Trump's Budget

[crazed_hoosier2]

Shorter crazed: Things haven't gone as I'd prefer, so I supported an incompetent boob to blow things up, because maybe the debris will fall the right way.

But it's not simply that "Things haven't gone as I'd prefer." We're on an untenable path -- we need to get off that path -- we've done nothing yet to get off that path.

If we were in a car headed towards a cliff, ultimately we can turn left or right -- but we can't just keep heading straight. In that situation, the first thing we have to establish is that we can't keep going straight (let alone pressing on the gas). That's where we are now.

I didn't particularly like the Bowles-Simpson blueprint. But it was at least a turn away from the death path we're on. And it had bipartisan support, too.

If Obama had taken up the reins on that, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. But that's water under the bridge -- he didn't, and we can't undo the past.

What I'm for right now is knocking us off our current dead-end path. We can get down to the details of where we're heading next once we dislodge ourselves from that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oh but you're wrong, Marvin. Stick with me here...

What cleared the political path for Donald Trump? Several things, I'd say. But (a big) one of them is an erosion of faith in our traditional political institutions. Some say that Trump is causing that. But they couldn't be more wrong -- it's been building for years and he's clearly one of the results of it.

Well, why have people lost so much faith in our political institutions? Again, there are various reasons. One is a failure of the political class to deal with illegal immigration. It's been a big issue for years and their failures to deal with it were huge fodder for Trump or somebody like him to capitalize on and gain political traction. Well, the same goes for our political establishment's refusal to deal with the untenable fiscal situation that they themselves (and their predecessors) created.

I'm not saying this directly led to Trump's election the way their failures on immigration did. But it very much did feed into the erosion of public confidence which contributed to the toxic political environment.

If Very Serious People (that's a gratuitous shout-out to our recently returned prodigal son) don't take and do their jobs seriously, then it clears a path for unserious people to pick up the reins of leadership. They have only themselves to blame for it.

The antidote is simply for them to take the reins themselves, instead of throwing them on the ground, and do the hard work of governing responsibly.

Don't like Trump's approach to right our ship? Fine. What's a better one?

It is because the problem is HARD. Something Trump didn't realize, that being president is hard. A lot of people don't think that. A lot of people think there is a magic line item called "waste and fraud" and all you have to do is vote that out. That is far from true. Anything done will have repercussions and some quite serious. Let's face it, an easy solution to the healhcare costs in this country is to shoot all people with conditions. Our health care costs will plummet. Serious people realize that is not a good idea. Same for shooting poor people. I can't deny those ideas would have a tremendous impact on the budget, but they aren't SERIOUS. By the way, confiscating all assets of people who make at least $70,000/year is another solution. It isn't a serious one, but it is a solution.

The trick, the hard part, is what to cut and by how much. How much impact will a billion cut from program A have. How much impact will raising income taxes have. The trick is finding the best available balance, and that is damn hard. Harder than I think you give it credit for.

I know several solid Republicans on SSI. When they speak often of wasteful government programs, it is always the programs others are on that they refer to. That is the nature of government programs, wasteful in the third person but a vital government service in the first person. I can't help but believe massive cuts to SSI will critically damage the Republican brand. But because it is easy, lets go ahead and do it.

What we need is a handful of people willing to admit this is hard, and willing to work against orthodoxy. Willing to put new taxes on the table for Republicans, willing to put safety net cuts on the table for Democrats. I see as many Republicans willing to do their part as you see Democrats. I don't have an answer except to suggest a bill that enriches the military industrial complex while slashing the social welfare system will have MAJOR repercussions for your party and if I were you I would worry what that looks like in a couple years. We all know those coal jobs (among many) are never coming back. Cutting benefits to those people in addition to not getting them their jobs will lead to intense hatred. Just telling them the cure to poverty is to get rich, which seems to be the Trump/GOP plan, will not be amazingly well received.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Shorter crazed: Things haven't gone as I'd prefer, so I supported an incompetent boob to blow things up, because maybe the debris will fall the right way.

