Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[RabidAlpaca]

Wow, I really would like to know where you actually gained the power of telepathy?

Because I don't believe I've ever said I don't care about the deficit. You just seem to continually infer the same and over again.

I don't need to be telepathic. If you cared about the deficit you'd be criticizing the Republicans now for exploding it.

 

[Oborosen]

I don't need to be telepathic. If you cared about the deficit you'd be criticizing the Republicans now for exploding it.

I'm not going to really whine all the time for something that really doesn't matter. I'm not really happy that it goes up like it does, but there is nothing that neither of us can really do about. I was never one of those jackasses that bitched and moaned about the deficit, unless I was talking about the jackasses that continually did.

When it was Obama in office, Republicans were all on their high horse about the deficit and now that Trump is in office, its the Democrats turn. This has been one of the same revolving doors with politicians for a long time now and it just irks me every time, someone wants to get on their pedestal and screech "but da deficit" or some crap like that.

It gets annoying after a while and I've been through nearly 25 years of the same BS over and over.

 

[noonereal]

Ypou cannot raise revenues by raising taxes. The economy is not static. When you take away dollars from people, they have less to spend. Less to spend reduces the need for jobs.

There is an equalization that is very close to 18.3% of GDP. That is why the economy needs growth to generate more revenue.

Really?

It's that simple?

Than why has this tax cut put such a big bulge in the deficit?

Listen and learn from me. In all of life extreme is bad. Weather it be personal gratification such as food sex or drugs or in economic terms whether it be deficits, interest rates, tax rates, anything.

We have had decades of tax breaks. Like too much food or drug, they are now making us very sick.

The ballooning deficit is akin to a 100lb weight gain. Your heart is suffering, your blood sugar is rising and cancer is likely rooting.

 

[Conservative]

Well yes.. and past spending.
How so? You seem to like that Trump lowered taxes so that we get less revenue than WE WOULD have gotten under the past tax system... increasing the deficit.. and continuing spending as well.

Meanwhile.. I think that we should not decrease our taxes and cut revenue generation. Again...it means we should not cut what revenue WE WOULD have gotten ...

Well.. we are not keeping "more of what we earn".. in fact.. we reduced the amount we would have earned if we had left taxes alone.

this is your premise... if one year you make 200,000.. and spent 250,000... and this year.. you know that you would be on track to make 250,000 and only spend 260,000... well that means that you would be reducing your deficit. From 50,000 to only 10,000.

BUT according to you.. its better to make only 205,000 and yet still spend 260,000... which means that you know run a deficit of 55,000..

(see how revenue still increased.. but not as much as it WOULD HAVE.. if you left prices/taxes alone).

Sir.. the only that has a poor thought process here is you.

Yeah.. that's not what anyone here is saying.. only you.

So projections trump real data, you know what people would have spent had they not gotten more spendable income due to tax cuts? that is quite a gift you have along with your lack of logic and common sense. You focus solely on FIT which by the way is UP with tax cuts and ignore the other revenue streams, how typical of the left

 

[Vadinho]

Full employment isn't what it used to be. Hamburger flippers were never meant to be family wage jobs. They are entry jobs.

Welcome to the service economy. If you think automation and future advances in AI are going to create high paying jobs for the masses you are mistaken. Or perhaps your plan is to force companies to relocate factories inside the USA, another chimera that has no chance of becoming reality. We already have enough profits and wealth to take care of all of us. It demands redistribution, that is the only way to avoid a future revolution.

 

[jaeger19]

I looked it up, here is the Motley Fool's interpretation of the balanced budgets during the 90s...

https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...ericas-budget-really-balanced-in-the-90s.aspx

Remember one thing about the 90s, it was a decade of massive overvaluations driven by the tech market which at that time was going through a period of expansion that will likely never happen again. I was in the middle of the boom myself, it was silly money. Investor money flocked to IPOs and companies that did not even have revenue in a desperate race to find the next big winner. Billions were lost when it all collapsed but along the way billions were made on the backs of investors that disappeared almost overnight in 2000. It was not a good example of anything really, the whole decade was an aberration. One thing most folks never seem to grasp is that at no time did anyone in the tech industry care one iota about tax rates. It never came up in any start up I was part of nor did anyone turn down an opportunity because of capital gains or marginal rates. It was balls to the walls for everyone because we all loved technology and the competition. It was a lot of fun.

You seem to be purposely missing the point.

