Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’

[MTAtech]

[h=1]Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’[/h]

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the economic growth that would result from the proposed tax cuts would be so extreme – close to $2 trillion over 10 years – that it would come close to recouping all of the lost revenue from the dramatic rate reductions.

We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.


[h=1]Selective Voodoo[/h]

The reality is that there is no evidence for the large effects that are central to right-wing ideology, so the question is whether CBO will be forced to accept supply-side fantasies.

 

[fmw]

[h=1]Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’[/h]We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.


[h=1]Selective Voodoo[/h]

If Trump is actually able to drain some of the swamp, it may not need to pay for itself. We have too much government.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

If Trump is actually able to drain some of the swamp, it may not need to pay for itself. We have too much government.

All available evidence indicates that he's further filling the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

 

[fmw]

All available evidence indicates that he's further filling the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

I haven't seen any of that evidence. The real swamp is the U.S. Congress and he has no power to drain it. It is something we have to do. He has already taken some steps to drain what he has the power to affect.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

I haven't seen any of that evidence. The real swamp is the U.S. Congress and he has no power to drain it. It is something we have to do. He has already taken some steps to drain what he has the power to affect.

The evidence is easy to see. His cabinet and EO's thus far, to say nothing of his continue COI.

 

[MTAtech]

If Trump is actually able to drain some of the swamp, it may not need to pay for itself. We have too much government.

While Trump plans to slash taxes (mainly on the rich) he doesn't seem to have any plan to cut spending at all (e.g. make govt smaller.) In fact, he plans to increase military spending. That just means that the deficit and debt will rise. Of course, the debt hawks, who were quick to lambast Obama for "$20 trillion of debt," will be silent -- just like those who criticized HRC for "pay to play," but are completely silent for Trump's unprecedented pay-to-play, self-serving profiteering and conflicts of interest.

 

[fmw]

While Trump plans to slash taxes (mainly on the rich) he doesn't seem to have any plan to cut spending at all (e.g. make govt smaller.) In fact, he plans to increase military spending. That just means that the deficit and debt will rise. Of course, the debt hawks, who were quick to lambast Obama for "$20 trillion of debt," will be silent -- just like those who criticized HRC for "pay to play," but are completely silent for Trump's unprecedented pay-to-play, self-serving profiteering and conflicts of interest.

You missed the fact that he signed an EO stopping additional hiring and told the administration that deep cuts are coming. As to who gets tax cuts, it is a little early to judge since there isn't anything on the table for a congressional vote yet. You put yourself among the many "guessers" analyzing the current adminsitration.

 

[fmw]

The evidence is easy to see. His cabinet and EO's thus far, to say nothing of his continue COI.

Easy for you to see. I think he has the best cabinet I've ever seen. Whether or not it is swampy I wouldn't conjecture. I assume that anyone that disagrees with your politics would be a denizen of the swamp. It would be more accurate just to say that you don't agree with the politics of cabinet members.

 

[MTAtech]

You missed the fact that he signed an EO stopping additional hiring and told the administration that deep cuts are coming. As to who gets tax cuts, it is a little early to judge since there isn't anything on the table for a congressional vote yet. You put yourself among the many "guessers" analyzing the current adminsitration.

As I have said many times, the vast bulk of federal spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense (which he wants to increase), and interest on the debt.

The amounts spent on anything Trump has outlined in his EOs (cuts to Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR, etc.) is a rounding error on a rounding error. It's just not what your government does on any significant scale.

So, if Trump wants less spending, either he's talking about cuts in the big five, or he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[MTAtech]

Easy for you to see. I think he has the best cabinet I've ever seen. Whether or not it is swampy I wouldn't conjecture. I assume that anyone that disagrees with your politics would be a denizen of the swamp. It would be more accurate just to say that you don't agree with the politics of cabinet members.

You have Tom Price, who clearly was trading on inside information; you have a bunch of Goldman Sachs execs., and the rest don't know anything about the agencies they are supposed to be heading -- except for the EPA guy, who is deathly hostile to everything the EPA does.

 

[fmw]

As I have said many times, the vast bulk of federal spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense (which he wants to increase), and interest on the debt.

The amounts spent on anything Trump has outlined in his EOs (cuts to Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR, etc.) is a rounding error on a rounding error. It's just not what your government does on any significant scale.

So, if Trump wants less spending, either he's talking about cuts in the big five, or he has no idea what he's talking about.

Sure but it is possible to cut from what people term discretionary spending to reverse deficit spending. In fact it is pretty easy financially if not politically. It is scary that interest is in the top 5. You realize that the left doesn't think the debt is a problem. Looks like you are past that confusion.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Easy for you to see. I think he has the best cabinet I've ever seen. Whether or not it is swampy I wouldn't conjecture. I assume that anyone that disagrees with your politics would be a denizen of the swamp. It would be more accurate just to say that you don't agree with the politics of cabinet members.

