Trump releases 2019 budget with $3 trillion in cuts

The Hill ^ | Feb. 12, 2018 | Naomi Jagoda

[Innovative]

President Trump on Monday rolled out a White House budget that includes deep cuts to some federal agencies, an increase in funding for the Pentagon and $18 billion for a wall on the Mexican border.

It includes proposals to cut deficits by more than $3 trillion over a decade and lower debt levels as a percentage of the gross domestic product, but does not balance by doing away with annual deficits.

[Drago]

Kinda sad that the Pentagon cannot supply the basics on an $810 billion budget (21% of the Fed budget). The military budget was up to $880 billion in 2011 under Obama (up from $730 billion the last year of the G.W. Bush admin.)...then was brought down to $810 billion in 2017...(an 8% reduction). An 8% reduction in “overseas escapades” (Europe/Germany/Japan, etc.) doesn’t seem like too awfully much to ask to help balance the budget.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2023USr_19s1li111mcn_30f

[trebb]

This is Mulvaney, and of course has as much chance of passing congress as Calvin Coolidge has of passing for the MGM Lion.

Perhaps, but time and events can change a lot. No sense in pre-conceding and making it a certainty....

[taildragger]

"Assuming 30 million self-deporting Illegals, with some 75% of them on WELFARE, as well as other programs, the budget savings could be MASSIVE. From FedGov, to states, to locals and schools, that will free up tens for billions of dollars from all sources that could go to improve the lives of AMERICAN CITIZENS."

Bingo Tcr.

IMHO PDJT is the master at that Econ principle of the most effective changes are at the margins. You can't get rid of the welfare state entirely, but if you have trimmed the roles and now you do not need to hire interpreters for up to 70 languages ( assume on a Union Payroll of which the Supremes will deal with soon at in regards to State and Federal workers ) and not have to deal with a plethora of diseases and needs you have cut your cost dramatically. We never hear the total "nut" of what all this immigration cost us, it is spread out within a bunch of programs. For instance the churches involved on the Fed payroll ( Yes Catholic as well ) helping these immigrants. If we have a policy akin to Australia or New Zealand like we used to have back in the day before LBJ fubar'd it, just think of what the savings could be...

[gleeaikin]

Trump 2019 budget ping.

[Jaysin]

“he does more work for We The People in a week than Obama did in his entire 8 years...”

oh obama did plenty of work in 8 years.....just more work AGAINST We the People.....

[Spktyr]

If we get in a shooting war with China or Russia or their proxies, we’re going to wish we still had our British, German and Japanese bases.

Also, the reason we have Japanese bases is because we decided we didn’t want them fully remilitarizing in their own defense. The rest of Asia decided they weren’t interested in that either, considering that Japan’s entire history consists of invasions of the mainland with interludes of re-arming and rebuilding. They are permitted a small self defense force and the rest of their military protection requirements are supplied, by treaty, by the US.

Do you really want to do the Pacific Theater of WW2 again in a few decades this time with Japan possessing nuclear weapons? That seems like a *really* bad idea to me.

[Spktyr]

You also need to remember that the US military was directed to spend money on “outreach,” “diversity,” “gender integration” and making male Marines march around in high heels. They spent a LOT of money on that under Obama - thanks not only to his policies but due to the Sequester.

[i_robot73]

>
It includes proposals to cut deficits by more than $3 trillion over a decade and lower debt levels as a percentage of the gross domestic product, but does not balance by doing away with annual deficits.
>

a DECADE? Weren’t We giving Lyin’ Ryan hell for HIS (back-loaded) budgets? But, because it’s Trump the same shell-game(s) are OK??

Sorry, Mr. President, Congress is only obligated for the year in question. If you can’t balance the budget, let alone CUT it/deficit, it ain’t gonna happen sometime in the future.

[i_robot73]

>
IMHO PDJT is the master at that Econ principle of the most effective changes are at the margins. You can’t get rid of the welfare state entirely...
>

Can’t?? Did I miss an Amendment passed overriding the 5th/9th/10th/13th somewhere?

>
...but if you have trimmed the roles and now you do not need to hire interpreters for up to 70 languages ( assume on a Union Payroll of which the Supremes will deal with soon at in regards to State and Federal workers ) and not have to deal with a plethora of diseases and needs you have cut your cost dramatically. We never hear the total “nut” of what all this immigration cost us, it is spread out within a bunch of programs. For instance the churches involved on the Fed payroll ( Yes Catholic as well ) helping these immigrants. If we have a policy akin to Australia or New Zealand like we used to have back in the day before LBJ fubar’d it, just think of what the savings could be...
>

Oh, so you mean if PDJT actually did his J-O-B, aka ENFORCING the EXISTING Law(s)...Prosecute the law-breakers in govt whom aid/abet and whittle down from there. I’d bet you find the ‘illegal’ problem solves itself (that is, terminating the illegal welfare state FIRST).

[i_robot73]

>
If we get in a shooting war with China or Russia or their proxies, we’re going to wish we still had our British, German and Japanese bases.
>

The same ‘logic’ is used for ANY/ALL base(s) throughout the known World...*IF*, in the Middle East...*IF*, in the Ukraine...

How ‘bout *IF* we got out of the World Police gig entirely (don’t recall seeing anything the Constitution mandating the same; and don’t give me that false fall-back of ‘national security’ BS. Fedzilla won’t even keep out the 30M+ illegal invasion force, but we’re going to worry about country XYZ on the other side of the planet? Please).

>
Also, the reason we have Japanese bases is because we decided we didn’t want them fully remilitarizing in their own defense. The rest of Asia decided they weren’t interested in that either, considering that Japan’s entire history consists of invasions of the mainland with interludes of re-arming and rebuilding. They are permitted a small self defense force and the rest of their military protection requirements are supplied, by treaty, by the US.
>

Permitted? Whom is PAYING is the big question? I highly doubt the once-invaded.

>
Do you really want to do the Pacific Theater of WW2 again in a few decades this time with Japan possessing nuclear weapons? That seems like a *really* bad idea to me.
>

If nukes are a threat/flying, a ‘Pacific Theater’ is the least of ALL our worries.

Almost a century later, how much longer do We pay the bill of hypothetical war-games?

[Neoliberalnot]

Yes, we are at war. 4th generation warfare is real and it’s goal is ending western civilization.

[TheConservativeTejano]

Let's send PATRICK MORRISEY to the US Senate!!! West Virginia deserves better representation than the execrable Joe Manchin.

We think "Manchin" went too far left when he voted with Smerkula against President Trump's Tax cuts.

Joe Manchin is toast in the great state of West Virginia and the Great State of West Virginia does deserve a better senator than Joe Manchin.

[Drago]

I agree with you there...but as far as the “overseas” stuff goes...how about starting with Afghanistan? Pull out and reserve a neutron bomb for them if they get “uppity”. We are very lousy at “nation-building” since WWII. I would have to look at the “line items” for Germany/Japan for a % of the Pentagon budget...if low enough, might be worth it for the “base rent”/regional influence.

[Spktyr]

Japan does pay for US forces to defend it. While the percentages and exact numbers Japan should pay are debatable, both sides agree that Japan is paying significant amounts of money to be defended: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/31/national/much-japan-pay-host-u-s-forces-depends-ask/#.WoNDgnBMHYU

I’m not saying we *should* be playing World Police - but we are committed to certain activities by treaty and honor as well as self interest and we need those bases if we are going to uphold our word.

[Spktyr]

We don’t have any neutron bombs. Carter made sure of that. See my immediate prior post - Japan pays us money to defend them.

[cranked]

Then get rid of McConnell and revert back to 51 votes......

[Amish with an attitude]

Here’s hoping the Trump bashing fake “news” outlets PBS and NPR have to fend without government funding.

[remember]

cut deficits by more than $3 trillion over a decade

Real cuts or cuts in increases?

They're cuts in a bloated and increasing baseline. Furthermore, those cuts will never occur, at least not close to the level proposed. The only cuts that will occur quickly are the cuts in receipts. The following graph from the budget's historical tables shows that receipts as a percent of GDP are projected to hit the lowest level since 1959, except for the recessions following the tech crash and financial crisis:

For the numbers and sources, see http://www.econdataus.com/def19.html.

[remember]

$3 trillion in cuts sounds impressive a fist glance, but then we read “over a decade”. Current annual deficits are running about $600 billion, so over a decade you would either need to make $6 trillion in cuts or hope the tax base expands to cover part of it with higher tax receipts (or a combo of both). I see lots more red in our future.

I agree. The budget itself projects deficits of around a trillion dollar per year for the next several years. As can be seen in the following graph, the "unified deficit" comes in just under a trillion $ per year but the public and gross debt will both increase by over a trillion $ per year.

For the numbers and sources, see http://www.econdataus.com/def19.html.

[remember]

It includes proposals to cut deficits by more than $3 trillion over a decade and lower debt levels as a percentage of the gross domestic product...

a DECADE? Weren’t We giving Lyin’ Ryan hell for HIS (back-loaded) budgets? But, because it’s Trump the same shell-game(s) are OK??

You're right, it's not OK. As the following graph shows, the budget projects that the debt will INCREASE as a percentage of the GDP for the next several years.

Of course, the spending cuts and rapid GDP growth that is projected to turn this around in several years will never occur. But most people will have forgotten about the plan by then. For the numbers and sources, see http://www.econdataus.com/debt19.html.