$500B tax hit?

[watu05]

The contortions Congressional MAGA is going through to extend $4Trilliion in tax cuts for Musk and his friends are ridiculous. The latest is the Senate wants to ignore the cost of an extension on the budget as is only an 'extension' even though it is new legislation and all deficit projections from the CBO do not yet take a tax cut extension into account.

The on top of that add in the effect of DOGE dismantling the IRS. $500B?

https://wapo.st/4iPfJ0O

 

[Gmoney4WW]

He is simply tearing our government apart and attempting to cause our economy immense damage. All to help out wealthy friends. He is going to do so much damage to this country, we will be working for years to try and undo some of the damage he will do. Much of it can never be undone. The republicans on this board should be up in arms. But as I see it, only Dr Boobay and I are terribly bothered by it. Apparently the social aspects of what he is doing are enough for them to ignore what he is doing to the economy, to the rule of law, and to the constitution.

I can't believe that Lawpoke is still hanging onto hope that they make real and intelligent cuts to the budget, that amount to anything. He will eliminate the tiny good his minimal cuts will do, when his tax cuts dwarf them. And congress will follow him blindly because they are too beholden to the voters who made a mistake and won't admit it. They are a Bull in a China closet, with little care about the long term effects their actions will wreak.

We could have left Biden's weak beleaguered ass in office, and he wouldn't have even begun to do the damage Trump will, and is doing to our country. These maga supporters are going to be left with a second hand weak country after the effects of all of this sets in over the next few years. Our debt will actually be worse than when Trump took the office of the Presidency. I have a feeling that the # of voters out there ready to drum Trump out of office by year 4 will swell immensely. It will be too late. I can't imagine that Trump will still have the support of the majority of Republicans by year 4. Not with what will happen to the economy.

This could be our commencement for the downward spiral of the Roman Empire. It's that bad, and masses of sheep are unaware.

 

[lawpoke87]

Trump promised to extend the 2017 tax cuts during his campaign. Not sure why anyone is surprised or shocked he is following through on a campaign promise.

To once again make my position clear….I believe we should be raising taxes. I likewise support spending cuts. Unless we do both this isn’t going to end well.

I do believe spending cuts will amount to more than the left leaning posters want to admit. I’ll go with $300-400B annually by year two. Suppose we will see

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Trump promised to extend the 2017 tax cuts during his campaign. Not sure why anyone is surprised or shocked he is following through on a campaign promise.

To once again make my position clear….I believe we should be raising taxes. I likewise support spending cuts. Unless we do both this isn’t going to end well.

I do believe spending cuts will amount to more than the left leaning posters want to admit. I’ll go with $300-400B annually by year two. Suppose we will see

Minus 350B(Which I don't think they will find that much.) still leaves us with 82.5%(b4 tax cut) of our deficit intact. I think they will be lucky to find half that amount that they will cut.(175B) But seeing as how the tax cuts will cost the government a minimum of 400B, we will be incredibly lucky to break even on what our deficit is.

The way I figure it, our annual deficit will be at least 3 or 400B greater under Trump,(not better) than past Presidents. He is just reallocating wealth from the poor and middle class to the upper class, and making our debt worse. He's taking us in the opposite direction from which we need to go on so many levels.

 

[drboobay]

We are not improving efficiency and it is hard to see the net effects of this chaotic time.

Improving efficiency is delivering the same services effectively at a lower cost. They are not doing this. They are dismantling valuable services in what appears to be a lawless manner.

 

[lawpoke87]

Minus 350B(Which I don't think they will find that much.) still leaves us with 82.5% of our deficit intact. I think they will be lucky to find half that amount that they will cut.(175B) But seeing as how the tax cuts will cost the government a minimum of 400B, we will be incredibly lucky to break even on what our deficit is.

The way I figure it, our annual deficit will be at least 3 or 400B greater under Trump,(not better) than past Presidents. He is just reallocating wealth from the poor and middle class to the upper class, and making our debt worse. He's taking us in the opposite direction from which we need to go on so many levels.

Our deficit in 2024 was $1.8T Our projected deficit for 2025 is $1.9T. If those numbers continue to increase, Trump should be viewed as a massive failure from the fiscal responsibility standpoint

 

[lawpoke87]

2025 is still technically largely Biden’s number. If we don’t see a deficit below $2T in 2026, I will be very disappointed.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Our deficit in 2024 was $1.8T Our projected deficit for 2025 is $1.9T. If those numbers continue to increase, Trump should be viewed as a massive failure from the fiscal responsibility standpoint

The way I see it, it will be closer to 1.95T.

I also expect that some of those cuts that Trump/Musk are making, will have to be corrected, because things will be affected that they or the public will not like. Instead of reinstating some of those agencies responsibilities, they will reallocate those agencies tasks inefficiently to other agencies, and it will cost us more.

It will take at least 5 or 7 years to get those agencies new responsibilities back to the efficiency of the original agency. Those original agencies needed to be fixed and major changes made to them. But scrapping the agency, and realizing later that certain services were needed, and then reallocating those responsibilities is no way to go about it. You handicap the new agency of all the things that were properly set up before. And you canned the people who could tell you what was done wrong & right.

 

[aTUfan]

The contortions Congressional MAGA is going through to extend $4Trilliion in tax cuts for Musk and his friends are ridiculous. The latest is the Senate wants to ignore the cost of an extension on the budget as is only an 'extension' even though it is new legislation and all deficit projections from the CBO do not yet take a tax cut extension into account.

The on top of that add in the effect of DOGE dismantling the IRS. $500B?

https://wapo.st/4iPfJ0O

so people get to KEEP their own money

 

[astonmartin708]

2025 is still technically largely Biden’s number. If we don’t see a deficit below $2T in 2026, I will be very disappointed.

You sound like Susan Collins.

We could be Nuking London and she would be “very disappointed.”

 

[astonmartin708]

so people get to KEEP their own money

You are dumb.

 

[lawpoke87]

The way I see it, it will be closer to 1.95T.

I also expect that some of those cuts that Trump/Musk are making, will have to be corrected, because things will be affected that they or the public will not like. Instead of reinstating some of those agencies responsibilities, they will reallocate those agencies tasks inefficiently to other agencies, and it will cost us more.

It will take at least 5 or 7 years to get those agencies new responsibilities back to the efficiency of the original agency. Those original agencies needed to be fixed and major changes made to them. But scrapping the agency, and realizing later that certain services were needed, and then reallocating those responsibilities is no way to go about it. You handicap the new agency of all the things that were properly set up before. And you canned the people who could tell you what was done wrong & right.

Efficiency and government agencies are not something I see in the same sentence very often. I think we all can agree there was a lot broken with government. Even more broken with the way was recklessly spend money and borrow to cover the same. Taking a sledgehammer to the problem was not necessary. Yet it is where we are.

 

[lawpoke87]

You sound like Susan Collins.

We could be Nuking London and she would be “very disappointed.”

I’ll take being compared to Susan Collins all day long opposed to highly partisan extremist which occupy most of Congress.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

2025 is still technically largely Biden’s number. If we don’t see a deficit below $2T in 2026, I will be very disappointed.

2T would just meet the status quo for where it was headed in the first place. I expect it to be above 2T in '26.

I think you can lay 2025 in both their laps, 50/50. They pretty much are doing quarterly budgets now because they can't agree on the budget, and leave it to the last minute. And Trump is moving so fast on the changes he is trying to instate, that this gives him more responsibility for this year. And Trump was wielding a lot of power outside the office when he was explicitly telling the republican congress which bill to pass & not pass, as well as things he would expect republicans to vote for and against.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Efficiency and government agencies are not something I see in the same sentence very often. I think we all can agree there was a lot broken with government. Even more broken with the way was recklessly spend money and borrow to cover the same. Taking a sledgehammer to the problem was not necessary. Yet it is where we are.

I agree with you there. But there are less efficient ways of handling that inefficiency. And one is eliminating that agency and then quickly realizing on the fly, that there were certain things that agency did, that were necessary. That leaves recreation without any real planning. That's usually more inefficient than just leaving the agency alone.

 

[lawpoke87]

2T would just meet the status quo for where it was headed in the first place. I expect it to be above 2T in '26. I

think you can lay 2025 in both their laps, 50/50. They pretty much are doing quarterly budgets now because they can't agree on the budget, and leave it to the last minute. And Trump is moving so fast on the changes he is trying to instate, that this gives him more responsibility for this year. And Trump was wielding a lot of power outside the office when he was explicitly telling the republican congress which bill to pass & not pass, as well as things he would expect republicans to vote for and against.

Remains to be seen how much Trump will be able to cut from already set budgets. Dems have taken him to court to stop any agency cuts of already budgeted funds.

I will say seeing some of the things we spend money on considering our $37T debt and our debt service cost of well over 4% on all new and maturing debt is maddening. There has been absolutely no regard for fiscal responsibility. I believe over $7T in debt is set to mature in the next 6-9 months. Debt which now has to be serviced at a much higher cost. Our fiscal road long term continues to appear problematic. Higher bond yields are going to be an issue going forward unless we find other ways to service our debt

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Remains to be seen how much Trump will be able to cut from already set budgets. Dems have taken him to court to stop any agency cuts of already budgeted funds.

I will say seeing some of the things we spend money on considering our $37T debt and our debt service cost of well over 4% on all new and maturing debt is maddening. There has been absolutely no regard for fiscal responsibility. I believe over $7T in debt is set to mature in the next 6-9 months. Debt which now has to be serviced at a much higher cost. Our fiscal road long term continues to appear problematic. Higher bond yields are going to be an issue going forward unless we find other ways to service our debt

That's pretty inconsequential since congress just passed a bill for the rest of the year on Mar 15. How is Biden responsible for any budget bills besides the one passed in Dec, for a CR - Mar 15, 2025. The one passed on March 15 is all on Trump. And the one passed in December is somewhat on Trump as well, considering how much power he was wielding over congress from outside the oval office. We'll see what Trump can accomplish on subverting congress for the first quarter of the year, but the last 3 quarters are all on him.

You keep bringing up those facts,(2nd prgph) and I keep bringing up the facts that Trump seems to be going in the opposite direction of addressing those problems.

 

[lawpoke87]

That's pretty inconsequential since congress just passed a bill for the rest of the year on Mar 15. How is Biden responsible for any budget bills besides the one passed in Dec, for a CR - Mar 15, 2025. The one passed on March 15 is all on Trump. And the one passed in December is somewhat on Trump as well, considering how much power he was wielding over congress from outside the oval office. We'll see what Trump can accomplish on subverting congress for the first quarter of the year, but the last 3 quarters are all on him.

You keep bringing up those facts,(2nd prgph) and I keep bringing up the facts that Trump seems to be going in the opposite direction of addressing those problems.

I’ve said on several occasions that Trump is not taking the necessary steps to lower borrowing costs. We’re on the same page here

 

[drboobay]

Serious question. Which is more important to you should these aims conflict with one another?

A. Reducing our national deficit.
B. Carefully following our constitution including respecting the separation of powers.

This is a very easy B for me even though I am in favor of A given B.

Frankly I think many people would choose A. Or at least they would follow along with A without caring much about B.

But if you lose B you become Turkey. Look what happened there this week. There is no longer the America we all grew up in.

 

[astonmartin708]

I’ll take being compared to Susan Collins all day long opposed to highly partisan extremist which occupy most of Congress.

.... "and Ernst Janning.... worse than any of them, because he knew what they were, and he went along with them. Ernst Janning who made his life excrement, because he walked with them."

 

[astonmartin708]

Serious question. Which is more important to you should these aims conflict with one another?

