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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
569
239
116
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!

We already had this discussion a while ago, but you clearly didn’t learn anything from it.

What you spend money on matters just as much as how much you spend. Investments in infrastructure and technology? Definitely worth it. Spending on social welfare programs? Probably worth it. The military? Probably not worth the huge sums we put into it. Borrowing money to reduce taxes? Definitely not worth it when the economy is strong.

Plus we aren’t doing shit about the really huge economic issue which is rising healthcare costs and have partially dismantled the only program in place to deal with that problem. And we aren’t doing enough about global warming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ns1

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,642
50,876
136
"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).

Can you point us to a tax cut that the Democrats opposed because the rich were not completely excluded from them? I've sure seen a lot of opposition to tax cuts that the rich benefited from far in excess to anyone else but I can't remember any like you describe. In fact, I can think of tax cuts the Democrats themselves implemented which would have benefited the rich. You're arguing against a straw man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Running up big deficits in a depression is smart. Running up big deficits in a healthy economy is dumb.

Right, you use debt to get out of a recession and then pay it back during the boom. But we seem incapable of doing that. We borrow during a recession, and then when the boom comes we say we have money to spare and spend even more.

Honestly, I don't care about 'both sides' it matters not one spit. Even if 'both sides' is true one side needs to be the adults here, and the Republicans completely failed at doing what is supposed to be one of their foundational concepts of being fiscally conservative. Why would supporters of the Republicans support this?

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.

Here is the final analysis of this, Defense spending must be on the table for us to have any hope of reducing the deficit. We can cut entitlements and other projects all day long but as long as we keep putting more and more money into military we are going to keep raising the deficit. As our most recent political financial row clearly shows the Republicans are not willing to even consider cuts to the military and are instead intent on substantially increasing it.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
Here is the final analysis of this, Defense spending must be on the table for us to have any hope of reducing the deficit. We can cut entitlements and other projects all day long but as long as we keep putting more and more money into military we are going to keep raising the deficit. As our most recent political financial row clearly shows the Republicans are not willing to even consider cuts to the military and are instead intent on substantially increasing it.
The problem is, the conservative base sees that as completely unpalatable, and instead sees the US' social programs as the only place to cut spending. They refuse to see the military as a place that has fat to cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
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.

assuming no policy changes, the only time there are significant revenue decreases is when tax revenues fall in recessions. that's when you're supposed to be increasing spending to keep the economy from falling out of gear into a downward spiral.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,580
2,150
146
assuming no policy changes, the only time there are significant revenue decreases is when tax revenues fall in recessions. that's when you're supposed to be increasing spending to keep the economy from falling out of gear into a downward spiral.
This might be true under limited circumstances, but in the long view, Keynesianism causes a permanent divide between revenue and expenditure that encourages poor fiscal discipline. The short-term cure will eventually kill the patient.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,358
8,447
126
This might be true under limited circumstances, but in the long view, Keynesianism causes a permanent divide between revenue and expenditure that encourages poor fiscal discipline. The short-term cure will eventually kill the patient.

the thing that encourages poor fiscal discipline is poor fiscal discipline, such as having a tax cut of 3+ trillion dollars then getting into 2 land wars in asia and passing a big new entitlement without bothering to increase taxes to pay for those 3 things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The problem is, the conservative base sees that as completely unpalatable, and instead sees the US' social programs as the only place to cut spending. They refuse to see the military as a place that has fat to cut.

The section of the Republican Party which calls itself "conservative" is anything but. They're reactionaries, nationalists/nativists, and overly aggressive in foreign and military policy. If anything the non-progressive Democrats are the closest we have to actual conservatives at this point since they're trying to "conserve" the policies of the New Deal (although they fail in the sense that even they want to greatly expand the same in the name of "fairness" and such and could care less about deficit spending and such). The last major politician who can rightfully call themselves conservative in good conscience is probably George H.W. Bush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder 57

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
We already had this discussion a while ago, but you clearly didn’t learn anything from it.

What you spend money on matters just as much as how much you spend. Investments in infrastructure and technology? Definitely worth it. Spending on social welfare programs? Probably worth it. The military? Probably not worth the huge sums we put into it. Borrowing money to reduce taxes? Definitely not worth it when the economy is strong.

Plus we aren’t doing shit about the really huge economic issue which is rising healthcare costs and have partially dismantled the only program in place to deal with that problem. And we aren’t doing enough about global warming.

don't forget the wall. we really need a wall.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,580
2,150
146
Coming up with some kind of reform that would encourage more long-term thinking amongst our representatives seems elusive, maybe impossible. If so, we're doomed to break things completely before they can be fixed. Spending more than we make is deeply culturally ingrained at this point; there's no reason to believe Congress will act differently than the people who elected them.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Coming up with some kind of reform that would encourage more long-term thinking amongst our representatives seems elusive, maybe impossible. If so, we're doomed to break things completely before they can be fixed. Spending more than we make is deeply culturally ingrained at this point; there's no reason to believe Congress will act differently than the people who elected them.

Don't worry, the holders and potential buyers of our debt will handle that task which voters and politicians refuse to do (just as they did for Greece). Sure the government can try to inflate away its debt by issuing more fiat currency but that's no free lunch either as places like Zimbabwe can attest - you can issue all the fiat currency you want but can't force people to accept it for their transactions.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The section of the Republican Party which calls itself "conservative" is anything but. They're reactionaries, nationalists/nativists, and overly aggressive in foreign and military policy. If anything the non-progressive Democrats are the closest we have to actual conservatives at this point since they're trying to "conserve" the policies of the New Deal (although they fail in the sense that even they want to greatly expand the same in the name of "fairness" and such and could care less about deficit spending and such). The last major politician who can rightfully call themselves conservative in good conscience is probably George H.W. Bush.

