Well who knew....U.S. budget deficit to balloon on Republican tax cuts: CBO

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
I think the tax cuts would've been fine if the whole Middle East nonsense never happened. Should never have happened to begin with. But a lot of GWB's money was spent on the worst economic crisis since the great depression, too. Obama just continued it it. Everybody loves cuts until it's a cut that effects them.
Did you not see the graphic above with "tax cuts 3 trillion" in it?

Doginhouseburningthisisfine.jpg
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
Yeah, the same kind of idiots that call 99 weeks of unemployment spending an "investment."

Hmm, maybe if it wasn't for the financial meltdown that wouldn't have been needed, eh? But hey, why use your brain when you can be a dumbass?

You really should rethink posting in any thread about government finance because you just expose yourself for being a monumental moron.
 

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,975
4,545
136
Did you not see the graphic above with "tax cuts 3 trillion" in it?

Doginhouseburningthisisfine.jpg

Without the war and the economy tanking it may have been fine. So long as spending were kept under control. The Dems could have ended the tax cuts but there was the whole recession thing going on. It honestly just seems like both sides ares trying to buy votes with spending at this point, country be damned! I'd also like to see a graph made by a right winger that includes Obama's term, since that graph was clearly made by a lefty.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Without the war and the economy tanking it may have been fine. So long as spending were kept under control. The Dems could have ended the tax cuts but there was the whole recession thing going on. It honestly just seems like both sides ares trying to buy votes with spending at this point, country be damned! I'd also like to see a graph made by a right winger that includes Obama's term, since that graph was clearly made by a lefty.

When in doubt, just make up a conspiracy. Why be critical of your "team" when you can be brain dead and just go with your feels.



Context, what righties think is shorthand for text messages from convicts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Thunder 57

Platinum Member
Aug 19, 2007
2,975
4,545
136
Welp, guess we need to start cutting entitlements to get the deficit under control!!

Everything should be on the table. Defense spending, entitlements. Why do you think I called out the F-35? I hate the phrases "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending.

When in doubt, just make up a conspiracy. Why be critical of your "team" when you can be brain dead and just go with your feels.

Context, what righties think is shorthand for text messages from convicts.

So you don't want to post a real answer and just attack the messenger? I posted in another thread that I thought it was dumb to put someone on their ignore list just because they disagree with them. I want to hear all opinions. Someone on this forum who I disagree with on just about everything else made a statement and I agreed with it. It happens; I'm not your "Right Wing Straw Man".

It feels like there are too many braindeads on this forum, who only listen to group-think or their news source of choice. How sad is it that today we have "News for righties" and "News for lefties" instead of just plain news? As I've said before, this country hasn't been so partisan since the 60's.

So, go on, blast away with your next comment on how I must be a rabid Trump supporter. Or, you could just say something like "We disagree on some key points. We agree on many others. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong on those issues we disagree with, but I still think you are a good hearted person.".
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Oh please. GWB accomplished the deed cutting taxes & starting two wars at the same time. Obama did it because we faced the gravest financial crisis since 1929. Trump & the GOP are doing it to satisfy greed at the top.

So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my earlier point "Both sides only care about deficits when it’s being used to fund giveaways to the other side’s pet interest groups." People like you are one step beyond even that and don't even seem to have the mental clarity that you're even doing deficit spending along with being delusional about it being an "investment" instead of just a plain old expense/transfer payment.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,095
37,303
136
So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?

You spend like this when you're in a crisis not when you're, probably, near/at the top of an economic cycle. That's how you keep a recession from becoming a major depression and shorten the time to start recovering. What the GOP is doing is stupid, greedy, and will ultimately be harmful if we are actually in need of stimulus but have blown out the fiscal picture leaving few good tools in the box to counteract.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
You spend like this when you're in a crisis not when you're, probably, near/at the top of an economic cycle. That's how you keep a recession from becoming a major depression and shorten the time to start recovering. What the GOP is doing is stupid, greedy, and will ultimately be harmful if we are actually in need of stimulus but have blown out the fiscal picture leaving few good tools in the box to counteract.

Don't try to explain that to brain dead Glenn (it's been tried over and over and over and over)....he'll simply ignore it, be befuddled by it and ignore it, or ignore it and continue his spewing of verbal diarrhea without a clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You spend like this when you're in a crisis not when you're, probably, near/at the top of an economic cycle. That's how you keep a recession from becoming a major depression and shorten the time to start recovering. What the GOP is doing is stupid, greedy, and will ultimately be harmful if we are actually in need of stimulus but have blown out the fiscal picture leaving few good tools in the box to counteract.

So it's kinda like eating extra desserts at Thanksgiving where people try to justify it to themselves that because it's a holiday "the calories don't count"?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my earlier point "Both sides only care about deficits when it’s being used to fund giveaways to the other side’s pet interest groups." People like you are one step beyond even that and don't even seem to have the mental clarity that you're even doing deficit spending along with being delusional about it being an "investment" instead of just a plain old expense/transfer payment.
You spend to stimulate the economy when the economy needs to be stimulated, not when the economy is near the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
"Deficits don't matter" is a republican argument, started by Dick Cheney.
And repeated by both parties since...depending on who's in power.

My favorite hypocrite on this particular issue is Krugman who flip-flopped in a matter of 8 weeks...doing so one week after Trump was elected. Impeccable timing!
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
So because it's for something progressives like (such as unemployment) the deficit spending doesn't count? Did the people who own that debt make a special agreement with you that it doesn't need to be repaid, "oh because I lent the money during the 'gravest financial crisis since 1929' then don't worry about paying it back"?

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my earlier point "Both sides only care about deficits when it’s being used to fund giveaways to the other side’s pet interest groups." People like you are one step beyond even that and don't even seem to have the mental clarity that you're even doing deficit spending along with being delusional about it being an "investment" instead of just a plain old expense/transfer payment.

It’s more like one type of expenditure is in line with the theory of economics that was shown to be substantially correct over the last ten years and the other is in direct opposition to it. You really need to get past the team/tribal aspect of this and start looking at it in a ‘smart/dumb’ sense. Running up big deficits in a depression is smart. Running up big deficits in a healthy economy is dumb.

Conservatives either don’t understand economics or value tribal identity and tax cuts for rich people more than economic effectiveness. That’s why conservatism has become the ideology for stupid people.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Don't try to explain that to brain dead Glenn (it's been tried over and over and over and over)....he'll simply ignore it, be befuddled by it and ignore it, or ignore it and continue his spewing of verbal diarrhea without a clue.

He's a firm believer in the FYGM ideology of the GOP. Never mind that Dems' pet interest group during the financial crisis was families threatened with homelessness while the GOP was most concerned with the welfare of guys like Mnuchin buying distressed assets for a song.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
I think the tax cuts would've been fine if the whole Middle East nonsense never happened. Should never have happened to begin with. But a lot of GWB's money was spent on the worst economic crisis since the great depression, too. Obama just continued it it. Everybody loves cuts until it's a cut that effects them.

The tax cuts weren't fine at all when Reagan did it and without catastrophic wars to pay for. Why do you make an excuse of war expenses to defend Bush's equally failed tax cuts?
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,580
2,150
146
I'm not on the Republican side of this particular tax cut issue, even though I favor, in theory, as lean a government as practical. Historically, either one party or the other will abdicate part of their responsibilities whenever fiscal matters come up for a vote. "Bothsides" are responsible, despite the sneering dismissal here of the concept that we ALL share responsibility for the well-being of our nation. If spending increases are inevitable, it's imperative not to decrease taxes (talking to you, Republicans) and if revenue decreases are inevitable, it's imperative not to increase spending (talking to you, Democrats). But each side works to accomplish the most achievable part of their goals in direct opposition to the other, which has the unhappy consequence in fiscal policy of maximizing negative consequences. What this is in practice is deliberate self-destructive behavior akin to a scorched earth policy, and it's only going to get worse.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
So it's kinda like eating extra desserts at Thanksgiving where people try to justify it to themselves that because it's a holiday "the calories don't count"?
glenn1: not an economist, not even pretending to be one
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
I'm not on the Republican side of this particular tax cut issue, even though I favor, in theory, as lean a government as practical. Historically, either one party or the other will abdicate part of their responsibilities whenever fiscal matters come up for a vote. "Bothsides" are responsible, despite the sneering dismissal here of the concept that we ALL share responsibility for the well-being of our nation. If spending increases are inevitable, it's imperative not to decrease taxes (talking to you, Republicans) and if revenue decreases are inevitable, it's imperative not to increase spending (talking to you, Democrats). But each side works to accomplish the most achievable part of their goals in direct opposition to the other, which has the unhappy consequence in fiscal policy of maximizing negative consequences. What this is in practice is deliberate self-destructive behavior akin to a scorched earth policy, and it's only going to get worse.
Are both sides still responsible when only one side controls all levels of government?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm not on the Republican side of this particular tax cut issue, even though I favor, in theory, as lean a government as practical. Historically, either one party or the other will abdicate part of their responsibilities whenever fiscal matters come up for a vote. "Bothsides" are responsible, despite the sneering dismissal here of the concept that we ALL share responsibility for the well-being of our nation. If spending increases are inevitable, it's imperative not to decrease taxes (talking to you, Republicans) and if revenue decreases are inevitable, it's imperative not to increase spending (talking to you, Democrats). But each side works to accomplish the most achievable part of their goals in direct opposition to the other, which has the unhappy consequence in fiscal policy of maximizing negative consequences. What this is in practice is deliberate self-destructive behavior akin to a scorched earth policy, and it's only going to get worse.

"Bothsides" are going to oppose on principle any policy changes that are key elements of the other party's philosophy regardless of their intrinsic policy worth (which is generally zero or close to it). I.e. Democrats will basically always oppose tax cuts unless "the rich" are completely excluded from them, and Republicans will basically always oppose higher spending unless it's to benefit the military or other favored groups. Effectively the only time we've had significant reductions in spending is Dem POTUS and GOP Congress. In rough order of best to worst, overspending habits are most limited with Dem POTUS/GOP Congress, then GOP POTUS/Dem Congress, then Dem control of both, and finally GOP control of both. Giving unified control of government to either party is disastrous as they tend to proclaim they have a mandate to engage in the "investments" which have been long delayed due to previously unfavorable economic conditions (regardless of current or future expected conditions).