#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why is the debt under Trump rising so fast?
| Add New Argument |
|
Leftist i pulled this from the National Panhandler Radio website and it is easy to note the blame in the article LMAO !!!!!!!!!! The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Here is The Obama your HERO speaking !!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/ https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/ Did you miss this ???????????? Leftist i pulled this from the National Panhandler Radio website and it is easy to note the blame in the article LMAO !!!!!!!!!! The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Leftist i pulled this from the National Panhandler Radio website and it is easy to note the blame in the article LMAO !!!!!!!!!! The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Tell me about The OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Listen to The Obama LIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, it’s just a small typo of the word question. Normally, any reasonable human being with a firm grasp of English would have realized this was obviously referring to the word question; as there’s really no other possibility. If your literacy is low enough that you didn’t know this; perhaps I should ask my question again so you can understand it: Are running big deficits good or bad? 1
point
This is UNHINGED and your DUM ASS typed it - QUESTIO MARKS LMAO!!!! Is it not true that your hinges are RUSTY and DECREPIT, like the barnacled manacles of LONG DEAD PIRATES?????? Tell us forthwith, have you OILED your CRACK lately, or is the ZZ Top FANATIC still CREAKY and STIFF?? Now i give you BARACK INSANE OBAMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.politifact. https://www.youtube.com/ His DUMB ASS spoke and proves he is ignorant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me help you out with how stupid LEFTIST are !!!! BARACK proves it !!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/ There it is in his own WORDS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have viewed how stupid OBAMA is ??????????????? https://www.youtube.com/ Enjoy LEFTIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
point
Have viewed how stupid OBAMA is ??????????????? https://www.youtube.com/ Enjoy LEFTIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Avram how many lies did OBIE tell ?????????????????? Have viewed how stupid OBAMA is ??????????????? https://www.youtube.com/ Enjoy LEFTIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, I’m an intellectual; as I dont need multiple exclamation marks, question marks. And I can answer basic questions on complex topics without sounding like an unhinged idiot. For example, I can answer the question “are large deficits good or bad”, when asked. I will happily answer that question if you starting doing more than a text equivalent of waving your penis at passers by. So walk us through how you think you sound right now. You have a liberal here that’s making you look like a deranged nut bag: because you repeatedly refuse to do anything but wave your penis at people. It must really annoy you that I’m both smarter, and more able to engage in relevant discussion. What I’ll do from now on; is point out the absurdity of your generalized position: whilst you sound like a petulant idiot smearing feces over his own gave because he thinks it sounds clever. LEFTIST you want to see a deranged nut bag ? I got that information for you !!!!!!!! IDIOT you cannot make this up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/ Rep. Frederica Wilson has no love for social media’s meme-makers and pranksters — she literally wants them prosecuted. The Florida Democrat weighed in on free speech issues this week and told an audience that it should be illegal to mock lawmakers. “Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace,” she said while speaking in Homestead. “We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.” Problem you LEFTIST got is you do not ANYTHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So let’s start off with the actual topic, rather than unhinged ridiculous rants that make you look like an idiot. Deficits can be bad - but are often necessary. It’s okay to run a. Small deficit provided growth and inflation reduce the percentage of debt to GDP: it effectively makes the debt reduce over time even though it does go down numerically. When the debt is accrued is much more of an important aspect: running a deficit in periods of major economic downturns is important to stabilize and boost the economy. Building up a deficit during periods of economy prosperity is not a good idea, as doing so makes it more difficult to react and boost the economy if the economy takes a turn for the worst. Talk about unhinged ridiculous rants well here you have it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rep. Frederica Wilson has no love for social media’s meme-makers and pranksters — she literally wants them prosecuted. The Florida Democrat weighed in on free speech issues this week and told an audience that it should be illegal to mock lawmakers. “Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace,” she said while speaking in Homestead. “We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.” Perhaps you need to use more exclamation marks? That will make you seem less crazy! So moving on; deficits are not great, but they can have a good reason. The main issue Obama had with the Bush Tax cuts was that they were in a period of prosperity, and favoured the rich. The perpetual lie that tax cuts pay for themselves was discovered to be so - and it blew a hole in the budget. Given the issues that, and the various wars, caused economically / limiting the amount of money that could be used to really grow the economy through infrastructure development or lower income tax breaks. That strikes me as a valid objection. What it did mean, is that when the biggest recession in the last since the 1930s hit; the hole in the budget was even larger than it needed to be. Falling tax revenue, increased expenditure on unemployment, the bush tax cuts - and bail out programs were responsible for a majority of the increase in the deficit. Talk about unhinged ridiculous rants well here you have it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rep. Frederica Wilson has no love for social media’s meme-makers and pranksters — she literally wants them prosecuted. The Florida Democrat weighed in on free speech issues this week and told an audience that it should be illegal to mock lawmakers. “Those people who are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace,” she said while speaking in Homestead. “We’re gonna shut them down and work with whoever it is to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted. You cannot intimidate members of Congress, frighten members of Congress. It is against the law, and it’s a shame in this United States of America.” What is it LEFTIST can you not avoid the TOTALITARIAN mindset ????? It gets even better with you DUMB ASSES - the bush tax cufs You dummies cannot help yourself your IGNORANT and you type and prove it !!!!!! Yes: and I corrected it. Feel free to correct my spelling, and I’ll let you know when Noms cock falls out of your mouth. So basically Republicans loved deficits: and handed Obama one of the worst set of economic conditions the US had seen in almost 100 years, a massive deficit that was already growing, and needed to be expanded in order to prevent a recession becoming a depression. The vast majority of the deficit was not related to policy decisions and choices: but specific spending on the bush tax cuts, bailouts, stimulus; increased expenditure for unemployment and depressed income. Despite this, Obama brought down the deficits from 1.4tn to much less. However; Republicans in their habitual hypocracy went from being fine with deficits to whipping their base up with clarion calls about how bad they are. Fiscal conservatives opened and ruminated and voted about how bad the deficits were. And what happened then? 1
point
Listen to The Obama LIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
point
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted. FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated. FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion. FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion. FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion. FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion. FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion. FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion. FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion. https://www.thebalance.com/ Sorry; do you or understand what adjusted for growth, inflation, and relative to estimations mean? Simply posting the same data that I’ve used, with no actual context or analysis is pretty disingenuous. Like I said: absolute growth in income was 0.4% - as per the data. Adjusted for inflation, it fell 1.6%. As a percentage of GDP it fell 3% It was 5.7% lower than was estimated by the CBO. Nothing you posted appears to contradict what I said, unless you don’t understand what I said. Far from disingenuous, raw data with a source is be better than an “if I recall” analysis with no source. This way I won’t be accused of leaving out contextual info such as the .2% real decrease from 15 to 16, or the 1.9% real increase from 17 to 18. You don’t have to worry whether or not I recall because I give you the source data. Disingenuous? Lol! https://www.thebalance.com/ 1
point
Disingenuous? Lol! Everything you ever type is disingenuous. The data rarely shows what you suppose it does and, when it does, it's because you've cherry-picked it for that specific purpose while leaving out a bunch of conflicting data. There's a very good reason why politicians are the ones who "evidence" their claims with statistics and it's because politicians are fucking liars. 1
point
That doesn't seem like what your numbers are showing: 2018: $3,330 - from previous +$14 2017: $3,316 - from previous +$48 2016: $3,268 - from previous +$19 2015: $3,249 - from previous +$228 2014: $3,021 - from previous +$246 2013: $2,775 - from previous +$325 2012: $2,450 The increase from 2017 to 2018 is worse than the increase from 2015 to 2016 (and even worse as a percentage) The change from 2017 to 2018 was twice as bad as from 2015 to 2016 when adjusted for inflation: 2018: $3,330.00 - from previous -$69 2017: $3,398.95 - from previous -$20 2016: $3,419.06 - from previous -$27 2015: $3,445.85 - from previous +$245 2014: $3,201.18 - from previous +$214 2013: $2,986.93 - from previous +$308 2012: $2,679.17 (in 2018 dollars) Federal Revenue: FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted. FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated. FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion. FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion. FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion. FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion. FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion. FY 2013 - $2.77 trillion. FY 2012 - $2.45 trillion. Inflation Rate: 2020-1.9 2019 -1.5 2018 -1.9 2017 -2.1 2016 -2.1 2015 -0.7 2014 -0.8 2013 -1.5 2012 -1.7 Apparently percentages mess up the format. These are the numbers from my sources. 1
point
This source has numbers we seem to agree on, but does not have inflation adjusted numbers. This source only shows the inflation rate for each year. In order to get the inflation adjusted revenue, you would have to multiply the two together. Their source is the BLS which provides a calculator which is what I used and which I think would get us on the same page regarding the numbers. I don’t agree with your math. If you get a wage raise of 3 percent for next year, and inflation is 3 percent by next year, then your real wage increase is 0. If inflation is 2 percent, then you got a real increase of 1 percent. You don’t multiply, you find the difference. The percent increase of tax revenue minus the inflation rate, gives you the real increase in tax revenue. All of this ignores expenditures, which I haven’t looked up yet, but can’t really be ignored if we are talking about deficit spending and debt growth. 1
point
If you make $1,000/wk in 2017 and there is 1.9% inflation, you need to make $1,019/wk to have the same purchasing power. 1.9% is the rate; $1,019 is the inflation adjusted dollars. Your source gives the inflation rate from December 2017 to December 2018 as 1.9% The BLS calculator says 1,000 dollars in December 2017 adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars is $1,019. One gives you the rate, the other uses the rate to calculate the inflation adjusted dollars. Right. Agreed. But here’s the point, this is a debate about the debt under Trump and no one is talking about deficit spending. The numbers I presented showed nominal gains every year with a real revenue decrease over some of those years, including some years under Obama which did not include a tax cut. That’s because there is way more to consider. The following is government real expenditure data I drew from Wikipedia: 2018 - $4,109 trill ($779 billion deficit) 2017 - $3,983 trill ($665 billion deficit) 2016 - $3,895 trill )$585 billion deficit) 2015 - $3,688 trill ($438.9 billion deficit) 2014 - $3,506 trill ($484.6 billion deficit) Trump is spending more. The government is over budget, and that’s not new. As for a tax cut paying for itself;tax cuts don’t cost money, goods and services do. The federal government now has a long history of buying more goods and services than what is paid for by taxes. That fact has not been substantially impacted by the differing tax schemes. But here’s the point, this is a debate about the debt under Trump and no one is talking about deficit spending. Hello A: Deficit spending and running up the debt is what Republicans DO.. It's a feature, not a bug. After they've ROBBED the treasury, it goes bust, and a Democrat is elected to clean up the mess.. He does, and sets the stage for a free spending Republican to replace him.. Wash, rinse and repeat. excon It’s not strange that Republicans would talk the budget talk while over spending. What is strange is that Democrats don’t really talk the talk but they have a better track record. They often talk exactly the wrong kind of talk, but they have a better track record. It’s not a great record by any stretch, or even a good one, just better than the Republicans. 1
point
1
point
You are misreading that a bit. 2017-Revenue: 17.3% of GDP 2017-Outlays: 20.8% of GDP 2017-Deficit: 3.5% of GDP ---------------- 2018-Revenue: 16.5% of GDP 2018-Outlays: 20.3% of GDP 2018-Deficit: 3.8% of GDP ---------------- Deficit doesn't mean the spending, that is outlays/expenditures. Deficit is the result of subtracting the expenditures from the revenue. Outlays went down; deficit went up (because revenue went down.) The 3.983 trillion (20.8 percent) spent in 2017 was a smaller percentage of the GDP than the 4.109 trillion (20.3 percent) spent in 2018 in part because the GDP was larger in 2018. While outlay percentages went down, and real revenue went down (as it has in other years), nominal revenue went up, as did real GDP. Federal revenue for 2019 is estimated to go up substantially under the current tax scheme (as it has in other years), but you will likely find expenditures continue to substantially outweigh revenue and government deficits continue to drive up the debt. This is always the case, regardless of tax schemes which can never be “paid for” any way other than reduced spending. 1
point
