Rep.Kevin Brady finally admits tax cuts not paying for themselves!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by 61falcon, Jun 11, 2019.

  1. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you think defaulting on the debt would have been a good idea? We would no longer be a reserve currency, borrowing money would be much more expensive, and our own people would no longer trust us.
    i don't see a parallel. We would have been seen as stiffing our creditors.
    The interest on the debt in 2000 wasn't stopping us from innovating or fixing our infrastructure. It was our collective sense of entitlement and personal greed that did us in. We look absurd debating American exceptionalism.
    Why not let the little guy stiff the rich folks?
    Sure, let's have a worldwide depression. Maybe we could have another major war, this time with nukes.
     
  2. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Finally you come to your senses. The 2009 budget was never passed. Obama/GOP did cut record deficits created by the Republicans.

    The fact of the matter is not alot of cutting went down. As stated previously revenue dropped from 2.7 down to 2.1 Trillion and the stimulus accounted for the rest. They stop the stimulus and revenue came back. There were no significant spending cuts.

    2,982,544 2008
    3,517,677 2009
    3,457,079
    3,603,065
    3,526,563 2012
    3,454,881
    3,506,284
    3,691,847 2015
    3,852,612
    3,981,628 2017
    4,109,042
    4,529,188 2019

    The above is federal spending by fiscal year. As you can see spending was not reduced by that much - and much of reduction can be related to discontinuing stimulus spending. Notice the huge spending jump from 2008 to 2009 = Stimulus spending - the budget was for 3.1 and the rest was the massive stimulus package.

    Notice the huge jump for 2019 - thank you Donald/GOP. So when Obama came in spending was 3.5 Trillion. In his last full fiscal year spending was 3.7 Trillion. 200 billion dollar increase over 8 years.

    Trump's spending (even if we use the 2016 figure - not the 2015) is near 700 billion - in 3 years.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We do see some amazing feats of mindless denial of the most obvious facts - far too often.
     
  4. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not sure what your graph is trying to show....tax revenue is up....massively https://taxfoundation.org/federal-tax-revenue-source-1934-2018/

    the Republicans? They weren’t in power...the Dems were. Obama had nothing to do with cutting the deficit other then signing the gop budgets. His budget proposals didn’t even get support from his own party
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet Obama just about doubled the debt.
     
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some of your points are mostly true. Losing reserve currency status is a big deal - no doubt about it - it is what allows us to live beyond our means - but - we are going to lose sole reserve currency status in the fairly near future anyway. Its just the way things go.

    I didn't claim that interest on the debt in 2000 stopped us from innovation and fixing the infrastructure- regardless - it certainly didn't help. Increasing the total Military spend - through 8 years of Bush - from 300 Billion to 900 Billion did not help either.

    Both of the above had a whole lot to do with Greed - Corporate Greed.

    "Why not let the little guy stiff the rich folks" - Excellent point - it was the corporate greed that created this mess for the most part - and we have been paying for it.

    Yes there would be some short term pain - perhaps a global depression - however - this is not the 1930's. Regardless short term pain for long term gain.
     
  8. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're full of it. Some jerk's blog vs. the St. Louis Federal Reserve?

    [​IMG]

    Why do you think we're projecting a $1t deficit this year? Because revenues reached for the sky?

    Geezuz, you'll swallow any old crap these jokers throw at you.

    This guy is a turkey: http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/

    Grannis types would lead us into a social and political revolution that might be the end of the capitalist system.

    This is the sort of stuff Grannis pumps out to the suckers...

    John Cochrane is one of my favorite economists, and I regularly read his blog. One of his latest posts is on the subject of minimum wages—how they make no economic sense but yet there are plenty of folks who nevertheless try hard to find ways to justify them. Included in his post is a list of other policies that governments have imposed on us that are supposedly designed to make things better but which eventually lead to perverse and unexpected results. I expand on his list here

    • Minimum wages. If the minimum wage that a policymaker sets is higher than the wage which would result from market forces, the eventual result will be an increase in unemployment among those who lack skills. Businesses can't afford to pay a worker more than a worker's value added; that’s a basic economic fact. Moreover, as I mentioned in this post, fewer than 1% of all those who work make minimum wage or less. The minimum wage affects very few people, but those affected are precisely the ones who would be better off without it, especially when it’s set too high. The real crime is that a high minimum wage makes it difficult for those who are just entering the workforce to get the opportunity to work and learn. Almost everyone who works today makes more than minimum wage, and that’s because they have learned skills that are valuable thanks to their first job. Once you get started in the workforce, you inevitably learn and with time you make more money because you can bring more value added to the table.

