Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[Vadinho]

EXCEPT.. what happens after that.. when people refuse to use the money that you are printing in your basement?..

The problem here is that that "pay off your debt".. may only work once.

That is not an issue with a currency such as the US dollar. As long as the US dollar is the currency of choice and our government does not do stupid ****, the world will want dollars. Even if the dollar was replaced by the Euro or the Yuan we would still be fine because all our soveriegn debt is due in US dollars. As for your last point, history shows that most economies go through massive shifts over time, I hope we come out of it Ok but I fear inequality and automation more than printing money to give us back the money we lent the government.

Think about what is likely going to happen to jobs over the next 50 years. AI will kick in sooner or later. Robots will end up doing everything. What will people do? There will have to be a basic income or we will face revolution sooner or later.

 

[Vadinho]

No it doesn't... not at all. Do you really think economists didn;t understand what a fiat currency is? Or how money is created? We have been off the Bretton Woods system since 1971. that's whats laughable about MMT. Proponents of MMT act like economists didn't understand fiat currency after getting off a gold standard. Like somehow.. MMT is a new theory.

MMT comes out of "chartalism" which is long before minsky..

Wray and Mitchell are the most vocal proponents of MMT.. and honestly. its nothing new..

Well done but the origins are not the point, I mentioned Minsky simply because they bring him up a lot. I do believe that most economists fail to grasp the real power of fiat money. They create models that to me are based upon the old fixed exchange rate memes. Why in the world would an economist advise balanced budgets if they were not thinking in the old mindset? Now there are plenty of economists like Rogoff and Stiglitz that are saying very interesting things who are not MMTers. I would love to see them all duke it out and come out with a modern concept of macro that uses what is good about Keynes, Marx, Friedman and others and move the science along. I like the MMTers because they have no real dogma or political agenda, they simply tell us how the system works in reality. BTW, I suggest following a blog called Angry Bear. I know some of the folks who write there, very smart cookies.

 

[Moderate Right]

Not to be outdone with his HUSH money lies, Trump's lies of a balanced budget will affect us and our children for many years to come.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ional-debt-in-eight-years-good-luck-with-that

Donald Trump told the Washington Post he would get rid of the national debt “over a period of eight years.”

And it's worse than that. He not only isn't balancing the budget. He is skyrocketing the deficit, and it will soon pass the $1 Trillion threshhold.

View attachment 67242135

Republicans hold all three legislative branches of government. They need only look into a mirror if they want to see irresponsible fiscal policy.

Where was Obama's balanced budget?

 

[Fletch]

You're the one blaming everything on Obama, not me. What's your story?



Again, it's YOU who pretended the GOP Congress didn't exist. FWIW, pointing out the GOP control of Congress is not to say the President is powerless, because as we all know they have the veto pen.



What has already happened? Democrats invented a stupid graph on a napkin, and half the Democratic voters believe that spending is magic and produces more revenue and therefore there is no need to pay for additional spending programs with higher taxes because spending programs are self financing? I don't think that's happened.

What is true is half the GOP at least trust in Laffer's curve sketched on a napkin - you see it in every thread about tax cuts, with a bunch of republicans claiming tax cuts INCREASE revenue. It's one of modern society's most effective propaganda campaigns! Repeat a lie often enough and sure enough the people WILL start to believe it, at least GOP voters will I guess.

Im not blaming Obama, I am trying to get you to think. Without much success.

 

[Fletch]

Thanks for posting the same evidence that I've been talking about. Obama halved the deficit during his tenure.

Yet you cant answer the question I keep posing. How come?

 

[JasperL]

Im not blaming Obama, I am trying to get you to think. Without much success.

All you're doing is sidelining the discussion. I've thought plenty about it, and you sure as hell cannot teach me anything with your red herrings and butwhataboutisms.

Besides, what's there to know? The only thing you need to know about GOP fiscal policy is the Cheney Maxim, which I've already quoted. The Two Santa Clause theory by Jude Wanniski flushes out the Maxim a bit, and puts a kind of broad political context to it all, but it's the same basic principle, and it's worked like a charm for the GOP.

What frustrates me is the Democratic party plays right into the GOP hands with this stuff, every time, with an assist by a worthless corporate media. The "Bernie Curve" stuff is only half joking. The one thing you got right is no one cares about the deficit, so I'm hoping the Democrats quit playing the "deficits are awful" game. Promise the people what they want and who really gives a damn about how to pay for anything? No one but inside the beltway deficit scolds, and the GOP quit caring about them with Reagan and haven't cared since Bush I got his ass handed to him for raising taxes.

Free college? Why the hell not? Just say the millions of people with college degrees and graduating with no debt will boost GDP to 6%* or whatever Magic Asterisk is needed to balance, and it'll work. Rinse and repeat for anything else Democratic voters might want. Worked for Paul "Serious Policy Wonk" Ryan who figured out if you put it on a spreadsheet, dumbasses everywhere won't pay attention to the actual numbers, and just work backward from the conclusion - growth rates, interest rates, jobs, whatever it takes.

Or don't even do that much - too much work! In the last GOP primary, the tax cut proposals from the GOP ranged from something like $2 trillion to (as I recall) $10 trillion for Trump, and he promised $10 trillion in tax cuts, universal healthcare, protecting SS and Medicare, increasing military spending, a border wall AND to balance the budget in 8 years, and he's f'ing POTUS. We're all a bunch of stupid suckers, so why not promise the moon AND the stars?

 

[Fletch]

All you're doing is sidelining the discussion. I've thought plenty about it, and you sure as hell cannot teach me anything with your red herrings and butwhataboutisms.

Besides, what's there to know? The only thing you need to know about GOP fiscal policy is the Cheney Maxim, which I've already quoted. The Two Santa Clause theory by Jude Wanniski flushes out the Maxim a bit, and puts a kind of broad political context to it all, but it's the same basic principle, and it's worked like a charm for the GOP.

What frustrates me is the Democratic party plays right into the GOP hands with this stuff, every time, with an assist by a worthless corporate media. The "Bernie Curve" stuff is only half joking. The one thing you got right is no one cares about the deficit, so I'm hoping the Democrats quit playing the "deficits are awful" game. Promise the people what they want and who really gives a damn about how to pay for anything? No one but inside the beltway deficit scolds, and the GOP quit caring about them with Reagan and haven't cared since Bush I got his ass handed to him for raising taxes.

Free college? Why the hell not? Just say the millions of people with college degrees and graduating with no debt will boost GDP to 6%* or whatever Magic Asterisk is needed to balance, and it'll work. Rinse and repeat for anything else Democratic voters might want. Worked for Paul "Serious Policy Wonk" Ryan who figured out if you put it on a spreadsheet, dumbasses everywhere won't pay attention to the actual numbers, and just work backward from the conclusion - growth rates, interest rates, jobs, whatever it takes.

Or don't even do that much - too much work! In the last GOP primary, the tax cut proposals from the GOP ranged from something like $2 trillion to (as I recall) $10 trillion for Trump, and he promised $10 trillion in tax cuts, universal healthcare, protecting SS and Medicare, increasing military spending, a border wall AND to balance the budget in 8 years, and he's f'ing POTUS. We're all a bunch of stupid suckers, so why not promise the moon AND the stars?

Do you actually have a point somewhere in that mess of a post? It doesnt seem like it. Obamas final year deficit was $667 billion and not one of you libs made a peep. Trump comes along and it rises to $779 billion and your hair is on fire (again). Sorry, but it isnt possible to take any of you guys seriously.

 

[cpwill]

If you liberals had given a crap about deficits and debt while Obama ran up ten trillion in debt during his term, you might have some credibility on the subject now. You didnt, so you dont.

While I wholeheartedly agree that they are not making this argument in good faith, ditto for those of us "conservatives" who now ignore the issue because it's the GOP in power.

I'm willing to say it - deficits this big are bad regardless of who is in power.

