- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 110,831
- Reaction score
- 101,111
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
By Lisa Mascaro
October 5, 2017
Not long ago, Paul D. Ryan stood before charts and graphs as the House Budget Committee chairman like a new Ross Perot, promoting an austerity plan that slashed taxes and spending, and warning of the dangers of deficits. “The facts are very, very clear: The United States is heading toward a debt crisis,” he said then. “We face a crushing burden of debt which will take down our economy, which will lower our living standards.” Now as House Speaker, the Wisconsin Republican is undergoing a role-reversal, championing President Trump’s tax cuts, which promise massive tax cuts for corporations and, to some extent individuals — and which experts say will add some $2 trillion to the nation’s red ink over the next decade. Republicans are racing to assemble Trump’s tax package, which remains more conceptual than actual legislation, at a time when the nation’s debt load has topped the eye-popping level of $20 trillion. For Trump, who routinely leveraged borrowing to expand his real estate empire and declared on the campaign trail that he loved debt, a tax plan that expands the government’s deficit may be no problem.
During a recent White House meeting, Trump boasted to lawmakers from the tax writing House Ways and Means Committee that the country’s economic growth could hit four, five, even 6% under his tax plan, which administration officials say would more than cover lost revenue and even reduce the deficit. But, the lawmakers asked, what if growth isn’t so strong — most mainstream economists doubt it will be — what’s Plan B for making up the deficit shortfall? For that, there was no clear answer, said those who attended. During a recent White House meeting, Trump boasted to lawmakers from the tax writing House Ways and Means Committee that the country’s economic growth could hit four, five, even 6% under his tax plan, which administration officials say would more than cover lost revenue and even reduce the deficit. But, the lawmakers asked, what if growth isn’t so strong — most mainstream economists doubt it will be — what’s Plan B for making up the deficit shortfall? For that, there was no clear answer, said those who attended. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) hung a debt clock in his office — even before photos of his kids — after he was elected. Now, he worries that his colleagues may put aside concern over deficits. “I didn’t want to forget that is the main issue here that I came to solve,” said the libertarian-leaning congressman. “I may very well be alone. Part it is the zeal for the deal on tax reform, and people are willing to hold their nose. ... Because we’ve done nothing else.”
Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink
5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?
On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.
Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.
Both parties are good at being deficit hawks...when it's not their guy in the WH.
Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.
Actually, the Democratic objection isn't so much to the deficits. It's pointing out:Both parties are good at being deficit hawks...when it's not their guy in the WH.
Actually, the Democratic objection isn't so much to the deficits. It's pointing out:
1) The rank hypocrisy of the Republicans on this issue
2) How the proposed tax cuts favor the wealthy
Dems would be on board with quite a few of the reforms, if the benefits were more evenly distributed. Meanwhile, Republicans basically just want tax cuts for the rich. Even much of the anti-ACA moves are about attempts to repeal a tax imposed primarily on the wealthy to fund it.
Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.
Well, they can "say" anything. It just won't happen. Jared Bernstein has a good take on this.I just don't want them to lie to people any more. They can't project 5% growth and say that revenues are actually going to go up. It's just a lie. Revenues go up every year. The important stat is revenue as a % of GDP. And historically revenue as a % of GDP is lower under eras of supply side.
Tax Cuts are an easy sell. People love money. But, why compound the situation with lies, because they can't rebut arguments from the left. It's flummoxing.
I also don't want them to cut taxes, tell the country revenues are actually going to climb. Say they are climbing during their period of congratulatory parties where they each consume a 10 lb choclate dove, and then point to the budget and say, "Well since our revenues are climbing from all these tax cuts, I guess we can't afford to fund programs for the poor any longer."
Doesn't that kind of take their own argument away from them. They can't claim rising revenues and no money for the poor.
Do Republicans Really Care About the Deficit?
...
Indeed, rumor is that Mr. Trump has his economics team ginning up a “dynamic growth model” that will spit out phony growth effects offsetting much of the cost of their tax cut.
Don’t believe it. Our fiscal history on this point is clear: Cutting taxes loses revenues, which, unless offset by higher taxes elsewhere or spending cuts, increases the budget deficit, which in turn raises the debt. (The debt is the sum of all past deficits minus past surpluses.)
In fact, the Republican budget hawk is a rare bird. There are, instead, flocks of chicken hawks who use the deficit argument to block spending, promote fiscal austerity, and small government, conveniently tossing deficit concerns aside when it comes to tax cuts.
Actually, the Democratic objection isn't so much to the deficits. It's pointing out:
1) The rank hypocrisy of the Republicans on this issue
2) How the proposed tax cuts favor the wealthy
Dems would be on board with quite a few of the reforms, if the benefits were more evenly distributed. Meanwhile, Republicans basically just want tax cuts for the rich. Even much of the anti-ACA moves are about attempts to repeal a tax imposed primarily on the wealthy to fund it.
Both parties are good at being deficit hawks...when it's not their guy in the WH.
You are wrong, Dems will actually pay for things. There were taxes and other things in the ACA to make it more deficit neutral.
Reps refer to make believe land and wishes to make their bills and legislation not blow a hole in the budget.
That doesn't say anything about what I said. I just find it amusing that when the President is a Dem, the Reps become deficit hawks, and vice versa when the President is a Republican.
I don't think Dems are deficit hawks or even claim to be.
If you have a 2 trillion price tag on new legislation you'd better be able to defend why that amount is going to provide a benefit. It doesn't matter which party you are.
Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink
5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?
On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.
Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink
5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?
On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.
Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink
5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?
On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.
So, are you saying deficits are bad?
Full Title: Republicans once railed against deficits. Now President Trump's tax plan piles on more than $2 trillion in red ink
5-6% economic growth per year would be so astounding that virtually all economists discount it entirely. So the question remains ... How can we afford the Trump tax cuts?
On Capitol Hill, GOP Representatives and Senators shrug their shoulders and ignore the $2 trillion dollar question. They need a legislative-political win today ... regardless of the cost to future generations.
So, are you saying deficits are bad?
Ain't that the truth.
Yello. Still no answer? Are you saying deficits are bad, or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?