Current Events > Forbes: USA headed for permanent $1 Trillion deficit if GOP tax cuts become law.

(+) Yeah! (+)

80/80

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/10/22/the-trump-budget-legacy-a-permanent-1-trillion-federal-deficit/#257d3fcc7a65

The U.S. Treasury Department reported last Friday that the federal budget deficit for the just-completed fiscal year had risen by $80 billion over fiscal 2016 to the ominous-sounding $666 billion, a number many people think is an omen for the coming of the devil or anti-Christ.

In this case they may be right: The spending and taxing policies about to be put in place by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress will balloon the federal deficit to $1 trillion or more every year going forward.

And unlike the four consecutive $1 trillion deficits recorded during the first years of the Obama administration, these trillion dollar annual deficits will be the result of enacted changes in federal spending and taxing rather than on a temporary economic downturn. Some of these changes will be permanent. Others will need to be reapproved annually but are unlikely to be rejected in the future.

...

In July, the Congressional Budget Office projected (Table 1) that the Trump fiscal 2018 budget will result in an average annual deficit of about $677 billion between 2018 and 2022. But that took the Trump budget proposals at face value and assumed Congress would agree to all the spending cuts proposed by the White House, something that the House and Senate have already shown no interest in doing. That makes the average annual baseline deficit over the next five years closer to $750 billion.

While the White House and its congressional supporters insist the tax cut the House and Senate will consider in the next month or so will eventually pay for itself with much higher economic growth rates, the congressional budget resolution passed by the Senate late last Thursday (and highly likely to be accepted by the House) assumes that the deficit will increase by about $150 billion a year over the next 10 years. Nonpartisan analyses show that the deficit will increase by an average of between $220 billion and $240 billion between 2018 and 2027 and even more thereafter. An average of the three estimates results in about a $200 billion increase in the budget deficit for each of the next five years.

1. Congress appears to be ready to increase the amount it will appropriate for military and domestic programs by at least $50 billion a year above what Trump requested.

2. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Trump's executive order ending federal subsidies for the Affordable Care Act will increase the budget deficit by an average of about $19 billion a year.

3. Federal disaster assistance for Harvey, Irma and Maria will be at least $36 billion, with more expected both for additional relief for hurricane victims and for the victims of the fires in northern California. While most of this aid will be spent in fiscal 2018, disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, earthquakes, etc.) requiring a higher-than-budgeted federal response will occur every year and their costs should be included in the permanent projected deficit.

4. If the economy doesn't grow as fast as Trump is promising, additional Pentagon spending is needed for military reasons and interest rates rise more than anticipated because of the increased federal borrowing, consecutive deficits between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion are not out of the question.

In other words, a $1 trillion annual deficit should be considered the minimum of what will occur each year during the Trump presidency.

"Fiscally conservative"
---

Trickling down intensifies
---

"Financially conservative" right?
---

So, the same about of debt Obama added.
---

Thanks Obama
---

Already long in the realm of funny money might as well go balls deep I suppose.
---

Sweden was governed by Right-wingers 2006-2014 and they turned a good surplus into a substantial deficit by implementing big poorly funded tax cuts. Now the Socialdemocrats have turned it back into a surplus though after governing for 3 years.
---

BalanceLost posted...

Sweden was governed by Right-wingers 2006-2014 and they turned a good surplus into a substantial deficit by implementing big poorly funded tax cuts. Now the Socialdemocrats have turned it back into a surplus though after governing for 3 years.

Yeah but this is America, and Republicans get mad when you try talking about other countries. America is different, your evidence is invalid here.
---

^ To be fair, America and Europe are different but use similar words.

There is no mainstream "Right Wing" in Europe. What they consider "Right wing" in western Europe is to the left of Bernie Sanders in the US.

Universial Healthcare.
Strict Drug and Gun laws (at least in most of western europe)
High taxes
Empowered Unions
Benefits and unemployment welfare.
Public schools, roads, libraries, services.

Even the "right wing" mainstream parties in Westrern Europe support them
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

There is no mainstream "Right Wing" in Europe. What they consider "Right wing" in western Europe is to the left of Bernie Sanders in the US.

Europe is more liberal than the US but this is not true.