BTW, as I've made clear a number of times, I supported Trump because he was a better option for me than the only other alternative.

He was my last choice in the Republican primary -- and would still be today if they ran that again.

So my motivation for supporting him wasn't to blow things up (though they do apparently need to be blown up...alas). It's just that his election offers us a unique opportunity to do that -- and it probably wouldn't have been possible with a conventional politician.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It is because the problem is HARD. Something Trump didn't realize, that being president is hard. A lot of people don't think that. A lot of people think there is a magic line item called "waste and fraud" and all you have to do is vote that out. That is far from true. Anything done will have repercussions and some quite serious. Let's face it, an easy solution to the healhcare costs in this country is to shoot all people with conditions. Our health care costs will plummet. Serious people realize that is not a good idea. Same for shooting poor people. I can't deny those ideas would have a tremendous impact on the budget, but they aren't SERIOUS. By the way, confiscating all assets of people who make at least $70,000/year is another solution. It isn't a serious one, but it is a solution.

The trick, the hard part, is what to cut and by how much. How much impact will a billion cut from program A have. How much impact will raising income taxes have. The trick is finding the best available balance, and that is damn hard. Harder than I think you give it credit for.

I know several solid Republicans on SSI. When they speak often of wasteful government programs, it is always the programs others are on that they refer to. That is the nature of government programs, wasteful in the third person but a vital government service in the first person. I can't help but believe massive cuts to SSI will critically damage the Republican brand. But because it is easy, lets go ahead and do it.

What we need is a handful of people willing to admit this is hard, and willing to work against orthodoxy. Willing to put new taxes on the table for Republicans, willing to put safety net cuts on the table for Democrats. I see as many Republicans willing to do their part as you see Democrats. I don't have an answer except to suggest a bill that enriches the military industrial complex while slashing the social welfare system will have MAJOR repercussions for your party and if I were you I would worry what that looks like in a couple years. We all know those coal jobs (among many) are never coming back. Cutting benefits to those people in addition to not getting them their jobs will lead to intense hatred. Just telling them the cure to poverty is to get rich, which seems to be the Trump/GOP plan, will not be amazingly well received.

Precisely why it was such a shame that Obama refused to move on Bowles-Simpson, Marvin. That, too, was a rare opportunity -- and he totally squandered it. Why? Well, because it's hard. Even with bipartisan equity, it still proved too politically perilous.

The opportunity that Trump presents is that he doesn't seem to give a shit about the normal political rules. That -- in and of itself -- is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've long said that getting things back on a sustainable path was probably going to require sacrificial policy makers who throw caution to the wind.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Precisely why it was such a shame that Obama refused to move on Bowles-Simpson, Marvin. That, too, was a rare opportunity -- and he totally squandered it. Why? Well, because it's hard. Even with bipartisan equity, it still proved too politically perilous.

The opportunity that Trump presents is that he doesn't seem to give a shit about the normal political rules. That -- in and of itself -- is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've long said that getting things back on a sustainable path was probably going to require sacrificial policy makers who throw caution to the wind.

The catch is he's only throwing part of it to the wind. He is making major increases in spending to the military and to the wall. He is making major tax cuts. What he is doing is giving up drinking by taking up meth.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The catch is he's only throwing part of it to the wind. He is making major increases in spending to the military and to the wall. He is making major tax cuts. What he is doing is giving up drinking by taking up meth.

Have to crack the dam somehow. It's not the way I'd have done it. But it serves the most necessary current purpose well enough.

What seems certain is next year's budget will look markedly different from what we've been accustomed to. And, for the time being, that's enough. It's a start.

Hopefully it will encourage others to start thinking outside the box in order to get something that can pass both houses and win Trump's signature.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Have to crack the dam somehow. It's not the way I'd have done it. But it serves the most necessary current purpose well enough.

What seems certain is next year's budget will look markedly different from what we've been accustomed to. And, for the time being, that's enough. It's a start.

Hopefully it will encourage others to start thinking outside the box in order to get something that can pass both houses and win Trump's signature.

