Trump Seeks $3.6 Trillion in Spending Cuts to Reshape Government

[Galileo Galilei]

Trump Seeks $3.6 Trillion in Spending Cuts to Reshape Government

.....


President Donald Trump would dramatically reduce the U.S. government’s role in society with $3.6 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years in a budget plan that shrinks the safety net for the poor, recent college graduates and farmers.

Trump’s proposal, to be released Tuesday, claims to balance the budget within a decade. But it relies on a tax plan for which the administration has provided precious little detail, the elimination of programs backed by many Republican lawmakers, and heavy use of accounting gimmicks.

.....


The plan calls for some new domestic spending, including $25 billion over 10 years for nationwide paid parental leave -- a cause championed by First Daughter Ivanka Trump -- and an expansion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students. The Department of Homeland Security’s budget would increase $3 billion versus the final full year of President Barack Obama’s term, while the Pentagon’s budget would see a $6 billion increase over that same time.

The sheer ambition of the president’s plan, which would cut domestic agencies by 10 percent in 2018 and by 40 percent in 2027, make the budget even less likely to gain traction on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers regularly flout the annual blueprint offered by the executive branch. But lawmakers are also likely to view some of the administration’s accounting gimmicks with extreme skepticism.

.....


The independent Tax Policy Center estimated that Trump’s campaign tax plan would add $7.2 trillion to the deficit. Economic growth spurred by Trump’s tax and regulation policy would add more than $2 trillion in tax revenue, according to the budget documents.

The budget also makes use of several other classic accounting gimmicks. It assumes that the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East will cause future Congresses to allocate $593 billion in extra war funding that won’t be needed and then claims to save that amount by not spending it.

The Trump budget also assumes a $35 billion savings from changes to financial services industry regulations and a repeal of the Dodd-Frank law’s orderly liquidation authority, under which financial regulators are empowered to untangle and wind down the biggest banks in a crisis. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected savings of $14.5 billion over a decade from eliminating the authority.

Trump has promised a wall on the southern U.S. border that Mexico will eventually pay for, and the budget includes $2.6 billion in 2018 – $1.6 billion for “new and replacement border wall’’ in certain locations and about $1 billion for other items including aircraft, equipment and surveillance technology to deter illegal activity. Trump estimates the wall will cost $8 billion to $12 billion, but most experts say it will likely be more expensive.

.....


But while defense spending is set to see a boost, social safety net programs are in the president’s crosshairs. Medicaid cuts of $610 billion would come alongside $250 billion savings -- partly fueled by limiting expanded Medicaid -- from repealing Obamacare. Food stamps would be cut by $193 billion.

Federal workers would see much less generous retirement benefits under the budget. Eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for retirees would save $42 billion while increasing required employee retirement contributions would save $72 billion. And the budget would save $72 billion through cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance.

The administration has pitched its changes to student loan programs as beneficial to students. The budget would create a single repayment plan that would cap monthly payments at 12.5 percent of discretionary income, an increase from the 10 percent cap under some existing payment plans. But students would only need to repay their loans for 15 years, rather than 20, with the remainder wiped out by the federal government. That change would cut the federal subsidy by $76 billion.

.....

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-23/trump-seeks-3-6-trillion-in-spending-cuts-to-reshape-government

How is this not libertarian?

[Swordsmyth]

How is this not libertarian?

"The plan calls for some new domestic spending, including $25 billion over 10 years for nationwide paid parental leave -- a cause championed by First Daughter Ivanka Trump -- and an expansion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students. The Department of Homeland Security’s budget would increase $3 billion versus the final full year of President Barack Obama’s term, while the Pentagon’s budget would see a $6 billion increase over that same time."

Mixed bag, but better than recent administrations would be doing.

[kcchiefs6465]

How much did the Pentagon lose in ten years?

[tod evans]

Cut more faster!

I want to see lines of unemployed and starving government "workers"....




Wait!!!

You mean nobody got fired?

No pensions cut?

No 'benefits' lost? :rolleyes:

[CPUd]

596338364187602944
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/596338364187602944

[Galileo Galilei]

"The plan calls for some new domestic spending, including $25 billion over 10 years for nationwide paid parental leave -- a cause championed by First Daughter Ivanka Trump -- and an expansion of the Pell Grant program for low-income students. The Department of Homeland Security’s budget would increase $3 billion versus the final full year of President Barack Obama’s term, while the Pentagon’s budget would see a $6 billion increase over that same time."

Mixed bag, but better than recent administrations would be doing.

a mixed bag? The $25 billion is already subtracted out, otherwise it would cut $3.625 trillion.

[Galileo Galilei]

Cut more faster!

I want to see lines of unemployed and starving government "workers"....




Wait!!!

You mean nobody got fired?

No pensions cut?

No 'benefits' lost? :rolleyes:

It says the cuts are already too big to pass as is anyway.

[Galileo Galilei]

596338364187602944
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/596338364187602944

OK, but what does that have to do with the $3.6 trillion cut?

[Galileo Galilei]

How much did the Pentagon lose in ten years?

Pentagon spending is factored in already. $3.6 trillion is the net spending cut.

[Swordsmyth]

a mixed bag? The $25 billion is already subtracted out, otherwise it would cut $3.625 trillion.


Cut more faster!

I want to see lines of unemployed and starving government "workers"....




Wait!!!

You mean nobody got fired?

No pensions cut?

No 'benefits' lost? :rolleyes:


Plus it still spends on unconstitutional items.

[nikcers]

What the fuck its been a few weeks since Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 so now he is libertarian now? He has full control to end the appeal the Obamacare administration made against congress to fund the health insurance bail outs. All he has to do is not shit the bed, the stupid house bill won't pass the budget rules and will have to get amended and voted on in the House again.

[kcchiefs6465]

Pentagon spending is factored in already. $3.6 trillion is the net spending cut.
That did not address the underlying issue my question posed.

Ten years is a long time, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the piper comes piping for the $60,000 every man, woman, and child already owes by then.

[Galileo Galilei]

Plus it still spends on unconstitutional items.

Uh, the government is already spending on unconstitutional items. Do you want the cuts to actually pass? Or do you want a big government so youhave something to complain about?

[Galileo Galilei]

That did not address the underlying issue my question posed.

Ten years is a long time, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the piper comes piping for the $60,000 every man, woman, and child already owes by then.

They always do the budgets over 10 years.

[Galileo Galilei]

What the $#@! its been a few weeks since Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 so now he is libertarian now? He has full control to end the appeal the Obamacare administration made against congress to fund the health insurance bail outs. All he has to do is not $#@! the bed, the stupid house bill won't pass the budget rules and will have to get amended and voted on in the House again.

Nice head-fake.

[Swordsmyth]

Uh, the government is already spending on unconstitutional items. Do you want the cuts to actually pass? Or do you want a big government so youhave something to complain about?

You asked "How is this not libertarian?"
Not "is this better than what we have been getting?"
I said it was a mixed bag and it was better than we have been getting.

[nikcers]

Nice head-fake.
Healthcare is a huge chunk of whats wrong with our country. If he isn't going to do anything about military spending, which he isn't, then he better not shit the bed on healthcare. If Trump is going to suggest that the congress pass a budget signing the omnibus appropriations was stupid, Congress is just going to continue to put forwards these shitty omnibus bill and Trump has already shown he will not back down. Trump will probably primary the budget hawks in the house too, because nice head fake.

[Galileo Galilei]

You asked "How is this not libertarian?"
Not "is this better than what we have been getting?"
I said it was a mixed bag and it was better than we have been getting.

That would be a pretty lame response for a real libertarian.

[Galileo Galilei]

Healthcare is a huge chunk of whats wrong with out country. If he isn't going to do anything about military spending, which he isn't, then he better not $#@! the bed on healthcare. If Trump is going to suggest that the congress pass a budget signing the omnibus appropriations was stupid, Congress is just going to continue to put forwards these $#@!ty omnibus bill and Trump has already shown he will not back down. Trump will probably primary the budget hawks in the house too, because nice head fake.

OK, let's make those cuts, too, and get it through congress so Trump will sign it. Can you help?

[Swordsmyth]

That would be a pretty lame response for a real libertarian.

Excuse me but I am the one holding Dump to a higher standard than YOU.

[nikcers]

OK, let's make those cuts, too, and get it through congress so Trump will sign it. Can you help? You think Trump would sign cuts to military spending? When has he ever suggested this? I think in the debate Rand Paul was the only person who said anything about cutting military because we already spending more then the next 7 countries. Health care is simple, Trump just has to let Obamacare fail on its own, he just needs to not pass more insurance bail outs. He just needs to not request more bailouts from congress, end the appeal Obama made.

[ILUVRP]

trump also said he would get prescription drugs prices down ( at least down to what people in canada pay ) but that turned out to be more bs .

[Galileo Galilei]

You think Trump would sign cuts to military spending? When has he ever suggested this? I think in the debate Rand Paul was the only person who said anything about cutting military because we already spending more then the next 7 countries. Health care is simple, Trump just has to let Obamacare fail on its own, he just needs to not pass more insurance bail outs. He just needs to not request more bailouts from congress, end the appeal Obama made.

Military spending will go down eventually because Trump has eliminated war propaganda and false-flag events in the US. It is a demand-side plan that works better in the long run. Supply-side cuts to the military never work.

[nikcers]

trump also said he would get prescription drugs prices down ( at least down to what people in canada pay ) but that turned out to be more bs . Do you remember how he said he would do it? Trumps plans always involve some carrot and stick jiggery pokery. Like making a poorer country wall itself off. I mean just imagine, its like holding down someone smaller than you and using their hand to punch themselves in the face. Or his solution to war being expensive and burdening the economy: use more war to make money back you spent on war. It's like the Trump casino all over again. I need to gamble to win back money I lost gambled mentality.

[nikcers]

Military spending will go down eventually because Trump has eliminated war propaganda and false-flag events in the US. It is a demand-side plan that works better in the long run. Supply-side cuts to the military never work. Yeah look at all the fraud waste and abuse Trump has cut. He doesn't even do any war propaganda, Iran and NK are making all of the war propaganda.

[Swordsmyth]

It says the cuts are already too big to pass as is anyway.

I don't care if it passes. Bring on the Government Shutdown.

[oyarde]

How much did the Pentagon lose in ten years?

As far as i know nobody knows , I do not think there has ever even been a proper accounting of it all .

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't care if it passes. Bring on the Government Shutdown.

Expect one in September.

[kcchiefs6465]

As far as i know nobody knows , I do not think there has ever even been a proper accounting of it all .
We'll cut their unknown trillions of dollars worth of waste by increasing their budget.

Because, tax cuts, eventually.

[TheCount]

Expect one in September.I had to delete other Trumpredictions from my signature to make room for yours. :(

[Galileo Galilei]

I had to delete other Trumpredictions from my signature to make room for yours. :(

mark mine down, and the Fed audit, too. The others are either wrong or more nuanced.

[Zippyjuan]

"Balancing" relies on the economy growing twice as fast every year for the next decade as it did in the past decade. Plus some other "unknown factors". It also assumes that Congress (who will write the actual budget) passes it as is. The presidential budget is only a suggestion. It is very unusual for the president to not release his budget proposal in person. Physically distancing himself from it- litteraly as well as figuratively?

[TheCount]

mark mine down, and the Fed audit, too. The others are either wrong or more nuanced.The guy who appointed the CIO of Goldman Sachs and President of OneWest Bank as the Treasury Secretary is going to audit the Fed?

[PierzStyx]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[nikcers]

I'll believe it when I see it.
In a few weeks he will probably just purpose an increase in spending. Trump seems to cater to whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

The president’s budget, released Tuesday, reduces funding for the Office of National Drug Policy (ONDCP) by $11 million, a 3-percent cut.
the White House just weeks ago had floated slashing the ONDCP’s budget by nearly 95 percent.

[nikcers]

Military spending will go down eventually because Trump has eliminated war propaganda and false-flag events in the US. It is a demand-side plan that works better in the long run. Supply-side cuts to the military never work. Somebody didn't read Trumps budget?

$1.5 trillion in non-defense discretionary cuts and $1.4 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the course of a decade, while adding nearly half a trillion dollars to defense spending.

[dannno]

trump also said he would get prescription drugs prices down ( at least down to what people in canada pay ) but that turned out to be more bs .

Will you make a retraction for this post when prescription drug prices come down in the next few years?

[Galileo Galilei]

The guy who appointed the CIO of Goldman Sachs and President of OneWest Bank as the Treasury Secretary is going to audit the Fed?

Traitorous Goldman Sachs people sold out to Trump. Trump has the power, Trump has the cards, and people are selling out to the pro-liberty Trump agenda. Trump does not need the rank-in-file Goldman Sachs filth, he got elected without their help. Some of the rats have jumped ship. You should be happy about this, rather than bitching about it.

[KrokHead]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Pretty much. But if there is a map towards a balanced budget it will be a massive leap in the right direction for the United States.

[Zippyjuan]

With the passage of the "Continuing Budget Resolution" recently passed which covers the US government spending until October, I don't expect much serious discussion until late September.

Ivanka wants more social spending- he put in a proposal to spend $19 billion on paid family leave for up to six weeks following the birth (or adoption) of a child. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-paid-leave-ivanka/


He also suggested making child care expenses tax deductible for families earning less than $500,000 and called for establishing tax-free accounts to be used for child care and child enrichment activities.

[Zippyjuan]

Pretty much. But if there is a map towards a balanced budget it will be a massive leap in the right direction for the United States.

This is just the spending side- it doesn't include the tax cuts he wants. That will increase the deficit by more than his proposed cuts. Also has nothing about the $1 trillion he wants for infrastructure spending.

[Galileo Galilei]

Trump Administration Unveils The Most Libertarian Budget In History, But Will Congress Approve It?

— Published on May 23, 2017 — in News — by Shane Trejo

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/trump-administration-unveils-libertarian-budget-history-will-congress-approve/

[Galileo Galilei]

Mulvaney Discovers 300 Billion in Unauthorized Government Spending | The Liberty Conservative


Yesterday, Mick Mulvaney, in the White House Briefing Room announced that his team has discovered over $300 Billion per year in unauthorized government spending. Mulvaney announced that past government budgets have continued to spend money on these programs that Congress only authorized for a set period of time. With the National debt getting close to $20 Trillion, a savings of $300 Billion a year is substantial.

http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/mulvaney-discovers-300-billion-unauthorized-government-spending/

[TheCount]

OMG this site is hilarious.


http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FullSizeRender-e1494335912759.jpg

[Swordsmyth]

OMG this site is hilarious.


http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/FullSizeRender-e1494335912759.jpg


Says the guy with the Willie Wonka avatar.

[Madison320]

I'm disappointed in this forum. I can't believe you guys are falling for this 10 year budget cut crap. Again. It's not a budget "cut". It's the old "decrease" in the "increase" game. And it's not binding in any way. Future congresses can undo it in a second (and they will). And although I haven't seen the budget proposal yet, I can guarantee you it's backloaded. Meaning the bigger cuts are off in the future. This year will probably be an increase and that's all that matters. It's 100% scam and nobody in this thread even mentioned it. Damn.

[juleswin]

I'm disappointed in this forum. I can't believe you guys are falling for this 10 year budget cut crap. Again. It's not a budget "cut". It's the old "decrease" in the "increase" game. And it's not binding in any way. Future congresses can undo it in a second (and they will). And although I haven't seen the budget proposal yet, I can guarantee you it's backloaded. Meaning the bigger cuts are off in the future. This year will probably be an increase and that's all that matters. It's 100% scam and nobody in this thread even mentioned it. Damn.


I'll believe it when I see it.

What they said. I am 99% sure that it would be as what Madison said but I would keep my mind open that the 1% possibility would happen. The evidence of it would convince me, so I will be waiting for the day when it happens.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm disappointed in this forum. I can't believe you guys are falling for this 10 year budget cut crap. Again. It's not a budget "cut". It's the old "decrease" in the "increase" game. And it's not binding in any way. Future congresses can undo it in a second (and they will). And although I haven't seen the budget proposal yet, I can guarantee you it's backloaded. Meaning the bigger cuts are off in the future. This year will probably be an increase and that's all that matters. It's 100% scam and nobody in this thread even mentioned it. Damn.

Overall, it is a significant decrease of federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

[The Rebel Poet]

How have (almost) all of you - pro- and anti-Trump alike - fell for this media narrative that this is an austere budget that slashes spending? Read the damn thing! Guys, this is not a libertarian budget, this is not a conservative budget, this budget increases spending.

2017 budget (in billions): $4,062; 2018 budget (in billions) $4,094 - an INCREASE of 32 billion dollars!

But the news media dutifully repeats over and over the imaginary 3.6 trillion in cuts, and if you repeat a thing often and loud enough it becomes truth. This lie has a double effect of giving progressives the spending they want without stopping the riots, and tricking conservatives into thinking Trump is shrinking the government.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf#page=31

Bonus fact: It plans to increase the debt as well: Debt held by the public (in billions) 2017: $14,824 2018: $15,353 first year increase in debt: 656 billion dollars.

[Madison320]

Overall, it is a significant decrease of federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Wipe that kool-aid off your chin!

[Madison320]

How have (almost) all of you - pro- and anti-Trump alike - fell for this media narrative that this is an austere budget that slashes spending? Read the damn thing! Guys, this is not a libertarian budget, this is not a conservative budget, this budget increases spending.

2017 budget (in billions): $4,062; 2018 budget (in billions) $4,094 - an INCREASE of 32 billion dollars!

But the news media dutifully repeats over and over the imaginary 3.6 trillion in cuts, and if you repeat a thing often and loud enough it becomes truth. This lie has a double effect of giving progressives the spending they want without stopping the riots, and tricking conservatives into thinking Trump is shrinking the government.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf#page=31

Bonus fact: It plans to increase the debt as well: Debt held by the public (in billions) 2017: $14,824 2018: $15,353 first year increase in debt: 656 billion dollars.

And this is the PROPOSED budget. First it has to get passed. That'll raise it even more. Then reality happens, like a recession that they have not planned for. Or a war. Or the 2018 election cycle. Or a rise in interest rates. That'll raise it A LOT. We could easily hit 5 trillion a year in a couple years.