 

[Fletch]

While I wholeheartedly agree that they are not making this argument in good faith, ditto for those of us "conservatives" who now ignore the issue because it's the GOP in power.

I'm willing to say it - deficits this big are bad regardless of who is in power.

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you completely. I was a 'deficit hawk' for as long as I can remember and was certain that Obamas massive debt would destroy us. But it didnt. I am just not convinced any longer that deficits actually matter.

 

[cpwill]

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you completely. I was a 'deficit hawk' for as long as I can remember and was certain that Obamas massive debt would destroy us. But it didnt. I am just not convinced any longer that deficits actually matter.

.... Respectfully, I see that argument sort of like I would someone driving towards a cliff, insisting that acceleration didn't matter, because we hadn't actually cleared the edge, yet.


Debt matters. As interest rates rise, it's going to suck up ever-larger portions of our budget. We won't be able to sustain DOD spending or the entitlements. No less than James Mattis (pbuh) labels it our greatest national security threat.

Every bit further we go makes the eventual readjustments ever-more painful. This stuff matters.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

Do you actually have a point somewhere in that mess of a post? It doesnt seem like it. Obamas final year deficit was $667 billion and not one of you libs made a peep. Trump comes along and it rises to $779 billion and your hair is on fire (again). Sorry, but it isnt possible to take any of you guys seriously.

If you want to know my point, read the post.

From what I can tell, your entire contribution to the thread is pointing out everyone is a hypocrite so no one can ever complain about the deficit ever again. That's good! :sarcasticclap

 

[JasperL]

A couple years ago I would have agreed with you completely. I was a 'deficit hawk' for as long as I can remember and was certain that Obamas massive debt would destroy us. But it didnt. I am just not convinced any longer that deficits actually matter.

Did you vote for Bush? Or Trump? Do you vote for GOP Congress members? If you did, you've actually never been a deficit hawk.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Did you vote for Bush? Or Trump? Do you vote for GOP Congress members? If you did, you've actually never been a deficit hawk.

Are you suggesting I write in my penny pinching grandmother, just to leave the results to the worse of the two evils, rather than the lesser of two evils?

 

[jaeger19]

That is not an issue with a currency such as the US dollar. As long as the US dollar is the currency of choice and our government does not do stupid ****, the world will want dollars. .

And there is the caveat.. that is the issue with US currency.. you just said it "as long as the US dollar is the currency of choice"... just as people choosing to use your basement money. and "our government does not do stupid ****, the world will want dollars"... in other words.. doing something stupid like your basement printer deciding to print money to get out of debt.

What will people do? There will have to be a basic income or we will face revolution sooner or later.

Naw.. first we are eventually going to see a massive die off of population when the baby boomers die off. So their wont NEED to be that many jobs. second... our labor force is larger than it really needs to be already. I remember a day when it was rare that both spouses worked. We certainly could go back to that time.

The real issue is real wages.. and that's where money comes into play. If real wages decline.. and inequity increases.. the natural result would be a decline in demand and then a decline in production.

the problem has been to some degree.. is that inequity increased.. because demand did not drop off when real wages stagnated.. because of the explosion of easy credit.. which artificially kept demand going.. eventually creating the housing bubble....

 

[jaeger19]

Well done but the origins are not the point, I mentioned Minsky simply because they bring him up a lot. I do believe that most economists fail to grasp the real power of fiat money. They create models that to me are based upon the old fixed exchange rate memes. Why in the world would an economist advise balanced budgets if they were not thinking in the old mindset? .

Perhaps because those economists understand..well the science of economics. Economics is not accounting.. its about understanding peoples behavior. Why would an economist advise balanced budgets? Because they understand that its about human behavior.. and particularly with a money that is not tied to any actual thing of value.

the value of the dollar.. is only as good as peoples FAITH in that dollar.. in that government that backs it up. IF.. for ANY reason.. people lose faith in that.. then the dollar crashes. Its that simple. So what keeps our dollar strong.. is the belief that of the holders of those dollars that our government will be fiscally responsible. which is why.. people would advise balanced budgets particularly when the economy is strong. It keeps the faith. Now.. you may. and others here have argued that people don;t care.. but they do.. in fact.. there have been times when polling has shown that the US population was more concerned about the debt and deficit.. than they were about most other things.

