Airforceone

Federal revenues on a yearly basis averages between $3.65 to $3.78 trillion.

We have an annual budget process where discretionary spending is approved along with Mandatory spending.

Discretionary spending budget is approximately $1.24 trillion.
Discretionary spending pays for our national defense the remainder pays for the administration and Federal agencies and programs.

Mandatory spending covers Medicare SS and other States and local government interest.

GOP call for cuts in discretionary spending to cut the deficit.
The largest cost to the federal government is the Defense budget.that’s 63% of the discretionary budget then we the interest on the national deficit at approximately 13.7% So what’s left to cut to pay down the deficit.

It’s always the same when republicans gain control over a chamber of Congress. It becomes a horror show to raise the debt limit. They threaten to default on our debit unless Democrats cut the Discretionary and mandatory budget to pay down the deficit. But when Republicans have total control this nation hears nothing from the republicans on national Debt.
(REPUBLICANS WITH CONTROL PASS A CLEAN DEBT LIMIT 3 TIMES JUST UNDER TRUMP AND NO MENTION TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT.

What caused the National Debt to reach $31 trillion. It is very simple. The president and congress approves a budget that exceeds federal revenues. So all three branches both parties are responsible for the deficit.

(So how the hell did the deficit get to $31 trillion)

When republicans control all three branches of government they rack up major deficits by there ideological belief of wealthy tax cuts, and additional tax loopholes that benefit the wealthy. Wealthy Tax cuts had accomplished two things massive deficits, and income ine******y which now is at 87%. Just thru 4 years of Trump income ine******y went from 68% to 87% and he exploded the deficit by $8.2 trillion. Just his annual budget exceed Federal Revenues by $1.1 trillion.

So now we have speaker MCCarthy threatening to default on the national debt if the democrats don’t agree to annual budget reduction.

1st question is what programs do you want to cut no answer. After days of pressing him on the cuts his answer was we have requested a meeting with the president to try and come to some agreement on discretionary spending. Again what programs within the discretionary spending do you want to cut again no answer. Do a quick look back.
Discretionary budget——approximately $1.24 trillion out of this budget we pay the defense budget $785 billion and also the interest on the national debt which is somewhere around $435 billion. So what’s left to cut we know the republicans will go no where near the defense budget. So what’s left in the discretionary budget to cut. What McCarthy is really after is SS and Medicare but he will not admit it in public.

So we have a $31 trillion deficit created by an annual budget that exceeds Federal revenue

(But what speaker MCCarthy will not tell you is thru 3 Republican administrations of wealthy tax cuts and tax loopholes and two phony wars makes up 78.6% of the national debt.

But MCCarthy will not increase taxes on the rich and corporate elite who benefitted mostly from our deficit. They will not touch a highly inflated defense budget. The income ine******y goes to 87% and speaker McCathy and republicans want the poor and middle class to pay off the deficit.

Stay toned the republicans are coming for your SS and Medicare. It’s the only way to cut the deficit because the republicans will not cut the defense budget, continue with wealthy tax cuts.

I find it comical when the Republicans call for smaller government and debt reduction so the first thing they do was cut the IRS budget the agency lost 13,000 employees and who benefitted from the cuts. All it did was undermined critical enforcement efforts to combat tax avoidance.it created a loss of federal revenues due to tax fraud and allowed the wealthy and corporate elite to c***t on there taxes because the IRS loss about 13,000 employees they did not have the personnel to investigate tax fraud.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Excellent post AF.. this should stir up the hive if they care at all anymore.. which they may not..

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

There is plenty of crap spending, much being year end "use it or lose it" spending. We could start there.

September, the end of the Federal fiscal year, is traditionally characterized by a surge in spending. Studies of Federal spending have shown that one out of every nine dollars in Federal contracts was spent in the last week of the fiscal year. On average, the Federal Government spends $3.2 billion a day in contracts. In the last two days of 2018 alone 1, agencies spent $10 billion a day. According to data from the nonprofit group, Open the Books, of the $97 billion spent by 67 Federal agencies in a “Use It or Lose It” spending spree in the final two days of 2018, expenditures included: • china tableware ($53,004); • alcohol ($308,994); • golf carts ($673,471); • musical equipment, including pianos, tubas, and trombones ($1.7 million); • lobster tails and crab ($4.6 million); and • workout and recreation equipment ($9.8 million). While there are many reasons that last-minute improper spending occurs, there are currently misaligned incentives in the budgeting process which encourages this practice. Agencies recognize that if significant balances are left in their accounts at the end of a fiscal year, the Congress will likely reduce their topline budget in future fiscal years. While some end of year spending is legitimate, the Administration is committed to closely scrutinizing how it spends money at the end of the fiscal year, and curtailing wasteful and questionable purchases. Americans deserve a Government that is meticulous at avoiding wasteful and unnecessary spending.


As for increasing taxes, Trumps corp tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenues. There is no reason not to continue with that as tax revenues and rise.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

ECONOMIC ILLITERATES.

