Deficit-swelling Trump White House plans to use deficit against Democrats

[MTAtech]

Irrelevant. The claim was made that tax cuts caused deficits. Clearly they didnt. As always, SPENDING too much did. And he didnt raise tax rates. He simplified taxes, which broadened the base thus raising more taxes from everyone.

Reagan first tax cut, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, slashed the top rate to 50 percent. There was then a 1986 tax overhaul which brought the top rate down to 28%. What your graph doesn't show is that Reagan also raised taxes repeatedly.

According to the Treasury Department's study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by just under $1 billion four years after enactment.

The graph is also misleading regarding "Average [revenue] under Reagan." They hide a lot in that "average." In reality, the tax-cuts reduced revenue as a p% of GDP.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Deficit-swelling Trump White House plans to use deficit against Democrats

The White House plan is to slash every program and leave military funding the same. However, the military budget would actually be increased due to White House plans to raid the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, which no previous administration has ever before raided, and then add these pilfered funds to the Pentagon base budget.

As always with Republicans, they spend like mad dogs while in office, and then demand drastic spending cuts from succeeding Democrat administrations when they are the minority party. This is also the Trump/GOP recipe.

Related: Overseas Contingency Operations: The Pentagon Slush Fund

And their idiot base continues to eat it up, for over 4 decades now. These people are true moron and the epitome of brainwashed

 

[Conservative]

The nation went from recession to growth. Not getting any revenue increase would have been surprising regardless of tax policy.

To credit tax-cut for revenue growth is absurd. Remember, although the Reagan team expected immediate revenue growth, what they got was immediate revenue decline, to the point that Reagan increased taxes in later years. The 1981 tax-cut reduced revenue by about 9% in the first couple of years.

What a bunch of liberal bs and typical of what I can expect from you. GDP Growth was indeed generated by Obama through Gov't spending and the stimulus but the growth was the worst recovery in U.S. History. His stimulus program saw employment drop 4 million in 2009 and was still down i 2010. Keep spouting the same rhetoric over and over again as if it is going to change history. Partisan leftists always want the bureaucrats in D.C. to have more money, what benefit is that providing you?

The entire Reagan stimulus signed in 1981 was tax cuts and those tax cuts weren't passed until August 1981. Every taxpayer got a tax cut and the economy boomed as you see the comparison below leading to Reagan getting 10 million more votes in 1984 than 80 and winning 49 states. Your loyalty to liberalism is noted as is your inability to admit when wrong

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: July 27, 2018 - Next Release Date August 29, 2018

Line 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Line
1 Gross domestic product -0.1 -2.5 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.5 2.9 1.6


Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: July 27, 2018 - Next Release Date August 29, 2018

Line 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Line
1 Gross domestic product -0.3 2.5 -1.8 4.6 7.2 4.2 3.5 3.5 4.2

Worst recovery in the modern history of this country from a major recession due to poor economic policies and total ignorance of the private sector

 

[Conservative]

Reagan first tax cut, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, slashed the top rate to 50 percent. There was then a 1986 tax overhaul which brought the top rate down to 28%. What your graph doesn't show is that Reagan also raised taxes repeatedly.

According to the Treasury Department's study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by just under $1 billion four years after enactment.

The graph is also misleading regarding "Average [revenue] under Reagan." They hide a lot in that "average." In reality, the tax-cuts reduced revenue as a p% of GDP.

Again as pointed out over and over again you are clueless as to the taxes you pay and their purpose. Reagan CUT FIT for all taxpayers, the tax increases were for use taxes and if you didn't use the services you never paid the taxes. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Why such loyalty to the federal bureaucrats who created the 22 trillion dollar debt?

 

[Conservative]

And their idiot base continues to eat it up, for over 4 decades now. These people are true moron and the epitome of brainwashed

I am so sorry that the private sector bothers you so much and you have such a need for the federal bureaucrats spending taxpayer money to support causes that you cannot get implemented in your own state. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Apparently the 9.3 trillion dollar Obama debt doesn't phase you nor do you understand what constituted the 2018 deficit, Suggest you find out unless you don't mind being made a fool of by the left

 

[SmartCat]

Of course. Republican politicians (and democrat) are just a reflection of the people who elect them. Those people want lots of stuff and dont want to pay for it, and worse, want 1% of the people to pay for it. Who wouldnt want to use the force of the govt to take from the rich to buy things for themselves?

The Democrats unfortunately let the tax issue get away from them during the late 1970's. When most people got more from the government than they paid in taxes the Democrats dominated the United States. Class war and the politics of envy are the strongest Democrat issues.

The Democrats need to be seen as the provider of good things, paid for by high taxes on the rich and corporations, and threatened by the Republicans. Fortunately, they seem to be remembering the appeals that once worked well for them.

 

[SmartCat]

Reagan first tax cut, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, slashed the top rate to 50 percent. There was then a 1986 tax overhaul which brought the top rate down to 28%. What your graph doesn't show is that Reagan also raised taxes repeatedly.

According to the Treasury Department's study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by just under $1 billion four years after enactment.

The graph is also misleading regarding "Average [revenue] under Reagan." They hide a lot in that "average." In reality, the tax-cuts reduced revenue as a p% of GDP.

The taxes that Reagan raised were not progressive. In other words, the rich paid less; the middle class paid more.

 

[SmartCat]

I am so sorry that the private sector bothers you so much and you have such a need for the federal bureaucrats spending taxpayer money to support causes that you cannot get implemented in your own state. What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty? Apparently the 9.3 trillion dollar Obama debt doesn't phase you nor do you understand what constituted the 2018 deficit, Suggest you find out unless you don't mind being made a fool of by the left

The increase in the national debt under Obama does bother me, as does the slow economic recovery that happened during his administration.

For years public opinion surveys have indicated popular support for higher taxes on rich people and corporations. Immediately after his inauguration Obama had 65% support in Gallup, and Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.

That was the time for Obama and the Democrats to impose massive tax increases on the upper middle and upper classes, and use the money to hire people directly by the government. That was what Franklin Roosevelt did. Unemployment declined by 1934. The Democrats increased their majorities in both houses of Congress. This gave Roosevelt the power to raise taxes on the well to do even higher, and continue to fight the Great Depression.

During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spend our way to prosperity. This enabled Roosevelt to be reelected three times. In 1944 the top tax rate was raised to 94%. The unemployment rate was 1.2%.

 

[SmartCat]

And their idiot base continues to eat it up, for over 4 decades now. These people are true moron and the epitome of brainwashed

Actually, lower income white Republicans support domestic spending programs that obviously help them, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation.

They vote Republican because they distrust the Democrats on social issues, especially racial issues.

When I ask a white blue collar Republican why he votes Republican he does not tell me that progressive taxation punishes success. He does not tell me that strong labor unions with high wages force factory owners to move production to low wage countries.

He tells me about crime, especially black crime. He, his friends, and his relatives have probably been victims of criminals. He tells me about jobs he did not get because of affirmative action policies. He tells me what it was like attending a public high school where most of the students were black. He also explains that immigrants compete for jobs and depress wages.

The black response to the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty destroyed the New Deal coalition and turned the United States into a Republican country. The United States is still a Republican country.

 

[Conservative]

The increase in the national debt under Obama does bother me, as does the slow economic recovery that happened during his administration.

For years public opinion surveys have indicated popular support for higher taxes on rich people and corporations. Immediately after his inauguration Obama had 65% support in Gallup, and Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress.

That was the time for Obama and the Democrats to impose massive tax increases on the upper middle and upper classes, and use the money to hire people directly by the government. That was what Franklin Roosevelt did. Unemployment declined by 1934. The Democrats increased their majorities in both houses of Congress. This gave Roosevelt the power to raise taxes on the well to do even higher, and continue to fight the Great Depression.

During the Roosevelt administration we taxed and spend our way to prosperity. This enabled Roosevelt to be reelected three times. In 1944 the top tax rate was raised to 94%. The unemployment rate was 1.2%.

Spoken like a good little massive central gov't liberal who has no understanding as to the components of GDP or the role of the state and local governments. What percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes in your world? FDR lived in an entirely different time, today we have high state and local taxes that are supposed to provide for the social safety net you and others want. Where does the state and local gov't get their revenue when you raise federal taxes on the citizens of the state?

Why are state and local tax revenues never discussed by you and the liberals in this forum? Why are social programs better handled at the federal level vs. the state level?

You cannot live back in the 40's because times are different, economics are different, laws are different, and we currently have a 21 trillion dollar economy.

 

[justabubba]

Spoken like a good little massive central gov't liberal who has no understanding as to the components of GDP or the role of the state and local governments. What percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes in your world? FDR lived in an entirely different time, today we have high state and local taxes that are supposed to provide for the social safety net you and others want. Where does the state and local gov't get their revenue when you raise federal taxes on the citizens of the state?

Why are state and local tax revenues never discussed by you and the liberals in this forum? Why are social programs better handled at the federal level vs. the state level?

You cannot live back in the 40's because times are different, economics are different, laws are different, and we currently have a 21 trillion dollar economy.

really? what is so different today versus the 40's relative to tax allocation?
how have economics changed since the 40's?
what laws are different such that they have affected the tax rates since the 1940's?
what does the accumulated national debt have to with the difference of tax rates between the 40's and today?

 

[SmartCat]

Spoken like a good little massive central gov't liberal who has no understanding as to the components of GDP or the role of the state and local governments. What percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes in your world? FDR lived in an entirely different time, today we have high state and local taxes that are supposed to provide for the social safety net you and others want. Where does the state and local gov't get their revenue when you raise federal taxes on the citizens of the state?

Why are state and local tax revenues never discussed by you and the liberals in this forum? Why are social programs better handled at the federal level vs. the state level?

You cannot live back in the 40's because times are different, economics are different, laws are different, and we currently have a 21 trillion dollar economy.

Letting the states handle domestic spending programs will lead to a race to the bottom. States will compete with each other for factories and office buildings by offering the lowest taxes, the fewest business regulations, and the most business subsidies.

There is no reason that we need to tolerate the highest degree of economic inequality since right before the stock market crash of 1929. We need a new New Deal. It is called "democratic socialism" and it is growing in popularity.

 

[SmartCat]

really? what is so different today versus the 40's relative to tax allocation?
how have economics changed since the 40's?
what laws are different such that they have affected the tax rates since the 1940's?
what does the accumulated national debt have to with the difference of tax rates between the 40's and today?

The only thing that has changed has been the ability of charlatans like Trump to fool the poorly educated people he pretends to love into voting against their economic interests by voting Republican.

 

[Conservative]

really? what is so different today versus the 40's relative to tax allocation?
how have economics changed since the 40's?
what laws are different such that they have affected the tax rates since the 1940's?
what does the accumulated national debt have to with the difference of tax rates between the 40's and today?

In the forties the state and local taxes weren't anywhere near what they are today. Secondly in the forties we didn't have a 21 trillion dollar economy and 4.4 trillion dollar federal government.

Why would anyone support giving more dollars to the federal bureaucrats knowing that they are only going to use it to buy votes and never pay down debt just increased spending? Can you name for me any other president in modern history that proposed Department Cuts Like Trump has done?

As I have stated over and over again I don't like Trump. But I sure as hell like his economic policies and the results that are being generated today. What Trump has done has validated my vote for him over Hillary in 2016 and based upon what I see from the Democrats I will vote for him again in 2020.

You people spend way too much time focused on what he says and not on the results being generated. A simple test for you would you be to go to the Promises Kept vs promises made at politifact.

Here we have a president with a terrible personality but one that doesn't smoke, or doesn't drink, or doesn't do drugs. His results speak for themselves but in the left-wing World in which we live today his results are being ignored

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative]

Letting the states handle domestic spending programs will lead to a race to the bottom. States will compete with each other for factories and office buildings by offering the lowest taxes, the fewest business regulations, and the most business subsidies.

There is no reason that we need to tolerate the highest degree of economic inequality since right before the stock market crash of 1929. We need a new New Deal. It is called "democratic socialism" and it is growing in popularity.

Almost forgot to discuss your economic inequality. When you take incentive away from people and make them dependent on the federal bureaucrats other people are going to take advantage of that and the Gap is going to widen.

how does raising taxes on the rich lower the economic wage Gap? Raising taxes doesn't affect personal income it only affects net income it has nothing to do whatsoever with people who have no incentive to raise their own income

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[SmartCat]

Almost forgot to discuss your economic inequality. When you take incentive away from people and make them dependent on the federal bureaucrats other people are going to take advantage of that and the Gap is going to widen.

how does raising taxes on the rich lower the economic wage Gap? Raising taxes doesn't affect personal income it only affects net income it has nothing to do whatsoever with people who have no incentive to raise their own income

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

The wage gap can be offset by a generously funded public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. The wage gap can be reduced by strong labor unions and a high minimum wage.

 

[Tbird19482]

Spoken like a good little massive central gov't liberal who has no understanding as to the components of GDP or the role of the state and local governments. What percentage of one's income should go to federal, state, and local taxes in your world? FDR lived in an entirely different time, today we have high state and local taxes that are supposed to provide for the social safety net you and others want. Where does the state and local gov't get their revenue when you raise federal taxes on the citizens of the state?

Why are state and local tax revenues never discussed by you and the liberals in this forum? Why are social programs better handled at the federal level vs. the state level?

You cannot live back in the 40's because times are different, economics are different, laws are different, and we currently have a 21 trillion dollar economy.

Again most of those " safety net " programs are the federal mandated programs you keep wanting the states to take back and run
it is those programs that ARE funded by the Federal Government, and if a state wants to upgrade those programs and give their people more they have to fund that part
and again any money left over after Mandated programs are funded should go back to the states on a per person basis NOT have a lot of states getting more back from the Federal Government then they pay in and other states that pay more into the Federal government not get any thing near back as they send in
have a nice night

 

[Conservative]

The wage gap can be offset by a generously funded public sector of the economy paid for by steeply progressive taxation. The wage gap can be reduced by strong labor unions and a high minimum wage.

So how do you close the wage gap? Public sector funding? What does that accomplish?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[SmartCat]

So how do you close the wage gap? Public sector funding? What does that accomplish?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I already explained. The wage gap can be reduced by a high minimum wage and strong labor unions. These will reduce the wage gap in the private sector of the economy, like they did during the Roosevelt administration.

 

[Conservative]

I already explained. The wage gap can be reduced by a high minimum wage and strong labor unions. These will reduce the wage gap in the private sector of the economy, like they did during the Roosevelt administration.

What you haven't explained is how higher taxes on the rich close the WAGE gap or what that higher minimum wage is. Your lack of understanding of the private sector is staggering as most corporations don't even come close to paying the lower minimum wage and coupled with their benefits pay exceedingly higher than the official minimum wage

We live in a country of equal opportunity NOT equal outcome and there is nothing but attitude and work ethic keeping people from joining those evil rich and making more money. This isn't th 40's and the private sector is regulated by more laws than then and there is more opportunity than then. You cannot seem to grasp that reality.

What you want destroys incentive and creates a bigger more intrusive central gov't contrary to the limited gov't our Founders created and the largest most diverse economy in the world

 

[jonny5]

Reagan first tax cut, the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, slashed the top rate to 50 percent. There was then a 1986 tax overhaul which brought the top rate down to 28%. What your graph doesn't show is that Reagan also raised taxes repeatedly.

According to the Treasury Department's study on the impact of tax bills since 1940, the 1981 tax cut reduced revenues by $208 billion in its first four years. (constant 2012 dollars.) The tax reform act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue neutral, reduced revenues by just under $1 billion four years after enactment.

The graph is also misleading regarding "Average [revenue] under Reagan." They hide a lot in that "average." In reality, the tax-cuts reduced revenue as a p% of GDP.

https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Direct%20Revenue&units=p&size=m&legend=&year=1981_1990&sname=US&bar=1&stack=1&col=c&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a&spending0=18.66_18.47_16.51_16.49_16.89_16.76_17.54_17.31_17.52_17.26[IMG][/QUOTE]

And yet taxes went up. You cant change that. Had they simply not spent more than they were getting in INCREASED revenue, there would have been no new debt. Heck there would have been a surplus.

1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.4
1985 734.0
1986 769.2
1987 854.3
1988 909.2
1989 991.1

 

[jonny5]

The taxes that Reagan raised were not progressive. In other words, the rich paid less; the middle class paid more.

Everyone paid a little more because the payroll tax rate increased and it removed a bunch of deductions.

repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
tightened safe harbor leasing rules
required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
tightened completed contract accounting rules
increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

These are hardly middle class deductions. And its a great to do when you couple it with lower rates. They should have done it in 81.

 

[Conservative]

Everyone paid a little more because the payroll tax rate increased and it removed a bunch of deductions.

repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
tightened safe harbor leasing rules
required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
tightened completed contract accounting rules
increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

These are hardly middle class deductions. And its a great to do when you couple it with lower rates. They should have done it in 81.

There still seems to be a basic lack of understanding as to what taxes are paid and their purpose. Reagan raised the payroll tax because that tax funds Social Security and Medicare which was reaching desperately low levels as the federal gov't continued to "borrow" from the trust fund to use on other areas including the cost of the Vietnam War and those IOU's had to be funded. Reagan's stimulus was entirely Federal Income Tax cuts and all the taxes raised were use taxes including FICA or those paying into their own SS and Medicare fund. Those that receive no SS or Medicare weren't affected by those increases. Reagan increased the gasoline taxes so those who don't drive never paid those expenses. Federal Income Taxes were cut thus every American got more spendable income in their paycheck and then had the opportunity to decide where to spend it.

 

[MTAtech]

And yet taxes went up. You cant change that. Had they simply not spent more than they were getting in INCREASED revenue, there would have been no new debt. Heck there would have been a surplus.

1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.4
1985 734.0
1986 769.2
1987 854.3
1988 909.2
1989 991.1

Again, you make the mistake of not adjusting for inflation and population growth, both which increase revenue regardless of tax policy. We did go through this.

 

[Conservative]

Again, you make the mistake of not adjusting for inflation and population growth, both which increase revenue regardless of tax policy. We did go through this.

LOL, do you pay 1980 expenses with 2019 dollars?? Come on MTA think for a change and stop letting the left make a fool out of you. Nothing ever comes out of you that doesn't promote higher taxes as you continue to ignore state and local gov't revenue and responsibilities. why is that?