• 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!

The National Debt Increased by 2 Trillion Dollars Since Trump Took Office

Then you should run over an let The Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnunchin, know that:



You put a lot of faith in rhetoric and not very much in actual data, tax cuts have generated record revenue but what accounting program taught you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense? You an employee of the Federal govt.?
 
You put a lot of faith in rhetoric and not very much in actual data, tax cuts have generated record revenue but what accounting program taught you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense? You an employee of the Federal govt.?

Sure they are. Rince, repeat.

Yes, the Tax Cuts Have Cost the U.S. Treasury Money
Tax receipts are down in nominal terms since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect. Adjusted for inflation, they’re down a lot.


But that raises an interesting question: Since we now have data available through August, why is Wesbury citing January-June numbers? Well, maybe because, measured January to August, federal tax revenue is actually down 0.4 percent so far this year. 1

That’s strike one for the assertion that “the tax cuts have not cost the U.S. Treasury money.” Actually, it’s strikes one, two and three, because even by Wesbury’s standard, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that President Donald Trump signed into law in December has so far cost the Treasury money. But it’s important also to point out — again and again, because people in Congress and elsewhere keep embracing the fallacy that tax cuts reliably increase revenue — that his standard is ridiculous.
It’s ridiculous first of all because it ignores inflation, which, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, averaged 2.1 percent over the first half of this year, turning that 0.2 percent January-June gain into a 1.8 decline in real tax revenue. Substitute the deflator used in calculating real gross domestic product, and it’s a 1.9 percent decline.
Even if tax revenue had increased in real terms, though, this still wouldn’t demonstrate that the tax cuts hadn’t cost the Treasury money. That’s because real tax revenue usually goes up when the economy is growing. So when the Congressional Budget Office or Joint Committee on Taxation makes an estimate of the revenue losses from a tax cut, they aren’t saying that tax revenue will go down by that amount in absolute terms; they’re saying that it will be that much lower than they think it would have been in the absence of the tax cut.
 
You put a lot of faith in rhetoric and not very much in actual data, tax cuts have generated record revenue but what accounting program taught you that keeping more of what you earn is an expense? You an employee of the Federal govt.?

You can't cut federal income tax rates by 10% and expect 3% GDP growth to make up for it - especially when you are also increasing federal spending. Face the facts - the federal deficit is increasing.

Has Revenue Risen in 2018? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
 

Yep, in the liberal world people always spend more when they have less spendable income and of course with higher taxes there never are any consequences so the economic growth would have been the same. The actual results are always ignored by you as you continue to promote the nanny state and entitlement mentality. Where did you develop this attitude where someone else's money belongs to the govt. and you?

When you look at receipts what receipts are you looking at?? Is the only revenue source for the federal govt. Federal income and corporate income taxes? How about states and local governments? Not sure where you went to school but it is a good thing your alias isn't recognizable as that would be an embarrassment to any teacher who had you in their class
 
You can't cut federal income tax rates by 10% and expect 3% GDP growth to make up for it - especially when you are also increasing federal spending. Face the facts - the federal deficit is increasing.

Has Revenue Risen in 2018? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Committee for responsible budget trumps TREASURY???????? Come on, you are smarter than this. How in the hell has Federal Revenue grown in 2018 with tax cuts???? Treasury is the source not committee for a responsible federal budget.
 
You can't cut federal income tax rates by 10% and expect 3% GDP growth to make up for it - especially when you are also increasing federal spending. Face the facts - the federal deficit is increasing.

Has Revenue Risen in 2018? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Oh, by the way the article is dated August 2018 which ignores all the jobs created in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, and December. Data is based upon fiscal year and not calendar year which will present a different picture. Again the focus is always on revenue and taxes and never on spending. If you are going to hold Trump accountable for the deficit then give him the budget he requested not what Congress is spending.
 
Committee for responsible budget trumps TREASURY???????? Come on, you are smarter than this. How in the hell has Federal Revenue grown in 2018 with tax cuts???? Treasury is the source not committee for a responsible federal budget.

I never claimed that federal revenue did not grow - only that federal spending grew more. The treasury also notes that deficits are rising.

The budget deficit rose to $882.6 billion for the 12 months ended November, or 4.3% of gross domestic product. The last time the 12-month deficit exceeded 4.3% of GDP was in May 2013.

