this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
620 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2588 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Tax cuts and pandemic relief measures enacted during the Trump administration added $8.4 trillion to the national debt over the 10-year budget window, according to a study released Wednesday by a top budget watchdog group.

Discretionary spending increases from 2018 and 2019 added $2.1 trillion, Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added $1.9 trillion and the 2020 bipartisan CARES Act for pandemic relief added another $1.9 trillion, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a Washington think tank, found in a study released earlier this month.

“Of the $8.4 trillion President Trump added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other,” budget experts with the CRFB wrote in a summary of the report.

The only significant deficit reduction enacted by the Trump administration noted in the report was due to tariffs levied on a variety of imported goods, which are calculated to have brought in $445 billion over 10 years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

I'm all for massive public infrastructure spending, but I'd rather tax billionaires and corporations than incur trillions in debt.

Of course, I'd still rather be in debt for infrastructure spending than for tax cuts.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

We're in full agreement then 🙂

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Taxes don’t fund spending tho. Taxing billionaires should be about just taking money away from them.

Taxes actually have two purposes, guaranteeing money circulates and is legitimate, and removing money from the economy. That’s it basically. With the caveat that local taxes do fund spending many times, like for school budgets etc.

But all federal spending is completely decoupled from taxes. The government just “prints” the money. They actually digitally credit certain accounts with the money, but it’s the same shit.

Like if the government passes a budget of 1 billion for infrastructure, they will literally just change some numbers in “key strategic accounts”, like big banks, government agencies, ministries etc. That money doesn’t come from anywhere, it’s literally created out of thin air.

And if all that new money is absorbed by productive forces, there is 0 inflation. Only if the money is absorbed by unproductive forces that inflation happens. Like the money just going to rich people’s pockets, there will be inflation. Cause they will just buy more and more assets, without any new assets being created by the “new money”. And well, more demand for the same amount of goods is inflation.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Taxes don’t fund spending tho

What kinda nonsense claim is that?? Of COURSE they do!

Taxes (..) removing money from the economy.

More absolute nonsense. Taxes are paying your part to live in a civilized society. Public programs, which are PART of the overall economy, are an example of what taxes do.

all federal spending is completely decoupled from taxes.

Of the dozens of times you were dropped on your head as a child, how many would you say were intentional?

That money doesn’t come from anywhere, it’s literally created out of thin air.

Like 99% of all money

And if all that new money is absorbed by productive forces, there is 0 inflation. Only if the money is absorbed by unproductive forces that inflation happens

That's not how money, absorption, production or inflation works

more demand for the same amount of goods is inflation.

That's not it either. The majority of inflation is greedflation.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Bro go read a modern macroeconomics book. What are you on? You’re literally like 200 years behind the entire fucking field. Not even the most orthodox economists would agree with you.

All I said was based on Keynesian theory and MMT. Y’know, two of the major theories, which are the most accepted around the world among economists.

And again, I did say local taxes do fund spending. But taxes definitely, 100%, don’t fund federal spending of nations who have sovereign currencies. Sure, El Salvador can’t just print money for their budget, but the US, China, Brazil, Japan etc. all can.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

read a modern macroeconomics book.

Oh you poor thing lol. You think anything related to the study of economics is anything better than flailing around like a fish while applying theories on paper that never work IRL lol.

Then again, the only people I've ever seen get into economics was middle class rich folk who think any of it is true to justify their uselessly inflated salary to people who actually do the work.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSE-04-2018-0221/full/html

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/reconnecting-economics-education-with-todays-global-realities/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought

https://www.danerwealth.com/blog/the-terrible-track-record-of-wall-street-forecasts

[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 0 points 9 months ago

I really don’t understand your point. Yes, Wall Street economists are bad at predicting the future. Marxists are the clairvoyant ones, everyone who knows anything about economics knows that. Orthodox economists make models and calculations to make rich people feel better about stealing from everyone and destroying the planet. But MMT, Keynesians and Marxists understand that you can’t model the economy, calculations only go so far.

But Wall Street and orthodox economists are usually _micro_economists. They don’t understand macroeconomics, or material reality as a whole, because they like almost all academics in function of capital are compartimentalised into their specialisations and never peek out.

But you can’t say studying economics is useless… that’s insane. That’s like saying studying society is useless. You perhaps completely misunderstand what the economy is.