I am just amazed you don't see political disaster bigger than the Titanic's iceberg if anything close to this passes. Hoards of peasants with pitchforks chasing Republicans through the streets will be the top reality tv program of 2020. No healthcare, no jobs, no safety net. Pretty tough pill to swallow for them.

 

[hoosboot]

Precisely why it was such a shame that Obama refused to move on Bowles-Simpson, Marvin. That, too, was a rare opportunity -- and he totally squandered it. Why? Well, because it's hard. Even with bipartisan equity, it still proved too politically perilous.

The opportunity that Trump presents is that he doesn't seem to give a shit about the normal political rules. That -- in and of itself -- is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've long said that getting things back on a sustainable path was probably going to require sacrificial policy makers who throw caution to the wind.

It's such a shame that President Trump doesn't have access to the Simpson-Bowles plan and is forbidden by law from proposing the elements of the plan. But, even then, President Trump would have to contend with having both the House and Senate in his party's control, so it's really challenging for him. Damn you, Obama!

 

[RBB89]

Precisely why it was such a shame that Obama refused to move on Bowles-Simpson, Marvin. That, too, was a rare opportunity -- and he totally squandered it. Why? Well, because it's hard. Even with bipartisan equity, it still proved too politically perilous.

The opportunity that Trump presents is that he doesn't seem to give a shit about the normal political rules. That -- in and of itself -- is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I've long said that getting things back on a sustainable path was probably going to require sacrificial policy makers who throw caution to the wind.

But they aren't throwing caution to the wind, they're just stupid.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I am just amazed you don't see political disaster bigger than the Titanic's iceberg if anything close to this passes. Hoards of peasants with pitchforks chasing Republicans through the streets will be the top reality tv program of 2020. No healthcare, no jobs, no safety net. Pretty tough pill to swallow for them.

I don't do hyperbole, Marvin.

Come on...no healthcare, no jobs, no safety net? You don't think that's just a wee bit overstated?

As the great Mitch Daniels once said: "You’d be amazed how much government you’ll never miss."

That said, I'm certainly not wed to any of the specific cost paring that this budget proposes. I'm just wed to the broader goal of creating a federal government that our economy can afford to support, while still being well-situated for a healthy rate of growth.

If the Republicans make the sorts of structural fiscal changes the country desperately needs (and I'm not hopeful they will), it will be well worth their losing some elections because of it.

You're right that it's hard. But, one way or another, one day or another, it's necessary.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's such a shame that President Trump doesn't have access to the Simpson-Bowles plan and is forbidden by law from proposing the elements of the plan. But, even then, President Trump would have to contend with having both the House and Senate in his party's control, so it's really challenging for him. Damn you, Obama!

He's under no obligation to follow any particular plan.

Ryan rejected the Bowles-Simpson plan too (he was a dissenting vote on the commission). So he offered a competing vision.

There are lots of ways to skin this cat, hoos. Bowles-Simpson was one of them, but not the only one.

 

[hoosboot]

He's under no obligation to follow any particular plan.

Ryan rejected the Bowles-Simpson plan too (he was a dissenting vote on the commission). So he offered a competing vision.

There are lots of ways to skin this cat, hoos. Bowles-Simpson was one of them, but not the only one.

Really? I had no idea. But, then I'm not the one bemoaning President Obama not running with it while touting their happiness about President Trump's proposal...a proposal that would increase our deficit - not decrease it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't do hyperbole, Marvin.

Come on...no healthcare, no jobs, no safety net? You don't think that's just a wee bit overstated?

Were you not one explaining how the people in coal mining country (among others) were anti-Democratic because the Democrats had been ignoring them? What in Trump's budget improves their lot in life one iota? Jobs are NOT coming back to that area. The coal companies themselves say they they will never need the numbers they once did because of automation and cheap NG. So there is the no jobs. Somebody is going to be kicked out of safety net programs, it has to happen with cuts this big. I don't see how that is debatable but if you want to take the position that we can serve more people (more people because the US population grows) with less money I'd love to hear it. So there is the no safety net. I suspect the CBO score will back up the no health care (though medicaid cuts alone may prove that before Trump Care is even added in).
.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Really? I had no idea. But, then I'm not the one bemoaning President Obama not running with it while touting their happiness about President Trump's proposal...a proposal that would increase our deficit - not decrease it.

Well, the reason I'm bemoaning Obama not running with the Bowles-Simpson blueprint is that, well uh, ya know....he friggin created that commission! And its specific charge was to put together a viable long-term fiscal vision for the country -- doing the hard work that we ostensibly elect people to office to do.

Now, that said, I guess that even Obama wasn't obligated to go with his own commission's recommendations. But he at least should've put forth his own. He didn't. He slammed Paul Ryan's competing proposal. And orphaned the Bowles-Simpson proposal. He talked about "stepping into the boat at the same time" -- but never even so much as looked at the boat, much less stepped in.

But, again, that's water under the bridge.

It's easy -- not to mention cowardly -- to sit in the stands doing nothing more than throwing rocks at those who are actually putting forth ideas (regardless how good or bad they may be) on the table. It's well past time to get this process underway. We have to sooner or later, after all.

 

[Ladoga]

Dream on if you think his proposals, if they go through, will in anyway reduce the deficit. The cuts will be more than offset by increased defense spending, lower corporate tax rates and lower individual taxes, especially for the rich. And wait until the CBO releases their estimation of the cost of the horrendous GOP health care bill.

Do you have a fiscal analysis of the legislation to back up that claim?
Outside economic estimates? Even got a number - just one number - for the increase in defense spending?

 

[Ladoga]

Were you not one explaining how the people in coal mining country (among others) were anti-Democratic because the Democrats had been ignoring them? What in Trump's budget improves their lot in life one iota? Jobs are NOT coming back to that area. The coal companies themselves say they they will never need the numbers they once did because of automation and cheap NG. So there is the no jobs. Somebody is going to be kicked out of safety net programs, it has to happen with cuts this big. I don't see how that is debatable but if you want to take the position that we can serve more people (more people because the US population grows) with less money I'd love to hear it. So there is the no safety net. I suspect the CBO score will back up the no health care (though medicaid cuts alone may prove that before Trump Care is even added in).
.

I believe the benefit to the coal industry is not IN the budget but is in the elimination of crippling regulations and EPA insanity reversed. ITs not about handing them money. Its about removing barriers to their economic opportunity for success.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Were you not one explaining how the people in coal mining country (among others) were anti-Democratic because the Democrats had been ignoring them?

I don't specifically remember saying that. It's not precisely how I feel, though. I don't think Democrats have been ignoring coalmining folks as much as being openly hostile towards them.

What in Trump's budget improves their lot in life one iota?

Are you saying their lives are great now with the current budgetary framework?

Jobs are NOT coming back to that area.

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with that -- not coal-mining jobs, anyway. But that certainly doesn't mean that there can't ever be any positive economic prospects in those areas.

Are you suggesting that we just need to embrace -- and grow, even -- social dependency? If so, then count me out. We have way too much dependency now as it is. We should be aiming to reduce social dependency, not grow it.

Somebody is going to be kicked out of safety net programs, it has to happen with cuts this big.

So what do you think is going to happen when SS and Medicare go belly up? If your intention is to prevent reform of those programs, that's precisely what's going to happen. You're OK with that?

If not, then let's hear your plans for reforming them -- even if your plan is to just try (in vain) to afford them with higher taxes. Put it out there. We can't have debates in the abstract -- where one side has a proposed solution on the table and the other side is doing nothing but bellyaching.

I don't see how that is debatable but if you want to take the position that we can serve more people (more people because the US population grows) with less money I'd love to hear it. So there is the no safety net.

Hmm, I never said anything about "serving more people", so I'm not sure where that comes from. Generally speaking, I do think we should reduce the number of people who are on social assistance of any kind. But that hardly means there's "no safety net."

I suspect the CBO score will back up the no health care (though medicaid cuts alone may prove that before Trump Care is even added in).
.

We've talked about healthcare ad nauseum. There's no need to rehash it again here. Suffice it to say, I don't consider healthcare a right. If you do, knock yourself out. But, speaking of scoring policy proposals, did you happen to catch the recent healthcare news out of California? If not, we should discuss it. Because it lays bare the fact that "healthcare as a right" is a complete fantasy -- even in California.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I believe the benefit to the coal industry is not IN the budget but is in the elimination of crippling regulations and EPA insanity reversed. ITs not about handing them money. Its about removing barriers to their economic opportunity for success.

But the coal companies SAY they don't need more employees. They SAY that automation and low NG prices means they'll never hire like they once did. Are they lying? In addition, look at cancer rates in coal country, even for people who are not miners. Experts believe coal debris in streams leads to this cancer. So by all means, let's let coal debris back into streams and lets make sure these people cannot get insurance. Cancer in coal country.

 

[UncleMark]

As this discussion illustrates, most self-proclaimed deficit hawks are really deficit peacocks. They talk about deficits, but what they really want is tax cuts.

Of course. Because in general most deficit hawks aren't on the receiving end (yet). They're the virtuous, the industrious, the "makers". Those on the receiving end are the lazy, the undeserving, the "takers".

Unless they're in uniform. Those folks don't get nearly enough.

 

[Ladoga]

But the coal companies SAY they don't need more employees. They SAY that automation and low NG prices means they'll never hire like they once did. Are they lying? In addition, look at cancer rates in coal country, even for people who are not miners. Experts believe coal debris in streams leads to this cancer. So by all means, let's let coal debris back into streams and lets make sure these people cannot get insurance. Cancer in coal country.

Since the companies will "never hire like they once did" should we take that to mean that they'll never hire anyone? Or to mean that if they won't hire as before they won't hire at all. I hope we don't want that to be our policy. It was the policy of prior administration. That group hated coal and wanted it dead. Its alive and the resource is abundant. It should not be regulated out of existence, the wishes of the enviros notwithstanding.

 

[twenty02]

All the more reason for its critics to put forth a more realistic budget blueprint that seems grounded in our fiscal reality.

Doing something other than "business as usual" is hard. That's why business as usual is so....usual.

So, I'm curious...put yourselves in Mr. Mulvaney's shoes. What are a few headline items you'd be putting out there?

Pick anything from Simpson Bowles. Put that out there.

So far they are nothing but the kid who licked all the icing, and ate none of the cake.

 

[Tacoll]

Well, the reason I'm bemoaning Obama not running with the Bowles-Simpson blueprint is that, well uh, ya know....he friggin created that commission! And its specific charge was to put together a viable long-term fiscal vision for the country -- doing the hard work that we ostensibly elect people to office to do.

Now, that said, I guess that even Obama wasn't obligated to go with his own commission's recommendations. But he at least should've put forth his own. He didn't. He slammed Paul Ryan's competing proposal. And orphaned the Bowles-Simpson proposal. He talked about "stepping into the boat at the same time" -- but never even so much as looked at the boat, much less stepped in.

But, again, that's water under the bridge.

It's easy -- not to mention cowardly -- to sit in the stands doing nothing more than throwing rocks at those who are actually putting forth ideas (regardless how good or bad they may be) on the table. It's well past time to get this process underway. We have to sooner or later, after all.

The Bowles-Simpson commission made no proposal. Simpson,s somewhat modified plan lost on a 11-7 vote, falling short the required 14 votes,\. The commission was modeled on the Reagan social security commission where the super majority was attained. The super majority was used to assure both a bipartisan plan and bipartisan support. Had Obama abandoned the super majority requirement, he would have both ended the usefully of such commissions in the future, and supported a bad plan outside his mandate to the commission.. By the by Bowles and Simpson were running around talking about out of control interest rates w/in a year, and economic disaster within 2 years. Obama knew better than to take advice from such inept economic commentators.

 

[twenty02]

Have to crack the dam somehow. It's not the way I'd have done it. But it serves the most necessary current purpose well enough.

What seems certain is next year's budget will look markedly different from what we've been accustomed to. And, for the time being, that's enough. It's a start.

Hopefully it will encourage others to start thinking outside the box in order to get something that can pass both houses and win Trump's signature.

How much you want to bet next year's budget looks pretty much identical to this year's budget? The discretionary spending is as lean as its going to get. Both sides of the aisle agree on that. The GOP aide that said in the Politico article "you can't get blood from a stone" says it all.

This changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. Unless Trump wants to veto a spending bill and shut down the govt. Which also isn't happening, because he doesn't care about this budget whatsoever. Mick does, but he has no real clout.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How much you want to bet next year's budget looks pretty much identical to this year's budget? The discretionary spending is as lean as its going to get. Both sides of the aisle agree on that. The GOP aide that said in the Politico article "you can't get blood from a stone" says it all.

This changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. Unless Trump wants to veto a spending bill and shut down the govt. Which also isn't happening, because he doesn't care about this budget whatsoever. Mick does, but he has no real clout.

Could be -- we'll see. But I'm guessing you're going to start seeing some significant changes (though, clearly, not as significant as this proposes).

House Republicans -- and many in the Senate -- do have to run for reelection next year....and, with the House, Senate, and White House in GOP hands, they're going to be expected to deliver results to their voters. If they refuse to do that, they'll get slaughtered.

Let me ask you a question, though -- if it's really the case that next year's budget will look like this year's budget, why all the caterwauling? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The Bowles-Simpson commission made no proposal. Simpson,s somewhat modified plan lost on a 11-7 vote, falling short the required 14 votes,\. The commission was modeled on the Reagan social security commission where the super majority was attained. The super majority was used to assure both a bipartisan plan and bipartisan support. Had Obama abandoned the super majority requirement, he would have both ended the usefully of such commissions in the future, and supported a bad plan outside his mandate to the commission.. By the by Bowles and Simpson were running around talking about out of control interest rates w/in a year, and economic disaster within 2 years. Obama knew better than to take advice from such inept economic commentators.

Mm, that's not entirely the case. You're right that they didn't get the supermajority. But they still published the "somewhat modified plan" you're referencing -- and it was hugely significant in the fact that it won support from the likes of Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn, both of whom were sitting Senators at the time.

I think he should've moved forward with their recommendations. But, failing that, he easily could've made his own -- like Paul Ryan did.

But, in the end, Obama did nothing but what they've all done....demur and kick the can down the road for a successor. We can't have our policymakers doing that forever.

We've needed somebody in office who was actually willing to take the arrows. Again, I'm not saying that Trump's proposed budget does that -- it clearly doesn't. But it's getting the kind of reaction such a plan should probably get....which means it's a step in the right direction.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Pick anything from Simpson Bowles. Put that out there.

So far they are nothing but the kid who licked all the icing, and ate none of the cake.

Which makes them a step ahead of the other kids who have sat there for decades looking at the cake saying "Nice cake."

I'd have been fine with them using Bowles-Simpson as a place to start. But I'm fine with them using this, too. The point is starting.

 

[twenty02]

Could be -- we'll see. But I'm guessing you're going to start seeing some significant changes (though, clearly, not as significant as this proposes).

House Republicans -- and many in the Senate -- do have to run for reelection next year....and, with the House, Senate, and White House in GOP hands, they're going to be expected to deliver results to their voters. If they refuse to do that, they'll get slaughtered.

Let me ask you a question, though -- if it's really the case that next year's budget will look like this year's budget, why all the caterwauling? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Easy political points to score against the POTUS. So very easy.

As I said earlier, the admin already has a serious credibility problem. Putting out half-baked budget proposals that fly in the face of common sense just increases it.

Regardless, you need 60 Senate votes to fund the govt. So that's the reality as to why they'll be zero substantive changes from this year's budget.

 

[hoot1]

The economic assumption in the Trump proposed budget foresees a balanced budget by 2027. It predicts a GDP in 2027 of 31.4 trillion with our 2016 GDP being 18.6. For comparison we've gone from a 13.8 GDP in 2006 to 18.66 in 2016.

Admittedly the last ten years haven't been exactly robust, but the Trump forecast for the next ten years is certainly rosy in terms of growth with the spending cuts in many area being non-achievable. In addition, cuts in the plan which are labeled "reforms" are undoubtedly pipe dreams or what some might call cooking the books. Having said that, a great many Americans think there are big savings with what a member of the Tea Party which appeared on C-Span this morning called "efficiencies from improved performance" which will occur under Trump and in the future with leaders such as Trump.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Easy political points to score against the POTUS. So very easy.

As I said earlier, the admin already has a serious credibility problem. Putting out half-baked budget proposals that fly in the face of common sense just increases it.

Regardless, you need 60 Senate votes to fund the govt. So that's the reality as to why they'll be zero substantive changes from this year's budget.

I don't get the impression that the caterwauling is about scoring political points. And, besides, of what value would that be right now, anyway? I think it's pretty genuine caterwauling.

I'll say this much, I agree with you that you're not going to see dramatic cuts in discretionary spending such as what's been proposed for the EPA, etc. But does there have to be? Again, I don't think that's really the point of this exercise.

And if Congress wants to shut down government again, that's perfectly fine with me.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The economic assumption in the Trump proposed budget foresees a balanced budget by 2027. It predicts a GDP in 2027 of 31.4 trillion with our 2016 GDP being 18.6. For comparison we've gone from a 13.8 GDP in 2006 to 18.66 in 2016.

Admittedly the last ten years haven't been exactly robust, but the Trump forecast for the next ten years is certainly rosy in terms of growth with the spending cuts in many area being non-achievable. In addition, cuts in the plan which are labeled "reforms" are undoubtedly pipe dreams or what some might call cooking the books. Having said that, a great many Americans think there are big savings with what a member of the Tea Party which appeared on C-Span this morning called "efficiencies from improved performance" which will occur under Trump and in the future with leaders such as Trump.

Isn't that pretty much always the case with these, though -- the optimistic growth projections, that is? As Mulvaney said today, Obama's first budget projected growth north of 4% for several years....which, of course, didn't come to pass.

We'll have to wait and find out, of course. Nobody has a crystal ball. Maybe their 3% growth forecast will prove too high. But maybe the sluggish forecasts below 2% will prove too low.

 

[Rockfish1]

But it's not simply that "Things haven't gone as I'd prefer." We're on an untenable path -- we need to get off that path -- we've done nothing yet to get off that path.

If we were in a car headed towards a cliff, ultimately we can turn left or right -- but we can't just keep heading straight. In that situation, the first thing we have to establish is that we can't keep going straight (let alone pressing on the gas). That's where we are now.

I didn't particularly like the Bowles-Simpson blueprint. But it was at least a turn away from the death path we're on. And it had bipartisan support, too.

If Obama had taken up the reins on that, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. But that's water under the bridge -- he didn't, and we can't undo the past.

You're just bullshitting now. The budget your incompetent boob just proposed would explode the deficit with huge tax cuts for the wealthy that overwhelm the harsh spending cuts for everyone else. Despite sanctimoniously proclaiming yourself a deficit hawk, you've responded to to this budget-buster:

• "[A]s an opening bid, it's encouraging."
• "I'm pleasantly surprised."
• "We've got to get started getting our fiscal house in order at some point, ya know."
• "It's a place to start from."
• "Like I said, it's a step in the right direction."
• "I don't care that this budget proposal is a farce. I really don't."
• "Have to crack the dam somehow."

Shorter crazed: "This bill would slash may taxes!"

[Edit: Spelling.]

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're just bullshitting now. The budget your incompetent boob just proposed would explode the deficit with huge tax cuts for the wealthy that overwhelm the harsh spending cuts for everyone else. Despite sanctimoniously proclaiming yourself a deficit hawk, you've responded to to this budget-buster:

• "[A]s an opening bid, it's encouraging."
• "I'm pleasantly surprised."
• "We've got to get started getting our fiscal house in order at some point, ya know."
• "It's a place to start from."
• "Like I said, it's a step in the right direction."
• "I don't care that this budget proposal is a farce. I really don't."
• "Have to crack the dam somehow."

Shorter crazed: "This bill would slash may taxes!"

[Edit: Spelling.]

Again, have me write it and the bill would include a tax hike for pretty much everybody (including me). So, uh, no...I'm not looking for a tax cut. I'm looking to get our federal budget off the cliff-bound path it's on and onto a sustainable path.

Historically, the hardest part of that to do is paring spending. And that's why I was pleasantly surprised with the proposal. That's what I've been waiting to see -- and what we most desperately need to see.

 

[Rockfish1]

Again, have me write it and the bill would include a tax hike for pretty much everybody (including me). So, uh, no...I'm not looking for a tax cut. I'm looking to get our federal budget off the cliff-bound path it's on and onto a sustainable path.

Historically, the hardest part of that to do is paring spending. And that's why I was pleasantly surprised with the proposal. That's what I've been waiting to see -- and what we most desperately need to see.

So, you have no accountability for how you voted, what your party does, or even what you've posted in this thread, because in a perfect world, you assure us, you'd make all things right. Again, this is the voice of a man who wants a tax cut and will defend a budget-busting proposal if it will give him one.

 

[Rockfish1]

Again, have me write it and the bill would include a tax hike for pretty much everybody (including me). So, uh, no...I'm not looking for a tax cut. I'm looking to get our federal budget off the cliff-bound path it's on and onto a sustainable path.

Historically, the hardest part of that to do is paring spending. And that's why I was pleasantly surprised with the proposal. That's what I've been waiting to see -- and what we most desperately need to see.

Here is my proposal for a huge upward redistribution of wealth:

(1) We fully reinstate the estate tax, eliminate favorable capital gains treatment, eliminate the carried-interest deduction, raise tax rates on the wealthy; and

(2) Enact laws that create universal health care, universal daycare, a minimum national income, and free college tuition, all financed by the wealthy.
​

Now, like your plan to reduce the deficit that would explode the deficit, my proposal to redistribute income upward would actually redistribute income downward. But my plan to redistribute income upward by redistributing income downward would really shake things up -- like your plan to elect an incompetent boob would really shake things up. Maybe the debris from my way of blowing things up would fall into a balanced budget. But unlike your plan to shrink the deficit by exploding it, you'd never get a tax cut under my plan.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In typical Trump style, the budget has a $2 trillion accounting error in it and the administration stands by it. In fact they day the double accounting is intentional. This budget has absolutely no deficit reduction, it is just a massive tax cut and rearrangement of spending.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Here is my proposal for a huge upward redistribution of wealth:

(1) We fully reinstate the estate tax, eliminate favorable capital gains treatment, eliminate the carried-interest deduction, raise tax rates on the wealthy; and

(2) Enact laws that create universal health care, universal daycare, a minimum national income, and free college tuition, all financed by the wealthy.
​

Now, like your plan to reduce the deficit that would explode the deficit, my proposal to redistribute income upward would actually redistribute income downward. But my plan to redistribute income upward by redistributing income downward would really shake things up -- like your plan to elect an incompetent boob would really shake things up. Maybe the debris from my way of blowing things up would fall into a balanced budget. But unlike your plan to shrink the deficit by exploding it, you'd never get a tax cut under my plan.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You should call your Congressman stat and have him propose that. Let's get it all out on the table.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

There is a solution we haven't thought about, kick Kentucky out of the union. Well, not just Kentucky but add in South Carolina, North Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Those states have some of the biggest deficits to the federal government (taxes sent to the state compared to taxes sent to DC). If government were run like a business, Kentucky et al, would have been sent packing long ago. My idea makes far more sense than Trump's budget, force the states to be profitable.