There are no cuts in Trump's budget

[TheCount]

Just to get that out of the way early this time 'round.

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

[Swordsmyth]

With the Demoncrats holding the House he will be lucky to get this.

If he ever gets a Congress with enough conservatives to overcome the left and the RINOs we may see actual cuts.

[timosman]

Deficit in 2029 - $202B. Pipe dreams. :cool:

[Slave Mentality]

With the Demoncrats holding the House he will be lucky to get this.

If he ever gets a Congress with enough conservatives to overcome the left and the RINOs we may see actual cuts.

You mean like when Team Red held both the house and senate, as well as the presidency from 2016-2018? Yeah, I am still stoked at all the spending cuts and liberty spreading during those golden years.

[dannno]

You mean like when Team Red held both the house and senate, as well as the presidency from 2016-2018? Yeah, I am still stoked at all the spending cuts and liberty spreading during those golden years.

Team Red is rarely very conservative.

[timosman]

Team Red is rarely very conservative.

Team Red is there to provide an illusion of choice. :cool:

[acptulsa]

You mean like when Team Red held both the house and senate, as well as the presidency from 2016-2018? Yeah, I am still stoked at all the spending cuts and liberty spreading during those golden years.

What's that definition of insanity I've heard from time to time? Something about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

[spudea]

What you are showing is the effect of the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Must be a hard life not to understand how to read tables. Please refer to Table S-4 to see the proposed cuts to discretionary non-defense spending. It goes from $639B in 2018 to $511B in 2029.

The Table S-4 also shows reductions in the mandatory programs beginning in 2021 from the reform proposals to reduce costs. While these reforms can slow the growth of the spending, I agree these are not cuts to the mandatory programs.

[oyarde]

Just to get that out of the way early this time 'round.

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

Personally I am all for cuts . Which cuts were you expecting , eliminating the USDA and medicaid ?

[Swordsmyth]

You mean like when Team Red held both the house and senate, as well as the presidency from 2016-2018? Yeah, I am still stoked at all the spending cuts and liberty spreading during those golden years.
Not like that at all, the majorities were not even close to large enough to overcome the RINOs.
You did read what I said about the RINOs, right?

[juleswin]

I know the answer, more tax cuts :)

[Swordsmyth]

I know the answer, more tax cuts :)
That is part of the answer.
Trump's tax cuts HAVE increased revenues, they just didn't increase it as much as the mandatory budget items increased in addition to his DoD budget increases minus his cuts to the rest of the budget.
Further cuts would probably still increase revenues.
Larger cuts are of course the biggest part of the answer.

[Superfluous Man]

I know the answer, more tax cuts :)

It would help.

[Zippyjuan]

With the Demoncrats holding the House he will be lucky to get this.

If he ever gets a Congress with enough conservatives to overcome the left and the RINOs we may see actual cuts.

It is a good thing they pushed through all those budget cuts when Republicans controlled all three parts of the budget process (House, Senate, and President). How much was it they reduced the deficit by again? What- the deficit is higher now? What a bunch of commie socialists!

[Swordsmyth]

It is a good thing they pushed through all those budget cuts when Republicans controlled all three parts of the budget process (House, Senate, and President). How much was it they reduced the deficit by again? What- the deficit is higher now? What a bunch of commie socialists!
...

Not like that at all, the majorities were not even close to large enough to overcome the RINOs.
You did read what I said about the RINOs, right?

[Zippyjuan]

...

Your usual- commies and RINOs. There are no Republicans. Republicans quit caring about deficits when "read my lips" lost re-election.

[Swordsmyth]

Your usual- commies and RINOs.
Truth is truth.


There are no Republicans. Republicans quit caring about deficits when "read my lips" lost re-election.
Not all of them.

[Zippyjuan]

Truth is truth.


Not all of them.

"Truth isn't Truth" - Rudy Ghouliani

[Swordsmyth]

"Truth isn't Truth" - Rudy Ghouliani
Your idol.

[TheCount]

What you are showing is the effect of the mandatory programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

No. The increases in defense spending alone are greater than the non-defense cuts and result in a net increase within discretionary spending, completely ignoring all non-discretionary spending or, as listed in the budget, mandatory programs.


Must be a hard life not to understand how to read tables. Please refer to Table S-4 to see the proposed cuts to discretionary non-defense spending. It goes from $639B in 2018 to $511B in 2029.

Look down just one row from that row. Which number on the highlighted row is smaller than the 2018 number?

https://i.imgur.com/Wsq09eg.png





Must be tough not being able to read tables.

[TheCount]

Personally I am all for cuts . Which cuts were you expecting , eliminating the USDA and medicaid ?

The kind of cuts that result in a smaller number.

[TheCount]

What's that definition of insanity I've heard from time to time? Something about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

We all know what's going to happen. A compromise will be reached such that Trump's requested increases in defense spending are paired with increases in non-defense spending such that even more money is spent.

[oyarde]

The kind of cuts that result in a smaller number.

