hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Dec 22, 2017 11:41:21 GMT -5
Trump just said "Infrastructure will be the easiest of them all." Serious question: Can someone explain to me how it will be paid for in light of the tax cuts? (My worse grades at Georgetown were in economics). Debt or more likely nothing will actually happen.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,369
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 22, 2017 12:00:21 GMT -5
Trump just said "Infrastructure will be the easiest of them all." Serious question: Can someone explain to me how it will be paid for in light of the tax cuts? (My worse grades at Georgetown were in economics). Debt or more likely nothing will actually happen. Mexico?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,569
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 22, 2017 12:07:15 GMT -5
Under PAYGO rules, doesn't the fact that Trump signed the tax cuts prior to 2018 mean that automatic cuts in federal spending are mandated absent any action by Congress?
I stole this from someone's comment in the WaPo: "Since he signed it into law in 2017, doesn't that now cause an automatic cut (of something like $120b) to entitlement programs due to the increase in the deficit? That's going to play fantastically in the midterms... thoughts had been he would wait until January to sign it so as to keep those cuts from kicking in until 2019."
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,890
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Dec 22, 2017 12:10:06 GMT -5
Under PAYGO rules, doesn't the fact that Trump signed the tax cuts prior to 2018 mean that automatic cuts in federal spending are mandated absent any action by Congress? I stole this from someone's comment in the WaPo: "Since he signed it into law in 2017, doesn't that now cause an automatic cut (of something like $120b) to entitlement programs due to the increase in the deficit? That's going to play fantastically in the midterms... thoughts had been he would wait until January to sign it so as to keep those cuts from kicking in until 2019." But then he wouldn't be able to give the American people a big, beautiful tax bill for Christmas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2017 12:12:28 GMT -5
President Trump also said (squints eyes, looks closer at paper) Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, called him last night to tell him how great the tax bill is.
...
Populism, the Scrooge McDuck version....
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,569
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 22, 2017 12:18:20 GMT -5
President Trump also said (squints eyes, looks closer at paper) Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, called him last night to tell him how great the tax bill is. ... Populism, the Scrooge McDuck version.... No call from the 2017 version of Joe the Plumber??!! (Somewhere Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney is cackling).
|
|
blueeagle
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Win or lose, it's the school we choose.
Posts: 493
|
Post by blueeagle on Dec 22, 2017 12:56:32 GMT -5
[/quote]Here’s hoping the word gets out and someone else’s borders get overrun... [/quote]
Probably one of the most deafetist and pessimistic statements I have read in awhile.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Dec 22, 2017 13:42:49 GMT -5
Funny how you leave out some of the real junk like PBS, the NEA, Etc... The deficit can however be reduced if not eliminated with cuts to some of those non-essential programs, though can’t it? The 2018 federal deficit will likely be at least $800B next year due to lower revenues, and you're literally calling out things like PBS/NEA (total value ~$500M a year) as the problem. As I already mentioned, you could get rid of the entire non-defense discretionary budget (which would cover all the programs that make you shake your fist in anger AND MORE) and still run a deficit at the new revenue levels. You seem to think the budget would be 90% fixed just by removing all the liberal BS you don't like, which shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the fiscal choices this country needs to make if this is the desired funding level going forward.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 22, 2017 14:57:01 GMT -5
I didn’t say it was a cure. Just an improvement...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,569
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 22, 2017 18:00:25 GMT -5
Under PAYGO rules, doesn't the fact that Trump signed the tax cuts prior to 2018 mean that automatic cuts in federal spending are mandated absent any action by Congress? I stole this from someone's comment in the WaPo: "Since he signed it into law in 2017, doesn't that now cause an automatic cut (of something like $120b) to entitlement programs due to the increase in the deficit? That's going to play fantastically in the midterms... thoughts had been he would wait until January to sign it so as to keep those cuts from kicking in until 2019." To answer my own question, apparently the waiver of PAYGO was contained in the CR funding bill.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 22, 2017 21:05:25 GMT -5
Trump just said "Infrastructure will be the easiest of them all." Serious question: Can someone explain to me how it will be paid for in light of the tax cuts? (My worse grades at Georgetown were in economics). Prestidigitation, Mr. Bailey. Whatever happened to Mr. Barnum's infrastructure boasts? I've been hearing crickets on that for oh, the last nine, ten, eleven months. He probably meant easiest to ignore. I'd more likely expect Mr. Barnum to claim that he never said it.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,276
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 22, 2017 21:08:45 GMT -5
I didn’t say it was a cure. Just an improvement... The contribution of PBS and the NEA to the budget deficit is akin to a flea on an elephant's butt. Gotta do better than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2017 10:50:15 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 16:39:18 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 29, 2017 19:49:19 GMT -5
Rubio went further and said it was better than the current tax laws. Or did you intentionally leave that part out?
Also, under this tax law it is estimated that 80% of all will get a tax reduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2017 4:01:44 GMT -5
Rubio went further and said it was better than the current tax laws. Or did you intentionally leave that part out? Also, under this tax law it is estimated that 80% of all will get a tax reduction. The reason why it's notable imo is because The President and Republicans in both Houses said these cuts were needed for growth and jobs. Rubio says it's more likely it will just make a bunch of shareholders richer. People aren't stupid they know who these tax cuts were aimed to help, and it's not the average Joe. Personally, I don't think it's newsworthy to mention a senator who helped craft legislation that he voted for, likes the legislation that he helped write and voted for. But I didn't write it, so I didn't leave it out. 100% of Corporations got a tax cut. Their tax cus are permanent while the ones for individuals expires in a few years. So don't leave out the fact that 20% is just the starting point and will increase. On a side note it's pretty amazing that Republicans can add over a trillion to the deficit and manage to not cut everyones taxes. But somehow manage to cut all of big business's taxes. I'm even more amazed you guys think that a good thing, but whatever. It looks like greed to me.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Dec 30, 2017 10:53:21 GMT -5
Rubio went further and said it was better than the current tax laws. He's admitting it's not going to create jobs. That's noteable.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,569
|
Post by SSHoya on Dec 30, 2017 11:29:27 GMT -5
At the behest of conservative Governor Sam Brownback, Republican majorities in Kansas in 2012 set the state’s income tax on a “march to zero” and eliminated taxes on companies whose owners filed their taxes as individuals—a loophole exploited by thousands of businesses that resulted in plummeting revenue to the state’s coffers. Brownback, a former U.S. senator and presidential candidate, hailed the policy as “a real-live experiment” in conservative governance. But in the eyes of all but Brownback and his staunchest supporters, the test failed. Economic growth never materialized, and the state legislature could not summon the political will or overcome legal roadblocks to cut spending to match the lower revenue. With annual deficits in the hundreds of millions, Kansas has been mired in a perpetual budget crisis ever since. “It was supposed to increase the GDP, and it didn’t. The feds will have that same problem,” said state Senator Jim Denning, a conservative who originally supported the tax cuts. In a phone interview, Denning told me he had done his own economic modeling in 2012 and “proved to myself that the tax cut would work.” But the new policy did not prevent a rural recession in Kansas or a dip in its oil-and-gas business. “It generated hardly any measurable economic activity,” Denning said. By the beginning of this year, he had changed course and voted along with Democrats and a coalition of Republicans to reverse most of the cuts, erasing Brownback’s economic legacy. (The governor won’t be in office much longer: He has accepted a diplomatic post in the Trump administration and will resign once he’s confirmed by the Senate.) www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/tax-trump-kansas/542532/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2018 10:17:10 GMT -5
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 9, 2018 12:52:46 GMT -5
You don't say?
|
|