The federal debt is headed for the highest levels since World War II, CBO says

MTAtech · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
It really is a shame how poorly informed and educated you people are regarding CBO, please learn what they are, where they get their data, and how accurate their record is? It is best to use verifiable Treasury Data not CBO predictions, it is better to use BLS and Census Data vs CBO predictions as all would help what little credibility the left has

As the link that you are having trouble with said, the CBO is highly accurate. If one wants to know what's going to happen in the future, there is no choice but to rely upon predictions. Your suggestion, to use Treasury data, only tells what happened in the past. So, you seem to be saying to find what's going to happen in the future, just wait around until future data is historical data and then you'll have an answer, which makes no sense at all.

Conservatives do have problems accepting inconvenient numbers -- ones that undercut their ideology. Thus, they dismiss CBO numbers when the CBO's unbiased report says what they don't like. Conservatives also try to rush legislation through when they know the CBO score will not be favorable to their legislation. These are indisputable facts.

KLATTU · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
As the link that

Conservatives do have problems accepting inconvenient numbers -- ones that undercut their ideology. Thus, they dismiss CBO numbers when the CBO's unbiased report says what they don't like. acts.

Conservatives do have problems accepting inconvenient numbers -- ones that undercut their ideology. Thus, they dismiss CBO numbers when the CBO's unbiased report says what they don't like. Conservatives also try to rush legislation through when they know the CBO score will not be favorable to their legislation. These are indisputable facts.

I think it's more like conservatives are smart and realize future predictions are always suspect and rational people just always take them with a grain of salt. Not because of anything the CBO is doing wrong, but because it's just impossible to predict something as complicated as the US economy over any long term time frame.
And you do exactly what you accuse others of doing but in the opposite direction. That is , latching onto the CBO predcictions as if they were gospel because they support your ideology. Tsk tsk. Pot. kettle. Black

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
As the link that you are having trouble with said, the CBO is highly accurate. If one wants to know what's going to happen in the future, there is no choice but to rely upon predictions. Your suggestion, to use Treasury data, only tells what happened in the past. So, you seem to be saying to find what's going to happen in the future, just wait around until future data is historical data and then you'll have an answer, which makes no sense at all.

Conservatives do have problems accepting inconvenient numbers -- ones that undercut their ideology. Thus, they dismiss CBO numbers when the CBO's unbiased report says what they don't like. Conservatives also try to rush legislation through when they know the CBO score will not be favorable to their legislation. These are indisputable facts.

And liberals like you always only buy predications that you believe promote your ideology when the reality is CBO Predictions are seldom accurate as they are unable to predict economic activity and only use the criteria given them by the Congressional leaders that present the bill. Did CBO predict 4 years of trillion dollar deficits for Obama? NO!!

CBO NEVER LIES, they just aren't as accurate as you want to believe. From their own website

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53090

What Are the Limitations of This Evaluation?

This evaluation has three limitations. First, all forecasters change their procedures over time, which makes it hard to draw inferences about future errors. Second, because forecasters make different assumptions about future fiscal policy, it is difficult to compare the quality of forecasts without considering the role of expected changes in laws. Finally, the historical data (on output and income, for example) that forecasters use to make economic projections are often revised, which can complicate the task of interpreting forecast errors

.

What Are Some Sources of Forecast Errors?

CBO’s and other forecasters’ largest forecast errors often stem from the difficulties of anticipating three key developments:
•Turning points in the business cycle—that is, the beginning and end of recessions;
•Changes in trends in productivity; and
•Changes in crude oil prices.

MTAtech · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
That seems to be one of the arguments with this one being from the right whereas the one from the left is that tax cuts have to be paid for. Neither are accurate per treasury data showing that tax cuts stimulate economic activity and the number ONE component of GDP and have NEVER reduced Federal Revenue after fully being implemented

FIT revenue grew after the Reagan tax cuts by over 60%, over 30% with the Bush tax cuts and are now up with the Trump tax cuts so who does increasing revenue cause deficits?

