-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYMag: Trump Budget Based on $2 Trillion Math Error
- Thread starter Makonero
- Start date
sturgboski
Member
Republicans are so terrible they can't even fuck over people right.
psynergylover
Member
he's doing something about that "economic anxiety" alright...
Version 3.0
Member
To be fair, only after the government told him to stop laundering Russian mob money.
sturgboski
Member
Also, Simpsons right again.
If only the funding cuts negatively affected just those that voted him and the party in and those that didn't vote to stop this. What kind of inhuman fucks want to cut funding to things like cancer research?
Walter White Walker
Member
Looks like somebody needs some Common Core math.
TheCochese
Banned
Underrated.
BobTheFork
Member
Yeah, 'mistake'.... they know there's a massive hole in that budget, he just wants to pass something he can claim to have designed.
Nathan
Nathan
Vicetrailia
Banned
What useless stooges.
SuperBowser
Member
I'm impressed. They've created alternative mathematics.
Thelonelykoopa
Member
I mean worst comes to worst Trump just has to print more money; He still has the press at Trump tower he just needs someone who knows russian to operate it.
GameAddict411
Member
I wouldn't call it a mistake. I don't think anyone who have done math in high school will suddenly end up with 2 trillion dollars out of no where? It's on purpose to make the tax more appealing while Trump shoves it in people's throat initially. He doesn't care if the government falls apart in the next 10 years because fuck regulation? right?
GameAddict411
Member
I laughed way too much at this lol
Dreams-Visions
Member
LOL
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Fake maths, my favourite. Grab it by the alge-bra.
PandaPandaPanda
Member
don't worry
i have full confidence in a businessman who's filed for bankruptcy multiple times
/s
i have full confidence in a businessman who's filed for bankruptcy multiple times
/s
NullPointer
Member
reminds me of Theresa May's interview yesterday about NHS funding
"where's the £8bn going to come from?"
"economy"
"No but really where?"
"strong economy"
Woo-Fu
Banned
It is impossible to balance the budget *and* get re-elected. You'd be talking huge program cuts and huge tax increases to get even close. There, you've alienated both the Democrats and the Republicans----and everybody else who wants somebody else to pay for what a balanced budget would cost.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Good god it's even worse! It's like a guy who goes constantly bankrupt isn't good with money and numbers somehow.
To Far Away Times
Member
Maybe Walmart could afford to pay their employees more after the tax cuts. Have all that wealth trickle down once the rich get sick of having too much money.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Hmmmmmm.....HMMM....HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM
uncredited male
Member
They know it doesn't make sense. They don't actually care about the debt, it is just to placate the balanced-budget group.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Amazing.
djplaeskool
Member
All it's going to take is for growth to be off a fraction of a percent to throw this entire thing into the dumpster. I also don't think people are taking retail contraction as serious as they should. It has the capacity to drown other gains.
I havent followed budget proposals for long but is it normal to just expect the economy is going to generate some specific amount of money over a time period due to budget changes? With the number of factors in the US economy that seems akin to gambling. What data would possibly back that up?
I might be assuming too much in thinking that it was attempting to be anything more than a blustering show for... someone. Certainly not the base he'd be gutting with these changes.
I might be assuming too much in thinking that it was attempting to be anything more than a blustering show for... someone. Certainly not the base he'd be gutting with these changes.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
This is even worse than Bernie's accounting.
djplaeskool
Member
Sure. There are models that do a decent job of presenting modest numbers that allow budget proposals to be reasonable and flexible.
Trump admin is straight up slangin' pixie dust.
It's amazing to me that trickle-down economics is a thing that's taken even remotely seriously. Even more so because the reason this became popularized in the first place was because of Saint Reagan, even though, if you look at the data, 1) his tax cuts never came close to paying for themselves and 2) any economic growth that occurred almost 100% had nothing to do with tax cuts.
On no.1, Reagan's promise on tax cuts increasing revenue failed so badly that he had no choice but to enact massive tax hikes only a year later. On no. 2) the massive growth that Reagan got during his presidency was almost entirely due to the fed lowering interest rates and not his shitty tax cuts. I mean, if you look at the data, the growth/reductions in economic activity coincide nearly perfectly. When Reagan enacted the first round of tax cuts in 1981, for nearly an entirely year, there were still millions of jobs being lost (not saying his tax cuts caused those job losses, but they didn't do shit to stop them either). But when the fed lowered the interest rates in late 1982, growth began almost immediately. So either the tax cuts just needed a year to get into their groove and just coincidentally happened to start working once the fed lowered interest rates, or, and just hear me out, the tax cuts didn't have shit to do with anything!
It's also even more aggravating because Reagan's economic growth wasn't even the best during the time. Jimmy Carter, "history's greatest monster" before Obummer took the mantle, presided over 10 million jobs in 4 years, compared to Reagan's 16 million in 8. And that happened under Carter's way higher 70%+ top tax rates. Then you had Clinton, who also jacked up rates higher than what they were before Reagan left office, which every Republican said would lead to economic destruction, but in fact, led to the greatest job growth period in history.
I mean sure, TDE seems like it's not so far fetched to work if taxes are too high. Indeed, the one time that tax MAY have worked, might have been under Kennedy, where the top tax rate went from 90% to 77%. Sure, one could MAYBE make the case that 90% was indeed too high and was becoming counterproductive. But even if we agree on that, as far as I can tell, it is literally the only time in U.S. history that such a thing worked. Every other time it's been implemented, whether under Reagan, Bush II, Brownback in Kansas, Walker in Wisconsin, Christie in New Jersey, Rick Scott in Florida, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, whoever the hell runs Oklahoma, and countless other right-wing examples, they have ALL repeatedly LOST revenue, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
UGH!
On no.1, Reagan's promise on tax cuts increasing revenue failed so badly that he had no choice but to enact massive tax hikes only a year later. On no. 2) the massive growth that Reagan got during his presidency was almost entirely due to the fed lowering interest rates and not his shitty tax cuts. I mean, if you look at the data, the growth/reductions in economic activity coincide nearly perfectly. When Reagan enacted the first round of tax cuts in 1981, for nearly an entirely year, there were still millions of jobs being lost (not saying his tax cuts caused those job losses, but they didn't do shit to stop them either). But when the fed lowered the interest rates in late 1982, growth began almost immediately. So either the tax cuts just needed a year to get into their groove and just coincidentally happened to start working once the fed lowered interest rates, or, and just hear me out, the tax cuts didn't have shit to do with anything!
It's also even more aggravating because Reagan's economic growth wasn't even the best during the time. Jimmy Carter, "history's greatest monster" before Obummer took the mantle, presided over 10 million jobs in 4 years, compared to Reagan's 16 million in 8. And that happened under Carter's way higher 70%+ top tax rates. Then you had Clinton, who also jacked up rates higher than what they were before Reagan left office, which every Republican said would lead to economic destruction, but in fact, led to the greatest job growth period in history.
I mean sure, TDE seems like it's not so far fetched to work if taxes are too high. Indeed, the one time that tax MAY have worked, might have been under Kennedy, where the top tax rate went from 90% to 77%. Sure, one could MAYBE make the case that 90% was indeed too high and was becoming counterproductive. But even if we agree on that, as far as I can tell, it is literally the only time in U.S. history that such a thing worked. Every other time it's been implemented, whether under Reagan, Bush II, Brownback in Kansas, Walker in Wisconsin, Christie in New Jersey, Rick Scott in Florida, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, whoever the hell runs Oklahoma, and countless other right-wing examples, they have ALL repeatedly LOST revenue, EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
UGH!
FreedomFighter
Member
FTFY
I mean, shit, even Art Laffer, the asshole who came up with this shit, said that after Kansas' economy failed to soar to the stratosphere that people shouldn't be impatient, and that to feel the full effects of the magical economy charging tax cuts would take TEN YEARS to do so.
Septimus Prime
Member
Poodlestrike
Banned
A trillion here, a trillion there... Sooner or later you're dealing with real money!
VeryGooster
Banned
Dreams-Visions
Member
<3 GAF
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Almost nothing will ever surprise me again after this Presidency. He could jab a man's eye out and fuck the hole while singing Don't Cry for Me, Argentina on live television and then claim it was a CG hoax and it would feel like par for the course.
I will wave this administration in the face of anyone who now and for all time ever attempts to argue that intelligence, discipline, dignity, professionalism, honor, values, character, literacy, or the ability to count in single integers are in any way whatsoever necessary to run for public office.
I will wave this administration in the face of anyone who now and for all time ever attempts to argue that intelligence, discipline, dignity, professionalism, honor, values, character, literacy, or the ability to count in single integers are in any way whatsoever necessary to run for public office.
Similar threads
- Poll