The GOP abandons any claim to deficit hawk

[bendog]

Not Jeb Rubio or Trump

GOP field: Tax cuts for all, don't worry about consequences

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - all dat means is we ain't as broke as we was - but we still broke...

U.S. fiscal year budget deficit narrows to $439 billion
Thu Oct 15, 2015 - The U.S. budget deficit narrowed to $439 billion in fiscal 2015, the lowest level since 2008, as the economy continued to recover from the financial crisis and revenue growth outpaced a rise in spending, the Treasury Department said on Thursday.

The 2015 deficit fell to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest since 2007 and less than the average of the last 40 years. Last year's deficit was $483 billion, with a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 2.8 percent. Accounting for calendar adjustments, the 2015 fiscal year deficit was $445 billion. Fiscal 2015 revenues grew 8 percent to $3.249 trillion, while outlays rose 5 percent to $3.688 trillion. The shrinking deficit is a marked change from the $1 trillion-plus annual deficits the U.S. government reported from fiscal 2009-2012 when it ramped up spending to deal with the effects of the financial crisis.

Congressional leaders and the White House have been holding closed-door talks on reaching a two-year budget deal. They face a Dec 11. deadline, when current funding for federal agencies expire. Republicans want the budget negotiations to eliminate strict budget caps on defense programs, while Democrats want to kill the caps for defense and other domestic programs. Congress also faces an impending debt ceiling deadline. The Treasury said earlier on Thursday that the U.S. government will exhaust its borrowing capacity no later than Nov. 3, two days earlier than its previous estimate. Raising the debt limit is a controversial issue for conservative Republicans. They want to extract deep reductions in domestic spending over the long term before allowing an increase in government borrowing.

For September, the Treasury recorded a budget surplus of $91 billion, down from a $106 billion surplus a year ago. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast a $95 billion surplus for last month. Receipts in September totaled $365 billion, up 4 percent from the same month in 2014, while outlays were up 12 percent to$274 billion. A Treasury official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters that receipts last month were dampened by a difference in the composition of business days. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has forecast a $414 billion deficit for fiscal 2016, and continues to warn that increasing federal debt levels are unsustainable over the long term.

U.S. fiscal year budget deficit narrows to $439 billion

See also:

White House says U.S. makes progress in cutting its deficit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not Jeb Rubio or Trump

GOP field: Tax cuts for all, don't worry about consequences

Why didn't Obama raise taxes to 90% to end the deficit?

 

[Stephanie]

what the heck kind of title is that?

You people are seriously going to bitch about them giving our MONEY to we the people? they can cut a worthless government agency like the EPA, DOE, BLM, etc to PAY FOR IT if that's your worries .

my gawd seriously. omg they can't give us our money back. how would BIG GOVERNMENT survive. the hell with you little taxpayers

 

[g5000]

Not Jeb Rubio or Trump

GOP field: Tax cuts for all, don't worry about consequences

A massive lie of omission. Allow me to illustrate with an example from your link:

With his trademark showmanship, Trump vowed to remove families making less than $50,000 from the tax rolls and allow them to send the IRS a single-page form declaring "I win!"

Now, you all have heard me time and again talking about how we spend $1.2 trillion a year on tax expenditures, and that if we eliminated tax expenditures, we would have an $800 billion surplus, among other benefits.

You can put that $800 billion surplus toward lowering tax rates for EVERYONE. (I always say EVERYONE in all caps when I talk about this.)

You can also put some of the surplus toward paying down the debt, and once the debt is paid off, you can lower tax rates for EVERYONE even more.

You've heard me say this all before.


Okay. Now to Trump's plan. A "single-page" form.

I have pointed out several times on this forum that at least three candidates have promised a "single-page" tax form. Trump, Cruz, and Rand.

I have also pointed out there is only one way to achieve a single-page tax form. Do you recall how?

By eliminating all tax expenditures.

And that would do what, class? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

It would provide an $800 billion surplus, which could then be used to provide those Trump tax cuts.

 

[g5000]

We currently spend $1.2 trillion on tax expenditures, and had a $426 billion deficit.

$1.2 trillion - $426 billion = $774 billion surplus, give or take.

I expect with the leveling of the playing field which is currently horribly tilted, that would vastly improve the economy, and therefore improve revenues.

 

[bedowin62]

can you believe these are the very same left-wing idiots that love to remind you that billions of the obama Stimulus were tax cuts?


can you believe these are the very same left-wing nutjobs that forget obama made 95% of the Bush tax cuts permanent?

can you believe these losers want to know how tax cuts will be paid for but not for the trillion dollar programs the espouse/??

 

[bendog]

I don't think there's any doubt that by removing tax credits that go to some but not all, we would be able to reduce the deficits and lower rates overall. And, as a matter of economic orthodoxy, removing non-market-based incentives affecting the behavior of individuals would increase growth. But, none of the gop candidates actually suggest that. Instead, all of their proposals increase deficits and the higher earners gain most of the spoils.

 

[g5000]

I don't think there's any doubt that by removing tax credits that go to some but not all, we would be able to reduce the deficits and lower rates overall. And, as a matter of economic orthodoxy, removing non-market-based incentives affecting the behavior of individuals would increase growth. But, none of the gop candidates actually suggest that. Instead, all of their proposals increase deficits and the higher earners gain most of the spoils.

