either party who is, or ever will be, serious about our burgeoning National Debt, which is now approaching $21 Trillion.

    Facts are facts, and math is math. The Federal government is currently spending over $4.2T per year while taking in tax revenues of about $3.4T per year. For FY18 just ended, about $800B was added to the National Debt, and some forecasts are saying it could hit $1T this FY.

    Spending is out of control, but most spending is mandatory or pre-set. Congress argues every year only about spending 25% of the total — the “discretionary” part of spending specified in the annual appropriations or, typically, the “Omnibus” bills. The other 75% is either on autopilot, like SS and Medicare, and mandatory, like interest on the debt. And not a penny of this non-discretionary spending will ever be reduced, because to try is to commit political suicide.

    So — the blunt fact is that the National Debt is going to continue to soar….interest paid on that debt will continue to soar….and as interest rates are headed up and up and up, before you know it paying interest to service the debt will be approaching $1T a year by itself.

    I’m afraid it will take a massive fiscal collapse before anything substantive will be done. The economy is great right now, but an economy never just goes up….next time we go into recession, the piper may show up to be paid — and it’s going to hurt real bad.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I see single payer coming next Democrat POTUS and Congress majority. Medicare & medicaid won’t need reform because they will be rolled into single payer.

      SS will be bankrupt in 20 years, paying more than bringing in. I’m not expecting it to be there for me and my family, why I do s&p and nasdaq index funds.

      We also have public pension systems that will need to be bailed out, either by that respective state’s tax payers or federal. Congress can always change the law in the 1930s (if i remember right) preventing feds from bailing out states. You know since Congress changes laws for the sake of more spending.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      For FY2018, the interest to service the debt was $523B. Which is about $64.5B more than FY2017.

      Ref. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm


    • Jake says:

      I can remember in the not to distant past when we didn’t think we’d see a tax cut either. I expect the President to focus on spending and deficit reduction as his Act 2. I really think he’s going to get to a 60 Republican Senate in his time in the White House and he’s going to stomp the deficit when he gets it. It may come even sooner but it will happen. There’s just too much damage being done by the current spending.


  12. anniefannie says:

    One good way to get a handle on the debt would be to reduce the salary of each Congressman by the percentage that the debt increased over the previous year. That process continues until there is no national debt (and the salary does not return to its current level until the national debt is 0. That might actually cause us to have not only a budget but at least a BALANCED BUDGET!! If the debt is being reduced then the salary remains static. No increases until debt is GONE!!


  13. ShibaDad says:

    “You cannot convince a democrat to cut spending.” Truer words have never been spoken.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. nimrodman says:

    For fans of Mick Mulvaney, he’s on Fox News with Martha MacCallum right now

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Dude man says:

    I can only hope Trump will attack the debt after his 2020 election. It’s the only way we avoid a slide into the abyss. All they need to do is cut the budget by 30% and make it permanent- with some kind of constitutional amendment. It would secure the future of the US.


  16. Dude man says:

    I can only hope Trump will attack the debt after his 2020 election. It’s the only way we avoid a slide into the abyss. All they need to do is cut the budget by 30% and make it permanent- with some kind of constitutional amendment. It would secure the future of the US.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Devolution of programs to cut staff and their pension liability for starters.

      My thought process in 2015 was Trump first 4 years; economy, trade, build up military, restoring worldwide respect, 1 international diplomatic deal (NK), HC reform (tried & failed), and immigration.

      After this, this sets ground work for 2020 reelection. Post 2020 reelection would give Trump a chance at spending and entitlement reform. Trade and immigration reform would go a long ways to covering SS deficits, also maybe increase the eligibility age…? SS reform seems more likely than medicare & medicaid.


  17. simicharmed says:

    It would be great if we had 70 Genuine Conservative Republican Senators and about 400 of the same minded in the House of Reps. The Democrats NEED to be reduced drastically in political affairs and prohibited from any authority over monies…

    Many of the Nations problems/issues would be solved with Donald Trump in the White House and Super-Majorities in House and Senate…

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mandy says:

      Would be great if we had 60 Republican Senators….much cutting could be done, as MM notes very early in this interview.

      It IS possible this November. And I personally think this is one reason VSGPDJT is campaigning SO HARD for the various Senate candidates.

      Liked by 3 people

      • simicharmed says:

        60 is good, 70, 80 or even 100 would be better. We need the best margins in both houses, but especially the Senate. Getting more than 60 Rep Senators gives more advantage and insulates from possible death, scandal and the RINO’s we still have not churned out. I would love to have solid majorities but….I WANT IT ALL!

        I truly want Democrats, the DNC and all associated leftists GONE from any power over any aspect of The United States of America…

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Suzanne says:

    Eliminating welfare fraud, medicaid fraud, financial benifits/incentives for illegals would reduce the deficit drastically… so would a 30-50% tax on remittances

    Liked by 2 people

  19. LibertyVibe says:

    I have a crush on Mick Mulvaney.

    Liked by 4 people

  20. duchess01 says:

    “You have to be a really strange person to like this job; I like this job so that must mean I am a really strange person.” Budget Director Mick Mulvaney –

    I can see why ‘LibertyVibe’ has a crush on Mick – I like him, too – like Secretary Ross – he is the ultimate Popular Professor (Finance) – tells it like it is in understandable terms – he is such a breath of fresh air – smiles even if he is imparting the stark reality – what a guy!

    Liked by 5 people

  21. bkrg2 says:

    what a common sense answer to another libtard issue – student loan forgiveness..

    Mick is a pro “we expect people to pay back thier loans. loan foregiveness its not fair to the taxpayers who would have to pay them off”

    Yet we have idiots like Bernie Sanders and O’Crazyo telling everyone not to worry about paying for college.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Summer says:

    I love that he is against student loan forgiveness BS. It is ridiculous that someone has to pay for other people’s kids’ education. At the same time, due to the generous government loan practices, the cost of higher education is sky high.
    Cut the cord, let the marxists compete for the students who borrow from private banks, not from the taxpayers. The cost will quickly go down or the marxists will quickly go bankrupt. Not sure which outcome is preferable but both are acceptable.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. DeWalt says:

    My Man Mick. To bad we won’t put him in charge of DOJ. That would be fun. He’s absolutely fearless’


  24. LibertyVibe says:

    There are a lot of good men out there. We need to be constantly lifting them up and encouraging them!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. rashomon says:

    This interview with Dr. Mark Skidmore support Catherine Austin Fitts’ claim of $21 Erillion missing from JUST the DoD and HUD, so who knows how much has disappeared or is unaccounted for in the total budget. It’s odd how the government can nickel and dime you to death, fine you for making a koi pond out of a marsh, but not be able to keep track of trillions — 12 blinking zeros worth — of taxpayer dollars!

    Dr. Mark Skidmore – $21 Trillion “Missing” Money Huge Implications for Dollar
    Greg Hunter
    Published on Oct 13, 2018

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Jill Woodliff says:

    The US government should stop providing loans to students of schools whose alumni have an inordinately high default rate on student loans.


  27. jeans2nd says:

    We are talking the deficit here and you missed the Kevin Hassett vid????? tsk tsk tsk

    Kevin Hassett is Chair of the EAC, and after taking on the CFR last week (and telling them to ESAD while continuously smiling and putting Steve Rat ner in his place) Hassett is my new hero.

    Chair Hassett has a better explanation – capital expenditure write-offs, now permitted to be fully expensed in the first year, will not be applicable in future, plus they will be producing and thus will also reduce the deficit. Give Kevin Hassett a listen.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s