 |
| click to expand |
When looking at budget there are three areas that you need to concentrate on. The first is your revenues, the second is your discretionary spending, while the last is the mandatory spending.
If you look at the chart, you will see that revenue growth is in line with where it has been. From the years 2009 through 2017, revenue increased by an average of $134 billion a year. If you look at the upcoming budget projections through 2024, you will see that they increase by an average of $141 billion a year. This sort of reputes the argument that tax cuts lead to a decrease in revenues. Even with the tax cuts, revenues will increase at approximately the same rate (actually slightly higher) that they have.
The second portion that we need to look at is the discretionary spending. This is the area that Congress (and ultimately the President) can control. Discretionary includes all non-mandatory domestic programs as well as the military budget. That discretionary spending is slated to go from approximately 1.2 trillion to 1.436 trillion in 2024 for an average increase of just under $30 billion. Would conservatives like to have seen that decrease rather than increase? Actually yes. But $30 billion/year isn't what is going to break the bank.
The last portion (and what will eventually break the bank) is mandatory spending. Which is Social Security. Medicare, Medicaid, etc... Basically it's all of our "entitlements". The spending on those programs is not "controlled" by congress, unless of course Congress creates new laws to either increase (Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez) or decrease these programs. As it stands, these programs will increase by approximately a trillion dollars between 2017 and 2024. Then, based on these estimates, over the next four years (2025-2028) mandatory spending will increase "another" trillion dollars.
Does anyone see the "real" problem brewing here? It's not whether or not we raise or lower taxes. It's not whether or not we increase or decrease our discretionary spending. Our deficits will increase almost entirely because of our entitlements.
So ask any liberal who wants to talk deficits. Are they willing to cut entitlements to balance the budget? If not, then their argument about deficits is simply uninformed and political. More likely than not, they have been duped by liberal rhetoric, and are repeating it because they don't know any better and are either too lazy or too dumb to check it out themselves.
But the truth is in the numbers. No hiding from the numbers.
41 comments:
New omarosa tape. Trump unaware of her firing.
Newsflash.....chief of staff runs the whitehouse. It should not be a surprise that an aid was let go and lotus was not Interrupted with the details.
Democrats will not touch Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. All their whining about the deficit is just so much hypocritical demagoguery.
:BEIJING, Aug 13 (Reuters) - A vessel carrying U.S. soybeans was unloading its cargo worth at least $23 million at the Chinese port of Dalian on Monday, becoming one of the first shipments to incur hefty new import duties as the trade row deepens between Beijing and Washington.
China's state grains stockpiler Sinograin confirmed in a fax to Reuters it will pay the additional 25 percent import tariff on its 70,000 tonne cargo of the oilseed. That equates to about $6 million.
Comments on the country's Twitter-like Weibo showed early public support for the cargo had started to wane amid concerns that the public is footing the bill for the prolonged trade war."
MORE WINNING.
China simply can not feed itself.
I'm still picking Denise's teeth out of my boot.
This sort of reputes the argument that tax cuts lead to a decrease in revenues. Even with the tax cuts, revenues will increase at approximately the same rate (actually slightly higher) that they have.
Your ignoring the underlying fact is that economic growth will increase, but not as quickly as the economic upturn. That lag has been proof that supply side economics is untrue. The deficit will increase dramatically higher than the economic upturn as a percentage of the GDP.
Nonsense
Now Roger wants us to use the Deficit to GDP ratio.
Why?
Roger never used it before.
Your ignoring the underlying fact is that economic growth will increase, but not as quickly as the economic upturn. That lag has been proof that supply side economics is untrue.
hey rog, how about you elaborate on this point for the benefit of the rest of us, eh? i mean, it sounds like a juicy little talking point that might have tumbled out of paul krugman's ass, so i was hoping you could educate us by putting a little more meat on this bone for us to chew on.
so, to review, your premise is -
"economic growth will increase, but not as quickly as the economic upturn" which leads you to a conclusion "that supply side economics is untrue."
i'm just asking you to show your work, is all. and without an alky-lanche of copy/paste's. because those wouldn't be your work. they would be someone else's.
Lost Years Average Deficit to GDP = 5.7 %.
Today it is 4.2%.
"without an alky-lanche of copy/paste's. "
His base piece was lifted from the Web page "The Balance".
"so i was hoping you could educate us by putting a little more meat on this bone for us to chew on." RRB
This could get really good, IF, alky conducts a conversation on his topic.
So ask any liberal who wants to talk deficits. Are they willing to cut entitlements to balance the budget?
no way.
if hypocrisy is the bedrock of liberalism, then free shit via entitlements is its life's blood.
once you remove dependence upon government, then there is no need for the democrat party to exist.
This could get really good, IF, alky conducts a conversation on his topic.
not a chance. that's why i called him on it. he shot his wad with someone else's talking point.
Roger ran away again.
Actually Roger did what he always does.
Not actually pay attention to the post, the numbers, or the logic.
According to Roger, because economic growth is "so much higher" under Trump, then revenues should be "so much higher" as well. This requires admittance that the Trump economy far exceeded the Obama economy, which is an argument few on the left like to make.
Secondly, it pretty much ignores the economic argument that you can cut taxes without decreasing revenues, because the decrease in taxes will spur growth and make up for the difference. That is "supply side economics" and this is proof it works. We cut taxes. Economy boomed. Revenues increased.
Roger is echoing the "assumptive" argument that the tax cuts have nothing to do with the increase in economic growth, and that if we had left everything as it was that we would still have 4% growth (we wouldn't) and therefor our tax revenue would be higher. It logically makes no argument other than an assumption that people with more money somehow do not spend it.
But the reality is that we could have kept taxes at the same rate, still been stagnant at 1% to 2% growth, unemployment would be higher... but yeah, revenues may be around the same. The question is whether or not you want the stagnant growth or whether or not you want 4% growth and low unemployment.
But... the bigger problem is that Roger has been parroting the false claims that the deficits will grow because of "reckless spending" - when there is no such thing happening.
If Roger was capable of thinking for himself, he would do what I did, look at the numbers, and come to the same conclusion.
"Roger ran away again.: CS
That’s our Roger the Dodger.
another thing worth mentioning is the rollback of regulations. trump shitcanned virtually all of 0linsky's 'pen and phone' regs meant to harm business, and i'd like to be able to monetize the effect that has had on the economy.
I didn't rely upon anyone else. I stated the fact that is yes, economic growth will increase tax revenues. But the increased tax revenues do not increase sufficiently to balance or decrease the deficit. Bill Clinton generated almost 21million new jobs. When he left office the debt was almost balanced for the first time in decades. He increased taxes.
He did famously said that he may have increased the taxes too much. And we had a minor recession as he left office. If he had kept his dick in his pants he would be seen in history as one of the best.
"reckless spending" - is a big parade for about $10,000,000. A Space Forces out of Star Wars. I'm capable of thinking for myself Scott I wrote this and everything else except the statistics that exposed the lies by the President on African American unemployment.
The tax cuts probably gave us 4.1% growth for one time. But the national debt increased faster than the tax revenue.
When he left office the debt was almost balanced for the first time in decades.
Umm no
The rollback of the use of asbestos is a very good example of Trumpism stage four.
I knew people who died as a result of exposure to asbestos. I was also exposed to asbestos but I'm lucky enough to avoid damage. I was 18 and working on a project to replace water lines. The existing pipeline was built to include asbestos. I had to cut the existing pipeline with a saw, and I was exposed to asbestos in the dust.
I have more lung capacity than about half of the population or more. I can still hold my breath for 90 seconds.
there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased.
Excluding Social Security.
It didn't last very long. George W passed the tax cuts despite the massive costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
You said Debt then post a link showing the budget deficit.
You do know they are 2 entirely separate things, right???
geezus
When you balance the budget you are no longer increasing the deficit.
Do you know they are 2 entirely separate things, but are directly affected by each other.
A surplus of tax revenues will decrease the deficit.
Did you fail mathematics like rrb failed English.
The unemployment rate for black Americans in 2009 it was 16%
In 2017 it was 7.5%"
Alky on stats, so sad, so wrong so often on so many subjects.
Cali, when alky goes of cut n paste we get , well you said it, confessed alky.
"You said Debt then post a link showing the budget deficit.