We have addressed this many times before. The conclusion is that tax-cuts do not produce enough extra economic activity to pay for the tax-cuts. Regarding the Reagan tax-cuts, we have addressed that too. So has my favorite Nobel Prize holding economist:

Reagan and revenue -- January 17, 2008

Ah – commenter Tom says, in response to my post on taxes and revenues:

Taxes were cut at the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Federal tax receipts increased by 50% by the end of the Reagan Administration.
Although correlation does not prove causation the tax cut must have accounted for some portion of this increase in federal tax receipts.

Click to expand...

I couldn’t have asked for a better example of why it’s important to correct for inflation and population growth, both of which tend to make revenues grow regardless of tax policy.

Actually, federal revenues rose 80 percent in dollar terms from 1980 to 1988. And numbers like that (sometimes they play with the dates) are thrown around by Reagan hagiographers all the time.

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.

Is it really possible that all the triumphant declarations that the Reagan tax cuts led to a revenue boom — declarations that you see in highly respectable places — are based on nothing but a failure to make the most elementary corrections for inflation and population growth? Yes, it is. I know we’re supposed to pretend that we’re having a serious discussion in this country; but the truth is that we aren’t.

Update: For the econowonks out there: business cycles are an issue here — revenue growth from trough to peak will look better than the reverse. Unfortunately, business cycles don’t correspond to administrations. But looking at revenue changes peak to peak is still revealing. So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

Do you see the revenue booms from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Me neither.

Bush massively cut income taxes and revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth, never achieved the level under the pre-tax-cut year, 2000, as I have shown in this post:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...-revenues-fy14-w-346-a-18.html#post1063766255

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
We have addressed this many times before. The conclusion is that tax-cuts do not produce enough extra economic activity to pay for the tax-cuts. Regarding the Reagan tax-cuts, we have addressed that too. So has my favorite Nobel Prize holding economist:

Bush massively cut income taxes and revenue, adjusted for inflation and population growth, never achieved the level under the pre-tax-cut year, 2000, as I have shown in this post:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...-revenues-fy14-w-346-a-18.html#post1063766255

Stunning class envy and jealousy, tax cuts don't have to produce anything as they don't have to be paid for as they aren't an expense. Spending causes debt not people keeping more of what they earn. You have yet to post Treasury data supporting your claims and never will because the claims you are making do not exist. You don't understand the components of our GDP thus you make wild assumptions that are wrong! Why do you hate seeing people keeping more of what they earn?

The Derp · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
As the link that you are having trouble with said, the CBO is highly accurate. If one wants to know what's going to happen in the future, there is no choice but to rely upon predictions. Your suggestion, to use Treasury data, only tells what happened in the past. So, you seem to be saying to find what's going to happen in the future, just wait around until future data is historical data and then you'll have an answer, which makes no sense at all

His fallback is always "look at Treasury". He says that reflexively because he wants to send people on goose chases so his point can remain in the ether.

The Derp · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
Stunning class envy and jealousy, tax cuts don't have to produce anything as they don't have to be paid for as they aren't an expense.

Delusion.

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative, you really can't read, can you?

Conservative said:
... tax cuts stimulate economic activity ...

MTAtech said:
The conclusion is that tax-cuts do not produce enough extra economic activity to pay for the tax-cuts.

Conservative said:
Stunning class envy and jealousy, tax cuts don't have to produce anything as they don't have to be paid for as they aren't an expense. Spending causes debt not people keeping more of what they earn.

Clearly, MTAtech is using the phrase "produce extra economic activity" to mean the same thing as what you meant by "stimulate economic activity".

Conservative said:
You have yet to post Treasury data supporting your claims and never will because the claims you are making do not exist.

MTAtech posted link with data on tax revenues in previous post that he AGAIN was kind enough to reference for you. Are you claiming that data would not match what Treasure posts? Of course it does. Why don't you tell us what YOU think were tax revenues for years 2000 through 2009?

When I look up Treasure website, I see same numbers as what MTAtech posts. (I checked some years - did not bother checking each one)

The Derp · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
And liberals like you always only buy predications that you believe promote your ideology when the reality is CBO Predictions are seldom accurate as they are unable to predict economic activity and only use the criteria given them by the Congressional leaders that present the bill. Did CBO predict 4 years of trillion dollar deficits for Obama? NO!!
CBO NEVER LIES, they just aren't as accurate as you want to believe. From their own website
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53090
What Are the Limitations of This Evaluation?
What Are Some Sources of Forecast Errors?

What Conservative is doing here is gaslighting the CBO so he doesn't have to accept their conclusions.

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

RAMOSS said:
Parrish said:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Click to expand...

There is a problem iwth the 'national debt clock' web site. It doesn't use actual data, but is merely a timer.

There is no problem actually. It's very accurate and readjusts daily based on data published by Treasury. The "timer" is showing the average recent rate at which the debt has been changing, and the rate is readjusting as well to be very representative. Here is more info:

Worldometers has developed an algorithm which calculates the current estimated rate of change of the amount of debt outstanding in between the daily US Treasury updates. The formula components are recalculated daily as the latest official US National Debt data is published, so that the algorithm continuously adjusts itself accordingly. The magnitude and even direction of the daily changes can be erratic and unpredictable. For example, even though on a yearly or monthly basis the US debt might be overall increasing (as it is the case now), there are days when the US debt will decrease with respect to the previous day, only because on that particular day there happened to be more redemptions of Treasury securities than there were issues. During these limited time intervals, unless the change in direction and magnitude is in any way representative of a trend, the US debt clock will not show a decreasing debt, as it clearly would not provide an accurate representation of the current trend, but it will instead show the debt increasing at the current average rate, and eventually re-adjusting suddenly to a lower level.

MTAtech · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
Stunning class envy and jealousy, tax cuts don't have to produce anything as they don't have to be paid for as they aren't an expense. Spending causes debt not people keeping more of what they earn. You have yet to post Treasury data supporting your claims and never will because the claims you are making do not exist. You don't understand the components of our GDP thus you make wild assumptions that are wrong! Why do you hate seeing people keeping more of what they earn?

Slavister already addressed this but just to point out what should be obvious, this has nothing to do with envy, or a desire to punish the rich, or anything other than a recognition of tradeoffs: if we choose to raise less revenue from the rich than we can without hurting the economy, we will be forced either to raise more taxes from or provide fewer valuable services to everyone else.

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

I noticed two good questions earlier about increasing deficits under Obama after recession. There was indeed 1 last year of Obama presidency, 2016, when deficits increased.

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, as the graph presented clearly shows, deficits (additions to the national debt) started to increase in 2016 which we can see were caused by Trump's (planned) tax cuts in 2018. We are now terribly concerned that annual federal deficits may approach that of 2012 when the POTUS won re-election because deficits of over $1T after the miraculous Obama recovery didn't matter then.

distraff said:
Did you ignore the latter part of your graph where the deficit went from 450 billion to 650 billion under Obama after the recession was over?

The 2016 increase, the first increase after recession was over, was apparently due to tax breaks pushed by Republicans after a long fight over government shutdown at the end of 2015.

CBO on Tuesday projected that the deficit will rise for the first time since 2009 when measured against the size of the economy, which economists says is the best way to measure the government’s fiscal shortfalls. The 2016 deficit is expected to increase to 2.9 percent of economic output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP), from 2.5 percent last year.

The official congressional scorekeeper said the increase is largely attributed to the year-end legislation, which extended a series of tax breaks for both businesses and individuals at a cost of $650 billion over 10 years. In the past, Congress has generally extended these tax provisions for a year or two to minimize their impact on the deficit over the long-term. But this year, leaders in both parties pushed to make some of the tax breaks permanent despite warnings from deficit hawk groups that such a deal would be a budget buster.

Another one:

Republican leaders in Congress characterized the year-end package as representing a hard-fought compromise that would keep the government open and provide large-scale tax breaks.

And another one from end of 2015:

While Republicans want to make popular tax breaks permanent, Democrats are balking at its size and cost, which is not offset by corresponding tax increases or spending cuts. “It’s a massive, permanent giveaway on the unpaid-for tax-extender package, which is really destructive of our future,” Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, complained to reporters on Friday. “Evidently, the Republican deficit hawks are an endangered species now.”
[...]
One irony in the whole debate is that the Republicans proposing to make these policies permanents are the same lawmakers who want to do away with many of them as part of a broad simplification of the tax code. Eliminating expensive breaks and “loopholes” is the only way to cut income-tax rates without blowing a much deeper hole in the deficit. Yet Republicans still have an incentive to make them permanent first, because once they are baked into the budget, it’ll make their eventual tax overhaul seem less costly by comparison.
[...]
Ribble and other Republicans acknowledged that a permanent extension of the tax policies would have been unthinkable a few years ago because of the sticker shock. But the fading deficit concerns and a Republican majority in the Senate have made it possible this year, just as Congress was able to agree to a similarly costly fix to Medicare financing this spring that was only partially paid for.

All this is quite different from Trump who is enjoying majorities in both House and Senate.

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
Slavister already addressed this but just to point out what should be obvious, this has nothing to do with envy, or a desire to punish the rich, or anything other than a recognition of tradeoffs: if we choose to raise less revenue from the rich than we can without hurting the economy, we will be forced either to raise more taxes from or provide fewer valuable services to everyone else.

You really have no understanding of the US economy at all and how the grow Revenue. Your idea is to tax, my idea is to grow Revenue by increasing GDP and you do that by allowing people to keep more of their own money happens all the time

when you cut taxes you allow people to generate more economic activity through consumer spending which is the number one component of GDP and that grows government revenue, always has and always will

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

AlbqOwl · Jul 6, 2018

MTAtech said:
Republicans rammed through their big tax cut and asserted that the tax-cuts would be paying for themselves, with so much more economic activity. That was another lie in a stream of lies.

Gross receipts to Oklahoma Treasury reach all-time high | Oklahoma | normantranscript.com

The debt increased about $4+ trillion under GWB. Increased $9.3 trillion under Obama. It has increased $1.2 under Trump so far which, if that trend continues, would put the debt increase under eight years of Trump at about $7 trillion and change. Treasury revenues right now are at record highs so the tax cut criticism really doesn't hold up. The debt is entirely unacceptable but hopefully, he'll have a chance to get a handle on it and even start maybe reversing it. He is definitely at least slowing down the increase.

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

Slavister said:
Conservative, you really can't read, can you?

Clearly, MTAtech is using the phrase "produce extra economic activity" to mean the same thing as what you meant by "stimulate economic activity".

MTAtech posted link with data on tax revenues in previous post that he AGAIN was kind enough to reference for you. Are you claiming that data would not match what Treasure posts? Of course it does. Why don't you tell us what YOU think were tax revenues for years 2000 through 2009?

When I look up Treasure website, I see same numbers as what MTAtech posts. (I checked some years - did not bother checking each one)

The basic problem is tax cuts allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't an expense and thus don't have to be paid for. Where did you ever get this indoctrination

Since apparently you don't understand the components of GDP let me help you, NUMBER ONE IS CONSUMER SPENDING, so tell me does having more money in your paycheck provide you the opportunity to increase consumer spending?? what you fail to understand is that people having less spendable income DON'T SPEND!!!!! No consumer spending impacts GDP which is what happened during the Obama term. Treasury website shows FIT revenue going up AFTER the FIT tax cuts were fulling implemented but rather than post FIT MTA posts TOTAL and there is quite a difference. TOTAL TAXES WERE'T CUT!!

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

AlbqOwl said:
Gross receipts to Oklahoma Treasury reach all-time high | Oklahoma | normantranscript.com

The debt increased about $4+ trillion under GWB. Increased $9.3 trillion under Obama. It has increased $1.2 under Trump so far which, if that trend continues, would put the debt increase under eight years of Trump at about $7 trillion and change. Treasury revenues right now are at record highs so the tax cut criticism really doesn't hold up. The debt is entirely unacceptable but hopefully, he'll have a chance to get a handle on it and even start maybe reversing it. He is definitely at least slowing down the increase.

NOW STOP IT, you are going to blow the minds of the left!

MTAtech · Jul 6, 2018

AlbqOwl said:
Gross receipts to Oklahoma Treasury reach all-time high | Oklahoma | normantranscript.com

The debt increased about $4+ trillion under GWB. Increased $9.3 trillion under Obama. It has increased $1.2 under Trump so far which, if that trend continues, would put the debt increase under eight years of Trump at about $7 trillion and change. Treasury revenues right now are at record highs so the tax cut criticism really doesn't hold up. The debt is entirely unacceptable but hopefully, he'll have a chance to get a handle on it and even start maybe reversing it. He is definitely at least slowing down the increase.

To restate what I had said many times -- there is a difference between debt increases in a near-depression and in a full-employment economy. Obama started out with an inherited deficit of $1.2 trillion. That stayed during the early years of the recession and decreased 75%. Trump is in a high employment economy and is ballooning the deficit.

Treasury revenue is not at record highs -- unless you are counting April 2018, when taxpayers paid their 2017 taxes under the old rates. The idea that the debt is going to get "handled" under Trump is farcical. It's growing.

BTW, during Bush, debt increased $5 trillion, almost all of it from tax-cuts.

AlbqOwl · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
NOW STOP IT, you are going to blow the minds of the left!

I did link the wrong story and didn't intend to hold up Oklahoma as the poster state for the whole country. But that same story is being reported all over the country.

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

AlbqOwl said:
The debt increased about $4+ trillion under GWB. Increased $9.3 trillion under Obama. It has increased $1.2 under Trump so far which, if that trend continues, would put the debt increase under eight years of Trump at about $7 trillion and change. Treasury revenues right now are at record highs so the tax cut criticism really doesn't hold up. The debt is entirely unacceptable but hopefully, he'll have a chance to get a handle on it and even start maybe reversing it. He is definitely at least slowing down the increase.

First, tax cuts INCREASE the debt normally, as MTAtech's links had shown already. Increase in economic activity has NOT offset previous tax cuts and thus increased the debt in the past.

Second, whether Trump is slowing down or speeding up the increase of DEBT remains to be seen. Are you comparing just 2 years or looking at the bigger picture?:

(Deficit in billions)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018(projected)
$1,413 $1,294 $1,295 $1,087 $679 $485 $438 $585 $665 $833

Thus, CHANGE in DEFICIT is ...

2010 decreased by 119b
2011 increased by 1b
2012 decreased by 208b
2013 decreased by 408b
2014 decreased by 194b
2015 decreased by 47b
2016 increased by 147b <-- thanks to Republicans' tax cuts in government shutdown negotiations
2017 increased by 80b
2018(proj) increase by 218b <-- thank you, Trump tax cuts

AlbqOwl · Jul 6, 2018

Slavister said:
First, tax cuts INCREASE the debt normally, as MTAtech's links had shown already. Increase in economic activity has NOT offset previous tax cuts and thus increased the debt in the past.

Second, whether Trump is slowing down or speeding up the increase of DEBT remains to be seen. Are you comparing just 2 years or looking at the bigger picture?:

(Deficit in billions)

Thus, CHANGE in DEFICIT is ...

2010 decreased by 119b
2011 increased by 1b
2012 decreased by 208b
2013 decreased by 408b
2014 decreased by 194b
2015 decreased by 47b
2016 increased by 147b <-- thanks to Republicans' tax cuts in government shutdown negotiations
2017 increased by 80b
2018(proj) increase by 218b <-- thank you, Trump tax cuts

The figures conveniently left out 2009 and 2010 I noticed. And if you increase spending by more than $1 trillion over and above the deficit in your first year and then start reducing it from the top of that, yeah you can claim you are reducing the deficit but the reductions are misleading. Obama's deficits were much larger than any other President and added trillions more to the national debt than any other President.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...presided-over-5-6-largest-deficits-us-history

Note that in 2008, if you take off the $400 billion TARP allocation that was over and above budget to cope with the housing bubble crash, the deficit would have been roughly $55 billion that year. The Bush tax cuts were allowing us to significantly bring down the deficit.

In 2009, you can say that $400b that year was also TARP and not Obama's doing except that he voted for it as Senator and as Presidential candidate in 2008. But taking out that $400b, the deficit was still over $1 trillion, mostly due to Obama's off budget stimulus package that year. And he fully owns the trillion +deficits 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and all up through 2016.

If Trump's tax reform produces the same results as President Bush 43's tax policy, we should see significant future benefits. He is still going to need to cut out wasteful spending as much as possible to meet his campaign promises, but we're off to a good start.

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

AlbqOwl said:
The figures conveniently left out 2009 and 2010 I noticed. And if you increase spending by more than $1 trillion over and above the deficit in your first year and then start reducing it from the top of that, yeah you can claim you are reducing the deficit but the reductions are misleading.Obama's deficits were much larger than any other President and added trillions more to the national debt than any other President.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...presided-over-5-6-largest-deficits-us-history

Note that in 2008, if you take off the $400 billion TARP allocation that was over and above budget to cope with the housing bubble crash, the deficit would have been roughly $55 billion that year. The Bush tax cuts were allowing us to significantly bring down the deficit.

In 2009, you can say that $400b that year was also TARP and not Obama's doing except that he voted for it as Senator and as Presidential candidate in 2008. But taking out that $400b, the deficit was still over $1 trillion, mostly due to Obama's off budget stimulus package that year. And he fully owns the trillion +deficits 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and all up through 2016.

If Trump's tax reform produces the same results as President Bush 43's tax policy, we should see significant future benefits. He is still going to need to cut out wasteful spending as much as possible to meet his campaign promises, but we're off to a good start.

Yes, in the end, Bush and then Obama had to borrow a ton of money to avoid Great Depression II. (Bush started doing it at the end of the term but of course the deficits get "counted" against the Obamas years.) It was unfortunate, but most economists believe was the necessary and the right thing to do. I was not hiding that - but wanted to show the more relevant years to which you could possibly be comparing Trump's deficits.

I agree that Obama had to add a ton to the debt, but it was simply to fight results of policies of Bush / Republicans, and to lesser degree, Democrats have created over the years.

That's quite different from the Bush's unnecessary wasteful spending on wars and even his tax cuts, for example.

Mr Swampy's tax cuts were quite unnecessary either, and of course, at this point in the business cycle. They are mostly concentrated on the top 0.1% (and specifically Trump family businesses), while giving a little to the rest of population just to make everyone go along with it.

AlbqOwl · Jul 6, 2018

Slavister said:
Yes, in the end, Bush and then Obama had to borrow a ton of money to avoid Great Depression II. (Bush started doing it at the end of the term but of course the deficits get "counted" against the Obamas years.) It was unfortunate, but most economists believe was the necessary and the right thing to do. I was not hiding that - but wanted to show the more relevant years to which you could possibly be comparing Trump's deficits.

I agree that Obama had to add a ton to the debt, but it was simply to fight results of policies of Bush / Republicans, and to lesser degree, Democrats have created over the years.

That's quite different from the Bush's unnecessary wasteful spending on wars and even his tax cuts, for example.

Mr Swampy's tax cuts were quite unnecessary either, and of course, at this point in the business cycle. They are mostly concentrated on the top 0.1% (and specifically Trump family businesses), while giving a little to the rest of population just to make everyone go along with it.

I'm sure you believe that despite the record. But do have a pleasant day.

cuban smokes · Jul 6, 2018

Trumpians voted for 'Make Debt Great Again' ............. Trump has to rack up more than Obama to make himself look good ...........

Slavister · Jul 6, 2018

Conservative said:
The basic problem is tax cuts allowing people to keep more of what they earn isn't an expense and thus don't have to be paid for. Where did you ever get this indoctrination

You clearly still could not read the points I highlighted in post to which you replied and so you reverted back to your usual idiotic slogans.

To address your nonsense, which I noticed most people here justifiably skip, I'll try to explain like I would to a 5-year-old...

1. Fed Govt needs money to provide its basic services. It gets money from collecting taxes.

2. For 10-year-old, I would add that for a while now, it has not gotten enough money from taxes, so it has to borrow money, so future generations will need to pay that debt... now back to 5-year-old...

3. When taxes get cut, Fed Govt can't pay for some services. Thus, either those services need to get cut, or they have to find money somewhere else.

Conservative · Jul 6, 2018

AlbqOwl said:
I did link the wrong story and didn't intend to hold up Oklahoma as the poster state for the whole country. But that same story is being reported all over the country.

That is because the left believes you grow federal revenue by increasing taxes when the reality is you lower taxes, boost consumer activity and do what Reagan and Bush did, increase FIT revenue per Treasury. The left has a true problem with civics, economics, history, and the ability to do research