Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #91 
The suggestion the bill pays for itself through economic growth comes from the Senate...

In an interview on Friday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said that “we’re confident that the $1.5 trillion gap would be filled” by economic growth. Mr. McConnell said the tax bill would add 0.4 percentage points to annual economic growth, though he did not cite a specific analysis suggesting that assertion. “So we believe this is a responsible budget and a responsible tax reform,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/politics/republican-tax-plans-deficit-debt.html?_r=0



Here is the CBO report.  Maybe I'm missing their prediction on what it takes to avoid added debt.  My understanding is they did not try to determine how much growth might change added debt.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdf


__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #92 
I think somebody needs to link these studies saying added debt is this much at this growth, etc.  Otherwise, people are just spewing numbers they heard on TV.
__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #93 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61


At 1.9% GDP.


We'll see. That was the preojected growth. Why assume ANYTHING DIFFERENT?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,223
Reply with quote  #94 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh


We'll see. That was the preojected growth. Why assume ANYTHING DIFFERENT?


For one thing, it's never been that low over a ten year period.  But then I know you Democrats hate evidence and facts.
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #95 
If there is a study out there saying if we grow economy two point something percent we'll wipe out the added debt, I just can't find it.  Maybe it's fake news.  Maybe a blogger said it on the internet and wasn't challenged.  In any event, I wanted to see if the growth had to be each year or just one year.  We're being told we'll add over $100 billion to our debt each year for the next ten years (more if tax cuts don't expire).  It would be interesting to know if we had to have large growth each year or just one year to avoid these annual debts.

Edit:  That's $100 Billion a year over the already projected deficit of about $600-800 Billion per year on average.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #96 
CBO projection was done at an assumed GDP growth of what? 2.6% as I read. Anything above 2.6 means what Dewey?
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #97 
Wait was the CBO score at a an assumed 1.7 GDP growth to account for the Obama’s economy?
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #98 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61


For one thing, it's never been that low over a ten year period.  But then I know you Democrats hate evidence and facts.


So where did the numbers come from? It was a bipartisan, joint committee on taxes. Where do your numbers come from?
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,223
Reply with quote  #99 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh


So where did the numbers come from? It was a bipartisan, joint committee on taxes. Where do your numbers come from?


All I did was point out that the CBO estimate used 1.9% GDP growth in their estimates.  I then showed that GDP had never, ever been that low during any 10 year period.  All the data is available to you on the internets.
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #100 
Which data source do you use. I'm telling you the best congressional estimate was the JCT. 100% it will be rightg. Of course not, just the best available congressional estoimate. This is what they voted for. Morally bankrupt.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,340
Reply with quote  #101 
Do you have any clue to what GDP growth has been consistently outside of Obamas 8 years. To use his pathetic results as a benchmark is an affront to the greatness of this country.
__________________
#SCOTUS

Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #102 
Here you go President Obama.  Here's an economy crashing, millions losing their jobs, and the stock market dropping like a lead balloon.  In fact, your first year in office will see a negative GDP growth of -2.8% thanks to the recession you'll inherit.  Unfortunately for you, we're going to attach that number to your eight year record and then criticize you for overall performance.  Good luck.

This reminds me of the tragic example of a foreign Country losing 95% of its national soccer team in an airline crash and then criticizing the next Coach on his poor record over the next several years when developing a completely new team.

In any event, take 2009 off of Obama's record and his seven year average GDP growth exceeds President Bush.  This is why it's critical to challenge what you read on the internet.

Now has anyone found any report stating what GDP growth must be to offset projected ten year increased deficits thanks to the new tax bill?  I haven't found any study making that call, particularly one explaining whether this growth must be each year for ten years or just one year.  I'd like to read it.


__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #103 
CBO scored the tax plan assuming a GDP less than 2%
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #104 
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52912



__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #105 
I linked a CBO report and can't find that claim.  Maybe I'm missing it.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/reconciliationrecommendationssfc.pdf


Let's assume the CBO did use average GDP growth of 2% to make their ten year estimate.  What study is out there saying a 2.4% GDP growth wipes all this added debt out?  What study predicted we'd average 2.4% over the next ten years?  Is there one or is McConnell just making this claim to get support behind the bill?

In several years, assuming this tax bill actually adds to the debt, supporters are preparing to respond by saying they were told growth would be higher.  They'll blame politicians for not reaching their predicted goals.  It will be somebody else fault for the higher debt and the debt warnings given today will be mostly ignored.

Edit:  The above July update appears to be a general forecast unrelated to the tax bill.  What page is the ten year GDP estimate on?  They probably do use average GDP growth to make estimates but I doubt this report shows a prediction of what a GDP change might be if a new tax reform bill is passed.  In July, they probably had no idea what the new tax bill would look like.  

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #106 
If GDP does go higher than the 1.9% the CBO used, lets say for the sake of debate 3% then what? Third quarter GDP was 19.509 Trillion dollars. What would you think would happen with an economy performing at 1% more per quarter? Would you say that tax revenue would increase, or decrease?
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #107 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52912




Why do continually refer to the CBO assessment when the most reliable is the JCT, put out by congress. Do you have a reason to discount this report? It took into account the projected growth rate. Best estimate I've seen was on Fox, with a 1/2 trillion dollars added to the deficit over 10 years.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #108 
“What we’ve scored it to is 2.9 percent GDP over 10 years, which is scaling up to 3 percent,” Mnuchin said at The Atlantic and Aspen Institute’s Washington Ideas forum. “We think that’s very, very doable; we think we can do higher than that, but if we get to the 3 percent, that’s $2 trillion in additional revenue.”
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #109 
"If GDP does go higher than the 1.9% the CBO used, lets say for the sake of debate 3% then what?"

That's the study I was hoping to read.  Somewhere Senators are saying if GDP goes up we'll wipe out this projected added debt.  I just wanted to know where they were getting this information?  Who is telling them that if GDP goes up this much, they will not see any added debt?  Who is telling them GDP will go up each year for the next ten?  What study are they using to form their conclusion?  If the last post is accurate, it appears they're hanging their hat on a prediction being made by a WH official.  I was just interested in where all these predictions are coming from.


__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #110 
that’s $2 trillion in additional revenue.
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #111 
CBO used a 1.9% based on the prior period 2002-2016. They forecast 1.8-1.9 2017-2027. We are at more than 3% now, and with tax cuts, and expanded spending, I think it wouldn't be unrealistic to see 3.5-4% growth. That would generate some serious cash into the economy, and the treasury.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #112 
If this tax bill adds more debt to our total over the next several years, these Senators are going to come back to us and say "they told us this wouldn't happen".  I just wanted to know who "they" are because "they" apparently aren't the three entities who did studies showing this bill adds debt. 

My guess is President Bush told his followers our deficits would stay down during his term and we all know how that turned out.  The Right was furious with him and I want to know how Senators will explain their vote if it happens all over again.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




Fresh

Registered:
Posts: 2,996
Reply with quote  #113 
Mnuchin refuses to show the "numerous studies" they used to make their estimates. How could you not believe a prime consiglieri of the trump mafia. Keep waiting Will, but don't hold your breath.
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #114 
Your concern about our debt seems disingenuous. 

If it is true concern, I expect we will be seeing the dems step up and helping push forward on the spending cut proposals that will come in the spring.

__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,258
Reply with quote  #115 
Yeah, suddenly debt is top priority with Dewey. What if instead, the CBO 1.9% guesstimate was way low, and we see a moderate increase in GDP, and revenue? Would you be willing to say wow, I was wrong about the tax bill?
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Will_I_Wynn

Registered:
Posts: 742
Reply with quote  #116 
"If it is true concern, I expect we will be seeing the dems step up and helping push forward on the spending cut proposals that will come in the spring."


I'll tell you what we won't do.  We won't allow the Right to continue stifling Government revenue with tax cuts only to hear them later come along and say, "Shucks, now we don't have enough money to pay our obligations.  I suppose we'll have to reduce children's food stamps or the SS of elderly folks."  (This is where the Right comes in to speak of porch sitters.)

At least I hope we won't.  Have to admit the Right is backing the Democrats into a corner.  At some point they might have to choose between cutting SS or seeing the Country fall into bankruptcy.  I don't know how high the debt can go before it's a serious concern.  Meanwhile, they need to gain the power to stop this squeezing of the Federal Government with the Right's goal of seeing Government mostly scrapped.  If they do regain power, they may have to cut Defense in order to get this budget back in order.  Hopefully they can reinstate the tax obligations of the wealthy as well.

As for joining the Republicans for spending cuts, they just ignored Sen Paul with his cut proposal.  What makes anyone think they're going to anger the electorate with spending cuts now?  They just got their Corporate and donor tax cuts so I
expect they'll sit on their hands for awhile now.  We'll see because it will be interesting to hear comments in 2020 when our debt goes to $24 Trillion from $20.5 Trillion under President Trump.  I don't care how strong Trump supporters are, some are going to question a higher debt number and wonder what changed by electing President Trump.

Edit:  Yes, if these tax cuts ever lead to a significant increase in revenue, I might say they worked.  Then again, my guess is there will likely be another reason for the increase in revenue (new technology or something) and I'll still feel tax revenue would have been even higher if we didn't give all the wealthy a discount.

__________________
A gullible nation is a vulnerable nation.  Challenge what you read on the internet.  Our nation's security is in our hands.  Don't be duped by misinformation.

The Right in here are quoting posts and changing words.  Please search for original post if accurate information is desired.




uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #117 
why not cut the layabouts lose?
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #118 
I am hoping they do spending cuts next session.
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #119 
Remember when Odummer said we would never see 3% growth rates ever again.  That the economic reality had changed and America could no longer grow.   

hahhahah  What a communist loser that guy was. 


__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
uwApoligist

Registered:
Posts: 8,086
Reply with quote  #120 
[UU1dRc8] 
__________________
I'm more getting a sense that willie wynn is dewey is a F'n loser. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.