By promising single-page tax forms, they are promising to eliminate all tax expenditures.

At most, you will see in their plans a lump sum deduction to which everyone will be entitled. But that just a stupid game to make the rubes think they are getting something for nothing. It's as if I was going to tax you two beans, but then I give you ten beans and tax you twelve beans.

 

[Dot Com]

We currently spend $1.2 trillion on tax expenditures, and had a $426 billion deficit.

$1.2 trillion - $426 billion = $774 billion surplus, give or take.

I expect with the leveling of the playing field which is currently horribly tilted, that would vastly improve the economy, and therefore improve revenues.

There is a prerequisite- Repubs have to work w/ the opposing party to get the votes to get it done. How likely is that given their track record over the past 30 yrs

EVERYONE agrees that the corrupt tax laws need to be repealed. the question is- will repubs play along given they wont get 10,000% of what they want?

 

[g5000]

I can guarantee you one thing. This is a promise as strong as the gravitational pull of the sun.

The special interests will NEVER allow a President or a Congress to eliminate all tax expenditures.

And Trump and Cruz and Rand know this. So they are just another batch of asshole politicians putting on theater for the rubes.

 

[g5000]

As a matter of fact, that's what every deduction, exemption, and credit is. The government was going to tax you two beans, but gave you ten beans and taxed you twelve beans.

Tax expenditures are paid for with higher tax rates. It is other people's money.

 

[g5000]

There is a prerequisite- Repubs have to work w/ the opposing party to get the votes to get it done. How likely is that given their track record over the past 30 yrs

Well, there's the rub.

The Democrats won't want to put the $800 million surplus toward lower tax rates or toward paying down the debt.

They will want to spend it.

 

[Timmy]

Did they even talk about the deficit in the last GOP debate ?

They talked about expanding the military and building a wall with Mexico . No one mentioned the costs .

 

[bendog]

I don't think there's any doubt that by removing tax credits that go to some but not all, we would be able to reduce the deficits and lower rates overall. And, as a matter of economic orthodoxy, removing non-market-based incentives affecting the behavior of individuals would increase growth. But, none of the gop candidates actually suggest that. Instead, all of their proposals increase deficits and the higher earners gain most of the spoils.

By promising single-page tax forms, they are promising to eliminate all tax expenditures.

At most, you will see in their plans a lump sum deduction to which everyone will be entitled. But that just a stupid game to make the rubes think they are getting something for nothing. It's as if I was going to tax you two beans, but then I give you ten beans and tax you twelve beans.

He does not propose to eliminate all tax expenditures, and only the bottom 1/4 or so has a single page form.

Tax Reform

And that's only referencing his own, less than detailed, proposal.

The only guy with any deficit cutting was Kasich.

 

[bendog]

There is a prerequisite- Repubs have to work w/ the opposing party to get the votes to get it done. How likely is that given their track record over the past 30 yrs

Well, there's the rub.

The Democrats won't want to put the $800 million surplus toward lower tax rates or toward paying down the debt.

They will want to spend it.

And there's the pity that Boehner didn't have the stones to bring to the floor a bill raising taxes a dollar for three dollars in cuts, with no increased in any personal or corp rate.

 

[guno]

what the heck kind of title is that?

You people are seriously going to bitch about them giving our MONEY to we the people? they can cut a worthless government agency like the EPA, DOE, BLM, etc to PAY FOR IT if that's your worries .

my gawd seriously. omg they can't give us our money back. how would BIG GOVERNMENT survive. the hell with you little taxpayers

them giving our MONEY to we the people?

You don't work or pay taxes, you live of the gob'ment dole, you told us this already, so save your fake indignation

 

[g5000]

Did they even talk about the deficit in the last GOP debate ?

They did, but no one talked about how they would fix it.

KASICH: Listen, you know, I - if I were sitting at home and watching this back and forth, I would be inclined to turn it off. I mean, people at home want to know across this country, they want to know what we're going to do to fix this place, how we'll balance a budget, how we're going to create more economic growth, how we'll pay down the debt. What we're going to do to strengthen the military.

 

[bendog]

Did they even talk about the deficit in the last GOP debate ?

They did, but no one talked about how they would fix it.

KASICH: Listen, you know, I - if I were sitting at home and watching this back and forth, I would be inclined to turn it off. I mean, people at home want to know across this country, they want to know what we're going to do to fix this place, how we'll balance a budget, how we're going to create more economic growth, how we'll pay down the debt. What we're going to do to strengthen the military.

Well, to be fair, while I don't think any of their proposals come close to even being deficit neutral or provide real benefit to the middle class, if we're just talking about some deal to cut the deficit it has to be bipartisan. Back in 92, the debate was going along the lines "we cut spending 3-5% and index any future increases to less than gain in Gnp and raise revenues by 1-3% and leave those increased intact, even as the econ grows, until the budget's balanced."

As I recall, Kasich wanted much deeper cuts, but in the end it worked ..... until W.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Trump initially hinted he might buck conservative economic orthodoxy and raise taxes on the wealthy. But he ended up releasing the most aggressive tax cut of all candidates to date.

The Tax Foundation, which favors lower taxes, estimated that his plan would increase the deficit by $12 trillion. The foundation found more than one-fifth of the plan's benefit would accrue to the top 1 percent of income earners.”

“Conservative economic orthodoxy” is actually conservative economic idiocy.