    • Labor laws, regulations, and taxes. By raising the cost of hiring and retaining workers, these policies end up reducing employment, especially among less-skilled workers. If it's difficult and expensive to fire workers who don't live up to expectations, businesses will naturally be less willing to hire in the first place. The goal of public policy should be to make it easy to hire those who are just starting out; not to make sure that those hired earn a “living wage.” That comes later.

    • Public education. By eliminating competition and choice, too many public schools—especially those in disadvantage neighborhoods where two-parent households are scarce and unable or unwilling to play a role in their children's education—end up being run for the benefit of unionized teachers rather than pupils. Imagine how life would be if we all had to shop at a state-run supermarket. As Milton Friedman once said, public education is more properly termed “state” education. The state is not well-equipped to run anything, because state-employed workers don't face the discipline of market participants. Competition is good for business, and it’s good for schools. We need more Charter Schools, not fewer.

    • Criminal justice pathology. Draconian drug laws, life-destroying treatment of innocents, lack of education and training, and laws and rules against hiring people with criminal records are a plague on our society.

    • Zoning and building restrictions. These make it difficult for housing to be built and located close to where the jobs are. Which in turn creates the need to commute, which in turn wastes people’s time and money and pollutes the air. These policies also contribute to housing shortages in areas where jobs are abundant, which in turn make homes less affordable, which in turn hurts lower and middle-income folks the most. Silicon Valley is proof. I've heard it said by the folks at Cato that in California, 95% of the population lives on only 5% of the land. No wonder housing is so expensive here.

    • Occupational licensing. A thousand hours of training and a big test just to open a nail salon? That’s insane. It’s like death by a thousand cuts: restrictions on low-price, low-income entrepreneurship.

    • Business licenses. Zoning that disallows businesses in residential areas, laws that make it hard to hire people -- all of which send low income people to the illegal economy, which is a poor way to transition to the legal economy.

    • Disincentives built into social programs can easily create 100% marginal tax rates for many. Subsidies sound great, but they almost always have a cutoff point, beyond which a person loses the subsidy. Earning just one dollar more might mean losing a benefit that is a significant fraction of one's income. That equates to a very high marginal tax rate, which then becomes a huge disincentive to make more money. See this post of mine from several years ago which expands on the subject.

    • Disincentives of "affordable" or other subsidized housing. When my local government mandates that new housing projects include "affordable" homes, I immediately think that mandating subsidies is a very stupid and inefficient way of helping those who really need the help. Who pays for the subsidies? Those who work hard enough to pay for non-subsidized housing. That just makes housing more expensive for everyone. And who decides who qualifies to buy artificially cheap housing? Politicians, of course, who are incentivized to do that which is likely to boost their reelection chances. The lucky few who get cheap housing are incentivized to re-sell it at market prices as soon as they are able. And the people who end up in subsidized housing located in choice areas most likely don't have the means to maintain their properties as normal owners do.

    • Social background: Many people grow up in neighborhoods where there are no two-parent families, few adults with permanent jobs, widespread crime, no business. Government actions bear a lot of the blame for these conditions, which in turn result in the deterioration of homes in marginalized areas of the economy.

     
  9. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tax revenue is up. I posted the break down...income tax revenue is up
     
  10. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would you have preferred a depression?
     
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tax revenue is down. Total revenue is up, because of tariffs.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The figures posted were "spending" not revenue. If tax revenue is up - this makes Trumps deficits even worse. Not only is he spending the excess revenue - he is increasing spending above and beyond that resulting in increased deficits.

    Then you engage in making stuff up and showing that you do not understand the budget or the spending process.
     
  13. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've never voted for a tax increase. I only get the opportunity to vote against tax increases and bond packages on the local and state level, but I would vote against any federal increase in taxes and I always vote for who I think will be less likely to raise my taxes.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the fellow the post was responding to - it is Congress that doubled the debt - Republican congress included.
     
  15. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, it depends on the day, one day the president, another the congress.
     
  18. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,467
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last time I checked it was the house that holds the purse strings. The President has veto but - at the end of the day the spending bill is initiated in the house. That said - many spending bills are initiated at the behest of the President and his side of congress - some bills as a function of both sides.

    The deficit in question - the 2009 deficit of 1.4 Trillion - was handed to Obama prior to him getting into office. Blaming him is then abject nonsense.

    As per the title of this analysis
    Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

    https://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit

    Note that this is from the CATO institute - hardly a bastion of liberal thought or sentiment - in fact the reverse is true.

    This fact did not stop all the Red pundits and politicians from lying during the run-up to the 2012 election - including the Romney Clown - so I understand where the koolaid you were drinking comes from.

    I remember when Romney was blaming Obama for the loss of Jobs and other things directly related to the 2008 crash - this was barely 2 years into Obama's first term. At the time all the Red pundits were repeating this same narrative - hoping that if they repeated it enough people would think it was true. It worked - at least among the red base - but what else is to be expected of the raging masses.

    You should know by now that I dislike the left - just like the CATO institute. That said - I am not going make up or believe in lies. That's the problem with having principles and some measure of integrity - you don't get to uphold that principle - "only for things one agrees with".

    It is not - when a Blue admin is in power and runs deficits its the fault of Blue and when a Red admin is in power and runs deficits its the fault of Congress... or even though Obama was not in power when the deficit was created - "its still his fault"

    Forgive me but I can not push my brain to those depths of mindless partisan illogic.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  20. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,001
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet Obama did some stupid things with the spending besides the pick and choose bailout. 1/3 spending on federal buildings, 1/3 on government to support the spending, and 1/3 as a 'tax cut' which apparently is OK if a democrat does it.
     
  22. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    PROPAGANDA ALERT!

    Bush in December 2003...

    Thank you all. Thank you for coming. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's great to be back at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is not my first time here, nor will it be my last. (Applause.) I am here today because we are taking action to bring many thousands of Americans closer to owning a home. Our government is supporting homeownership because it is good for America, it is good for our families, it is good for our economy.

    During the signing ceremony of S. 811, The American Dream Downpayment Act, President George W. Bush delivers remarks at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003. "One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment," said President Bush. "This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream." White House photo by Paul Morse One of the biggest hurdles to homeownership is getting money for a down payment. This administration has recognized that, and so today I'm honored to be here to sign a law that will help many low-income buyers to overcome that hurdle, and to achieve an important part of the American Dream.

    I appreciate Alphonso Jackson agreeing to step up and become the Acting Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development. I look forward to his Senate confirmation, a hasty confirmation. (Applause.)

    I also want to thank Mel Martinez for doing such a fine job as the Secretary of this important organization. Mel brought integrity and honor to the office. He did a fine job on behalf of all Americans. And we honor you, Mel. (Applause.)

    I want to thank all the hardworking officers and employees of HUD. I appreciate your focus and your dedication, your willingness to work on behalf of a better America. (Applause.) I thank very much members of the Congress who have taken time to come and join us for this important bill signing. Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado is with us. Senator Allard, thank you for your work on the floor of the Senate. (Applause.) Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, is with us. Congressman, thank you for coming. (Applause.) Congressman Jim Leach from Iowa is with us today. Congressman, thank you for being here. (Applause.) Congresswoman Katherine Harris, who had a lot to do with this bill getting passed, is here with us. Katherine, thank you for coming. (Applause.) Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam is with us today. I'm honored you are here. Thank you for coming, Madeleine. I appreciate you coming. (Applause.)

    I, too, want to pay homage to a man I call "Little Woody" -- that would be Rob Woodson. He worked hard in the development of this policy. I think it is safe to say that he was the -- he developed the concept for this policy, a concept embraced by my administration. I'm appreciative that Michelle is here. I also want to thank Dad for coming -- Bob Woodson, who is a social entrepreneur, a person who cares deeply about every American having the right and a chance to own a home. Thank the Woodson family. God bless you all. (Applause.)

    I want to thank the representatives of the consumer and housing groups that worked hard on this piece of legislation. I want to thank leaders of the national community organizations that are with us, and members of the real estate industry.

    This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. And this is a good time for the American homeowner. Today we received a report that showed that new home construction last month reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)

    The reason that is so is because there is renewed confidence in our economy. Low interest rates help. They have made owning a home more affordable, for those who refinance and for those who buy a home for the first time. Rising home values have added more than $2.5 trillion to the assets of the American family since the start of 2001.

    The rate of homeownership in America now stands a record high of 68.4 percent. Yet there is room for improvement. The rate of homeownership amongst minorities is below 50 percent. And that's not right, and this country needs to do something about it. We need to -- (applause.) We need to close the minority homeownership gap in America so more citizens have the satisfaction and mobility that comes from owning your own home, from owning a piece of the future of America.

    Last year I set a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. That is an attainable goal; that is an essential goal. And we're making progress toward that goal. In the past 18 months, more than 1 million minority families have become homeowners. (Applause.) And there's more that we can do to achieve the goal. The law I sign today will help us build on this progress in a very practical way.

    Many people are able to afford a monthly mortgage payment, but are unable to make the down payment. So this legislation will authorize $200 million per year in down payment assistance to at least 40,000 low-income families. These funds will help American families achieve their goals, and at the same time, strengthen our communities.

    And there's more to do, as well. We'll continue to pursue a broad agenda to help people own a home. There are three steps I want to describe to you right quickly about what we intend to do. First, those who apply for mortgages should be made aware of all the costs and warned about predatory lenders who take advantage of inexperienced buyers. So we've doubled the funds for housing counseling services, including those run by faith-based and community groups.

    We understand that buying a home for the first time is complicated, and we want to simplify the process. We want to help people understand the pros and cons of buying a home. We want people to be fully aware of what it means to buy a home and what it takes. And we want people as best protected as possible from those shysters who would take advantage of first-time buyers. (Applause.)

    Second, we need to make the home-buying process more affordable. Some of the biggest up-front costs in a home purchase are the closing costs. Sometimes they catch you by surprise. (Laughter.) Many home buyers do not have the time to shop around looking for a better deal on closing costs. You're kind of stuck with what you're presented with. And so they end up paying more than they should. So we've proposed new rules to make it easier for buyers to shop around and to compare prices on closing costs, so they can get the best deal and the best service possible.

    And thirdly, we want to make buying a home simpler. Many first-time buyers look at the paperwork from a loan application, and frankly, get a little nervous about all the fine print. Those forms can be intimidating to the first-time home buyer. They can be intimidating to the second or third-time home buyer, too. (Laughter and applause.) So this administration has proposed new rules to simplify the forms home buyers and homeowners fill out when they apply for a loan or close on a mortgage.

    We understand that buying a home is a big step, and so these three recommendations we're making, these three changes in the rules will make that step easier; will enable people to make the step to buying a home -- they'll be able to do so with more confidence. These are practical ways that we are working to expand homeownership across the country.

    The dream of homeownership should be attainable for every hardworking American. That's what we want. In this act of Congress I'm going to sign, the regulations that I hope are finalized soon will help thousands of families fulfill the dream.

    And so now it my honor, right here at this important Department, the Department responsible for encouraging homeownership in America, to sign the American Dream Downpayment Act. (Applause.)

    (The bill is signed.) (Applause.)

    END 2:08 P.M. EST
    Doesn't seem like Bush had a clue what was about to be visited on the American people when home prices peaked 18 month later.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I posted was receipts. Spending is less then under the Dem/Obama...but until the Dems get on board with the major drivers of debt Medicare/Medicaid reform then nothing is gonna matter, no matter
     
  25. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,681
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I don't like deficits. We should balance the books over the business cycle.
     

Share This Page