Which is that the US has a history of ALSO curbing spending, trying to balance budgets. and being fiscally responsible. Heck.. even Obama touted the fact he was reducing deficits at the end of his term. so while yes.. you can give examples of spending and deficit.. .its also been balanced by a history of constraint as well.

Which is why americans and the rest of the world have faith in the US dollar.

 

[jaeger19]

So projections trump real data,

Nope.. you don't get it. Lets say that the income expands by 10%. at one tax level.. we would have brought in 2 billion in extra income.

But because you lowered taxes.. we now bring in only 1.5 billion in extra income.

that's real data.. not "projected data"... and its how all economists can agree that the Trump tax cuts have expanded the deficit.

You simply are not capable of understanding even basic concepts here Conservative.

 

[jaeger19]

Welcome to the service economy. If you think automation and future advances in AI are going to create high paying jobs for the masses you are mistaken. .

why not?

please explain why not.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Minimum wage at full time - approx $14K per year.
Income threshold for an individual to be eligible for food stamp (varies slightly by state) - $21K.

Minimum wage are for high school kids. Not families.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, or what your comments have to do with the historical record about receipts following tax rate cuts or increases

Well, maybe it's the GNP number. But it was real close to 18.3%.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Welcome to the service economy. If you think automation and future advances in AI are going to create high paying jobs for the masses you are mistaken. Or perhaps your plan is to force companies to relocate factories inside the USA, another chimera that has no chance of becoming reality. We already have enough profits and wealth to take care of all of us. It demands redistribution, that is the only way to avoid a future revolution.

Welcome to poor for life for many, because of trade deficits.

 

[Vadinho]

why not?

please explain why not.

wont scale, too many people to employ making things that dont need that many people to make..its inevitable.

 

[Vadinho]

Welcome to poor for life for many, because of trade deficits.

No one here is going to work for the wages abroad unless they are just as desperate as the people abroad.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No one here is going to work for the wages abroad unless they are just as desperate as the people abroad.

You missed my point.

Good paying union manufacturing jobs are now being done by nonunion workers in foreign countries. Good paying jobs are drying up here.

 

[jaeger19]

wont scale, too many people to employ making things that dont need that many people to make..its inevitable.

Why? the same was certainly said about building train tracks and digging train tunnels.. digging ditches, and moving dirt and rock from one place to another. the same with agriculture remember the cotton gin? .. and so forth. We have a long long history of technological advancements that have made work more efficient and using less workers... and yet..... we are sitting at pretty much full employment. While actually ADDING people to the workforce.. in the form of now having elderly working longer, and spouses working as well.
History has pretty much shown that your theory doesn;t hold water. Nor can it.. when you think about it. If no one is working..and everyone is poor.. who is going to buy all these products that are produced by AI? think about it.

 

[JasperL]

Well, maybe it's the GNP number. But it was real close to 18.3%.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about - 18.3% over what time period? Including payroll taxes, income taxes, all revenues? The last time we collected more than 18% of GDP was during 2001 before the big Bush tax cuts, then again in 2015. Post Trump tax cuts, revenues are projected to be in the mid 16s as a share of GDP, because we cut tax rates. And revenues are projected to DECLINE, not fall, relative to the status quo baseline.

My point is simple and I provided the data which you can check with the tables. When we cut tax rates, revenues go down. When we raise them, revenues go UP. If we were operating in Laffer Curve peak territory, we'd have seen flat or declining revenues with the Clinton tax increases. We saw the opposite - revenues increased 5X faster during the Clinton years than the Reagan years (+66% in 8 years versus +13% under Reagan). I'm sorry but +66% after tax rate increases does NOT indicate we're close to Laffer Curve peaks.

When Bush II cut tax rates, twice, if we're in Laffer Curve peak territory, again, the tax rate cuts would show revenue INCREASES or at worst flat. That didn't happen. Revenues dropped immediately by 20% and it took 14 years to get revenues back to the peak Clinton years, and to match those Clinton era collections, it required real GDP that was 25% higher.

 

[Vadinho]

Why? the same was certainly said about building train tracks and digging train tunnels.. digging ditches, and moving dirt and rock from one place to another. the same with agriculture remember the cotton gin? .. and so forth. We have a long long history of technological advancements that have made work more efficient and using less workers... and yet..... we are sitting at pretty much full employment. While actually ADDING people to the workforce.. in the form of now having elderly working longer, and spouses working as well.
History has pretty much shown that your theory doesn;t hold water. Nor can it.. when you think about it. If no one is working..and everyone is poor.. who is going to buy all these products that are produced by AI? think about it.

Its much different today in terms of the power of software, hardware and the internet. Let me give you just one example. I sell communications equipment to ISPs, carriers, utilities, etc. We handle about 300 lines. It is not an exaggeration to say that every single company and product is focused on lower costs both in CAPEX up front costs (lower prices for the gear or service) and lower OPEX over the life of the network. Where it used to take five engineers to run a large network, you can get by with two. Where it took 30 truck rolls to fix a problem, it can be done remotely and monitored via the cloud. Now you might say that the companies providing these products and services employ people to create and design these time saving solutions, that is very true. But one guy writing one line of code can displace thousands upon thousands of jobs.

When AI becomes reality, it will really be hard to compete with it. When we focus on trade deficits in manufacturing we are missing the true culprit, automation and software. Remember secretary pools? Gone. Hell, you don't even need a receptionist anymore, just sign in and the door is opened by your customer. And then we allow mergers, that really destroys jobs.

 

[jaeger19]

Its much different today in terms of the power of software, hardware and the internet. Let me give you just one example. I sell communications equipment to ISPs, carriers, utilities, etc. We handle about 300 lines. It is not an exaggeration to say that every single company and product is focused on lower costs both in CAPEX up front costs (lower prices for the gear or service) and lower OPEX over the life of the network. Where it used to take five engineers to run a large network, you can get by with two. Where it took 30 truck rolls to fix a problem, it can be done remotely and monitored via the cloud. Now you might say that the companies providing these products and services employ people to create and design these time saving solutions, that is very true. But one guy writing one line of code can displace thousands upon thousands of jobs.

When AI becomes reality, it will really be hard to compete with it. When we focus on trade deficits in manufacturing we are missing the true culprit, automation and software. Remember secretary pools? Gone. Hell, you don't even need a receptionist anymore, just sign in and the door is opened by your customer. And then we allow mergers, that really destroys jobs.

And it was very different in terms of trains.. in terms of cars and trucks.. and in the advent of tons of other technologies that increased productivity. What took hundreds of workers days to do.. can be done in a few hours with a guy on a CAT. but that efficiency then ends up creating more jobs.. that's the way it has been.

the issue is not whether AI is going to take jobs away or automation take jobs away. As history has shown.. they are going to increase jobs. The question is whether they are going to create jobs HERE in America.. or in other countries.. now that we are a global economy. And that depends on whether we are going to 1. Be the leader and developer of the technology. and 2. If our educational system will be able to outcompete other countries for the production of those workers.

 

[Vadinho]

And it was very different in terms of trains.. in terms of cars and trucks.. and in the advent of tons of other technologies that increased productivity. What took hundreds of workers days to do.. can be done in a few hours with a guy on a CAT. but that efficiency then ends up creating more jobs.. that's the way it has been.

the issue is not whether AI is going to take jobs away or automation take jobs away. As history has shown.. they are going to increase jobs. The question is whether they are going to create jobs HERE in America.. or in other countries.. now that we are a global economy. And that depends on whether we are going to 1. Be the leader and developer of the technology. and 2. If our educational system will be able to outcompete other countries for the production of those workers.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Trains did replace buggy makers and covered wagon firms but trains also needed a ton of people. Not so with IT.

 

[jaeger19]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Trains did replace buggy makers and covered wagon firms but trains also needed a ton of people. Not so with IT.

Trains did not just replace buggy makers and covered wagons.. it began replacing farriers, people that grew hay, mule skinners, Ship builders, people that made saddles and leather harnesses, wood producers, canvas makers, outfitting businesses, and a whole host of other professions experienced a change when trains became prevalent.
In fact there was such a worry (very reminiscent from the fear you present).. that there were claims by scientists that "people going to fast by traveling by train was harmful to their health".

The same fear was postulated by the invention of computers.. and yet.. here we are.. with an expanded work force, and close to or at full employment.

 

[Vadinho]

Trains did not just replace buggy makers and covered wagons.. it began replacing farriers, people that grew hay, mule skinners, Ship builders, people that made saddles and leather harnesses, wood producers, canvas makers, outfitting businesses, and a whole host of other professions experienced a change when trains became prevalent.
In fact there was such a worry (very reminiscent from the fear you present).. that there were claims by scientists that "people going to fast by traveling by train was harmful to their health".

The same fear was postulated by the invention of computers.. and yet.. here we are.. with an expanded work force, and close to or at full employment.

Whatever. You get my point. Trains and cars and telephones and electricity displaced industries but also demanded even more workers. Think of how many people were needed to make a railroad work. Or a car assembly plant. Now think about Mark Zuckerberg. How many people did it take to start Facebook? The leverage of software, silicon, automation and soon AI will be enormous. Take one chip like the Trio from Juniper. This chip is a router in a chip, it is made by robots. It was designed by a core group of engineers, a small number. Yet it replaced boxes that took many more people to design, make and maintain. Silicon valley is an obvious place to see productivity increases at the expense of butts in seats. Take a look at a modern factory like FoxConn. This is just the beginning of this stuff. It is vastly different then bricks and mortar type industries of the last century.

 

[Conservative]

Nope.. you don't get it. Lets say that the income expands by 10%. at one tax level.. we would have brought in 2 billion in extra income.

But because you lowered taxes.. we now bring in only 1.5 billion in extra income.

that's real data.. not "projected data"... and its how all economists can agree that the Trump tax cuts have expanded the deficit.

You simply are not capable of understanding even basic concepts here Conservative.

Actually there is nothing conservative about you as obviously more take home pay because of tax cuts forces you to spend more and obviously causes your bank to raise your interest rate on any outstanding loans. Liberal logic and one of the poorest arguments I have seen in this forum

I am sure that the true liberal in you would take the tax cuts refuse to give your people a pay raise, bonuses, increases in their 401k, or help more with insurance causing you to pay higher taxes because of lower deductions as you benefit from other consumers purchasing goods and services from you because they have more money in their paycheck which increases your gross sales.

We all know that personal spending never goes up with tax cuts, right? GDP never increases with tax cuts, right? Sales tax revenue never goes up because of tax cuts? People don't travel more because of tax cuts, right? Therefore non of those other taxes increase and of course

There is truly a solution for you, send more money to the IRS than owed and tell them to apply it to the deficit. Do your part by giving the bureaucrats more money and bring your liberal friends with you

 

[jaeger19]

Whatever. You get my point. Trains and cars and telephones and electricity displaced industries but also demanded even more workers. .

Actually no.. they did not.. "demand even more workers"... why the heck would we go toward a technology that was LESS efficient? We didn;t... what happened is that those technologies.. then opened up OTHER industries and growth .. that then added more workers.

Take a look at a modern factory like FoxConn.

Yep.. take a look at the advent of computers and chips and satellites etc.. and then.. take a look at unemployment. Its not like computer technology has not made us more efficient.. and yet unemployment is low.

I don't think you are thinking about this fully. What drives the technology to be more efficient? Demand right? the need to produce more products etc.. with fewer people? Well what fuels that demand... those very people buying stuff and services. Now.. if the technology ends up replacing thousands of workers.. without any alternative jobs? Well then who is going to produce that demand?

the real issue again.. is not AI.. its whether the US will be in position to take advantage and adapt to the changes that AI creates in a global economy.

 

[jaeger19]

Actually there is nothing conservative about you as obviously more take home pay because of tax cuts forces you to spend more

no it doesn;t force me to spend more. Why do you keep arguing this?

You are just making up nonsense now. Who the heck has argued that more "take home pay" forces you to spend more?

I am sure that the true liberal in you would take the tax cuts refuse to give your people a pay raise, bonuses, increases in their 401k, or help more with insurance causing you to pay higher taxes because of lower deductions as you benefit from other consumers purchasing goods and services from you because they have more money in their paycheck which increases your gross sales.

Yeah.. now you are spouting a bunch of gobbldey gook.

Okay.. but you explain to me.. why you as a businessman.. give employees a raise.. simply because of a tax cut? regardless of the supply and demand for workers? Why would you simply increase the 401k contributions.. when there is no market forces that drive that decision?

Please explain? Do you believe that corporations should all be non profits?

We all know that personal spending never goes up with tax cuts, right? GDP never increases with tax cuts, right?

Nope.. it often increases.. but what the data shows.. is that the increase in demand does not make up for the loss in revenue that the tax cut creates.

In other words. it does not pay for itself. You lose more revenue than you gained.. you would be better not lowering taxes.

 

[jaeger19]

There is truly a solution for you, send more money to the IRS than owed and tell them to apply it to the deficit. Do your part by giving the bureaucrats more money and bring your liberal friends with you

Actually if you send more money to the IRS than owed.. they send it right back.