34 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Keeping the tax baseline the same isn't an addition, the debt increases due to our unwillingness to cut spending.

It's a factor of both.

Cut taxes if you want, but cut spending accordingly to reduce the deficit.

To cut taxes and increase spending concurrently is reckless. And it's exactly what has happened the last three Republican administrations.

It's not ok. And it's irresponsible to keep voting for it.

2 hours ago, The Norseman said:

The CBO erroneously calls it "spending" because the tax cuts were set to expire. He campaigned on keeping the tax rates static, which he did. The fact that that deficit continues to increase has far more to do with our overruns on entitlements and current interest rates than it does our current tax structure.

When a contract ends it ends and a new contract starts should one choose to go that direction. There is no way you can logically argue that an extension isn't new spending. In any case, the fact remains that the deficit will increase under Trump and you can argue why until the cows come home.

15 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

When a contract ends it ends and a new contract starts should one choose to go that direction. There is no way you can logically argue that an extension isn't new spending. In any case, the fact remains that the deficit will increase under Trump and you can argue why until the cows come home.

Well, its not new spending. In fact, it's not spending at all. And pretending like its some affront to our already out of control spending problem is partisan nonsense. Love it or hate it, he was elected on it and had to deliver.

16 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

It's a factor of both.

Cut taxes if you want, but cut spending accordingly to reduce the deficit.

To cut taxes and increase spending concurrently is reckless. And it's exactly what has happened the last three Republican administrations.

It's not ok. And it's irresponsible to keep voting for it.

Right, Democrats have done such a good job controlling spending and reforming entitlements that they are a much better option.

Just now, The Norseman said:

Well, its not new spending. In fact, it's not spending at all. And pretending like its some affront to our already out of control spending problem is partisan nonsense. Love it or hate it, he was elected on it and had to deliver.

I can agree it isn't "spending" if that makes you feel good. It is most certainly new policy in any case. The old policy terminated.

20 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Right, Democrats have done such a good job controlling spending and reforming entitlements that they are a much better option.

They've done better on reducing the deficit going back to Reagan.

All you're focused on is spending. That's only half the equation when it comes to deficits, and frankly Republicans have not eliminated spending since the early 1990s. They're every bit the spenders Democrats are.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

They've done better on reducing the deficit going back to Reagan.

All you're focused on is spending. That's only half the equation when it comes to deficits, and frankly Republicans have not eliminated spending since the early 1990s. They're every bit the spenders Democrats are.

Very difficult to to stop "spending" when the bulk of it is it's mandatory interest and nobody on either side seems to be invested in legislating a solution. That being said, the numbers don't lie and Republicans have not been good either, I agree.

Interestingly, however, the recent times of deficit reduction seem to have more correlation to a very strong economies than they do anything else. It will be interesting to see how the current strong economy affects the deficit....especially since revenues are projected to improve via tariffs, regulation reduction, low taxes and some onshoring.

13 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Very difficult to to stop "spending" when the bulk of it is it's mandatory interest and nobody on either side seems to be invested in legislating a solution. That being said, the numbers don't lie and Republicans have not been good either, I agree.

Interestingly, however, the recent times of deficit reduction seem to have more correlation to a very strong economies than they do anything else. It will be interesting to see how the current strong economy affects the deficit....especially since revenues are projected to improve via tariffs, regulation reduction, low taxes and some onshoring.

I’d rather see a flat tax on income and very few deductions than a flat tax via VAT.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

I’d rather see a flat tax on income and very few deductions than a flat tax via VAT.

Me too. But accountant's vote and have a strong lobby.

The idea that there is "no new spending" is absurd. ICE is getting 75 billion in new spending. Boarder enforcement in general is getting 170 billion in new spending. Justify it however you want. Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to do to convince yourself it isn't new spending, but it's more spending on things than were spent previously....aka new spending.

26 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Very difficult to to stop "spending" when the bulk of it is it's mandatory interest and nobody on either side seems to be invested in legislating a solution. That being said, the numbers don't lie and Republicans have not been good either, I agree.

Interestingly, however, the recent times of deficit reduction seem to have more correlation to a very strong economies than they do anything else. It will be interesting to see how the current strong economy affects the deficit....especially since revenues are projected to improve via tariffs, regulation reduction, low taxes and some onshoring.

the total number of dollars we'll get from tariffs is still going to be a drop in the bucket compared to other revenue streams. the extension of the tax cut obliterates it.

revenues do not go up when taxes are cut. the Laffer curve is not a line, it's a curve - and just like cutting the price on something will increase sales volume, at some point the cut is past the point of maximizing profits. based on history of tax cuts going back to Bush 43 it's quite clear that tax cuts do not increase revenues at current tax rates.

it worked to some degree for Reagan because the tax rates being cut were much higher. but we've already gotten the most out of it we can and tax cuts now simply cut revenue without returning the growth that offsets the loss.

so as I said: cut taxes if you so desire, but cut spending too - which means entitlement reform, which Republicans show no greater appetite for than Dems.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

The idea that there is "no new spending" is absurd. ICE is getting 75 billion in new spending. Boarder enforcement in general is getting 170 billion in new spending. Justify it however you want. Do whatever mental gymnastics you need to do to convince yourself it isn't new spending, but it's more spending on things than were spent previously....aka new spending.

Nobody said there was no new spending. The argument was about whether keeping the tax code static should be considered spending or not.

And if you're upset about the money we now need to spend on border enforcement, you can thank Joe Biden.

32 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

the current strong economy

Interesting. Did it only become strong recently or was it strong last year too?

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the total number of dollars we'll get from tariffs is still going to be a drop in the bucket compared to other revenue streams. the extension of the tax cut obliterates it.

revenues do not go up when taxes are cut. the Laffer curve is not a line, it's a curve - and just like cutting the price on something will increase sales volume, at some point the cut is past the point of maximizing profits. based on history of tax cuts going back to Bush 43 it's quite clear that tax cuts do not increase revenues at current tax rates.

it worked to some degree for Reagan because the tax rates being cut were much higher. but we've already gotten the most out of it we can and tax cuts now simply cut revenue without returning the growth that offsets the loss.

so as I said: cut taxes if you so desire, but cut spending too - which means entitlement reform, which Republicans show no greater appetite for than Dems.

Tax cuts by themselves may not, but simultaneously slashing regulations and favoring US business might. We shall see.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Interesting. Did it only become strong recently or was it strong last year too?

Has been strong for quite some time. Nobody is assigning soul responsibility to Trump, so you can just calm down.

Just now, The Norseman said:

Has been strong for quite some time. Nobody is assigning soul responsibility to Trump, so you can just calm down.

19 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I never get that one right

53 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Tax cuts by themselves may not, but simultaneously slashing regulations and favoring US business might. We shall see.

we 'slashed regulations' from 2017-2020 purportedly. where were all the new regulations strangling GDP growth under Biden?

what remains to be seen is what the deep cuts to DOL, DOE, and the suspension of much research spend is going to cost us in the long term.

I suspect especially the latter, which is surrendering the US position as the world's foremost nation in research & development and drawing talented individuals from around the world, is going to cost this nation dearly in the coming decades.

but what does Trump care? he won't be here. as always he only cares about right now.

1 hour ago, The Norseman said:

Nobody said there was no new spending. The argument was about whether keeping the tax code static should be considered spending or not.

And if you're upset about the money we now need to spend on border enforcement, you can thank Joe Biden.

Right but it is most certainly "new policy". You agree with that don't you?

59 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

we 'slashed regulations' from 2017-2020 purportedly. where were all the new regulations strangling GDP growth under Biden?

what remains to be seen is what the deep cuts to DOL, DOE, and the suspension of much research spend is going to cost us in the long term.

I suspect especially the latter, which is surrendering the US position as the world's foremost nation in research & development and drawing talented individuals from around the world, is going to cost this nation dearly in the coming decades.

but what does Trump care? he won't be here. as always he only cares about right now.

I love it when you guys rag on the Republicans for not cutting spending but then, when they do, you predict calamity. Worthwhile R&D will happen regardless of how much of our tax dollars the government decides to pump into it.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Right but it is most certainly "new policy". You agree with that don't you?

It's new legislation that is largely a continuation of existing policy. Happy?

so, when does the remainder of trump's great wall get finished? or isn't that so important this time around?

15 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Worthwhile R&D will happen regardless of how much of our tax dollars the government decides to pump into it.

Yes, you rube, but it'll happen slower and at the risk that another country makes discoveries that could've otherwise benefited our own economy including a smoother transition to the private sector when American companies partner with American universities and research firms.

(D)ARPAnet

GPS

MRIs

GLP-1 drugs

Capacitive touchscreens

Etc

All massively important advancements in science and tech, all spawned from research funded by the US government.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yes, you rube, but it'll happen slower and at the risk that another country makes discoveries that could've otherwise benefited our own economy including a smoother transition to the private sector when American companies partner with American universities and research firms.

(D)ARPAnet

GPS

MRIs

GLP-1 drugs

Capacitive touchscreens

Etc

All massively important advancements in science and tech, all spawned from research funded by the US government.

Anything that has potential for profit will develop on its own just fine

18 minutes ago, The Norseman said:

Anything that has potential for profit will develop on its own just fine

Repeating it since you didn't read it the first time:

but it'll happen slower and at the risk that another country makes discoveries that could've otherwise benefited our own economy