LostAggie66 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX (Shire of Seawinds)

Oh it MOST Definitely Will PF...Get Ready for It!

LostAggie66 Loc: Corpus Christi, TX (Shire of Seawinds)

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Absolutely. Went through in a non-profit myself. End of fiscal year, spend it or lose it bulls**t!

Sew_What

Funny though...let's consider GM for instance. If they are lucky this year they will report a profit. But they are laying off tax payers as I write (I just had a friend retire, last week). He won't really pay a lot in taxes this year or in the next. The first assumption about GM paying the same amount in taxes this year is under the assumption that they will be profitable-but they get to write down huge amounts in taxes for severence packages...in any event, people that aren't working still use roads, housing and eat food. But will unlikely go out as much once they stop working. They are going to build a new home unless they can sell their existing home...and so on and so forth.
It is very short-sided to say that corporate tax cuts did anyone good.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

A Country’s Standard of Living Depends on its Ability to Produce Goods and Services

The differences in living standards around the world are staggering. In 2006, the average American had an income of about $44,260. In the same year, the average Mexican earned $11,410, and the average Nigerian earned $1,050. Not surprisingly, this large variation in average income is reflected in various measures of the quality of life.

Citizens of high-income countries have more TV sets, more cars, better nutrition, better healthcare, and a longer life expectancy than citizens of low-income countries.

Changes in living standards over time are also large. In the United States, incomes have historically grown about 2 percent per year (after adjusting for changes in the cost of living). At this rate, average income doubles every 35 years. Over the past century, average income has risen about eightfold.

What explains these large differences in living standards among countries and over time? The answer is surprisingly simple. Almost all variation in living standards is attributable to differences in countries’ productivity—that is, the amount of goods and services produced from each unit of labor input. In Nations where workers can produce a large quantity of goods and services per unit of time, most people enjoy a high standard of living; in nations where workers are less productive, most people endure a more meager existence. Similarly, the growth rate of a nation’s productivity determines the growth rate of its average income.

The fundamental relationship between productivity and living standards is simple, but its implications are far-reaching. If productivity is the primary determinant of living standards, other explanations must be of secondary importance. For example, it might be tempting to credit labor unions or minimum-wage laws for the rise in living standards of American workers over the past century. Yet the real hero of American workers is their rising productivity. As another example, some commentators have claimed that increased competition from Japan and other countries explained the slow growth in U.S. incomes during the 1970s and 1980s. et the real villain was not competition from abroad but f**gging productivity growth in the United States.

The relationship between productivity and living standards also has profound implications for public policy. When thinking about how any policy will affect living standards, the key question is how it will affect our ability to produce goods and services. To boost living standards, policymakers need to raise productivity by ensuring that workers are well educated, have the tools they need to produce goods and services, and have access to the best technology available.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

People Respond to Incentives

An incentive is something that induces a person to act, such as the prospect of a punishment or reward. Because rational people make decisions by comparing costs and benefits, they respond to incentives. You will see that incentives play a central role in the study of economics. One economist went so far as to suggest that the entire field could be simply summarized: “People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.”

Incentives are crucial to analyzing how markets work. For example, when the price of an apple rises, people decide to eat fewer apples. At the same time, apple orchards decide to hire more workers and harvest more apples. In other words, a higher price in a market provides an incentive for buyers to consume less and an incentive for sellers to sell more. As we will see, the influence of prices on behavior of consumers and producers is crucial to how a market economy allocate scarce resources.

Public policymakers should never forget about incentives. Many policies change the costs or benefits that people face and, therefore, alter their behavior. A tax on gasoline, for instance, encourages people to drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. That is one reason people drive smaller cars in Europe, where gasoline taxes are high, than in the United States where gasoline taxes are low. A gasoline tax also encourages people to carpool, take public t***sportation, and live closer to where they work. If the tax were larger, more people would be driving hybrid cars, and if it were large enough, they would switch to electric cars.

When policymakers fail to consider how their policies affect incentives, they often end up with unintended consequences. For example, consider public policy regarding auto safety. Today, all cars have seat belts, but this was not true 50 years ago. In the 1960s, Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed generated much public concern over auto safety. Congress responded with laws requiring seat belts as standard equipment on new cars.

How does a seat belt law affect auto safety? The direct affect is obvious. When a person wears a seat belt, the probability of surviving an auto accident rises. But that’s not the end of the story because the law also affects behavior by altering incentives. The relevant behavior here is the speed and care with which drivers operate their cars. Driving slowing and carefully is costly because it uses the driver’s time and energy. When deciding how to safely to drive, rational people compare, perhaps unconsciously, the marginal benefit from safer driving to the marginal cost. As a result, they drive more slowly and carefully when the benefit of increased safety is high. For example, when

road conditions are icy, people drive more attentively and at lower speeds than they do when road conditions are clear.