 

[JasperL]

.... Respectfully, I see that argument sort of like I would someone driving towards a cliff, insisting that acceleration didn't matter, because we hadn't actually cleared the edge, yet.

Debt matters. As interest rates rise, it's going to suck up ever-larger portions of our budget. We won't be able to sustain DOD spending or the entitlements. No less than James Mattis (pbuh) labels it our greatest national security threat.

Every bit further we go makes the eventual readjustments ever-more painful. This stuff matters.

It does in theory, but no one votes like it matters. With this last tax cut, how many votes do you think any Republican will lose for supporting a bill that added $1.5T to the projected debt, and did nothing to cut spending? The answer is ZERO votes - they'll GAIN votes, lots of them, for giving voters exactly what they want. How many votes will incumbents lose for NOT cutting Medicare, SS, defense? None, they know if they cut those programs, they're DOA, so they don't.

I'll put myself in that boat, but it's mostly because it's just politically stupid in the modern political era to care about deficits. If you insist on candidates who promise to ACTUALLY address the debt, that means big, huge tax increases AND spending cuts, in programs voters want, so the candidate will lose and any party who seriously embraces that will be decimated at the polls. So what's the point?

 

[JasperL]

Are you suggesting I write in my penny pinching grandmother, just to leave the results to the worse of the two evils, rather than the lesser of two evils?

Well my point is pretty simple - the GOP has a record now of not caring about deficits, only tax cuts. Fight a war? Cut taxes! Expand entitlements? Cut taxes! Inherit an economy with years straight job creation, a booming stock market? Cut taxes, and increase spending!

In 1994 did you reward Bill Clinton and the Democrats for raising taxes, or vote to turn the tax-raising big government Democrats out on their asses? How about in 1990? Did you cheer Bush I's tax increases to address the deficit left by Reagan?

So what political price have you made the GOP pay for making deficits worse? If the answer is none, you cannot actually care about deficits. We all knew what this GOP Congress and Trump would do (and not do, which is seriously cut spending) and they did it. The House passed $2.5T more in tax cuts! Zero in spending cuts! If you voted for them, or vote for them in November, you voted for making deficits worse. It's pretty simple.

 

[Oborosen]

In what "reality" is blowing a trillion dollar hole in the deficit with tax cuts going to magically make the deficit better? Can you explain this magic?

Also, after hearing conservatives scream for 8 years about the deficit then suddenly not caring as soon as a Republican comes in office, you have no credibility left.

Reverse the target in that equation and we can say the exact same thing about you.

No one is saying we don't care, but none of you are coming up with a better plan and options are currently in short supply.

 

[Dolphin]

Why? Why will I create jobs because I got a tax cut?

First, I think all the rich is love our country (USA). Tax cut will help them have more money. The rich mean Millionaire and Billionaire. When you pay tax, the pay tax is dedication to our country and you lost money, they think US Gov will do fact create jobs and they done, but when tax cut they know create jobs is not fact of US Gov, creating jobs is their job and US Gov and they do together. I think they proud for that. We have over 400 Billionaire American here, I mean we will have trillion $ to create jobs, but you know fact create jobs is not only Billionaire, I mean is Millionaire and Billionaire too, is called rich. When you are Millionaire you pay tax and they lost money, yes , people think they rich because they have money but I think they think they poor. You can see if you have $60 and now you have over $40 after pay tax, it not good. And then they limit create jobs. Billionaire is think rank rich is good, if you have much money, much money to high rank is ok. Different of Millionaire, if you have 6 billion $ and you pay tax you have over 4 billion $, yes they will think they rich too but lost rank is not good, they not create jobs. We think Billionaire can pay so much money because we see they can donate whole assets for charity when they die but when they they live they spend all? I think they not. They will spend few billion $, if they spend much billion $ , I think they hero. If you think high tax why under Obama term , we pay high tax and why our economy not good, we need a change. We can see so much Billionaire bolster Democratic now, but I think they have bribe by Democratic Party, to advertising good economy is Democratic but I think people love country and want dedication to our country is Republican like Mitt Romney , an Millionaire or Donald Trump an Billionaire.

