Hillary's budget -- balanced. Trump's budget -- $15 trillion of debt.

mamooth

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2012
36,548
19,842
1,915
Indianapolis, Indiana
If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---
 
Actually make that tax and spenders but we paid for it except for current deficits we are running which will get worse as Ocare implodes....got a plan for that....didnt think so
 
The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?
 
The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?
Which of course is why he ran up more debt
 
If your goal is record-shattering expansion of deficits and debt, Trump is your man!

Finding A Politician Who Would Pay For What She Promises
---
You don’t have to like the new government programs she’s proposing (a collection of new spending and tax credits aimed at addressing a long list of kitchen table issues). And you don’t have to like how she’d pay for it all (almost entirely by raising taxes on high-income households and businesses). You might be discouraged at her lack of interest in tax reform. And you might wish that she’d acknowledge the need to reduce the federal debt, not just stabilize it.

Still, in an election season when other candidates think nothing of adding trillions of dollars to the debt, Clinton’s agenda seems…almost frugal.

The contrast to her opponents is stunning. Clinton would add about $200 billion to the debt over 10 years, a rounding error in budget-world.
---

Adding Up Donald Trump’s Campaign Proposals So Far
---
The most costly proposal on Mr. Trump’s website is his tax plan. Three different outside groups – Citizens for Tax Justice, the Tax Policy Center, and the Tax Foundation – have estimated the net effect of Trump’s plan. Although all three organizations had to make a number of assumptions about the plan due to insufficient detail, they all came to similar conclusions about cost. Before accounting for economic impact, the three organizations estimated ten-year costs of $12 trillion, $9.5 trillion, and $12 trillion respectively. With “dynamic scoring” that accounts for potential economic feedback and assumes an 11.5 percent increase in GDP after a decade, the Tax Foundation estimated a cost of $10.1 trillion. After accounting for interactions with the most recent tax extenders deal, and absent more details, our best estimate is that Mr. Trump’s tax plan will cost between $9.5 and $11.9 trillion over a decade.

Adding these two proposals together and including the interest costs, we find that the total cost would be $11.7 trillion to $15.1 trillion over ten years.
---

So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?
 
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

We take in $3.3 Trillion
And spend $3.8 Trillion.......

Oh yeah and Obama has nothing to do with it.....
That old gag....

Obama laughing.jpg
 
The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?


We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits.

The deficits created by the Democratic controlled Congress?

TARP was a one time deal, wasn't it?

TARP is what put the deficit over a trillion, and it stayed over a trillion til the pubs took back the House, dropped even more after they took over the Senate.

Where have you been?

Where have YOU been?
 
So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

That's your scenario, and the obviously problem with it is how it's refuted by the real world. None of what you describe ever happens. We're dealing with reality here, not your supply-side fantasies. In reality, there's no shortage of investment capital, so having more is pointless. In reality, economies are demand-driven. More supply won't matter if nobody can buy anything. If there's more demand, the supply will follow.

Of course, supply-side fails in theory as well as practice. Cutting taxes means more deficits, which are financed by selling T-bills, which are bought by rich people with the money they saved in tax cuts. That is, no new investment capital is created by the tax cuts; it's just a paper-transfer of wealth to the rich.
 
Libs are fiscal conservatives again.......LLMMAAOOOOOO where have ya been the last 8 yrs

liberals have always been better at money management than the cut taxes for rich people right.

amazing what you tolerate just to get G-d guns and gays.

as to the last 8 years... .there should have been a lot more spending to bring the economy back to where it was before the right broke it. but wingers don't believe in governing. they believe in corporate welfare and screwing working people.
 
After Hilly puts frackers ou
Libs are fiscal conservatives again.......LLMMAAOOOOOO where have ya been the last 8 yrs

liberals have always been better at money management than the cut taxes for rich people right.

amazing what you tolerate just to get G-d guns and gays.

as to the last 8 years... .there should have been a lot more spending to bring the economy back to where it was before the right broke it. but wingers don't believe in governing. they believe in corporate welfare and screwing working people.

but....but libs have been telling me the economy is back.......except for the Bern.........I know what will help...when Hilly puts the frackers out of businees and jacks energy rates thru the roof then the economy will really be roaring
 
Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion deficit. It was down to $439 billion in 2015.

deficit_chart_benen-300x173.jpg


I can see why conservatives don't want to talk about that. Similarly, none of them wants to talk about Trump's proposed deficits.
 
So you raise taxes on the rich, they invest less, employment goes down as they reduce workforce and slow hiring, and bam, surpluses!

What's wrong with your scenario? Any idea?

That's your scenario, and the obviously problem with it is how it's refuted by the real world. None of what you describe ever happens. We're dealing with reality here, not your supply-side fantasies. In reality, there's no shortage of investment capital, so having more is pointless. In reality, economies are demand-driven. More supply won't matter if nobody can buy anything. If there's more demand, the supply will follow.

Of course, supply-side fails in theory as well as practice. Cutting taxes means more deficits, which are financed by selling T-bills, which are bought by rich people with the money they saved in tax cuts. That is, no new investment capital is created by the tax cuts; it's just a paper-transfer of wealth to the rich.

Actually empirical data does show it happens. I am a business owner, when you take my money, I have less to put into the business. And I'm not going to cut back my lifestyle, I'm going to cut back yours
 
Last edited:
Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion deficit. It was down to $439 billion in 2015.

deficit_chart_benen-300x173.jpg


I can see why conservatives don't want to talk about that. Similarly, none of them wants to talk about Trump's proposed deficits.
More debt than Bush...feel free to discuss his failure
 
Libs are fiscal conservatives again.......LLMMAAOOOOOO where have ya been the last 8 yrs

liberals have always been better at money management than the cut taxes for rich people right.

amazing what you tolerate just to get G-d guns and gays.

as to the last 8 years... .there should have been a lot more spending to bring the economy back to where it was before the right broke it. but wingers don't believe in governing. they believe in corporate welfare and screwing working people.
Yep.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
I remember Obama saying Bush's spending made him unpatriotic. Well with Obama's spending record proves by his own words. He hates america, he has outspent all presidents combined. Hillary supports Obama, so her presidency would be the same.
 
The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?
The decficit is higher now than in 7 out of 8 of Bush's years.
As usual you're either grossly lying or egregiously ignorant. Which is it?
 
The last 8 years? We've been watching Obama knock down Bush's deficits. Where have you been?

It's always the same old story. Republicans pile on the deficits, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

However, please try on the thread topic, not past Republican debt creation. Are you thrilled with Trump's plan for more debt?

I guess you didn't get the memo, Obama has doubled the national debt in a mere 7 years.
 
As usual, all the conservatives are hating hard on Obama for steadily reducing the $1.4 trillion deficit Bush handed him.

Obviously, that's why they all adore Trump. They actively want the same type of colossal deficit that Bush handed off to Obama, and Trump has promised them just that.

Sadly for them, I don't think the rest of the USA is going to be thrilled with the Trump massive deficit plan.
 

Forum List

Back
Top