Oh, please. RR/GHWB quadrupled the debt and much of the GOP base deserted Bush for Ross Perot when he raised taxes.

Clinton nearly tamed deficits but the GOP was having none of that so GWB cut taxes, went to war & doubled the debt again.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

The great thing about tax cuts for the GOP is that folks at the bottom of the heap get nothing out of the deal because they already don't pay federal income tax for the most part. You know, Mitt's 47%.

And despite low taxes for those folks their share of national income fell considerably since 1980 while that of the top 1% doubled to 20% even under their oh so burdensome tax rates.

It's all crocodile tears from the GOP. They've been waging & winning top down class warfare since Reagan. This latest tax plan shows that entirely.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Don't worry, the holders and potential buyers of our debt will handle that task which voters and politicians refuse to do (just as they did for Greece). Sure the government can try to inflate away its debt by issuing more fiat currency but that's no free lunch either as places like Zimbabwe can attest - you can issue all the fiat currency you want but can't force people to accept it for their transactions.

We're not Greece & def not Zimbabwe. The GOP ideal is apparently more like India where gated luxury high rise developments tower over the shanty towns surrounding them. It's one version of progress, anyway.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,580
2,150
146
I have to chuckle when seeing someone immersed in the culture of class warfare decries its practice by others. I guess we all have a log in our eye when it comes to certain things.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Oh, please. RR/GHWB quadrupled the debt and much of the GOP base deserted Bush for Ross Perot when he raised taxes.

Clinton nearly tamed deficits but the GOP was having none of that so GWB cut taxes, went to war & doubled the debt again.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

The great thing about tax cuts for the GOP is that folks at the bottom of the heap get nothing out of the deal because they already don't pay federal income tax for the most part. You know, Mitt's 47%.

And despite low taxes for those folks their share of national income fell considerably since 1980 while that of the top 1% doubled to 20% even under their oh so burdensome tax rates.

It's all crocodile tears from the GOP. They've been waging & winning top down class warfare since Reagan. This latest tax plan shows that entirely.

You forgot to mention Obama had the deficit heading in the right direction...until he renewed Bush's cuts...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I have to chuckle when seeing someone immersed in the culture of class warfare decries its practice by others. I guess we all have a log in our eye when it comes to certain things.

Do I need to quote Warren Buffet? The class warfare we've experienced since Reagan has been completely one sided. The voters don't even understand it in those terms & some adulate the Wealthy entirely. Democracy being what it is if the Middle class had been fighting back at all it wouldn't be the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
Um...he and congress spent a fuck ton of money to get us out of the 2008 crash?

A lot of it was the automatic stabilizers. No one had to do anything.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/automaticstabilizer.asp

"Automatic stabilizers are economic policies and programs designed to offset fluctuations in a nation's economic activity without intervention by the government or policymakers on an individual basis. The best-known automatic stabilizers are corporate and personal taxes, and transfer systems such as unemployment insurance and welfare. Automatic stabilizers are so called because they act to stabilize economic cycles and are automatically triggered without explicit government action."
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
A lot of it was the automatic stabilizers. No one had to do anything.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/automaticstabilizer.asp

"Automatic stabilizers are economic policies and programs designed to offset fluctuations in a nation's economic activity without intervention by the government or policymakers on an individual basis. The best-known automatic stabilizers are corporate and personal taxes, and transfer systems such as unemployment insurance and welfare. Automatic stabilizers are so called because they act to stabilize economic cycles and are automatically triggered without explicit government action."

Yeh, but the money has to be appropriated for them to work. Things were so far into the shitter in 2009 that funding was gone early on. It was bad enough that direct grants were made to States & Munis so that they could keep govt doors open when revenues disappeared.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I also wish he did not do that because it would have been worth it for me and my family to have to stand in a bread line to watch you standing in a bread line.

Yeah. Well, now that Trump has passed tax cuts, we wont see each other again.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,580
2,150
146
Do I need to quote Warren Buffet? The class warfare we've experienced since Reagan has been completely one sided. The voters don't even understand it in those terms & some adulate the Wealthy entirely. Democracy being what it is if the Middle class had been fighting back at all it wouldn't be the way it is.
Topical to this thread, I believe that taxes should be higher, given what voters express about what they want government to accomplish. But that's not quite what you continually argue for, your focus seemingly confined to the demonization of those who have more than most of us. The reason that's such a hard argument to win is that merely having more money and stuff than someone else does not, on its own, make one necessarily culpable for any wrongdoing, nor automatically liable for any special punishment.

The only rational case to be made for squeezing the rich harder is simply because they have it to be squeezed, and that's just not enough of a reason for a lot of people. At some point, an excessively progressive tax structure offends the average person's sense of fairness. It's not all adulation of the rich; principles are involved, whether you agree with them or not.

Don't get me wrong, I have had my share of wtf moments when considering what some of those .01 percenters make, but there's few ways to separate the bad actors from those who just have the magic touch. I'm all for figuring out how to make some of the more parasitical activities less profitable to engage in. Some analysis of how we got here that doesn't merely involve partisan finger-pointing would also be nice, it's not just politics, it's cultural, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG