• 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!

Republicans once railed against deficits. President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion

The funnier part is that the Democrats told us deficits do not matter but now they matter. Interesting.
 
MTAtech said:
The historical record isn't on your side. Clinton raised taxes and both the economy and revenue grew. Bush cut taxes and revenue shrank with no dramatic change in GDP growth. Obama raised taxes and GDP grew the same as before the tax-increases and revenue increased too.
Click to expand...

Clinton (congress) cut taxes too. But the greater effect was the reduction in spending growth, which the historical record does show.
Revenue increased from 17 to 18.8% of GDP from 1992-2000. But spending FELL from 21.5% to 17.6%.
So, 2% increase in revenue, 4% decrease in spending.

As for Obama, revenue is the same as pre recession, about 18% of GDP (when the budget almost balanced). BUT, the post recession spending freeze has reduced spending from 24% to 21%. Get it back to Clinton levels (heck Bush levels even) and we would almost have a balanced budget again. As always, spending is the problem.
 
Oborosen said:
They have done just as much as the Reps, during their control of the seat, and out of that control. Besides if you don't know that the national dept/deficit is something that is completely grounded in reality at this point. Though I really don't care how much ol Obama increased our Debt, because at this point its an inconsequential number. Every president we have is going to just build more debt due to how broken the system is in its current form.

He raised our debt by over 8 Trillion and while he kept blaming Bush for the nations deficit, that guy was only responsible for the first year of Obama's term. The rest was on Berry's shoulders, and no one else.

Every party has used the deficit to get a one up on the other. Its like school yard bragging rights, or to be more associated to hazing tactics then that.
Click to expand...

O, I asked you what you see that makes you think dems are “deficit hawks” when not in power. You provided no example. you simply reiterated your "both sides do it" narrative but I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Let me expand on one of the examples I mentioned above. Republicans and democrats voted for Bush’s 2008 stimulus. In 2009, republicans did not vote for President Obama’s stimulus. Only flaming lying hypocrisy explains that.

But I agree the system is broken but until you hold republicans accountable for being flaming lying hypocrites about deficits, nothing is going to change. And that starts with you acknowledging that deficits go up under republicans and down under democrats.

And fyi, Bush is responsible for the massive trillion dollar deficits President Obama inherited. Revenue collapsed 700 billion from pre-recession estimates in 2009 alone. You could have eliminated the entire discretionary budget and still not balanced the budget. But only republicans talk about balancing budgets and only when a democrat is in office.
 
Last edited:
There isn't one Republican President, since the 1960s who didn't add to the deficit. It's pathetic. But as soon as another Party gets into office, the Conservative-controlled media, immediately starts blaming them. The Great American Lie!
 
Southern Dad said:
The funnier part is that the Democrats told us deficits do not matter but now they matter. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Er uh SD, Dick Cheney said deficits don’t matter. When you hear a democrat say it, we’re simply mocking the documented flaming lying hypocrisy of republicans concerning deficits.

In 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Bush administration’s economic team met to discuss a second round of tax cuts, which would follow Bush’s 2001 cuts. At the meeting, “then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O’Neill pleaded that the government — already running a $158 billion deficit — was careening toward a fiscal crisis.” Allegedly, Cheney replied by saying that “deficits don’t matter.”

an example of the hypocrisy you’re looking for is republicans ranting about deficits for 8 years under President Obama and now going “weeeeeeeeeeeeee, we’re in charge, lets run up the deficit”. They had already proven they were flaming lying hypocrites about deficits but now no one, not even the most delusional conservatives at this forum, can deny republicans are flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. It’s why they’re going with the false “both sides do it” narrative.
 
Media_Truth said:
There isn't one Republican President, since the 1960s who didn't add to the deficit. It's pathetic. But as soon as another Party gets into office, the Conservative-controlled media, immediately starts blaming them. The Great American Lie!
Click to expand...

Whats the alternative?
 
jonny5 said:
Whats the alternative?
Click to expand...

When one major argument from conservatives about democrats is determined to be motivated by partisanship, it makes you question the integrity of all their arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
This is Congress's problem. They overspend more than 2 trillion every year. We collect 2 in taxes and spend 4. I'm all for starving the beast with tax cuts and force congress to start making meaningful spending reforms. Don't even waste your breath talking to me about tax cuts being irresponsible when you cry like a stuck pig when any kind of spending reform is suggested.
Click to expand...

Starving the beast is the lie, falsehood, myth, propaganda that republicans tell about tax cuts. We have seen what happens - spending isn't cut, there is no starving of the beast.

Seems to me the path to fiscal responsibility is very, very simple - just require that all spending be paid for with taxes. That's how you starve the beast, not handing out huge baskets of tasty unfunded tax cuts on the front end to a relative handful of big donors, then HOPING Congress does the right thing and cuts spending later that will affect 10s of millions of citizens. It's like serving a child a huge bowl of ice cream with 4 donuts before dinner then hoping he'll eat his meat and vegetables later.

In this case the path for the GOP is obvious. If they want $trillions in tax cuts, require Congress to find the $trillions in spending cuts to offset those tax cuts AND more $trillions in spending cuts to offset the already predicted deficits. Condition the tax cuts on the spending cuts in the same bill, and if the GOP is actually fiscally responsible and actually believes in smaller government, we'll see spending shrink.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
Starving the beast is the lie, falsehood, myth, propaganda that republicans tell about tax cuts. We have seen what happens - spending isn't cut, there is no starving of the beast.

Seems to me the path to fiscal responsibility is very, very simple - just require that all spending be paid for with taxes. That's how you starve the beast, not handing out huge baskets of tasty unfunded tax cuts on the front end to a relative handful of big donors, then HOPING Congress does the right thing and cuts spending later that will affect 10s of millions of citizens. It's like serving a child a huge bowl of ice cream with 4 donuts before dinner then hoping he'll eat his meat and vegetables later.

In this case the path for the GOP is obvious. If they want $trillions in tax cuts, require Congress to find the $trillions in spending cuts to offset those tax cuts AND more $trillions in spending cuts to offset the already predicted deficits. Condition the tax cuts on the spending cuts in the same bill, and if the GOP is actually fiscally responsible and actually believes in smaller government, we'll see spending shrink.
Click to expand...
I agree

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Your right we don't always get our way and have to tolerate things that others want. That is why I'm bothered by politicians who pick and choose which laws they will or will not enforce.

Trust me when I tell you nobody on the right is under the illusion that the GOP leadership are deficit hawks. They saw that betrayal under bush and turned their back on the party. That is how the DNC captured a suoermajority congress. When we saw what a disaster that was we started to primary out members of the GOP and gave trump the WH. The wing is a party in reform.
Click to expand...

It's bizarre that a deficit hawk would ever vote for Trump. He promised $12 trillion in tax cuts, not to cut a penny from Medicare, Medicaid or SS, and to increase military spending. The man didn't even really pretend to care about deficits, although he did promise to balance the budget, with all those tax cuts and spending increases, which is impossible, of course.
 
JasperL said:
It's bizarre that a deficit hawk would ever vote for Trump. He promised $12 trillion in tax cuts, not to cut a penny from Medicare, Medicaid or SS, and to increase military spending. The man didn't even really pretend to care about deficits, although he did promise to balance the budget, with all those tax cuts and spending increases, which is impossible, of course.
Click to expand...
Yeah he is another big spender. I knew it when I voted for him but the thing is, they all are. There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.

I will say this though you can balance the budget with tax cuts in theory. If you can get the economy to grow enough the tax revenues will cover the spending. Problem is that the amount of growth is unrealistic.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Yeah he is another big spender. I knew it when I voted for him but the thing is, they all are. There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.

I will say this though you can balance the budget with tax cuts in theory. If you can get the economy to grow enough the tax revenues will cover the spending. Problem is that the amount of growth is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

All the data I've seen show that you can grow the economy with tax cuts, but that tax cuts will always reduce revenues. In other words, the sad fact of life is tax cuts just don't ever "pay for themselves" in any way. So if you want tax cuts and are worried about deficits, you need smaller government, less spending. It's just a common sense rule we see....everywhere. In states with low tax burdens, they have small government. States with big government have high taxes. Countries with big government have high taxes, and countries with low taxes have small government. So politicians can pick ONE - big government or low taxes, not both. The GOP lies about wanting small government, but there is no evidence they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary - i.e. angering seniors for one, or reducing defense spending - to get there.

I actually think Democrats are more fiscally responsible because they've proven willing to raise taxes to pay for spending. Republicans haven't in my voting life shown a willingness to cut spending to pay for their tax cuts.

Really, all anyone needs to know about GOP fiscal policy since Reagan is Cheney's quote: "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won [the election, more tax cuts] is our due"
 
JasperL said:
It's bizarre that a deficit hawk would ever vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
That's because few of them truly are deficit hawks.

<cynicsm>
What they want is to slash spending on safety nets, and cut taxes for the rich. However, most politicians know that it's political suicide to come straight out and say "let's cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid." Even when it's coupled with "get rid of the ACA," it's toxic.

So instead, they cry about deficits when they don't pick the agenda. Then, they forget all about it when they hold the Presidency.

Republican politicians knew exactly what they were getting, and that the Trump tax plan would generate massive deficits. They didn't care, because they assumed they'd get their beloved tax cuts. Which, of course, may not happen. Whoops.
</cyncism>
 
jonny5 said:
Raising taxes doesnt work either. You end up slowing growth which results in a marginal increase in revenue. The proven way to balance the budget is to do nothing. That worked in the 90s, and almost in the 00s before the recession. It even worked under Obama. In all cases, the rate of spending growth slowed down allowing the economy to catch up. Military spending isnt even the problem. We take in more than enough revenue to pay for the military (700bn). The real problem is the 2.5 trillion in social programs which have doubled while military spending has decreased.

Social Security- 900bn
Healthcare - 1.2 trillion
Welfare - 300bn
Click to expand...

And what about tax cuts that didn't produce enough growth and do add to the deficit, look at happened with Kansas recently:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#1108a05a5508

And 700 billon dolllars is a ton of money, you can't deny that military spending is a big part of the federal budget:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Saying you want to reduce the debt and leave military spending untouched is akin to saying you want to lose weight, but you want to eat an entire chocolate cake every night, it doesn't work.
 
Vern said:
O, I asked you what you see that makes you think dems are “deficit hawks” when not in power. You provided no example. you simply reiterated your "both sides do it" narrative but I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Let me expand on one of the examples I mentioned above. Republicans and democrats voted for Bush’s 2008 stimulus. In 2009, republicans did not vote for President Obama’s stimulus. Only flaming lying hypocrisy explains that.

But I agree the system is broken but until you hold republicans accountable for being flaming lying hypocrites about deficits, nothing is going to change. And that starts with you acknowledging that deficits go up under republicans and down under democrats.

And fyi, Bush is responsible for the massive trillion dollar deficits President Obama inherited. Revenue collapsed 700 billion from pre-recession estimates in 2009 alone. You could have eliminated the entire discretionary budget and still not balanced the budget. But only republicans talk about balancing budgets and only when a democrat is in office.
Click to expand...

...?

You know it went up under Obama's term right? So the whole "it goes down because of Democrats" thing is not correct in the least.
 
Oborosen said:
...?

You know it went up under Obama's term right? So the whole "it goes down because of Democrats" thing is not correct in the least.
Click to expand...

mmmmm, so again, you're not posting any examples of democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power but instead want to argue a point I made, mmmmm. Well first deficits did go down under President Obama. Bush's last budget deficit was 1.4 trillion and 9.8% of GDP. What year did President Obama have higher than that? I don't know what you thought you saw but it seems to be like when you saw democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power. Speaking of which, that's what we were discussing. Now hopefully you can address that issue.
 
Vern said:
mmmmm, so again, you're not posting any examples of democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power but instead want to argue a point I made, mmmmm. Well first deficits did go down under President Obama. Bush's last budget deficit was 1.4 trillion and 9.8% of GDP. What year did President Obama have higher than that? I don't know what you thought you saw but it seems to be like when you saw democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power. Speaking of which, that's what we were discussing. Now hopefully you can address that issue.
Click to expand...

Alright, first of all..
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Just to get that out of the way.

The problem here is that you don't understand "why" both of these parties are in general deficit Hawks. Or how I like to call it, just looking at the money. They have both kept an eye on one another's spending since before Kennedy, and will continue to do so till after a vast majority of us are dead. Its two political parties that frankly care more about the bottom line then we care about our families.

Just because you don't see them doing it out in the open, does not mean they don't do it to one another either. Political runners on the campaign trail, would butt heads about it between their own party members. Its not hard to summarize that this is something that just happens. Its basically as guaranteed to happen as it is to see rain in April.

They monitor each others spending habits before the election campaign gets underway in most cases.

Each side monitors one another, its a given.
 
Winston said:
When one major argument from conservatives about democrats is determined to be motivated by partisanship, it makes you question the integrity of all their arguments.


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

Whats the alternative?
 
Yes_Minister said:
And what about tax cuts that didn't produce enough growth and do add to the deficit, look at happened with Kansas recently:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#1108a05a5508

And 700 billon dolllars is a ton of money, you can't deny that military spending is a big part of the federal budget:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Saying you want to reduce the debt and leave military spending untouched is akin to saying you want to lose weight, but you want to eat an entire chocolate cake every night, it doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Of course national defense is a big part of the budget. Its a high priority and one of the actual required functions of the federal govt.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
Click to expand...

But I never said anything about leaving Military untouched. I simply pointed out that it pales in comparison to social spending. As for Kansas, same problem. Too much spending. Guest column: Reckless spending caused Kansas budget crisis | The Kansas City Star

All govts have the same problem. They collect as much tax as they can, and then spend whatever they want regardless of what they have. It should be the opposite, spend only whats neccesary, and collect the minimum needed to fund it, and return everything else to the people.
 
Last edited:
Oborosen said:
Alright, first of all..
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Just to get that out of the way.

The problem here is that you don't understand "why" both of these parties are in general deficit Hawks. Or how I like to call it, just looking at the money. They have both kept an eye on one another's spending since before Kennedy, and will continue to do so till after a vast majority of us are dead. Its two political parties that frankly care more about the bottom line then we care about our families.

Just because you don't see them doing it out in the open, does not mean they don't do it to one another either. Political runners on the campaign trail, would butt heads about it between their own party members. Its not hard to summarize that this is something that just happens. Its basically as guaranteed to happen as it is to see rain in April.

They monitor each others spending habits before the election campaign gets underway in most cases.

Each side monitors one another, its a given.
Click to expand...

Oh O, I'm saddened by your post. You continue to deny that President Obama reduced the deficit and you simply reiterate your "both sides do it" narrative. Lets focus on the original discussion. The reason you cant find an example and have to again assure me "both sides do it" is because there is no example. And what makes your continued belief truly sad is I've given you an example that disproves your narrative. So not only do you cling to a narrative you cant back up, you ignore the facts I've posted. Dems and republicans voted for Bush's 2008 stimulus. Dems didn't suddenly become deficit hawks. Dems put America first. Republicans didn't vote for President Obama's stimulus. they put their political agenda ahead of America. Now, republicans had proven throughout President Obama's presidency that they were not concerned about the deficit and only trying to undermine the recovery. Republicans literally saying “weeeeeeeeeeeeee, we’re in charge, lets run up the deficit” proves it even to you.

But O, even if you cling to your narrative which I've disproven, it still makes republicans flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. Again, both sides do it is just your way of trying to not hold them accountable. I think you don't hold them accountable because you'd have to admit they were purposely trying to sabotage the economy.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course national defense is a big part of the budget. Its a high priority and one of the actual required functions of the federal govt.



But I never said anything about leaving Military untouched. I simply pointed out that it pales in comparison to social spending. As for Kansas, same problem. Too much spending. Guest column: Reckless spending caused Kansas budget crisis | The Kansas City Star

All govts have the same problem. They collect as much tax as they can, and then spend whatever they want regardless of what they have. It should be the opposite, spend only whats neccesary, and collect the minimum needed to fund it, and return everything else to the people.
Click to expand...

The 'reckless spending' claim is by AFP people, but what they classify as "reckless" clearly is NOT what the people of Kansas expect from their government, which serves them, not the interests of small government ideologues and extremists. That's the problem - for some reason, residents like funding K-12 and higher education and good roads and jails and even Medicaid/CHIP for the poor. People at places like AFP just imagine that a state can take a meat axe to spending and the voters go along with it. Actual people in elected jobs know if they do that, and funding for their local HS gets cut by a third, and the roads go to crap, and college tuition skyrockets because the state funding is cut year after year, they'll get booted from office.

And the article you cite refers to a study supposedly proving that cutting taxes by $800 million a year improved job growth. Probably did!! The problem is the gains were hardly noticeable, and so $800 million in nominal tax cuts per year ended up being $800 million in real tax cuts, budget shortfalls, not tax gains, or even (after the promised 'dynamic' gains) $400 million per year in revenue shortfalls. So Kansas kept missing revenue targets, running out of money, then draining all the state's 'savings' accounts and reserves to keep the lights on, barely. Kansas is a great example of when extremist ideology hits reality and the results weren't good for extremist ideology.
 
bearpoker said:
Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

Of course. Only Trump supporters and Tea Partiers don't know that.

“It’s a great talking point when you have an administration that’s Democrat-led. It’s a little different now that Republicans have both houses and the administration.”
-Mark Walker (R-NC), Chairman of Republican Study Committee of the House of Representatives
Click to expand...

That's why they are played so easily by everyone from Donald Trump and the Koch brothers to the Russians.
 
trouble13 said:
There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.
Click to expand...

If deficits are your concern, you could vote democrat. And shouldnt deficits be your real concern? wait, are you just trying to frame the discussion so you can justify your continued support of republicans?
 
Vern said:
If deficits are your concern, you could vote democrat. And shouldnt deficits be your real concern? wait, are you just trying to frame the discussion so you can justify your continued support of republicans?
Click to expand...
Shrinking gov is my concern

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Vern said:
Oh O, I'm saddened by your post. You continue to deny that President Obama reduced the deficit and you simply reiterate your "both sides do it" narrative. Lets focus on the original discussion. The reason you cant find an example and have to again assure me "both sides do it" is because there is no example. And what makes your continued belief truly sad is I've given you an example that disproves your narrative. So not only do you cling to a narrative you cant back up, you ignore the facts I've posted. Dems and republicans voted for Bush's 2008 stimulus. Dems didn't suddenly become deficit hawks. Dems put America first. Republicans didn't vote for President Obama's stimulus. they put their political agenda ahead of America. Now, republicans had proven throughout President Obama's presidency that they were not concerned about the deficit and only trying to undermine the recovery. Republicans literally saying “weeeeeeeeeeeeee, we’re in charge, lets run up the deficit” proves it even to you.

But O, even if you cling to your narrative which I've disproven, it still makes republicans flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. Again, both sides do it is just your way of trying to not hold them accountable. I think you don't hold them accountable because you'd have to admit they were purposely trying to sabotage the economy.
Click to expand...

Are you really this thick?
I mean honestly, I really want to know.

You tout that the stimulus like its some sort of damning proof against the republicans, when not everyone on both sides were completely aligned on those decisions. The fact that a stimulus even got through on majority neither proves, nor disproves either of us. Not to mention the stimulus packages were nothing more then publicity.

I am trying to be as general with you as I can here, in hopes that this gets through your head.
Both parties are always watching one another on their spending, and the effects the opposite party has with their own spending. Its as plane & simple as that. Why the hell are you trying to over think this, and throw hidden meanings behind everyone's actions.

You are trying to use a truck, to hammer a single nail.

By the way, if increasing our debt by nearly 8 trillion is to be considered lowering it. You are kind of revealing the reason you're failing to grasp the above concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom