• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Deficit

ponderingturtle said:
Which is the point of running up the deficit, to force those cuts to be made.
Click to expand...

That was the point 40 years ago but it’s long forgotten by todays Republican legislators who seem to really believe they can pay for their spending program with tax cuts.
 
I am always amazed at how what Republicans are actually doing is being equated with what Democrats might do.
 
Meadmaker said:
I would vote for a fiscal conservative if such a thing existed anymore. They're gone.


Is it Trump's fault? Yes, because he has more power to influence US spending and tax policy than any other man on the planet. However, in my opinion, if Clinton had been elected, it would be her fault, because I don't think she would have done what was needed to get it under control. It might not be as bad, but it would still be huge.

And of the people running to replace Trump, who is proposing anything that would make it better? Who is even talking about it? They aren't talking about it because it doesn't get them votes, and that is not their fault, it's ours.


We have met the enemy, and they are us.
Click to expand...

We can only speculate about what Mrs Clinton would have done, but Mr Clinton managed to balance the budget.
 
Mycroft said:
We can only speculate about what Mrs Clinton would have done, but Mr Clinton managed to balance the budget.
Click to expand...

But neither one of them are running, so there's not much point in speculating.


What we can do is listen to what the current candidates for president are saying about what they would do, about their priorities, and what they are saying about the national debt and/or deficit is ………….<chirp>


So we have Trump, who if you are a deficit hawk is a proven disaster, or we have a bunch of people who don't seem sufficiently concerned to bring it up.

Fiscal responsibility just isn't on the table anymore as an issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
To his credit, he changed a little, by letting some tax cuts expire and by "the sequestration", but the best he got to was a 600 billion dollar deficit. That's not so good.
Click to expand...

It's not bad, considering that the deficit was $1.2 trillion when he entered office. A $600b reduction in the deficit in 8 years isn't bad going at all. Especially when compared with the increase in the deficit under Republican presidents.
 
Meadmaker said:
What we can do is listen to what the current candidates for president are saying about what they would do, about their priorities, and what they are saying about the national debt and/or deficit is ………….<chirp>
Click to expand...
You're right in that they don't talk specifically about "the deficit".

But many of them do talk about paying for some of their new spending proposals with tax increases. This kind of suggests that even though they aren't using the word deficit, they at least recognize that the federal budget is an issue.

Why is it necessary to use the word debt or deficit, if their policies indicate that they recognize it as an issue?
 
Talk is cheap. Since none of the current leaders in the 2020 marathon have any executive experience, we can't really say, other than what they say and what they've voted for, that they would be proven or disproven fiscal conservatives. The Senators and Congress critters who didn't vote for the Imaginary Tax Cut Act of '17, the greatest cause of the bump in the deficit, can all claim to be fiscal conservatives.

But the term's become meaningless. Not only do the standard bearers of the balanced budget (looking at a certain Salamander Gingrich) just roll over for the Don't Tax and Do Spend money grubbers, but new arrivals to "The Cause" don't even bother talking about a balance of income and outflow.
 
Segnosaur said:
You're right in that they don't talk specifically about "the deficit".

But many of them do talk about paying for some of their new spending proposals with tax increases. This kind of suggests that even though they aren't using the word deficit, they at least recognize that the federal budget is an issue.

Why is it necessary to use the word debt or deficit, if their policies indicate that they recognize it as an issue?
Click to expand...

So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
 
Meadmaker said:
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
Click to expand...

increasing taxes isn't necessarily making things worse. In fact, macroeconomically, it can make things better.

The question of a balanced budget is quite different from that of a manageable deficit: the US needs massive investment in education and infrastructure more than it needs to balance its budgets: those who lend money to the US are more interested in it doing well than they are in getting their money back quick.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
The Trump/Pelosi deficit.
Click to expand...

The 2019 Budget was proposed by Trump in early 2018 and approved by a Republican controlled congress in late 2018. Why would you want to attach Pelosi’s name to other than as a weak form of political propaganda?
 
Meadmaker said:
So, what they are saying is, "We will spend money on a new program, but we will pay for it by increasing taxes."

Awesome, but unless you increase taxes by more than you increase spending, more debt still accumulates. You haven't done anything to solve the current problem. All you have done is not make it any worse. It's important that politicians actually acknowledge that current levels of taxation are inadequate to cover current levels of spending.
Click to expand...

Mandatory spending will be a bit different, but with the discretionary budget, it’s actually possible to reduce deficits without any formal tax increases or spending cuts. Tax revenue will rise even without tax increases. The real dollar value of spending will fall even without budget cuts. All you need to do to reduce the deficit is hold spending increases to the largest departments below inflation and don’t shoot yourself in the foot with new tax cuts.

The Trump tax cuts have pushed things beyond the point where this is viable. Not allowing the Bush stimulus tax cuts to expire as originally designed didn’t help either.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hell look at Paul Ryan who fantasized about killing off medicare for decades as one of the supposedly biggest fiscal conservatives there was in his marketing.

The term simply does not say to people what you want it to, even if that is a more technically correct definition.
Click to expand...

Meadmaker said:
Fiscal responsibility just isn't on the table anymore as an issue.
Click to expand...


And this is why I've made an effort to replace my traditionally used term "fiscal conservative" with "fiscal responsibility". Because those who today claim the "conservative" title have completely abandoned any pretense of being fiscally responsible.

The way I see it, being fiscally responsible isn't about supporting any one spending program or tax policy, it's about always asking the fundamental question, "so, how are we going to pay for that?", but not in the sarcastic way the current Republicans ask that question. Ask it in a serious manner that is actually looking for a real answer, that's based on the best evidence and analysis we can find.

Want a tax cut? Fine, how do we pay for that? "Trickle down" has been proven not to work, so what spending will you cut? Be specific. Own it if you want to cut some popular program.

Want a major new spending program? Fine, how do we pay for that? Are we going to raise taxes? Which ones, and by how much? Are you going to move money around? Which old programs get cut to pay for the new ones? Again, own it.

Want to pay for it all with an increased deficit? Again, own it. There are times when a deficit is needed, but is this one of those? Show your work. There will be a quiz later.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's not bad, considering that the deficit was $1.2 trillion when he entered office. A $600b reduction in the deficit in 8 years isn't bad going at all. Especially when compared with the increase in the deficit under Republican presidents.
Click to expand...

... and the fact that he inherited an economy that was about to collapse.
 
lomiller said:
All you need to do to reduce the deficit is hold spending increases to the largest departments below inflation and don’t shoot yourself in the foot with new tax cuts.
Click to expand...


True. It's sometimes difficult to express things in short sentences when you can't be perfectly, 100% accurate, without much longer descriptions.


My point is that since the end of the Clinton administration, we have been on an unsustainable path. One way or another, it will stop. I prefer an attempt to get the situation under control and manage a soft landing.

Unfortunately, the politicians involved have a very weak incentive to make that happen. If the electorate doesn't care, then it doesn't matter. Better yet, if they can successfully blame the other party, it's actually a win for them. They can't be expected to do the right thing if the voters don't demand it.

We have met the enemy, and they are us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom