Bad Math: Trump Budget Off By $2 Trillion

[Lakhota]

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.

 

[Lakhota]

The new Congressional Budget Office analysis looks a lot like the old one.

Twenty-three million fewer Americans would have insurance under legislation that House Republicans narrowly passed last month, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Wednesday.

The agency also predicted the deficit would come down by $119 billion over the next decade ― and that premiums for people buying insurance on their own would be relatively lower than those premiums would be if the Affordable Care Act stays in place.

But the reasons health insurance would be less expensive for some aren’t much to cheer about, the budget report makes clear. Prices would come down for healthy people because those who are sick or have illness in their medical histories would have less access to coverage ― and the policies available on the market would tend to be a lot less comprehensive.

More: 23 Million Fewer Americans Would Have Health Coverage Under Obamacare Repeal Plan, Budget Office Confirms

Trump only cares about fudging the numbers so the rich get massive tax cuts.

 

[idb]

Basic Math and Pre-Algebra for Dummies by Mark T. Zegarelli (2007, Paperback) 470135379 | eBay

 

[Flash]

Really bad math - that asshole Obama spent $10 trillion more than he took in. How dumb was that?

 

[IResist]

You mean the one who didn't know healthcare was so complicated, thought his job would be easier than his old life and he just got back from the Middle East messed up the math in his budget?

I'm shocked.

 

[Vandalshandle]

IN spite of the fact that 24 million Americans would lose their health insurance, Ryan said today that the new health bill meets the GOP goal of reducing the deficit. BTW, nobody in Congress would lose their health insurance with this bill, unless they are so broke that they can't pay higher premiums for Pre-existing conditions..

 

[Indeependent]

IN spite of the fact that 24 million Americans would lose their health insurance, Ryan said today that the new health bill meets the GOP goal of reducing the deficit. BTW, nobody in Congress would lose their health insurance with this bill, unless they are so broke that they can't pay higher premiums for Pre-existing conditions..

And that's why they have to be voted out of office.

 

[Lakhota]

House Democrats See 'Medicare For All' As The Answer To Trumpcare

I agree! Time for single-payer.

 

[debbiedowner]

Not to mention he's included BRAC, base realignment, and closure. How can he build the military by closing bases?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

No one thinks his cuts will create $2 trillion more per year.

A normal person would be embarrassed.

I agree, Daniel Marans is a moron. His editor should be fired.

 

[Norman]

The new Congressional Budget Office analysis looks a lot like the old one.

Twenty-three million fewer Americans would have insurance under legislation that House Republicans narrowly passed last month, the Congressional Budget Office reported on Wednesday.

The agency also predicted the deficit would come down by $119 billion over the next decade ― and that premiums for people buying insurance on their own would be relatively lower than those premiums would be if the Affordable Care Act stays in place.

But the reasons health insurance would be less expensive for some aren’t much to cheer about, the budget report makes clear. Prices would come down for healthy people because those who are sick or have illness in their medical histories would have less access to coverage ― and the policies available on the market would tend to be a lot less comprehensive.

More: 23 Million Fewer Americans Would Have Health Coverage Under Obamacare Repeal Plan, Budget Office Confirms

Trump only cares about fudging the numbers so the rich get massive tax cuts.

So according to the economist who partook in doubling the national debt, there is a mistake?

I am not so sure that this fraud is worth listening to. Clearly he knows less than nothing about balancing the budget.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

More: Donald Trump's Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error

A normal person would be embarrassed. I doubt Trump is embarrassed.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

Aaaaaaaa yeah like you are going to like anything he does. Let me tell you something. If you hate it then it must be good.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Honey! get in touch with our realtor! Tell her that we want to buy the house that sits next to Bill Gates'. Trump's tax cuts are going to expand the economy to such an extent that we will be able to fiance it based on our future income growth expectations!"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Donald Trump’s Budget Makes A Really Basic Numbers Error

 

[Rustic]

House Democrats See 'Medicare For All' As The Answer To Trumpcare

I agree! Time for single-payer.

Washington Redskin, the country cannot afford single payer.

 

[AntonToo]

So just to sum it up - Trump's admin fails at budgeting and Republican big idea is same-ol free lunch bullshit about rich people paying less taxes without any downsides at all.

 

[Flash]

So just to sum it up - Trump's admin fails at budgeting and Republican big idea is same-ol free lunch bullshit about rich people paying less taxes without any downsides at all.

Obama failed big time at budgeting spending ten trillion more than he collected in revenue. That is gross incompetence. That sonofabitch Obama didn't give a shit about the debt that our children have to pay back just so he could provide welfare to the illegals, give money to Muslim countries and subsidies to environmental wackos.

 

[AntonToo]

So just to sum it up - Trump's admin fails at budgeting and Republican big idea is same-ol free lunch bullshit about rich people paying less taxes without any downsides at all.

Obama failed big time at budgeting spending ten trillion more than he collected in revenue. That is gross incompetence. That sonofabitch Obama didn't give a shit about the debt that our children have to pay back just so he could provide welfare to the illegals, give money to Muslim countries and subsidies to environmental wackos.

STFU already about Obama.

I'd set your ignorant ass straight on that but it doesn't even matter, that's not what the thread is about.

Now put your big boy pants on and respond to the topic - Trumps administration committing gross, embarassing, 2 trillion dollar mistake when putting together a budget.

 

[GHook93]

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.

The lines "Obama economic advisor" and the "tax cuts doesn't spur economic growth" are proof the article lacks any shred of credibility or non-bias thought!



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com