[TheCount]

And this is the PROPOSED budget. First it has to get passed. That'll raise it even more. Then reality happens, like a recession that they have not planned for. Or a war. Or the 2018 election cycle. Or a rise in interest rates. That'll raise it A LOT. We could easily hit 5 trillion a year in a couple years.Not only that, the projected economic growth in the budget is based on tax cuts passing, but the projected deficits are based on no tax cuts.

[TheCount]

Overall, it is a significant decrease of federal spending as a percentage of GDP.It's mostly smoke and mirrors.

[merkelstan]

I always liked Ron's "We could defend this country with a few good submarines."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

OMG this site is hilarious.


Very hilarious.




https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mQqWa84qvVs/UncM7DusIJI/AAAAAAAAAP4/rz-1jccgN2Q/s400-no/troll-face-clapping-proud-of-your-stupid-post.gif

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It's mostly smoke and mirrors.


You would know.

[Madison320]

Not only that, the projected economic growth in the budget is based on tax cuts passing, but the projected deficits are based on no tax cuts.

Both parties want to spend more. Republicans want to pay for it by stealing less and magically hoping it will increase tax revenue. Democrats want to pay for it by stealing more and hoping it will magically increase tax revenue.

[TheCount]

Both parties want to spend more.

Absolutely. There is no fiscally conservative party, regardless of the generally accepted narrative.



Republicans want to pay for it by stealing less and magically hoping it will increase tax revenue. Democrats want to pay for it by stealing more and hoping it will magically increase tax revenue.

In other words, both parties are parties of "free money," the only difference is the source.

[Galileo Galilei]

How have (almost) all of you - pro- and anti-Trump alike - fell for this media narrative that this is an austere budget that slashes spending? Read the damn thing! Guys, this is not a libertarian budget, this is not a conservative budget, this budget increases spending.

2017 budget (in billions): $4,062; 2018 budget (in billions) $4,094 - an INCREASE of 32 billion dollars!

But the news media dutifully repeats over and over the imaginary 3.6 trillion in cuts, and if you repeat a thing often and loud enough it becomes truth. This lie has a double effect of giving progressives the spending they want without stopping the riots, and tricking conservatives into thinking Trump is shrinking the government.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf#page=31

Bonus fact: It plans to increase the debt as well: Debt held by the public (in billions) 2017: $14,824 2018: $15,353 first year increase in debt: 656 billion dollars.

It cuts spending as a percentage of GDP.

[TheCount]

It cuts spending as a percentage of GDP.No, it assumes that GDP will increase and therefore reduce spending as a percentage of GDP all by itself. Trump is going to wave his magic wand in his tiny, tiny hands and cause 10 consecutive years of 3% economic growth.

[Galileo Galilei]

No, it assumes that GDP will increase and therefore reduce spending as a percentage of GDP all by itself. Trump is going to wave his magic wand in his tiny, tiny hands and cause 10 consecutive years of 3% economic growth.

If Trump gets budget cut and spending cuts like he wants, the real GDP will increase and size of federal government will shrink in proportion to GDP. This is a libertarian budget that has a chance to actually happen.

You fear budget and tax cuts, because then you will have nothing to complain about.

[Madison320]

Absolutely. There is no fiscally conservative party, regardless of the generally accepted narrative.




In other words, both parties are parties of "free money," the only difference is the source.

Which is why I don't believe it will end until the dollar collapses. That's when the "free money" runs out. Until then it's human nature to follow the path of least resistance.

[Madison320]

If Trump gets budget cut and spending cuts like he wants, the real GDP will increase and size of federal government will shrink in proportion to GDP. This is a libertarian budget that has a chance to actually happen.

You fear budget and tax cuts, because then you will have nothing to complain about.

Except it's a budget increase. Most likely a big increase. Just wait.

[The Rebel Poet]

If Trump gets budget cut and spending cuts like he wants, the real GDP will increase and size of federal government will shrink in proportion to GDP. This is a libertarian budget that has a chance to actually happen.

You fear budget and tax cuts, because then you will have nothing to complain about.

This is objectively untrue. It contradicts the actual budget Trump proposed. Are you a troll?

"You must spread some reputation around before deducting it from Galileo Galilei again"

[H. E. Panqui]

...our great conservative republican, trump, has proposed massive cuts!...and he will surely get this done...just like our great conservative republican, reagan!...yea republicans!!..go republicans!!...rah rah rah...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/02/19/reagan-calls-for-414-billion-in-spending-cuts-for-fiscal-1982/e78afaa9-3560-485c-b24f-66564141b40a/?utm_term=.1e46a319cf44

President Reagan yesterday called for $41.4 billion in spending reductions in the 1982 fiscal year.
About $16 billion of this would come from programs that primarily aid the poor, but would be taken, the administration maintained, in ways that would not hurt the truly needy. Medicaid, food stamps, housing aid to the poor and unemployment compensation all would be affected. Tenants in subsidized housing, the fastest growing of all federal welfare programs, would be required to pay 30 percent of income in rent, up from 25 percent now, and fewer new units would be added to the program.
Grants to state and local governments would also be much reduced, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors quickly said through its president, Richard G. Hatcher of Gary, that Reagan's proposals "are not fair" to the cities.
About $6.7 billion in further cuts could come in spending and loan programs that subsidize specific sectors of the economy. Among victims of these would be railroad, the Postal Service, dairy farmers, the Corporation for Public. Broadcasting, companies that sell airliners and nuclear power plants abroad, would-be synfuel producers, and some beneficiaries of federal water projects. Reagan is seeking to cut these projects somewhat as Jimmy Carter did four years ago.
The $41.4 billion is a first installment in a program Reagan hopes will limit future growth in federal spending to 6 percent a year, starting with the 1982 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

[TheCount]

If Trump gets budget cut and spending cuts like he wants, the real GDP will increase and size of federal government will shrink in proportion to GDP. This is a libertarian budget that has a chance to actually happen.

You fear budget and tax cuts, because then you will have nothing to complain about.

1) What, precisely, is libertarian about this budget? What freedoms will this budget enable? I do not measure my personal liberty "in proportion to GDP."

2) $7 trillion in tax cuts vs. $3 trillion in budget cuts... printing even more money is not taking this country in a freedom-y direction.

[Galileo Galilei]

Except it's a budget increase. Most likely a big increase. Just wait.

It is not an increase. A libertarian is not going to increase the budget.

[Galileo Galilei]

1) What, precisely, is libertarian about this budget? What freedoms will this budget enable? I do not measure my personal liberty "in proportion to GDP."

2) $7 trillion in tax cuts vs. $3 trillion in budget cuts... printing even more money is not taking this country in a freedom-y direction.

Gives Trump more leverage to lower taxes more.

[TheCount]

Gives Trump more leverage to lower taxes more.

Do you believe that the federal government should be allowed to deficit spend?

[Madison320]

It is not an increase. A libertarian is not going to increase the budget.

Sarcasm?

[Swordsmyth]

It is not an increase. A libertarian is not going to increase the budget.

Dump is a Libertarian now?

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-23/trump-seeks-3-6-trillion-in-spending-cuts-to-reshape-government

That "balanced budget after ten years"?


The independent Tax Policy Center estimated that Trump’s campaign tax plan would add $7.2 trillion to the deficit. Economic growth spurred by Trump’s tax and regulation policy would add more than $2 trillion in tax revenue, according to the budget documents.

The budget also makes use of several other classic accounting gimmicks. It assumes that the wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East will cause future Congresses to allocate $593 billion in extra war funding that won’t be needed and then claims to save that amount by not spending it.

The Trump budget also assumes a $35 billion savings from changes to financial services industry regulations and a repeal of the Dodd-Frank law’s orderly liquidation authority, under which financial regulators are empowered to untangle and wind down the biggest banks in a crisis. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected savings of $14.5 billion over a decade from eliminating the authority.

It assumes three percent annual economic growth every year for the next decade without a single economic slowdown. It struggled to hit two percent growth over the last decade and US population growth has been declining and with the retiring baby boom generation, the available work force will be declining (unless we let in more immigrants of working ages).

The "Medicaid cuts" are still increases- but smaller increases.

And the budget has not factored in any of his desired tax cuts.

[The Rebel Poet]

It is not an increase. A libertarian is not going to increase the budget.
This is objectively untrue. It contradicts the actual budget Trump proposed. Are you a troll?

[dannno]

This is objectively untrue. It contradicts the actual budget Trump proposed.

That depends on whether you get your information from the deep state mainstream media or the Trump administration.


Are you a troll?

I would ask that to the people defending the deep state mainstream media narrative, such as yourself.

[CCTelander]

That depends on whether you get your information from the deep state mainstream media or the Trump administration.



I would ask that to the people defending the deep state mainstream media narrative, such as yourself.


Oh FFS! The information revealing that this budget increases sprnding was published by the Trump administration on the White House web site. That's as close to straight from the horse's mouth as it gets. Deep state mainstream media narrative?

This shit has gone WAY beyond ridiculous.

[dannno]

Oh FFS! The information revealing that this budget increases sprnding was published by the Trump administration on the White House web site. That's as close to straight from the horse's mouth as it gets. Deep state mainstream media narrative?

This shit has gone WAY beyond ridiculous.

Did you read the OP? The White House is claiming that the budget will be balanced within 10 years under this plan. I don't know if that is true, but neither do you so stop pretending like it.

Are you trying to say that a plan with increased spending and decreased taxes balances the budget in 10 years? That is impossible.

What is going on is that there are two different interpretations of the data that the White House has given out - one of the interpretations, the one that you are supporting, is what the deep state is narrating. Do you want to be the official narrator for the deep state? Is that your goal? If so you are doing a great job, but you have some pretty good competition here unfortunately.

[CPUd]

867416713243111425
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/867416713243111425

[dannno]

867416713243111425
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/867416713243111425

Maybe it is because there is no error where they "use the same money twice". Maybe that is just another deep state narrative.

[CPUd]

Will the Trump administration double-count its magic asterisk?

By Greg Leiserson May 22, 2017


Press reports indicate that President Donald Trump’s budget, scheduled for release tomorrow, will assert that administration policies can deliver a balanced budget in 10 years by combining sharp cuts to anti-poverty and safety net programs with growth from unspecified or minimally detailed tax and regulatory reforms. According to these reports, the forthcoming budget assumes that the rate of economic growth will reach 3 percent by 2021. In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office projects a growth rate of 1.9 percent for the same year.

Assuming large growth effects from policies that have yet to be specified in detail certainly qualifies as fantasy budgeting or, in Washington terms, a magic asterisk. But what’s even more striking about the anticipated budget plan is the expected assertion that revenue-neutral tax reform will contribute to deficit reduction. Administration officials and congressional Republicans have been explicit that they plan to credit the revenue feedback from any growth delivered by tax reform against the cost of tax reform. Yet counting the revenue feedback from growth in assessing whether a tax reform proposal increases or decreases revenues means that there is no additional revenue to reduce the deficit below the level that would be realized under current law.

In short, the Trump administration seems prepared to double-count the gains from its magic asterisk.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the assumed growth rates could add $2 trillion to revenues relative to the CBO’s current-law baseline. Thus, a budget that purports to achieve balance predicated on this growth could be short by well more than $1 trillion—even if the growth projections were realized—by failing to recognize that the revenues from tax-reform-induced growth are going to be used to offset the cost of that reform. (The exact overstatement of revenues would depend on how much growth is attributed to tax reform and how much growth is attributed to other policies in justifying the economic assumptions.)

This estimate of the overstatement of revenues would be conservative even if large growth effects were realized, as it ignores both the implausibility of the administration’s growth forecasts and the large revenue losses that would result from the tax reform plans that the Trump campaign and the administration have put forth previously. The Tax Policy Center, for example, estimated that then-candidate Trump’s plan would cost $6 trillion while delivering less than $200 billion in revenue feedback from growth in the first decade of its implementation—before ultimately harming growth in the long run by running up the debt and thus reducing investment. These estimates suggest that the administration’s budget documents could be understating deficits by well more than $6 trillion relative to the actual impact of its policies.

Even by the standards of the federal budget, which operates at a scale that is sometimes difficult to comprehend, these numbers are large. If only $1 trillion is attributable to double-counting the gains from tax reform, that’s still more than the savings that the American Heath Care Act realizes by taking health insurance away from 14 million Americans through Medicaid cuts. Moreover, the CBO’s most recent deficit projections under current law total $9 trillion for the next 10 years. Assuming the administration will achieve balance by the 10th year but not before, the Tax Policy Center’s estimates of the Trump tax plan suggest that the president and his economic policy team could be claiming to reach balance while actually making the 10-year deficit outlook worse—even with harsh cuts to anti-poverty programs and policies that sharply reduce the number of Americans with health insurance.

How will it be apparent that the administration is not merely assuming implausible growth from its policies but actually double-counting those same growth projections? Traditionally, the president’s budget is presented on a set of post-policy economic assumptions. That is, the economic assumptions underlying the budget assume the enactment of the president’s policies. Judged against this set of economic assumptions, a revenue-neutral tax plan with implausible growth effects, such as those previously promised by the administration, should appear as a large tax cut, measured in the low trillions of dollars. Since the administration is pointing to tax reform as a justification for the rosy economic assumptions, this is the most likely approach—and the most likely criteria by which the budget should be judged.

While the traditional approach to budgeting includes the impact of proposed policies in setting the economic assumptions, there is an alternative approach that would be more consistent with the administration’s rhetoric on tax reform. In fact, the Obama administration used this approach when it counted deficit reduction resulting from economic growth generated by certain elements of immigration reform as a policy impact in its budgets. Under this alternative approach, the economic effects of a policy change are ignored when setting the economic assumptions. But by ignoring the growth impacts when setting the economic assumptions, those growth impacts can be included in the budget estimate for the proposal without double-counting the gains.

Thus, while the CBO concluded in 2013 that immigration reform would add 3.3 percent to gross domestic product 10 years after enactment, the economic assumptions underlying the last budget submitted by the Obama administration incorporated growth of only 0.7 percent attributable to immigration reform in its economic assumptions. The difference between 0.7 percent and 3.3 percent reflected the growth that had been included in estimating the budgetary impact of the proposed immigration reform. Critically, if the Trump administration takes this second course in estimating the impact of tax reform on the budget, then budget documents would appropriately show no impact of tax reform on revenues—but the administration would then need to justify its economic assumptions without reference to tax reform.

The analysis above takes administration officials’ previous public statements as informative about the direction of policy. Another option would be to recognize the budget as a statement of administration policy that supersedes those previous statements. Under this view, including the growth impacts of tax reform in setting the economic assumptions for the budget while showing no revenue impact of tax reform would amount to a statement that the administration now believes tax reform should be revenue-neutral based on conventional scoring—excluding impacts on growth—and any gains from growth should thus be used to reduce the deficit.

Recognizing the long-term fiscal challenges the country faces, this approach would be a wise policy choice on the part of the new administration. And in combination with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s previous statements ruling out a tax cut for the upper class—the so-called Mnuchin rule—this addendum would provide a solid foundation for real tax reform. Yet it is unlikely that this is the course the administration intends to pursue.

So when the administration presents the budget tomorrow, watch not only for rosy economic assumptions to improve the deficit outlook but also for double-counting of the benefits of those economic assumptions. If the administration does in fact double-count the benefits, then recognize and understand the implied policy content of that choice. And if the administration tries to justify its harsh cuts to anti-poverty and safety net programs on the basis of clear-eyed fiscal accounting, then remember that these same officials are anything but clear-eyed when it comes to accounting for their plans for tax reform.

http://equitablegrowth.org/tax-finance/will-the-trump-administration-double-count-its-magic-asterisk/

[Swordsmyth]

"Press reports indicate that President Donald Trump’s budget, scheduled for release tomorrow"

I think we should talk about this when we have the actual budget.

[r3volution 3.0]

A. Are the "cuts" real cuts or reductions in proposed increases (I would assume the latter).

B. Do the "cuts" (real or otherwise) occur mostly (if at all) prior to January 20, 2021 (I would assume not)?

C. Regardless, does anyone really believe Trumpenfuhrer is doing anything other than PR with this thing (if so, you shouldn't)?

[ChristianAnarchist]

No substantial cuts will ever happen. Taxes will continue to rise. Jobs will continue to vanish...

It's the new normal...

[TheCount]

C. Regardless, does anyone really believe Trumpenfuhrer is doing anything other than PR with this thing (if so, you shouldn't)?

PR is what the deep state does. Every word and alternative fact that pours out of Trump's mouth is like a golden river of truth splashing warmly over our faces.

[The Rebel Poet]

That depends on whether you get your information from the deep state mainstream media or the Trump administration.


I would ask that to the people defending the deep state mainstream media narrative, such as yourself.

I'm only going to say this once, and then I am going to resume ignoring you.

CNN headline: "Trump's first budget: Trillions in cuts (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/22/news/economy/trump-budget/)"

Actual budget released by Trump (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf#page=31): 2018 32 billion dollar increase over 2017 2018 32 billion dollar increase over previous year 2019 278 billion dollar increase over 2017 2019 246 billion dollar increase over previous year 2020 408 billion dollar increase over 2017 2020 130 billion dollar increase over previous year 2021 555 billion dollar increase over 2017 2021 147 billion dollar increase over previous year 2022 770 billion dollar increase over 2017 2022 215 billion dollar increase over previous year 2023 871 billion dollar increase over 2017 2023 101 billion dollar increase over previous year 2024 1011 billion dollar increase over 2017 2024 140 billion dollar increase over previous year 2025 1244 billion dollar increase over 2017 2025 233 billion dollar increase over previous year 2026 1465 billion dollar increase over 2017 2026 221 billion dollar increase over previous year 2027 1646 billion dollar increase over 2017 2027 181 billion dollar increase over previous year


YOU are the one repeating the MSM narrative. Stop trolling RPF.

And I have a request to make of every reasonable person on the forums. Since @Bryan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=2) refuses to take out the trash: stop feeding these trolls. Just set danno et al to ignore and say something interesting and insightful for real members to respond to instead of wasting your time talking to trolls. If we all did this the oxygen would be taken out of the dumpster fire that is the RPF troll brigade.

[r3volution 3.0]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Rebel Poet again.


That depends on whether you get your information from the deep state mainstream media or the Trump administration.

For real, honest, alternative news, see the White House press release..

http://data.whicdn.com/images/227988510/large.jpg

[Galileo Galilei]

I will be on the Mitch Henck show today at 5pm central to discuss Trump, Trump, Trump, and terrorism.

Please tune in live or podcast at: http://madisontalks.com/

[dannno]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to The Rebel Poet again.



For real, honest, alternative news, see the White House press release..

http://data.whicdn.com/images/227988510/large.jpg

Uh, no, that's not what I said at all.

I said that listening to the deep state mainstream media is moronic. I did NOT say that what the Trump admin is saying is accurate.

I am going to wait to hear Rand and/or Massie's opinion on this budget before even beginning to form my own.

[The Gold Standard]

That would be a pretty lame response for a real libertarian.

That may be true. Until Trump fires everyone in Washington, including himself and Congress, then nothing he does is libertarian. His "plan" to spend $40 trillion instead of $43.5 trillion over the next ten years does not impress me.

[Galileo Galilei]

That may be true. Until Trump fires everyone in Washington, including himself and Congress, then nothing he does is libertarian. His "plan" to spend $40 trillion instead of $43.5 trillion over the next ten years does not impress me.

You can't fire people with civil service protection very easily. Civil service protection was put in under Chester Arthur administration to prevent corruption of the spoils system.

[The Gold Standard]

You can't fire people with civil service protection very easily. Civil service protection was put in under Chester Arthur administration to prevent corruption of the spoils system.

I'm sure there are lots of excuses.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm sure there are lots of excuses.

Trump is trying to root them out as we speak, it is not easy. He could use a little help, do you have any spare time?

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq6e4KjPAdQ

[Zippyjuan]

That may be true. Until Trump fires everyone in Washington, including himself and Congress, then nothing he does is libertarian. His "plan" to spend $40 trillion instead of $43.5 trillion over the next ten years does not impress me.

Total spending proposed is about what it was last year. Just shifts money around. And doesn't include tax cuts or his infrastructure spending.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/23/politics/trump-budget-cuts-programs/


the overall proposed spending is about on par with last year, at $4.1 trillion

[nikcers]

Trump is trying to root them out as we speak, it is not easy. He could use a little help, do you have any spare time?

Trump's government is trying to root out liberty as we speak, it is not easy. He could use a little help, do you have any spare time to shill for liberty?

[r3volution 3.0]

For real, honest, alternative news, see the White House press release..

Uh, no, that's not what I said at all.

I said that listening to the deep state mainstream media is moronic. I did NOT say that what the Trump admin is saying is accurate.

...



This is objectively untrue. It contradicts the actual budget Trump proposed.

That depends on whether you get your information from the deep state mainstream media or the Trump administration.

So, if you "get your information from the...Trump administration", you're getting accurate information, right?

...while if you get your information from "the deep state mainstream media," you aren't?

[KingRobbStark]

Trump's government is trying to root out liberty as we speak, it is not easy. He could use a little help, do you have any spare time to shill for liberty?

People will forever be gullible. This time the clown is orange.

[ChristianAnarchist]

People will forever be gullible. This time the clown is orange.

Orange is a good color for a clown...

[Galileo Galilei]

Except it's a budget increase. Most likely a big increase. Just wait.

The first year is not an increase. the actual money spent it the same, despite the Fed increasing the money supply. I think they increase it at least 2% per year. If you are a real libertarian, you should know long term projections are BS.

[r3volution 3.0]

Show me the budget cuts.

https://i.imgur.com/oPNlBg7.png

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf

[nikcers]

Show me the budget cuts.

https://i.imgur.com/oPNlBg7.png

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=6474439)You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again.

[CCTelander]

Show me the budget cuts.

https://i.imgur.com/oPNlBg7.png

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf


I'm sure they're in there somewhere. We poor benighted souls who can't see them will just have to wait for a more enlightened individual to Trumpsplain it for us.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm sure they're in there somewhere. We poor benighted souls who can't see them will just have to wait for a more enlightened individual to Trumpsplain it for us.

Let's review the options:


A) Argue about the meaning of words like "cut", "spending", "military", "entitlement", "increase", and "budget"
B) Tell us that their authoritarian idol really didn't mean what he said
C) Tell us that this is a brilliant move in a game of 3-D chess that only trumpettes are capable of understanding
D) Tell us that it's ok because obomba did it first
E) Tell us that it's ok because it would have been horrible if clinton had done the very same thing
F) Tell us that this is what Liberty and Freedom really mean
G) Call CPUd names

[tod evans]

Just like every politician, not spending as much as was requested is the same as a 'cut'....

It doesn't matter which parties clown is at the helm the vernacular is identical....

[Galileo Galilei]

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=6474439)You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again.

The first year is a budget cut, because spending is about the same, but the Fed increases the money supply by 2% each year (or more). The other years are irrelevant, long term projections are BS.

[Galileo Galilei]

Just like every politician, not spending as much as was requested is the same as a 'cut'....

It doesn't matter which parties clown is at the helm the vernacular is identical....

Trump is different, he put in department heads in advance who are asking for real cuts up front. The media usually focuses on what the department head wants because he is the "expert". Trump has again turned the tables on the big government media.

[nikcers]

The first year is a budget cut, because spending is about the same, but the Fed increases the money supply by 2% each year (or more). The other years are irrelevant, long term projections are BS. That's like going to get a hair cut and them not cutting anything because its just growing back.

[nikcers]

There is no cuts to Uncle Santa Claus

http://cdn3.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/the-santa-clause-beard-growing-white-hair.gif

[TheCount]

The first year is a budget cut, because spending is about the same, but the Fed increases the money supply by 2% each year (or more). The other years are irrelevant, long term projections are BS.


Let's review the options:

A) Argue about the meaning of words like "cut", "spending", "military", "entitlement", "increase", and "budget"
B) Tell us that their authoritarian idol really didn't mean what he said
C) Tell us that this is a brilliant move in a game of 3-D chess that only trumpettes are capable of understanding
D) Tell us that it's ok because obomba did it first
E) Tell us that it's ok because it would have been horrible if clinton had done the very same thing
F) Tell us that this is what Liberty and Freedom really mean
G) Call CPUd names

Looks like "A" is the tactic for this topic.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's like going to get a hair cut and them not cutting anything because its just growing back.

What's your idea? I am sure you have a better idea than Trump.

[nikcers]

What's your idea? I am sure you have a better idea than Trump.
Cut Taxes and Cut spending, when Reagan cut the taxes revenue increased the debt went up also though because spending wasn't cut. Cut the military spending not defense spending. March the troops back home, and stop intervening in the middle east, and funding terrorism.

[The Rebel Poet]

@nikcers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=61527) r3volution 3.0 Stop feeding the Trolileo Trolilei. Just set it to ignore and say something interesting and insightful for real members to respond to instead of wasting your time. We gotta take the oxygen out of the dumpster fire that is the RPF troll brigade.

[CPUd]

@nikcers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=61527) @r3volution 3.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58077) Stop feeding the Trolileo Trolilei. Just set it to ignore and say something interesting and insightful for real members to respond to instead of wasting your time. We gotta take the oxygen out of the dumpster fire that is the RPF troll brigade.

This works for tampermonkey and probably greasemonkey:



// ==UserScript==
// @name IggyFoReal
// @namespace IFR
// @version 0.1
// @description really ignore someone on RPFs
// @author CPUd
// @Match (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=32930) http://*.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php*
// @Match (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=32930) http://*.ronpaulforums.com/profile.php*
// @Match (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=32930) http://*.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php*
// @grant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=35301) GM_getValue
// @grant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=35301) GM_setValue
// @grant (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=35301) GM_log
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.0.0/jquery.min.js
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
var ignoredUserList = {};
var users = GM_getValue("ignoredUsersIFR","");
if (users) {
ignoredUserList = JSON.parse (users);
}

if (window.location.href.includes("profile.php?do=ignorelist")){
$('#ignorelist li').each(function(idx, li) {
ignoredUserList[$(li).attr('id')] = $(li).text().trim();
GM_setValue ("ignoredUsersIFR", JSON.stringify (ignoredUserList) );
});
} else if (window.location.href.includes("forumdisplay.php")){
GM_log("threads:"+$('#threads li.threadbit').length);
$('#threads li.threadbit > div > div > div > div > div > span > a').each(function(idx, li) {
for (var i in ignoredUserList){
if ($(li).text() === ignoredUserList[i]){
//GM_log("X:"+author.text());
$(li).parent().parent().parent().parent().parent() .parent().hide();
}
}
});
} else {
$('div.postrow:contains(\'This message is hidden because\')').parents('.postbody').each(
function () {
$(this).parent().hide();
});
//$('li.threadbit > div:first > div:first, [title=\'\']:not(ul)').parent().hide();
}
})();

[Galileo Galilei]

Cut Taxes and Cut spending, when Reagan cut the taxes revenue increased the debt went up also though because spending wasn't cut. Cut the military spending not defense spending. March the troops back home, and stop intervening in the middle east, and funding terrorism.

This is a bigger tax cut than Reagan's, at least what Trump proposed.

Trump will bring most of the troops home. Trump is using the demand-side strategy to cut military spending. The supply-side tactic never works.

[Zippyjuan]

Cut Taxes and Cut spending, when Reagan cut the taxes revenue increased the debt went up also though because spending wasn't cut. Cut the military spending not defense spending. March the troops back home, and stop intervening in the middle east, and funding terrorism.

When the debt started to soar following the tax cuts he signed, Reagan then also signed what was at the time the biggest tax INCREASE in US history (under the guise of not raising tax rated but closing "loopholes" (deductions).

With Trump's plan, total spending is not being reduced either. Increases in military spending are off-setting cuts in other programs. The "$1.3 trillion in cuts" is a reduction from potential increases taken over a decade- no actual, numeric reductions from where we are right now.

[nikcers]

@nikcers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=61527) @r3volution 3.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58077) Stop feeding the Trolileo Trolilei. Just set it to ignore and say something interesting and insightful for real members to respond to instead of wasting your time. We gotta take the oxygen out of the dumpster fire that is the RPF troll brigade.

I like reading the fake news and troll-stream media because it gives me a good idea of what other people think. I remember how long before I joined this forum I was a lurker and just read those comments and they infuriated me enough to join this forum to refute them. I thought about all of the potential people reading this forum. Plus sometimes old-timers members will correct me when I am wrong on things, unless i piss them off too bad -I am always open to new ideas.

[TheCount]

Trump will bring most of the troops home.

Home from where when? Based on what?



Trump is using the demand-side strategy to cut military spending. The supply-side tactic never works.

No idea what you're talking about.



I think this is more selective (mis)interpretation of Trump's ravings. The man is a political Ouija board - His supporters always seem to find the things that they want to hear in amongst all of the nonsense that pours out of the man's mouth.

[r3volution 3.0]

Home from where when? Based on what?

Someplace, sometime, based on his long history of keeping his word.


No idea what you're talking about.

"the supply side tactic never works" = attempt to justify Trump's huge increase in military spending

"Trump is using the demand side strategy" = speculation that Trump will end wars to reduce the need for military spending

...after first increasing military spending, of course.


@nikcers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=61527) @r3volution 3.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58077) Stop feeding the Trolileo Trolilei. Just set it to ignore and say something interesting and insightful for real members to respond to instead of wasting your time. We gotta take the oxygen out of the dumpster fire that is the RPF troll brigade.

I hear you, but they'll be fed regardless (by each other, if necessary), so I figure it's best to refute them for the sake of the lurkers.

Or maybe I'm just a masochist.

[CPUd]

RPOS

868979531641741313
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/868979531641741313

[The Rebel Poet]

I thought about all of the potential people reading this forum. Plus sometimes old-timers members will correct me when I am wrong on things, unless i piss them off too bad -I am always open to new ideas.


I figure it's best to refute them for the sake of the lurkers.


I hear y'all, but no reasonable person reading this thread will be swayed by Trolileo Trolilei's claim that 4,094 or 5,708 is smaller 4,062. And you aren't going to change anyone who when being shown Trump's own proposal direct from the White House website several times by several members is simply pretending it isn't so and trying to gaslight people. If you stop giving trolls like them attention they will either move on, or have severely reduced power.