- Joined
- Feb 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,215
- Reaction score
- 12,111
- Location
- US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yep. We are still talking about proposals.Ok. So for the purpose of discussion lets use your figures reportedly from the Office of Management and Budget. To clear the air a bit, I was not a Trump supporter though I did vote for him- so I do look at his stuff critically and am not a "Trumper."
And to clarify further, obviously everything we discuss about what Trump and a GOP Congress will do and what results those actions might have is totally theoretical.
I'd be here all day if I have to explain how a government is not like a business, and never should be, and how that would be an utter disaster.Point 1: I expect Trump to view the government as a business. He will want the country to "make a profit," which in the world of government equates to receipts in excess of expenditures. I expect that he also has no notion that this can be achieved in 1 year or two years. So, for Trump, a budget surplus that can be applied to reduce the national debt will be the medium range goal. In the meantime, a businessman would establish goal markers each year that would put the organization on track to achieve the desired medium and longer range results. Those goal markers would, in the short run, be progressive reductions in deficit spending. These are not facts, but they are how I perceive that Trump will likely be looking at the country's finances.
Yes, I'm aware of that assumption. That's why they included the "dynamic scoring," which is a highly optimistic scenario in which Trump's tax cut sparks massive growth.Here are a few of the assumptions of the authors of the report, quoted from the report itself....
Yep. We are still talking about proposals.
I'd be here all day if I have to explain how a government is not like a business, and never should be, and how that would be an utter disaster.
But, for the moment, let's accept that Trump wants to run a surplus.
In that case, he is doing the exact opposite of what will produce that result. By cutting taxes, he will eviscerate revenues -- hence the Trump Tax Gap. He's explicitly said he wants to increase defense spending and spend on infrastructure, which makes the hole bigger. If he cuts Social Security or Medicare or VA spending for 2017, he and every Republican who supported him will be thrown out so fast that Trump Tower itself will spin for a week.
He absolutely cannot cut interest spending, as that would be putting the US into default. Doing so would be a disaster that not only would increase interest rates (thus increasing the debt far more than he'd save with a default), it would basically cause the global economy to melt down. Seriously.
If he didn't cut taxes at all, he'd still have to eliminate everything else to get any sort of surplus. No FAA, no highway spending at all, no infrastructure spending, no ICE / border control... no one fixing the grid, no one managing federal water supplies, zero federal education spending, every single national park closed.... That is not happening.
By the way, this is pretty much what Kansas has done since around 2011. ....
Yes, I'm aware of that assumption. That's why they included the "dynamic scoring," which is a highly optimistic scenario in which Trump's tax cut sparks massive growth.
And even in that scenario, his plan results in anywhere from $3 billion to $4 billion in reduced tax revenues over 10 years.
As the old saying goes: You can't cut your way to growth.
He wants a $1 trillion infrastructure plan and completely revamp our nuclear arsenal and probably add to it.
Real deficit hawk he is.
Create thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing, and other sectors to build the transportation, water, telecommunications and energy infrastructure needed to enable new economic development in the U.S., all of which will generate new tax revenues.
You're missing the part where you explain why increasing the deficit to spend on infrastructure will harm the economy. As always.
Yep.Eviscerate revenues?
Trump repeatedly promised during the campaign not to cut Social Security and Medicare. 56 million Americans currently collect it, and that cohort voted heavily for him. If he goes back on that, they'll run him out of town on a rail.Let's come back later to Medicare, SS and VA. You described these earlier as "untouchables." They aren't.
Social Security spends less than 1% on administration. There is nothing to cut except benefits.These are the true entitlements and the countries obligations have to be met, but saying that they are untouchable suggests that they are efficient and effective and streamline and the expenses can't be significantly reduced.
Incorrect. Again, with dynamic scoring, the revenue reductions are still $3 billion to $4 billion over 10 years.The problem with this argument is that you ignore... that revenue would remain static.
Georgia didn't pass a cut on existing revenues. They attracted businesses that were operating in California and Vancouver and New York. They were giving up tax revenue, rather than cutting existing revenue. Even so, Georgia missed out on $250 million in taxes by giving the film industry a 30% break.Lets look at Georgia, where I live....
To the bolded:Ok. So for the purpose of discussion lets use your figures reportedly from the Office of Management and Budget. To clear the air a bit, I was not a Trump supporter though I did vote for him- so I do look at his stuff critically and am not a "Trumper."
And to clarify further, obviously everything we discuss about what Trump and a GOP Congress will do and what results those actions might have is totally theoretical.
Point 1: I expect Trump to view the government as a business. He will want the country to "make a profit," which in the world of government equates to receipts in excess of expenditures. I expect that he also has no notion that this can be achieved in 1 year or two years. So, for Trump, a budget surplus that can be applied to reduce the national debt will be the medium range goal. In the meantime, a businessman would establish goal markers each year that would put the organization on track to achieve the desired medium and longer range results. Those goal markers would, in the short run, be progressive reductions in deficit spending. These are not facts, but they are how I perceive that Trump will likely be looking at the country's finances.
Point 2: So if those are the goals, how would a businessman approach this? He would have a two fold approach: 1) increase revenue and 2) decrease expenditures, the combined effect of which, in a business, would widen the profit margin.
Your first point was that Trump's plan would reduce revenue by $440B at minimum. I opened your article from NPR and saw that the actual source of the $5.9 trillion dollar number was research done by The Tax Foundation. Here is the actual report.
Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016 | Tax Foundation
Here are a few of the assumptions of the authors of the report, quoted from the report itself:
Therefore, as to your first point about Trump's tax plan, there are a LOT of ways that Trump could offset this 440 Billion-6 Trillion projected reduction in revenue.
Exactly!
Rates are already bumping-up w/o any external influence.
And now he wants tariffs!
But just wondering, Jo: How would you describe the current state of the U.S. economy?
(I put down my thoughts in post #7)
Why or how do short rates go back to three/four percent?
So he's talking about cutting taxes AND a big infrastructure project.
Now that probably won't come to pass but that sounds incredibly reckless.
I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now
I haven't seen any evidence about cuts anywhere else. What am I missing?
Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!
So he's talking about cutting taxes AND a big infrastructure project.
Now that probably won't come to pass but that sounds incredibly reckless.
I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now
I haven't seen any evidence about cuts anywhere else. What am I missing?
Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!
No they don't, because spending reduction results in less spending, which means less revenue.
Tax cuts, while principally designed to benefit the wealthy, also have the secondary effect of creating budget deficits which are then used by Conservatives as an excuse to cut spending they otherwise would have no chance of cutting. Those cuts are almost always operational, causing those programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to the failures of those programs as an excuse to sell them off to private interests who profit off them.
I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now
What am I missing?
I isolated this part of the comments in your OP.
Isn't costing much right now?
This Is How Much Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers in 2016
New projections from the Congressional Budget Office, however, anticipate that the federal government will need to spend more on Obamacare than previously thought.
The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO’s predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.
I don't know what your measure is for "costing much right now", but $110 billion and growing fit's in my category of costing much right now.
I think you are missing the following:
1) The Department of Energy submitted a budget request for $32.5 billion dollars(https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/FY2017BudgetinBrief_0.pdf)
Trump has appointed Rick Perry who wishes to significantly dismantle the Department through consolidation of the critical components with other agencies and eliminating the rest. There's a lot of money right there.
2) The request from the Department of Education was 69.4 BILLION DOLLARS. (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/17summary.pdf Betsy DeVos, the appointee to that department, supports eliminating the education department completely in favor of block grants provided to states, the administration of which would be consolidated with another department. There's some more money.
3) Scott Pruitt has been assigned to the EPA, a person who has advocated the elimination of that department. The budget there is 8.267 billion (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-02/documents/fy17-congressional-justification.pdf)
4) Trump's tax plan: Simplify the tax code to four brackets and eliminate deductions. This is the closest plan we have see to a flat tax, wherein each taxpayer simply pays the tax associated with their level of income, without all the deductions that complicate the process. This plan would do two things: a) it would offset tax cuts with fewer deductions, making it revenue neutral and b) it would provide the opportunity to make vast reductions at the IRS freeing up even more money in the budget.
These were just a few of the things you are missing.
Many on the left think the only way to shrink a deficit is to raise taxes. Spending reductions have the same effect.
Isn't costing much right now?
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | |
2010 projections | 132 | 154 | 164 | 172 |
2016 projections | 110 | 113 | 119 | 123 |
Change relative to expectations | -22 (-17%) | -41 (-27%) | -45 (-27%) | -49 (-28%) |
So he's talking about cutting taxes AND a big infrastructure project.
Now that probably won't come to pass but that sounds incredibly reckless.
I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now
I haven't seen any evidence about cuts anywhere else. What am I missing?
Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!
Why are you so worried about Obamacare? I thought Trump was going to repeal it on January 21st.
It's well below what was advertised in 2009/10. That continues to be the case in the CBO document you cite.
In the years where the original score overlaps with the document you posted:
Gross Cost of Coverage Provisions, in Billions
2016 2017 2018 20192010 projections 132 154 164 1722016 projections 110 113 119 123Change relative to expectations -22 (-17%) -41 (-27%) -45 (-27%) -49 (-28%)
So yes, it's costing substantially less than we were told it would.