On a 12-month basis, revenues were up just 0.2% from a year earlier, while outlays were up 5.1%.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasu...n-first-two-months-of-fiscal-2019-11544728449
 
I never claimed that federal revenue did not grow - only that federal spending grew more. The treasury also notes that deficits are rising.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasu...n-first-two-months-of-fiscal-2019-11544728449

The problem with federal spending growth is very little of it was discretionary spending but rather entitlement and debt service. Higher interest rates affected that significantly. Again as stated, if anyone wants to blame the president for the deficit without giving him the authority and the budget requested they are nothing more than making partisan rants.
 
On January 20, 2009, the national debt was at $10.6 trillion; years later when that president left office it was $19.947 trillion. Trump still has time to catch up......

And as of Jan. 2009, the last Bush budget added $1.4 trillion alone, so that means $9.2 was added and much of that due to the

reduction in revenues caused by the recession into which, the country was plunged.

That recession was caused directly by the fraudsters on wall street.

You just gotta looove 'free market' [sic] capitalism...especially the socialist-for-the-rich kind.
 
And as of Jan. 2009, the last Bush budget added $1.4 trillion alone, so that means $9.2 was added and much of that due to the

reduction in revenues caused by the recession into which, the country was plunged.

That recession was caused directly by the fraudsters on wall street.

You just gotta looove 'free market' [sic] capitalism...especially the socialist-for-the-rich kind.

Sorry but would you please post for me the signed and approved Bush budget for 2009? Continued claims that it was the 2009 Bush budget but I cannot find where that budget was approved by the Democratic Congress. Thanks in advance

As for the lost revenue what happened to those shovel ready jobs the Obama stimulus was to create? Wouldn't those create more revenue to the federal govt.?
 
The problem with federal spending growth is very little of it was discretionary spending but rather entitlement and debt service. Higher interest rates affected that significantly. Again as stated, if anyone wants to blame the president for the deficit without giving him the authority and the budget requested they are nothing more than making partisan rants.

The POTUS traditionally gets the blame for deficits because the POTUS signs the 'budget' bills responsible for it into law. I completely get that you wish Trump could get congress critters to do his bidding but we live in reality.
 
The problem with federal spending growth is very little of it was discretionary spending but rather entitlement and debt service. Higher interest rates affected that significantly. Again as stated, if anyone wants to blame the president for the deficit without giving him the authority and the budget requested they are nothing more than making partisan rants.

Every president believes they should have control and none of them ever get it.

However, every repub new just exactly what they were doing and had the power to do it no matter the fiscal damage.

BTW, defense was increased $78 billion while domestic spending increased $52 billion.
 
The POTUS traditionally gets the blame for deficits because the POTUS signs the 'budget' bills responsible for it into law. I completely get that you wish Trump could get congress critters to do his bidding but we live in reality.
So then it shouldn't be a problem posting the Bill's signed by Trump that created the 2018 deficit?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Every president believes they should have control and none of them ever get it.

However, every repub new just exactly what they were doing and had the power to do it no matter the fiscal damage.

BTW, defense was increased $78 billion while domestic spending increased $52 billion.
Yes and revenue increased more than that to pay for those increases. What wasn't paid for was the debt service and entitlement spending increases due to interest rates and mandated entitlement spending increases

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Yep, or giving the top 1/10th of 1% more tax cuts, which doesn't do crap for the economy or anything else not benefitting those in the top 1/10th of 1%.

Have you ever had a poor person hire you?
 
Have you ever had a poor person hire you?

No, but I've seen lots of startups formed by people with very little money. I've also never heard of a rich person going, "Hey, I made an extra $million last year - Thanks TRUMP!! - so everyone gets a raise and we'll hire 100 new employees!!" What they do is hire when they have the business to support new people and their after tax income has little to nothing to do with that. Look at the Fortune 500 - sitting on record piles of cash pre-tax cut. Why do you think growing that already massive pile of cash would spur more hiring?
 
No, but I've seen lots of startups formed by people with very little money. I've also never heard of a rich person going, "Hey, I made an extra $million last year - Thanks TRUMP!! - so everyone gets a raise and we'll hire 100 new employees!!" What they do is hire when they have the business to support new people and their after tax income has little to nothing to do with that. Look at the Fortune 500 - sitting on record piles of cash pre-tax cut. Why do you think growing that already massive pile of cash would spur more hiring?

