Why do you want inferior care and who is going to pay for single payer?
Have you seen the budget figures for California who is working to institute their own single payer system? How much would it cost them?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bad Math: Trump Budget Off By $2 Trillion
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
Why do you want inferior care and who is going to pay for single payer?
Have you seen the budget figures for California who is working to institute their own single payer system? How much would it cost them?
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
How is it NOT doing both?
Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
Far left Progressives should really learn a bit about tax cuts as well as the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
Your link doesn't say Reagan increased the debt to 65% of GDP.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,883
- 1,830
Except, of course, revenue DECLINED after Reagan's tax cuts and only increased after his many many tax increases!!!Tax cuts were extremely effective in growing the economy and increasing revenue during the great administration of President Ronald Reagan.
You really have to be a moron to think the economy would generate 2 trillion in revenue just because you cut 2 trillion.
Donald Trump’s Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
Whoops!
The White House made a basic mathematical error when trying to prove that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves and then some, according to a leading economist who advised former President Barack Obama.
In a column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lawrence Summers, who directed Obama’s national economic council from 2009 to 2010, took the current White House to task for double-counting $2 trillion in revenue it predicts its tax cuts will generate.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal assumes that the tax cuts it would enact for wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as its reductions in regulations, will create consistent 3 percent economic growth ― enough to generate $2 trillion a year in additional revenue.
That projection in itself is dubious; tax cuts rarely, if ever, spur enough growth to replenish the revenue they cost the Treasury. But it is nonetheless a prediction consistent with the supply-side economics that Republicans have been peddling for decades.
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
“This is an elementary double count,” Summers writes. “You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.”
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait shoots down one plausible explanation for the error.
“Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake,” he writes.
More: Donald Trump's Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
A normal person would be embarrassed. I doubt Trump is embarrassed.
- Thread starter
- #31
You really have to be a moron to think the economy would generate 2 trillion in revenue just because you cut 2 trillion.
Donald Trump’s Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
Whoops!
The White House made a basic mathematical error when trying to prove that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves and then some, according to a leading economist who advised former President Barack Obama.
In a column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lawrence Summers, who directed Obama’s national economic council from 2009 to 2010, took the current White House to task for double-counting $2 trillion in revenue it predicts its tax cuts will generate.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal assumes that the tax cuts it would enact for wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as its reductions in regulations, will create consistent 3 percent economic growth ― enough to generate $2 trillion a year in additional revenue.
That projection in itself is dubious; tax cuts rarely, if ever, spur enough growth to replenish the revenue they cost the Treasury. But it is nonetheless a prediction consistent with the supply-side economics that Republicans have been peddling for decades.
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
“This is an elementary double count,” Summers writes. “You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.”
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait shoots down one plausible explanation for the error.
“Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake,” he writes.
More: Donald Trump's Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
A normal person would be embarrassed. I doubt Trump is embarrassed.
Apparently they believe in self-healing economics.
Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,894
- 1,940
- Banned
- #32
Washington Redskin, progressives always spend more than what they have… Then they spend other peoples moneyYou really have to be a moron to think the economy would generate 2 trillion in revenue just because you cut 2 trillion.
Donald Trump’s Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
Whoops!
The White House made a basic mathematical error when trying to prove that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves and then some, according to a leading economist who advised former President Barack Obama.
In a column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lawrence Summers, who directed Obama’s national economic council from 2009 to 2010, took the current White House to task for double-counting $2 trillion in revenue it predicts its tax cuts will generate.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal assumes that the tax cuts it would enact for wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as its reductions in regulations, will create consistent 3 percent economic growth ― enough to generate $2 trillion a year in additional revenue.
That projection in itself is dubious; tax cuts rarely, if ever, spur enough growth to replenish the revenue they cost the Treasury. But it is nonetheless a prediction consistent with the supply-side economics that Republicans have been peddling for decades.
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
“This is an elementary double count,” Summers writes. “You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.”
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait shoots down one plausible explanation for the error.
“Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake,” he writes.
More: Donald Trump's Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
A normal person would be embarrassed. I doubt Trump is embarrassed.
Apparently they believe in self-healing economics.
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
..and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
How "Voodoo" Caused Most of the National Debt - zFacts
" When Ronald Reagan became president. He rode to office on complaints of an “out-of-control debt” that was as big as “a stack of $1000 bills 67 miles high.” And in eight years in office he added another 125 miles to that stack."
So much for the "Great administration of President Ronald Reagan". Don't feel bad. Few Republicans understand economics.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
Your link doesn't say Reagan increased the debt to 65% of GDP.
..which adds an additional explanation of why you believe in voodoo economics. You are blind, as well.
Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,094
- 1,410
- Banned
- #34
Why do the leftists want to saddle our children with their lack of fiscal control.
Do congress have the same lack of control when it comes to touching their private parts.
Do congress have the same lack of control when it comes to touching their private parts.
and yet, the national debt increased from 35% to 65% of the Gross national Product under Reagan.
And yet......bullshit!
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
Your link doesn't say Reagan increased the debt to 65% of GDP.
..which adds an additional explanation of why you believe in voodoo economics. You are blind, as well.
Here you go, moron.
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,094
- 1,410
- Banned
- #36
Has anyone asked Hillary when she will say something smart ?
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Got it. The historical figures don't agree with your hypothesis, so the historical figures are wrong. That is definitely a new twist on economics! Usually, it is the other way around....
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
Your link doesn't say Reagan increased the debt to 65% of GDP.
..which adds an additional explanation of why you believe in voodoo economics. You are blind, as well.
Here you go, moron.
View attachment 128715
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Yep! Same chart as mine. The National debt begins to rise from 35% when Reagan cut taxes, and did not start going down until the Clinton administration in about 1992, when it had reached 65% of the GNP.
I don't think Trump is capable of embarrassment. He'll just blame some underling and pretend it never happened.
Donald Trump’s Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
Whoops!
The White House made a basic mathematical error when trying to prove that massive tax cuts would pay for themselves and then some, according to a leading economist who advised former President Barack Obama.
In a column in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Lawrence Summers, who directed Obama’s national economic council from 2009 to 2010, took the current White House to task for double-counting $2 trillion in revenue it predicts its tax cuts will generate.
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal assumes that the tax cuts it would enact for wealthy individuals and corporations, as well as its reductions in regulations, will create consistent 3 percent economic growth ― enough to generate $2 trillion a year in additional revenue.
That projection in itself is dubious; tax cuts rarely, if ever, spur enough growth to replenish the revenue they cost the Treasury. But it is nonetheless a prediction consistent with the supply-side economics that Republicans have been peddling for decades.
Where Trump’s budget team really got it wrong is in claiming that the tax cuts would both pay for themselves and close the existing budget deficit.
“This is an elementary double count,” Summers writes. “You can’t use the growth benefits of tax cuts once to justify an optimistic baseline and then again to claim that the tax cuts do not cost revenue. At least you cannot do so in a world of logic.”
New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait shoots down one plausible explanation for the error.
“Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake,” he writes.
More: Donald Trump's Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error
A normal person would be embarrassed. I doubt Trump is embarrassed.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,176
- 1,590
You pulled a number out of your ass.
Nope. I linked it. If you have a link with different figures, please feel free to post it.
Your link doesn't say Reagan increased the debt to 65% of GDP.
..which adds an additional explanation of why you believe in voodoo economics. You are blind, as well.
Here you go, moron.
View attachment 128715
Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product
Yep! Same chart as mine. The National debt begins to rise from 35% when Reagan cut taxes, and did not start going down until the Clinton administration in about 1992, when it had reached 65% of the GNP.
Obama's presidency must have been one massive tax holiday then...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 49
- Views
- 514
- Replies
- 69
- Views
- 653
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 144
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 199
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 260
- Views
- 882
- Replies
- 335
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 11
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 511
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8068
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-