Consider how a seat belt law alters a driver’s cost-benefit calculation. Seat belts make accidents less costly because they reduce the likelihood of injury or death. In other words, seat belts reduce the benefits of slow and careful driving. People respond to seat belts as they would to an improvement in road conditions—by driving faster and less carefully. The result of the seat belt law, therefore, is a larger number of accidents. The decline in safe driving has a clear, adverse impact on pedestrians, who are more likely to find themselves in an accident but (unlike the drivers) don’t have the benefit of added protection.

At first, the discussion of incentives and seat belt might seem like idle speculation. Yet in a classis 1975 study, economist Sam Peltzmen argued that auto-safety laws have had many of these effects. According to Peltzmen’s evidence, these laws produce both fewer deaths per accident and more accidents. He concluded that the net result is little change in the number of driver deaths and an increase in the number of pedestrian deaths

Peltzmen’s analysis of auto safety is an offbeat example of the general principle that people respond to incentives. When analyzing any policy, we must consider not only the direct effects but also the less obvious indirect effects that work through incentives. If the policy changes incentives, it will cause people to alter their behavior.

Airforceone

I can agree with you as far as use it or lose it. I never took Thai to consideration
But I have to disagree with your comments on tax revenues increased because it actually does not make any sense.
I extracted Trumps 1st full year of his wealthy Tax cuts. The budget deficit increased by $113 billion which corporate tax receipts fell by $90 billion which accounted for nearly 80% of the deficit increase. So only common sense will show that if the deficit increased by $113, billion how can revenues increase.
But I did enjoy your article on use it or lose it I am going to follow up on exactly what funds were spent in the last part of the year.

I never thought of that problem.

But let’s see if we can get more people such as yourself to begin to break down exactly what is in discretionary spending. I know that I used the largest budgets in discretionary spending which is the Defense Budget and interest on the debt.
But the discretionary spending makes up approximately 1/3 of the total budget.
Now I will practice what I preach anybody making over $150,000 a year will be required to pay yearly a 2% tax to be used exclusively for the debt.
Anybody making over $400,000 a year will pay 3% tax and again funds to be used exclusively for debt reduction.I think you understand where I am going with a debt reduction tax plan. Now any corporation in this country should pay a 10% deficit reduction tax. Especially the the oil companies.

Large oil companies in this country have been paying taxes at a significantly lower rate than most other corporations. The chief reason is that there are provisions in the US tax codes that give them loopholes to defer paying federal taxes. That has to stop. I did a quick research that the oil companies in this country pay 11.2% on pre tax which is 23.4% less than most corporation in this country. Then these oil companies can apply for tax subsidies which lower there tax rates. I was researching the top 5 oil companies as to tax loopholes and how there able to defer 85% of there profits.

But let’s all work together and point out these areas where oil companies and corporations are able to offshore profits to avoid taxes.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

"Large oil companies in this country have been paying taxes at a significantly lower rate than most other corporations. The chief reason is that there are provisions in the US tax codes that give them loopholes to defer paying federal taxes."

You have identified a major problem. The federal tax code is onerous. Crony capitalism hurts us all.

P.S. It is a pleasure to read your posts when they do no attack someone and instead rely on empirical evidence. Keep it up.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Darn good thinking... I like the idea... lets all work for it..

Airforceone

What an incredible post it all makes sense as to the US producing goods and services and yes we have the ability to buy stuff due to good paying jobs.
But I would like to invite you to post if this country is producing more goods and services why are these corporation not paying there fair share in Taxes.

Please address Budget deficit versus discretionary spending and Mandatory spending.

I want to take OPP and open it up to common sense people like yourself because that deficit needs to be addressed. I don’t care what your ideological belief is on social issues. What we need is to address that deficit.

Thank you for a great post it sure did open my eyes. I did understand what you were saying about goods and services now let’s see if we can expand on it.

I have a hard time understanding a $31 trillion deficit when this country has the resources to prevent it.

So what policy do we adopt (TAX AND SPEND) or do we continue with (BORROW AND SPEND) do you agree that congress should create a policy of a balanced budget and make it mandatory. If congress exceeds federal revenue than taxes should go up to pay for it.
Do you agree with a graduated tax rate on earnings and eliminate all loopholes.

Is a mandatory 15% tax on all major oil companies and large corporation is that to much to ask.

Over the years this country has had major wars I could spell them out. If congress v**es to go to war should we institute a war tax to pay for it instead of borrowing the funds.

If we feel the need to create a lower corporate tax should we require congress as to how they will pay for it instead of borrowing the funds.

We can create some great topics on OPP and have a group as to how it will be paid for without borrowing it.

So let’s start with discretionary spending and figure out where there is savings.

Then we can move onto mandatory spending which is essentially SS Medicare and Medicaid

If we start getting these people on OPP spreading there h**e because of there ideological beliefs we can put a group together thru the private message group. Because on the open site you can’t block these people but through the private Message we can.

I also belong to two other political sites and these people are reasonable. Most are either middle left or middle right.

Just do me a favor if you create a topic please notify me thru a private message and let me know the topuc.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Excellent post. Well written. TY!