A. Reducing our national deficit.
B. Carefully following our constitution including respecting the separation of powers.

This is a very easy B for me even though I am in favor of A given B.

Frankly I think many people would choose A. Or at least they would follow along with A without caring much about B.

But if you lose B you become Turkey. Look what happened there this week. There is no longer the America we all grew up in.

If you lose B, there's no telling how bad it the future could be for ourselves or our posterity. Having a solvent federal balance sheet does nothing for me if I live in a dystopia.

I don't care if we have go bankrupt as a country and have to sell Alaska just to pay off our debts. I would prefer to preserve the self evident ideals of liberty over any economic fallout, no matter if it meant me living in a shack on the side of the road.

 

[lawpoke87]

Serious question. Which is more important to you should these aims conflict with one another?

A. Reducing our national deficit.
B. Carefully following our constitution including respecting the separation of powers.

This is a very easy B for me even though I am in favor of A given B.

Frankly I think many people would choose A. Or at least they would follow along with A without caring much about B.

But if you lose B you become Turkey. Look what happened there this week. There is no longer the America we all grew up in.

What constitutional powers do you believe the Executive Branch has in cutting agency budgets as well as reducing overall expenditures?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

What constitutional powers do you believe the Executive Branch has in cutting agency budgets as well as reducing overall expenditures?

Edited

Very little till he 'created' out of thin air(Digital Services) the new powers & policies of DOGE.

And he is freezing past allocated funds by congress, which in many ways is very illegal.

And he is firing large swaths of governmental officials and whole departments. That is the responsibility of Congress and department heads in those agencies. He has not been given that power, but he took it because we have not stopped him. He has stepped around regulations just enough that it is not outright absolutely illegal, and can stay in the courts for a long time before it gets to the supreme court.

These powers have been intentionally given to congress as a body of elected officials, rather than to the executive branch. That was to guard against a Dictatorship. That's why the US Congress is the only body allowed to create a Department in the US government, because it is a body, and not an individual. But Trump tiptoed through the Tulips in combat boots when he added to the name of an already existing department, and illegally added responsibilities that had nothing to do with the reason for it's original creation.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Congress and the Supreme court should be angry as hell across both parties that he has 'acquired'/stolen absolute powers of the executive branch at their expense.

 

[lawpoke87]

Edited

Very little till he 'created' out of thin air(Digital Services) the new powers & policies of DOGE.

And he is freezing past allocated funds by congress, which in many ways is very illegal.

And he is firing large swaths of governmental officials and whole departments. That is the responsibility of Congress and department heads in those agencies. He has not been given that power, but he took it because we have not stopped him. He has stepped around regulations just enough that it is not outright absolutely illegal, and can stay in the courts for a long time before it gets to the supreme court.

These powers have been intentionally given to congress as a body of elected officials, rather than to the executive branch. That was to guard against a Dictatorship. That's why the US Congress is the only body allowed to create a Department in the US government, because it is a body, and not an individual. But Trump tiptoed through the Tulips in combat boots when he added to the name of an already existing department, and illegally added responsibilities that had nothing to do with the reason for it's original creation.

“That's pretty inconsequential since congress just passed a bill for the rest of the year on Mar 15. How is Biden responsible for any budget bills besides the one passed in Dec, for a CR - Mar 15, 2025. The one passed on March 15 is all on Trump”

So….if Trump is solely responsible for the Budget from March 15th on then why should he not have at least some authority how much money is spent and where it is spent? It’s his bill and budget after all. It’s all on him

I sounded the alarm on EO’s when Obama began to use them to legislate. I warned future Presidents would expand the power to bypass Congress. Trump has obviously taken this to the next level

 

[Gmoney4WW]

“That's pretty inconsequential since congress just passed a bill for the rest of the year on Mar 15. How is Biden responsible for any budget bills besides the one passed in Dec, for a CR - Mar 15, 2025. The one passed on March 15 is all on Trump”

A) So….if Trump is solely responsible for the Budget from March 15th on then why should he not have at least some authority how much money is spent and where it is spent? It’s his bill and budget after all. It’s all on him

B.) I sounded the alarm on EO’s when Obama began to use them to legislate. I warned future Presidents would expand the power to bypass Congress. Trump has obviously taken this to the next level

A.) Because just as he did with getting the bill passed by congress, he should have to take that same responsibility with congress again, to convince them to make those cuts, department shut downs and reallocations. It was never allowed that if he disagreed with congress past & present that he should be able to take that responsibility upon himself and disagree with congress through actions and change their decisions.

It's always been something that goes through congress, not directly through the executive office. Those powers are too great to delegate to one man. Then that one man can just wreak havoc if he so feels the urge. It has always been a body of people not just one man. That is a check on the executive branch, that congress has to agree on it. Heck, congress is even limited on how they can change the decisions of past congresses. But here comes Trump saying to heck with all past & present decisions of congress. If he can do that, then we might as well just have Putin/Erdogan/Orban/K Jong il/Jinping making all our decisions, and throw Congress out with the bathwater.


B.) Bush is the true originator of misuse of EO's. Obama took it to a new level. Then Trump just obliterated that new level. But Trump has no respect for limitations of the executive branch. Bush did, and despite him taking it to another level, so did Obama.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I sounded the alarm on EO’s when Obama began to use them to legislate. I warned future Presidents would expand the power to bypass Congress. Trump has obviously taken this to the next level

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It's a weakness of our government with a purpose, that many men have to agree. It is also an absolute strength.

It makes the budget a problem, as far as deficits go. Still an absolute strength.

 

[aTUfan]

You are dumb.

 

[aTUfan]

so you enjoy sending your money to DC and watching them pass it away

 

[astonmartin708]

What constitutional powers do you believe the Executive Branch has in cutting agency budgets as well as reducing overall expenditures?

Executive cutting of agency spend is a workaround way to cut the role that the agencies play and you know it. It's subverting the will and intent of Congress who voted to fund those agencies. Similar thing as refusing to enforce judicial rulings. (Like in the case of Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears)

Why do you hate checks and balances?

 

[Clong83a]

We are not improving efficiency and it is hard to see the net effects of this chaotic time.

Improving efficiency is delivering the same services effectively at a lower cost. They are not doing this. They are dismantling valuable services in what appears to be a lawless manner.

Worse.

Payroll is something like 5% of the federal budget. The money coming into my employer has largely remained steady, but the number of federal program managers that oversee that money has gone down due to layoffs at the federal level.

In other words, there are now fewer people providing oversight for the 95% of the federal budget that isn't payroll and the odds of waste and abuse is going up, not down.

Ditto for IRS, social security, etc. Fewer people overseeing social security payouts means likely more fraud that goes under the radar for longer, not less. More tax cheats not paying their fair share. More subcontracts for every agency going unscrutinized.

 

[lawpoke87]

Executive cutting of agency spend is a workaround way to cut the role that the agencies play and you know it. It's subverting the will and intent of Congress who voted to fund those agencies. Similar thing as refusing to enforce judicial rulings. (Like in the case of Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears)

Why do you hate checks and balances?

I don’t hate checks and balances. In fact, I have been one of the harshest critics of legislating via EO’s. Others on this board seem to be perfectly fine with no “checks and balances” as long as their “guy” is the actor.

Relying on Congress to enact meaningful spending cuts is obviously problematic. They haven’t attempted any significant cuts in more than 3 decades despite soaring deficits. They are now far too dependent on government spending to enrich themselves and maintain power. I’m not arguing spending reform should be vested in solely in the Executive, but Congress as a whole needs to be taken out of that equation. I’m not sure how anyone who has paid attention to our fiscal plight over the past 25 years can argue against such an assertion. Without a drastic chance in how we spend money we are destined to a third world financial existence.

 

[lawpoke87]

Worse.

Payroll is something like 5% of the federal budget. The money coming into my employer has largely remained steady, but the number of federal program managers that oversee that money has gone down due to layoffs at the federal level.

In other words, there are now fewer people providing oversight for the 95% of the federal budget that isn't payroll and the odds of waste and abuse is going up, not down.

Ditto for IRS, social security, etc. Fewer people overseeing social security payouts means likely more fraud that goes under the radar for longer, not less. More tax cheats not paying their fair share. More subcontracts for every agency going unscrutinized.

I don’t know enough about the inner workings of staffing of any federal agency to provide a meaningful opinion on what can and should be cut as far as personnel. That said, the fact we haven’t seen any kind of slowdown in the growth of the federal workforce despite running $2T a year deficits is one of the most absurd things I’ve witnessed. I’m not suggesting Trump like reductions but the fact we haven’t seen anything like Clinton proposed and passed is truly one of the more fiscal irresponsible things I’ve seen. Our leaders in both parties have zero accountability when it comes to fiscal responsibility

 

[drboobay]

I don’t hate checks and balances. In fact, I have been one of the harshest critics of legislating via EO’s. Others on this board seem to be perfectly fine with no “checks and balances” as long as their “guy” is the actor.

Relying on Congress to enact meaningful spending cuts is obviously problematic. They haven’t attempted any significant cuts in more than 3 decades despite soaring deficits. They are now far too dependent on government spending to enrich themselves and maintain power. I’m not arguing spending reform should be vested in solely in the Executive, but Congress as a whole needs to be taken out of that equation. I’m not sure how anyone who has paid attention to our fiscal plight over the past 25 years can argue against such an assertion. Without a drastic chance in how we spend money we are destined to a third world financial existence.

But they hold the power of the purse in our system. If you want this you should be advocating for a constitutional amendment. That would be the constitutional approach.

 

[lawpoke87]

But they hold the power of the purse in our system. If you want this you should be advocating for a constitutional amendment. That would be the constitutional approach.

2/3rds vote in Congress then 38 states….never happen. We can’t even get 50% of the House and Senate to approve spending cuts. Too much of that money benefits those voting on the reductions. Hard to advocate a solution which has zero chance of success. Meanwhile, we are a financial crisis away from some very serious fiscal problems in this country.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

2/3rds vote in Congress then 38 states….never happen. We can’t even get 50% of the House and Senate to approve spending cuts. Too much of that money benefits those voting on the reductions. Hard to advocate a solution which has zero chance of success. Meanwhile, we are a financial crisis away from some very serious fiscal problems in this country.

Allowing Trump all of this illegal power doesn't solve it either. That's the sad truth.

 

[lawpoke87]

Allowing Trump all of this illegal power doesn't solve it either. That's the sad truth.

No it doesn’t. Not sure what the answer is. We’ve spent decades watching our political leaders stick their heads in the sand while our debt explodes. We have a system where those in political leadership positions profit from the current system. To say they don’t care about consequences ten to twenty years down the line is an understatement.

 

[drboobay]

We need to follow the constitution IMO. Period. I am not a lawyer but I know many matters are constitutionally ambiguous. This does not seem to be one of them for better or worse.

Said another way, I prefer to live poor in a constitutional republic than to live rich in an autocratic system.

 

[lawpoke87]

We need to follow the constitution IMO. Period. I am not a lawyer but I know many matters are constitutionally ambiguous. This does not seem to be one of them for better or worse.

Said another way, I prefer to live poor in a constitutional republic than to live rich in an autocratic system.

Presidents did in fact refuse to spend funds allocated by Congress which they determined didn’t need to be spent. That is until 1974 when the Impoundment Control Act was passed. Should Presidents have complete control over how much allocated funds are ultimately spent…no. Given the acts of Congress, the flow of money in our political system to politicians, and our $2T a year deficits, we likely need some mechanism to control Congressional spending. Whatever that might be.

Worse case scenario isn’t the option of living in a poor constitutional republic. It’s the option of living in an economic system of hyper inflation where we lack the funds to care for our poor. Considering the number of Americans who rely on the federal government for their basics, it would get ugly very quickly