Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:13 PM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm technically a Millenial, and something of a law-and-order Republican, so I'm not a fan of intergenerational theft, but most of it (at least what has already been accomplished or planned) predates the Trump tax cuts.
Funny, younger Republicans (IME) seem to have no other principal other than "fuck the Dems," also know as "if it pisses off the libruls it's a good thing."

I honestly don't understand why there's not more outrage over this budget situation, the lies involved in Republican economic theory (supply side economics, repatriation, Laffer curve, ridiculous growth estimates a la Kansas), and the fact that you've been duped about this nonsense for decades.

Like, HD, can't you dig deep down into your soul and care as much about the fact that Republicans have, for the umpteenth time, borrowed money from my children's future earnings in order to pay for unnecessary tax cuts? If taxation without representation is something to get worked up over, then christ, is there a better cause then taxing kids?
  #52  
Old 09-17-2018, 01:38 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This seems to be the only portion of your post that relates to a forthright discussion about the tax cuts. I too am "uncertain", but I suspect that it'll be smaller, at least as a % of my income, than it was last year. This pleases me, so fuck the Dems.
You get a small tax cut, the rich get a big tax cut, and corporations get a big tax cut that they've mostly plowed into stock purchases which help the relatively rich stock holders (and their execs) and the workers not at all.
Unless you own lots of stock, you're being taken.
And when the recession hits those stock buybacks are going to look stupid.
  #53  
Old 09-17-2018, 02:34 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
... Unless you own lots of stock, you're being taken.
And when the recession hits those stock buybacks are going to look stupid.
Stupid for the corporations perhaps. Not stupid for the rich stockholders and executives who directed the buybacks and took advantage of them.

BTW, was the post you responded to of the form "Tax cuts is always good for me. Go team!"? Do we have Dopers whose thinking is this simplistic?
  #54  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:34 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... BTW, was the post you responded to of the form "Tax cuts is always good for me. Go team!"? Do we have Dopers whose thinking is this simplistic?
Did the post he responded to include the word "always"?

Finding the answer to that question might also expose the answer to your questions.
  #55  
Old 09-17-2018, 03:38 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
That's hypothetically true. But it's about as likely to happen as having the national debt paid off by the money fairy delivered gold bars.
Agreed. The chances that Democrats will not increase spending no matter what the deficit are extremely low.
Quote:
Republicans often say they're going to cut government spending. But they never do it.
And Democrats often say they're going to increase government spending, and they always do.

Regards,
Shodan
  #56  
Old 09-17-2018, 04:29 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Agreed. The chances that Democrats will not increase spending no matter what the deficit are extremely low.And Democrats often say they're going to increase government spending, and they always do.

Regards,
Shodan
And do you believe, against ample evidence to the contrary, that a Republican Congress will cut spending?
  #57  
Old 09-17-2018, 05:04 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Did the post he responded to include the word "always"?

Finding the answer to that question might also expose the answer to your questions.
OK. So you especially approve of tax cuts which run counter to all economic wisdom and which even David Tepper says "were too steep and likely borrowed economic growth from the future." Got it.

David Tepper is a very successful and respected businessman sometimes called the "golden god" of hedge fund management.
  #58  
Old 09-17-2018, 05:13 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
OK. So you especially approve of tax cuts which run counter to all economic wisdom and which even David Tepper says "were too steep and likely borrowed economic growth from the future." Got it.

David Tepper is a very successful and respected businessman sometimes called the "golden god" of hedge fund management.
"counter to all economic wisdom" seems like an overly-broad claim. If I can find an economist that disagrees, would you be willing to retract this claim?

I'm generally supportive of tax cuts, but not "always", as I've previously noted. I don't particularly care that one billionaire opposed them, because I find it easy to imagine that at least one billionaire also supported them. Do you, also, find that easy to imagine?
  #59  
Old 09-17-2018, 05:13 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Did the post he responded to include the word "always"?

Finding the answer to that question might also expose the answer to your questions.
I was clearly referring to this tax cut, not all tax cuts. Not all of them drove corporate behavior the way I mentioned.
Not to mention I think I said earlier that tax cuts during a recession make sense. So no, I never said always bad either.
(How to structure them to work the best is another issue.)
  #60  
Old 09-17-2018, 07:10 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This seems to be the only portion of your post that relates to a forthright discussion about the tax cuts. I too am "uncertain", but I suspect that it'll be smaller, at least as a % of my income, than it was last year. This pleases me, so fuck the Dems.
You seem to be confused. Do you realize these tax cuts will cost you tour social security and Medicare? You will lose far more than you gain. Unless you are in a payday-loan level of desperation, or unless you are a multi-millionaire, it is a very bad deal for you.

Do you dispute this? And for everyone who is griping about spending, do you not recognize debt interest as spending? When the government takes in maybe $3.5 trillion a year in good times, do you really think it is a good idea to rocket the debt interest from ~$200 billion a year to over a trillion dollars? Are you so blinded by ideology and "fuck the Dems" that you think the entire nation should be effectively enslaved like this to a small claque of the super wealthy, people who have made puppets out of GOP Congress critters and entire news networks to lie to you constantly to convince you there is some other purpose behind it?
__________________
a scheme is not a vision, and you never have been tempted by a demon or God. -Leonard Cohen, "Story of Isaac"
  #61  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:25 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
... Do you realize these tax cuts will cost you tour social security and Medicare? ...
What's your cite for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
.
Do you dispute this? ...
Let's see your cite before I jump into disputing it. I'm willing to hear your explanation for "cost you [your] SS & Medicare" first.
  #62  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:47 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's see your cite before I jump into disputing it. I'm willing to hear your explanation for "cost you [your] SS & Medicare" first.
I don't mean to speak for someone else, but can't it easily be argued that funding SS & Medicare is an opportunity cost to these tax cuts?
  #63  
Old 09-17-2018, 08:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
I don't mean to speak for someone else, but can't it easily be argued that funding SS & Medicare is an opportunity cost to these tax cuts?
Anything at all could be argued. If that's the argument you'd like to advance, have at it. First question: How much do the tax cuts cost and how does that compare with the amount of money we're planning to spend on SS & Medicare over the same time period?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-17-2018 at 08:56 PM.
  #64  
Old 09-17-2018, 09:18 PM
etasyde etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Anything at all could be argued. If that's the argument you'd like to advance, have at it. First question: How much do the tax cuts cost and how does that compare with the amount of money we're planning to spend on SS & Medicare over the same time period?
(Source
Quote:
The White House released principles and a framework for tax reform today. We applaud the President's focus on tax reform, but the plan includes far more detail on how the Administration would cut taxes than on how they would pay for those cuts. Based on what we know so far, the plan could cost $3 to $7 trillion over a decade– our base-case estimate is $5.5 trillion in revenue loss over a decade. Without adequate offsets, tax reform could drive up the federal debt, harming economic growth instead of boosting it.
Source
Quote:
To construct its baseline budget projections, CBO incorporated the effects of the tax act, taking into account economic feedback—that is, the ways in which the act is likely to affect the economy and in turn affect the budget. Doing so raised the 11-year projection of the cumulative primary deficit (that is, the deficit excluding the costs of servicing the debt) by $1.3 trillion and raised projected debt-service costs by roughly $600 billion. The act therefore increases the total projected deficit over the 2018–2028 period by about $1.9 trillion.
So Let's call it even at 2 trillion, as I find the CBO to be a lot less contentious a source. That's 2 trillion over 10 years. Using some fiddly math, lets average that to $200B/yr.

This gives us This chart which puts each payment requirement over the next 10 years ranging from approximately 600 billion to 1,200 billion. So next year, diverting the lost revenue would account for 30% of the medicare costs, falling to 16.5% at the end of the 10th year. Now, the math doesn't work out quite so cleanly since the 2 trillion is averaged over all those years but we're getting into some complicated equations if we don't simplify.

It's a pretty big chunk of Medicare's costs, and with present projections, Medicare is insolvent by 2026. I can't find good data on the exact influence of 16.5% - 30% funding per year and how that would extend Medicare's time to insolvency, but that's a considerable amount.
  #65  
Old 09-17-2018, 11:27 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What's your cite for this?



