The fiscal picture is worse than it looks—and it looks bad

Conservative · May 6, 2018

Critter7r said:
Their costs are low partly because they can hire people at rates so low that the government must step in to help Walmart pay its employees.

So how exactly is the government helping Walmart pay for its employees, and I am still waiting for a response to Post 474 for as usual the radicals run when challenged with verifiable and official data.

Walmart seems to be whipping "boy" for the left who obviously have no clue as to what Walmart actually pays its full time workers and all the opportunities they have for advancement and the benefits offered. What we have here are the most poorly informed, poorly educated radical leftists doing their best to destroy the greatest country on the face of the earth all because of personal hatred for Trump. I wish someone would tell me exactly what they want because obviously the economic and foreign policy results being generated are it.

jonny5 · May 7, 2018

Critter7r said:
Their costs are low partly because they can hire people at rates so low that the government must step in to help Walmart pay its employees.

All the more reason to get rid of such federal services.

jonny5 · May 7, 2018

MTAtech said:
[h=1]Has The TCJA Supercharged The Economy? The Data Don’t Show It: Tax Policy Center[/h]

Yeah, like i keep saying, and so does your link: Its too early to tell. Though there are plenty of optimistic signs.

https://taxfoundation.org/business-investment-increases-39-percent-q1-2018/

Business investment in the United States is on the rise. Bloomberg Markets reports that among the 130 S&P 500 companies that have reported results for the first quarter of 2018, capital spending increased by 39 percent—the fastest growth in seven years.

MTAtech · May 7, 2018

jonny5 said:
Yeah, like i keep saying, and so does your link: Its too early to tell. Though there are plenty of optimistic signs.

Actually, the link was saying there is no optimistic signs and evidence that it isn't doing what it was advertised as doing.

jonny5 · May 7, 2018

MTAtech said:
Actually, the link was saying there is no optimistic signs and evidence that it isn't doing what it was advertised as doing.

I said that it said "Its too early to tell." The 2nd sentence is my own.

Conservative · May 7, 2018

MTAtech said:
Actually, the link was saying there is no optimistic signs and evidence that it isn't doing what it was advertised as doing.

Apparently Treasury disagrees with you as April 2018 showed a surplus and how can that happen with Tax cuts?? Another positive sign is the African American unemployment rate of 6.6% which is 1.2% lower than Obama left Trump so the picture continues to get worse and worse FOR DEMOCRATS!

So how can Tax cuts create more revenue and create a surplus? Run MTA like you always do

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/d...tYear=2018&endMonth=04&endDay=30&endYear=2018

MTAtech · May 7, 2018

Conservative said:
Apparently Treasury disagrees with you as April 2018 showed a surplus and how can that happen with Tax cuts?? Another positive sign is the African American unemployment rate of 6.6% which is 1.2% lower than Obama left Trump so the picture continues to get worse and worse FOR DEMOCRATS!

So how can Tax cuts create more revenue and create a surplus? Run MTA like you always do

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/d...tYear=2018&endMonth=04&endDay=30&endYear=2018

Dishonesty abounds in the above post. Only a fact-resistant partisan would intentionally ignore the fact that April is the month that income tax revenue is received by the U.S. Treasury. April is always the month that runs a surplus for that very reason. Everything else in the post has no merit and is not worthy of response.

Conservative · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
Dishonesty abounds in the above post. Only a fact-resistant partisan would intentionally ignore the fact that April is the month that income tax revenue is received by the U.S. Treasury. April is always the month that runs a surplus for that very reason. Everything else in the post has no merit and is not worthy of response.

Yep, and with a TAX CUT REVENUE GREW AGAIN!!! You still ignore the reality that tax cuts stimulate economic activity and thus grows tax revenue. Then the reality that January-March are the worst income months for the Federal Govt. which Treasury shows but you ignore. Economic growth is always higher in the last 8 months of the year and maybe your problem is you don't understand the revenue stream because you never looked at the budget. Suggest civics and doing research at Treasury.org.

Obviously you don't have a lot of pride in yourself or you would be embarrassed by your inaccuracies and the data that refutes your rhetoric nor the ability to admit when wrong. Please post Treasury data to show FIT revenue declining after the TAX CUTS WERE FULLY IMPLEMENTED? As you have been told and shown it takes some time to replenish people bank accounts but the economic activity generated always grows revenue

Not once have you proposed a solution to the problems we face today that Trump is delivering on. You can Google his promises and results and see how the past year has been outstanding but you won't because that isn't what you want to believe. What exactly do you want to see, higher taxes on the rich which will serve what purpose?

Conservative · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
Dishonesty abounds in the above post. Only a fact-resistant partisan would intentionally ignore the fact that April is the month that income tax revenue is received by the U.S. Treasury. April is always the month that runs a surplus for that very reason. Everything else in the post has no merit and is not worthy of response.

More reality you want to ignore

Newt Gingrich: The ?experts? were wrong in 2016; they could be wrong in 2018 too | Fox News

How you coming on that Democratic Platform Slogan, "I tried to stop those evil Republicans from allowing you to keep more of what you earn, VOTE FOR ME!"

jonny5 · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
Dishonesty abounds in the above post. Only a fact-resistant partisan would intentionally ignore the fact that April is the month that income tax revenue is received by the U.S. Treasury. April is always the month that runs a surplus for that very reason. Everything else in the post has no merit and is not worthy of response.

Income tax revenue is received every month, not just in April. Either through withholding or self-employed payments. April is also when big tax refunds go out. But early word by the CBO was larger than expected revenue was due to larger than expected economic growth,

Receipts collected in April were $30 billion to $40 billion larger than CBO expected when it prepared the
estimates reported in The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028, which it issued on April 9. The
bulk of that difference stems from larger-than-anticipated payments of individual income taxes. Those
payments were mostly related to economic activity in 2017 and may reflect stronger-than-expected income
growth in that year. Part of the strength in receipts also may reflect larger-than-anticipated payments for
economic activity in 2018. The reasons for the added revenues will be better understood as more detailed
information becomes available later this year.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53821-mbr.pdf

Sadly, spending is still wiping out any possible deficit reduction due to the increasing economy. Interest on the debt from decades of excessive social spending is slowly bleeding us.

MTAtech · May 8, 2018

jonny5 said:
Income tax revenue is received every month, not just in April. Either through withholding or self-employed payments. April is also when big tax refunds go out. But early word by the CBO was larger than expected revenue was due to larger than expected economic growth,

Receipts collected in April were $30 billion to $40 billion larger than CBO expected when it prepared the
estimates reported in The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028, which it issued on April 9. The
bulk of that difference stems from larger-than-anticipated payments of individual income taxes. Those
payments were mostly related to economic activity in 2017 and may reflect stronger-than-expected income
growth in that year. Part of the strength in receipts also may reflect larger-than-anticipated payments for
economic activity in 2018. The reasons for the added revenues will be better understood as more detailed
information becomes available later this year.

Click to expand...

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53821-mbr.pdf

Sadly, spending is still wiping out any possible deficit reduction due to the increasing economy. Interest on the debt from decades of excessive social spending is slowly bleeding us.

Arguing that tax-cuts that went into effect on January 1, 2018 increased economic activity by looking at growth in economic activity in 2017 is horribly flawed for the obvious reason -- in our current time-space dimension, causes precedes events, not the other way around.

late · May 8, 2018

jonny5 said:
Sadly, spending is still wiping out any possible deficit reduction due to the increasing economy. Interest on the debt from decades of excessive social spending is slowly bleeding us.

Every advanced country has social spending, it's simply part of the modern world.

Extract the propaganda, and what you have is the cost of empire (which is larger than the Pentagon wants to admit, something Stiglitz proved) is running into all those Republican tax cuts.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Trilli...=1525782878&sr=8-1&keywords=stiglitz+trillion

Conservative · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
Arguing that tax-cuts that went into effect on January 1, 2018 increased economic activity by looking at growth in economic activity in 2017 is horribly flawed for the obvious reason -- in our current time-space dimension, causes precedes events, not the other way around.

Flawed reasoning is that there would the same economic activity if the American consumers had less money in their paychecks due to higher taxes! Flawed reasoning is that the American electorate doesn't vote their pocketbooks

jonny5 · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
Arguing that tax-cuts that went into effect on January 1, 2018 increased economic activity by looking at growth in economic activity in 2017 is horribly flawed for the obvious reason -- in our current time-space dimension, causes precedes events, not the other way around.

I didnt argue that.

jonny5 · May 8, 2018

late said:
Every advanced country has social spending, it's simply part of the modern world.

Extract the propaganda, and what you have is the cost of empire (which is larger than the Pentagon wants to admit, something Stiglitz proved) is running into all those Republican tax cuts.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Trilli...=1525782878&sr=8-1&keywords=stiglitz+trillion

Defense spending - 600bn
Social spending - 2.9 trillion

Even with funny math youre going to find it hard to come anywhere near the cost of social spending. Hell lets double the number mentioned in the book snyposis to 20 trillion in Empire Costs. In the same time, weve spent 40 trillion on social spending. If you take every single dollar the govt spends that isnt social spending (justice, defense, science, patents, congress, etc), its still 1/3 of social spending cost.

MTAtech · May 8, 2018

jonny5 said:
I didnt argue that.

You were arguing (post# 485) that revenue was greater due to higher growth. However, the first quarter GDP was only 2.3%, down from 2.9% in the 4th Qtr 2017 and that was down from 3rd Q-2017 of 3.2%.

As unemployment continues its long downward trend (thanks Obama) there is more payroll revenue.

None of that negates the forecast for the 2018 deficit, which "CBO estimates that the 2018 deficit will total $804 billion, $139 billion more than the $665 billion shortfall recorded in 2017." Remember when conservatives were crowing about $2X trillion in debt? They now are quiet as church mice.

While CBO also forecasts a 2018 Real GDP growth-rate of 3.3%, it is forecasting much lower for following years:

2019 - 2.4%
2020 - 1.8%
2021-2022 - 1.5%
2023-2028 - 1.7%

For people (like Conservative) who was harshly critical of GDP growth under Obama, what will they say when Trump's growth is no better or worse? Will they abandon their fantasy thinking that tax-cuts are the magic elixir that boosts economic growth? Who are we kidding?

So indeed, the thread title is confirmed "The fiscal picture is worse than it looks—and it looks bad."

late · May 8, 2018

jonny5 said:
Defense spending - 600bn
Social spending - 2.9 trillion

Even with funny math youre going to find it hard to come anywhere near the cost of social spending. Hell lets double the number mentioned in the book snyposis to 20 trillion in Empire Costs. In the same time, weve spent 40 trillion on social spending. If you take every single dollar the govt spends that isnt social spending (justice, defense, science, patents, congress, etc), its still 1/3 of social spending cost.

The Iraq war, by itself, will cost something close to 4 trillion. Assuming things don't get worse, and we get dragged back in, in a big way.

I said empire. Stiglitz proved defense spending is considerably higher than what they admit to. But that doesn't cover all the costs of empire.

The empire started after WW2, and if you compare costs over that period, the empire is where we blew our wealth. Social spending didn't get big until the 80s...

Social spending is a given, you don't pay for education, r&d and such, you will pay for jail cells.

But there are ways to save trillions without killing people even there. The Brits spend about half what we do, and their health care system isn't headed for a major meltdown.

Conservative · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
You were arguing (post# 485) that revenue was greater due to higher growth. However, the first quarter GDP was only 2.3%, down from 2.9% in the 4th Qtr 2017 and that was down from 3rd Q-2017 of 3.2%.

As unemployment continues its long downward trend (thanks Obama) there is more payroll revenue.

None of that negates the forecast for the 2018 deficit, which "CBO estimates that the 2018 deficit will total $804 billion, $139 billion more than the $665 billion shortfall recorded in 2017." Remember when conservatives were crowing about $2X trillion in debt? They now are quiet as church mice.

While CBO also forecasts a 2018 Real GDP growth-rate of 3.3%, it is forecasting much lower for following years:

2019 - 2.4%
2020 - 1.8%
2021-2022 - 1.5%
2023-2028 - 1.7%

For people (like Conservative) who was harshly critical of GDP growth under Obama, what will they say when Trump's growth is no better or worse? Will they abandon their fantasy thinking that tax-cuts are the magic elixir that boosts economic growth? Who are we kidding?

So indeed, the thread title is confirmed "The fiscal picture is worse than it looks—and it looks bad."

Interesting though that the first quarter revenue was still higher due to the tax cuts and April had a surplus as we begin the better economic growth months and thus more revenue. Your projections seem to matter more than the official data. Suggest you post the accuracy of CBO projections but apparently being accurate isn't something that interests you.

Conservative posts data that you want to ignore, being critical of Obama's GDP growth is right on as we had negative growth with his stimulus in 2009 and never having 3% annual growth any time during his term.

Still waiting for you to explain your loyalty to the liberal ideology when faced with the actual data the rebukes it?

late · May 8, 2018

Conservative said:
Interesting though that the first quarter revenue was still higher due to the tax cuts and April had a surplus as we begin the better economic growth months and thus more revenue. Your projections seem to matter more than the official data. Suggest you post the accuracy of CBO projections but apparently being accurate isn't something that interests you.

Conservative posts data that you want to ignore, being critical of Obama's GDP growth is right on as we had negative growth with his stimulus in 2009 and never having 3% annual growth any time during his term.

Still waiting for you to explain your loyalty to the liberal ideology when faced with the actual data the rebukes it?

This is another flop you will quietly walk away from when the final numbers are in.

jonny5 · May 8, 2018

MTAtech said:
You were arguing (post# 485) that revenue was greater due to higher growth. However, the first quarter GDP was only 2.3%, down from 2.9% in the 4th Qtr 2017 and that was down from 3rd Q-2017 of 3.2%.

As unemployment continues its long downward trend (thanks Obama) there is more payroll revenue.

None of that negates the forecast for the 2018 deficit, which "CBO estimates that the 2018 deficit will total $804 billion, $139 billion more than the $665 billion shortfall recorded in 2017." Remember when conservatives were crowing about $2X trillion in debt? They now are quiet as church mice.

While CBO also forecasts a 2018 Real GDP growth-rate of 3.3%, it is forecasting much lower for following years:

2019 - 2.4%
2020 - 1.8%
2021-2022 - 1.5%
2023-2028 - 1.7%

For people (like Conservative) who was harshly critical of GDP growth under Obama, what will they say when Trump's growth is no better or worse? Will they abandon their fantasy thinking that tax-cuts are the magic elixir that boosts economic growth? Who are we kidding?

So indeed, the thread title is confirmed "The fiscal picture is worse than it looks—and it looks bad."

In fact, the CBO was speculating that. It is not my argument. I was adding context to your post that revenue is up in April because people are paying taxes. CBO says its because people are paying MORE taxes than expected due to wage growth. As to GDP we'll see. The CBO is also projecting it to be higher than they previously estimated.

Projected output is greater because of recently enacted
legislation, data that became available after CBO’s previous
economic projections were completed, and improvements
in the agency’s analytical methods

So indeed, the thread title is still grossly wrong. "Its better than it looks, and improving."

jonny5 · May 8, 2018

late said:
The Iraq war, by itself, will cost something close to 4 trillion. Assuming things don't get worse, and we get dragged back in, in a big way.

I said empire. Stiglitz proved defense spending is considerably higher than what they admit to. But that doesn't cover all the costs of empire.

The empire started after WW2, and if you compare costs over that period, the empire is where we blew our wealth. Social spending didn't get big until the 80s...

Social spending is a given, you don't pay for education, r&d and such, you will pay for jail cells.

But there are ways to save trillions without killing people even there. The Brits spend about half what we do, and their health care system isn't headed for a major meltdown.

Stiglitz proved nothing. Hes not here and all you linked was a amazon page to buy the book. Post some facts if you want to use it as a source. I gave you twice the number mentioned in his synopsis, and it STILL dwarfed by social spending, and only getting worse. We'll spend ANOTHER 30 trillion on social spending in the next decade, and add 10 trillion more in debt because of it.

Social spending isnt a given. Its a choice. Defense of life and liberty are not. They are an obligation of the United States according to the law.