Kudlow: The deficit is too high, we have to cut spending

  • 77 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

Larry Kudlow chimed in recently to remind everyone that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. He assured everyone that tax cuts were not the cause of the increased deficit.

And this is a reminder that his party still believes that's the case.

“We have to be tougher on spending. People are quick to blame deficits on tax cuts. Well, but I don’t buy that. Tax cuts promote growth and wages.

...

As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that, probably next year. I don’t want to be specific. I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.”

Full links:

Reuters

Yahoo

CNBC

Avatar image for THE_DRUGGIE
THE_DRUGGIE

25107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 140

User Lists: 0

#2 THE_DRUGGIE
Member since 2006 • 25107 Posts

Cut spending by having The Purge but with citizens being illegal immigrants and purgers being ICE godbless

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

I completely agree with him. I say we start by cutting his salary. Then we can move on to cutting the salaries of Steve Mncunchcin, Ajit Pai, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy Devos, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, and on and on. Let's just keep cutting Republican salaried government workers until we either don't have a deficit or don't have anyone left in government who's talking about the deficit.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#4 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@horgen: He's using that "unfunded liabilities trick", where you extrapolate current debt projections for some unspecified period of years - 10, 20, 100, whatever - and count it as current debt.

It's a common misinformation tactic from right wing think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: He's using that "unfunded liabilities trick", where you extrapolate current debt projections for some unspecified period of years - 10, 20, 100, whatever - and count it as current debt.

It's a common misinformation tactic from right wing think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation

But didn't Trump increase spending? Or has he actually lowered it?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@horgen: He increased spending a bit and the deficit by a lot more, but the national debt is still nowhere near 200 trillion dollars. That would be something like 1000% of gdp.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#9 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

Larry Kudlow chimed in recently to remind everyone that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. He assured everyone that tax cuts were not the cause of the increased deficit.

And this is a reminder that his party still believes that's the case.

“We have to be tougher on spending. People are quick to blame deficits on tax cuts. Well, but I don’t buy that. Tax cuts promote growth and wages.

...

As far as the larger entitlements, I think everybody’s going to look at that, probably next year. I don’t want to be specific. I don’t want to get ahead of our own budgeting, but we’ll get there.”

Full links:

Reuters

Yahoo

CNBC

100% agree.

Cut ACA, cut the Obama insanities with social programs and also cut the military budget.

We need to get back to being fiscally sound.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36038

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36038 Posts

Under Trump we cut tax revenue by $1.7 Trillion and increased spending by $1.3 Trillion (if you want a source it was the tax bill they passed last year, look it up yourself). You can't argue that we don't have a tax revenue problem, but you also can't argue that we don't have a spending problem. We have both, and it stems from a Congress and President who are massively irresponsible with our country's finances.

Everyone who still thinks republicans are the party of financial responsibility can **** right off in my opinion.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d
deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d

6278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 0

#11 deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d
Member since 2009 • 6278 Posts

Isn't this Trump's business model his whole life? Overspend and not bother to pay for it?

Avatar image for n64dd
N64DD

13167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 N64DD
Member since 2015 • 13167 Posts

@theone86 said:

I completely agree with him. I say we start by cutting his salary. Then we can move on to cutting the salaries of Steve Mncunchcin, Ajit Pai, Kellyanne Conway, Betsy Devos, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, and on and on. Let's just keep cutting Republican salaried government workers until we either don't have a deficit or don't have anyone left in government who's talking about the deficit.

Can't we just fire Betsy Devos instead?

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@horgen said:
@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#14 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@horgen said:
@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: He's using that "unfunded liabilities trick", where you extrapolate current debt projections for some unspecified period of years - 10, 20, 100, whatever - and count it as current debt.

It's a common misinformation tactic from right wing think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation

But didn't Trump increase spending? Or has he actually lowered it?

Spending has increased under his budget. Congress increased it in the early part of 2018 and are about to increase it again before the midterms.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 178808 Posts

@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: He's using that "unfunded liabilities trick", where you extrapolate current debt projections for some unspecified period of years - 10, 20, 100, whatever - and count it as current debt.

It's a common misinformation tactic from right wing think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation

But didn't Trump increase spending? Or has he actually lowered it?

Spending has increased under his budget. Congress increased it in the early part of 2018 and are about to increase it again before the midterms.

Trump increased spending....don't play games.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#17 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

Tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. We have both a revenue and spending problem.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#18 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

Come on Matt. It sounds so much better with 200 trillion than 15,5 trillion. Fifteen and a half sounds like nothing in comparison.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@mattbbpl said:

@horgen: He's using that "unfunded liabilities trick", where you extrapolate current debt projections for some unspecified period of years - 10, 20, 100, whatever - and count it as current debt.

It's a common misinformation tactic from right wing think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation

But didn't Trump increase spending? Or has he actually lowered it?

Spending has increased under his budget. Congress increased it in the early part of 2018 and are about to increase it again before the midterms.

Increased spending... And lowered the revenue. How exactly will this help? At some point, the revenue have to actually increase, meaning promises of increased revenue doesn't work if there never is an increased revenue due to further tax cuts.

And spending have to be lowered.... Not increased.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts
@sonicare said:

Tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. We have both a revenue and spending problem.

as inscribed by a prisoner in tower of london in the 1500's:

"use well the time of prosperity and remember the time of misfortune"

450 years later, rather then working to reduce deficits or debts in time of prosperity, we double-down with measures that will only INCREASE our problems when the times of misfortune ( recessions ) inevitably occur.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#21 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@mattbbpl said:
@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

The discretionary funding budget is 21 trillion dollars. The non discretionary budget is 200 trillion which is made up primarily of social programs.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#22 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts
@JimB said:
@mattbbpl said:
@JimB said:
@horgen said:
@JimB said:

The 200 trillion debt has to be cut to do this you are going to see at some time massive tax increases primarily on the middle class and small to medium size business plus a Vat tax which is crushing. This debt is due to underfunded social programs that do not even take into account health care which is now 1/3 of the current budget.

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

The discretionary funding budget is 21 trillion dollars. The non discretionary budget is 200 trillion which is made up primarily of social programs.

? over what time period is the budget 21 trillion dollars??!

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#23 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@sonicare said:

Tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. We have both a revenue and spending problem.

You get more money into the treasury when you cut taxes. Epically business tax you improve the economy increase employment and have more people paying taxes which happened with the latest tax cut.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#24 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@comp_atkins said:
@JimB said:
@mattbbpl said:
@JimB said:
@horgen said:

200 trillion? Does that include private debt or each single state, not just federal?

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

The discretionary funding budget is 21 trillion dollars. The non discretionary budget is 200 trillion which is made up primarily of social programs.

? over what time period is the budget 21 trillion dollars??!

That debt occurred over 45 presidents. The largest increase came when Obama was president where it went from 10 trillion to 20 trillion

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
blaznwiipspman1

16517

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By blaznwiipspman1
Member since 2007 • 16517 Posts

The next president who gets elected in 2020 needs to only campaign on one thing to be successful. Reverse or repeal every single legislation the trump administration passed. Then the next president should also weaken the supreme Court. No need for religious right wing whack job judges making important decisions. Make it mandatory that judges have a background in a STEM field, primarily research and have minimal conflicts of interest with industry. We don't need to follow laws of man, that's just a giant scam.. we also need to follow the laws of the universe.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#26 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@JimB said:

That debt occurred over 45 presidents. The largest increase came when Obama was president where it went from 10 trillion to 20 trillion

The financial crisis of 2008 or so might have had something to do with that.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#27 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts
@JimB said:
@comp_atkins said:
@JimB said:
@mattbbpl said:
@JimB said:

Just Federal. That is in addition to the 21 trillion discretionary spending budget budget.

Sigh... Fine.

The national debt is about 15 and a half trillion dollars. Not 200 trillion.

The most recent full fiscal year federal deficit was 666 billion dollars.

The most recent federal budget was 4 trillion dollars, not a total sum which could conceivably contain 21 trillion as a portion of it.

Total GDP is just over 20 trillion dollars. A 200 trillion dollar deficit would be roughly 1000% of GDP.

You're repeating nonsense you don't understand that's been propagated by party con-men.

Carson’s spokeswoman pointed to an interview with Boston University economics professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff as the source of this figure. So Carson was not referring to “unfunded mandates,” which are obligations the federal government puts on state and local governments. Instead, he is referring to the “fiscal gap” — the government’s budget imbalance over a certain period of time.

For the $211 trillion figure, that period of time is infinity. Kotlikoff co-authored the “generational accounting” method to calculate the fiscal gap, measuring the current generation’s burdens on younger, future generations. This measures unfunded obligations “through the infinite horizon,” meaning he used the present value of the gross domestic product (from the July 2014 Congressional Budget Office long-term budget outlook) and extended it through infinity. (The Fact Checker previously examined a claim that the United States has $128 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)

The discretionary funding budget is 21 trillion dollars. The non discretionary budget is 200 trillion which is made up primarily of social programs.

? over what time period is the budget 21 trillion dollars??!

That debt occurred over 45 presidents. The largest increase came when Obama was president where it went from 10 trillion to 20 trillion

wait, now you're talking about debts or budgets?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@JimB: For the love of all that is holy and pure in the world, read some reputable information on the debt and deficit. I've already provided the necessary links.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#29 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@JimB: For the love of all that is holy and pure in the world, read some reputable information on the debt and deficit. I've already provided the necessary links.

I was hoping to be wrong, but here is a link from one of your links.

https://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
Blackhairedhero

3231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#30  Edited By Blackhairedhero
Member since 2018 • 3231 Posts

@theone86: How about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as well? Is there a reason you worship leftwing politicians eventhough they are worth millions?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@JimB: That's a link to an article about the same claim from the same guy I quoted. That's not debt. He's taking a projected mismatch between revenues and costs over an infinite/indefinite timeline and conflating the result as debt. It's a standard misinformation technique.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#32 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts
@blackhairedhero said:

@theone86: How about Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as well? Is there a reason you worship leftwing politicians eventhough they are worth millions?

Yeah, it's called them having the best interests of the people they serve at heart. I don't care how much money they have, I care whether they act in a way that betters society or helps them hoard their wealth. Besides that, there are several problems with your reasoning here. Bernie and Hillary are elected politicians, the people I mentioned are all appointed. Hillary is no longer in office and no linger drawing a salary, so how would I go about firing her even if I were talking about elected politicians? Further, neither Bernie nor Hillary believe that deficits are the prime problem of government. My original point was that if Kudlow believed government spending was the problem maybe he should cut his own salary. Here's an even better idea: how about people who think that government activity is a problem just not take jobs in government to begin with?

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
Blackhairedhero

3231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#33  Edited By Blackhairedhero
Member since 2018 • 3231 Posts

@theone86: Wow your a perfect puppet. Bernie who blabbers about wealth inequality is a multimillionaire. I got an idea. How about those who hate income equality but are extremely rich donate their earnings so they can be equal to everyone who votes for them?

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#34 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38662 Posts
@blackhairedhero said:

@theone86: Wow your a perfect puppet. Bernie who blabbers about wealth inequality is a multimillionaire. I got an idea. How about those who hate income equality but are extremely rich donate their earnings so they can be equal to everyone who votes for them?

a 77 year old guy worth $2M is "extremely rich"?

Avatar image for AlexKidd5000
AlexKidd5000

3103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 AlexKidd5000
Member since 2005 • 3103 Posts

Of course, kudlow, the dumbest economist there is. The guy who said the occurrence of the great recession was just a wacky conspiracy theory and would never happen. What a complete joke of a person

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
Blackhairedhero

3231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#36 Blackhairedhero
Member since 2018 • 3231 Posts

@comp_atkins: He made over a million last year alone. That's a lot for a socialist. But extremely rich? Hillary Clinton would indeed fit that category.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127492 Posts

@comp_atkins said:
@blackhairedhero said:

@theone86: Wow your a perfect puppet. Bernie who blabbers about wealth inequality is a multimillionaire. I got an idea. How about those who hate income equality but are extremely rich donate their earnings so they can be equal to everyone who votes for them?

a 77 year old guy worth $2M is "extremely rich"?

And social democrats aren't against people getting rich.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c2e78cbd8d85
deactivated-5c2e78cbd8d85

210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#38 deactivated-5c2e78cbd8d85
Member since 2018 • 210 Posts

A lot of right wing people have a worldview where if a poor person is left wing then that person's politics can be dismissed because that person is obviously just jealous and wants free stuff, and if instead that person is even remotely wealthy then that person is a hypocrite. You just can't win.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@mattbbpl said:

@JimB: That's a link to an article about the same claim from the same guy I quoted. That's not debt. He's cg a projected mismatch between revenues and costs over an infinite/indefinite timeline and conflating the result as debt. It's a standard misinformation technique.

I haven't heard from the 'unfunded liability' crowd in a while. I thought that people put it to rest seeing how categorically wrong it was to view it as debt.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

In other news, those same deficit spiking tax cuts haven't spurred the repatriation of funds that were originally thought (surprise surprise). Instead of having those trillions brought back in and reinvested for infrastructure we're still finding it was used for stock buys backs (surprise again).

'A Federal Reserve report released earlier this month found the top 15 multinational companies accounted for about 80 percent of corporate offshore cash holdings. Some of the money appears to have been used so far for stock buybacks.

At those companies, which in turn had about 80 percent of their cash overseas, stock buybacks "spiked dramatically," the report said, rising to $55 billion in the first three months of 2018, up from $23 billion in the last three months of 2017, before the tax law had taken effect.'

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#41 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3850 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:

@JimB: That's a link to an article about the same claim from the same guy I quoted. That's not debt. He's cg a projected mismatch between revenues and costs over an infinite/indefinite timeline and conflating the result as debt. It's a standard misinformation technique.

I haven't heard from the 'unfunded liability' crowd in a while. I thought that people put it to rest seeing how categorically wrong it was to view it as debt.

How is it to viewed, or ias it paid off every year? Why then do foreign countries buy our debt. I believe right now China holds the largest portion of our debt and could bankrupt us if they called in the debt.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@JimB: Can you explain to us what an unfunded liability is?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43  Edited By HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@mattbbpl said:

@JimB: That's a link to an article about the same claim from the same guy I quoted. That's not debt. He's cg a projected mismatch between revenues and costs over an infinite/indefinite timeline and conflating the result as debt. It's a standard misinformation technique.

I haven't heard from the 'unfunded liability' crowd in a while. I thought that people put it to rest seeing how categorically wrong it was to view it as debt.

How is it to viewed, or ias it paid off every year? Why then do foreign countries buy our debt. I believe right now China holds the largest portion of our debt and could bankrupt us if they called in the debt.

Your post has no bearing on what I just stated. However, foreign investors don't even own half of our debt as a total. The largest owner of debt is the US government and it's citizens.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan: Yeah, it's in a weird rhetorical spot where most people able to understand it enough to be alarmed are able to understand it enough to know it's hogwash. All that remains is the people who see the topline number from the chosen timeframe and think it's literally debt.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

JimB claims US has $211 trillion in debt, claims China holds the majority of it. JimB, show us where this $106 trillion is.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#46 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts
@blackhairedhero said:

@theone86: Wow your a perfect puppet. Bernie who blabbers about wealth inequality is a multimillionaire. I got an idea. How about those who hate income equality but are extremely rich donate their earnings so they can be equal to everyone who votes for them?

First off, if you'd pay any attention at all to what I say around here you'd know I'm not a Bernie fanboy. Second, if they hate income inequality then what is donating their earnings going to do? People will still be getting compensated for their labor at vastly unequal rates. Maybe you should stop conflating wealth inequality and income inequality. Third, the idea is not to make everyone equal, the idea is to make a society where everyone has a decent chance at a fairly equal life. By every measurable standard, that is not the case in the U.S. And finally, what the **** does any of this have to do with deficits? My point had absolutely nothing to do with wealth or income inequality, I was simply saying that maybe people who think government deficits are a problem shouldn't take government salaries, that doesn't seem too radical to me.

@comp_atkins said:

a 77 year old guy worth $2M is "extremely rich"?

To be fair, that's more than eight times the median amount of wealth for someone his age. But to put this in perspective, someone in the one percent owns five times as much wealth, meaning they have 40 times the median amount. If someone owns more wealth than almost everyone else could hope to achieve I'd term them extremely rich. The only thing that makes him not extremely rich is that the people richer than him own such a ridiculously larger portion of wealth. But, again, the goal is not to make everyone equal, it's to create an equitable society, and singling out someone with such a relatively small amount of assets does not seem constructive.

Avatar image for blackhairedhero
Blackhairedhero

3231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#47 Blackhairedhero
Member since 2018 • 3231 Posts

@theone86: "A society where everyone has a equal chance of life"

Please explain what way we should do this.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#48 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts
@blackhairedhero said:

@theone86: "A society where everyone has a equal chance of life"

Please explain what way we should do this.

Progressive taxation, affordable college, nationalized healthcare, protection for unions, and I think Elizabeth Warren's recent plan has a lot of merit.

Oh, and I'll ask again, what does this have to do with people opposed to deficits taking a government paycheck, or are you just trying to detract from that issue because you have no good answer?

Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#49 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

@JimB said:
@sonicare said:

Tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. We have both a revenue and spending problem.

You get more money into the treasury when you cut taxes. Epically business tax you improve the economy increase employment and have more people paying taxes which happened with the latest tax cut.

I don't think that usually happens. Not unless your tax cuts generate a ton of taxable growth.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23010 Posts

@sonicare said:
@JimB said:
@sonicare said:

Tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible. We have both a revenue and spending problem.

You get more money into the treasury when you cut taxes. Epically business tax you improve the economy increase employment and have more people paying taxes which happened with the latest tax cut.

I don't think that usually happens. Not unless your tax cuts generate a ton of taxable growth.

Haven't you seen the Laffer Curve?