Let's see your cite before I jump into disputing it. I'm willing to hear your explanation for "cost you [your] SS & Medicare" first.
Simple answer first. By "cost you your SS & Medicare", the I mean the GOP's intention is that when you, HurricaneDitka, retire, your SS checks will be either cut (compared with today's program) or eliminated, and same with your Medicare coverage. Less to none. Same for me and everybody else in America.

Why do I think so? I guess I thought everyone took that for granted. Ha! Some pluralist I turned out to be.

Ok. Let's try to get on the same page. Here is a chart of the US federal budget. Daily Kos =? liberal? Well i don't read them I just think it is a pretty good stab at this project, and I don't identify myself as a liberal so please don't call me that.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid- these are the things the GOP yearns to cut, no? I'll post a cite soon, but first, does anyone on this board recall GOP politicians ever discussing "entitlement reform"? Like, ad nauseum? Entitlements = Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid and CHIP and...). Reform = cut or eliminate. When the pie shrinks because of tax cuts for the wealthy, this is the part of the pie the GOP wants to shrink. Do you dispute that?

Not that they wouldn't take an axe to education, health, environment, and other smaller sectors. Anything but the military is on the GOP's block for cuts. Do you dispute that?

As an aside, if I were a GOP propagandist, I would massage the figures in the Daily Kos pie chart such that the Red (), Mandatory section of the chart is 66.6% of the Federal budget, and promote those wedges as the "Socialist" section of the budget. While we're in an aside, can anyone on this board recall a right wing media production (FOX, Limbaugh) equating The Left with Liberals with Socialism with The Pure Distillation of America-Hating Evil? Did someone slip me some peyote and I hallucinated GWB attempting to privatize Social Security? Are these all, somehow, fake memories!?

I don't think so. From this summer, see House GOP plan would cut Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget:
Quote:
the budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions — including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt — Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.

“The time is now for our Congress to step up and confront the biggest challenge to our society,” said House Budget Chairman Steve Womack (R-Ark.). “There is not a bigger enemy on the domestic side than the debt and deficits.”

The Republican budget confronts this enemy by taking a whack at entitlement spending.
What do you think? "Entitlement Reform = cut or eliminate Medicare and Social Security" is my theory, and here is the GOP-controlled House (not some TV channel) talking about exactly that.
  #66  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:16 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Simple answer first. By "cost you your SS & Medicare", the I mean the GOP's intention is that when you, HurricaneDitka, retire, your SS checks will be either cut (compared with today's program) or eliminated, and same with your Medicare coverage. Less to none. Same for me and everybody else in America.

Why do I think so? I guess I thought everyone took that for granted. Ha! Some pluralist I turned out to be.

Ok. Let's try to get on the same page. Here is a chart of the US federal budget. Daily Kos =? liberal? Well i don't read them I just think it is a pretty good stab at this project, and I don't identify myself as a liberal so please don't call me that.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid- these are the things the GOP yearns to cut, no? I'll post a cite soon, but first, does anyone on this board recall GOP politicians ever discussing "entitlement reform"? Like, ad nauseum? Entitlements = Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid and CHIP and...). Reform = cut or eliminate. When the pie shrinks because of tax cuts for the wealthy, this is the part of the pie the GOP wants to shrink. Do you dispute that?

Not that they wouldn't take an axe to education, health, environment, and other smaller sectors. Anything but the military is on the GOP's block for cuts. Do you dispute that?

As an aside, if I were a GOP propagandist, I would massage the figures in the Daily Kos pie chart such that the Red (), Mandatory section of the chart is 66.6% of the Federal budget, and promote those wedges as the "Socialist" section of the budget. While we're in an aside, can anyone on this board recall a right wing media production (FOX, Limbaugh) equating The Left with Liberals with Socialism with The Pure Distillation of America-Hating Evil? Did someone slip me some peyote and I hallucinated GWB attempting to privatize Social Security? Are these all, somehow, fake memories!?

I don't think so. From this summer, see House GOP plan would cut Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget:

What do you think? "Entitlement Reform = cut or eliminate Medicare and Social Security" is my theory, and here is the GOP-controlled House (not some TV channel) talking about exactly that.
You're wandering off into the weeds a bit here. Let's try to stay focused. You claimed "... these tax cuts will cost you tour social security and Medicare...". Now, it may well be that the GOP would like to cut SS & Medicare, but they did not, as a point of fact, do so in any substantial way in the TCJA of 2017, agreed? It is, therefore, inaccurate and incorrect to say that "these tax cuts" will cost me SS and Medicare, agreed?

ETA: And please, DailyKos? from 2013? Is it really that hard for you to find a more-current spending chart?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 12:19 AM.
  #67  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:43 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,999
Not agreed. The tax cuts are meant to constrain the budget as an excuse to pursue entitlement reform.
  #68  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:48 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
(Source


Source


So Let's call it even at 2 trillion, as I find the CBO to be a lot less contentious a source. That's 2 trillion over 10 years. Using some fiddly math, lets average that to $200B/yr.

This gives us This chart which puts each payment requirement over the next 10 years ranging from approximately 600 billion to 1,200 billion. So next year, diverting the lost revenue would account for 30% of the medicare costs, falling to 16.5% at the end of the 10th year. Now, the math doesn't work out quite so cleanly since the 2 trillion is averaged over all those years but we're getting into some complicated equations if we don't simplify.

It's a pretty big chunk of Medicare's costs, and with present projections, Medicare is insolvent by 2026. I can't find good data on the exact influence of 16.5% - 30% funding per year and how that would extend Medicare's time to insolvency, but that's a considerable amount.
I appreciate the attempt here. You did ignore SS entirely, which was a tad disappointing, and I'd prefer to see better primary sources, but overall a decent effort.

Here are the CBO's "10-Year Budget Projections". Of note for purposes of our discussion, the latest projections (Table 2-2: Mandatory Outlays Projected in CBO's Baseline), from April of this year, are:

Year = Combined Total (SS + Medicare)
2017 = $1,641B ($939B + $702B)
2018 = $1,691B ($984B + $707B)
2019 = $1,819B ($1,043B + $776B)
2020 = $1,939B ($1,110B + $830B)
2021 = $2,073B ($1,180B + $893B)
2022 = $2,249B ($1,253B + $996B)
2023 = $2,362B ($1,330B + $1,032B)
2024 = $2,472B ($1,410B + $1,062B)
2025 = $2,676B ($1,495B + $1,181B)
2026 = $2,850B ($1,583B + $1,267B)
2027 = $3,034B ($1,676B + $1,358B)
2028 = $3,294B ($1,774B + $1,521B)

stack that up against ~$190B/year for the tax cuts and yeah, I guess I'm feeling pretty comfortable disputing that 'these tax cuts will cost [me my] SS & Medicare'. "These tax cuts" amount to little more than a rounding error on SS & Medicare spending.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 12:49 AM.
  #69  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:50 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 78,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Agreed. The chances that Democrats will not increase spending no matter what the deficit are extremely low. And Democrats often say they're going to increase government spending, and they always do.
Both parties increase spending. The Democrats tell the truth about it and pay for the spending. The Republicans lie about it and spend money they don't have.

This makes the Democrats the better party.
  #70  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:58 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Not agreed. The tax cuts are meant to constrain the budget as an excuse to pursue entitlement reform.
Is "entitlement reform" a priority they thought up in just the last year, after cutting taxes via the TCJA of 2017, or is it a goal that predates the tax cuts?

ETA: maybe it would be helpful if you addressed both these points separately:

1) Now, it may well be that the GOP would like to cut SS & Medicare, but they did not, as a point of fact, do so in any substantial way in the TCJA of 2017, agreed? (I think you'll agree to this one. If not, I'd be most interested in hearing your rationale)

2) It is, therefore, inaccurate and incorrect to say that "these tax cuts" will cost me SS and Medicare, agreed? (This is the one I think your "not agreed" was directed towards, but please clarify if I'm misunderstanding you).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 01:01 AM.
  #71  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:19 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,999
Well played. Where do you think the cuts will come from?
  #72  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:33 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,999
I've talked enough. What is your defense of the GOP tax plan?
  #73  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:36 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The deficit will go up, because the Republican White House will reject any attempt to raise revenue.

On the other hand, if the Republicans retained control of Congress, the deficit would probably go up even faster, as evidenced by the rumors that they are looking at another round of tax cuts.
American voters have been screwing themselves since 2010 by not sticking with a completely Democratically-controlled government. And 2020's the earliest we'll be able to change anything. Conservatives have successfully rigged American democracy so that any attempt at reform is undone by political gridlock.

As for the tax cuts, I think the OP isn't far from the truth. I'm not sure I would go quite so far in suggesting that bonds might be used as leverage by plutocrats because I think Medicare and SS would be severely cut first before we get to bonds, and rising debt levels would probably cause some concern about our creditworthiness, which might also, in turn, weaken the dollar. But I could see the GOP pitching a plan to Americans under 55 that they can take their SS money and put it in a 401K and that we can just turn Medicare into Obamacare for All. And eliminate Medicaid and all entitlements for the poor altogether.
  #74  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:38 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Well played. Where do you think the cuts will come from?
Your whole premise is based on the theory that Washington is going to have to cut spending, but they don't have to. They've spend the vast majority of the last few decades proving that. I think your time would be better-spend worrting about how we're going to fend off invasions of little green Martians. That seems like a more realistic scenario than budget "cuts" from the federal government. I don't have any realistic expectation there will be any significant cuts at all. Washington appears to be utterly incapable of actually cutting spending.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 01:40 AM.
  #75  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:51 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I've talked enough. What is your defense of the GOP tax plan?
Ummm ... I think you already took care of that in your OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
... $2000. Thanks GOP. It is difficult to say that this aspect of things is bad. ...
To be a bit more specific, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concerns over the budget deficit, but don't feel that an extra $190B on a $4.1T budget are worth more than a tidy sum of cold hard cash for me personally (and for most Americans).
  #76  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:40 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,701
So it would be even better to repeal taxation altogether, right?
  #77  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:23 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your whole premise is based on the theory that Washington is going to have to cut spending, but they don't have to.
Addressing this question and your previous ones about Social Security, it depends what type of spending we are talking about.

The main spending going up over the last couple decades and into the future is Social Security and Medicare. That isn't because of some decision a Republican or Democratic Congress made recently, and nobody can say that it is Obama's fault if they aren't a dirty liar. It's simply a generational thing, given that the Baby Boomers are retiring.

We we do nothing, the Social Security Trust Fund will be emptied by the mid-2030s and spending on Social Security benefits will have to be cut to what is supported by FICA collections. That means that Social Security checks will be cut by about 20% in those years and later if nothing is done. Again, if Washington does nothing, spending goes down, and retirees get crushed. I think Republicans generally favor this happening, because "fuck the Dems" as you so eloquently put it... though a handful of non-crazy Republicans recognize that screwing over some of their voters isn't good for reelection prospects.

Then there's the issue of Washington acting to cut spending. This happened in 2013 and basically nobody liked it except for a small number of Tea Party Republicans. The military budget was cut by 8% or so, and so were domestic programs. Since then, Washington has voted not to sustain that level of spending, usually by increasing discretionary spending by the neighborhood of $40 billion/year... until Trump took office, and that amount of additional spending basically doubled.

To the extent that Social Security and Medicare are the "first ones that stand to be cut" because of the tax cuts and growing deficits, it is not as cut and dried as what I just laid out above in terms of the Trust Fund running out of money. However, seeing as how Republican voters and politicians only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House, it is a stone-cold undeniable fact that Republican orthodoxy fully embraces the reduction of these programs in order to lower spending. This is Paul Ryan's entire reason for being in Congress. It has been a part of every Republican platform for decades. To deny that the overwhelming majority of Republican elected officials seek to reduce Medicare and Social Security is like denying that water is wet.

Some Republicans, especially in the GWB era, sought to exacerbate the deficit crisis in order to generate political momentum to achieve this. This, too, is a fact.

At the end of the day, HD, you appear to like tax cuts and also think that spending will never be cut. Therefore, deficits and debt are just going to go up. It's just as simple as that. And this, as you may agree, is what makes you a true fiscal conservative.
  #78  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:33 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
"counter to all economic wisdom" seems like an overly-broad claim. If I can find an economist that disagrees, would you be willing to retract this claim?
IF you can find a single economist that approves of the tax cuts? Are you making an admission here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... but don't feel that an extra $190B on a $4.1T budget are worth more than a tidy sum of cold hard cash for me personally (and for most Americans).
Just as a quick test can you demonstrate your knowledge with a 15-word summary of the fundamental tenet of Keynesian fiscal policy?

And if 190/4100 is a "small" ratio, why not $290B ? Wouldn't two tidy sums be even better than one? Or did Trump and Ryan magically find the Goldilocks cut?

To get support for the temporary infusions of $1500 each into your pocket and those of some other middle-income Americans, the corporations and super-rich were bought off with permanent tax cuts totaling Trillions with a capital T. Good?

Oh. One last question. There are credible allegations that the new individual tax rules were very carefully structured to screw demographics that mostly vote blue. What do you think of this? I'm pretty sure I can guess your answer, but it might be fun to hear it from you.
  #79  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:57 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So it would be even better to repeal taxation altogether, right?

And let the workers seize the means of production directly, yes. Alas...


__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #80  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:09 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
IF you can find a single economist that approves of the tax cuts? Are you making an admission here?
Not at all, I just wanted to know if it was a waste of time before digging up a quote. Given that you evaded the question, I suspect it would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Just as a quick test can you demonstrate your knowledge with a 15-word summary of the fundamental tenet of Keynesian fiscal policy?
Do your own econ homework. I'm no more interested in your tests than you apparently are in answering my questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
And if 190/4100 is a "small" ratio, why not $290B ? Wouldn't two tidy sums be even better than one? Or did Trump and Ryan magically find the Goldilocks cut?
Nothing particularly magical about $190B/year, although, to repeat myself, not "always". Washington has yet to enact a tax cuts that made me go "oh shit guys, it's too much, don't do that", but I'm open to the possibility that such a tax cuts could exist, at least in theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
To get support for the temporary infusions of $1500 each into your pocket and those of some other middle-income Americans, the corporations and super-rich were bought off with permanent tax cuts totaling Trillions with a capital T. Good?
Sure. I doubt that the "temporary" tax cuts will be allowed to expire. It was savvy politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Oh. One last question. There are credible allegations that the new individual tax rules were very carefully structured to screw demographics that mostly vote blue. What do you think of this? I'm pretty sure I can guess your answer, but it might be fun to hear it from you.
What makes these allegations "credible". You didn't provide a source for me to evaluate. Your word does not suffice on this matter.

Did you guess correctly?
  #81  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:35 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Also, it depends on whether his state splits the tax burden between sales and income taxes, or does just one or the other. Because somewhere along the way, the GOP decided that you could deduct either sales or income taxes, but not both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
That tax rule seems peculiar. Is there a logical reason for it? (Other than the obvious "Set the nerds to work figuring out what particular rules will screw 'blue' states and 'blue' voters.")
The only logic is political. Practically all states have sales taxes, but a lot of states - mostly red states - don't have income taxes. Sales taxes hit the poor hardest and the rich hardly at all. State income taxes are usually regressive too, but not nearly as much.

So Republicans don't like state income taxes, and this measure basically punishes the people who live in (mostly blue) states that have them.
  #82  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:38 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
What makes these allegations "credible". You didn't provide a source for me to evaluate. Your word does not suffice on this matter.
Here's a libertarian commentator in a conservative magazine noting that people in blue states who are basically just keeping up with their neighbors are going to have to start paying more taxes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...17-story.html#
  #83  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:52 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... State income taxes are usually regressive too...
Which states have "regressive" income taxes?
  #84  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:03 AM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 36,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which states have "regressive" income taxes?
Try Google. I'm sure you can find a page that summarizes the differences between the income taxes of those states that have them.
  #85  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:08 AM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
stack that up against ~$190B/year for the tax cuts and yeah, I guess I'm feeling pretty comfortable disputing that 'these tax cuts will cost [me my] SS & Medicare'. "These tax cuts" amount to little more than a rounding error on SS & Medicare spending.
I'd argue that 12% of the current Medicare & SS spending is not a "rounding error" using any generally accepted definition of the term. But it's not just 12%, because that's just how much Republicans increased the deficit. Last year, based on those numbers, we borrowed 41% of the combined Medicare & SS spending. This year, thanks to the tax cuts, we're going to be on pace to borrow 51%. If those projections you posted are accurate, the situation is only going to get much, much worse.

The problem isn't that $190B is a lot of money, it's that it's a step in the wrong direction. It's a step in the wrong direction at a time when the right direction is obvious to anyone who cares to look, and it ultimately means that my children are going to have to suffer more than they otherwise would if the "adults" in the room weren't being so goddamn irresponsible.

Do you even care?
  #86  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:50 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Try Google. I'm sure you can find a page that summarizes the differences between the income taxes of those states that have them.
I'm not interested in what Google has to say. I'm interested in what you have to say. But if your response is to NOT offer a cite, or even an example, I guess that tells me plenty.
  #87  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:59 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... Do you even care?
Yes. Previously I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... I'm somewhat sympathetic to the concerns over the budget deficit, but don't feel that an extra $190B on a $4.1T budget are worth more than a tidy sum of cold hard cash for me personally (and for most Americans).
I'd prefer that the deficit were less (even better if we could make it zero). I think, on some level some Dems would too. The fundamental problem is that the federal government spends more than it collects and (speaking generally) the Dem's solution is to collect more while the Rep's solution is to spend less. Either could work, but what happens in reality is that we end up spending more and collecting less, because Republicans often don't want to be seen as the ones cutting spending and Democrats often don't want to be seen as the ones raising taxes.
  #88  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:09 AM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Republicans often don't want to be seen as the ones cutting spending and Democrats often don't want to be seen as the ones raising taxes.
Oh come off it, Obama tried like hell to get tax increases through and Republicans raked him through the fucking coals for it. Did you forget all of that?

I mean, look at how Republicans smear Obama for being a tax and spend Democrat.

Quote:
Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has formally proposed a total of 442 tax increases, according to an Americans for Tax Reform analysis of Obama administration budgets for fiscal years 2010 through 2015.

The 442 total proposed tax increases does not include the 20 tax increases Obama signed into law as part of Obamacare.

“History tells us what Obama was able to do. This list reminds us of what Obama wanted to do,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.
The problem isn't that Democrats don't want to raise taxes -- they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they're the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Republicans into office despite Republicans presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit. That should infuriate you if you have any concept that the future is going to exist.
  #89  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:13 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj Akaj is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'd prefer that the deficit were less (even better if we could make it zero). I think, on some level some Dems would too. The fundamental problem is that the federal government spends more than it collects and (speaking generally) the Dem's solution is to collect more while the Rep's solution is to spend less. Either could work, but what happens in reality is that we end up spending more and collecting less, because Republicans often don't want to be seen as the ones cutting spending and Democrats often don't want to be seen as the ones raising taxes.
Why, then, are you cheering this "tax reform" that collects less when Republican leadership shows no inclination toward cutting spending? Why aren't you howling at the GOP to demonstrate fiscal discipline instead of buying off voters with short-term tax savings that undermine their children's futures?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #90  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:23 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... The problem isn't that Democrats don't want to raise taxes -- they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they're the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Republicans into office despite Republicans presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit. ...
I don't see that as being any more convincing than this:

"The problem isn't that Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they're the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Democrats into office despite Democrats presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit."
  #91  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:28 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Why, then, are you cheering this "tax reform" that collects less when Republican leadership shows no inclination toward cutting spending? Why aren't you howling at the GOP to demonstrate fiscal discipline instead of buying off voters with short-term tax savings that undermine their children's futures?
For the same reason that Dems applaud when their elected officials increase spending but fail to "pay for it" with sufficient revenue-raising measure to cover the costs.

We both have policy priorities we want to see realized, and don't care sufficiently if the necessary downside (cutting spending in the case of R's and raising taxes in the case of D's) actually happens.