 

[cpwill]

It does in theory, but no one votes like it matters. With this last tax cut, how many votes do you think any Republican will lose for supporting a bill that added $1.5T to the projected debt, and did nothing to cut spending? The answer is ZERO votes - they'll GAIN votes, lots of them, for giving voters exactly what they want. How many votes will incumbents lose for NOT cutting Medicare, SS, defense? None, they know if they cut those programs, they're DOA, so they don't.

I'll put myself in that boat, but it's mostly because it's just politically stupid in the modern political era to care about deficits. If you insist on candidates who promise to ACTUALLY address the debt, that means big, huge tax increases AND spending cuts, in programs voters want, so the candidate will lose and any party who seriously embraces that will be decimated at the polls. So what's the point?

The point? Oh, doing the right thing, avoiding a fiscal crisis, avoiding the global increase in chaos that would accompany it, not putting ourselves in a position where we have to suddenly and brutally cut an entire generation of seniors or lower income folks off from programs they depend on...

But what are those things compared to an advantage of easier campaigning this particular two-year political cycle? So much more important. :roll:

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If you liberals had given a crap about deficits and debt while Obama ran up ten trillion in debt during his term, you might have some credibility on the subject now. You didnt, so you dont.

It was during the deepest recession since the Great Depression, one he inherited from a Republican president. What would have you done, eliminated unemployment benefits to balance the budget then? It is perfectly reasonable during a deep recession to run a high deficit. That is economics 101. With good economic growth, our deficits should be falling now as they were before Trump took office.

 

[Media_Truth]

It does in theory, but no one votes like it matters. With this last tax cut, how many votes do you think any Republican will lose for supporting a bill that added $1.5T to the projected debt, and did nothing to cut spending? The answer is ZERO votes - they'll GAIN votes, lots of them, for giving voters exactly what they want. How many votes will incumbents lose for NOT cutting Medicare, SS, defense? None, they know if they cut those programs, they're DOA, so they don't.

I'll put myself in that boat, but it's mostly because it's just politically stupid in the modern political era to care about deficits. If you insist on candidates who promise to ACTUALLY address the debt, that means big, huge tax increases AND spending cuts, in programs voters want, so the candidate will lose and any party who seriously embraces that will be decimated at the polls. So what's the point?

Yes, what you describe is actually a Political strategy, coined by a Republican, Jude Wanniski in 1976 - it's called the "2 Santa Claus Theory".

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-09/republicans-deficits-and-the-two-santa-theory

What the economy required, he wrote, was two Santas: a Democratic one to deliver the gift of government spending, and a Republican one to hand out tax cuts. The addition of the tax-cutting Santa would unleash private enterprise, expand the business sector and dampen the demand for social services, Wanniski thought.

Notice that Wanniski wasn't especially fearful of deficits. He hinted that it was the absence of the tax-cutting Santa that tended to push deficits higher anyway. First, the permanent austerity demanded by the GOP meant that Americans could only receive a bit of succor from the spending delivered by the Democrats. So naturally, they demanded ever more of it. Second, the resulting high tax rates constrained business formation so much that revenues were actually lower than they would be if rates were cut.

 

[Vadinho]

Perhaps because those economists understand..well the science of economics. Economics is not accounting.. its about understanding peoples behavior. Why would an economist advise balanced budgets? Because they understand that its about human behavior.. and particularly with a money that is not tied to any actual thing of value.

the value of the dollar.. is only as good as peoples FAITH in that dollar.. in that government that backs it up. IF.. for ANY reason.. people lose faith in that.. then the dollar crashes. Its that simple. So what keeps our dollar strong.. is the belief that of the holders of those dollars that our government will be fiscally responsible. which is why.. people would advise balanced budgets particularly when the economy is strong. It keeps the faith. Now.. you may. and others here have argued that people don;t care.. but they do.. in fact.. there have been times when polling has shown that the US population was more concerned about the debt and deficit.. than they were about most other things.

We agree that fiat money is indeed dependent upon the full faith and credit of this issuer. What is the basis for faith in the United States? What is the basis for believing that the United States dollar can be used to buy goods and services? Neither one has been affected by the expansion in money supply since 1973. Here we are trillions upon trillions of new dollars later and yet Tbills sell out every auction, inflation is low, employment is low, GNP is still growing, we avoided a depression and we will continue to borrow more money then we spend every single year. So I ask you and others who believe that the end is coming if we continue along this path to provide us with a reason why that disaster has not already happened. I am old enough to remember the deficit being a central theme in the election of 84. It was a them in 88, no new taxes got Clinton elected in 92, Newtie railed about it in 94, it wasn't much of an issue in 98, there was fear of paying down the debt too fast in 2000, 2004 saw us deeply in red but war was too patriotic to avoid, 2008 it went into a tailspin, 2010 we had little white people crying about it to no avail...the history of crying wolf is long and so far the wolf has never shown up.

 

[Conservative]

Yes, what you describe is actually a Political strategy, coined by a Republican, Jude Wanniski in 1976 - it's called the "2 Santa Claus Theory".

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-09/republicans-deficits-and-the-two-santa-theory

What the economy required, he wrote, was two Santas: a Democratic one to deliver the gift of government spending, and a Republican one to hand out tax cuts. The addition of the tax-cutting Santa would unleash private enterprise, expand the business sector and dampen the demand for social services, Wanniski thought.

Notice that Wanniski wasn't especially fearful of deficits. He hinted that it was the absence of the tax-cutting Santa that tended to push deficits higher anyway. First, the permanent austerity demanded by the GOP meant that Americans could only receive a bit of succor from the spending delivered by the Democrats. So naturally, they demanded ever more of it. Second, the resulting high tax rates constrained business formation so much that revenues were actually lower than they would be if rates were cut.

Please post the Treasury data showing Trump spending to be a cause of the rising deficits? Also still waiting for the Treasury data showing FIT revenue dropping because of the tax cuts? How are you doing on generating that data? Posting a pretty graph doesn't answer the question as to why the deficit is rising. You blame Trump now prove it with data?

 

[Vadinho]

It does in theory, but no one votes like it matters. With this last tax cut, how many votes do you think any Republican will lose for supporting a bill that added $1.5T to the projected debt, and did nothing to cut spending? The answer is ZERO votes - they'll GAIN votes, lots of them, for giving voters exactly what they want. How many votes will incumbents lose for NOT cutting Medicare, SS, defense? None, they know if they cut those programs, they're DOA, so they don't.

I'll put myself in that boat, but it's mostly because it's just politically stupid in the modern political era to care about deficits. If you insist on candidates who promise to ACTUALLY address the debt, that means big, huge tax increases AND spending cuts, in programs voters want, so the candidate will lose and any party who seriously embraces that will be decimated at the polls. So what's the point?

Exactly. If you look at any budget for any year and demand conservatives to cut spending to match expected tax revenues they will run for the hills screaming "cut foreign aid or make kids work for free lunches or deport all those immigrants" or some such nonsense. They simply do not want to tax themselves for what we all demand from government nor do they want to cut in any meaningful way what those items cost to provide. So it is an exercise in howling at the moon hoping that they can get a wolf pack going loud enough to win an election based upon howling at the moon. The Democrats also believe somewhat in this nonsense because they do not confront it head on and say the whole topic is meaningless, it is pure political theater. If you watch any economic news program do you ever really hear from experts that are not representing a fund or political faction or point of view? Of course not, every economist on the TV is a political operator or representing their own interests. Lets get real economists to explain the economy and teach the nation how to grasp macro. It is time to educate the masses.