Federal deficit jumps 20 percent after tax cuts, spending bill

[jeffk]

It isn't a bad thing to have a deficit while trying to get out of a recession. But increasing the deficit while the economy is already growing and when we have low unemployment doesn't make much sense. It will likely increase inflationary pressure and keep real wages from increasing much at all....like we have seen.

The Fed is going to have to increase the federal funds rate to prevent inflation

 

[JamesRussler]

I'm not overlooking it. Both parties are increasing spending. One party is also cutting revenue. That is less fiscally responsible. If you think that cutting revenue and increasing spending is fiscally responsible behavior then you're an idiot, no insult intended. Saying that the Dems are worse might have made sense two decades ago but this current iteration of the GOP has not been fiscally responsible in any fashion at all.

Again, I don't think Republicans are fiscally responsible. I merely suggested that Democrats are more fiscally irresponsible. And please Mr. Moderator, let's leave the insults out of this okay?

Would I continue supporting the GOP if they did the things that they're supposed to? Yes. Blanket federal spending cuts don't meet my criteria for fiscally responsible government. Proper spending is fiscally responsible. Throwing money at unnecessary pet projects and cutting spending for people who need it is not. Not reorganizing the existing spending to maximize the return to the American people isn't fiscally responsible either.

Objection, non-responsive, move to strike.
What I want to know is this: would you support a Republican agenda that involved tax cuts and other revenue reduction measure if it also included significant cuts to federal spending? Can you just answer "yes" or "no" on that question? I suspect that the underlying truth here is that you want the government expanded, one way or the other, and you're not actually concerned with fiscal responsibility.

The CBO already outlined hundreds of billions of dollars in redundant federal spending. Cut that, don't cut revenue and don't harm Americans in need. Then reorganize the current programs to eliminate waste and maximize efficiency. Then look at the programs that keep Americans in a decent standard of living. Then, and only then, look to reduce revenue and lighten the financial burden on the American populace.

Sure, we can cut "redundant" federal spending. Can we agree that "Americans in need" must exclusively be American? I'm not against all safety nets, but I'm not going to subsidize people who sneak in and shit out 7 kids with no way to support them otherwise. Also, I'm not interested in maintaining any standard of living for people who are not committed to working. Welfare programs (e.g., SNAP, Section 8, etc.) need to be much more temporary than they currently are. I have a heart, but I'm not about creating perverse incentives for our population to slide into degeneracy.

I don't have much interest in the kind of bullshit arguments that you and others put forward where you're incapable of understanding that fiscally responsible governance and socially responsible governance are supposed to co-exist. This socialism boogie man that gets thrown around is just a marker that the speaker doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

But, by all means, tell me more dumb shit about socialism and fiscal responsibility...

Respectfully, I've not made any "bullshit arguments." This a consistent theme with the left – you disagree with someone, so they're an "idiot," spouting "bullshit," or they're racist / evil / Hitler / etc. As I've said many times, I'm open to having a conversation about this stuff, and I'm open to a reasonable degree of compromise. But if the Left just wants to lose its temper and act like entitled brats, then We in the center are happy to support people like Trump and have him ram the Republican agenda up the Left's collective tailpipe. Wouldn't you rather have some input? Let's have a reasonable discussion.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

This is a great opportunity to cut federal spending. Since that is Congress’s job, and Democrats want to increase spending (in addition to raising “revenue”), it’s very important that Conservatives vote in November.

Does cutting federal spending include Medicaid/Medicare and welfare for our poorest?

 

[JamesRussler]

Does cutting federal spending include Medicaid/Medicare and welfare for our poorest?

Maybe. I'd probably stay away from medicaid/medicare. However, I'm not interested in subsidizing "our poorest" unless they actually can't work (especially since the Left insists on importing new "poorest" people).

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Maybe. I'd probably stay away from medicaid/medicare. However, I'm not interested in subsidizing "our poorest" unless they actually can't work (especially since the Left insists on importing new "poorest" people).

*Maybe*?

 

[luckyshot]

Because they're irresponsible sellouts who have calculated that it's more politically risky to cut federal programs than it is to just leave them in place while publicly denouncing such programs generally. I'm not gonna white knight for Republicans on this issue. Ya got me there.

But are Democrats the fiscally responsible alternative? Of course not.

If your options are:

A. Decrease income while increasing spending
B. Keep income and spending at status quo

Guess what brother? B. is the “fiscally responsible alternative” in this equation.

Sorry that mythical option C (“Decrease taxes but we are going to increase the economy soooooooo much it won’t affect our income) is just the bullshit pickup line Republicans have been falling for 40 years.

@Truth @Tropodan @GetTheseHands

 

[panamaican]

Again, I don't think Republicans are fiscally responsible. I merely suggested that Democrats are more fiscally irresponsible. And please Mr. Moderator, let's leave the insults out of this okay?

You make a bad error.

Objection, non-responsive, move to strike.

Overruled.

What I want to know is this: would you support a Republican agenda that involved tax cuts and other revenue reduction measure if it also included significant cuts to federal spending? Can you just answer "yes" or "no" on that question? I suspect that the underlying truth here is that you want the government expanded, one way or the other, and you're not actually concerned with fiscal responsibility.

No, it cannot be answered "Yes" or "no" because only an idiot thinks that proper fiscal governance can be reduced in that way.

Let me flesh it out for you. Let's say that the government cuts taxes by 90%. But only reduces spending by 50%. It meets the letter of your definition but would not be fiscally responsible. Let's say the government cuts everything except military spending and reduces taxes to meet just that cost. Again, not supportable.

Only an idiot, again the insult is not intended, would operate under such an abusrd premise that he/she must support tax cuts and spending decreases without exploring the scale of the tax cuts and the subject matter of the spending decreases.

That's not being responsible. It's not even thinking.

Sure, we can cut "redundant" federal spending. Can we agree that "Americans in need" must exclusively be American? I'm not against all safety nets, but I'm not going to subsidize people who sneak in and shit out 7 kids with no way to support them otherwise. Also, I'm not interested in maintaining any standard of living for people who are not committed to working. Welfare programs (e.g., SNAP, Section 8, etc.) need to be much more temporary than they currently are. I have a heart, but I'm not about creating perverse incentives for our population to slide into degeneracy.

A fascinatingly unoriginal response in its ability to disregard 90% of what is said to repeat empty talking points. I laid out a step by step approach to addressing fiscal responsibility that is supportable by me and all I get back is the same old "what about the bad people on welfare". I'm trying to avoid repeating the word "idiot" here since I know there has to be a better term for when someone just says things that indicate that they haven't thought about them or anything related to them.

Respectfully, I've not made any "bullshit arguments." This a consistent theme with the left – you disagree with someone, so they're an "idiot," spouting "bullshit," or they're racist / evil / Hitler / etc. As I've said many times, I'm open to having a conversation about this stuff, and I'm open to a reasonable degree of compromise. But if the Left just wants to lose its temper and act like entitled brats, then We in the center are happy to support people like Trump and have him ram the Republican agenda up the Left's collective tailpipe. Wouldn't you rather have some input? Let's have a reasonable discussion.

Yeah, you have made bullshit arguments and you continue to make them. I don't use the word idiot lightly or to insult you personally. I use it to describe something stupid. What you are typing is stupid. You probably aren't stupid but your posting here certainly is. I suppose I could go with ignorant but I don't think that's true. I think that if I said "Johnny lost his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." while "Jake still has his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." Which person is more fiscally irresponsible, you would properly identify that Johnny is less fiscally responsible than Jake due to the loss of revenue. Yet, when put in terms of Republican and Democrat, basic financial common sense goes right out the window. Well, that's stupid or idiotic. I can't call it smart or even average. I'm stuck with "stupid" as the most accurate description of the inability to translate such basic information to a new context.

I outlined above why the "yes/no" approach to whether or not someone should support a political platform is bullshit. I could have simply repeated "idiot" or "idiotic" but "bullshit" gives you more credit. It assumes you know that your arguments are weak, superficial and predicated on bad reasoning but that you're doing so on purpose and not because you're incapable of seeing the problems yourself.

As for having some input, I've been a registered Republican my entire life. I've held office (very, very minor office) as a Republican. I've spent time and money getting Republicans on the ballot and continue to do so. I was literally just asked to run for a judicial position by my local GOP party and I turned it down because it's a heavily Democratic city so it's basically wasting my time and money to even try to get on the ballot.

So treating bullshit arguments as if they are anything other than bullshit isn't where I go to have "input" on the GOP.

 

[Ophydian]

It's too large when there's a Democrat in the WH and too small at all other times.

The game is so transparent that I still can't believe the MSM consistently falls for it.



It's not symmetrical. Democrats have legitimately acted to reduce deficits and long-term debt, while Republicans insincerely screech about debt problems when they're out of the WH and consistently act to increase debt (regardless of economic circumstances) when they're in power.

How many times did the Republicans pull the government to the brink of a shutdown while Obama was in office?

And you they cry when the other side doesn’t want to play ball with them.

 

[HIMBOB]

At what point is the deficit too large?

Depends on the times, during down times it's wise to stimulate the economy, during good times you pay that debt off.

Make hay while the sun shines.

 

[Rational Poster]

Well that backfired @JamesRussler

 

[panamaican]

Well that backfired @JamesRussler

I've grown to hate these arguments because they are so disingenuous. Tax cuts and spending decreases without thought are a great way to ruin your country. You know what they never say? Spending cuts - lets cut infrastructure spending, border patrol, etc. but they're not really interested in actual spending cuts. They're interested in using spending cuts as bludgeons on people they don't like. It's the worst type of governing.

 

[Rational Poster]

I've grown to hate these arguments because they are so disingenuous. Tax cuts and spending decreases without thought are a great way to ruin your country. You know what they never say? Spending cuts - lets cut infrastructure spending, border patrol, etc. but they're not really interested in actual spending cuts. They're interested in using spending cuts as bludgeons on people they don't like. It's the worst type of governing.

The bias is blatant.

I mean look at this shit. They literally robbed the entire government for more defense spending.

NASA and Small Business Admin also received cuts.

 

[curryjunkie]

You make a bad error.


Overruled.



No, it cannot be answered "Yes" or "no" because only an idiot thinks that proper fiscal governance can be reduced in that way.

Let me flesh it out for you. Let's say that the government cuts taxes by 90%. But only reduces spending by 50%. It meets the letter of your definition but would not be fiscally responsible. Let's say the government cuts everything except military spending and reduces taxes to meet just that cost. Again, not supportable.

Only an idiot, again the insult is not intended, would operate under such an abusrd premise that he/she must support tax cuts and spending decreases without exploring the scale of the tax cuts and the subject matter of the spending decreases.

That's not being responsible. It's not even thinking.




A fascinatingly unoriginal response in its ability to disregard 90% of what is said to repeat empty talking points. I laid out a step by step approach to addressing fiscal responsibility that is supportable by me and all I get back is the same old "what about the bad people on welfare". I'm trying to avoid repeating the word "idiot" here since I know there has to be a better term for when someone just says things that indicate that they haven't thought about them or anything related to them.





Yeah, you have made bullshit arguments and you continue to make them. I don't use the word idiot lightly or to insult you personally. I use it to describe something stupid. What you are typing is stupid. You probably aren't stupid but your posting here certainly is. I suppose I could go with ignorant but I don't think that's true. I think that if I said "Johnny lost his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." while "Jake still has his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." Which person is more fiscally irresponsible, you would properly identify that Johnny is less fiscally responsible than Jake due to the loss of revenue. Yet, when put in terms of Republican and Democrat, basic financial common sense goes right out the window. Well, that's stupid or idiotic. I can't call it smart or even average. I'm stuck with "stupid" as the most accurate description of the inability to translate such basic information to a new context.

I outlined above why the "yes/no" approach to whether or not someone should support a political platform is bullshit. I could have simply repeated "idiot" or "idiotic" but "bullshit" gives you more credit. It assumes you know that your arguments are weak, superficial and predicated on bad reasoning but that you're doing so on purpose and not because you're incapable of seeing the problems yourself.

As for having some input, I've been a registered Republican my entire life. I've held office (very, very minor office) as a Republican. I've spent time and money getting Republicans on the ballot and continue to do so. I was literally just asked to run for a judicial position by my local GOP party and I turned it down because it's a heavily Democratic city so it's basically wasting my time and money to even try to get on the ballot.

So treating bullshit arguments as if they are anything other than bullshit isn't where I go to have "input" on the GOP.

 

[curryjunkie]

The bias is blatant.

I mean look at this shit. They literally robbed the entire government for more defense spending.

NASA and Small Business Admin also received cuts.

State dept and EPA.....meh...it will take care of itself, donnie told me so

 

[ScottE]

Also, the tax cuts were an awesome idea, and they are serving their intended purpose. Companies are coming back to the USA, and they're hiring American workers. The point of the fax cut was not to hand out free money.

They're serving their intended purpose, but not their stated purpose.

These things that you're saying are happening aren't. Companies, by and large, are not using this money they are saving to expand their workforce or raise wages. The most substantial reinvestment we are seeing with these tax savings are in the form of historical stock buy backs. That's the only thing of note occuring and that has next to no benefit for anyone but the upper class. We are seeing worse wage growth and more inflation, which means a further net loss in the real functional use of money.

So the stated purpose, how they sold these tax cuts to the public, isn't occuring. Why should it, we gave corporations a blank check with no preconditions. The intended purpose of funneling wealth into the hands of their political donors that's going off without a hitch.

Fiscal responsibility is not just balancing debits and credits. If I go and spend $1,000 on a new TV instead of $1,500 for a new water heater I'm not somehow more fiscally responsible just because I spent less money. Especially not if I don't go to work so I can watch TV

 

[JamesRussler]

No, it cannot be answered "Yes" or "no" because only an idiot...

Only an idiot...

I'm trying to avoid repeating the word "idiot" here...

Yeah, you have made bullshit arguments and you continue to make them.

I don't use the word idiot lightly...

I see now. Reducing taxes and spending is theoretically possible if we "explor[e] the scale of the tax cuts and the subject matter of the spending decreases." But since we're forever going to avoid discussing which programs to cut, as a practical matter, increased spending is the only option (other than doing nothing of course). Oh, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

Hokay, thanks counsel, I will take your argument under submission.

What you are typing is stupid. You probably aren't stupid but your posting here certainly is. I suppose I could go with ignorant but I don't think that's true. I think that if I said "Johnny lost his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." while "Jake still has his job and decided to buy a bunch of expensive new things." Which person is more fiscally irresponsible, you would properly identify that Johnny is less fiscally responsible than Jake due to the loss of revenue. Yet, when put in terms of Republican and Democrat, basic financial common sense goes right out the window. Well, that's stupid or idiotic. I can't call it smart or even average. I'm stuck with "stupid" as the most accurate description of the inability to translate such basic information to a new context.

I outlined above why the "yes/no" approach to whether or not someone should support a political platform is bullshit. I could have simply repeated "idiot" or "idiotic" but "bullshit" gives you more credit. It assumes you know that your arguments are weak, superficial and predicated on bad reasoning but that you're doing so on purpose and not because you're incapable of seeing the problems yourself.

As for having some input, I've been a registered Republican my entire life. I've held office (very, very minor office) as a Republican. I've spent time and money getting Republicans on the ballot and continue to do so. I was literally just asked to run for a judicial position by my local GOP party and I turned it down because it's a heavily Democratic city so it's basically wasting my time and money to even try to get on the ballot.

So treating bullshit arguments as if they are anything other than bullshit isn't where I go to have "input" on the GOP.

What I've gathered from your post is this:

• Anyone who disagrees with your view of federal spending necessarily embraces the straw man positions you've outlined
• Anyone who embraces the straw man positions you outlined is necessarily an idiot or is bullshitting
• You're graciously willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm bullshitting (thanks)

Full disclosure though: I'm not bullshitting. I guess that means I'm an idiot.

 

[JamesRussler]

Well that backfired @JamesRussler

What backfired?

EDIT: LOL!

 

[44nutman]

Typical when GOP controls the government. Republic God, Reagan and then Bush Jr and Sr added a shit ton to the deficit. It took a rapist democrat to fix it. Obama added to it.
Now we have a guy who has a history of spending more than he makes based on his numerous bankruptcies now trying to bankrupt America.
I am not shocked, but am shocked how hypocritical are Republicans. The GOP elected officials and talking heads like Cohens 3rd client spent all of Obama's term crying about deficits and now their side does the same thing and Cafeteria Conservatives bury their head in the sand.
As I have always said the last true Conservative was Barry Goldwater. This new crop just cuck for their donors.

 

[panamaican]

I see now. Reducing taxes and spending is theoretically possible if we "explor[e] the scale of the tax cuts and the subject matter of the spending decreases." But since we're forever going to avoid discussing which programs to cut, as a practical matter, increased spending is the only option (other than doing nothing of course). Oh, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

Hokay, thanks counsel, I will take your argument under submission.

More bullshit. I specified in my earlier post exactly how to discuss which programs deserve cutting and the order in which to make those assessments. I started at the CBO's analysis of redundant spending, working through several steps before ending with adjustments to welfare programs. Then turning to tax cuts.

Your response to my practical analysis was "I don't want to incentivize people who abuse welfare" (paraphrased).

When given the chance to engage in discussion, you, not I, avoided the discussion.

I hope you don't go into court the way to you do things here. Our prior posts are as good as a court transcript and you refused to engage the points I raised.

What I've gathered from your post is this:

• Anyone who disagrees with your view of federal spending necessarily embraces the straw man positions you've outlined
• Anyone who embraces the straw man positions you outlined is necessarily an idiot or is bullshitting
• You're graciously willing to extend the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm bullshitting (thanks)

Full disclosure though: I'm not bullshitting. I guess that means I'm an idiot.

Your gathering skills are as bad as your arguments. I didn't outline any strawman positions. You specifically stated that the Dems are more fiscally irresponsible than the GOP, even though you also agreed that both parties are increasing spending and that the GOP is reducing revenue, via tax cuts, while the Dems don't want to cut taxes and might even want to raise them. Correctly assessing your position and insulting it is not outlining a strawman position. It's mocking the obvious logical failings of that position.

You didn't outline a position on supporting specific policy. You stated a general opinion on limitations to welfare spending. Then you presented a yes/no question regarding tax cuts and spending cuts. I said that making the question "yes/no" is idiotic. There's no position being assigned to you. It's an assessment of the question's quality. The only position that was outlined was assigned by me...to me, not to you. That I consider it an idiotic question for very specific reasons.

And if you're certain that you're not bullshitting then, yeah, maybe you are an idiot.

 

[JonesBones]

It isn't a bad thing to have a deficit while trying to get out of a recession. But increasing the deficit while the economy is already growing and when we have low unemployment doesn't make much sense. It will likely increase inflationary pressure and keep real wages from increasing much at all....like we have seen.

The Fed is going to have to increase the federal funds rate to prevent inflation

Yes, one of the reasons given was helping the stock market but the market was roaring and didn't need help. I think Trump just wants a really high score or something. Doesn't care about future. He wants one 100 point game and doesn't care about the rest of the season. I guess all politicians are like that to a lesser degree. They have to get re elected every few years so they are almost required to think in the short term. The whole system encourages short term thinking. It is just like a public company and elections are earnings reports. All they care about is that quarter. One at a time. So they make short term investments to jack up their cash flow in the short period. It is short term risky investment after short term risky investment. All to please the people. This actually killed Japan and many think we are on the same path. Japan has a ton of cash but is in debt up to its eyeballs and not an innovator anymore. The analysts are the voters here. The companies just want to please the analysts.