America doing well under Trump

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Maybe McConnell is poorly informed:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-cuts-to-plug-us-budget-gaps-idUSKCN1LX254

Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug U.S. budget gaps


NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top economic adviser to President Donald Trump said on Monday he expects U.S. budget deficits of about 4 percent to 5 percent of the country’s economic output for the next one to two years, adding that there would likely be an effort in 2019 to cut spending on entitlement programs.


As to defense- I think Trump felt we needed a surge in defense spending to rebuild. However, it can be done more efficiently going forward. I would expect that a 5% cut is doable, given time to look at what parts of the defense budget is inefficient. That is a different discussion than the strength and capabilities issues.
Remember the 8 years when you cared about budget deficits?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Remember the 8 years when you cared about budget deficits?
Who says I don't care about deficits? That's nuts. You are being dishonest. I am disgusted and I said so when the Rs passed the last budget. I wanted the increase for the military (which was in bad shape) but everything else should have been incrementally cut. Beyond that the Rs need to press hard on entitlement reform (if they hold both houses)- even though they will be hated for it.

The "mandatory spending" and the interest on the debt is the whole ballgame. Every time the subject comes up I discuss the problem with entitlements. I have said a hundred times on here what I think Trump's strategy is but I will repeat it again for you:

Step one: Create a booming economy by reducing regulation and cutting taxes. If you are at all consistent with your moniker - you should be 1000 percent for that.

Step two: Build the wall and identify who is here illegally. With the border secure, make a one time deal to allow those who are crime free to remain as workers. Get the rest out of the country. That move would be worth 100 billion a year plus. It would have an impact on the drug issue as well. Excellent!

Step three: Cut back the agencies (some of that has already been done- but much more is needed and start to work on entitlements while people are employed.

Some of these problems are unsolvable without at least a little Dem cooperation. We need health care reform including a new deal with the pharmaceutical companies. I would propose a grand bargain as follows:

1. Pharma cannot sell at higher prices in the US than they offer to foreign countries.
2. Longer patent protection
3. Shorten the approval cycle- dramatically
4. Reduce to perhaps $2 million, rewards that are not related to actual health care costs (tort reform). This would be both with pharma and with hospitals.
Risk of lawsuits is a MAJOR player in healthcare costs ranging from malpractice insurance to defensive medicine costs.

Face it- these measures are all fraught with political penalties to be paid. If the Rs attempt to do this they will be demonized. That's why we need term limits so badly if we have a hope of getting this country back on track. Politicians may be going to congress to serve. But once they get there, many of them operate for their own survival and to get rich(er) rather than for serving the country.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
double post
 
Last edited:

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Galt- here's some specific info for F 2018 through 11 months

Payroll taxes received: $1.071 trillion

Medicare and social security spending: $1.492 trillion

Deficit: $421 billion

Interest: $332 billion

Add interest, medicare and soc security deficits and that is your federal deficit for 2018.

That information is from the US Treasury web site: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0818.pdf

Remember when Paul Ryan was accused of throwing granny off the cliff by the Dems when he proposed reforms that would NOT HAVE TOUCHED ANYONE OVER 55 years old? That's how difficult this is with the current political climate.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,218
Reaction score
2,768
Points
113
Maybe McConnell is poorly informed:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-cuts-to-plug-us-budget-gaps-idUSKCN1LX254

Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug U.S. budget gaps


NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top economic adviser to President Donald Trump said on Monday he expects U.S. budget deficits of about 4 percent to 5 percent of the country’s economic output for the next one to two years, adding that there would likely be an effort in 2019 to cut spending on entitlement programs.


As to defense- I think Trump felt we needed a surge in defense spending to rebuild. However, it can be done more efficiently going forward. I would expect that a 5% cut is doable, given time to look at what parts of the defense budget is inefficient. That is a different discussion than the strength and capabilities issues.
But we still have to pay for the Space Force and the Wall. These cuts won't even do that much less make a dent in the existing deficit.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Galt- here's some specific info for F 2018 through 11 months

Payroll taxes received: $1.071 trillion

Medicare and social security spending: $1.492 trillion

Deficit: $421 billion

Interest: $332 billion

Add interest, medicare and soc security deficits and that is your federal deficit for 2018.