Tell us what your vision of a great U.S. Economy is since the current one doesn't seem to meet your expectations? What exactly do you expect from the Democratic Party?
 
Bull****.

We've been saying that Trump took Obama's good economy and threw a hand grenade into it with his trade wars and his tax cuts and added debt leave us no room to soften the blow if we crash after the sugar high.

Try again. Better yet, don't. Practice probably won't make you any better.
Reality and you are not close associates I take it. Other than the usual blather about trade wars and "sugar hghs"; not to mention Obama's non-existent "Obama's good economy", do you have any rationa, factual, l comments to share?
 
A well deserved bitchslap!
Somehow responding to a post with slobber-slinging nonsense, as Amelia did, is rarely considered a bitchslap.
 
No, the tax cuts weren't inherited from Obama, which were passed when the economy and stock market were booming, good jobs reports, etc. It was Keynesian fiscal stimulus applied to a very strong economy that if we were actually worried about deficits would have supported fiscal pullbacks, through the spending cuts the GOP always promise then forget about once they get power.
What flavor was your Kool Aid? What Keynesian stimulus are you talking about? Obama's? I don't recall Keynes saying anything about it taking eight years for his stimulus to do anything.
 
What flavor was your Kool Aid? What Keynesian stimulus are you talking about? Obama's? I don't recall Keynes saying anything about it taking eight years for his stimulus to do anything.

What did I say that was wrong? And it didn't take 8 years for the Obama "stimulus" to do anything. Pick a topic - jobs, stocks, whatever. When Trump took over they were all headed in positive territory, 6 or 7 straight years of monthly employment gains, a huge runup in stock, corporate profits were high, etc. This is all pre-January 2017. If you think any of that is wrong, post your evidence...

And deficit spending is Keynesian stimulus, and it matters very little whether we increase deficits by spending more or taxing less - the deficit is the stimulus, and the GOP has increased deficits since Taking over in January 2017, both by spending more and the tax cuts.
 
reality and you are not close associates i take it. Other than the usual blather about trade wars and "sugar hghs"; not to mention obama's non-existent "obama's good economy", do you have any rationa, factual, l comments to share?

lol .
 
What did I say that was wrong? And it didn't take 8 years for the Obama "stimulus" to do anything. Pick a topic - jobs, stocks, whatever. When Trump took over they were all headed in positive territory, 6 or 7 straight years of monthly employment gains, a huge runup in stock, corporate profits were high, etc. This is all pre-January 2017. If you think any of that is wrong, post your evidence...
And yet Obama had the worst post-recession recovery since WW II, averaged less than 2% GDP group, and was the first President since WW II to NOT record at least ONE YEAR of 3%. Obama's main accomplishment was riding the economic wave that normally follows a recession without ****ing it up to badly. And I emphasize that like an actual surfer Obama RODE the wave, he didn't create it.
JasperL said:
And spending is Keynesian stimulus, and it matters very little whether we increase deficits by spending more or taxing less - the deficit is the stimlus, and the GOP has increased deficits since Taking over in January 2017, both by spending more and the tax cuts.
LOL, right, sure, nice try. you guys economic superstar Paul Krugman say Obama's stimulus wasn't anywhere near enough to have Keynesian effect?
 
And yet Obama had the worst post-recession recovery since WW II, averaged less than 2% GDP group, and was the first President since WW II to NOT record at least ONE YEAR of 3%. Obama's main accomplishment was riding the economic wave that normally follows a recession without ****ing it up to badly. And I emphasize that like an actual surfer Obama RODE the wave, he didn't create it.

And Trump didn't create any wave, he rode the one that was cresting when Obama left.

If you have some data, let's see it. Otherwise, you're just doing the normal and boring 'Demcrats BAD, Republicans GOODER!! nonsense.

LOL, right, sure, nice try. you guys economic superstar Paul Krugman say Obama's stimulus wasn't anywhere near enough to have Keynesian effect?

Deficit spending is Keynesian stimulus, and no, Krugman didn't say that.... If you think he did, quote him.
 
What flavor was your Kool Aid? What Keynesian stimulus are you talking about? Obama's? I don't recall Keynes saying anything about it taking eight years for his stimulus to do anything.

The GOP Free Money Giveaway Act of 2017=Keynesian stimulus. It's fairly easy to see how and why. Do you care to begin thinking this evening?
 
Back
Top Bottom