Can we get the Obama national debt thingy back at the top of the page?

[kingcat]

Id like to watch as it slows and drops. There's plenty of room.

[CitizenBBN]

As long as we can get it on a graph I'm all for it.

This tax plan is projected to increase the debt by about $1 trillion between now and 2027 (10 years).

During the Obama Administration the debt grew about $8 trillion over his 8 years.

Bush II drew the debt about $5.8 trillion over his administration.

FWIW Clinton was only about $1.4 trillion over his 8 years.

So actually yes we would be watching it slow if we are tracking the tax plan changes, which will add about $100 billion annually to the debt even by CBO estimates, which are pretty notorious for underestimating tax cut effects on the economy.

Basically we're going to spend $100 billion a year to create economic growth.

Obama's initial stimulus package was about $800 billion, to be spent over 3 years, far more than this tax cut will cost the government, and it had pretty mediocre results at best.

This plan will cost a LOT less over the years and will do a lot more to spur real growth and investment.

I'm not happy that it's not offset by spending cuts, I see the debt as a huge problem, but it appears to be all but impossible to cut government spending b/c no one wants to give up their perks or trust the market to handle things.

So given a choice as to how to proceed if we have to spend in the red, I'd rather private companies and individuals be making those decisions than government bureaucrats, so this is the best option on the table.

I also have a host of objections to what is in the tax bill as well, but that's probably a different thread.

[kingcat]

Seriously, it would be interesting to compare over time. This is after all the start of the republican plan.

The stimulus and the cost of maintaining and finally scaling down two wars was unavoidable imo.

The*Dow had fallen to 6,594.44 on March 5, 2009. But by Q4 2009, GDP was up 3.9 percent, and*the Dow*had risen to 10,428.*By 2010, the economy*expanded*2.5 percent.* From whence we had fallen the stimulus at least played a part in turning our economy around.
A nation on the verge of financial collapse and in need of a second stimulus package after the new President takes office. As then president Bush stated when calling for the quick vote on his initial stimulus package. But seriously, I'm not wanting to rehash all of that.

Just don't see the fairness of a world energy production chart under Trump and a national debt widget during the OBama presidency.

But I can live with it. But believe me, I want to see it improve...as we all should

[CitizenBBN]

Both Bush II and Obama were wrong. It isn't a party issue, most people in Washington on both sides think the only way to get the economy going is for the government to spend and do things. the truth is the way to get it going is for the government to get the heck out of the way and lower their burden.

The biggest burden lowering they can do isn't just taxes but the burden of record keeping and compliance and endless regulation and restriction. I'm in a small small business and I could just about keep a full time person busy on nothing but the trappings of regulation. I outsource all the payroll or that would take 100s of hours a year to calculate. big companies have entire departments just to deal with the law and regulations.

that's stimulus. Trump is doing a good bit of that, more than most past Presidents certainly since Reagan, and it's paying off. But he's dragging the GOP tooth and nail with him b/c both parties are entrenched in lobbyists and special interests and corruption.

[KeithKSR]

The Reagan tax cuts got the economy humming along pretty good, once the lowered corporate rates kicked in. I hope they adopt the House bill's corporate rate and timeline.

[dan_bgblue]

New York Sun editorial

[CitizenBBN]

Great article Dan.

Look, there is almost no government entity that really believes in free markets, capitalism, or supply side economics, much less concepts like the Laffer curve. They don't b/c they are the same people who put on all these regulations on the rest of us and then estimate ridiculously low numbers for how long it will take to comply.

Their estimates are very low, esp. on things like repatriation. Our wealthiest companies, Apple, Facebook, etc. have HUGE amounts of money abroad. If they bring that home to invest the government have no problem with revenues.

Hopefully it will produce more net revenue, but even if it doesn't is a pretty solid plan. Not perfect, but a step the right direction.

[Doc]

Lots of things about this that I find interesting.

1) lots of complaining because it doesn't help the lower class. Well consider that only 1/2 of Americans pay federal income taxes, it only seems logical that a federal income tax cut is going to affect the upper 1/2, those that actually pay federal income tax.

2) I find it interesting that when it comes to paying federal income taxes, the talk is percentage but when its cuts the talk is dollars. As as example, we all know the example where the boss pays less taxes than his secretary because boss pays 19% of his taxable income whereas secretary pays 20%...but fail to consider boss's income is far greater dollar wise so the boss pays far more in actual dollars. But when discussing tax cuts, we only talk dollars, not percentages, so the rich guy who is paying far more dollars gets back a bigger amount dollar wise but a smaller amount percentage wise.