That information is from the US Treasury web site: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0818.pdf

Remember when Paul Ryan was accused of throwing granny off the cliff by the Dems when he proposed reforms that would NOT HAVE TOUCHED ANYONE OVER 55 years old? That's how difficult this is with the current political climate.
I’m aware of the numbers and political climate. Just saying that your outrage has died down significantly.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Who says I don't care about deficits? That's nuts. You are being dishonest. I am disgusted and I said so when the Rs passed the last budget. I wanted the increase for the military (which was in bad shape) but everything else should have been incrementally cut. Beyond that the Rs need to press hard on entitlement reform (if they hold both houses)- even though they will be hated for it.

The "mandatory spending" and the interest on the debt is the whole ballgame. Every time the subject comes up I discuss the problem with entitlements. I have said a hundred times on here what I think Trump's strategy is but I will repeat it again for you:

Step one: Create a booming economy by reducing regulation and cutting taxes. If you are at all consistent with your moniker - you should be 1000 percent for that.

Step two: Build the wall and identify who is here illegally. With the border secure, make a one time deal to allow those who are crime free to remain as workers. Get the rest out of the country. That move would be worth 100 billion a year plus. It would have an impact on the drug issue as well. Excellent!

Step three: Cut back the agencies (some of that has already been done- but much more is needed and start to work on entitlements while people are employed.

Some of these problems are unsolvable without at least a little Dem cooperation. We need health care reform including a new deal with the pharmaceutical companies. I would propose a grand bargain as follows:

1. Pharma cannot sell at higher prices in the US than they offer to foreign countries.
2. Longer patent protection
3. Shorten the approval cycle- dramatically
4. Reduce to perhaps $2 million, rewards that are not related to actual health care costs (tort reform). This would be both with pharma and with hospitals.
Risk of lawsuits is a MAJOR player in healthcare costs ranging from malpractice insurance to defensive medicine costs.

Face it- these measures are all fraught with political penalties to be paid. If the Rs attempt to do this they will be demonized. That's why we need term limits so badly if we have a hope of getting this country back on track. Politicians may be going to congress to serve. But once they get there, many of them operate for their own survival and to get rich(er) rather than for serving the country.
Longer patent protection would increase healthcare costs.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
I’m aware of the numbers and political climate. Just saying that your outrage has died down significantly.
False. We are ten trillion deeper in debt and there is much less that can be done about it than several years ago. Again the numbers tell the real story here. Obama's policies did real long term damage to our budgets and debt picture. As I pointed out here there is little to nothing that can be done by one party to resolve the entitlement issue - which is where the problem lies. I am very satisfied with what Trump is doing- less satisfied with the R congress who I believe could have and should have been stronger in that last budget battle.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Longer patent protection would increase healthcare costs.
Not if you follow the rest of the suggestions- see point one and rethink that. The reason they have to gouge us is because the rest of the world won't pay.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Not if you follow the rest of the suggestions- see point one and rethink that. The reason they have to gouge us is because the rest of the world won't pay.
Drug prices fall when innovator's go off patent and generic's are introduced.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
531
Points
113
Drug prices fall when innovator's go off patent and generic's are introduced.
Bga1 isn't a principled conservative by any means. He was for Bush's massive deficit increases and he is for Trump's. He starts to bang the deficit drum when a democrat is in office. He simply supports Rs for being Rs and is against Ds for being Ds.

Notice how he keeps saying we need to cut taxes to create a booming economy? In other words, he is saying Trump and the GOP need to stimulate the economy, just like Obama did and wanted to do more. He was against Obama's stimulus but for Trump's. Who was the D, and who is the R?

What's worse, the economy Obama handed Trump was fine. We didn't need any stimulus. Bga1 is for spending in the boom! What an idiot. We should have been cutting spending for a few years now to balance the budget. Most R voters are frauds. Bga1 is one of them.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Drug prices fall when innovator's go off patent and generic's are introduced.
Go back to point one in my post (hint: international pricing)- you will figure this out. Patent protection is well earned. There are ways to deal with gouging- and I have offered that solution. You go through years of R and D and then perhaps as long as 8 years on approval, you deserve strong patent protection.

The UK, Canada and other socialized medicine countries live off of what we pay for.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,644
Reaction score
1,697
Points
113
Bga1 isn't a principled conservative by any means. He was for Bush's massive deficit increases and he is for Trump's. He starts to bang the deficit drum when a democrat is in office. He simply supports Rs for being Rs and is against Ds for being Ds.

Notice how he keeps saying we need to cut taxes to create a booming economy? In other words, he is saying Trump and the GOP need to stimulate the economy, just like Obama did and wanted to do more. He was against Obama's stimulus but for Trump's. Who was the D, and who is the R?

What's worse, the economy Obama handed Trump was fine. We didn't need any stimulus. Bga1 is for spending in the boom! What an idiot. We should have been cutting spending for a few years now to balance the budget. Most R voters are frauds. Bga1 is one of them.
Savage
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,155
Reaction score
806
Points
113
Are you disagreeing with TS? Because he is dead on. I can see that you want to stick with ya boy, beej, though. Party over principle.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Bga1 isn't a principled conservative by any means. He was for Bush's massive deficit increases and he is for Trump's. He starts to bang the deficit drum when a democrat is in office. He simply supports Rs for being Rs and is against Ds for being Ds.

Notice how he keeps saying we need to cut taxes to create a booming economy? In other words, he is saying Trump and the GOP need to stimulate the economy, just like Obama did and wanted to do more. He was against Obama's stimulus but for Trump's. Who was the D, and who is the R?

What's worse, the economy Obama handed Trump was fine. We didn't need any stimulus. Bga1 is for spending in the boom! What an idiot. We should have been cutting spending for a few years now to balance the budget. Most R voters are frauds. Bga1 is one of them.
Truth Seeker= dishonest lefty= Truly Stocker. A lefty thinks that earnings are the property of the government and anything not taxed is a gift to the worker or business owner. That's the thinking of TS. Truth Seeker speaks as one who has never owned a business. TS is a dependent.

The economy works better under greater freedom. Taxes are a balancing act, but less taxes = greater freedom. Less taxes, especially on corporations means higher return on investment, which ultimately means more investment (investors invest more aggressively when returns are higher-duh).

"Reduced taxes" are not a stimulus- they are a sensible lowering of the burden on private enterprise, because the money is owned by the private enterprise- not the government.

Those who want "increased taxes" really want to grow the government (Truth Seeker) because feeding the beast is encouragement to grow the government.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,155
Reaction score
806
Points
113
Truth Seeker= dishonest lefty= Truly Stocker. A lefty thinks that earnings are the property of the government and anything not taxed is a gift to the worker or business owner. That's the thinking of TS. Truth Seeker speaks as one who has never owned a business. TS is a dependent.

The economy works better under greater freedom. Taxes are a balancing act, but less taxes = greater freedom. Less taxes, especially on corporations means higher return on investment, which ultimately means more investment (investors invest more aggressively when returns are higher-duh).

"Reduced taxes" are not a stimulus- they are a sensible lowering of the burden on private enterprise, because the money is owned by the private enterprise- not the government.

Those who want "increased taxes" really want to grow the government (Truth Seeker) because feeding the beast is encouragement to grow the government.
You are dumber than dirt if you think that me and TS are the same. Then again.....you have proven time and time again that you are dumber than dirt.....so this post doesn't surprise me. It's a jumbling of theories that are currently proving to be failing. Yet you are still suckling at the teet.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Go back to point one in my post (hint: international pricing)- you will figure this out. Patent protection is well earned. There are ways to deal with gouging- and I have offered that solution. You go through years of R and D and then perhaps as long as 8 years on approval, you deserve strong patent protection.

