Surely we could cut $400B from defense and education and energy. There is a $4T start. And specific. Looks like barfo is arguing we should tax the poor.
What it does tell you is the revenue can adjust greatly, which would lower the 1T more needed. If you have 20 mil jobs as opposed to the 5 mil they conservatively used, the numbers change drastically. And if you look at historical economics, a 6% GDP increase in 1 year can generate 20 mil jobs.
Yeah, the analysis could be flawed. And probably is. However, if you want to present a rosier scenario, you have to actually present one. Not just wave your hands and say things will be great. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges. I think they were saying that GDP would grow an extra 11% (i.e. more than whatever they were assuming as the baseline growth) over the 10 year period. You are comparing that to a total growth of 6% in one year. barfo
GDP is $17.4T. Tax 20% of that and you get $3.5T. At 111% GDP, tax 18% and you get $3.5T. At 20%, you get $3.9T. Times 10 years, it adds up to $4T that could have been TAKEN if the tax rates weren't lowered. It's kind of a math parlor trick.
He's going to have Mexico pay for the wall. There's some savings to be had there, too. $4T isn't "tiny" by anyone's definition but yours.
I have broken it down in what I've understood. Bringing in 2.5 trillion taxed at 10% is an added 250 bil, but more importantly, that money is patriotized back into the country to add more high paying jobs. Lower tax will most likely have more income claim. More claim will have more taxable income. Less taxed middle class will create more disposable income to add more consumer goods bought and taxed in the U.S. Less beurocrats needed with administration reform. Only 46% of total fed revenue comes from income tax, so the discount isn't dropped right from the top. Proposed increase of GDP could generate 20 mil more full time jobs can generate even more tax.
The tiny did not refer to the $ but rather the specificity. I don't think there is savings in fantasizing that Mexico will spend money that we weren't going to spend anyway. barfo
I'm dubious of saving by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. You have to cut the head off the beast. Shut down entire departments. Like Education. Education is funded by property tax (etc.), and provided locally anyhow.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html Bring the troops home. Let the national guard go back to their regular jobs. It ain't rocket science. See ya, DEA.
We agree on that point. It's worth pursuing, you should always try to be more efficient, but the fact is people have been trying hard to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse for many, many years. Yes there is more to eliminate, but it is not a large percentage of the budget. If you want real savings, I agree that's the sort of thing you'd need to do. Trouble is, you have to get people to agree that it's ok to eliminate those things. And a lot of people won't think it is ok. The majority does not agree with you that government is a purposeless waste of money. barfo
You and I agree on those points also. But, pretty sure neither Trump nor any other Republican candidate agrees with us. barfo
A lot of people don't want that shit in the first place. Someone has to be the loser when one wants it and the other doesn't. Your turn to lose. We'll be saving you from yourself in the end. Instead of runaway entitlements and interest expense crowding out any other kind of spending, we'll have the ability to budget a decent amount of services.
A lot of people don't, a lot of people do. I suspect all of us have some things we'd like to change about government (federal or otherwise). Doesn't mean we get the changes we want, because convincing other people to go along is hard work. barfo
Half the people don't even vote. When surveyed, they say the country is going the wrong direction and the outsiders are doing extremely well in the polls. When a president that can lead gets elected, he gets his agenda through. Clinton did. So did Reagan. Both had congress of the opposing party.
Larry Kudlow on Trump's Tax Plan: I Really Like It Renowned economist Larry Kudlow Tuesday endorsed Donald Trump's tax plan, telling Newsmax TV that it is "a pro-growth, supply-side" program that would grow the nation's long-slagging economy. "I really like Trump's plan," the CNBC senior contributor told "The Steve Malzberg Show" in an interview. "One of the things I just love about it is the 15 percent corporate tax rate. "Remember, China's is 25, so if you want to beat China, lower the corporate tax rate — and that's just what Donald Trump has done. And by the way, small businesses … would pay the same low 15 percent rate. That's one of the key features. "And, by the way, cutting into corporate tax is huge for economic growth." Story continues below video. Watch Newsmax TV on DirecTV Ch. 349, DISH Ch. 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch. 115. Get Newsmax TV on your cable system — Click Here Now Kudlow, who hosts his own syndicated radio show, has long championed a 15 percent corporate tax rate, but "I never thought I'd see a candidate do it. "It'll give us a gigantic advantage. Bring capital and businesses to the U.S., make us the most hospitable place to invest — and that's what Donald Trump has done." Republicans are currently split over whether to defund Planned Parenthood in the budget talks, even if it could lead to another federal government shutdown. The 16-day partial closing of the government in 2012 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion. "Nobody likes, really loves, government shutdowns, including me," Kudlow told Malzberg. "I'm not proposing that we have five of them in a row. "But I will say this, sometimes you have to make a statement, OK? You've got to make a point. You've got to tell people what your beliefs are. "One of the problems here with the Republican grass-roots is that the base is very angry at the Washington leadership in the House and Senate because it hasn't done what it said it would do: namely, create a bunch of bills like tax reform and Obamacare and energy and immigration, put them on the president, and let him veto it. "So, then, we go off to 2016," Kudlow added, and that "people, including myself, are frustrated." He noted that the government has been shut down 18 times since 1976. "Many of them have been started by Democrats." Regarding the sudden resignation of House Speaker John Boehner, Kudlow would not say whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be next to go, but told Malzberg: "The House and Senate leadership should spend less time making deals and accommodating the Democrats and more time crafting a clear message and philosophy of beliefs and communicate that to the rest of the party. "That's what has to happen." He also clarified news reports that he was running for the Senate from Connecticut. "I am continuing to explore a run in the Senate from Connecticut, absolutely exploring it," Kudlow said. "In fact, I would say exploring it intensely. "There are a lot of moving pieces — and we're kind of going through that, and we're looking at the machinery — but I have not yet made a final decision."
My read on the plan is that it will cause corps to relocate domestically. It seems this is sort of a temporary revenue increase. I don't know that it would be sustainable without massive spending cuts. It also seems like Trump wants to make people rich so that he can tax them. That evil guy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3f05f65_story.html?postshare=1181443698475854 $trillions and $trillions