Glass_Phantom posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

There is no mainstream "Right Wing" in Europe. What they consider "Right wing" in western Europe is to the left of Bernie Sanders in the US.

Europe is more liberal than the US but this is not true.

Sure it is. Unless you call the fringe parties mainstream.

Even the fringe parties in the UK and France don't question universial healthcare (at least not openly)

The stances of the GOP in Sweeden would be seen as extremism by the Sweden Democrats.

Sure if you define "Right Wing" as "Hates gays and immigration." then you'll find a lot of common ground but in actual governance? Nope.
---

Glass_Phantom posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

There is no mainstream "Right Wing" in Europe. What they consider "Right wing" in western Europe is to the left of Bernie Sanders in the US.

Europe is more liberal than the US but this is not true.

Yeah and there are also many differences between the various European nations but the Sanders statement is so off.

Sweden for example got a mainstream Right which has been working for the following for decades: lower taxes, weaker unions, reduced benefits and unemployment pay, taking health-care from people they deem lazy (which included terminally ill unemployed people during 2006-2010), privatizing public services and the sale of public schools, health-care centers etc to private companies.
---

dirtycommunist posted...

BalanceLost posted...

Sweden was governed by Right-wingers 2006-2014 and they turned a good surplus into a substantial deficit by implementing big poorly funded tax cuts. Now the Socialdemocrats have turned it back into a surplus though after governing for 3 years.

Yeah but this is America, and Republicans get mad when you try talking about other countries. America is different, your evidence is invalid here.

except if they can use another country as evidence of why something doesn't work.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Sure if you define "Right Wing" as "Hates gays and immigration." then you'll find a lot of common ground

strawman

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits
---

Rich people need more money!!!!
---

John_Galt posted...

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits

If the budget had Bernie's name on it, they wouldn't care if it took us back to the stone age.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/bernie-sanders-budget-would-add-21-trillion-to-debt-analysis.html

Cherrys2000 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Sure if you define "Right Wing" as "Hates gays and immigration." then you'll find a lot of common ground

strawman

...

How is that a strawman?

I literally said "IF you define it as...."
---

John_Galt posted...

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits

And suddenly the party that had an entire political upheaval dedicated solely to financial responsibility via the Tea Party no longer acts like it's a concern in the slightest.
---

Cherrys2000 posted...

If the budget had Bernie's name on it, they wouldn't care if it took us back to the stone age.

the difference is that he'd never be attached to this budget
if there would be a $1 trillion deficit through a president sanders, it'd be because we'd have better healthcare, education, etc. and not because we're giving rich people tax cuts
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/bernie-sanders-budget-would-add-21-trillion-to-debt-analysis.html

How is this relevant to the current discussion?
---

Elect a Liberal to put us in crippilng debt, elect a conservative to dump it on taxpayers in the 99%

way to go America
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Cherrys2000 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Sure if you define "Right Wing" as "Hates gays and immigration." then you'll find a lot of common ground

strawman

...

How is that a strawman?

I literally said "IF you define it as...."

It seemed you were implying that's what all conservatives are. Don't know about Europe, but here, that's just not true.

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/09/bernie-sanders-budget-would-add-21-trillion-to-debt-analysis.html

How is this relevant to the current discussion?

b-b-b-but SANDERS!
---

Oh no! Not 1 trillion added to the already large 13 trillion dollar debt! However will America survive!
---

Knowledge_King posted...

Oh no! Not 1 trillion added to the already large 13 trillion dollar debt! However will America survive!

1 trillion deficit is not the same thing as 1 trillion debt

you know that, right?
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Knowledge_King posted...

Oh no! Not 1 trillion added to the already large 13 trillion dollar debt! However will America survive!

1 trillion deficit is not the same thing as 1 trillion debt

you know that, right?

No he does't
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Knowledge_King posted...

Oh no! Not 1 trillion added to the already large 13 trillion dollar debt! However will America survive!

1 trillion deficit is not the same thing as 1 trillion debt

you know that, right?

Of course he does. He's Knowledge King
---

Take that liberals
---

Is the projection based solely on current economic performance or is it adjusting for changes which might occur within the economy? Either way, you could toss in some spending cuts and, with reforms to the justice system, we could cut down on a lot of needless expenses.

UnfairRepresent posted...

^ To be fair, America and Europe are different but use similar words.

