It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Team Stands by Budget’s $2 Trillion Math Error

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not sure where you are reading the proposal, but the quotes you specify are not there on the pages you specify, on my copy. The copy I found is here.

On page 31 of that document, the GDP shows a growth rate higher than the 3% I had heard... it looks to be closer to 4.5%. The receipts are shown to be approximately 18% of GDP. That's the bottom line: how much money do we take in, and how much do we spend? The difference is the deficit or surplus, and the cumulative totals of all previous years' deficit is the national debt. I want to see where the $3.6T and $5.6T numbers come from in relation to the tables.

Could you see if the page numbers are the same between your copy and mine? I did do due diligence in scanning a few pages before and after your page numbers... no luck.

I'll look again the morning. Thanks for tackling my question.

TheRedneck






posted on May, 25 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

That's F'd up - one question I have is if there are examples of other administrations errors comparable in scope and size?

And secondly, if so, what was the backlash/response like?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
It is better than no plan which is what we have had since 08...anything is better than nothing .



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is better than no plan which is what we have had since 08...anything is better than nothing .

Saying we have no budget since 08 is a lie because if you took five seconds on Google you will find that budgets were passed. Also here's news flash for you the President proposes a budget he doesn't pass a budget congress does. So is you want to complain then complain about the Republicans who controlled congress.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is better than no plan which is what we have had since 08...anything is better than nothing .

Saying we have no budget since 08 is a lie because if you took five seconds on Google you will find that budgets were passed. Also here's news flash for you the President proposes a budget he doesn't pass a budget congress does. So is you want to complain then complain about the Republicans who controlled congress.


This bears repeating. I would have thought the poster knew that.
edit on 25-5-2017 by MOMof3 because: sp



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is better than no plan which is what we have had since 08...anything is better than nothing .

Saying we have no budget since 08 is a lie because if you took five seconds on Google you will find that budgets were passed. Also here's news flash for you the President proposes a budget he doesn't pass a budget congress does. So is you want to complain then complain about the Republicans who controlled congress.


How would you survive if you budgeted like this?

Now I surely won't say Trump will do the opposite but lets be real here, government has serious problem with how our dollars are being spent.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Dlp sorry
edit on 25-5-2017 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Not for nothing tho, but for all their hype about fiscal responsibility , Reps spend like a drunken sailor's first night ashore, it all depends on what they waste money on.
edit on 25-5-2017 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: JinMI

Not for nothing tho but, for all their hype about fiscal responsibility Reps, spend like a drunken sailor first night ashore, it all depends on what they waste money on.


History agrees with you unless you want to attribute W's first month to him.

Funny how that works out to be 2001 eh?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FyreByrd


I am not going to response to replies of the "well they did this..." variety.

How about a response of "where's the error?"

I'm not seeing it. Can you please point it out?

TheRedneck


The "double count" is supposedly that the revenues from a 3% GDP growth rate assumption have been used for both funding tax cuts and also deficit reduction.

Mulvaney did discuss this in his press conference. There is not much detail in any budget from year 2 to year 10, Only year 1 has a decent level of detail. The forward horizons over 10 years include multiple assumptions but they are fairly loose, on purpose. Frankly, getting hung up on what will happen over 10 years is not really worth it. Whatever is put forward WILL be wrong.

The important thing is the direction of the budget in policy terms, which can easily be characterised as higher growth, less tax, less waste.
This direction is all that will influence Congress - the detail of the Presidents budget will be completely ignored, as it always is.
edit on 25/5/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not sure where you are reading the proposal, but the quotes you specify are not there on the pages you specify, on my copy. The copy I found is here.

On page 31 of that document, the GDP shows a growth rate higher than the 3% I had heard... it looks to be closer to 4.5%. The receipts are shown to be approximately 18% of GDP. That's the bottom line: how much money do we take in, and how much do we spend? The difference is the deficit or surplus, and the cumulative totals of all previous years' deficit is the national debt. I want to see where the $3.6T and $5.6T numbers come from in relation to the tables.

Could you see if the page numbers are the same between your copy and mine? I did do due diligence in scanning a few pages before and after your page numbers... no luck.

I'll look again the morning. Thanks for tackling my question.

There is a 6-page offset in the viewer you refer to from the pages in the actual document.

Page 13 from the document you are using (page 19 in the viewer), right column, second paragraph from top:

The Budget assumes deficit neutral tax reform, which the Administration will work closely with the Congress to enact.

Page 9 from the document you are using (page 15 in the viewer), left column, second paragraph from top:

Budget includes $3.6 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years, the most ever proposed
by any President in a Budget. By including the anticipated economic gains that will result from the President’s fiscal, economic, and regulatory policies, the deficit will be reduced by $5.6 trillion compared to the current fiscal path.

$3.6 trillion in spending reduction (+ growth???) = $5.6 trillion deficit reduction.

This $3.6 trillion is rounded up from the -3,563 figure on the Total Proposals in the 2018 Budget line for 2018-2027 on the tables on page 26 (page 32 in the viewer). On the same page, the $5.6 trillion is rounded down from the -5,625 figure on the Total deficit reduction in the 2018 Budget line.


As far as dynamic scoring goes (if this model in particular):

Like all of the five tax cuts modeled, the static revenue estimate for the child credit is a loss of $72 billion to the Treasury. Because this tax cut produces virtually no economic growth, there is no extra revenue feedback from the policy, and so it also loses $72 billion on a dynamic basis.

The individual rate cuts do produce modest economic growth and, thus, have modest revenue feedbacks. So each of these polices lose slightly less on a dynamic basis than is estimated on a static basis. For example, cutting the lowest tax bracket generates $68 billion in additional GDP. When the TAG model accounts for the modest feedback effect from this new growth, it finds that the policy costs about 20 percent less on a dynamic basis than was estimated on a static basis (-$56 billion versus -$72 billion).

Meanwhile, the plan to cut the top brackets generates $107 billion in higher GDP and, due to the feedback effects of this new growth, the plan costs about one-third less than the static cost (-$48 billion versus -$72 billion).

These three examples should clearly illustrate to both supporters and detractors of dynamic scoring that vthe notion that all tax cuts pay for themselves has been quite oversold.Like all of the five tax cuts modeled, the static revenue estimate for the child credit is a loss of $72 billion to the Treasury. Because this tax cut produces virtually no economic growth, there is no extra revenue feedback from the policy, and so it also loses $72 billion on a dynamic basis.

The individual rate cuts do produce modest economic growth and, thus, have modest revenue feedbacks. So each of these polices lose slightly less on a dynamic basis than is estimated on a static basis. For example, cutting the lowest tax bracket generates $68 billion in additional GDP. When the TAG model accounts for the modest feedback effect from this new growth, it finds that the policy costs about 20 percent less on a dynamic basis than was estimated on a static basis (-$56 billion versus -$72 billion).

Meanwhile, the plan to cut the top brackets generates $107 billion in higher GDP and, due to the feedback effects of this new growth, the plan costs about one-third less than the static cost (-$48 billion versus -$72 billion).

These three examples should clearly illustrate to both supporters and detractors of dynamic scoring that the notion that all tax cuts pay for themselves has been quite oversold.


Or I suppose you could look at history, where tax cuts don't pay for themselves. Even Forbes (www.forbes.com... for some reason this link won't show otherwise) is not optimistic on that one:

if we're going to try and say that tax cuts alone are going to give us an extra 10% of GDP in a decade well, umm, that's a tough target actually.
...
It's also possible for the general level of taxation to be so high that cuts would spur growth. The United States is nowhere near that sort of condition today.
...
But what is generally agreed among economists is that general tax cuts, from the US starting point of today, won't produce enough extra growth for the cuts to pay for themselves. There are most certainly those dynamic effects and we should not try to score things purely statically. But we don't think those dynamic effects are large enough to offset all of the revenue losses.

Which, of course, is a problem if the policy is enacted with a stout insistence that they will be.


Anyway that's a side topic... is this sufficient or do you need screenshots of your source?
edit on 7Thu, 25 May 2017 07:35:50 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: FyreByrd

That's F'd up - one question I have is if there are examples of other administrations errors comparable in scope and size?

And secondly, if so, what was the backlash/response like?



Considering Democrats didn't submit a budget for what, 8 years? And then when Obama submitted one even his own party immediately voted it straight out. It's hard to find a recent example.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FyreByrd

Asking to see evidence of a claim is not a fallacy.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FyreByrd

OK....

I read the NBC article you listed.

I clicked through to several other articles linked in it.

I saw no reference to where in the 62-page document this error was.

I looked up the actual budget proposal (which NBC also forgot to link).

I scanned through the document and saw no error.

I asked where the error was. I was ignored.

I asked again and was told it was in the article, which it was not.

So, I'll gladly take your advice and "WAKE UP"... to the fact there is no error.

And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by insinuating no one can understand... three semesters of economics. That doesn't make me an accountant, but I can damn sure understand a freakin' budget!

Fake news again, until someone points it out by page and line number.

TheRedneck


I just want to know if it to our good or bad, nobody knows that either.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Yeah, you look pretty stupid when you make a math error then try to ignore it and assert your dominance.


But lets be honest: none of them can create a budget that works. Our government gets shut down every year in this annual drama of mendacity where a Mexican Standoff is staged for the nations entertainment. The worst kept secret is that they are all idiots and make crap up as they go along. That is what is known as "leadership", even in the real world.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: TinySickTears

Not a valid argument.

A prior mistake/crime/whatever you want to call it doesn't justify the current case - EVER. And only the ignorant believe it does.


yeah but it is always what about when hillary...

what about when obama.......

there is always a deflection.

they will be in shortly to tell us why this is no big deal and we are making a big deal out of and cause we are triggered.
its going to happen


i would just like to see at least for once one/some of the trumpets to come in and say yeah, thats #ed up....
It is not deflection it is prescedent. You know that thing that all laws are predicated on? The backbone of our entire system of law?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Momof3 and you are wrong.

I'm pointing out a fact that nothing was done on both sides. I am tired of the partisan bull#. There were actually quite a few votes there not one person in the house or senate approved. They all wanted what they wanted for their states and lobbyists and during the last administration the first 'trillion dollar president' appeared because of more and more and more spending. It is a sick game that they play and we as citizens get screwed. We have taken in more in taxes in the last decade but our spending has tripled.

Blaming republicans does not work. Blaming Democrats does not work. They all suck and that is why the change that is here now is freaking them all out.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: buster2010

They all suck and that is why the change that is here now is freaking them all out.


What change is that exactly?



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Talking of budgets, didn't Califormia recently try and push forward a single payer scheme and it was costed at twice their overall budget, lol. That would spending on nothing else, like police, and doubling their spend.

That was the so called big demand from Democrats - oh well.



posted on May, 25 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Cutting spending. It is pretty simple.




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join