I will bet you lunch that expenditures (absent debt service) increase during the next four years regardless of who gets elected. Adjusted for inflation of course.
This is the Republican Party
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Can't really take that bet until I know who wins... because in several scenarios I agree that expenditures are likely to increase. I suppose if the split government does occur we can think about it. Regardless, I do believe the spending under a split government would be much less than it would be under a single party.
Last edited:
For the same reason that Santa Clause never mentions mortgages or car payments.
I’d like to know where this concern was when DonOld was adding trillions to our debt with tax breaks for the oligarchs.
Go back to the threads during that time period. I have been a constant critique of our deficit and the consequences which are sure to follow. So to answer your question….the concern was present then as well. I’ve been fairly consistent on this issue as most of the posters here can attest. The $1T a year in debt service is the only thing which has changed. Granted…it’s a significant change.
I love your logic. The government increases the things they spend money on regardless of what the income is. It's rare that they make cuts in one area to make up for increases in another. So let's cut taxes and increase expenditures, that certainly makes our debt less.(Sarcasm in case your addled brain didn't get it.)
a budget cout to congress is when they decrease the proposed increase from 10% to 5%
The Republican and now MAGA commitment to finding reasons for tax cuts, there is no hope of even slowing down increasing the national debt. Reducing federal revenues, especially via income tax cuts for the wealthiest, is ridiculous. This has been Republican then MAGA's platform going back to the Laffer Curve in the 80's. Should be spelled "Laugher Curve." Tax cuts never deliver their inflated promises (Trump's 4% GDP growth), but they always deliver a higher national debt.
Federal spending in 2019 was $4.45T. We will spend over $7T this year. Yet you believe the revenue side is the sole problem?
$7.3T in spending per budget. We all know that number will grow as non-budgeted expenditures are added. $892B is debt service. In 2019 debt service was $582B. So taking out the difference in debt service, expenditures have grown $2.5T since 2019. That is over a 50% increase.
Penn?
Wharton?
All those elitists don't know jack squat!
Liberalite socialistas!
No clue how accurate Mr Wharton is but I do hate both their plans. So there’s that
Mr Wharton is the Penn school of economics…
Meaning it’s Trumps own Ivy League alma mater saying his plan sucks.
That would be like Bozo’s Clown College saying aTUfan couldn’t honk his nose correctly. 😂
We really need divided government.
Honestly, I think Kamala + Pubs would be better for the country than Trump + Dems.
The thing everyone is scared about Kamala for are her economic plans which the pubs could stop. Trump helming geopolitics and sucking up to dictators is really bad
It’s so funny they try to say it was the Supreme Court justice down there lol those are his criminals!
They’re attacking Benny Johnson & Tim Pool for being effective communicators who both tell the truth & attract large audiences.
We’ve seen this before, of course. They went after Gary Franchi & the Next News Network in 2016 in the same manner, I think that was after the election, though.
You see these people are the exact same as Lula Da Silva. They’re claiming “RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!” when it’s well documented Putin has said over & over a continuation of the Biden administration is better for his country. He famously told Trump “if you’re my friend I’d hate to see you as my enemy.”
But why do they hate Russia? Aside from the fact they don’t tolerate homosexuality (a social norm that would protect 10s of thousands of young boys from violent sexual assault if we were to mimic it here, but I digress) the main reason is they don’t want to work. Whether it’s they want to stay in power, supply Europe w/ energy, whatever… in the case of Nuland & her ilk these people have deep seeded grudges they hold due to their family history, the likes of whom that actually suffered due to Russia all dead for decades now.
Kamala was behind censoring Trump, she’s no doubt behind the latest Russia madness. These ppl just can’t fathom that people actually are smarter than they‘ve worked for years destroying our dept of education to ensure each generation dumber than the previous! They’re evil, I’m certain Mayorkas was behind shooting Trump, I’m certain he’s a pedophile same for Walz Gardner Biden Blinken all these ppl are nothing short of willful actors deciphering many a function of the Devil.
When you cut taxes, the coffers
Large spending on things to make up for years of neglect (border, military, etc etc) would have been followed by 4 years of actual growth (not recession then depression slowed by the Fed trying to make Biden & Dems happy) instead of mainstream media lying to the American people.
The tax cuts helped the middle class, you know, the backbone of this country that the democrats are trying to force into extinction?
higher taxes on businesses, is just passed on to the consumer in higher prices; inflation.
lower taxes on businesses, means they can afford to hire more people who will add to the economy, pay taxes, and not need gov handouts.
lower taxes on businesses, means they can afford to hire more people who will add to the economy, pay taxes, and not need gov handouts.
Sigh... More Laffer optimum misconceptions.
It's true. Consider the extreme example of a flat tax rate at 99%, stifling economic development. One year, the government decides to cut the flat tax rate down to 98%. Now, you've just doubled the income of everyone in the country! People spend significantly more than they previously did with this new excess, and the economic output of the country grows, say by 50%. That 50% growth in the economy more than offsets the 1% drop in tax revenues, and the federal budget can actually grow by cuts.
This is the part you understand well as it has been parroted for decades by pretty much every politician that ever wanted to pass a tax cut.
But it is not a general truth. Consider the inverse. Taxes are a flat 1% on everyone. The government cuts taxes in half one year, down to 0.5%! The government has lost HALF of its income and cannot operate unless the economic output of the country quickly doubles. The everyday tax payer.... barely notices the change and had their take-home pay increase by less than 1%. Economic output actually suffers, because despite the fact that people have (slightly) more cash, things like underfunded schools and roads hurt productivity and the government enters a downward spiral of diminishing revenues.
Reality is there is no flat tax, and it is not so simple. But that's not convenient for people who want to pretend the tax code and economy are simple things. Most of the US tax code is pretty far below the Laffer optimum already to the point that cuts actually have an outsized negative effect and don't pay for themselves. Almsot every actual expert agrees with that.
I like a tax cut as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't pretend that any budget holes won't need to somehow be plugged, either by increasing revenues elsewhere, or program cuts. Doing so leaves us in a position with no choice but to incur massive debt and argue endlessly about whose fault it is.
I wouldn't think that applies as directly to small business tax cuts? Or are we below the Laffer Optimum here as well?
I don't know.
From the way my friends that own their own businesses describe it, I would think that taxes could and probably should be simplified and cut for small business owners. Not sure how to do it properly, but the environment does seem oppressive from an outsider's point of view.
Edit:
You are touching on one of the reasons the Laffer curve is just far too simplistic of a concept. There probably are different optimal tax rates for individual taxpayers, families, small businesses, large businesses, investments (capital gains), and industry types. There's no way you'll ever figure out the actual optimum for all those different categories and sub-categories with any kind of precision and get 219 congressmen to agree on it.
Last edited:
