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

[MTAtech]

According to the article it's a form of stimulus to run a deficit during a recession, especially if the spending is used to help struggling families. In this case, we are running such a massive deficit in comparison to GDP and there is high employment, that we probably can't afford to spend money give stimulus tax cuts to struggling people in case of recession which could mean a really horrible recession.

Trump cut taxes really low and didn't cut spending. I am not sure why anybody could not see a problem.

I can. Blind partisanship. Political hackery. Hypocrisy that allows some to only think deficits are a problem when the president is a Dem.

 

[SheWolf]

The problem is that the only solution the Democrats will approve is increasing both taxation and government spending. Spending cuts to anything except the military are strictly opposed. Republicans, frankly, aren't much better. They'll talk about cutting this, that or the other but never manage to actually get it done.

There is ONE solution to this issue and that is to move to a system where primary taxation and primary responsibility for entitlement programs is handed back to the states. That's the only way we will ever see a check on government spending and it's the only way we can reasonably accommodate preferences for both fiscal restraint and the funding of "social safety net" programs.

I think taxes need to be increased given how our current government functions and all it's obligations. Until some drastic change occurs, Americans need to take responsibility and be willing to fund the government they had a hand in crafting.

 

[SheWolf]

:doh

Recessions are part of the natural cycle of things. In fact they are needed similar to how control burns are needed in a forest to keep the forest healthy and alive.
Recessions get rid of the bad stuff and let new things grow or at least that is how it is supposed to work. The too big to fail mentality only delayed
that affect. Nothing is too big to fail and some things should fail.

The impact is how sever the recession is. The severity of the recession depends on how sick the economy really is how much needs to be removed.
The tax legislation is fine it has nothing to do with recessions.

There is a difference between a recession and a financial crisis, especially one self induced and brought on by irresponsible budgetary decisions.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The problem is that the only solution the Democrats will approve is increasing both taxation and government spending. Spending cuts to anything except the military are strictly opposed. Republicans, frankly, aren't much better. They'll talk about cutting this, that or the other but never manage to actually get it done.

There is ONE solution to this issue and that is to move to a system where primary taxation and primary responsibility for entitlement programs is handed back to the states. That's the only way we will ever see a check on government spending and it's the only way we can reasonably accommodate preferences for both fiscal restraint and the funding of "social safety net" programs.

OMG how could a state the size of Wyoming (population wise) take care of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention a decent secondary education PLUS city services?
The states can only do state services. Federal benefits, entitlements and services are "heavy lifting" and you would immediately create a disparity so large as to be instant disaster if you handed them lock stock and barrel over to the states.

The Social safety net is defined in the Constitution as the general welfare. That doesn't mean "welfare programs" specifically but it does mean reasonable effort to help meet the needs of the destitute, infirm and elderly in ways which at the very least, uplift their chances of being productive and stable, or when that is not possible, ensuring that they are taken care of.
Otherwise, we become a massive collections of New Delhis.

The general welfare is, simply put, taxation in the name of creating an environment worthy of being termed as civilization.
Sparing that you get sprawling slums of cardboard and corrugated lean-to's with raw sewage and festering disease, and starving children and elderly.
A tightly secured and pampered praetorian valhalla overlooking a vast wretched sea of despairing serfs is not civilization.

 

[ludin]

There is a difference between a recession and a financial crisis, especially one self induced and brought on by irresponsible budgetary decisions.

there isn't a financial crisis. deficits don't matter remember?
lmao.

we will have to wait and see at the end of the year how badly congress over spent.
right now government revenues are up.

we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

 

[MTAtech]

OMG how could a state the size of Wyoming (population wise) take care of Social Security and Medicare, not to mention a decent secondary education PLUS city services?
The states can only do state services. Federal benefits, entitlements and services are "heavy lifting" and you would immediately create a disparity so large as to be instant disaster if you handed them lock stock and barrel over to the states.

The Social safety net is defined in the Constitution as the general welfare. That doesn't mean "welfare programs" specifically but it does mean reasonable effort to help meet the needs of the destitute, infirm and elderly in ways which at the very least, uplift their chances of being productive and stable, or when that is not possible, ensuring that they are taken care of.
Otherwise, we become a massive collections of New Delhis.

The general welfare is, simply put, taxation in the name of creating an environment worthy of being termed as civilization.
Sparing that you get sprawling slums of cardboard and corrugated lean-to's with raw sewage and festering disease, and starving children and elderly.
A tightly secured and pampered praetorian valhalla overlooking a vast wretched sea of despairing serfs is not civilization.

