Trump Tax "Hoax" Would Blow $5 Trillion Hole In Budget Over Next Decade: Analysis

a reply to: FyreByrd

Trump Tax "Hoax" Would Blow $5 Trillion Hole In Budget Over Next Decade: Analysis



That is? 5 trillion? why the outrage Obama added 19 trillion to the debt during his administration more than any other president, I think Trumps is still 14 trillion short.

a reply to: marg6043

Even if we take your number of $19 trillion as accurate, you're misunderstanding the claim. It's not that Trump would add $5 trillion, it's that he would add $5 trillion in addition to everything else. He's already on track to add an additional $19 trillion, so this would take it to $24.

And more importantly, no one gains from it except the wealthy. The "average" family would get back 20 cents a day.

And here it comes....

The GOP's Tax Cut Bonanza Is a Major Attack on Medicare

To be clear: If the tax bill passes the Senate and is signed into law by Trump, nothing more needs to be done to cut Medicare. If the House and Senate do nothing, the cuts take effect immediately after the end of the congressional session and get bigger every passing year. A vote for this tax bill is a vote to cut Medicare.

After decades of trying to turn back the New Deal (Social Security) and to destroy Medicare (what Ronald Reagan spoke out against as Communism and Socialism), the GOP extremist fringe will now do what they always wanted to do. From 1% in 1980 to 100% GOP today, the Koch Private Party is in control.

For all of you at ATS who said it wouldn't happen, you missed the real conspiracy. And you'll be paying for it, literally as your costs go up. Want to try to do something about it now? Get in touch with your Republican legislator. Good Luck.

a reply to: desert

It's almost certainly passing the Senate, so unless it dies in reconciliation, it's very unlikely this doesn't pass. It repeals the ACA, raises taxes on the bottom 50% of Americans, and makes grad school unobtainable for virtually everyone.

All my life, I've wanted to actually become educated, work a good job, gain experience, and then make the US a better place. This bill has me seriously rethinking my priorities. Perhaps it's time to just abandon the US. I don't want to in any way support a country that says I should die early, broke, and sick and denies me an education.

a reply to: Aazadan

Aazadan, as a passionate, compassionate person, you understand the power of community and unity. You understood the US as a community. You wanted to make the nation community a better place. I salute you.

Well, looks like the "tax reform" will go through. As with other GOP legacies, this one will seem harmless at the outset, throwing crumbs to the populace while serving more cake to the morbidly wealthy. I've observed this scam over the years, since the 1980s Reaganomics ensured that any wealth created would be vacuumed up from the middle class and remain at the top.

As it''s been said, some will rob you with a six-gun and some with a fountain pen. Some have been scammed and deluded into thinking that the six-gun is what fights back against the government pen. That might work in banana republics, but the USA was created to work differently, and it's true strength lies in voting as a "bloodless revolution" and rights to peacefully and lawfully petition the govt.

What has worked here for change are movements outside of govt pushing on govt from the outside. From We The People pushing govt. The Reagan Revolution was created from the top down, ensuring its eventual descent into the authoritarianism we see today.

I have hope for the future, as this past year I have witnessed citizens passionate for change by pushing from outside. Whether it's masses in the streets or individuals speaking up at legislatures' community meetings or contacting their elected leaders or casting a vote, I have seen what the Founding Leaders intended.

Community, coming together, no longer dividing into the saved and unsaved (whether it's religious or social or economic). I wish you and others here the best in 2018!

Crazy tax hoax would save my family and I $3,500 next year.

taxplancalculator.com...

Wait - are you sure it's not a billion gazillion trillion squidillion ????





Oh, and doesn't the tax policy eliminate the Obamacare mandate - what with all the other hits to Obamacare, it's dead already in all but name.

a reply to: marg6043

Obama didn't add 19 trillion to the US debt.

Depending on how you want to measure it is somewhere between 1 and 7 trillion.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: marg6043

Obama didn't add 19 trillion to the US debt.

Depending on how you want to measure it is somewhere between 1 and 7 trillion.

It's actually better to look at it by %increase.
Obama increased the debt by 57%, the same as Bush Jnr.
Trump would need to increase the debt by $12trillion to equal that.

But yes, Obama was about $7trillion.

As for the economist's estimates, they have zero idea what will actually happen to the deficit. They are always wrong. which is understandable because no one on earth can predict what is going to happen to the economy with any level of accuracy to get worried about. If these people could, they would not be economists. They'd be the richest men in the world by a long way, living on private islands.

You'd get more accuracy visiting a fortune teller.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: marg6043

Obama didn't add 19 trillion to the US debt.

Depending on how you want to measure it is somewhere between 1 and 7 trillion.

It's actually better to look at it by %increase.
Obama increased the debt by 57%, the same as Bush Jnr.
Trump would need to increase the debt by $12trillion to equal that.

But yes, Obama was about $7trillion.

As for the economist's estimates, they have zero idea what will actually happen to the deficit. They are always wrong. which is understandable because no one on earth can predict what is going to happen to the economy with any level of accuracy to get worried about. If these people could, they would not be economists. They'd be the richest men in the world by a long way, living on private islands.

You'd get more accuracy visiting a fortune teller.

'The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable'

J K Galbraith


While I agree that % increase is better method your % aren't quite correct as take the total debt increase during the term.

The first year budget is approved by the previous president so it's more accurate to leave out the first year and add in the first year of the subsequent president.

Most of the budget deficits are also non discretionary. For example with Obama most of the increase in debt was not new spending, but decreased tax revenues and increased welfare spending as a result of the 2008 crash.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: marg6043

Obama didn't add 19 trillion to the US debt.

Depending on how you want to measure it is somewhere between 1 and 7 trillion.

It's actually better to look at it by %increase.
Obama increased the debt by 57%, the same as Bush Jnr.
Trump would need to increase the debt by $12trillion to equal that.

But yes, Obama was about $7trillion.

As for the economist's estimates, they have zero idea what will actually happen to the deficit. They are always wrong. which is understandable because no one on earth can predict what is going to happen to the economy with any level of accuracy to get worried about. If these people could, they would not be economists. They'd be the richest men in the world by a long way, living on private islands.

You'd get more accuracy visiting a fortune teller.

'The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable'

J K Galbraith


While I agree that % increase is better method your % aren't quite correct as take the total debt increase during the term.

The first year budget is approved by the previous president so it's more accurate to leave out the first year and add in the first year of the subsequent president.

Most of the budget deficits are also non discretionary. For example with Obama most of the increase in debt was not new spending, but decreased tax revenues and increased welfare spending as a result of the 2008 crash.

I buy the year 1 position.
Anyway - it's safe to say that 3 Presidents stand out in terms of deficit increases - Wilson, Roosevelt and Reagan.
I don't think it's a useful thing to measure anyway - at least not in isolation.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: marg6043

Obama didn't add 19 trillion to the US debt.

Depending on how you want to measure it is somewhere between 1 and 7 trillion.

It's actually better to look at it by %increase.
Obama increased the debt by 57%, the same as Bush Jnr.
Trump would need to increase the debt by $12trillion to equal that.

But yes, Obama was about $7trillion.

As for the economist's estimates, they have zero idea what will actually happen to the deficit. They are always wrong. which is understandable because no one on earth can predict what is going to happen to the economy with any level of accuracy to get worried about. If these people could, they would not be economists. They'd be the richest men in the world by a long way, living on private islands.

You'd get more accuracy visiting a fortune teller.

'The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable'

J K Galbraith


While I agree that % increase is better method your % aren't quite correct as take the total debt increase during the term.

The first year budget is approved by the previous president so it's more accurate to leave out the first year and add in the first year of the subsequent president.

Most of the budget deficits are also non discretionary. For example with Obama most of the increase in debt was not new spending, but decreased tax revenues and increased welfare spending as a result of the 2008 crash.

I buy the year 1 position.
Anyway - it's safe to say that 3 Presidents stand out in terms of deficit increases - Wilson, Roosevelt and Reagan.
I don't think it's a useful thing to measure anyway - at least not in isolation.

100% agree, looking at national debt tells you very little useful about the economy.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The stagnation of the past decade should tell anyone with an IQ above a turnip that Keynesian Economics doesn't work.

Of course everyone on the left is ignoring the economists who said that Obama's economic plans would reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, and increase GDP.

That is? 5 trillion? why the outrage Obama added 19 trillion to the debt during his administration more than any other president, I think Trumps is still 14 trillion short.

Every President has to carry the debt service of the preceding Presidents so of course the deficit will get larger. Go Google 'national debt by year' and you'll see that EVERY President added more to the deficit than his precedent. You honestly don't get that? Not to mention, in case you forgot, Obama had the misfortune of having to get the economy back on its feet after the 2nd biggest implosion in US history. Trump and company are willfully stealing from the country to line the pockets of the wealthy and big business while telling the citizenry he's gonna give them a big beautiful Christmas present. And so many clueless tools are buying this. Where have we heard the phrase 'it will pay for itself' before? What do they say about being forced to repeat history?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

The stagnation of the past decade should tell anyone with an IQ above a turnip that Keynesian Economics doesn't work.

Of course everyone on the left is ignoring the economists who said that Obama's economic plans would reduce the deficit, reduce the debt, and increase GDP.

We haven't really used Keynesian economics over the last decade so not sure how you would reach that conclusion.

originally posted by: jtma508

That is? 5 trillion? why the outrage Obama added 19 trillion to the debt during his administration more than any other president, I think Trumps is still 14 trillion short.

Every President has to carry the debt service of the preceding Presidents so of course the deficit will get larger. Go Google 'national debt by year' and you'll see that EVERY President added more to the deficit than his precedent. You honestly don't get that? Not to mention, in case you forgot, Obama had the misfortune of having to get the economy back on its feet after the 2nd biggest implosion in US history. Trump and company are willfully stealing from the country to line the pockets of the wealthy and big business while telling the citizenry he's gonna give them a big beautiful Christmas present. And so many clueless tools are buying this. Where have we heard the phrase 'it will pay for itself' before? What do they say about being forced to repeat history?

Did you find out how much you'll save next year or are you just blowing wind?

$3,500 for my family is not peanuts.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I disagree. I felt that Obama adhered to it and used it as a foundation for his economic vision.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

Obama sent me $100 !

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ScepticScot

I disagree. I felt that Obama adhered to it and used it as a foundation for his economic vision.

Where the tax cuts or increase in government jobs under Obama? Other than a small stimulus program in his first budget he relied almost entirely on monetary policy to get the economy going.

In fairness he did do better than most European governments who tried implementing austerity policies that actually made things worse.

originally posted by: jtma508

That is? 5 trillion? why the outrage Obama added 19 trillion to the debt during his administration more than any other president, I think Trumps is still 14 trillion short.

Every President has to carry the debt service of the preceding Presidents so of course the deficit will get larger. Go Google 'national debt by year' and you'll see that EVERY President added more to the deficit than his precedent. You honestly don't get that? Not to mention, in case you forgot, Obama had the misfortune of having to get the economy back on its feet after the 2nd biggest implosion in US history. Trump and company are willfully stealing from the country to line the pockets of the wealthy and big business while telling the citizenry he's gonna give them a big beautiful Christmas present. And so many clueless tools are buying this. Where have we heard the phrase 'it will pay for itself' before? What do they say about being forced to repeat history?

Firstly you are incorrect, not every President has increased the deficit.
Secondly, the gap between the rich and the middle class/poor increased significantly under Obama, so when you talk about stealing to give to the rich, look no further than Obama.
As for Trump, there is no doubt that the tax overhaul benefits the middle class, so your focus on the rich is one dimensional and mirrors what I see in politically partisan media outlets.

From Pew research in 2014:

According to a recent study from the Pew Research Center, which analyzed data from the Federal Reserve, the median net worth of upper-class families was almost seven-times as large as middle-class families: $639,400 compared to $96,500. That’s the largest the gap has been in the 30 years the Federal Reserve has been collecting such data. In 2007, right before the Great Recession, upper-class households had wealth that was about 4.6 times that of the middle class. In 1995, the gap was even smaller—with median, upper-class net worth equaling about 3.6 times as much as their median, middle-class counterparts. The wealth discrepancy between upper-class and lower-class is also at its widest point in three decades, with lower-class families having a median net worth that is 70 times lower than the median net worth of upper-class families.

www.theatlantic.com...

For just one minute, take off your political glasses and see.