I get excited just thinking about cuts . I want to turn on the news and gleefully see the wailing and gnashing of teeth . You guys let me know when it is time .

[Superfluous Man]

Your usual- commies and RINOs. There are no Republicans. Republicans quit caring about deficits when "read my lips" lost re-election.

They shouldn't care about deficits.

Total spending, whether deficit or not, is what they should care about.

[shakey1]

no cuts... no surprises :blank:

[Chester Copperpot]

It is a good thing they pushed through all those budget cuts when Republicans controlled all three parts of the budget process (House, Senate, and President). How much was it they reduced the deficit by again? What- the deficit is higher now? What a bunch of commie socialists!

how do you feel about the country issuing debt free united states notes instead of federal reserve notes???

we get our money without anymore debt.

[unknown]

You mean like when Team Red held both the house and senate, as well as the presidency from 2016-2018? Yeah, I am still stoked at all the spending cuts and liberty spreading during those golden years.

Fucking nothing.

No dissolving of any agencies.

No budget cuts.

No repealing of any anti-2A laws.

Zero.

And its not just Trump, W Bush had the same opportunity. Grew the fuck out of government, spending like crazy, shit all over the Constitution...

WTF?

[unknown]

Team Red is there to provide an illusion of choice. :cool:

Slightly better.

But their rhetoric sounds good.

[Zippyjuan]

how do you feel about the country issuing debt free united states notes instead of federal reserve notes???

we get our money without anymore debt.

What would be a "debt free note"?

[acptulsa]

What would be a "debt free note"?

http://www.images-apmex.com/images/Catalog%20Images/Products/15054_Slab.jpg?v=20160811084345&width=900&height=900

Gee, could we, oh, I don't know, use something of actual value to barter with without getting thrown in jail? Or do we have to use banker-packaged bundles of debt--junk bonds, essentially--to avoid prison?

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.images-apmex.com/images/Catalog%20Images/Products/15054_Slab.jpg?v=20160811084345&width=900&height=900

Gee, could we, oh, I don't know, use something of actual value to barter with without getting thrown in jail? Or do we have to call banker-packaged bundles of debt--junk bonds, essentially--to avoid prison?

What makes that a "debt free note"?

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

[Dr.3D]

http://www.images-apmex.com/images/Catalog%20Images/Products/15054_Slab.jpg?v=20160811084345&width=900&height=900

Gee, could we, oh, I don't know, use something of actual value to barter with without getting thrown in jail? Or do we have to use banker-packaged bundles of debt--junk bonds, essentially--to avoid prison?
The problem with that note is, the value of silver fluctuates and the government would now claim that to be worth 1/15th of an ounce of silver.

Yes, I know, it's supposed be 1 ounce of silver, but you know how they work.

[Superfluous Man]

What makes that a "debt free note"?

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

I assume he's referring to the note at the bottom: "One Dollar in Silver Payable to the Bearer Upon Demand."

[enhanced_deficit]

Few points.

Why this thread title did not have http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/icons/icon14.png , for a Republcan Prez to create record spending and debt is a bold action. Way bigger than gutsy Grey Wolf dregulation move.

If big gummit spending is cut too much, who is going to drain the swamp?

Lot of money is needed on MIC to defend freedoms of people in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Israel, Saudi etc. Who is going to defend their freedoms if military budget is slashed too much?

Some folks don't think deep before demanding spendibg cuts.



Related

National debt hits $22 trillion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520482-National-debt-hits-21-trillion&)

[Zippyjuan]

I assume he's referring to the note at the bottom: "One Dollar in Silver Payable to the Bearer Upon Demand."

Then it is based on debt. The dollar is a receipt for the silver the bearer is owed. (dollars can be exchanged for silver today too- you just need to take them to your local coin dealer or buy some coins from the US Mint).

[acptulsa]

What makes that a "debt free note"?

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private".

Now, Zippy, you've had this conversation far too often to be playing dumb.

What does it say? I know you can read. It says it certifies that there is a silver dollar for that note. It represents a real thing of real value.

And a Federal Reserve Note? It is a package of debt. It is a junk bond. That's what it is. That's why its value shrinks like wool in a hot dryer.

Of course, the silver certificate is just another junk bond now, because when the bankers talked the government into signing on to their racket, the government turned silver and gold certificates into lies. Just kidding! No guarantees we haven't stolen the gold out of Ft. Knox!

[Zippyjuan]

Now, Zippy, you've had this conversation far too often to be playing dumb.

What does it say? I know you can read. It says it certifies that there is a silver dollar for that note. It represents a real thing of real value.

And a Federal Reserve Note? It is a package of debt. It is a junk bond. That's what it is. That's why its value shrinks like wool in a hot dryer.

Of course, the silver certificate is just another junk bond now, because when the bankers talked the government into signing on to their racket, the government turned silver and gold certificates into lies. Just kidding! No guarantees we haven't stolen the gold out of Ft. Knox!

Then it is based on debt. The dollar is a receipt for the silver the bearer is owed. (dollars can be exchanged for silver today too- you just need to take them to your local coin dealer or buy some coins from the US Mint).

[acptulsa]

Then it is based on debt. The dollar is a receipt for the silver the bearer is owed. (dollars can be exchanged for silver today too- you just need to take them to your local coin dealer or buy some coins from the US Mint).

Silly, purely and deliberately deceptive sophistry.

A certification that there is three quarters of an ounce of silver is analogous to a debit card, which electronically certifies there are funds on hand.

A Federal Reserve Note is a debt-based instrument. It is a share of an unpaid debt. It is a junk bond. It is analogous to a credit card. It guarantees nothing but that someone wants you to believe you'll get actual value for it.

[Zippyjuan]

Silly, purely and deliberately deceptive sophistry.

A certification that there is three quarters of an ounce of silver is analogous to a debit card, which electronically certifies there are funds on hand.

A Federal Reserve Note is a debt-based instrument. It is a share of an unpaid debt. It is a junk bond. It is analogous to a credit card. It guarantees nothing but that someone wants you to believe you'll get actual value for it.

So I can spend more than a dollar with a Federal Reserve note?


It is a share of an unpaid debt.

What is this unpaid debt? The US Government debt? Student loans? Corporate borrowing? We have had government debt practically since the country was founded. Even with gold and silver standards. Still not sure what you mean by a "debt free note". Does that mean people will not be allowed to borrow money? If I want to collect on that debt, who do I talk to?

[Superfluous Man]

So I can spend more than a dollar with a Federal Reserve note?


A dollar of what?

A dollar in the image acptulsa shared is a set quantity of Silver.

A dollar now is nothing in particular. If you go to a bank with a one-dollar FRN and demand a dollar back in exchange for it, they'll just give you another one-dollar FRN.

[Zippyjuan]

A dollar of what?

A dollar in the image acptulsa shared is a set quantity of Silver.

A dollar now is nothing in particular. If you go to a bank with a one-dollar FRN and demand a dollar back in exchange for it, they'll just give you another one-dollar FRN.

So it is nothing like a credit card.

[acptulsa]

So I can spend more than a dollar with a Federal Reserve note?



What is this unpaid debt? The US Government debt? Student loans? Corporate borrowing? We have had government debt practically since the country was founded. Even with gold and silver standards. Still not sure what you mean by a "debt free note". Does that mean people will not be allowed to borrow money? If I want to collect on that debt, who do I talk to?

Do you trust this source?

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/central-banker/spring-2013/is-the-fed-monetizing-government-debt

Well, then. Let us ask the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that question, and see how straight an answer we can get for you.


Defining “Monetizing Debt”

To be clear about what “monetizing the debt” means, Andolfatto and Li review some basic principles. The Fed is required by mandate to keep inflation low and stable and to stabilize the business cycle to the best of its ability. The Fed fulfills its mandate primarily by open market sales and purchases of (mainly government) securities. If the Fed wants to lower interest rates, it creates money and uses it to purchase Treasury debt. If the Fed wants to raise interest rates, it destroys the money collected through sales of Treasury debt. Consequently, there is a sense in which the Fed is “monetizing” and “demonetizing” government debt over the course of the typical business cycle.

A quantity of a precious metal with intrinsic value is not an instrument of debt. A Federal Reserve Note is literally debt. It's that simple. You know it's that simple.

[Zippyjuan]

Do you trust this source?

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/central-banker/spring-2013/is-the-fed-monetizing-government-debt

Well, then. Let us ask the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that question, and see how straight an answer we can get for you.



A quantity of a precious metal with intrinsic value is not an instrument of debt. A Federal Reserve Note is literally debt. It's that simple. You know it's that simple.

Buying and selling Treasuries is only one way to change the supply of money. You can do that with metal backed money too.

Metal backed notes are an IOU (debt instrument) for the amount of metal the government says the note is worth.

[juleswin]

It would help.

Help reduce the deficit? or increased spending?

[Superfluous Man]

Help reduce the deficit? or increased spending?

I don't care about the deficit. Less spending is the goal, and less revenue is always better than more revenue in view of that goal.

[acptulsa]

Buying and selling Treasuries is only one way to change the supply of money. You can do that with metal backed money too.

You just read the Federal Reserve Bank saying they make "money" from nothing and "monetize" the "money" by buying debt with it.

Can you create silver that way, and use it to make electronic components that work?


Metal backed notes are an IOU (debt instrument) for the amount of metal the government says the note is worth.

But unless and until the government passes legislation decreeing itself to be a liar, it must have enough silver dollars in the Treasury to redeem them all. Now you can say until you're blue in the face that having savings bonds in the Fed's computer is just as good. But the fact is, half a silver dime's worth of Pepsi costs one and a quarter Federal Reserve Notes.

The key to your deception is your attempt to redefine the dollar as something separate from three quarters of an ounce of actual silver. And the Federal Reserve Note is indeed something separate. But a pre-1964 silver dollar is three quarters of an ounce of silver. That's what it is. No silver, no real dollar.

Care to dispute my debit card/credit card analogy? A silver certificate used to guarantee the silver did exist. An FRN guarantees debt exists.

[juleswin]

I don't care about the deficit. Less spending is the goal, and less revenue is always better than more revenue in view of that goal.

I disagree with u, the more u make spending painless, the more spending u end up with. Taxing the people for every wasteful and unnecesary spending Washington makes, the sooner u get spending under control. But what we have now is hyper spending, low taxes and the consequences is uncontrolled spending and our children being forced to pay back this loan.

I will prefer the pain now on me than the postponed pain on my children tomorrow.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't care about the deficit. Less spending is the goal, and less revenue is always better than more revenue in view of that goal.

Interest on the debt is a growing component of that spending. Higher deficits means higher debt payments. At about $400 billion this year it is as much as we spend on Medicaid. It is more than half the money spent on defense. It is nearly as much as all the discretionary spending in the entire budget aside from Defense (discretionary spending excludes interest on the debt, Social Security, and Medicare/ Medicaid). And will only get bigger as deficits (and interest rates) go up.

Cut 100% of discretionary spending besides Defense (all money for all departments of government aside from the DOD) and you reduce government spending $463 billion or about ten percent.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/trump2019_discpie_unbranded_large.png

[Superfluous Man]

I disagree with u, the more u make spending painless, the more spending u end up with. Taxing the people for every wasteful and unnecesary spending Washington makes, the sooner u get spending under control. But what we have now is hyper spending, low taxes and the consequences is uncontrolled spending and our children being forced to pay back this loan.

I will prefer the pain now on me than the postponed pain on my children tomorrow.

I don't think history supports you here. When there was no income tax, federal spending was about 2% of GDP. Generally, increases in revenue have enabled increases in spending.

[juleswin]

That is part of the answer.
Trump's tax cuts HAVE increased revenues, they just didn't increase it as much as the mandatory budget items increased in addition to his DoD budget increases minus his cuts to the rest of the budget.
Further cuts would probably still increase revenues.
Larger cuts are of course the biggest part of the answer.

I am sure you have seen the graph of tax rate to revenue. There is an equilibrum point where cutting taxes from that point will lead to reduced revenue. Low taxes and low govt revenue to me is OK, but when u have a govt that can borrow the way the US can and spend it all without the population feeling any pain, you have created an environment where govt will take full advantage and spend the country to death.

This is what they are doing now and I believe a lot of it has to do with the disconnection between taxes and spending. When I came to this country, I never understood why "tax and spend" was a slur against the democrat. To me that is much preferrable over spend and borrow republicans

[Zippyjuan]

You just read the Federal Reserve Bank saying they make "money" from nothing and "monetize" the "money" by buying debt with it.

Can you create silver that way, and use it to make electronic components that work?



But unless and until the government passes legislation decreeing itself to be a liar, it must have enough silver dollars in the Treasury to redeem them all. Now you can say until you're blue in the face that having savings bonds in the Fed's computer is just as good. But the fact is, half a silver dime's worth of Pepsi costs one and a quarter Federal Reserve Notes.

The key to your deception is your attempt to redefine the dollar as something separate from three quarters of an ounce of actual silver. And the Federal Reserve Note is indeed something separate. But a pre-1964 silver dollar is three quarters of an ounce of silver. That's what it is. No silver, no real dollar.

Care to dispute my debit card/credit card analogy? A silver certificate used to guarantee the silver did exist. An FRN guarantees debt exists.

I do not claim that FRNs are not debt notes. I say they are both debt notes.

[enhanced_deficit]

Team Red is there to provide an illusion of choice. :cool:


I know the answer, more tax cuts :)

Great points :)

[acptulsa]

I do not claim that FRNs are not debt notes. I say they are both debt notes.

It is simply not true. The FRN is a debt note. It is a junk bond. A silver certificate was a debit note. It was a claim, a receipt, for a real thing of actual value that actually was held in reserve.

What you say is false. Are you going to address my a silver certificate is as a debit card, an FRN is a credit card analogy, or are you just going to repeat false statements over and over?

[Swordsmyth]

I am sure you have seen the graph of tax rate to revenue. There is an equilibrum point where cutting taxes from that point will lead to reduced revenue. Low taxes and low govt revenue to me is OK, but when u have a govt that can borrow the way the US can and spend it all without the population feeling any pain, you have created an environment where govt will take full advantage and spend the country to death.

This is what they are doing now and I believe a lot of it has to do with the disconnection between taxes and spending. When I came to this country, I never understood why "tax and spend" was a slur against the democrat. To me that is much preferrable over spend and borrow republicans
We have not yet reached the point where lower taxes lowers revenue.

[acptulsa]

We have not yet reached the point where lower taxes lowers revenue.

Taxes are revenue, and lowering them clearly and obviously lowers revenue. What taxes do not do under our funny "money" system is limit revenue.

[Swordsmyth]

Taxes are revenue, and lowering them clearly and obviously lowers revenue. What taxes do not do under our funny "money" system is limit revenue.
:rolleyes:
If you raise tax rates very far people will leave your jurisdiction or be discouraged from producing as much, if you lower tax rates people will come to your jurisdiction or be encouraged to produce more.

Beyond a certain point (that we are beyond) higher taxes reduce revenue and lower taxes increase it.

Ideally we would lower taxes (and spending) lower than the point where lowering taxes increases revenue but we should at least lower taxes to the point where maximum revenue is achieved.

[Zippyjuan]

We have not yet reached the point where lower taxes lowers revenue.

Maybe if you look at fiscal year which included three months before the tax cuts actually went into effect.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/01/04/Why-2018-Was-Unusual-Year-US-Tax-Revenues


Why 2018 Was an ‘Unusual Year’ for US Tax Revenues

Federal tax revenues were lower in 2018 than in 2017, reversing a trend of rising revenues seen in recent years, according to U.S. Treasury data tracked by District Economics Group.

DEG’s Diane Lim said that “2018 was an unusual year for tax revenue. Not just because revenue levels dropped so much but because they dropped so much as the economy was growing so strongly.”

Here’s how the two largest categories of tax revenues fared in 2018:

Individual tax receipts totaled $2.593 trillion in the 2018 calendar year, one percent higher than 2017 in nominal terms but about half a percentage point lower on an inflation-adjusted basis.

Corporate tax receipts were lower in both nominal and inflation-adjusted terms, coming in at $233 billion in 2018, down from $316 billion in 2017. That represents a 26 percent drop in revenues on a nominal basis and a 28 percent drop in inflation-adjusted terms.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe if you look at fiscal year which included three months before the tax cuts actually went into effect.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/01/04/Why-2018-Was-Unusual-Year-US-Tax-Revenues

Because you think there are no other factors that affect the economy and revenue?

[acptulsa]

Maybe if you look at fiscal year which included three months before the tax cuts actually went into effect.

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/01/04/Why-2018-Was-Unusual-Year-US-Tax-Revenues

You think the mechanism he's talking about is instantaneous?

Hell, if capital expects the tax man to flip flop, that mechanism doesn't work at all.

[Zippyjuan]

Because you think there are no other factors that affect the economy and revenue?

True. The growing economy should have led to higher tax revenues. Now if the economy was contracting, you may have a valid explanation. What do you think could have led to lower tax revenues besides the tax cuts? Trump also bragged about higher tariff revenues (which were included in the US Treasury revenue figures).

[juleswin]

We have not yet reached the point where lower taxes lowers revenue.

I think we have reached that point. Now govt borrowing and spending which actually grows the economy in the interim gives the illusion that revenue is growing while they are cutting taxes. I will like to see what happens to revenue when taxes are cut and effect of borrowing is controlled.

[Swordsmyth]

True. The growing economy should have led to higher tax revenues. Now if the economy was contracting, you may have a valid explanation. What do you think could have led to lower tax revenues besides the tax cuts? Trump also bragged about higher tariff revenues (which were included in the US Treasury revenue figures).
The economy has been separated into different parts, Wall Street has very little to do with Main Street and there are other divisions as well, it is quite possible to grow the real economy while the fake bubble economy contracts, the fake bubble economy will contract or pop eventually anyway and growing the real economy is healthy and will help you to deal with the failure of the fake bubble economy.

[acptulsa]

I think we have reached that point. Now govt borrowing and spending which actually grows the economy in the interim gives the illusion that revenue is growing while they are cutting taxes. I will like to see what happens to revenue when taxes are cut and effect of borrowing is controlled.

You don't get it.

Calvin Coolidge's scientific taxation holds taxes low enough that taxation does not inhibit private enterprise. Given time for private investment to invest, that results in more businesses which can then also be taxed at that low rate.

Coolidge was actually smart enough to know that government investment does not result in that much growth. And it doesn't.

[Zippyjuan]

The economy has been separated into different parts, Wall Street has very little to do with Main Street and there are other divisions as well, it is quite possible to grow the real economy while the fake bubble economy contracts, the fake bubble economy will contract or pop eventually anyway and growing the real economy is healthy and will help you to deal with the failure of the fake bubble economy.

So Wall Street caused Federal tax revenues to go down (which was the question)? Stock losses? How much did stocks decline during 2018?


What do you think could have led to lower tax revenues besides the tax cuts?

S&P 500 started 2018 at 2,239 points. It ended the year at 2,674- up 19%. Nope- it wasn't Wall Street which led to lower tax revenues.

[Swordsmyth]

So Wall Street caused Federal tax revenues to go down (which was the question)? Stock losses? How much did stocks decline during 2018?



S&P 500 started 2018 at 2,239 points. It ended the year at 2,674- up 19%. Nope- it wasn't Wall Street which led to lower tax revenues.

Stock prices aren't the only thing involved in the fake bubble economy.

[Zippyjuan]

Stock prices aren't the only thing involved in the fake bubble economy.

So you don't have an explanation as to why tax revenues are lower- except that it could not have possibly been the tax cuts.


Because you think there are no other factors that affect the economy and revenue?

[Swordsmyth]

So you don't have an explanation as to why tax revenues are lower- except that it could not have possibly been the tax cuts.
You have nothing showing it was the tax cuts.

[juleswin]

You don't get it.

Calvin Coolidge's scientific taxation holds taxes low enough that taxation does not inhibit private enterprise

Taxes of any percentage other than 0 will inhibit private enterprise to some extent. The lower you go, the lower the effect, so tthe only rate that would not inhibit private enterprise is 0.


Given time for private investment to invest, that results in more businesses which can then also be taxed at that low rate.

But if the tax is low enough then no matter how well private business do, revenue will be reduced. This is what I am talking about. You keep cutting taxes and u reach a point that the overall revenue for the govt will just not be enough to fun the federal govt.


Coolidge was actually smart enough to know that government investment does not result in that much growth. And it doesn't.

Govt investment in the society using borrowed money will grow the economy. Maybe not as much as if private enterprise was doing the investing but infusion of money into an economy will grow it. There are very rare exceptions, like investment in say drugs and pornography which leaves the working people hooked on it instead of going out to be productive individuals

[Zippyjuan]

You have nothing showing it was the tax cuts.

If revenue is down, that is going to be due to either of two things (or some combination of them). One, lower tax rates. Check. That happened. The other is a shrinking tax base- the economy. Unless the economy was shrinking, it must be the taxes. The economy is growing- not shrinking so we can rule that out. The tax base has not shrunk. What other ways is that (lower revenues) possible?

[Swordsmyth]

If revenue is down, that is going to be due to either of two things (or some combination of them). One, lower tax rates. Check. That happened. The other is a shrinking tax base- the economy. Unless the economy was shrinking, it must be the taxes. The economy is growing- not shrinking so we can rule that out. The tax base has not shrunk. What other ways is that (lower revenues) possible?
LOL

You and your anti-Trump buddies post bad economic news all the time but now that you want to blame the tax cuts the economy is great?

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

You and your anti-Trump buddies post bad economic news all the time but now that you want to blame the tax cuts the economy is great?

Changing the topic because you are unable to answer the question. Thanks for trying anyways.

[Swordsmyth]

Changing the topic because you are unable to answer the question. Thanks for trying anyways.
:rolleyes:

I already answered the question.

[acptulsa]

Taxes of any percentage other than 0 will inhibit private enterprise to some extent. The lower you go, the lower the effect, so tthe only rate that would not inhibit private enterprise is 0.



But if the tax is low enough then no matter how well private business do, revenue will be reduced. This is what I am talking about. You keep cutting taxes and u reach a point that the overall revenue for the govt will just not be enough to fun the federal govt.

Hello? The point is the balance--you do not maximize revenue by hiking taxes and strangling your base.


Govt investment in the society using borrowed money will grow the economy. Maybe not as much as if private enterprise was doing the investing but infusion of money into an economy will grow it.

Yes. But since government "investment" isn't--it seldom or never creates a profitable system--where does the economy go if and when the sent is paid back?


:rolleyes:

I already answered the question.

No you didn't.

[juleswin]

Hello? The point is the balance--you do not maximize revenue by hiking taxes and strangling your base.



Yes. But since government "investment" isn't--it seldom or never creates a profitable system--where does the economy go if and when the sent is paid back?



No you didn't.

And I said that if you cut taxes after the equilibrum point is reached then it will lead to a reduction in revenue. The economy will be doing gangbusters but the govt will get smaller and smaller portion of the economic winfall as the tax rates goes down.

Doesn't matter if this investment is not profitable, it will still grow the economy even. This growth will lead to increase in tax revenue giving the illusion that revenue is increasing while the govt is cutting taxes

[TheCount]

I don't think history supports you here. When there was no income tax, federal spending was about 2% of GDP. Generally, increases in revenue have enabled increases in spending.

The spending came before the taxes though.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't think history supports you here. When there was no income tax, federal spending was about 2% of GDP. Generally, increases in revenue have enabled increases in spending.

First income taxes were implemented in 1862 to support the Civil War. Spending lead to the increase in taxes in that case. Spending has pretty much been divorced from revenues for quite a while now.

https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/taxes/history-income-tax-united-states


In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate

[Chester Copperpot]

What would be a "debt free note"?

I said it right in my post.. a United States Note. How do you feel about us issuing United States Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes which have to be backed by debt?

[AZJoe]

With the Demoncrats holding the House he will be lucky to get this.

If he ever gets a Congress with enough conservatives to overcome the left and the RINOs we may see actual cuts.

The only way that is going to happen is to stop supporting the Republican party. https://twitter.com/WorldOfStu/status/1088563631275560961
The actual fiscal conservatives can be counted on your fingers. A grand total only 7 between both houses of Congress voted to cut actual overall spending on 2018 (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?sort=spending-asc&name=&chamber=house&year=10&congress=115&status=enacted&state=&zip=&page=1).
(5 in the house: Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, James Duncan, Raul Labrador, Morgan Griffith; 2 in the Senate: Rand Paul, Mike Lee).
And even if we were able to replace all the rest of the Republicans gain a majority, the fiscal idiot Trump would probably veto it so he could get his war and empire budget increases, military increase, Homeland Security increase, NSA increases, and foreign welfare for Israel, etc.

[Swordsmyth]

The only way that is going to happen is to stop supporting the Republican party. https://twitter.com/WorldOfStu/status/1088563631275560961
The actual fiscal conservatives can be counted on your fingers. A grand total only 7 between both houses of Congress voted to cut actual overall spending on 2018 (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?sort=spending-asc&name=&chamber=house&year=10&congress=115&status=enacted&state=&zip=&page=1).
(5 in the house: Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, James Duncan, Raul Labrador, Morgan Griffith; 2 in the Senate: Rand Paul, Mike Lee).
And even if we were able to replace all the rest of the Republicans gain a majority, the fiscal idiot Trump would probably veto it so he could get his war and empire budget increases, military increase, Homeland Security increase, NSA increases, and foreign welfare for Israel, etc.
Let me know when you find a viable alternative to either Trump or the Republican party.

[AZJoe]

Let me know when you find a viable alternative to either Trump or the Republican party.

SS wisdom - support evil and stupidity because you have to. You have no other viable alternative.
Let me know SS's support of idiot Trump and big government spendthrift Republican party replaces all 51 Republican "RINOs" in the Senate and all 190 "RINOs" in the House, and leads to any actual reduction in the debt.

Answer key: Never

[Swordsmyth]

SS wisdom - support evil and stupidity because you have to. You have no other viable alternative.
Let me know SS's support of idiot Trump and big government spendthrift Republican party replaces all 51 Republican "RINOs" in the Senate and all 190 "RINOs" in the House, and leads to any actual reduction in the debt.

Answer key: Never
I support the best available option to do the most good and stop the most bad.

I vote 3rd party when they are the best option and I vote Republican when they are the best option.

We might actually get some reduction in the debt if Republicans had a large enough majority that they didn't have the excuse of needing to compromise with the Demoncrats.

[AZJoe]

We might actually get some reduction in the debt if Republicans had a large enough majority that they didn't have the excuse of needing to compromise with the Demoncrats.

I wish that were true but the Republicans (Should officially change its name to RINO party) proved otherwise. It is a foolish fantasy of wishful thinking after they have repeatedly proved otherwise. They had solid majorities in both the House and Senate plus the presidency, yet they gave us record breaking deficits and debt. They proved worse spendthrifts than the Democrats - bigger budgets, bigger debts, bigger deficits, no fiscal responsibility whatsoever. It was horrendous.
And no it was not because of a handful of "RINOs." It was the whole dang party - 98.3% of them - the leadership, the rank and file , everyone. The party was complicit except for exactly 7 between both houses (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?sort=spending-asc&name=&chamber=house&year=10&congress=115&status=enacted&state=&zip=&page=1). They proved themselves liars and betrayers. Giving the RINO party even more RINOs to add to their spendthrift majority they already had won't do squat. The inescapable reality is there is no viable hope of fiscal responsibility from the Republican party, any more than the Democrats. Collapse is the only thing that appears will stop this runaway debtocracy.

[Swordsmyth]

I wish that were true but the Republicans (Should officially change its name to RINO party) proved otherwise. It is a foolish fantasy of wishful thinking after they have repeatedly proved otherwise. They had solid majorities in both the House and Senate plus the presidency, yet they gave us record breaking deficits and debt. They proved worse spendthrifts than the Democrats - bigger budgets, bigger debts, bigger deficits, no fiscal responsibility whatsoever. It was horrendous.
And no it was not because of a handful of "RINOs." It was the whole dang party - 98.3% of them - the leadership, the rank and file , everyone. The party was complicit except for exactly 7 between both houses (https://spendingtracker.org/rankings?sort=spending-asc&name=&chamber=house&year=10&congress=115&status=enacted&state=&zip=&page=1). They proved themselves liars and betrayers. Giving the RINO party even more RINOs to add to their spendthrift majority they already had won't do squat. The inescapable reality is there is no viable hope of fiscal responsibility from the Republican party, any more than the Democrats. Collapse is the only thing that appears will stop this runaway debtocracy.
They never had 60 votes in the Senate and they used that as an excuse to be "forced" to compromise with the Demoncrats about everything.

[Zippyjuan]

They never had 60 votes in the Senate and they used that as an excuse to be "forced" to compromise with the Demoncrats about everything.

Under "Reconciliation" they had a chance to do it with a simple majority- 51 votes in the Senate. No compromise necessary. They failed. Can't blame anybody but their own party.

[Swordsmyth]

Under "Reconciliation" they had a chance to do it with a simple majority- 51 votes in the Senate. No compromise necessary. They failed. Can't blame anybody but their own party.

"Reconciliation" has its own limitations that were used as an excuse.

[AZJoe]

They never had 60 votes in the Senate and they used that as an excuse to be "forced" to compromise with the Demoncrats about everything.

'OMG. What lame excuses for incompetence, deceit, fiscal irresponsibility. Spending starts in the house. The spending proposals by the senate were atrocious, the spending proposals by Trump were atrocious.

There was no senate filibuster to overcome. They never even put forth or proposed any budget reduction, any decifit elimination, and debt reduction. Zip, zilch. Their "compromise" was let's propose record breaking nation destroying deficits exceeding those what even the democrats couldn't do when they controlled both houses and the presidency. Let's push "our spending boondoggles" plus "their spending boondoggles". That is not a compromise. That's a fiscal rape.

[Swordsmyth]

'OMG. What lame excuses for incompetence, deceit, fiscal irresponsibility. Spending starts in the house. The spending proposals by the senate were atrocious, the spending proposals by Trump were atrocious.

There was no senate filibuster to overcome. They never even put forth or proposed any budget reduction, any decifit elimination, and debt reduction. Zip, zilch. Their "compromise" was let's propose record breaking nation destroying deficits exceeding those that even the democrats couldn't do when they controlled both house. Let's push "our spending boondoggles" plus "their spending boondoggles". That is not a compromise. That's a fiscal rape.
I know, but the RINOs could claim that they had to preemptively compromise because they didn't have 60 votes.
I'm not defending them, I'm explaining how they get away with it.
The average voter is dumb enough to accept their excuses.

[TheCount]

I know, but the RINOs could claim that they had to preemptively compromise because they didn't have 60 votes.

Since that's what you're claiming, I guess that makes you the RINO.


I'm not defending them, I'm explaining how they get away with it.

You're defending them and, as usual, defending Trump most of all.


I'd love to hear how the lack of a supermajority in Congress somehow forced Trump to submit the largest ever budget request in the history of the nation.

[Swordsmyth]

Since that's what you're claiming, I guess that makes you the RINO.



You're defending them and, as usual, defending Trump most of all.


I'd love to hear how the lack of a supermajority in Congress somehow forced Trump to submit the largest ever budget request in the history of the nation.
LOL

Explaining is not defending.

[TheCount]

LOL

Explaining is not defending.

As always, the LOLs and emojis come out when you run into a topic that your talking points do not cover.

[Swordsmyth]

As always, the LOLs and emojis come out when you run into a topic that your talking points do not cover.
LOL

I have this covered just fine.

The reason the Republicans get away with not cutting government is the Demoncrats, end of story.

[Zippyjuan]

LOL

I have this covered just fine.

The reason the Republicans get away with not cutting government is the Demoncrats, end of story.

That might be partially believable if they had submitted budget cuts and the Dems voted against them but nobody even submitted any cuts. But you nobody takes responsibility for anything anymore so we have to blame somebody.

[donnay]

Trump cuts off aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador--500 million worth.

[Zippyjuan]

Trump cuts off aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador--500 million worth.

He claimed it was $500 million. Closer to $100 million. He wants $20 billion for his wall (at least that is what he used to be asking) Also the supposedly aid he cut was for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 which are all over- FY 2018 ended last October. That money should have already been spent.

[Superfluous Man]

Also the supposedly aid he cut was for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 which are all over- FY 2018 ended last October.

That doesn't make any sense. Are you sure you didn't misinterpret something you read?

[Swordsmyth]

That might be partially believable if they had submitted budget cuts and the Dems voted against them but nobody even submitted any cuts. But you nobody takes responsibility for anything anymore so we have to blame somebody.
They claim it would be a waste of time to submit budgets the Demoncrats wouldn't agree to, if they had a large enough majority to overcome the Demoncrats and the "moderates" they wouldn't be able to do that.

[Swordsmyth]

He claimed it was $500 million. Closer to $100 million. He wants $20 billion for his wall (at least that is what he used to be asking) Also the supposedly aid he cut was for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 which are all over- FY 2018 ended last October. That money should have already been spent.
It must not have been all spent and there won't be any more.

[Zippyjuan]

That doesn't make any sense. Are you sure you didn't misinterpret something you read?

You are right- it doesn't make sense. Unless you want to pretend you are cutting something without actually cutting it. The funds are supposed to be used to encourage people to stay in those countries so the cut is also contrary to his supposed goal of stopping them from coming.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-says-it-will-cut-foreign-aid-guatemala-honduras-n989246


A State Department spokesperson said that “at the Secretary’s instruction, we are carrying out the President’s direction and ending FY 2017 and FY 2018 foreign assistance programs for the Northern Triangle,” a term that refers to the three countries.

[Swordsmyth]

You are right- it doesn't make sense. Unless you want to pretend you are cutting something without actually cutting it. The funds are supposed to be used to encourage people to stay in those countries so the cut is also contrary to his supposed goal of stopping them from coming.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-says-it-will-cut-foreign-aid-guatemala-honduras-n989246
Any money left will not be given to them and no more money will be given to them.
Giving them money to stay there never works, we will get much better results by spending it to keep them out.