The state of Wyoming couldn't even afford to pay for it's roads if not for the federal government. For the 570,000 population to cover the $600M the feds give WY in highway funds, that would be over $1,000 per person, including children.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

[FONT=&quot]What we are talking about is the usual plan from the Right.
It has never been a secret. Increase the debt, scare the crap out of everybody over the debt, and then go after any and all social services.
This has always been the plan of attack through several Republican administrations and the American voting public just keeps on getting suckered.
Now the Vile Orange Pig Bladder is once again [/FONT][FONT=&quot]going after the Post Office.
Since the Right has been trying to privatize the Post Office for years, and now have attracted the attention of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Vile Orange Pig Bladder,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] just watch.
He is now suggesting 'fixing' the post office, and he is just getting started. Bet you anything his effort to get a report on the post office is going to suggest privatization (or close to it).
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]First it was the public school system, then our entire infrastructure, and, now the post office too.

PRIVATIZE ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.
The nonsense about giving it over to the states is just another way of saying that they don't care what the states decide to do with it once they throw it overboard.
Naturally the states will handle it the way anyone would handle an oversized radioactive steaming turd being heaved at them, they'll toss the thing back, it will miss and sink beneath the waves, and an enterprising profiteer will create a brand new overpriced luvxury out of what used to be considered normal services.

Mail a simple letter? 10 bucks. Need the trash picked up? Fifty bucks a week. Need to drive somewhere? Twenty dollar a trip surcharge just to drive out of your driveway. Kids need an education? Tough beans, cough up ten grand every six months per kid or raise a family of idiots and let them wind up in one of those lovely for profit "detention centers" where they'll all get "jobs" making the kinds of things you buy at Wal-Mart in exchange for room and board.
Sink backed up? That's because you're not paying the daily sewer charge, so you might as well discharge it into the street like all the poor people do. House on fire? Fork over two grand or watch it burn, baby burn.
Elderly parents becoming unable to take care of themselves? Fine, put em the streetcorner where they can sell apples. Maybe Gramps won't crap his drawers too much, it tends to scare away people who like apples. Better yet, kill em both and bury them in the yard.

That's not America, it's the planet owned by the Ferengi.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]





[/FONT]

 

[SheWolf]

there isn't a financial crisis. deficits don't matter remember?
lmao.

we will have to wait and see at the end of the year how badly congress over spent.
right now government revenues are up.

we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

I never said deficits don't matter.

 

[Vern]

Why do you only have pictures of republicans? Why not include a photo of Schumer or Durbin or the other 33 democrat senators who voted for the spending bill? Oh I get it, being honest would destroy your phony narrative. Carry on then.

and another thing fletch besides the fact that your own statement proves democrats are not flaming lying hypocrites on deficits like republicans, it also proves that unlike republicans democrats don't vote against something just because it was proposed by republicans. Its simple really, democrats have philosophy to make America better. Republican philosophy is to do whatever it takes to get power. But I guess if you can obediently ignore republicans being flaming lying hypocrites on deficits, you can ignore anything.

 

[Conservative]

Like i have said and will continue to say, all you do is lie. Nothing can be taken at face value. You are a total waste of my time and energy. This economy, is heading towards disaster with rising interest rates, and rising deficits.

Lie? Prove that any of the data I post is a lie? What really is staggering is how uneducated the left truly and yet their arrogance tries to cover it up. The dedication and loyalty to liberalism is incredible and amazing to observe along with all the name calling. Data is always foreign to the left and called a waste of time. I am waiting for exactly what you people expect from a Democratic Congress since you ignored what the Democratic Congress did from 2007-2011 but try again?? No thanks, the economic data is too good and the American people will always vote their pocketbooks. it truly is a waste of time dealing with uneducated liberals who are incapable of admitting when wrong

 

[Conservative]

The state of Wyoming couldn't even afford to pay for it's roads if not for the federal government. For the 570,000 population to cover the $600M the feds give WY in highway funds, that would be over $1,000 per person, including children.

Again, Roads are paid for by FEDERAL and STATE EXCISE taxes, I suggest you go back to a credited school and learn the taxes you pay and their purpose

 

[Conservative]

Trump keeps bragging that the economy is doing great, but it wasn't exactly bad when he took office. He cut taxes and didn't balance the budget. With the economy heating up, it's likely going to lead to high interest rates and inflation, and if something doesn't change we will be in a financial crisis because of the debt. There is no way the government can meet it's obligations even to it's own citizens if this keeps up.

So I guess doing great means leaving the GDP at 1.2%, the U-6 at 9.2% and adding 9.3 trillion to the debt. Post what those numbers are today?

 

[Conservative]

I can. Blind partisanship. Political hackery. Hypocrisy that allows some to only think deficits are a problem when the president is a Dem.

Blind partisanship is on full display with everyone of your posts as data doesn't support your claims so you cherry pick and choose the time frame you want to use. Can you explain to me why you believe Obama created 14 million jobs in 8 years when the employment was 146 million in January 2007? Did he create jobs that were lost and never recovered with his booming economic stimulus? Are part time for economic reasons in those employment numbers that you want to tout? Realistically Obama created 6 million jobs in 8 years, 146 million to 152 and already Trump has increased 3 million or 152 to 155 million. Obama's part time for economic reasons is 700,000 more than Trumps as well. Maybe you ought to take a class at an accredited school so you establish some credibility

 

[Conservative]

I think taxes need to be increased given how our current government functions and all it's obligations. Until some drastic change occurs, Americans need to take responsibility and be willing to fund the government they had a hand in crafting.

So what you want to do is reward bureaucrats that created the current debt by raising taxes, taking money out of the states so they can increase spending? Interesting logic

 

[Floridafan]

Lie? Prove that any of the data I post is a lie? What really is staggering is how uneducated the left truly and yet their arrogance tries to cover it up. The dedication and loyalty to liberalism is incredible and amazing to observe along with all the name calling. Data is always foreign to the left and called a waste of time. I am waiting for exactly what you people expect from a Democratic Congress since you ignored what the Democratic Congress did from 2007-2011 but try again?? No thanks, the economic data is too good and the American people will always vote their pocketbooks. it truly is a waste of time dealing with uneducated liberals who are incapable of admitting when wrong

Do you really want me to begin to enumerate your lies? They are on a scale only Trump could appreciate.
Did you not tell us that rising rates and rising debt would put us in economic danger? That you said over and over during the Obama years, but now you seem to welcome it

 

[Conservative]

Do you really want me to begin to enumerate your lies? They are on a scale only Trump could appreciate.
Did you not tell us that rising rates and rising debt would put us in economic danger? That you said over and over during the Obama years, but now you seem to welcome it

then you are going to have to call bls.gov, bea.gov, and Treasury.org liars as that is where the data comes from.. Seems you cult followers need to get together, some want to credit Obama for 2017 and you want to blame Trump for the 1.2% GDP growth the first qtr, so which is it?

Look I remember quite well the day I realized that the left was lying to me about all that caring and spending in the name of compassion. It was during the Carter Years and things like the CRA to provide housing and how it was the government's role to take care of the poor. Wow was that wrong, voted for Reagan and haven't voted for a Democrat for President since.

Rising debt and rates will indeed be harmful but you still haven't explained how the 3 million NEW taxpayers and almost 1 million more full time employees coming from the part time roles is going to impact Federal Revenue or the rising economic activity created by those new taxpayers and new consumers. Interest rates didn't rise much if any during the Obama years because of the Fed. The debt did and the debt service was held down by low interest rates but that debt is now surfacing. Strong growth is required along with cuts in spending so are you supporting spending cuts? how do you explain Trump being the first President to submit a budget lower than his predecessor and cutting WH staff, his own and the First Lady's?

 

[Floridafan]

then you are going to have to call bls.gov, bea.gov, and Treasury.org liars as that is where the data comes from.. Seems you cult followers need to get together, some want to credit Obama for 2017 and you want to blame Trump for the 1.2% GDP growth the first qtr, so which is it?

Look I remember quite well the day I realized that the left was lying to me about all that caring and spending in the name of compassion. It was during the Carter Years and things like the CRA to provide housing and how it was the government's role to take care of the poor. Wow was that wrong, voted for Reagan and haven't voted for a Democrat for President since.

Rising debt and rates will indeed be harmful but you still haven't explained how the 3 million NEW taxpayers and almost 1 million more full time employees coming from the part time roles is going to impact Federal Revenue or the rising economic activity created by those new taxpayers and new consumers. Interest rates didn't rise much if any during the Obama years because of the Fed. The debt did and the debt service was held down by low interest rates but that debt is now surfacing. Strong growth is required along with cuts in spending so are you supporting spending cuts? how do you explain Trump being the first President to submit a budget lower than his predecessor and cutting WH staff, his own and the First Lady's?

The CBO has taken everything you have said into account, and they still project massive deficits. You can dance around those facts as much as you want, but the economy is headed for very tough times ahead. Actually I am sure thats exactly what you want. Massive debts, and high interest rates make your kind demand cuts to social programs. Your kind sure isnt difficult to figure out.

 

[Conservative]

The CBO has taken everything you have said into account, and they still project massive deficits. You can dance around those facts as much as you want, but the economy is headed for very tough times ahead. Actually I am sure thats exactly what you want. Massive debts, and high interest rates make your kind demand cuts to social programs. Your kind sure isnt difficult to figure out.

