Deficit spikes 41 percent in first quarter of fiscal year.

[Reservoir Dog]

Trump's tax plan is working out really swell.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4243 ... xqEXSV-Yu0

[Charliesheen]

I thought revenues were coming in at record rates.

[Wut]

Amazing how crumbs add up to that much

Some crumbs are bigger than others.

[Wut]

It's the Democrat's fault with a Republican president and Congress?

[Wut]

And revenues were down in 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/busi ... venue.html

[Wut]

Oh then your reference to libs in your prior post makes perfect sense.

[Wut]

Apparently your Republican party has a problem with it as well yet you left them out of your criticism.

[spudoc]

Oh then your reference to libs in your prior post makes perfect sense.

When it comes to not understanding revenue streams? Absolutely

If there is one thing that I have learned in my years at Uj and Ujref it is that your grasp of anything to do with money, be it taxes, the markets or even the most basic of economic concepts, is extremely shaky.

[Reservoir Dog]

It's the Democrat's fault with a Republican president and Congress?

And a Republican tax plan.

[AnalHamster]

Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.

[Charliesheen]

No excuse for deficit spending when the economy is growing. Government is the enemy, as are both parties.

[AnalHamster]

Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.

You do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?

Yes, about 1%, i.e. less than inflation and therefore a revenue cut in real terms. But regardless, can you grasp that they are lower than they'd have been without the cuts? There is in fact significantly less revenue? It is the purpose and point of a tax cut.

[Reservoir Dog]

Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.

You do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?

Holy shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?

[AnalHamster]

Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.

You do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?

Holy shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?

Moron.

That's what you'd be to deny the simple fact he just stated, yes. The conservative propaganda orthodoxy that any and all tax cuts raise growth so much as to instantly pay for themselves, or even fully pay for themselves is demonstrably bullshit.

[Reservoir Dog]

Seems to be part of the propaganda matrix the dumber righties fall for, that revenue raising is not a key part of the equation.

You do understand that revenues are higher now than before the trump cuts, right?

Holy shit, dude! You do realize that if the government cuts taxes, then the government makes LESS revenue? Right?

Moron.

The corporate entities that do everything in their power in order to pay LESS taxes ... are STILL doing everything in their power to pay LESS taxes even after getting a TAX CUT from the Republican tax plan.
What part of that don't you understand?

[AnalHamster]

It hasn't grown steadily since the 70s. As a share of GDP it grew in the 80s because Reagan cut taxes and spent more on the military, then it dropped in the 90s because taxes increased and military spending decreased, while the economy boomed. Then came the Bush tax cuts sending it up again, the 08 crisis sending it way up, and now the trump tax cuts. Meanwhile spending as a share of GDP has fairly consistently increased since the 50s, with just one sustained dip in the 90s due to the boom and a continuing curve up outside that due to the baby boomers retiring.

[spudoc]

Oh then your reference to libs in your prior post makes perfect sense.

When it comes to not understanding revenue streams? Absolutely

If there is one thing that I have learned in my years at Uj and Ujref it is that your grasp of anything to do with money, be it taxes, the markets or even the most basic of economic concepts, is extremely shaky.

For example or nah?

Do I really have to give examples or can we just use this thread where you are demonstrating a high level of misunderstanding of how tax rates affect revenue streams?

[AnalHamster]

I heard steel prices wouldn't go up and Apple was a great investment as a hedge against the china trade war.

[spudoc]

I heard steel prices wouldn't go up and Apple was a great investment as a hedge against the china trade war.

There was that and then the whole "Britain's economy will not be negatively affected by Brexit"
It's like a "Biker's Greatest Hits" album

[AnalHamster]

I heard steel prices wouldn't go up and Apple was a great investment as a hedge against the china trade war.

There was that and then the whole "Britain's economy will not be negatively affected by Brexit"
It's like a "Biker's Greatest Hits" album

Wrong. I said steel prices would go up but that it would result in a net positive. And it did

I'm pretty sure you said any spike in steel prices would have no effect because every single consumer bought six months in advance, and when I pointed out that this would be a rolling thing with different companies having different dates for placing their 6 monthly reorders, if it were even true which it wouldn't be, you ran away.

There has been a net negative for the simple reason I pointed out at the time, for the same reason there was last time when Bush tried it, more businesses consume than produce steel, by a very large margin. The positive has been for steel producers, who have put their prices up. The negative has been for steel consumers, who have paid more. The net effect has been negative, because there are a lot more businesses consuming steel and aluminium than there are producing it.