You do know they are 2 entirely separate things, right???
geezus" Cali.
so i was hoping you could educate us by putting a little more meat on this bone for us to chew on." RRB
This could get really good, IF, alky conducts a conversation on his topic.
RRB, it is a bridge too, too, too far for Roger.
No omarosa. Kelly runs the whitehouse not the country. You work there, you work for him.
Black unemployment
Roger third party stats are wrong.
Did you fail mathematics like rrb failed English.
so we don't pay interest on the debt. Facinating
admit you were wrong and move on
Wow.
" we don't pay interest on the debt. Facinating" Cali
Alky is s t r u g g l I n g.
Liberals wrong again. They promised US Government income would crash . 100 % wrong.
"CNSNews.com) - The federal government collected a record $1,415,150,000,000 in individual income taxes through the first ten months of fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through July 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement."
"reckless spending" - is a big parade for about $10,000,000. A Space Forces out of Star Wars. I'm capable of thinking for myself Scott I wrote this and everything else except the statistics that exposed the lies by the President on African American unemployment.
So.... just so we are clear.
The fact that our entitlement programs are going to increase by two trillion dollars a year by 2028 isn't something you see as a problem.
The problem is spending money on a parade????
Yeah, Roger... That one you probably got on your own.
It's obvious that only someone with your intelligence could have come up with that. Obviously someone with a high understanding of math can see that an extra two trillion a year is much less of a concern than a one time ten million dollar expenditure.
The numbers speak for themselves Roger. Did you bother to look at them, or just gloss them over as irrelevant in comparison to "rhetoric" about how much a Parade might or might not cost.
At the end of the day, our entitlement spending is out of control. Right now our discretionary spending uses approximately 47.6% of the budget. Ten years from now it will only be 35.5% of the budget.
There are only two "real" reasons why our debt will increase Roger.
Entitlement spending.
Debt on the deficit.
You droning on about the cost of Parades or what not only shows how ignorant you really are about budget issues.
So Roger - you want to talk "history".
When Ronald Reagan took over as President our revenues were at 517 billion.
Eight years later they increased by 79% to 909 billion
He slashed taxes and got us out a bad recession. Revenues continued to increase for years after he was out of office.
When Clinton took over as President our revenues were at 1091
Eight years later they increased by 84% to 2025.2
He increased revenues marginally more than Reagan with a combination of lowering taxes on businesses and raising income taxes. But he also left us in a recession. Moreover revenues actually "decreased" for the next three years.
So you want a long term growth strategy... why would you choose the one that seems to have a short life span, and eventually leads to decreases?
just curious...
Roger had to go perv on teen girls at the local mall, err I mean " gym ".
Bill Clinton generated almost 21million new jobs.
he didn't generate a single fucking job. the dot-com, y2k, vaporware economy and subsequent bubble? THAT generated 21 million jobs. and shed most of those jobs shortly thereafter. i lived through it, and it was one helluva party and one helluva hangover afterwords. part of my job was to evaluate technology business plans for one of the major wireless carriers. most of the shit that crossed my desk was just that - shit. it was one big "pets.com sock puppet" shitshow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble
Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx
Yep, the free shit train has left the station.
Yep the shit train has left the station with donnie..... Anyone want to calculate the deficit increase from Obama's last year deficit of 666 B? to now??? Yep, fiscal conservatives my fucking ass....
he numbers: The federal government ran a monthly budget deficit of $77 billion in July, up 79% over the same month a year ago. For the first 10 months of fiscal 2018, the shortfall totals $684 billion, according to the Treasury Department. That’s an increase of 21% compared to the same period in 2017.
What happened: Receipts fell 3% compared to last July, with the government getting less money from both corporations and individuals in the wake of the new tax law. Corporate revenues were down 34% as companies enjoyed a reduced 21% tax rate. And individuals continued to send fewer tax dollars to the Treasury, after lower withholding from paychecks took effect in February. President Donald Trump signed the law in December.
Spending, meanwhile, jumped by 10% in July as the government shelled out more for programs across the board. Interest payments on the public debt jumped by 41% in the month.
Big picture: Congressional budget analysts predict the deficit for the full year will be about 19% bigger than last year’s shortfall, the result of both the Republican tax law and spending boosts approved by lawmakers earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office predicts trillion-dollar deficits will return in 2020.
Post a Comment