Where is Trump's Balanced Budget?

[JasperL]

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:

It's not me who votes in Congress like it doesn't matter. Who did you vote for in the last election? If it's republicans, you cannot actually care about deficits, because we knew they'd increase them with tax cuts, and they did. My own retiring Sen. Corker couldn't even bring himself to actually care about deficits. He whined and cried about it, but then when it came down to it voted for budget busting tax cuts offset by nothing. Of course he did - that's why he was elected.

So it doesn't really matter who you voted for at the end of the day. Anyone who considers themselves fiscally conservatives and pulls the lever for the GOP is willfully ignorant of their history.

 

[Media_Truth]

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?

The Trump deficit clearly indicates (Treasury data included) that the Trump tax cuts have cut revenue, and that this corresponding drop is not being balanced by income tax additions. But the "Trickle Down" proponents won't admit this until we pass further into the point of no return. REPUBLICANS = HIGHER DEFICITS!!!

 

[ttwtt78640]

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?

To even attempt to argue that a reduction in federal income tax (FIT) rates while increasing federal spending did not make the deficit increase is foolish. While it is true that total FIT revenue did not go down (yet corporate FIT revenue did decrease by about $92B from 2017 to 2018) it is also true that federal spending increased more than federal revenue did.

 

[Conservative]

The Trump deficit clearly indicates (Treasury data included) that the Trump tax cuts have cut revenue, and that this corresponding drop is not being balanced by income tax additions. But the "Trickle Down" proponents won't admit this until we pass further into the point of no return. REPUBLICANS = HIGHER DEFICITS!!!

Where exactly is that shown on your chart?? The line doesn't distinguish as to the cause just the fact that there was a deficit. To solve the deficit you have to attack the details and as I have posted Treasury data shows only a 4 billion dollar reduction of FIT revenue the first 6 months of 2018 with all of that in the first qtr.

You really don't have any understanding of civics and the true role of the three equal branches of govt. To you it is nothing but partisan rhetoric without data to support your claims Reducing deficits that still added 9.3 trillion to the debt isn't something to take pride in, like you are doing. I am waiting for you to post the line items in the budget from treasury that caused the deficits you are blaming on Republicans. No one party generated the current 21 trillion dollar debt but partisan beliefs won't allow you to recognize that reality nor the reality that almost all the 2018 deficit was due to Interest on the debt inherited and the mandatory increases authorized by Congress for the entitlement programs, things like cost of living increases to SS

 

[Conservative]

To even attempt to argue that a reduction in federal income tax (FIT) rates while increasing federal spending did not make the deficit increase is foolish. While it is true that total FIT revenue did not go down (yet corporate FIT revenue did decrease by about $92B from 2017 to 2018) it is also true that federal spending increased more than federal revenue did.

The point remains, federal income tax revenue has set a record in 2018 as has been linked earlier in this thread thus record revenue with tax cuts is being ignored by the left who for some reason believes that taxing the rich will solve all the budgetary problems in the country.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The point remains, federal income tax revenue has set a record in 2018 as has been linked earlier in this thread thus record revenue with tax cuts is being ignored by the left who for some reason believes that taxing the rich will solve all the budgetary problems in the country.

It would take taxing more than just "the rich" (a bit?) more to increase federal income tax revenue enough (40%?) to cover the current level of federal spending. Neither party has any plan to balance the federal budget mainly because they enjoy a congressional re-election rate of over 90% by simply not doing so. There is no chance that the federal deficit will not be greater in 2019 than it was in 2018 even with 'record growth' in GDP and higher FIT revenue.

 

[Vadinho]

The point remains, federal income tax revenue has set a record in 2018 as has been linked earlier in this thread thus record revenue with tax cuts is being ignored by the left who for some reason believes that taxing the rich will solve all the budgetary problems in the country.

Tax revenues usually increase every year except in very rare instances like 2009 when millions lost their jobs quickly. Arguing that just because tax revenues increase tax cuts caused them is to argue for the Laffer Curve which has been a theoretical joke since it first came on the scene in the late 70s. I heard Art once answer the question "Assuming your curve represents reality, how does one know which side of the curve one is on at any given moment". Art laughed and said there is no way to know so when in doubt "lower taxes". That is the basis for conservative economic thought, pure ideology hiding behind theory and advising that if you just give them one more chance, they will prove themselves correct. Well, it has never really happened at these rates. They trot out the Kennedy tax cuts as if they should guide us today. Tax rates back then were far higher then today. Same with Reagans tax cuts for the wealthy. We are in a historically low tax rate era, the marginal utility of cutting rates further to unleash untaxed capital gains is low. If you want more tax revenue, there is plenty of room to increase taxes at the top and to corporations. The poor and middle class do not make enough money to bear tax rate increases to decrease deficits.

 

[noonereal]

Tax revenues usually increase every year except in very rare instances like 2009 when millions lost their jobs quickly. Arguing that just because tax revenues increase tax cuts caused them is to argue for the Laffer Curve which has been a theoretical joke since it first came on the scene in the late 70s. I heard Art once answer the question "Assuming your curve represents reality, how does one know which side of the curve one is on at any given moment". Art laughed and said there is no way to know so when in doubt "lower taxes". That is the basis for conservative economic thought, pure ideology hiding behind theory and advising that if you just give them one more chance, they will prove themselves correct. Well, it has never really happened at these rates. They trot out the Kennedy tax cuts as if they should guide us today. Tax rates back then were far higher then today. Same with Reagans tax cuts for the wealthy. We are in a historically low tax rate era, the marginal utility of cutting rates further to unleash untaxed capital gains is low. If you want more tax revenue, there is plenty of room to increase taxes at the top and to corporations. The poor and middle class do not make enough money to bear tax rate increases to decrease deficits.

He's a very "base" guy in intellect. I don't bother and I learned that after just a few days of posting here.

 

[Conservative]

Tax revenues usually increase every year except in very rare instances like 2009 when millions lost their jobs quickly. Arguing that just because tax revenues increase tax cuts caused them is to argue for the Laffer Curve which has been a theoretical joke since it first came on the scene in the late 70s. I heard Art once answer the question "Assuming your curve represents reality, how does one know which side of the curve one is on at any given moment". Art laughed and said there is no way to know so when in doubt "lower taxes". That is the basis for conservative economic thought, pure ideology hiding behind theory and advising that if you just give them one more chance, they will prove themselves correct. Well, it has never really happened at these rates. They trot out the Kennedy tax cuts as if they should guide us today. Tax rates back then were far higher then today. Same with Reagans tax cuts for the wealthy. We are in a historically low tax rate era, the marginal utility of cutting rates further to unleash untaxed capital gains is low. If you want more tax revenue, there is plenty of room to increase taxes at the top and to corporations. The poor and middle class do not make enough money to bear tax rate increases to decrease deficits.

Which defies the big govt. liberal logic that tax cuts REDUCE revenue. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn sure bothers people like you and the question is why? Reagan's tax cuts saw revenue grow over 60% as 17 million new jobs were created. Obama had 6 million NEW jobs created during his 8 years in office, 146 million to 152 million, Trump has 4 million already in 1 1/2 years.

Why do we need more tax revenue for the bureaucrats to spend and why do we need a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. with people keeping more of what they earn? You obviously haven't looked that the proposed Trump budget but simply buy what the left tells you. The truth is as a liberal you have never seen a dollar that you wouldn't spend and since deficits didn't bother you during the Obama term it is hypocritical whining about them now

 

[Conservative]

He's a very "base" guy in intellect. I don't bother and I learned that after just a few days of posting here.

You want to debate the issues or go on ignore as well? if you want to just talk to like minded civics challenged individuals just let me know but this is a debate forum something you refuse to do

 

[Lord of Planar]

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.

There were so many other things happen. Revenue after a year or two remains the same 18.3% of GDP (or is it GNP?) We are so close to the top of the laffer curve, that tax rates have only a minuscule effect. We should cut taxes until it can be seen we went to far, and raise them again.

What we need to do is both grow the economy and spend less on social program. This is what liberal oppose and conservatives try to do. We need to get people back to work in productive jobs which will never happen with such dramatic trade deficits and illegal immigration.

This liberal mentality will be the death of America, creating a socialist republic of 50 states.

 

[Vadinho]

Which defies the big govt. liberal logic that tax cuts REDUCE revenue. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn sure bothers people like you and the question is why? Reagan's tax cuts saw revenue grow over 60% as 17 million new jobs were created. Obama had 6 million NEW jobs created during his 8 years in office, 146 million to 152 million, Trump has 4 million already in 1 1/2 years.

Why do we need more tax revenue for the bureaucrats to spend and why do we need a 4 trillion dollar federal govt. with people keeping more of what they earn? You obviously haven't looked that the proposed Trump budget but simply buy what the left tells you. The truth is as a liberal you have never seen a dollar that you wouldn't spend and since deficits didn't bother you during the Obama term it is hypocritical whining about them now

Reagan ran a gigantic deficit funding the war machine. If you want to give anyone credit, give it to Volker who saved Reagan's ass after the Reagan recession. You keep harping on expenditures, go to our current budget and tell us how we cut expenditures to balance the budget. I believe you will have to whack 700 billion or so, maybe more. Until then, your posts are nothing but ideological drivel.