Neither side is willing to give up their preferred solution to see that government revenues and outlays meet.
  #92  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:37 AM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't see that as being any more convincing than this:

"The problem isn't that Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they clearly do, because it needs to be done and they're the only ones willing to do it. The problem is that people keep voting Democrats into office despite Democrats presenting no feasible strategy for curbing the deficit."
Because you haven't been paying attention? I'm sure a lot of low information voters would agree with you.
  #93  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:41 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
... I mean, look at how Republicans smear Obama for being a tax and spend Democrat. ...
"they want to raise your taxes" and "they want to cut your SS/Medicare" are both potent political attacks. That's a big part of what contributes to the dessert-but-no-vegetables behavior we get from Washington.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 09-18-2018 at 11:41 AM.
  #94  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:42 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
Because you haven't been paying attention? I'm sure a lot of low information voters would agree with you.
Everyone who disagrees with you must just not be paying attention, or be a low-information voter?



Who needs to "come off it" now?
  #95  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:45 AM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Everyone who disagrees with you must just not be paying attention, or be a low-information voter?



Who needs to "come off it" now?
Did I say anything of the sort? Everyone who disagrees with me on anything? Really?
  #96  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:47 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Both parties increase spending. The Democrats tell the truth about it and pay for the spending.
How did the Democrats pay for their spending under Obama?

Regards,
Shodan
  #97  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Not at all, I just wanted to know if it was a waste of time before digging up a quote. Given that you evaded the question, I suspect it would be.


Do your own econ homework. I'm no more interested in your tests than you apparently are in answering my questions.


Nothing particularly magical about $190B/year, although, to repeat myself, not "always". Washington has yet to enact a tax cuts that made me go "oh shit guys, it's too much, don't do that", but I'm open to the possibility that such a tax cuts could exist, at least in theory.


Sure. I doubt that the "temporary" tax cuts will be allowed to expire. It was savvy politics.



What makes these allegations "credible". You didn't provide a source for me to evaluate. Your word does not suffice on this matter.

Did you guess correctly?
* You can't name a single economist who supports the tax cuts.
* You don't know the most basic tenet of fiscal policy.
* You might see a tax cut you disapprove of; you might see a blue unicorn.
* You were happy to give the billionaires trillions so you could have your $1000.
* you haven't followed the discussion on deductions.

Yes. I guessed correctly.
  #98  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:53 AM
steronz steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 4,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
How did the Democrats pay for their spending under Obama?

Regards,
Shodan
By letting the Bush tax cuts expire. We were also still recovering from a recession -- not raising taxes, or cutting taxes, during an economic recession is perfectly fine and consistent with liberal economic theory.

We never got to see what Democrats would have done in the later Obama years when the economy was better because Republicans took over congress and stonewalled every proposed attempt to raise taxes.
  #99  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:58 AM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 20,624
I'm rather surprised that nobody has brought up the "we need a balanced budget amendment!" farce.

The only spending that Republicans have any interest in cutting is Social Security and Medicare. They've been trying to kill SS for 80 years and trying to kill Medicare for 50 years. Ending these programs is Paul Ryan's ultimate masturbatory fantasy.

If Republicans think they can cut spending, why don't they? They control everything. Go ahead, point to specific spending that you'd eliminate. Before you shout "foreign aid!", remember that it is a tiny portion of the budget. You've got defense spending and interest on the debt. Everything else is almost trivial.
  #100  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:03 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* You can't name a single economist who supports the tax cuts.
False, but since you appear to be unwilling to retract your assertion even in the face of evidence to the contrary, it seems like a waste of time to offer it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* You don't know the most basic tenet of fiscal policy.
False, but explaining it to you does not interest me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* You might see a tax cut you disapprove of; you might see a blue unicorn.
True. You got one right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* You were happy to give the billionaires trillions so you could have your $1000.
False. What makes you think I'm only getting $1000?

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
* you haven't followed the discussion on deductions.
False. Where did you get the impression I wasn't following it? I asked you for a cite, and was told "Try Google." That declining to offer a cite for assertions pretty much ended the conversation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes. I guessed correctly.
No, no you did not.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017