The First 100 days

[ProdigalHorn]

Honestly, I'd accept a tax increase if there was a proportionate, real cut in spending (in other words, actually spending less money, not cuts in projected increases), but I know damn good and well that nobody would ever put that on the table or tolerate it. People freak out if we slow the growth in spending. If we actually cut it, people would hit the friggin' roof.

I think most people across both aisles would be on board for this. And of course, it won't happen, because it requires an individual politician to promise something on behalf of an entire body of other politicians. If I hold strong on spending cuts when no one else does, my constituency just sees me as an impediment, and I get voted out.

What we really need is a serious, long-term change in the way our government does its day to day business. This is an area where I really thought Trump could help, and maybe he's done it behind the scenes and the media doesn't report it because it's boring to talk about financial audits and identifying more efficient and cost-effective processes and all that. But I suspect he doesn't want to do expend the political capital to push something like that through, since it would basically be a trench war that would take two terms (at least) to get done, and even then, the results might end up being in the billions, and cost as much as it saves.

 

[Monahorns]

Deficits of the size we are running are allowed by the existence of the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking. Until you get rid of that the government has no incentive to cut debt. That is until it all falls apart, but who knows when that could be so, which is why we are in today's situation.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

I will say this though. Your source had to get pretty broad to make military spending reach $874B. It's too high, but that's an overstatement.

I thought the numbers were a little out of whack too, but not so much that the overarching point was compromised. And frankly, I didn't want to track down and weigh data from other sources because it wasn't directly related to notion that a large portion of our budget is consumed on interest payments on our debt.

Think of how easily that percentage of the overall budget will go up if interest rates rise...

 

[Mr. Deez]

I thought the numbers were a little out of whack too, but not so much that the overarching point was compromised. And frankly, I didn't want to track down and weigh data from other sources because it wasn't directly related to notion that a large portion of our budget is consumed on interest payments on our debt.

Think of how easily that percentage of the overall budget will go up if interest rates rise...

I understand, and I get the overall point.

 

[towersniper]

There's a lot of good stuff here, especially from a political standpoint. However, what you miss is that the parties' addiction are to the same thing - spending a lot of money. They may like to spend on different things, but the common denominator is lots of spending. The tax cut talk is way overblown.

For whatever reason, nobody likes to look at the real numbers, but I'll do it. The deficit has gone from a recent low of $438B in 2015 (which is still way too high) to the $832B projected for 2018 (which is outrageously high, especially when we're in a thriving economy and when so little of that deficit spending is on one-time capital investments like infrastructure). Since 2015, we've gone from $3.69T (2015) in annual spending to $4.17T (projected for 2018). Revenue has gone $3.25T (2015) to about $3.4T (projected for 2018). So we've added about $150B of annual revenue (even with the tax cuts), but we've added about $480B of new spending. Of course, we're still in 2018, so we don't know yet what the numbers will ultimately be. Some are projecting a bigger deficit. However, what's clear is that this is first and foremost a spending problem. Can some of it be pinned on the tax cut? Arguably, but the spending dwarfs it dramatically.

Like I said though, most of what you say is very true. A few things are pretty clear. First, true Keynesian fiscal policy (cutting taxes and boosting spending during recessions and doing the reverse when the economy is strong to make up for it) is a political impossibility, and nobody actually advocates it. The GOP doesn't raise taxes regardless, and we virtually never cut spending, and when we do, we follow it up with massive increases a few years later. Both are political problems more than anything.

Second, nobody really gives a damn about the deficit. When guys like John Kasich (R), Tim Penny (D), Phil Gramm (R), Fritz Hollings (D), Warren Rudman (R), Pete Domenici (R), and Charlie Stenholm (D) retired, we pretty much lost the only people who really had any credibility on the deficit. Consider the debate on sequester. Republicans wanted to boost spending on defense. Democrats wanted more social spending. Did they "compromise" by neither getting their new spending or by increasing modestly on both? No. They both just said, "to hell with the deficit" and both sides got their way. That's the root of our fiscal problem. The compromise is always to just blow the deficit up with obscene spending levels rather than just being modest with both.

Third, the politicians don't care about the deficit, because the public doesn't. Who's willing to have their taxes hiked? Who's willing to see the big ticket spending items cut? Nobody. Honestly, I'd accept a tax increase if there was a proportionate, real cut in spending (in other words, actually spending less money, not cuts in projected increases), but I know damn good and well that nobody would ever put that on the table or tolerate it. People freak out if we slow the growth in spending. If we actually cut it, people would hit the friggin' roof.

Digesting ... and mostly agreeing, though it is giving me indigestion.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Digesting ... and mostly agreeing, though it is giving me indigestion.

If it gives you indigestion, then have some cognac and accept that you're one of about 10 people in the country who actually cares and that, therefore, nothing can be done about it until it causes some kind of major calamity. To virtually everybody, the deficit is a political weapon to exploit, not a problem to actually solvea. I came to that realization about 6 years ago. It's very sad.

 

[Joe Fan]

Japan announced it will halt importing Iranian oil as of October. Japan is one of their largest customers. They had asked for a waiver, it was denied.

Japan's oil distributors plan to stop importing Iranian crude in October: sources | The Japan Times

 

[Horn6721]

Wow
misleading headline
it may happen but hasn't actually been announced yet

 

[LongestHorn]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Jeff Sessions didn't know he was part of the Swamp.

 

[UTChE96]

If it gives you indigestion, then have some cognac and accept that you're one of about 10 people in the country who actually cares and that, therefore, nothing can be done about it until it causes some kind of major calamity. To virtually everybody, the deficit is a political weapon to exploit, not a problem to actually solvea. I came to that realization about 6 years ago. It's very sad.

It is very sad and frustrating. This is the main reason that I am fine with the tax cuts even if they increase the deficit . We are headed for a debt crisis eventually - that is a given. So since I think that is a given then the question is whether we should give Washington more of our money to waste in the meantime. It really does not matter how much revenue that the Feds take in. They will find a way to spend it plus more. And every year a new spending baseline is established which crushes us during the downturns. The higher deficits will provide some pressure to keep spending in check and with lower tax rates it will give us a lever (albeit a bad one) to pull when the debt crisis eventually comes. It's not my preference but unfortunately the best option out of all the bad options.

Said another way, a country with lower tax rates and lower spending commitments will survive a debt crisis better than a country with higher tax rates and higher spending commitments.

 

[LongestHorn]

Jeff Sessions didn't know he was part of the Swamp.

"Politics must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party"

 

[Horn6721]

UTChE
Actually tax revenues are up
Income Tax Revenues Are Up 9% As Trump's Pro-Growth Tax Cuts Kick In
The latest monthly budget report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finds that revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year, compared with the first half of 2017. That's a 9% jump, even though the lower income tax withholding schedules went into effect in February.
The CBO says the gain "largely reflects increases in wages and salaries.
Other Democratic big lies about the tax cuts continue to fall.

• They called the tax cuts a giveaway to the rich. But the rich will end up paying a bigger share of income taxes because of the Trump tax plan.
• They said workers wouldn't benefit, but millions got bonuses, raises, and improved benefits because of the corporate tax cuts. And real median household income is now at all-time highs.
• Democrats also said that tax cuts would do nothing about the $2.9 trillion in profits that corporations had parked overseas.

In fact, corporations are bringing hundreds of billions of dollars in profits back as a direct result of changes in the corporate tax laws — 12% of the nearly $3 trillion held overseas came back to the U.S. in just the first three months of 2018. That will mean more economic growth and additional corporate revenues."


That repatriation will be paid out by the corps in installments over several years. estimated to be 339 billion over 10 years.

The increase is the deficit is due to spending, Not lack of tax revenue.

 

[UTChE96]

The increase is the deficit is due to spending, Not lack of tax revenue.

Well, that's always the case.

I wasn't implying that tax revenues were down for this year. I haven't actually checked. Just speaking in general terms that even if tax revenues do go down in the short-term then I am ok with that. I thought I used the expression "short-term" in my post but now see that I did not. Tax revenues are expected to go down typically immediately after a large tax cut. We saw that happen after Reagans tax cut even though eventually the economic growth more than compensated for the short-term decrease. We saw the same phenomenon after W's tax cut.

 

[Horn6721]

well the Dems were sure banking on the revenues to go down but as you can see they are up through July.
And with corps spacing out their taxes on overseas profits plus wages continuing to rise tax revenue may remain up for some time.

 

[UTChE96]

The repatriation tax change was a smart move by Trump. It had the dual benefit of bridging any possible revenue drop while spurring the economy.

 

[Horn6721]

Plus it stops the whining of the Dems. Takes away one of their all time whines.
win win


But I know dems will find a way to make this a negative

 

[Garmel]

Jeff Sessions didn't know he was part of the Swamp.

One case is over a year old and the other is from Obama's tenure. With the time to get this done all of this is sprung two months away from the election. The timing(which is about as bad as you can get) does look suspicious.

 

[Mr. Deez]

well the Dems were sure banking on the revenues to go down

They aren't banking on them going down. They're depending on mainstream media outlets talking about them going down whether they actually do or don't.

 

[Joe Fan]

First Midterm results
House seats won+ or lost-

2010 Obama: -63*
2002 Bush W: +8
1994 Clinton: -54*
1990 Bush: -8
1982 Reagan: -27
1978 Carter: -15
1970 Nixon: -12
1962 Kennedy: -4

*lost control of the House

 

[UTChE96]

The 1994 election was truly amazing. It was the first time that the Republicans had controlled the House in 40 years. Clinton was so arrogant for the first 2 years of his presidency. It was a true rebuke and I loved every minute of it. Even more amazing is that they have held on to the House for the majority of the time since 1994.

 

[Mr. Deez]

First Midterm results
House seats won+ or lost-

2010 Obama: -63*
2002 Bush W: +8
1994 Clinton: -54*
1990 Bush: -8
1982 Reagan: -27
1978 Carter: -15
1972 Nixon: +12
1962 Kennedy: -4

*lost control of the House

Nixon's first midterm election was 1970. Democrats picked up a pretty modest 12 seats, which they lost in '74.

 

[Joe Fan]

Nixon's first midterm election was 1970. Democrats picked up a pretty modest 12 seats, which they lost in '74.

whoops, now edited

 

[Mr. Deez]

The 1994 election was truly amazing. It was the first time that the Republicans had controlled the House in 40 years. Clinton was so arrogant for the first 2 years of his presidency. It was a true rebuke and I loved every minute of it. Even more amazing is that they have held on to the House for the majority of the time since 1994.

He was arrogant and radically liberal - even to the left of Obama in his first two years. People forget about that. As bad Obamacare was and is, HillaryCare was much more radical. In addition, he passed the largest tax increase in history, put a radical leftist on the Supreme Court (Ginsburg), tried to lift the ban on gays in the military (which was radical at the time), and the assault weapons ban, and of course, everything on which he claimed to be moderate (welfare reform) was shelved. Furthermore, some really nutty stuff got pushed but never materialized - like the surgeon general advocating teaching kids to masturbate in school and racial quotas on the death penalty, which initially got into the crime bill. They were really out there in Left field.

And 1994 was a true political realignment. It busted apart the Democrats' hold on the Southern delegation that had existed since the 1870s and did so in the face of deeply entrenched gerrymandering. It didn't get anywhere near the attention that it gets now (because it benefited Democrats), but it was very substantial, especially in Texas.

 

[Phil Elliott]

What was different about Bill Clinton was, after that big mid-term defeat, he got the message and changed course somewhat to a more moderate position. Obama never got the message, or he did not care.

 

[UTChE96]

What was different about Bill Clinton was, after that big mid-term defeat, he got the message and changed course somewhat to a more moderate position. Obama never got the message, or he did not care.

Obama was more of a true believer than Clinton. The other big difference was the MSM was far more in the tank for Obama. Clinton at least had to answer a difficult question every now and then. And the MSM definitely went after him on the sex scandals, they couldn't resist that for sure.

 

[Joe Fan]

A group of women outside the Kavanaugh Confirmation with shirts reading "I am the pro-life generation" were met by a horde of ghost babies wearing hats that read "I am the pro-abortion generation"

 

[Mr. Deez]

What was different about Bill Clinton was, after that big mid-term defeat, he got the message and changed course somewhat to a more moderate position. Obama never got the message, or he did not care.

Mostly true. Clinton was dedicated to his cock and not much else. He wasn't an ideological liberal, so he didn't mind largely embracing GOP priorities if that was necessary to save his own *** in 1996. Keep in mind that the political landscape in 1996 was very different than it was in 2012. The blue wall was much smaller, because the West Coast and even some parts of the Northeast weren't slam dunk Democratic in 1996. They leaned blue, but it wasn't impossible for a Republican to win those states. That means Clinton actually had to moderate to hold them.

Obama was mostly a true liberal, for better or for worse. Furthermore, with the West Coast and Northeast firmly in Democratic hands, he didn't have to moderate to have a pretty large bloc of electoral votes going into 2012. Nevertheless, his priorities did shift a little. He was forced to play ball on spending, had to delay and tone down the tax hikes, and gave up on cap and trade, which had been a significant priority before 2011.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Clinton at least had to answer a difficult question every now and then. And the MSM definitely went after him on the sex scandals, they couldn't resist that for sure.

They covered them, but they didn't go after him. They made sure to frame the scandals to look like a petty witch hunt by sex-obsessed conservatives. And of course, they virtually ignored the criminal element.

 

[UTChE96]

They covered them, but they didn't go after him. They made sure to frame the scandals to look like a petty witch hunt by sex-obsessed conservatives. And of course, they virtually ignored the criminal element.

Yep, very true. It was all about sex. I bet most folks still don't know that Clinton was held in contempt of court for perjury and disbarred. Can you imagine if that happened to a Republican President.