Then you shouldn't have a problem proving it? As for their accuracy better research to find out how accurate they are but then you seem to have a problem doing research. what is it about negativity that motivates people like you? When CBO scored the tax cuts they did NOT recognize the job creation and economic activities but you keep buying what you are told

Do you understand the roles of the various governments we have? Didn't think so? What makes you think a bureaucrat in DC can or will solve a social problem in your local community? Your answer is always send more money to the bureaucrats in DC to fund social programs that are the responsibilities of the states. Liberalism has indoctrinated you well.

One more thing, I gave you the link to the Treasury Dept so show me where Federal Income Tax revenue has been cut because of tax cuts? You won't because you can't

 

[Critter7r]

U
mmm.... how do lowering the corporation income tax rate, lowers the cost of purchasing equipment?

There is a provision that allows 100% write-off. So there is an immediate tax savings. This lowers the effective cost of the equipment.

Double bonus for Corporation!! Woohoo!! So do I get to write off a new car yet? I mean, that's capital spending.

 

[Critter7r]

There is nothing new about 100% write-offs of equipment. That goes back to the Reagan era. That would be Sec 179 of your tax code.

But now they get to do it all at once, instead of amortizing it over 20 years or whatever it was.

 

[Critter7r]

Thats DEBT. You said "Yearly deficits of 1 trillion plus are projected by 2020, and if the tax cuts remain in place they could grow to 2 trillion yearly, shortly afterwards." That implies tax cuts responsible for an additional trillion per year, which is simply not possible. And again, revenue goes UP, even with the tax cuts. The 1 trillion plus is only 10% at most because of the tax cuts, so why focus on them instead of the 90% that is SPENDING?

Fact is, with out the tax cuts, the debt was going up by another 10 trillion anyway because of social services. Whats another 2 at this point? Personally if we're going to keep spending and borrowing, Id rather my earnings back in my pocket.

No, thats not the GOP plan.

I love that sentiment. Rail against the Dems for 8 years for raising the debt $9 Trillion, but when your guy gets in office, "... what's another $2 Trillion at this point?".

lolol

 

[Critter7r]

there isn't a financial crisis. deficits don't matter remember?
lmao.

we will have to wait and see at the end of the year how badly congress over spent.
right now government revenues are up.

we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

That doesn't mean there's never times when we shouldn't cut revenue. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Floridafan]

Then you shouldn't have a problem proving it? As for their accuracy better research to find out how accurate they are but then you seem to have a problem doing research. what is it about negativity that motivates people like you? When CBO scored the tax cuts they did NOT recognize the job creation and economic activities but you keep buying what you are told

Do you understand the roles of the various governments we have? Didn't think so? What makes you think a bureaucrat in DC can or will solve a social problem in your local community? Your answer is always send more money to the bureaucrats in DC to fund social programs that are the responsibilities of the states. Liberalism has indoctrinated you well.

One more thing, I gave you the link to the Treasury Dept so show me where Federal Income Tax revenue has been cut because of tax cuts? You won't because you can't

lets see if I understand this correctly- you have zero economic background, never spent day 1 in an economics or business class, yet you profess to know more than the experts at the CBO. Spare us, your complete ignorance. Your opinions mean absolutely nothing

 

[Bullseye]

The CBO has taken everything you have said into account, and they still project massive deficits. You can dance around those facts as much as you want, but the economy is headed for very tough times ahead. Actually I am sure thats exactly what you want. Massive debts, and high interest rates make your kind demand cuts to social programs. Your kind sure isnt difficult to figure out.

CBO's been projecting massive deficits for years.

 

[jonny5]

The economy will grow due to the tax cuts, BUT it wont grow enough too offset the decrease in revenues. If you disagree, talk to our government who have issued these predictions.
Just which social services are going to increase our debt by 10 trillion?

Read the report. It shows mandatory spending almost doubling in the next decade, from 2.5 trillion to 4.5 trillion. Meanwhile we only collect 1.1 trillion in payroll tax per year. Thats 35 trillion SPENT, and only 15 trillion collected in payroll tax.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651

And the economic growth will more than pay for the tax cuts. 6 trillion more in GDP than without the cuts, which increases income tax revenue from 1.6 trillion to 3 trillion over the next decade.

If current laws remained unchanged, CBO projects
that individual income tax receipts would rise by
1.7*percentage points as a share of the economy over
the next decade, reaching 9.8*percent of GDP by 2028,
which would be the highest percentage since 2000
and well above the 50-year average of 8.0*percent (see
Table 3-1).