LOL! You 'wouldn't conjecture'? You don't have to.

He's filled it with millionaire and billionaire industry insiders, esp. in terms of the finance industry, EXACTLY the same people he railed against during the campaign.

What would be accurate to say is this: he's filled the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

 

[Visbek]

You missed the fact that he signed an EO stopping additional hiring and told the administration that deep cuts are coming.

You missed the fact that he lifted the hiring freeze.

As to who gets tax cuts, it is a little early to judge since there isn't anything on the table for a congressional vote yet.

Perhaps, but we certainly know which way he's leaning.

He already released two tax plans, the first with more generous cuts than the second. Both produced huuuge cuts for the wealthy, and almost no cuts for the middle and lower income earners.

Reason middle-class Americans should hope Trump fails on tax reform - Business Insider

Meanwhile, these promises that cutting taxes will boost growth enough to offset the tax cuts? That has never worked. Tax cuts do usually provide a bump in growth, but it's nowhere near enough to make up for the lost revenue. A quick look at Kansas and Louisiana, let alone Reagan and Bush 43, is sufficient to show these failures.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

You have Tom Price, who clearly was trading on inside information; you have a bunch of Goldman Sachs execs., and the rest don't know anything about the agencies they are supposed to be heading -- except for the EPA guy, who is deathly hostile to everything the EPA does.

Some people are simply immune to reason and available facts.

 

[fmw]

LOL! You 'wouldn't conjecture'? You don't have to.

He's filled it with millionaire and billionaire industry insiders, esp. in terms of the finance industry, EXACTLY the same people he railed against during the campaign.

What would be accurate to say is this: he's filled the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

He filled it with industry insiders - way better than filling it with government insiders. Best cabinet in my lifetime.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

He filled it with industry insiders - way better than filling it with government insiders. Best cabinet in my lifetime.

So, IOW, you admit he's filled the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

Thanks for seeing it my way!

 

[fmw]

So, IOW, you admit he's filled the swamp with more swamp water and gators.

Thanks for seeing it my way!

No. I said the opposite. Filling the cabinet with government people would be filling it with more swamp. It is the GOVERNMENT that is the swamp.

 

[Renae]

[h=1]Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’[/h]We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.


[h=1]Selective Voodoo[/h]

When you quote Krugman for economic wisdom, you show an utter disregard for the truth. The man is a political hack, kinda like Bill Nye the Not Science guy.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No. I said the opposite. Filling the cabinet with government people would be filling it with more swamp. It is the GOVERNMENT that is the swamp.

No, based on Trump's own statements he made during the campaign, he's filling the swap with exactly who he complained about.

Thanks again for agreeing with me!

 

[Mac77]

[h=1]Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’[/h]We've heard that one before and it didn't pay for itself.


[h=1]Selective Voodoo[/h]

It does pay for itself but congress keeps raising spending so the deficit keeps growing no matter how much money washington takes in taxes

 

[MTAtech]

When you quote Krugman for economic wisdom, you show an utter disregard for the truth. The man is a political hack, kinda like Bill Nye the Not Science guy.

Oh please, that's a standard right-wing talking point because your side can't stand Krugman because he's always right.

 

[Chomsky]

If Trump is actually able to drain some of the swamp, it may not need to pay for itself. We have too much government.

Yeah, but 'till now all he's done is fill it with crocks and gators - billionaire ones at that!

 

[MTAtech]

It does pay for itself but congress keeps raising spending so the deficit keeps growing no matter how much money washington takes in taxes

I warn people that when they make assertions about numbers, they should look at the numbers before they make the statement.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then raised them because it created a bigger deficit. (These are inflation adjusted per capita revenue, to take population growth into account.)

Bush cut taxes twice (2001 and 2003) and revenue never returned to Clinton's 2000 level during his term. [That blip in 2005-2007 was the housing bubble but even with that, we never got 2000 revenue.]

 

[Mac77]

I warn people that when they make assertions about numbers, they should look at the numbers before they make the statement.

Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and then raised them because it created a bigger deficit. (These are inflation adjusted per capita revenue, to take population growth into account.)

Bush cut taxes twice (2001 and 2003) and revenue never returned to Clinton's 2000 level during his term. [That blip in 2005-2007 was the housing bubble but even with that, we never got 2000 revenue.]

If liberals would agree to stop increasing spending then the tax rate we have would be adequate.

But government keeps demanding more

 

[Chomsky]

Sure but it is possible to cut from what people term discretionary spending to reverse deficit spending. In fact it is pretty easy financially if not politically. It is scary that interest is in the top 5. You realize that the left doesn't think the debt is a problem. Looks like you are past that confusion.

Debt is a problem!

Which is why you don't further deficits by cutting revenue.