The UK, Canada and other socialized medicine countries live off of what we pay for.
I've worked in the pharma and med device industries my entire career. Please enlighten me with how pricing works and why longer patent protection will lower the cost of pharmaceuticals in the US.
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
9,336
Reaction score
684
Points
113
Not if you follow the rest of the suggestions- see point one and rethink that. The reason they have to gouge us is because the rest of the world won't pay.
Pharma companies enjoy significant profit margins. They can charge more in the US because our system allows it. Despite Barrycare...
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,869
Reaction score
2,436
Points
113
Pharma companies enjoy significant profit margins. They can charge more in the US because our system allows it. Despite Barrycare...
They do enjoy significant margins. Under the current conditions, I don't begrudge them that. The legal and regulatory system adds huge risk. Risk always gets priced in for greater return. If you buy a high risk stock you are doing so not because you will get a decent return of 7-10% you are doing it because you want to double or triple your investment, because you know you can easily lose it. I think that there is a deal to be made to achieve lower prices, as I discussed above, by lowering their risk. Under my proposal (which admittedly is a dream conditional on a congress that is serving the nation rather than themselves) the upper bounds on pricing is set by international pricing - which is much lower than the US market receives today. US pharmas need to start charging other countries more and our own citizens less- but we don't want to do it like socialists do it, we want to make it a fair bargain.
 

TruthSeeker

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
4,046
Reaction score
531
Points
113
Truth Seeker= dishonest lefty= Truly Stocker. A lefty thinks that earnings are the property of the government and anything not taxed is a gift to the worker or business owner. That's the thinking of TS. Truth Seeker speaks as one who has never owned a business. TS is a dependent.

The economy works better under greater freedom. Taxes are a balancing act, but less taxes = greater freedom. Less taxes, especially on corporations means higher return on investment, which ultimately means more investment (investors invest more aggressively when returns are higher-duh).

"Reduced taxes" are not a stimulus- they are a sensible lowering of the burden on private enterprise, because the money is owned by the private enterprise- not the government.

Those who want "increased taxes" really want to grow the government (Truth Seeker) because feeding the beast is encouragement to grow the government.
LMAO! Tax cuts aren't stimulus! You are the dumbest person on the OTB.

Let's see here, you supported the following:
No Child Left Behind
Trump tax cuts
Both Bush tax cuts
Iraq War
Afghan War
Bush's 1st recession stimulus
Bush's 2nd recession stimulus
TARP
Medicare Part D expansion
Trump's spending bill because you want more military spending
PATRIOT Act
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security
You support the Chamber of Commerce vocally and through your own donations

In sum, you favored expanding the Dept of Education, HHS, the creation of an entirely new Department, and a massive increase in the military. You aren't for small government or even for cutting spending. You favored and favor those policies because a republican president did. You have no principles other than R=good and D=bad.

You are Big Government Addict #1

It's time to vote for Rs who want to cut spending and expel RINOs like you.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,644
Reaction score
1,697
Points
113
Are you disagreeing with TS? Because he is dead on. I can see that you want to stick with ya boy, beej, though. Party over principle.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
You are really really really dumb.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,644
Reaction score
1,697
Points
113
LMAO! Tax cuts aren't stimulus! You are the dumbest person on the OTB.

Let's see here, you supported the following:
No Child Left Behind
Trump tax cuts
Both Bush tax cuts
Iraq War
Afghan War
Bush's 1st recession stimulus
Bush's 2nd recession stimulus
TARP
Medicare Part D expansion
Trump's spending bill because you want more military spending
PATRIOT Act
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security
You support the Chamber of Commerce vocally and through your own donations

In sum, you favored expanding the Dept of Education, HHS, the creation of an entirely new Department, and a massive increase in the military. You aren't for small government or even for cutting spending. You favored and favor those policies because a republican president did. You have no principles other than R=good and D=bad.

You are Big Government Addict #1

It's time to vote for Rs who want to cut spending and expel RINOs like you.
savage part 2
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
19,155
Reaction score
806
Points
113
You are really really really dumb.
Sorry I didn't pick up on your internet lingo. Guess I'm not quite hip enough to know what "SAVAGE" meant. I'm a dummy. Is it....like a new Beiber track or something?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,218
Reaction score
2,768
Points
113
Sorry I didn't pick up on your internet lingo. Guess I'm not quite hip enough to know what "SAVAGE" meant. I'm a dummy. Is it....like a new Beiber track or something?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
You're making 2 seem cool. Ouch.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,644
Reaction score
1,697
Points
113
Sorry I didn't pick up on your internet lingo. Guess I'm not quite hip enough to know what "SAVAGE" meant. I'm a dummy. Is it....like a new Beiber track or something?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Keep digging.
 
Top Bottom