because the GDP was larger Which is why deficit as % of GDP requires calculating both revenue and outlays to GDP. and government deficits continue Yes, 2019 will likely have much higher deficits - over 5% of GDP, both because of low revenue and high spending - so everyone will be "right"... unfortunately 'This is always the case' Well, most of the time, but not always of course. Receipts outpaced outlays as % of GDP from 1998 - 2001 and some other years "tax schemes which can never be “paid for” any way other than reduced spending" There are cases where a tax-cut can be stimulative, but it is definitely not the rule. Your link takes me to an error. My quick searching indicates that there is no clear historical evidence one way or the other on the question of tax cuts, and that the answer depends largely on which source you choose. It may also depend on the original tax rate in question, which isn’t consistent over time. An extremely high tax rate undoubtedly stifles economic activity, but it’s not clear at what point from the extreme tax cuts cease to substantially benefit. 1
point
This might be a simpler link for the site to handle: http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ It is the testimony of Mark Zandi (Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics) before the Senate Finance Committee on April 14, 2010 I’m glad that you are very ready to source your position, but there isn’t a quote. This discussion is completely unrelated to anything I have to be doing. So I’m not going to read a dry 9 page economics paper in the hopes of discounting my position. I assume you’ve already read it, so I’ll let you quote or paraphrase the relevant section. If I’ve done this at any point where you would need to see it yourself, please let me know. 1
point
Fair enough. The important part is the "Fiscal Stimulus Bang for the Buck" table which shows some tax cuts/credits which can be stimulative: Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.01 Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.22 Payroll Tax Holiday 1.24 Job Tax Credit 1.30 Across-the-Board Tax Cut 1.02 Stimulative meaning that there is more than a $1 increase in GDP per $1 of cut/credit. For it to fully "pay for itself" from a tax revenue perspective, the cumulative revenue collected from the additional GDP (sales taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, etc.) would still need to exceed $1 - this will be exceedingly rare but possible, so I thought it should be mentioned for completeness. The bang for buck analysis will be different depending on the starting position tax rate. If, for example, taxes were 100 percent, a tax cut would have significant bang for buck. This effect would diminish as the starting position is decreased, so that a 1 percent tax increase from 0 would not have a significant economic impact on GDP. Furthermore, your bang for buck chart appears to be a short run analysis. Policies that hurt in the short run are often beneficial in the long run (ie reducing inflation). 1
point
"As for a tax cut paying for itself;tax cuts don’t cost money" They do directly decrease revenue. And many republicans contend that the decrease in taxation will stimulate the economy enough that taxes on the increased productivity will pay for the direct loss without the need to decrease spending. This has now been shown again to be fallacious. 1
point
'What would it mean to you for the tax cut to “pay for itself”?' At its simplest it would mean that revenue as a % of GDP would not decrease. "By what percentage were overall taxes cut?" There were several pieces to it, see this for a synopsis. In terms of actuality, 2018 shows that revenue from Corporate Income taxes dropped more than 30% while revenue from Individual Income taxes increased > 6%. At its simplest it would mean that revenue as a % of GDP would not decrease. That doesn’t seem reasonable. If it all went exactly as hoped, all else being equal, true tax cuts are necessarily a decreased percent of GDP, whether that stimulates greater revenues or not. In terms of actuality, 2018 shows that revenue from Corporate Income taxes dropped more than 30% while revenue from Individual Income taxes increased > 6%. Individual taxes account for 48 percent of federal revenue while corp taxes account for 9 percent according to the tax policy center. We’ve seen that tax revenues rise and fall when we maintain the same tax scheme as well as when we change it. The questions should be whether (or how) much revenues were (or will be) hindered under the new scheme. It’s not even clear that revenues are the appropriate concern rather than spending. Regardless of other questions, in this case, you’re saying that tax cuts to individuals increased revenue from individuals, while revenue from corporate taxes fell more than 30 percent. Since overall revenue fell by only 1.6 percent in real terms in a world of persistent deficit spending where revenues fluctuate, I’m not sure how much more “paid for” it needs to be, especially if this year goes as estimated. 1
point
"That doesn’t seem reasonable." As far as the definition goes, it is the definition. As to whether it is reasonable to assume that a tax-cut will pay for itself - I think we should generally assume that most will not. The reason Republicans generally try to make the case that tax cuts pay for themselves is to avoid the follow-up question - if it does not pay for itself, are we ok with increasing the debt, or what spending will we reduce? "Individual taxes account for 48 percent of federal revenue while corp taxes account for 9 percent" 2017 Individual: 47.9% - 2018: 50.6 17Corporate: 9.0% - 2018: 6.1% "tax revenues rise and fall" Economies are all complex, but that doesn't mean we can't know anything about a given policy. you’re saying that tax cuts to individuals increased revenue Individual income revenue went from 8.2% of GDP to 8.3% and, it should be noted, the tax plan increased taxes for million by eliminating some deductions (ref) "It’s not even clear that revenues are the appropriate concern rather than spending." as far as deficits go, we should consider both of course. As far as the definition goes, it is the definition. An actual overall tax cut would necessarily be a lower percentage of the GDP. I don’t see how a tax cut is itself the definition of paying for itself, especially when paying for a tax cut is little more than a made up idea to market the cut to opposition. It would be more reasonable if the “paying for itself” was defined as increase in GDP resulting from the stimulated economy produces enough revenue to offset the necessarily lower percentage of GDP. In other words, the smaller portion of the bigger pie is at least as big as the previous bigger portion of the smaller pie. it should be noted, the tax plan increased taxes for million by eliminating some deductions On the whole, were taxes cut or increased? If cut, by how much overall? Economies are all complex, but that doesn't mean we can't know anything about a given policy. I agree, but holding all else equal is a tricky task, and I don’t believe you’ve done it. as far as deficits go, we should consider both of course. I agree. So how much of the 1.6 percent decline in revenue is is because of tax cuts? Were overall tax cuts more or less than 1.6 percent? I think we should generally assume that most will not. I think that’s what some well credentialed economists will tell you. On the other hand, some other well credentialed economists will say different. Since policies that are beneficial in the long run are often harmful in the short run, will this years increased revenue counter your position? 1
point
"the smaller portion of the bigger pie is at least as big as the previous bigger portion of the smaller pie" Yes - this is the basic theory. I should have corrected: "tax cuts are necessarily a decreased percent of GDP" - a tax cut is a reduction in government revenue, not necessarily GDP. "I don’t see how a tax cut is itself the definition of paying for itself" The definition is a tax cut that results in greater future tax revenue. "On the whole, were taxes cut or increased?" On the whole, individual income revenue went from 8.2% of GDP to 8.3%, so it increased. Corporate income taxes went from 1.5% to 1.0% of GDP - more than the total deficit to GDP decline of -.3% "So how much of the 1.6 percent decline in revenue is is because of tax cuts?" The reduction in real corporate income tax revenue (-$98.45B) was nearly double the total real decline (-$54.76B); this was paid for in part by a $63.64B real increase in individual income taxes. "will this years increased revenue counter your position" Revenue as a % of GDP is estimated to fall again in 2019 (from 16.5% to 16.1%) a tax cut is a reduction in government revenue, not necessarily GDP. This is incorrect. A tax cut is necessarily a reduction in the percentage the government takes from GDP. It is a smaller percent of GDP. It is not necessarily a reduction in government revenue. If taxes are cut from 100 percent to 99 percent, government revenue will increase. The definition is a tax cut that results in greater future tax revenue. I would say equal or greater future revenue. Absolute revenue, not revenue as a percentage of GDP. On the whole, individual income revenue went from 8.2% of GDP to 8.3%, so it increased. This isn’t an answer to my question. If tax rates decrease, that’s a tax cut. If the result is increased revenue, it’s still a tax cut. The question again is on the whole, were taxes cut or increased? this was paid for in part by a $63.64B real increase in individual income taxes. You haven’t established that there was an increase in individual income tax, only that there was an increase in revenue. If it truly were “paying for itself” you would expect increased revenue from a tax cut. All you’ve shown is increased revenue in that sector. Revenue as a % of GDP is estimated to fall again in 2019 If revenue itself increases, then the tax cut (percentage of GDP) would be “paying for itself”. Remember, the size of the piece of pie is what matters, not the fact that it’s a smaller percentage of the whole, which is the point. 1
point
The reason Republicans generally try to make the case that tax cuts pay for themselves is to avoid the follow-up question - if it does not pay for itself, are we ok with increasing the debt, or what spending will we reduce? And if it does pay for itself, leftists slime the right and switch topics, or whether they pay for themselves or not, leftists spend like psychopaths and justify it with "you're evil if you don't agree with our overspending".... 1
point
Well yes, of course it’s disengemuous - as it leaves out key contextual information that highlights that the small increase in real terms is actually negative when you apply year on year corrections that are applied to literally all such numbers by economists, and anyone financially budgeting. Finally, it’s 5.7% lower than the amount the Budget office predicted; and the tax cut is clearly not paying for itself - as everyone said if wouldn’t. The if I recall part, is just for the proportion of GDP, it’s in that ballpark, but I’m not interested in digging up the link to double check it. So in this respect what you’re really doing, is cherry picking data out of its appropriate context. 1
point
#s for % of GDP: 2019 Receipts:16.1 Outlays:21.3 Deficit:-5.1 (estimated) 2018 Receipts:16.5 Outlays:20.3 Deficit:-3.8 2017 Receipts:17.2 Outlays:20.7 Deficit:-3.5 2016 Receipts:17.6 Outlays:20.8 Deficit:-3.2 2015 Receipts:18.0 Outlays:20.4 Deficit:-2.4 2014 Receipts:17.4 Outlays:20.2 Deficit:-2.8 2013 Receipts:16.7 Outlays:20.8 Deficit:-4.1 1
point
Providing all the data and the source is hardly cherry picking and is not disingenuous. You might say “what about inflation?” Which isn’t what your whole other post amounted to, though slightly inaccurate. To that I responded by providing all the data for inflation. Providing specific examples that fit your narrative while leaving out other relevant examples is actually cherry picking, not context inclusion. Now I might say to you “what about expenditures?” To which you could respond by providing said relevant data. Or I could if I get around to it. So get back to me with data, or I’ll post it later. But drop the misapplication of fallacy and insult. 1
point
Providing all the data and the source is hardly cherry picking If you provided all the data then why would you be staring at responses from Ramshutu and JustIngoreMe pointing out you are taking specific data out of context from other data? Furthermore, providing only one source is the actual dictionary definition of cherry picking. What you are Amarel, is called full of shit. You are more full of shit than a Christmas turkey pal. So, please review your original post, and the title of this thread. Trump has been increasing the deficit in no small part due to tax cuts that were claimed to mostly pay for yourself. Your response was that tax revenues have been rising. This claim is disingenuous; because it is only rising by one particular measure: the least valid measure when comparing money in two different years. Im not entire sure why you’re accusing me of cherry picking as your data completely agrees with me. When accounting for what money is worth and how much it can buy - and the typical way two years are compared: the first year of the tax cuts revenue fell. Revenue was also 5.7% lower than was expected to be generated by the tax cuts. This is my point - that revenue came up short in almost all meaningful measures. Now, you seem to be making an argument that I am somehow ignoring past data - which is odd as I’m not making any reference or comparison to any past data at all, other than covering your original claim. Whilst the accusation is cute, it’s a complete non-sequitor and largely misrepresentative of what I’ve been saying. I didn’t disagree with your demonstration of real revenues falling in the year of the tax cuts. However, revenues have fallen in years without tax cuts and have increased this year, under the tax cuts. By providing a wider range of data (with sources) I provide comparison. You were right to point out a lack of accounting for inflation. You were wrong to claim data and sources is disingenuous, and you were absurd to pretend a wider view is cherry picking. Also, tax cuts don’t cost anything so they don’t need to be paid for. Goods and services cost. Pretending they need to be paid for is to assume the government is losing something that belongs to it. 1
point
1
point
I don't think it contradicts yours, but here is another reference we can use: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ 2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
Here are the simplest answers to the problems presented in this debate: -The debt is rising so fast because expenditures are greater than revenues. -The real overall tax rate in 2017 was 17.3percent. Which is to say the government taxed 17.3 percent of the GDP. The 17.3 percent tax rate yielded revenue of 3.316 trillion. The real overall tax rate in 2018 was 16.5 percent, and it yielded 3.33 trillion. The tax rate in 2018 was .8 percent lower than the tax rate in 2017 and the revenue was .42 percent higher. All else being equal the Trump tax cut “paid for itself” plus .42 percent. The slightly lower nominal tax rate is yielding slightly higher nominal revenues. But all else is not actually equal, which is why we account for things like inflation and other economic variables. The projected 2019 revenue is 3.44 trill, which is 3.2 percent higher than 2018 and is certain to outpace inflation significantly. Potentially with an even lower actual tax rate. This means that the tax cut pays for itself only nominally in the short run, but pays for itself significantly in real terms in the medium to long run. 1
point
"revenues fell from 16.4 percent in 2018 to 16.3 percent in 2019, remaining below the average (17.4 percent) for the past 50 years." 1
point
0
points
If the economy is so great and tax-cuts pay for themselves, etc. - why is the debt increasing so fast? Because you have a high-maintenance President. Trump requires daily manicures and spray tans, his hair has to be grown in a laboratory and the banquets he serves for the oil and gas junta are stocked with a wide selection of human meats. https://www.gao.gov/keyissues/oilandnaturalgas/issue_summary Interior reported collecting over $55 billion from fiscal years 2011 through 2016 from royalties and other payments. LIMEY have you noticed what i highlighted ???????? And who was the PRESIDENT during those YEARS ???????????????? |
