independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 14th Dec 2018 6:50pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Support the Red Wave! Vote GOP
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 12/04/18 5:00pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

13cjk13 said:

Looks like North Carolina has been making their own Red Wave for years!! Right Wing voter fraud is the only voter fraud. Lying, cheating fucks.




It seems republicans were engaged in all sorts of fraud and jerrymandering and their typical sleazeball tactics and still lost. The orange piece of shit got Russia to help him.
CROOKED TRUMP. LOCK HIM UP!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 12/04/18 7:35pm

benni

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Camileyun said:

As is usually the case with stats and charts, they can be misleading without some qualifications. According to the Congressional Budget Office (which admits their projections have been erroneous in the past), much of the increase in the "projected" budget deficit will be due to the rapid growth in spending for federal retirement and health care programs targeted to older people and rising interest payments on the government's debt, which is cumulative year after year.

Also, the time period that shows the decrease in the annual deficits is when the Republicans took control of Congress.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52801



If you can show me one thing the Right Wing congress did to increase revenue, I'd be happy to see it.

You should read the back-up behind the CBO report, if you haven't already. What I've found is the "rapid growth in spending for federal retirement and health care programs" isn't for old people but rather for our military. Go here (which is a link within the link you posted" https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52801 then clikc on "Spending Projections, by Budget Account". You'll be sent to another page, which contains a lot of spreadsheets. I clicked on the "May 2018" link under the "Spending Projections, by budget Account" link. (Later on I also downloaded the "May 2013" spreadsheet for some comparisons)

That downloaded an Excel spreadsheet that is a fountain of information. For instance:

-The "Department of Health and Human Services" accounts (lines 1205 - 1220) do increase substantially. Keep in mind there are two types of accounts - Discretionary and Mandatory. ALL of the accounts that increase substantially are "Mandatory" expenditures. Their increase is reflective of absolutely nothing more than: (1) a population where the majority reach retirement age almost all at once; and (2) insufficient payments into the funds by non-retirement-age workers (the Youths). So do you screw the elderly, or tax the working? Those are your choices; how you choose will determine whether you're a Right Winger or a Democrat

-Remember that these increases are not new and have been known for years. The reason the deficit is ballooning is because our Right Wing president and our Right Wing Congress cut tax revenues substantially.

- Check this out: Back in May 2013, the total net projected expenditures in 2023 for the entire "Department of Health and Human Services" budget was $905.472 billion (total of lines 1209 - 1224 in that spreadsheet) . But in the May 2018 projection, it is LESS. It's $861.395 billion. Our Right Wing president decreased the projected expense by $44 billion (lines 1205 - 1220 in that spreadsheet). And yet, our Right Wing president blames increased deficit projections on this?

-It's the exact same thing with Social Security outlays. Right Winger Trump's budget projection shows an net outlay from SSA in 2023 of $1.337 trillion (net total of lines 1348 - 1358). Yet go back to 2013 and President Obama's projection for 2023 was $1.421 trillion (net total of lines 1351 - 1363) . Right Winger Trump has again decreased the upcoming expense projections. Once again, his budget deficits are due to decreased revenue, not unforeseen increased spending.

-What is the BIGGEST expense driver in all this? Go to LINE 1756 - "Interest on the Public Debt". It is projected to go from $517 billion in 2018 to $1.143 trillion in 2028. That's a 121% increase and I can guarantee you that assumes historically low interest rates.

Right Wing President Donald Trump has loudly and often proclaimed himself the King of Debt. If the interest on our debt gets to be too much, what has he said he will do?

Raise revenue? Cut spending? Nope.

He's said that the United States of America might just default on its debt. If that's not Right Wing lunacy, I'll buy you lunch.


EDIT NOTE - I adjusted the lines in the SSA calculation on account of I'd forgotten that I'd added three rows when I was totalling the HHS figures. So now the SSA calculations for each example include the correct range of rows.

.

[Edited 11/6/18 6:09am]


Not really pertinent to the conversation, but I work for DHHS. I've been associated with them for almost 10 years. First as a contract case manager, then as a state DHHS worker (enrolling elderly and disabled individuals into a Medicaid waiver program and reviewing levels of care and signing off on services that case managers wanted to put into the home for our clients). Then I trained case managers and state workers with DHHS. And now, I went back to contract case management with DHHS. They are a huge program, but we work with elderly, individuals with disabilities, HIV, individuals on vents, and children. We provide Medicaid waiver coverage for these individuals so that they can remain at home, rather than go into a facility, because it actually saves tax payers money. It costs more for the state for people to go into nursing homes, than it does to provide services for them in their own home.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 12/05/18 6:48am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Camileyun said:

RodeoSchro said:



If you get an answer with a linked quote to your question, and I get actual analysis from Camileyun on my question, then the world will explode. But we should have a drink together before it does.

At the risk of being partially responsible for doomsday,I did look over the CBO spreadsheet you referenced. Boy, you can really get into the weeds on that website. The interactive stuff is interesting, if you're into that. The one caveat is that the spreadsheet, I believe, is dated June 2017, and the bipartisan 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill was signed March of 2018. The CBO serves in an advisory role, only,so many of their estimates can change due to many factors, like this newer spending bill. I went back to see how often their estimates are actually correct and that's when I got lost in the weeds lol I don't dispute your numbers, but the budget had to be cut somewhere. Your statement about the tax decrease is obviously valid, however, time will tell. I believe Trump assumed, rather than have corporations spend their tax cuts on buying back their own stocks, that they would have spent it on capital expenditures, like improving and expanding facilities, etc, thereby providing more jobs, increasing revenue, which could cut the deficit. The fact that they didn't should be the subject of the reevaluation of the corporate tax cuts. Medicare (and to a lesser extent, Social Security, needs an overhaul) but it's worth remembering, the spending bill was bipartisan, and Trump did not get everything he wanted. Not sure I've answered your question.




Thank you so much for the response! It has restored my faith in humanity!

I agree re: what companies did with the tax cuts. If you are right about Trump's assumption, what does it say about our "businessman president" that he completely missed what actual businesses would do with those tax cuts?

In fairness, no tax cut has ever resulted in increased investment or spending relative to no tax cuts, or even compared to a tax increase. We have multiple years of actual, real, indusputable and historical data on that. Tax cuts do not, and have never, increased any kind of spending.

They only increase deficits.

Anyway, thanks again for the response. This is much more fun that hurling invectives about!

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 12/05/18 6:01pm

Camileyun

RodeoSchro said:



Camileyun said:


RodeoSchro said:




If you get an answer with a linked quote to your question, and I get actual analysis from Camileyun on my question, then the world will explode. But we should have a drink together before it does.



At the risk of being partially responsible for doomsday,I did look over the CBO spreadsheet you referenced. Boy, you can really get into the weeds on that website. The interactive stuff is interesting, if you're into that. The one caveat is that the spreadsheet, I believe, is dated June 2017, and the bipartisan 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill was signed March of 2018. The CBO serves in an advisory role, only,so many of their estimates can change due to many factors, like this newer spending bill. I went back to see how often their estimates are actually correct and that's when I got lost in the weeds lol I don't dispute your numbers, but the budget had to be cut somewhere. Your statement about the tax decrease is obviously valid, however, time will tell. I believe Trump assumed, rather than have corporations spend their tax cuts on buying back their own stocks, that they would have spent it on capital expenditures, like improving and expanding facilities, etc, thereby providing more jobs, increasing revenue, which could cut the deficit. The fact that they didn't should be the subject of the reevaluation of the corporate tax cuts. Medicare (and to a lesser extent, Social Security, needs an overhaul) but it's worth remembering, the spending bill was bipartisan, and Trump did not get everything he wanted. Not sure I've answered your question.




Thank you so much for the response! It has restored my faith in humanity!

I agree re: what companies did with the tax cuts. If you are right about Trump's assumption, what does it say about our "businessman president" that he completely missed what actual businesses would do with those tax cuts?

In fairness, no tax cut has ever resulted in increased investment or spending relative to no tax cuts, or even compared to a tax increase. We have multiple years of actual, real, indusputable and historical data on that. Tax cuts do not, and have never, increased any kind of spending.

They only increase deficits.

Anyway, thanks again for the response. This is much more fun that hurling invectives about!


I agree. Many large corporations even said, ahead of time, what they planned to do with any tax cut windfalls...buy back stocks, increase dividends, front load pension plans, etc.
I remember there was talk about Trump trying to put a caveat on the corporate tax cuts, that they had to use it on increasing the workforce. The Republicans put the kabasch on that, for obvious reasons.
Glad your faith has been restored...You're easy!!lol
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 12/05/18 8:04pm

13cjk13

Camileyun said:

RodeoSchro said:




Thank you so much for the response! It has restored my faith in humanity!

I agree re: what companies did with the tax cuts. If you are right about Trump's assumption, what does it say about our "businessman president" that he completely missed what actual businesses would do with those tax cuts?

In fairness, no tax cut has ever resulted in increased investment or spending relative to no tax cuts, or even compared to a tax increase. We have multiple years of actual, real, indusputable and historical data on that. Tax cuts do not, and have never, increased any kind of spending.

They only increase deficits.

Anyway, thanks again for the response. This is much more fun that hurling invectives about!

I agree. Many large corporations even said, ahead of time, what they planned to do with any tax cut windfalls...buy back stocks, increase dividends, front load pension plans, etc. I remember there was talk about Trump trying to put a caveat on the corporate tax cuts, that they had to use it on increasing the workforce. The Republicans put the kabasch on that, for obvious reasons. Glad your faith has been restored...You're easy!!lol

What obvious reasons? Greed?

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 12/06/18 7:17am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Camileyun said:

RodeoSchro said:




Thank you so much for the response! It has restored my faith in humanity!

I agree re: what companies did with the tax cuts. If you are right about Trump's assumption, what does it say about our "businessman president" that he completely missed what actual businesses would do with those tax cuts?

In fairness, no tax cut has ever resulted in increased investment or spending relative to no tax cuts, or even compared to a tax increase. We have multiple years of actual, real, indusputable and historical data on that. Tax cuts do not, and have never, increased any kind of spending.

They only increase deficits.

Anyway, thanks again for the response. This is much more fun that hurling invectives about!

I agree. Many large corporations even said, ahead of time, what they planned to do with any tax cut windfalls...buy back stocks, increase dividends, front load pension plans, etc. I remember there was talk about Trump trying to put a caveat on the corporate tax cuts, that they had to use it on increasing the workforce. The Republicans put the kabasch on that, for obvious reasons. Glad your faith has been restored...You're easy!!lol



LOL, I think I am easy!

Bill Clinton did corporate tax cuts right. He made them rewards for job creation. You didn't get the cut until you created jobs or hired people. Trump - and all other Republicans I've seen - do it the other way around. They give companies the cuts and then hope that creates jobs.

And, as we've seen, the real world doesn't work that way. You'd think after three documented instances of failure of that theory, that Republicans would finally realize there is no such thing as "trickle down" economics. The money doesn't trickle anywhere.

Maybe that's the way the GOP wants it?

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 12/06/18 7:43am

BombSquad

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

Maybe that's the way the GOP wants it?

yep. if they are not dumb like a bag of horeshit I see no other explanation it simply is what they want.






2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 12/07/18 8:27am

Camileyun

BombSquad said:



RodeoSchro said:



Maybe that's the way the GOP wants it?





yep. if they are not dumb like a bag of horeshit I see no other explanation it simply is what they want.







Now, that's funny! lol
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 4 <1234
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Support the Red Wave! Vote GOP