Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 16
Well, it turns out that tax cuts don't actually pay for themselves. According to the Congressional Budget Office, permanently extending the Trump tax cuts without paying for them would in fact be very costly. The national debt “would reach 214 percent of GDP in 2054, 47 percentage points higher” than if the tax cuts aren’t extended. The CBO’s report goes on to say that extending the Trump tax cuts would harm the economy and increase consumers’ borrowing costs.
The tax cuts add $4 trillion to the debt and republicans don't have a way to pay for them. The House GOP’s proposal attempts to offset some of the extension by kicking millions of people off Medicaid and cutting food benefits down to just $1.67 per person per meal on average. Yet that still increases the debt by around $3 trillion.
In order to qualify under reconciliation, republicans have decided that because we’ve already been incurring the costs, continuing them shouldn’t count as a new cost.
Bottomline: America’s top 0.1% would get a tax cut of $278,000 while 28 million households in the bottom 80 percent would have no change in their tax bill and 14 million in the bottom 80 percent would actually have their taxes go up because King Donald loves the Average Joe.
So, <squirrel> DOGE cuts a fake $100B from the deficit while the tax cuts add $4T to the debt.
Huh.
https://punchbowl.news/article/finance/economy/cbo...https://thehill.com/homenews/5207985-trump-tax-cut...
No. of Recommendations: 6
Well, it turns out that tax cuts don't actually pay for themselves. According to the Congressional Budget Office
Uh oh. Trump will have to find away to get his sycophants to control the CBO. Facts are his nemesis.
No. of Recommendations: 5
In order to qualify under reconciliation, republicans have decided that because we’ve already been incurring the costs, continuing them shouldn’t count as a new cost.
This is equivalent, as one story I read says, of going on vacation at a $1000 a day resort, then coming home and saying “I can still spend an extra $1000 a day because I’m not on vacation anymore.”
No. of Recommendations: 10
"This is equivalent, as one story I read says, of going on vacation at a $1000 a day resort, then coming home and saying “I can still spend an extra $1000 a day because I’m not on vacation anymore.”
Brings me back to a conversation I had with a MAGA in 1st Trump admin. They were salivating
over the TAX CUTS that would lead to a DECREASE IN FED DEBT. I laughed and told them I'd be glad to discuss this in a couple of years. At that time, the DEBT HAD INCREASED, of course.
Silly me, thinking they were rational, brought up the topic with them. The response was
"well, it would have brought the debt down, if they'd decreased spending lower the tax cuts
reduced revenue ". I'm like, no shit, but MAGA did not do that. They never do that.
It's like talking to meth heads.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, it turns out that tax cuts don't actually pay for themselves. According to the Congressional Budget Office, permanently extending the Trump tax cuts without paying for them would in fact be very costly. The national debt “would reach 214 percent of GDP in 2054, 47 percentage points higher” than if the tax cuts aren’t extended. The CBO’s report goes on to say that extending the Trump tax cuts would harm the economy and increase consumers’ borrowing costs.
Why didn't Democrats adjust taxes during their term to reduce the deficit?
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why didn't Democrats adjust taxes during their term to reduce the deficit?
Answer this question please.
When was the last time that the Democrats held both a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
No. of Recommendations: 15
tecmo: Why didn't Democrats adjust taxes during their term to reduce the deficit?
Ask Kyrsten Sinema.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Answer this question please.
When was the last time that the Democrats held both a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
Rather than focusing on name calling and always blaming the republicans (for their tax cuts) the Democrats have to take some of the stink for the current fiscal situation. If they were genuinely concerned, they would have controlled spending the last 4 years and pushed for the tax cuts to expire early.
Each side just complains about the other
Republicans - spending is out of control (at least they are doing something about this)
Democrats - taxes are too low (never do anything about this)
As much as I hate the tariffs as a policy, it has the potential to generate some additional revenue...
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 1
tecmo: Why didn't Democrats adjust taxes during their term to reduce the deficit?
Ask Kyrsten Sinema.
Shows the lack of leadership in the Democratic party, they couldn't get it over the line.
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 0
That didn't answer my question. Did you think that it did?
