• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP tax cuts will not pay for themselves, add 'significantly' to US debt: Fitch report

House GOP tax plan would ADD $1.7 trillion to debt over decade, CBO projects

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE | Estimated deficits and debt under the H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The $1.7 trillion is over and above unrelated deficits caused by government over-spending and/or additional government revenue losses.

As it is, the GOP tax plan is "revenue-negative". In order to achieve a "revenue-neutral" status assuming $1.5 trillion deficit/decade, the US economy would have to zip along at a ~+6.1% annual growth rate.

Considering US national demographics, such sustained/high US annual growth is virtually impossible without a major international conflagration (war) and vastly increased immigration.

The Trump/GOP claim that the requisite increased economic growth to render their tax package revenue-neutral is surefire ... is a false bill of goods and economic fairy-dust.

There will indeed be a temporary economic boost, but then reality will set in and debt payments will consume an ever-greater percentage of our national income pie.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The $1.7 trillion is in addition to the budget deficits already expected.

For example, without the tax reform proposal, the FY 2019 budget deficit would be $689 billion. With the tax reform, it would be $913 billion. In FY 2027, the budget deficit would be $1.463 trillion without the tax reform and $1.668 trillion with it. Overall, during the FY2018-FY2027 period, the cumulative deficits would amount to $10.112 trillion without the tax reform and $11.784 trillion with it. Those are the CBO's latest forecasts.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly lowball numbers....this assumes that everything goes well, which is not going to happen.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I read it again, and this is a direct quote from the story: "GOP lawmakers are allowing for the bill to add up to $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over a decade." It does say adding to the deficit so I agree that is what it could mean.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your acknowledgement. And I sincerely mean that.
 
Rogue Valley said:
House GOP tax plan would ADD $1.7 trillion to debt over decade, CBO projects

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE | Estimated deficits and debt under the H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

The $1.7 trillion is over and above unrelated deficits caused by government over-spending and/or additional government revenue losses.

As it is, the GOP tax plan is "revenue-negative". In order to achieve a "revenue-neutral" status assuming $1.5 trillion deficit/decade, the US economy would have to zip along at a ~+6.1% annual growth rate.

Considering US national demographics, such sustained/high US annual growth is virtually impossible without a major international conflagration (war) and vastly increased immigration.

The Trump/GOP claim that the requisite increased economic growth to render their tax package revenue-neutral is surefire ... is a false bill of goods and economic fairy-dust.

There will indeed be a temporary economic boost, but then reality will set in and debt payments will consume an ever-greater percentage of our national income pie.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

This is simply a more hideous version of the Bush wealthy tax cuts.

And we all saw how well that turned out ...
 
AliHajiSheik said:
From a quick Google search, during the Obama Administration the debt increased $7.4T. Over 8 years, that is $925 billion/year. $1.5T over 10 years is $150B/year. That is slower. You can argue the politics and the reality of any of the estimates, but the math is accurate and the rate of increase is lower.

You hacked up the "tenable" question, and I have no interest in that. If a smaller number is untenable, then a larger number should have been untenable as well, but somehow we survived.
Click to expand...

He hacks up a lot of things, and still lives in the pretense of Barney Frank. I ignore him.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The only way that happens is if we have trouble "borrowing" money, in quotes because I am convinced that we will never pay our debts.

We have the Boomers retirement to pay for, and a very expensive not very good medical system, and lots of deffered maintenance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that borrowing has a real cost: Interest.

We are in a rising rates environment, and yet we are still talking about increasing rather than decreasing debt?

The interest payment will continue to grow, and will leave less available funds in our operating budget. It's insanity.

Right now the interest is 6.5% of our budget, but that's only this low due to our interest rates being historically low! A 1% rise in rates - and we're heading in that direction - will put interest payments at 10% of the federal budget. 10%! That could be a lot of services!

Hell - I'd have to recheck the numbers, but I wouldn't doubt 10% of the budget could get us full universal healthcare, or close to it.

Reference: How Interest on the National Debt Affects You
 
Chomsky said:
Yes, but that borrowing has a real cost: Interest.

We are in a rising rates environment, and yet we are still talking about increasing rather than decreasing debt?

The interest payment will continue to grow, and will leave less available funds in our operating budget. It's insanity.

Right now the interest is 6.5% of our budget, but that's only this low due to our interest rates being historically low! A 1% rise in rates - and we're heading in that direction - will put interest payments at 10% of the federal budget. 10%! That could be a lot of services!

Hell - I'd have to recheck the numbers, but I wouldn't doubt 10% of the budget could get us full universal healthcare, or close to it.

Reference: How Interest on the National Debt Affects You
Click to expand...

It's too late, we are too far gone in so many ways, if we tried to turn off the kids and the unborns credit card this society would finish the job of breaking down into violence and chaos.

This fact does not negate my point often made about how horrible we have been up till now.

Nor my point that it is time to decide to be better.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It's too late, we are too far gone in so many ways, if we tried to turn off the kids and the unborns credit card this society would finish the job of breaking down into violence and chaos.

This fact does not negate my point often made about how horrible we have been up till now.

Nor my point that it is time to decide to be better.
Click to expand...
It's not bleak at all.

Nothing a slight tax increase on the wealthy couldn't fix. It doesn't take much at all to run a surplus. We're almost there now. and we had it under Clinton. But we're not going to get it under Trump's tax plan, though he is going to clean up house on his taxes!
 
Chomsky said:
It's not bleak at all.

Nothing a slight tax increase on the wealthy couldn't fix. It doesn't take much at all to run a surplus. We're almost there now. and we had it under Clinton. But we're not going to get it under Trump's tax plan, though he is going to clean up house on his taxes!
Click to expand...

There have been many detailed studies that prove that we could not tax the rich out of this problem even if we still had the ability to tax the rich heavy, which we lost when we set up this global economic system with its free flows of capital because the rich said that it was a good idea and our government agreed, a government even moderately smart guys now understand is very deeply corrupt.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The only way that happens is if we have trouble "borrowing" money, in quotes because I am convinced that we will never pay our debts.

We have the Boomers retirement to pay for, and a very expensive not very good medical system, and lots of deffered maintenance.
Click to expand...

well we simply can't pay out debt that is the problem we are paying the interest with borrowed money.
anyone that has any sense of financial responsibility knows what this is an economic model that cannot be supported.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
From a quick Google search, during the Obama Administration the debt increased $7.4T. Over 8 years, that is $925 billion/year. $1.5T over 10 years is $150B/year. That is slower. You can argue the politics and the reality of any of the estimates, but the math is accurate and the rate of increase is lower.

You hacked up the "tenable" question, and I have no interest in that. If a smaller number is untenable, then a larger number should have been untenable as well, but somehow we survived.
Click to expand...

Ali, I knew the silly jpoint you were trying to make but you phrased it wrong. But I didn't hack up the "tenable" question. I explained what was more important. Of course you didn't notice that I answered it. I said it was tenable. And you are ignoring my point that conservatives foamed at the mouth about deficits the last 8 years because their conservative masters told them it was untenable. Now, they seemed to have wiped off their chins and have no problem with deficits. I think that's rather telling even if you don't want to discuss it.
 
ludin said:
While i would rather see us start getting on the surplus side of things you take what you can get.

if we can just trim the federal budget by 1% a year over the next 10 years that would be great.
Click to expand...

Why do you need a tax cut that the country cannot afford in order to do that? I think we need to get our fiscal situation under control. So no big tax cuts (though there needs to be some reform of corporate income taxes), and no big spending. Basically we need to do what worked in the 90s.
 
Vern said:
Ali, I knew the silly jpoint you were trying to make but you phrased it wrong. But I didn't hack up the "tenable" question. I explained what was more important. Of course you didn't notice that I answered it. I said it was tenable. And you are ignoring my point that conservatives foamed at the mouth about deficits the last 8 years because their conservative masters told them it was untenable. Now, they seemed to have wiped off their chins and have no problem with deficits. I think that's rather telling even if you don't want to discuss it.
Click to expand...

I'm telling you that you hack up your point of view and decide what you think is important. Each thread is on its own discussion and when the punchbowl has a turd in it, I stop drinking.
 
ludin said:
well we simply can't pay out debt that is the problem we are paying the interest with borrowed money.
anyone that has any sense of financial responsibility knows what this is an economic model that cannot be supported.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the degree to which this obvious truth is willfully not understood is a good window into the degree of mental illness that plagues America.

We are going to crash, and we are going to crash hard.

I very much hope to be dead by then.

DEPRESSIONS SUCK!
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm telling you that you hack up your point of view and decide what you think is important. Each thread is on its own discussion and when the punchbowl has a turd in it, I stop drinking.
Click to expand...

I've seen you've cut and run before when the conversation didn't go the way you wanted. But at least I answered your question.
 
ludin said:
not at all. i have been pushing balanced budget amendment for the longest time and will continue to do so.
government is spending too much money and it needs to get handle on itself and start cutting people back.

this is just a given.
Click to expand...

well of course a balanced budget is dumb. Your conservative masters are just pandering to your fear concerning deficits. But ludin, if debt is your concern, why do you vote republican. Deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats. And the fact that republicans have proven repeatedly that they are flaming lying hypocrites about deficits should only enrage you more.
 
