Posted on 03/05/2019 1:58:09 PM PST by semimojo
Likewise.
This is not the chart I saw, but it is very interesting with a lot of analytical comments, and I will have to study it further. Definitely worth a good look, thanks.
Your wrong. The elephant in the room is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt. That makes up roughly 74% of the federal budget. You could cut all other spending and we would still have to borrow money to cover just that 74%.
Best estimate I’ve seen on what we spend on illegal immigration is $134 billion. And that’s not considering that a lot of these illegal aliens work under other peoples social security numbers and contribute taxes to the budget. Probably still a net loss but even if it is still say it’s 100 billion it’s a drop in the bucket of our trillion dollar budget.
No. The real problem is the American people want all these programs but don’t want to pay for them. Eventually we will have to raise taxes somewhere. I think this will first happen when the social security trust fund gets near to running out. All the people on social security will not stand for a 23% decrease in their benefits. So they will vote for the politician who promises to prevent the cut, even if it means raising taxes.
Your wrong. The federal government spent about 354 billion on welfare programs in FY 2018. We spent 4.4 Trillion dollars. We could cut the whole welfare budget and still have to borrow money to cover everything else. See my post 63 for a partial breakdown of the budget.
One caveat on my numbers. I did not include Medicaid in the welfare amount. Medicaid covers mostly woman with children and we wouldn’t win another election if we tried to get rid of it. I also believe that if we are truly the pro-life party we need to at least provide health insurance for children who’s parents can’t afford it.
Democrats were demanding domestic spending 1 for 1 with military spending increases. It was widely reported. Not sure why you are splitting hairs with me.
The tax cuts are great! As expected, got industry and the economy booming and put people back to work. And as you stated, revenues are up and are apparently building a surplus. Give it time. Now we must get serious about cutting spending and cutting government. But with the dems holding congress that won’t happen. Every bill they send up will include massive government spending. They must be DOA in the senate or POTUS must veto, even if the government gets shutdown. No more bluffing. It’s now or never. If the dems win in 2020, it’s over. Their socialist green new deal will do us in.
Yes, and secure or close the damn borders already!
Are social security and medicare payments still covered by the amounts contributed by employees/employers?
When Obama ended his terms, the interest rate was increasing from .5 to .75%. It is now at 2.5%. While it is only a portion of the debt, it is an increase to 500% of what it was.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/fedfunds
Didn't Obama shift heavily to shorter-term bonds as well? That'll make the rebound effect even faster.
Debt service was up 90 Billion in 2018 as compared to 2016 - or roughly 17.5%, on increase in debt of about 7%.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm
Trump didn’t run on big cuts to social spending - one in several areas he ran as a moderate. We’re still doing it. He has indeed had some modest spending cuts in some areas, but most of the growth continues unabated.
Actually, it’s a bit over 1.4 Billion per day.
If you read the link I was given in Comment #41, I think that will explain some of what I was talking about.
Which is a part that causes an overstatement of real growth and which causes inflation.
In 2013, the federal government pumped an artificial $2.3 Trillion into the economy with deficit spending (credit), fiat money, and paying banks to take loans. For that they got $300 Billion in growth. Functionally, the economy was imploding at $2 trillion a year.
Businesses add jobs and reinvest if they think they can make money from it. So far it is working.
“Looks like maybe not all tax cuts increase revenues after all.”
Thank God!
The purpose of a tax cut should never be to enable socialist redistribution of wealth. It should be to disenfranchise the collectivist left. They have brainwashed everyone into thinking our well-being depends on tax funded government programs.
Far from it! Our well-being depends on the opposite! The central government needs to be starved of revenues.
A good tax cut would be one that decreases revenues, leaving the federal government poor and powerless.
YES, there will be deficits, because governments do not stop spending even when the tax revenues run out.
But rather than enable them with taxes, let them inflate and run up debt - which is a CRIME - and then prosecute them by voting them out of office - don’t pay taxes to subsidize their criminality.
“Republicans” and so-called “fiscal conservatives” have been making this mistake for a century; letting the Left use deficit spending to finance socialist entitlements, and then subsidizing them with tax increases in the name of “fiscal responsibility”! The problem is that the Right must then rightly share in that so-called responsibility.
A better idea, albeit less intuitive, is to let the Left drive us into the dirt, and wait to pick up the pieces.
It’s hard, I know. But it’s the only way. It’s like letting a drunk hit rock bottom You have to - you can’t give them money. You have to let them fall down.
Am I wrong?
Best info I can find is that Social Security taxes will not cover the full cost starting in 2020. They will than have to start using the Social Security Trust fund (which is really just IOUs the government wrote itself) to cover the costs. The Social Security Trust fund is then projected to run out in 2033. When this happens, by law, benefits will have to be reduced by 23%, Unless new laws are passed to change this.
IN 2018 Medicare spending totaled 625 Billion and medicare taxes covered 275 billion, the rest came from the general fund.
>
>>
Democrats: Increasing taxes will reduce the deficit.
Republicans (including Trump): Cutting taxes will reduce the deficit.
>>
Modern Monetary Theorists: If you have the world’s reserve currency deficits don’t matter.
>
Unfort., we’re no longer of the Constitutional Theory to tell ‘economists & $ theorists’ to pound sand (given 90%+ of Fedzilla is extra-C to begin).
>
It would be one thing if the deficit was increasing due to investment in infrastructure or research, it is another thing entirely that the deficit increases because we transfer income from one American to another.
>
Um, did I miss a legal modification of the Constitution somewhere? NONE of those cases exist in A1S8, let alone 5th/9th/10th and esp. 13th (aka welfare state).
>
But FedGov spent all the money it has taken in “trust” funds, so the only was to pay back those dollars is through higher taxes or through inflation.
>
No, there’s another option: DEFAULT. Default on that which *NEVER* should have existed in the 1st place. The People get what they get for allowing the illegality to even begin.
>
I don’t think there is a big appetite to feed more money into the one-armed-Washington bandit. It’s interesting to note when the 13th amendment passed in 1913, what at the time cost $500, would cost more than $12,826 today.
>
Welcome to the results of the illegal Fed. Reserve Act (unless, again, the Congress was amended to allow it ‘give away’ its powers/authorities to non-elected entities)
Seems the axiom is this: cut corporate tax rates and employment booms, cut personal tax rat and revenues boom. win - win.
When is welfare going to run out of money?
The economy is dong well despite the rise in interest rates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.