There is no mainstream "Right Wing" in Europe. What they consider "Right wing" in western Europe is to the left of Bernie Sanders in the US.

Universial Healthcare.
Strict Drug and Gun laws (at least in most of western europe)
High taxes
Empowered Unions
Benefits and unemployment welfare.
Public schools, roads, libraries, services.

Even the "right wing" mainstream parties in Westrern Europe support them

Which is a hilarious oversimplification. Plus, if you haven't noticed, so-called "rightwing" politicians in our nation also support high taxes... not to mention public schools, roads, libraries, etc.
---

Cherrys2000 posted...

John_Galt posted...

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits

If the budget had Bernie's name on it, they wouldn't care if it took us back to the stone age.

Well yeah because there'd be actual benefits associated with it. Benefits for the average person I mean, not just for the guy who holds the patent on rainwater.
---

Oh look by cutting ACA subsidies it'll increase the defecit

It's almost like they knew all along and didn't care about the finances but instead just want to kill the poor for not being able to afford insurance!
---

John_Galt posted...

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits

fucking no

its the hypocrisy that pisses liberals off
---

gunplagirl posted...

It's almost like they knew all along and didn't care about the finances but instead just want to kill the poor for not being able to afford insurance!

Amazing that liberals keep clinging to this lie after being proven wrong:
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/article/2011/jul/12/do-people-without-health-insurance-die-sooner/

Richard Kronick, chief of the Division of Health Care Services at the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of California at San Diego examined the IOMs findings in a paper published in April 2009.

Kronick, a senior health care policy adviser in President Bill Clintons administration, found that after adjusting for demographic and health factors - such as whether uninsured respondents were smokers and how they rated their own health - the uninsured were at no greater risk of dying earlier than people who had employer-sponsored group insurance.

Kronick pointed out in his paper that even he considers findings "counterintuitive." He suggested that uninsured people are being caught in the social safety net of public hospitals and community clinics before they they die prematurely.

PolitiFact, in an August, 2009 story, spoke to a range of experts from the left-leaning Brookings Institute to the conservative Heritage Foundation, who said they found Kronicks results credible.

In December, 2009 researchers from the Harvard Medical School published a study attributing 44,789 annual U.S. deaths to lack of coverage. Thats more than the average yearly deaths in the U.S. from kidney disease.

Even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking history and level of exercise, those who lacked health insurance were still at "significantly increased risk of mortality" the Harvard study found.

A quick footnote on the Harvard study. Two of the authors are co-founded the Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that advocates for a single-payer health system, according to FactCheck.org. One of the authors told the fact-checking website that the group didnt fund the Harvard report or have any influence over its analysis.

HiddenRoar posted...

gunplagirl posted...

It's almost like they knew all along and didn't care about the finances but instead just want to kill the poor for not being able to afford insurance!

Amazing that liberals keep clinging to this lie after being proven wrong:
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/article/2011/jul/12/do-people-without-health-insurance-die-sooner/

Richard Kronick, chief of the Division of Health Care Services at the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of California at San Diego examined the IOMs findings in a paper published in April 2009.

Kronick, a senior health care policy adviser in President Bill Clintons administration, found that after adjusting for demographic and health factors - such as whether uninsured respondents were smokers and how they rated their own health - the uninsured were at no greater risk of dying earlier than people who had employer-sponsored group insurance.

Kronick pointed out in his paper that even he considers findings "counterintuitive." He suggested that uninsured people are being caught in the social safety net of public hospitals and community clinics before they they die prematurely.

PolitiFact, in an August, 2009 story, spoke to a range of experts from the left-leaning Brookings Institute to the conservative Heritage Foundation, who said they found Kronicks results credible.

In December, 2009 researchers from the Harvard Medical School published a study attributing 44,789 annual U.S. deaths to lack of coverage. Thats more than the average yearly deaths in the U.S. from kidney disease.

Even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking history and level of exercise, those who lacked health insurance were still at "significantly increased risk of mortality" the Harvard study found.

A quick footnote on the Harvard study. Two of the authors are co-founded the Physicians for a National Health Program, a group that advocates for a single-payer health system, according to FactCheck.org. One of the authors told the fact-checking website that the group didnt fund the Harvard report or have any influence over its analysis.