Vern said:
well of course a balanced budget is dumb. Your conservative masters are just pandering to your fear concerning deficits. But ludin, if debt is your concern, why do you vote republican. Deficits shoot up under republicans and go down under democrats. And the fact that republicans have proven repeatedly that they are flaming lying hypocrites about deficits should only enrage you more.
Click to expand...

no they don't obama shot the deficit to over 1 trillion dollars for 3 years so please spare me the bull crap.
under bush the deficit did fall until the 2008 collapse.

but your posts give me good laugh anyway. I vote republican or better conservative because liberals have nothing to offer me.
 
ludin said:
no they don't obama shot the deficit to over 1 trillion dollars for 3 years so please spare me the bull crap.
under bush the deficit did fall until the 2008 collapse.

but your posts give me good laugh anyway. I vote republican or better conservative because liberals have nothing to offer me.
Click to expand...

So you whine about the pure cost of spending, oblivious to the value of what we get in return.

A stimulus is valuable, it adds to economic growth. A massive handout that goes primarily to those who already have the most money, without them having to earn the additional income isn't going to generate much growth.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
From a quick Google search, during the Obama Administration the debt increased $7.4T. Over 8 years, that is $925 billion/year. $1.5T over 10 years is $150B/year. That is slower. You can argue the politics and the reality of any of the estimates, but the math is accurate and the rate of increase is lower.

You hacked up the "tenable" question, and I have no interest in that. If a smaller number is untenable, then a larger number should have been untenable as well, but somehow we survived.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. This is 150 billion more per year over what we're already expecting.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The only way that happens is if we have trouble "borrowing" money, in quotes because I am convinced that we will never pay our debts.

We have the Boomers retirement to pay for, and a very expensive not very good medical system, and lots of deffered maintenance.
Click to expand...

Every US debt payment in history has been made in full, on time.
 
ludin said:
no they don't obama shot the deficit to over 1 trillion dollars for 3 years so please spare me the bull crap.
under bush the deficit did fall until the 2008 collapse.

but your posts give me good laugh anyway. I vote republican or better conservative because liberals have nothing to offer me.
Click to expand...

I know its pointless to point this out but here's the CBO Budget Outlook from Jan7, 2009 showing Bush's last budget deficit had shot up to 1.2 trillion. And just in case you don't get, that's before President Obama took over. If you bother to read it, you'll see the biggest cause of the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits was revenue collapse

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753

If you're not going to respond honestly and intelligently, please don't respond
 
Vern said:
I've seen you've cut and run before when the conversation didn't go the way you wanted. But at least I answered your question.
Click to expand...

Working up another turd for that punch bowl, I see. You answered a question, but alas, it wasn’t the one I asked.

Ciao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Vern said:
I know its pointless to point this out but here's the CBO Budget Outlook from Jan7, 2009 showing Bush's last budget deficit had shot up to 1.2 trillion. And just in case you don't get, that's before President Obama took over. If you bother to read it, you'll see the biggest cause of the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits was revenue collapse

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41753

If you're not going to respond honestly and intelligently, please don't respond
Click to expand...

You talk about honesty but can't do it yourself so what was the deficit in 2007?
It was 485b or somewhere around there. In 2009 the congress had approved a bloated stimulus
Package that obama used to no avail.

Talk about honesty obama then preceded to running at least two more trillion dollar deficits.
He was finally stopped by credit agencies and the Republican Party.

Because the financial crisis that was created by liberals in congress specifically Chris Dodd and Barney frank caused that loss of revenue. Bush tried multiple times to get Freddie and Fannie under control and audited and they stood in the way with their usual stupidity along with other liberals in congress.

Again you ask why I don't vote for liberals? They have nothing to offer.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Working up another turd for that punch bowl, I see. You answered a question, but alas, it wasn’t the one I asked.

Ciao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect anything more than that.
 
ludin said:
You talk about honesty but can't do it yourself so what was the deficit in 2007?
It was 485b or somewhere around there. In 2009 the congress had approved a bloated stimulus
Package that obama used to no avail.
Click to expand...

Ludin, see how you cling to a narrative even when the facts prove it false. The CBO estimate was before President Obama took over. that means it did not take into account the stimulus. Ludin, its not your fault you cant grasp simple points but you have to recognize it. So read this slowly and as many times as necessary, President Obama inherited the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits (yea, they have a name).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom