House GOP Budget Picture Starts to Develop: Increased Overall Spending & CBO est. ~$2,400,000,000,000 in Additional Debt

[KCfromNC]

2025 and we’re still debating trickle-down economics?
Sure, why not!?

I mean, people voted for Trump because they thought egg prices were the most important thing to their daily lives. Believing in trickle-down economics is graduate school level work by comparison.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I mean, people voted for Trump because they thought egg prices were the most important thing to their daily lives. Believing in trickle-down economics is graduate school level work by comparison.

I always liked the we can't afford eggs, but a 2000 mile trip to Washington DC is no problem.

 

[Vambram]

Every time discussions go in this direction, I'm reminded of this scene from The Shawshank Redemption:

No, for the third time, lowering taxes is not "good... for increasing federal government revenues."

There isn't really any argument. You're just wrong.



lol, what info? "Trickle down economics" theory that hasn't worked as advertised in the 40+ years it's been tried?

Every time in modern American history that tax rates have been lowered federal government revenue has increased. That is a fact. The federal government doesn't have a problem with revenue. Instead, the Federal government has a spending problem by hugely over spending above incoming revenue.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Every time in modern American history that tax rates have been lowered federal government revenue has increased. That is a fact.

It's also a fact that every time in modern American history that tax rates have increase, revenue has increase.

I don't know why you're even trying to make that point. It's like you don't understand what I said.

The federal government doesn't have a problem with revenue. Instead, the Federal government has a spending problem by hugely over spending above incoming revenue.

That's certainly one opinion. As a percentage of GDP, our tax revenues are below the global average:

List of sovereign states by tax revenue to GDP ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Every time in modern American history that tax rates have been lowered federal government revenue has increased. That is a fact.

Has that *ever* happened?

The only time I can think of would be when there was a "low-rate amnesty" for repatriation of profits held by overseas subsidiaries and a bunch of companies chose to take the low tax to use the cash back in the US rather than continue avoiding taxes all together. (As I recall, a lot of that "repatriated" profits were used for stock buybacks.) Now maybe you have some other examples of the unwinding of tax shelters to pay modest tax in anticipation of the lower rate going away in the future.

The general tax rate cuts returning more revenue are all predicated on claims that economic grown will accelerate above the background level to yield compensatory tax revenue to offset the lost revenue from the rate decrease. If this occurs it takes quite a long time.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Has that *ever* happened?

Yes. Every time. What hasn't happened is that revenues haven't risen above the levels they otherwise would have without the tax cuts.

 

[RileyG]

I mean, people voted for Trump because they thought egg prices were the most important thing to their daily lives. Believing in trickle-down economics is graduate school level work by comparison.

No. People voted for Trump because they didn’t want Harris to be president.

 

[KCfromNC]

No. People voted for Trump because they didn’t want Harris to be president.

When asked, voters did repeat far-right talking points about egg prices : Democrats Have No Idea What to Do About the Egg Thing

 

[RileyG]

When asked, voters did repeat far-right talking points about egg prices : Democrats Have No Idea What to Do About the Egg Thing

Ok? Bird flu is outside anyone’s control. Maybe SOME voters were uniformed, I’ll give you that.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok? Bird flu is outside anyone’s control. Maybe SOME voters were uniformed, I’ll give you that.

I'd argue about 50% of them (egg prices, litter boxes in school classrooms for kids to use, tariffs not being paid by American consumers, immigrants are eating pets, schools are doing sex changes, inflation is still high, Trump had better job growth, etc, etc, etc). Seems to be a pattern.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'd argue about 50% of them (egg prices, litter boxes in school classrooms for kids to use, tariffs not being paid by American consumers, immigrants are eating pets, schools are doing sex changes, inflation is still high, Trump had better job growth, etc, etc, etc). Seems to be a pattern.

oh, it's worse than 50%

 

[RileyG]

oh, it's worse than 50%

I'd argue about 50% of them (egg prices, litter boxes in school classrooms for kids to use, tariffs not being paid by American consumers, immigrants are eating pets, schools are doing sex changes, inflation is still high, Trump had better job growth, etc, etc, etc). Seems to be a pattern.

Eh? Who knows. I doubt that’s the reason why Trump got into office.

 

[KCfromNC]

Eh? Who knows. I doubt that’s the reason why Trump got into office.

Yeah, it's a shame we don't have any ways to learn about the nature of reality and must resort to guessing.

Meanwhile, back here in reality interested readers can review the information in post 28.

 

[RileyG]

Yeah, it's a shame we don't have any ways to learn about the nature of reality and must resort to guessing.

Meanwhile, back here in reality interested readers can review the information in post 28.

Trump won. That’s a fact. The people have spoken. I’m not guessing anything. Lol

 

[essentialsaltes]

The picture starts to undevelop.

House delays key vote on Trump budget bill after conservative fury over spending cuts​

House Freedom Caucus members are pushing for deeper [i.e. any] spending cuts​

A key vote to advance a massive conservative policy bill has been delayed, putting House Republicans behind in their ambitious schedule to enact President Donald Trump'sagenda.

The House Budget Committee had initially aimed to go through and approve the legislation this week, but a source familiar with planning told Fox News Digital that is no longer the case.

Fox News Digital was told that GOP leaders initially presented what amounted to a $300 billion floor for cuts, paired with $325 billion in new defense and border spending.

Hard-liner rebellion forces House GOP leaders to scramble for deeper cuts​

For example, the Energy and Commerce Committee would need to increase its planned $200 billion minimum in cuts, which almost assuredly will trigger tough conversations around Medicaid. The Agriculture Committee, which had outlined a minimum target of $50 billion in cuts during the final retreat meeting, would now need to cut $150 billion. That would mean deeper impacts on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helps feed more than 40 million low-income Americans.

Freedom Caucus members Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and several other fiscal hawks hold enough votes on the Budget Committee to block any plan from advancing. Johnson and other top leaders, meanwhile, have to balance their right flank’s demands for major cuts with the concerns of GOP members in competitive districts who are wary of deep cuts to safety-net programs.

‘We ought to move’: Senate Republicans impatient with House budget delays​

---

Why doesn't Trump just tell them what to do? They will clearly do practically anything he suggests.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The picture starts to undevelop.

House delays key vote on Trump budget bill after conservative fury over spending cuts​

House Freedom Caucus members are pushing for deeper [i.e. any] spending cuts​

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right

Moderate Republicans Threaten to Sink Trump Budget Plan Over Musk’s Cuts to Medicaid​

Reps. David Valadao (R-Calif.) and Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), who represent areas with many Medicaid recipients, are withholding their support. They want more information on how these cuts would affect their constituents.

Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) warned that he would not vote for the budget if it hurts people in his district. He said, “If a bill is put in front of me that guts the benefits my neighbors rely on, I will not vote for it.”

This uncertainty could cause trouble for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the leadership team, including Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who are hoping to pass the resolution by the week of Feb. 24. With little room to spare, Republicans can only lose one vote and still need full support from their members, as Democrats are expected to oppose it.

The budget resolution includes major spending cuts, aiming for $1.5 trillion with a target of $2 trillion. It also imposes a $4.5 trillion limit on the deficit and calls for $300 billion in extra spending for border security and defense. The most significant cuts are aimed at Medicaid, with the Energy and Commerce Committee expected to take the biggest hit — up to $880 billion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Increasing tax rates never guarantees an increase with federal government revenue because raising tax rates almost invariably slows economic growth in the GDP. On the other hand, every time in modern history, lowering federal tax rates causes good economic growth and therefore history shows increases in total federal government revenue raised and collected.

Indeed. It tends to be better to tax consumption, particularly consumption of things which are otherwise detrimental, for example, certain categories of imports which threaten domestic industry. I myself would like to see a tariff on all foreign countries using coal power plants and engaging in reckless releases of chemicals which are harming the environment, which in turn would be invested in the US automobile industry and in revitalizing production of internal combustion engines, so that we can continue to enjoy the advantages of conventionally fueled vehicles while improving environmental conditions. Likewise I wish the US had never abandoned the NS Savannah project. Commercial shipping is such a waste of poorly refined oil and operates on a scale where fewer larger ships with nuclear reactors would be infinitely better than the swarms of nasty inefficient Panamanian and Liberian-registered vessels we currently have, which grow ever larger, but not large enough to compensate for their fundamental inefficiency, rather, simply large enough to be able to cause economic crises when they run aground in the Suez Canal.

I don’t get involved in much of partisan politics other than to defend the Church and the traditional doctrine of the Church with regards to human sexuality, and to ensure that the designs of Islamic fundamentalists, Hindu nationalists and Communists and other secularist forces to suppress or restrain Christianity or prevent us from expressing ourselves according to Scripture, regarding, for instance, sexual morality, with hate crime legislation, but I make an exception when it comes to issues that relate to transportation, energy and telecom policy as I have specific knowledge of these sectors, which I why I strongly advocate for next-generation nuclear power plants (the new designs physically cannot melt down in the way conventional pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors can melt down) and electrification of railways and the use of dense networks of privately operated regional electric railways subsidized if needed in the same way highways and airports are subsidized, with the ideal model being that of Japan and certain European countries where rail privatization has been done successfully (particularly in Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Czechia, the Netherlands and Scandinavia).

 

[essentialsaltes]

GOP Sen. Josh Hawley Warns Against 'Massive' Medicaid Cuts: 'I Don't Like The Idea'​

The Missouri Republican said large cuts to Medicaid would harm many people who voted for President Donald Trump.

“I would not do severe cuts to Medicaid,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told HuffPost in an interview on Tuesday.

"We should have no Medicare cuts of any kind,” the senator added.

He said he agreed with MAGA whisperer Steve Bannon, who warned over the weekend that the right “can’t just take a meat axe” to the program because it also benefits low-income Trump supporters.

[While the House GOP wants to cut Medicaid] Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are pushing forward with their own slimmer budget plan that would first boost border security, defense and energy policy, and want to tackle passing tax cuts later on. The two chambers still aren’t any closer to uniting around a singular strategy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right

And stuck in the middle is...

Trump blindsides staff, Congress with conflicting Medicaid messages​

President Donald Trump surprised some of his own staff Wednesday when he endorsed a House budget that would gut Medicaid, hours after pledging that the safety net program “isn’t going to be touched.”

The comments sent aides scrambling to figure out what Trump meant and which Medicaid cuts he would be willing to accept, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the action happening behind closed doors

On Wednesday, the White House appeared to add a new wrinkle by indicating Trump may also be open to altering elements of Medicare — the popular health care program for older Americans he’s repeatedly promised to preserve.

“The Trump administration is committed to protecting Medicare and Medicaid while slashing the waste, fraud, and abuse within those programs — reforms that will increase efficiency and improve care for beneficiaries,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in an initial statement to POLITICO.

ETA: But after this article was published, Desai sent an updated statement that omitted the mention of Medicare, instead saying only that the administration sought to protect Medicaid “while slashing the waste, fraud and abuse within the program.”

 

[wing2000]

ETA: But after this article was published, Desai sent an updated statement that omitted the mention of Medicare, instead saying only that the administration sought to protect Medicaid “while slashing the waste, fraud and abuse within the program.”

...does his highness know the difference between the two programs?