 

[Conservative]

Reagan ran a gigantic deficit funding the war machine. If you want to give anyone credit, give it to Volker who saved Reagan's ass after the Reagan recession. You keep harping on expenditures, go to our current budget and tell us how we cut expenditures to balance the budget. I believe you will have to whack 700 billion or so, maybe more. Until then, your posts are nothing but ideological drivel.

Interesting so now it is back to Reagan? Reagan created a 1.7 trillion dollar debt in 8 years leaving debt at 50% of GDP which of course was terrible to you but Clinton left a 1.4 trillion dollar debt in 8 years which is now touted. You people just don't have a clue as to what you are talking about or proper perspective on economic or civics issues. Reagan inherited a double dip recession and regardless of what you think got 10 million more votes and won in 1984 with 49 out of 50 states. Apparently your perception of Reagan is typical of your perception of everything else, WRONG !

Look if you want to send your paycheck to the federal govt. do so, sending it to the IRS then asking them to send back what they think you need. Doubt that is going to happen and believe that someone from the worst state in the nation for poverty, homelessness, quality of life, income inequality, and having well over a trillion dollars in debt should be talking about U.S. problems when you cannot even handle your own state

 

[RabidAlpaca]

View attachment 67242320

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.

I do have a plan. It's called don't blow a trillion dollar hole in the deficit by giving massive tax cuts primarily to the super rich.

And yes, by completely ignoring the deficit while a Republica is in the white house you are saying you don't really care about the deficit, only partisanship.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I do have a plan. It's called don't blow a trillion dollar hole in the deficit by giving massive tax cuts primarily to the super rich.

And yes, by completely ignoring the deficit while a Republica is in the white house you are saying you don't really care about the deficit, only partisanship.

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will equalize very close to 18.3%

 

[noonereal]

You want to debate the issues or go on ignore as well? if you want to just talk to like minded civics challenged individuals just let me know but this is a debate forum something you refuse to do

I talk to intelligent people, regardless of their affiliation, or those that want to learn. You are neither.

 

[Vadinho]

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will equalize very close to 18.3%

Perhaps then the tax base should grow to 20 or 21% of GNP. Many nations pay for a wonderful lifestyle at much higher rates of taxation, there is nothing sacrosanct about 18.3 or 24.3 for that matter. If we want to balance the budget, growing into the deficit is never, ever going to balance it, never.

 

[noonereal]

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will equalize very close to 18.3%

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will leave a big ass deficit.

 

[Conservative]

I talk to intelligent people, regardless of their affiliation, or those that want to learn. You are neither.

You radicals never recognize just how poorly informed you are. In order to educate someone you have to be knowledgeable of the subject and you haven't proven that to be true. You want to educate people into the leftwing ideology based upon your own beliefs never addressing the data or actual results. That is indoctrination NOT education.

 

[Conservative]

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will leave a big ass deficit.

So when you have more money in your paycheck your budget deficit increases automatically? That is the leftwing claim because people keeping more of what they earn leads to more govt. spending, WHY?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Perhaps then the tax base should grow to 20 or 21% of GNP. Many nations pay for a wonderful lifestyle at much higher rates of taxation, there is nothing sacrosanct about 18.3 or 24.3 for that matter. If we want to balance the budget, growing into the deficit is never, ever going to balance it, never.

That isn't my point at all. It is a fact that our federal government revenue remains at an approximate 18.3% equilibrium with taxes today, and higer taxes of the tast taxes. Lower taxed allow growth, and the added growth generates revenue to compensate for the lower rates.

I know. Indoctrinated liberals cannot believe such simple truths.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No matter the tax rates with moderate changes, the revenue will leave a big ass deficit.

Absolutely.

That's why spending needs to be cut.

 

[noonereal]

Absolutely.

That's why spending needs to be cut.

as does raising revenues.

this is not rocket science, it's politics.

 

[Vadinho]

That isn't my point at all. It is a fact that our federal government revenue remains at an approximate 18.3% equilibrium with taxes today, and higer taxes of the tast taxes. Lower taxed allow growth, and the added growth generates revenue to compensate for the lower rates.

I know. Indoctrinated liberals cannot believe such simple truths.

So you are claiming an irrefutable law of macro economics that the we are at the Goldilocks position. This is also known as Laffer Curve disease.

 

[Vadinho]

Absolutely.

That's why spending needs to be cut.

Go ahead and get the budget details and start cutting. Can't wait to hear how you will find hundreds of billions of dollars to cut.