So are we just ignoring the paragraph above your last bolded statement as well as that the passage before your first bolded part demonstrates it was only after accounting for (unlisted) factors? You know, things necessary for the credibility to actually be determined for readers who aren't fully aware of the study and the unfiltered results?
---

For instance, if it's only about people with no congenital or other long term disease/ illness like cancer, then the uninsured will die far sooner. But if it's filtered them out and only focuses on 18-40 year olds who have no diseases or illnesses, then of course there won't be much of an impact on mortality between the insured and uninsured. Because, you know, things that might kill them would be limited mostly to things that just outright kill you like car crashes or guns. Things that even if surgery is performed will only prolong the death timer by hours, weeks if they're in a coma.
---

How do you fix this? You have a trillion dollar deficit under one party, the other side uses this as a talking point as to why they should be in charge. The other side then gets into power and does the same thing, with the initial party now using it as a talking point. It's never going to end.

These 2 parties don't give 2 flyin' flips about the average American. Meanwhile their supporters can't help but vilify the opposing party when it's politically convenient, and then selectively ignore it when when their party does it. This crap is sickening and it's literally never going to change.
---

^ at least democrat policy actually helps a lot of vulnerable people. Republicans leech from the poor and middle class then give it right back to their ultra rich friends and sponsors.
---

Cut spending!

public hospitals and community clinics

I don't think those actually exist anymore.

StucklnMyPants posted...

How do you fix this? You have a trillion dollar deficit under one party, the other side uses this as a talking point as to why they should be in charge. The other side then gets into power and does the same thing, with the initial party now using it as a talking point. It's never going to end.

These 2 parties don't give 2 flyin' flips about the average American. Meanwhile their supporters can't help but vilify the opposing party when it's politically convenient, and then selectively ignore it when when their party does it. This crap is sickening and it's literally never going to change.

The way you fix it is obvious, yet impossible.

The general public have to get involved and care. Which they don't.

The government is only so corrupt and so powerful because the nation is so stupid and most people don't get involved in politics. So they can be easily manipulated.

Could you imagine how different the government would be if 200 million adults were listening in and weighing in on every decision?
---

gunplagirl posted...

So are we just ignoring the paragraph above your last bolded statement as well as that the passage before your first bolded part demonstrates it was only after accounting for (unlisted) factors? You know, things necessary for the credibility to actually be determined for readers who aren't fully aware of the study and the unfiltered results?

I'm not ignoring anything, nor does it seem like you know how to read.

1. The paragraph above the last bolded statement is the conclusion of a biased study. It's flawed in that it uses inaccurate parameters and flawed methodology similar to the bunked IoM's 2002 study, and the two authors/co-authors are part of an organization that pushes for Single-payer insurance.

2. The passage before the first bolded part is a different study than the Harvard/IoM study. It's saying that after accounting for unlisted factors, there exists no difference between the uninsured and those that are insured.

Holy **** lmao.

Trump is like trying to do what George W. did in some ways, increase military spending while cutting taxes.

Except I think the Trump tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy to a greater extent than the George W's, but I'm not completely sure. What I've seen though has basically shown it would only help the middle and working class a tiny amount. Obama actually extended some of W's tax cuts that were for the middle and working class, so they at least had something in that one.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

Except I think the Trump tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy to a greater extent than the George W's, but I'm not completely sure.

That's just how it is.
When someone's paying $15000 in taxes, and someone else is paying $1500000 in taxes, any given tax cut is almost certainly going to benefit that second guy a hell of a lot more.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

Except I think the Trump tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy to a greater extent than the George W's, but I'm not completely sure.

That's just how it is.
When someone's paying $15000 in taxes, and someone else is paying $1500000 in taxes, any given tax cut is almost certainly going to benefit that second guy a hell of a lot more.

Exept a lot of extremely wealthy people pay little or no tax at

Trump literally bragged about it
---

heatmon930 posted...

"Fiscally conservative"

More proof of republicans incompetence
---

Deficits are a spook
---

Why not just donate the trillion dollars to charity?
---

metralo posted...

John_Galt posted...

Lol it's gonna be great fun watching liberals suddenly care about deficits

fucking no

its the hypocrisy that pisses liberals off

The last time we had $0 deficit was under Bill Clinton.
---