3) The purpose of this tax cut is to stimulate economic growth. We saw 8 years of "trickle up" economics where the poor were given stuff for free with the idea that they would spend money and stimulate the economy from the bottom up. It didn't work as evidence of the poor growth rate. Oh, you can try to buffalo me with the "saved the economy" crap but 8 years of Obama's sub 1.5% annual GDP average says is all.

4) The idea that the left would balk at a trillion dollar deficit over 10 years is laughable when they ran up over 9 trillion in 8 years with their give aways. They had everything from cash for clunker to Prison giveaways to Iranian payoffs to climate change...etc. Then add the active push to get people on welfare and other entitlement programs...and suddenly a trillion over 10 years is an outrage. If the hypocrisy wasn't so blatant the faux rage would be funny.

[CitizenBBN]

With you on everything you said Doc.

#4 is funny b/c $1 trillion of possible debt over 10 years would be the cheapest economic growth program in the last quarter century. of course in the end my bet is that the government actually increases revenues over that 10 years but even if it didn't $100 million a year to get from sub 2% growth to 3% would be a boon to the nation.

The plan isn't perfect, but it's the right direction.

For example, while I know that there should be no estate tax from a philosophical standpoint, I'm actually supportive of leaving it where it's at right now b/c it does raise revenues and it doesn't have nearly as negative an impact on investment etc. as things like capital gains taxes. it's just not the highest priority, esp. when we now have $20 trillion in debt to pay off.

But I get why there are forces wanting it changed, so we hammer out a compromise where we're still going in the basically right direction and we move forward.

[Doc]

Plus the government acts like its their money. They ask "how do we pay for this?" IMO its not their money to have to determine how to pay. Its the peoples money and however much the government gets determines how much the government has to spend, so its not a matter of how tax cuts are paid for but rather how does the government spend less. It might be semantics but none the less its how congress looks at things.

[dan_bgblue]

It might be semantics

Extremely important semantics IMO

[KeithKSR]

The $1 trillion debt talk over a decade is all BS. Tax revenues will increase by $300 billion this year, in a bad Obama year revenues increased by $100 billion a year.

[UKHistory]

The $1 trillion debt talk over a decade is all BS. Tax revenues will increase by $300 billion this year, in a bad Obama year revenues increased by $100 billion a year.

A lot of the numbers for this budget were skewed internally.

Many of the estimates the tax bill uses along with the budget disregard expert views within the federal government. I know this for a fact.

That is not to say other economic bills produced by other administrations did not have issues. I just know many of the economic proposals disregard positions of nonpartisan experts.

[UKHistory]

Plus the government acts like its their money. They ask "how do we pay for this?" IMO its not their money to have to determine how to pay. Its the peoples money and however much the government gets determines how much the government has to spend, so its not a matter of how tax cuts are paid for but rather how does the government spend less. It might be semantics but none the less its how congress looks at things.

Debt payments have to be made. So in that regard people have obligations that must be kept.

The largest part of the budget besides debt mgmt deals with entitlements.

Take away social security and Medicaid, the budget looks a lot different.

But the tax cut to the corporations will have limited impact on consumers. Companies won’t lower prices. They won’t. If you are stockholder congrats.

[CitizenBBN]

Companies won't lower prices, but they will be able to invest more readily, and that investment absolutely pays off to consumers.

as for budget estimates, those are and have been jokes for a long, long time. Huge categories like transportation are left "off budget", and no macro-economist can even agree with himself/herself, much less get a bunch of them to agree.

it's a series of constant lies. when Clinton was "balancing the budget" that was a lie too, we had debt as far as the eye could see, we just werent' running it up as fast. Then Bush II came along and spent like a drunken sailor while talking all about being fiscally conservative. It's all just a show.

But the more people keep and the less the government gets, the better.

ANd it will boost the economy, which will help revenues. Is it enough, not enough? Honestly it's all but impossible to get anything like a real number in such estimates. It's about directions and trends more than hard numbers.

There's a lot here I don't like, but our corporate rates and such are far too high to compete in the global market. We have to attract more capital, and this will do it.

[KeithKSR]

A lot of the numbers for this budget were skewed internally.

Many of the estimates the tax bill uses along with the budget disregard expert views within the federal government. I know this for a fact.

That is not to say other economic bills produced by other administrations did not have issues. I just know many of the economic proposals disregard positions of nonpartisan experts.

CBO tends to be notoriously bad at any budgetary economic calculations they do, and often are not close.

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.nysun.com/national/quirk-...urprise/90146/

[CitizenBBN]

http://www.nysun.com/national/quirk-...urprise/90146/

What? Lobbying to get more money funneled through major corporations? Can't believe it. lol.