Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Deficit to hit $897 Billion this year, Debt headed towards highest level since WWII

#41
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2019, 11:54 AM by mikesez.)

(01-31-2019, 11:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 07:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't think the tax cuts increased revenues at all.   Revenue in 2018 was barely more than revenue in 2017.  Barely.   

One of the main selling points for the tax cuts was that it would cause enough economic growth that the increase in tax revenues would cut the deficit.   It did not do that.  

We cannot cut the deficit without fixing spending, and no one seems to want to do that.  And as far as the dems controlling the house, the Republicans had a majority in both houses for the last 2 years.  

Trump promised to fix the deficit.  He's made it worse.

No, the claim by some supporters was that the effect of tax cuts would cover the loss in tax revenue from the cuts. Since there was not a revenue drop, that was true. The main purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to slow or stop the bleeding of industries moving to other countries, and had nothing to do with revenue. Because of that it was a worthwhile decision even if it caused a decrease in revenue. Corporations that moved to (say) Ireland would pay ZERO corporate taxes to the US government.

Note that many left wing economists (as well as the Congressional Budget Office) predicted that the tax cuts would hurt revenue. They were wrong.

[citation needed]
[Dubious, does claim account for inflation?]
[It's not April 15 yet]
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#42

(01-31-2019, 11:51 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 11:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: No, the claim by some supporters was that the effect of tax cuts would cover the loss in tax revenue from the cuts. Since there was not a revenue drop, that was true. The main purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to slow or stop the bleeding of industries moving to other countries, and had nothing to do with revenue. Because of that it was a worthwhile decision even if it caused a decrease in revenue. Corporations that moved to (say) Ireland would pay ZERO corporate taxes to the US government.

Note that many left wing economists (as well as the Congressional Budget Office) predicted that the tax cuts would hurt revenue. They were wrong.

[citation needed]
[Dubious, does claim account for inflation?]
[It's not April 15 yet]

1. I was using a fact ("Revenue in 2018 was barely more than revenue in 2017") as presented by the person I was responding to. One doesn't need a link for that. If you want to claim otherwise, by all means do so, but since it would be your claim and not mine, you are the one who needs to provide a link.

2. Maybe inflation was a factor. I doubt it makes up the difference between the claims of those who said the corporate tax cuts would cost upwards of $100B in revenue ($1.9T over ten years link).


3. April 15th only relates to income taxes, not corporate taxes, so that will be insignificant. The part of the bill that changed the income tax rates was (overall) revenue neutral.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#43

(01-31-2019, 11:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 07:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't think the tax cuts increased revenues at all.   Revenue in 2018 was barely more than revenue in 2017.  Barely.   

One of the main selling points for the tax cuts was that it would cause enough economic growth that the increase in tax revenues would cut the deficit.   It did not do that.  

We cannot cut the deficit without fixing spending, and no one seems to want to do that.  And as far as the dems controlling the house, the Republicans had a majority in both houses for the last 2 years.  

Trump promised to fix the deficit.  He's made it worse.

No, the claim by some supporters was that the effect of tax cuts would cover the loss in tax revenue from the cuts. Since there was not a revenue drop, that was true. The main purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to slow or stop the bleeding of industries moving to other countries, and had nothing to do with revenue. Because of that it was a worthwhile decision even if it caused a decrease in revenue. Corporations that moved to (say) Ireland would pay ZERO corporate taxes to the US government.

Note that many left wing economists (as well as the Congressional Budget Office) predicted that the tax cuts would hurt revenue. They were wrong.

If you go look up what Trump promised, and what his people (Mnuchin, Kudlow) said, they said the tax cuts would reduce the deficit and even pay down the debt.   Instead, the deficit has skyrocketed.  That's a fact.
Reply

#44

(01-31-2019, 02:44 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 11:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: No, the claim by some supporters was that the effect of tax cuts would cover the loss in tax revenue from the cuts. Since there was not a revenue drop, that was true. The main purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to slow or stop the bleeding of industries moving to other countries, and had nothing to do with revenue. Because of that it was a worthwhile decision even if it caused a decrease in revenue. Corporations that moved to (say) Ireland would pay ZERO corporate taxes to the US government.

Note that many left wing economists (as well as the Congressional Budget Office) predicted that the tax cuts would hurt revenue. They were wrong.

If you go look up what Trump promised, and what his people (Mnuchin, Kudlow) said, they said the tax cuts would reduce the deficit and even pay down the debt.   Instead, the deficit has skyrocketed.  That's a fact.
Did they say instantly or do you want to let his first term play out? You are barking up the wrong tree.

The tax cuts worked as advertised and increased growth which normally reduces the deficit. That economic growth can't solve the issue if Congressional spending outpaces it. The tax cuts are not the issue here and have nearly paid for themselves at this point.
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#45

(01-31-2019, 02:44 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 11:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: No, the claim by some supporters was that the effect of tax cuts would cover the loss in tax revenue from the cuts. Since there was not a revenue drop, that was true. The main purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to slow or stop the bleeding of industries moving to other countries, and had nothing to do with revenue. Because of that it was a worthwhile decision even if it caused a decrease in revenue. Corporations that moved to (say) Ireland would pay ZERO corporate taxes to the US government.

Note that many left wing economists (as well as the Congressional Budget Office) predicted that the tax cuts would hurt revenue. They were wrong.

If you go look up what Trump promised, and what his people (Mnuchin, Kudlow) said, they said the tax cuts would reduce the deficit and even pay down the debt.   Instead, the deficit has skyrocketed.  That's a fact.

Spending side issue, not revenue side issue. Again, would the deficit be more or less without the tax cuts?
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#46

(01-31-2019, 09:43 AM)B2hibry Wrote: TheO-LineMatters
(01-30-2019, 05:28 PM)B2hibry Wrote: Our whole monetary system is based on spending money we don’t have! Stop believing everything you hear by the chicken littles. China holds a very small portion of our overall debt. Heck, Japan holds more of our debt than China. Most debt is some form of securities, not foreign. Ultimately, I do agree the spending needs to slow but that is not how a Dem controlled House works or our goverment in general unfortunately.

You do realize the Republicans controlled the House up until the very recent midterms? Blaming it on the Democrats isn't gonna fly this time. This most recent round of "out of control spending" occurred with the Republicans controlling the House, the Senate and the White House. We had a surplus of money when Bill Clinton left office and every president since then, has been spending like crazy. It has to stop. 

Here is the article stating when we last had a balanced budget. 
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-bu...r-clinton/

On top of that, in 2016 we spent more on military funding,, than the next 8 countries combined. That is crazy! We need to take a serious look at cutting back on spending, particularly in these areas. I'm not talking about anything that puts soldiers in danger or effects their pay. I'm talking about completely wasted money for things we don't need or completely overspend on, due to certain military contracts which were given out in pretty shady ways. I truly believe we could cut the military budget significantly and still be the most funded and powerful military in the world and military personnel themselves, would not even notice a difference. As long as we have corrupt lobbyist and politicians connected to military contractors though, this will never happen.

It was a far different economy back then. The geopolitical climate was different. Times change. In any case, a balanced budget is not a true representation of a healthy economy. It’s a fiat system with strong global ties that quite frankly, rely on debt for its health. 

Not going to argue that there is or isn’t waste in the military. It suffers the same bloat at times as major corporations. What I will argue is that putting the military at the top of the list in any budget discussion is lazy. It’s always the low hanging fruit because of its size and misunderstanding of broad roles. When you are top dog, everyone is gunning for you. On your list of defense spending, how many of those countries fall under our defense umbrella? Willing to bet all but two. Most people would be amazed at how to spread out we are throughout the world conducting humanitarian missions and the like. Contrary to what many believe, we don’t sit around waiting for conflict.

Wonder why nobody bats an eye at the out of control Medicare/Medicaid spending instead of a constitutional entity? No doubt there is government fat to trim but it is not solely on our defense spending.

To me, that is wasteful. No one should be under our umbrella. We should not be our brother's keeper. I'd pull that money first. Nobody said the spending is solely out of control in the military. There are many areas to cut fat and many areas to gain revenue, but military spending is the most obvious.
Reply

#47

(01-31-2019, 03:22 PM)B2hibry Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 02:44 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: If you go look up what Trump promised, and what his people (Mnuchin, Kudlow) said, they said the tax cuts would reduce the deficit and even pay down the debt.   Instead, the deficit has skyrocketed.  That's a fact.
Did they say instantly or do you want to let his first term play out? You are barking up the wrong tree.

The tax cuts worked as advertised and increased growth which normally reduces the deficit. That economic growth can't solve the issue if Congressional spending outpaces it. The tax cuts are not the issue here and have nearly paid for themselves at this point.

And yet spending remains the problem.

Just sayin', slash foreign aid, cut bait on military projects that are way overbudget and badly underperforming (lookin' at you, F-35), end projects that are aimed to replace perfectly capable platforms with new ones because Northrop Grumman wants money (lookin' at you, B-21), take the hundreds of billions of dollars saved by updating jets that are still able to kick the [BLEEP] of 99% of what's out there and pump those funds into:


1. Fixing the VA and providing better support for troops after their tour ends
2. Cutting taxes

Defense spending alone is a constant, massive sink on the budget, and until someone tells Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and General Dynamics that the US will not put together a clean sheet aircraft or ship every time their stock price dips, that's not going to stop. Our marquee fighter jet, the one designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 that still dominate virtually every enemy they'd come up against, was unable to beat a WWI biplane in a dogfight and has a helmet that's designed so well that pilots vomit into it when using it, and since it's a full-face design...yeah.

/rant

If you cut military spending down to a level where we're just the best in the world, not decades ahead of countries that would love to start a war with us, we'd have a much lower deficit. The countries we're most likely to see in combat anytime soon are North Korea or Middle Eastern nations. North Korea's military hasn't really made it all the way out of the 1960s yet. Middle Eastern nations tend to operate 1970s/1980s-vintage US or Soviet fighters. We're not talking about going to war with the aliens from Independence Day here--and even they were beaten by a good ol' F/A-18.
Reply

#48

(01-31-2019, 03:47 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 03:22 PM)B2hibry Wrote: Did they say instantly or do you want to let his first term play out? You are barking up the wrong tree.

The tax cuts worked as advertised and increased growth which normally reduces the deficit. That economic growth can't solve the issue if Congressional spending outpaces it. The tax cuts are not the issue here and have nearly paid for themselves at this point.

And yet spending remains the problem.

Just sayin', slash foreign aid, cut bait on military projects that are way overbudget and badly underperforming (lookin' at you, F-35), end projects that are aimed to replace perfectly capable platforms with new ones because Northrop Grumman wants money (lookin' at you, B-21), take the hundreds of billions of dollars saved by updating jets that are still able to kick the [BLEEP] of 99% of what's out there and pump those funds into:


1. Fixing the VA and providing better support for troops after their tour ends
2. Cutting taxes

Defense spending alone is a constant, massive sink on the budget, and until someone tells Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and General Dynamics that the US will not put together a clean sheet aircraft or ship every time their stock price dips, that's not going to stop. Our marquee fighter jet, the one designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 that still dominate virtually every enemy they'd come up against, was unable to beat a WWI biplane in a dogfight and has a helmet that's designed so well that pilots vomit into it when using it, and since it's a full-face design...yeah.

/rant

If you cut military spending down to a level where we're just the best in the world, not decades ahead of countries that would love to start a war with us, we'd have a much lower deficit. The countries we're most likely to see in combat anytime soon are North Korea or Middle Eastern nations. North Korea's military hasn't really made it all the way out of the 1960s yet. Middle Eastern nations tend to operate 1970s/1980s-vintage US or Soviet fighters. We're not talking about going to war with the aliens from Independence Day here--and even they were beaten by a good ol' F/A-18.
Not yet at least.
Reply

#49

(01-31-2019, 05:10 PM)Cleatwood Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 03:47 PM)TJBender Wrote: And yet spending remains the problem.

Just sayin', slash foreign aid, cut bait on military projects that are way overbudget and badly underperforming (lookin' at you, F-35), end projects that are aimed to replace perfectly capable platforms with new ones because Northrop Grumman wants money (lookin' at you, B-21), take the hundreds of billions of dollars saved by updating jets that are still able to kick the [BLEEP] of 99% of what's out there and pump those funds into:


1. Fixing the VA and providing better support for troops after their tour ends
2. Cutting taxes

Defense spending alone is a constant, massive sink on the budget, and until someone tells Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and General Dynamics that the US will not put together a clean sheet aircraft or ship every time their stock price dips, that's not going to stop. Our marquee fighter jet, the one designed to replace the F-16 and F-18 that still dominate virtually every enemy they'd come up against, was unable to beat a WWI biplane in a dogfight and has a helmet that's designed so well that pilots vomit into it when using it, and since it's a full-face design...yeah.

/rant

If you cut military spending down to a level where we're just the best in the world, not decades ahead of countries that would love to start a war with us, we'd have a much lower deficit. The countries we're most likely to see in combat anytime soon are North Korea or Middle Eastern nations. North Korea's military hasn't really made it all the way out of the 1960s yet. Middle Eastern nations tend to operate 1970s/1980s-vintage US or Soviet fighters. We're not talking about going to war with the aliens from Independence Day here--and even they were beaten by a good ol' F/A-18.
Not yet at least.

If that happens, we're most likely screwed, no matter what we spend. In that case, aliens had the technology to get here from light years away. That tells me they will probably have weapons much more superior to anything we've ever dreamed of.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#50

(01-31-2019, 09:08 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:
(01-30-2019, 03:42 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: But wait.  I thought those big tax cuts were going to fix the deficit.  What happened?

(01-31-2019, 09:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Trump said he would fix the deficit.   He hasn't done it.   The deficit is much worse.   

Yes, he stimulated the economy.   We took the tax-cut drug, we all felt great.   It won't last.   Interest on the debt will eventually lead the government to take actions that will kill the economy.

Everyone says they will fix the deficit. Trump is the only one you hold to that now? You can't fix the deficit. It is impossible.

The secret is to slowly buy gold and other precious metals with your greenbacks, that way you have something with spending power when the dollar goes belly up.

1.  End base line budgeting  2. Make each and every bill a single issue.  No riders, no add on's.  Make every single expenditure stand on it's own merit.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   It's not difficult if you have the desire to do it, and that is the issue.
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

#51

Read the article guys, deficit is increasing because of increased entitlement and decreased tax revenue caused by the tax cuts, I repeat the tax cuts DECREASED revenue.

“Deficits are rising in part because entitlement spending will increase as the population ages, as will the amount of interest the U.S. must pay on its already sizable debt, according to the nonpartisan office. Revenues from taxes are also down following the 2017 tax overhaul.”
Reply

#52
(This post was last modified: 01-31-2019, 09:13 PM by copycat.)

(01-31-2019, 08:41 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: Read the article guys, deficit is increasing because of increased entitlement and decreased tax revenue caused by the tax cuts, I repeat the tax cuts DECREASED revenue.

“Deficits are rising in part because entitlement spending will increase as the population ages, as will the amount of interest the U.S. must pay on its already sizable debt, according to the nonpartisan office. Revenues from taxes are also down following the 2017 tax overhaul.”
Wow!  Really?  1. Entitlement spending is increasing because I am getting old but not because the government keeps adding non-paying people to the list.  2.  Every true fiscal conservative has been harping on the interest of the debt regardless of party in office.  3. Please show me how revenues are down after the 2017 tax cut.

Edit: What article?
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply

#53

“CBO estimates the 2017 tax law will cost the federal government a total of $1.9 trillion over 10 years, after factoring in the positive effects of the law on the economy.”

I guess we have to wait for 2018 receipts as these are estimates for
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#54

(01-31-2019, 09:23 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: “CBO estimates the 2017 tax law will cost the federal government a total of $1.9 trillion over 10 years, after factoring in the positive effects of the law on the economy.”

I guess we have to wait for 2018 receipts as these are estimates 
Air Quotes is Best Quotes.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#55

(01-31-2019, 06:34 PM)copycat Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 09:08 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Everyone says they will fix the deficit. Trump is the only one you hold to that now? You can't fix the deficit. It is impossible.

The secret is to slowly buy gold and other precious metals with your greenbacks, that way you have something with spending power when the dollar goes belly up.

1.  End base line budgeting  2. Make each and every bill a single issue.  No riders, no add on's.  Make every single expenditure stand on it's own merit.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   It's not difficult if you have the desire to do it, and that is the issue.

Such a simple fix, yet people act like this is impossible. It's just common sense.
Reply

#56

(02-01-2019, 12:35 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 06:34 PM)copycat Wrote: 1.  End base line budgeting  2. Make each and every bill a single issue.  No riders, no add on's.  Make every single expenditure stand on it's own merit.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   It's not difficult if you have the desire to do it, and that is the issue.

Such a simple fix, yet people act like this is impossible. It's just common sense.

It goes against the theory of how Congresses work.
There are three categories of bills, call them X,Y, and Z.
X is stuff I want to pass
Y is stuff I don't care either way about.
Z is stuff I'd never ever vote for.
The Y category is larger than you think.  Even yours.  You might think you care about politics but you probably don't actually have a strong opinion about most of the things that get discussed in congressional committees. That's the Y.
The other problem is, a lot of the stuff in your X category is stuff that other people put in their Y and Z categories.  You'll never persuade the Z's, but maybe you could persuade the Y's.  
"Hey, brother, will you help pass this thing that's an X for me but just a Y in your book?"
"I don't care about it.  Let's talk about my X.  I care more about that."
"Oh, I don't care about your X.  That's just a Y for me.  How about you vote for my X and I'll vote for your X?"
"How do I know you'll hold up your end?"
"We'll put them in the same bill!"
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#57

(01-31-2019, 06:00 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 05:10 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: Not yet at least.

If that happens, we're most likely screwed, no matter what we spend. In that case, aliens had the technology to get here from light years away. That tells me they will probably have weapons much more superior to anything we've ever dreamed of.
Oh I'm sorry.... Do they aliens have Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith? I rest my case.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#58

(01-31-2019, 09:23 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: “CBO estimates the 2017 tax law will cost the federal government a total of $1.9 trillion over 10 years, after factoring in the positive effects of the law on the economy.”

I guess we have to wait for 2018 receipts as these are estimates for

That was their prediction, and the Congressional Budget Office was wrong. Revenue did go up in 2018, as Marty said.

[Image: usgr_chartRp01f.png]



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#59

(02-01-2019, 10:31 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 09:23 PM)jradMITEX Wrote: “CBO estimates the 2017 tax law will cost the federal government a total of $1.9 trillion over 10 years, after factoring in the positive effects of the law on the economy.”

I guess we have to wait for 2018 receipts as these are estimates for

That was their prediction, and the Congressional Budget Office was wrong. Revenue did go up in 2018, as Marty said.

[Image: usgr_chartRp01f.png]

They weren't necessarily wrong.  The relevant question is, how much would revenue have gone up without the tax cut.   Not, did revenue go up or not.
Reply

#60

(02-01-2019, 12:47 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(02-01-2019, 12:35 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Such a simple fix, yet people act like this is impossible. It's just common sense.

It goes against the theory of how Congresses work.
There are three categories of bills, call them X,Y, and Z.
X is stuff I want to pass
Y is stuff I don't care either way about.
Z is stuff I'd never ever vote for.
The Y category is larger than you think.  Even yours.  You might think you care about politics but you probably don't actually have a strong opinion about most of the things that get discussed in congressional committees. That's the Y.
The other problem is, a lot of the stuff in your X category is stuff that other people put in their Y and Z categories.  You'll never persuade the Z's, but maybe you could persuade the Y's.  
"Hey, brother, will you help pass this thing that's an X for me but just a Y in your book?"
"I don't care about it.  Let's talk about my X.  I care more about that."
"Oh, I don't care about your X.  That's just a Y for me.  How about you vote for my X and I'll vote for your X?"
"How do I know you'll hold up your end?"
"We'll put them in the same bill!"

Exactly and if you eliminate that option then all the (let me get re-elected) pork would disappear.  The junk that gets added cost us tax payers billions and billions.  And the worst part is these senators would never go on record voting for so much of the crap added after the fact.  The line item veto was a step in the right direction, too bad it is unconstitutional.
Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!