[AnalHamster]

It hasn't grown steadily since the 70s. As a share of GDP it grew in the 80s because Reagan cut taxes and spent more on the military, then it dropped in the 90s because taxes increased and military spending decreased, while the economy boomed. Then came the Bush tax cuts sending it up again, the 08 crisis sending it way up, and now the trump tax cuts. Meanwhile spending as a share of GDP has fairly consistently increased since the 50s, with just one sustained dip in the 90s due to the boom.

While you are not wrong in that the Reagan era really turned up the debt machine, the cycle started in the 70's- tax payer funded bailouts of New York, Lockheed Martin, Unity Bank and others started the true debt cycle that we live in today. Once big business and government got a taste of this, they ran with it.

Clinton's budget looks great on paper, but he never really had a surplus*; the core of the issues in our economy were never addressed. W, O and Trump have just pushed the gas pedal down. Base Line Budgeting (and the insistence of new government departments) creates a debt accrual that can never truly decrease, and bail outs (or rather 'quantitative easing' as the jargon is now called) exacerbate the issue even more.

*(The national debt still rose over a trillion dollars during his rein; but credit where it is due: he signed the best budgets of the last 6 Presidents and had the smallest debt increase of the bunch by a good margin- largely because he spent less on the military, took more in through taxes, differential accounting, and the fact that a LOT of IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund had not come to roost yet. This last one is killer though, and partly why W's debt numbers popped up so fast by comparison.

Your argument is divorced from reality. The deficit to GDP ratio is well monitored and readily available, you simply haven't looked or couldn't understand-


It shot up in the 80s, not the 70s, because Reagan cut taxes and spent a shit ton more to win the cold war. That's just a demonstrable fact. You can't conspiracy theory your way round the clear evidence.

You also don't seem to understand base line budgeting. The CBO makes projections based on it, congress is still free to do whatever they want each year to change existing funding levels.

[AnalHamster]

You are looking at deficits/debt based on a presumed GDP; a GDP that is somewhat cooked I might add.

Computers processing power doubles every couple years and are counted as being twice as valuable... but we both know a faster computer is nicer, but not necessarily worth twice as much as the previous model. But I digress...

The only thing that matters is the DEBT and what adds to it. In the 70's it became legal to make taxpayers save failing institutions that were deemed 'too big to fail'; every bailout (or QE injection) adds to this, as does every government budget that starts where it was last year and goes up from there.

Also, it is a shame that graph stops at 2010... cause those projected numbers are WAY off. By 2010 the Debt/GDP ratio was 90%, today it is closer to 108%. This will only continue to get worse because of how Congress works- until the floor falls out and we get an Argentina-esque bailout by the IMF/World Bank because- just like New York and Lockheed in the 70's, or Fannie/Freddie in 2008-9 and all the bail outs between and after- America is too big to fail.

Then its game over.

Edit: Actually some of the earlier years are off too. The Debt/GDP ratio has never been less than 50% since the early 90s.
https://www.thebalance.com/national-deb ... ts-3306287
Your graph is not accurate of reality. 8(

The projected numbers are always off, because they can't account for political policy choices. The actual numbers are the actual numbers, the best and only available, your declaration that they are cooked if they don't serve your nonsense is pulled from your ass. CBO projections are based on that baseline accounting thing you don't understand. Your 108% figure is based on a CBO projection. Debts are always looked at in relation to GDP, for various reasons you can't grasp.
Bailouts began under Hoover, who was long dead by the 70s. Computing power actually gets consistently cheaper, it doesn't double in price when processing power doubles. You are just woefully misinformed about everything.

[Charliesheen]

Aww c'mon perfessor elbow-patch.You can, no, you must do better at running off this open challenger to your wiki scavenger hunts.

[AnalHamster]

Aww c'mon perfessor elbow-patch.You can, no, you must do better at running off this open challenger to your wiki scavenger hunts.

Try disputing anything I've ever said you pathetic mental midget, this following me around yapping like a little bitch thing is getting kinda old.

[Charliesheen]

Naaah, it's you with the tired schtick. Everyone's duped, except the wiki-queen. I rarely respond to your pompous shit anymore.

Saying celebs and pols don't construct walls around their castles is stoopid for most, but for some reason just not for you.