• 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!

Op-Ed: The Trump budget is just telling the truth—and you can’t handle the truth!

chuckiechan said:
Dynamic scoring is the only thing that has a chance of being close to correct. It's like saying if you qualify for a house today, and lose your job tomorrow, nothing changes. Bull. Everything changes.
Click to expand...

No. It's like giving up your job and pretending that your income will actually increase. Not only that, but you can name the amount by which your income will increase.

Or, like pretending that giving away your eggs will lead to more chickens.

It's both unknowable and highly unlikely, but it's the only way to get these fantasy budgets that give up revenue to show increased revenue. GHWB called it voodoo economics, and he was right.
 
President Trump has long promised not to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. But in his budget released on Tuesday, he proposes making massive cuts to Medicaid. Mr. Trump is proposing to cut $610 billion from Medicaid benefits. This could come on top of more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid sought in the health care overhaul bill passed by the House on May 4. The Medicaid program provides health insurance to 1 in 5 Americans, including children, women, disabled people and the elderly. If you include the CHIP program that Trumps budget will gut, 1 of every 3 American children will lose major portions of their healthcare coverage.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
No. It's like giving up your job and pretending that your income will actually increase. Not only that, but you can name the amount by which your income will increase.

Or, like pretending that giving away your eggs will lead to more chickens.

It's both unknowable and highly unlikely, but it's the only way to get these fantasy budgets that give up revenue to show increased revenue. GHWB called it voodoo economics, and he was right.
Click to expand...

I think you have the two methods backwards.

DYNAMIC VS. STATIC ANALYSIS AT HEART OF TAX DEBATE | Deseret News

Static analysis, as used by the Treasury, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, which assumes that no changes will occur in economic behavior as a result of changes in tax policy.

And dynamic analysis, which assumes that a tax increase or decrease will produce a change in the behavior of investors, savers and taxpayers, and that the change will be reflected in economic growth and government revenues.
Click to expand...
 
chuckiechan said:
I think you have the two methods backwards.

DYNAMIC VS. STATIC ANALYSIS AT HEART OF TAX DEBATE | Deseret News
Click to expand...

No, I don't. Dynamic assumes it can predict future economic conditions, but it never gets things right (see the justification for GWB's tax cuts for examples). Static does not make those assumptions. If dynamic scoring used hard data to back up it's assertions, I would not have a problem with economists using it. That's not what's happening. This ideologically driven policy using fuzzy math to make its numbers add up. Replace the fuzz with facts and we'll talk.
 
iguanaman said:
Then you voted for the wrong candidate. Trump has said he would increase military spending from the start. He lied about not touching Medicaid too. Typical Trump voter, you hear only what you want to hear and disregard the rest.
Click to expand...

are you a one issue voter?

so because someone may disagree with Trump on defense, or some other issue, they were supposed to vote for HRC?

:lamo

that has to be one of the silliest posts I have EVER seen on this site

grats on making the top of THAT list
 
gdgyva said:
are you a one issue voter?

so because someone may disagree with Trump on defense, or some other issue, they were supposed to vote for HRC?

:lamo

that has to be one of the silliest posts I have EVER seen on this site

grats on making the top of THAT list
Click to expand...

Whatever...At least I was not silly enough to vote for Trump and then complain about him increasing defense spending. All Republicans do that because it is a gravy train that never stops. Who cares if they make us less safe.
 
MTAtech said:
The notion that "Obama gutted the military" and "Clinton" gutted the military is malarkey. Since it takes years for a military buildup, Bush invaded Afghanistan with Clinton's military. Obama didn't deny the military anything that was necessary. If you disagree, exactly how did Obama weaken the military?

While conservatives talk about waste and abuse, that doesn't seem to apply to the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Actually Bush, Sr (who was centrist) and Bill Clinton kept with the BRAC program.
 
chuckiechan said:
It's time to face the economic realities of truth is spending. We can't afford the welfare state as it is constructed today. We need economic growth beyond what is statistically possible. Our "good" growth is 3%. At this rate we can't keep doing what we are doing. No one likes to hear the truth especially a politician or a bureaucrat.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-trump-budget-just-160449563.html

America finally has something it's needed for decades: A budget that starts to tell the truth. And some people don't seem to be able to handle the truth. But they need to start.

Note:A few sentences have been clipped out for brevity and character count.
Click to expand...

You like the truth.... growing an mature economy at 3% per year for 10 years, without a recession (on top of 8 previous years of growth), is not the truth: its incredible fantasy.

Show us one other time in US history where we had 18 years of sustained growth of >3%.... then explain how you get real growth out of an economy with an aging population and the greatest income disparity in US history.

No, its seems you really like fantasy.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Defense and general welfare are both in the same sentence in the constitution. There is no standing army in the constitution. There is no quasi-governmental Military Industrial Complex in the constitution.

Where in the constitution is the Warfare State? It's exactly where the "welfare state" is - absent.
Click to expand...

General welfare didn't mean government assistance programs.
 
Henrin said:
General welfare didn't mean government assistance programs.
Click to expand...
Arguing that we shouldn't have SNAP, Medicaid, etc. for citizens of the United States, because Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't include it in the original constitution, is really a tired and strained argument. The programs are certainly constitutional.

Instead of arguing that anything that wasn't foreseen in 1789 can't be implemented in the country that has vastly changed since revolutionary times, one should be asking whether these programs make sense. According to today's New York Times editorial on the topic,
Food stamps work. Each month they help feed 43 million poor and low-income Americans, most in families with children and working parents. Food stamps, officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, keep millions of people from falling into poverty each year and prevent millions of poor people, many disabled or elderly, from falling deeper into poverty.
...
President Trump’s budget plan would destroy the food stamp program, on the pretense that it discourages work. That’s nonsense, because most adult recipients either work or are unable to do so because of age or disability. A more plausible explanation is that cutting food stamps would help to offset the cost of huge tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...
That's the basic point -- Trump ran as a populist, who promised not to cut Social Security or Medicaid or hurt the poor; who assured voters that everyone would have health insurance, is pursuing an agenda so anti-populist it takes your breath away.

I am not just talking about "those people." Trump's budget hurts his base of supporters -- white rural voters, such as those in West Virginia -- a state that is 94% white but 19% of the population need Food Stamps and 29% are getting Medicaid.

Trumpcare, the CBO tells us, would cause 23 million people to lose health insurance, largely through cuts to Medicaid -- remember, the program that benefits almost a third of West Virginians. It would also lead to soaring premiums -- an increase of 800% for older Americans whose incomes are low but not low enough to qualify for Medicaid. That describes a lot of Trump voters. Then we need to add in the Trump budget, which calls for further drastic cuts in Medicaid, plus large cuts in food stamps and in disability payments.

Why? So we can shower rich people with tax-cuts -- like eliminating the estate tax, that only taxes people with estates worth more than $5 million.
 
MTAtech said:
Arguing that we shouldn't have SNAP, Medicaid, etc. for citizens of the United States, because Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn't include it in the original constitution, is really a tired and strained argument. The programs are certainly constitutional.
Click to expand...

Then explain how they are constitutional. If the original intent of the words general welfare didn't include assistance programs(the idea did exist in those days, you know) then how can it be constitutional?
 
Henrin said:
Then explain how they are constitutional. If the original intent of the words general welfare didn't include assistance programs(the idea did exist in those days, you know) then how can it be constitutional?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

Courts have already recognized Congress' broad powers to create new federal programs that meet the needs of Americans. To argue against this position one is tilting at windmills.
 
Henrin said:
Then explain how they are constitutional. If the original intent of the words general welfare didn't include assistance programs(the idea did exist in those days, you know) then how can it be constitutional?
Click to expand...

General welfare is quite another thing than we see in public schools and social programs. General welfare is about lifting all boats and not about creating public jobs. It is done by the government doing only what economists call public goods. When government does other things it must invariably reduce the general welfare. The theory is quite certain about that. Operationizing it is more complicated.
 
MTAtech said:
Why? So we can shower rich people with tax-cuts -- like eliminating the estate tax, that only taxes people with estates worth more than $5 million.
Click to expand...

So how is a tax that only affects the super wealthy constitutional? Why wouldn't a tax like the estate tax not violate the equal protection clause?
 
joG said:
General welfare is quite another thing than we see in public schools and social programs. General welfare is about lifting all boats and not about creating public jobs. It is done by the government doing only what economists call public goods. When government does other things it must invariably reduce the general welfare. The theory is quite certain about that. Operationizing it is more complicated.
Click to expand...

How is the general welfare defined in the constitution?

Oh, right there is nothing explicit stated.

It is within the governments power to what is considered necessary and proper in order to promote the general welfare
 
Henrin said:
So how is a tax that only affects the super wealthy constitutional? Why wouldn't a tax like the estate tax not violate the equal protection clause?
Click to expand...

See Louisville Gas Co. v. Coleman, 227 U.S. 32, 37 (1928). Classifications for purpose of taxation have been held valid in the following situations.
Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U.S. 390, 398 (1912); Farmers Bank v. Minnesota, 232 U.S. 516, 531 (1914).
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
How is the general welfare defined in the constitution?

Oh, right there is nothing explicit stated.

It is within the governments power to what is considered necessary and proper in order to promote the general welfare
Click to expand...

That is a prescription of interesting dimensions. General welfare may be defined as government wants and having the power may use it to achieve its goals. You mught want to revisit that nition sometime.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
This ideologically driven policy using fuzzy math to make its numbers add up. Replace the fuzz with facts and we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Hear, Hear!

General Democrat - "Increasing spending is actually a cut because the increase is lower than what the last budget said"
General Republican - "Lowering the tax rate will stimulate the economy paying for my increased spending"

How about if we cut through all of the fuzzy number, partisan horse pucky reasoning and make a federal budget based on only 1 assumption - federal revenue.

(numbers are rounded for ease of discussion)

In 2016 the US Federal Government received $3.25 trillion from all of its sources excluding borrowed money. We did spend, and propose to spend, and have theoretically budgeted to spend waaaaay more than that.

What programs do you reduce spending on?
 
Last edited:
Nuber said:
Hear, Hear!

General Democrat - "Increasing spending is actually a cut because the increase is lower than what the last budget said"
General Republican - "Lowering the tax rate will stimulate the economy paying for my increased spending"

How about if we cut through all of the fuzzy number, partisan horse pucky reasoning and make a federal budget based on only 1 assumption - federal revenue.

(numbers are rounded for ease of discussion)

In 2016 the US Federal Government received $3.25 trillion from all of its sources excluding borrowed money. We did spend, and propose to spend, and have theoretically budgeted to spend waaaaay more than that.

What programs do you reduce spending on?
Click to expand...

Those are the stereotypes, and they have basis in reality.

When the inevitable debt/deficit problem occurs, the to that problem is more of the same? Makes no sense. There are many threads here where the "taxes are the problem/solution" vs. "spending is the problem/solution" points of view have been debated at length.

Personally...
Taxes/Revenue:
I think the entire tax code needs to be restructured with the overall goal of removing loopholes and lowering overall rates.

Spending:
The elephants in the room are SS, Medicare and Defense.

I believe that SS can be fixed by raising the cap as needed and possibly adding some form of means testing at the very high end.

Medicare is more complicated. I think the problem with that program has more to do with how ridiculously expensive our health care system is. There are a lot of people making a living off the healthcare system who add no value. The whole system needs to be restructured, but that won't happen because of the political clout the hospital, insurance and pharma industries have.

Defense? Do we really need to police the world? Have troops in 135 (or whatever it is at the moment) countries? We spend ~700 billion per year now, and it goes up every year.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Those are the stereotypes, and they have basis in reality.

When the inevitable debt/deficit problem occurs, the to that problem is more of the same? Makes no sense. There are many threads here where the "taxes are the problem/solution" vs. "spending is the problem/solution" points of view have been debated at length.

Personally...
Taxes/Revenue:
I think the entire tax code needs to be restructured with the overall goal of removing loopholes and lowering overall rates.

Spending:
The elephants in the room are SS, Medicare and Defense.

I believe that SS can be fixed by raising the cap as needed and possibly adding some form of means testing at the very high end.

Medicare is more complicated. I think the problem with that program has more to do with how ridiculously expensive our health care system is. There are a lot of people making a living off the healthcare system who add no value. The whole system needs to be restructured, but that won't happen because of the political clout the hospital, insurance and pharma industries have.

Defense? Do we really need to police the world? Have troops in 135 (or whatever it is at the moment) countries? We spend ~700 billion per year now, and it goes up every year.
Click to expand...
Medicare is more efficient at keeping medical costs down than private insurance. Social Security can be fixed mainly by adding revenue. Those that advocate raising the SSA retirement age are essentially saying we should cut benefits now so we can avoid cutting benefits later.

I know many believe that the U.S. has a big deficit/debt problem. I suggest that we solve that problem the same way the U.S. solved the massive World War II debt. Back in 1948, the debt was 120% of GDP -- about $220 billion. Guess how we solved that debt problem?
 
MTAtech said:
Medicare is more efficient at keeping medical costs down than private insurance. Social Security can be fixed mainly by adding revenue. Those that advocate raising the SSA retirement age are essentially saying we should cut benefits now so we can avoid cutting benefits later.

I know many believe that the U.S. has a big deficit/debt problem. I suggest that we solve that problem the same way the U.S. solved the massive World War II debt. Back in 1948, the debt was 120% of GDP -- about $220 billion. Guess how we solved that debt problem?
Click to expand...

I don't support raising the SS retirement age. I actually consider that a contract between the government and the workers who spend their adult lives paying into the system. Getting more revenue into the system by raising the cap will fix any near term problems with the program, but the federal government needs to stop pretending that the money paid into SS is general revenue. That practice should be illegal.

The issue with Medicare is that doctors are increasingly refusing to accept new Medicare patients - it doesn't pay enough is the main complaint:
One In Five Doctors Say: ?No New Medicare Patients? | Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org

That problem will only get worse over time. That's why I think lowering costs overall will be required to fix it.
 
chuckiechan said:
It's time to face the economic realities of truth is spending. We can't afford the welfare state as it is constructed today. We need economic growth beyond what is statistically possible. Our "good" growth is 3%. At this rate we can't keep doing what we are doing. No one likes to hear the truth especially a politician or a bureaucrat.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-trump-budget-just-160449563.html

America finally has something it's needed for decades: A budget that starts to tell the truth. And some people don't seem to be able to handle the truth. But they need to start.

Note:A few sentences have been clipped out for brevity and character count.
Click to expand...
Any "truth" would include at least holding the line on military spending.
 
reinoe said:
Unlike Trump haters who operate on a hive-mind like the borg, Trump supporters include diverse people from all walks of life who think independently. I've been calling for reduced military spending since I got to the forum, unlike liberals who's opinions change depending on which party is in office.
Click to expand...
:lol: Ever consider 'stand up'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom