The numbers are in, and Trump's tax cut didn't reduce the deficit – despite his many promises

It delivered the most pitiful economic recovery and almost laughable to even call it one.

 

No its not a fallacy. They aren't only accounting for the current bill their scoring, they have to account for all other laws currently in place. Therefore, it becomes spending.

 

You're be very disingenuous as regardless what deduction a billionaire takes, they still account for the majority of the taxes paid. That whole "Soro's pays less than his secretary in income tax" is a line of BS. Their % of total distribution might be skewed by realized deductions, but I'm fairly sure Soro's tax liability is in the millions to her paltry $2K paid in.

 

And their scoring is NOTORIOUSLY wrong. CBO is a good source for historical data but their predictions are quite useless.

 

That's the only way to look at it. There is no denying that Trump has a lot of attitude, but, he is also doing one hell of a job. He's closing in strong on an average of 3% growth for his entire Presidency. This might the quarter he does it!

 

They said this bill would cost a trillion dollars in its first year, and 8 months in, its already at $768 billion

 

They said it would add $1.5 trillion over 10 years to the existing and projected deficits. The Democrat policies increased it $1.2 trillion in just two years from the previous deficit, $4.2 trillion in just 4 years.

 

They give their left nut, if they had one, for these numbers.

 

Not to mention they are an idiot because the numbers could not possibly in this early anyway!

 

That's actually what they are mad about. This was a tax cut for the middle class, but a tax hike for a lot of folks in Rich Blue States.

And what is really pissing them off is that it's working. Trump's nearly doubled the GDP growth rate while reducing the growth of the Federal Debt.

Trump's added a LOT of tariffs on Chinese imports and tariffs are paid to the treasury. It will be interesting to see how that tariff tax income affects the Federal Debt.

Originally tariffs were expected to fully fund the Federal Government, so, it should work just fine!

 

Absolutely not.

Quantitative easing was designed to address the fact that money was being withdrawn from the economy due to people losing their jobs, financial markets tightening lending, etc.

You do not reverse that situation by cutting revenue.

 

I am not making up anything, I am quoting the actual analysis from the CBO. Analysis that take into account the fact that the bill, as designed, will only provide a permanent benefit to the top 1% and corporations (i.e. those tax cuts are permanent), whereas the tax cuts to the middle class are set to expire.

The Republican tax bill got worse: now the top 1% gets 83% of the gains

 

BS

 

You want the middle class tax rates to be permanent? Then vote in more conservative Republicans, they only person who stood in the way was Democrats who who not give it the 60 votes necessary to make them permanent.

 

You want to blow up the deficit even more? Because the only reason that the bill was passed in a manner where those particular tax cuts were not permanent is because Republicans could not add more than 2$ trillion to the national debt over 10 years.

 

Sometimes I wonder if the true reason for the import tax hikes aka tariffs was to slow down the ballooning deficits.

 

Of course it does, again i know you know little of economy so here :
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21636/housing/how-the-housing-market-affects-the-economy/

No its not the numbers are what they are revenue dropped after 2001 and over his terms bush barely got a revenue increase.

 

No I want to restrain the growth of spending but I asked you a direct question to your complaint about the middle class tax rate cuts not being permanent.

You want the middle class tax rates to be permanent? Then vote in more conservative Republicans, they only persons who stood in the way was Democrats who who not give it the 60 votes necessary to make them permanent. The reason they had to was because the fallacious CBO projections required a supermajority. So elect more conservative Republicans and we can make them permanent and then get rid of the CBO crystal ball requirement.

 

Thats GDP dude , I was talking about tax income revenue, 2 completly different things .

Well it has increased so far, the trad deficit as the actual deficit of the US gov.

Not differnt then other years tbh, trump is (besides being clown like bush43) is a generic gop president so far .

 

The value of homes sales are not factored into GDP as it is not due to production. The increased cost of homes, the bubble, had no effect on GDP as was claimed.

No its not the numbers are what they are revenue dropped after 2001 and over his terms bush barely got a revenue increase.[/QUOTE]

RECORD tax revenue growth.

2001 -2%
2002 -7%
2003 -4% - tax rate cut phase in accelerated and fully implemented end of fiscal year
2004 5%
2005 15% - record increase
2006 12%
2007 7%

 

No. Where do you get that nonsense?

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

GDP growth for 2017 was 2.2% , obama lat term was on average 2.35% GDP growth.
First half 2018 trump had 3.1% .

In the same time the debt and deficit are shooting up (as trump is fueling that growth by making debt)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/us-budget-deficit/index.html



In short: a US downgrade due to Trumponomics appears inevitable. And incidentally, with Friday's 2-year debt ceiling extension, it means that once total US debt resets - unburdened by the debt ceiling - it will be at or just shy of $21 trillion.

Now, following today's release of the White House budget proposal from the Office of the Management and Budget, Moody's will have even greater motivation to downgrade the US as according to the forecast, total US debt is projected to rise from $20.5 trillion today to an unprecedented $29.9 trillion in 2028.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-12/trump-budget-sees-us-debt-hitting-30-trillion-2028

 

Yes I provided it before, cant you guys read? It was about revenue, not GDP.

 

good lord. you keep regurgitating the same BS and its been debunked soooooo many times.

 

LOL you just showed what I said: after the bush tax cuts the revenue dropped and yes after it tanked it recovered by bush deregulations and blown up numbers only to tank again afterwards.
Its not for nothing you ended at 2007 now did you? -2 and -20%, thats the bush legacy: he totaly tanked revenue and had barely more at the end of his terms then at the beginning.

 

Well theres a well thought out retort

You do whatever helps you sleep at night. Me, I'll stick with the facts