Deficit escalates

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

5 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Nobody knows either of these (money and temps). They're absurd questions to ask - there are way too many variables. Sure, you could put a number on them just to make everybody feel good, and set yourself up for ridicule and Congressional crucifixion if the numbers end up drastically different (deniers saying "I told you so" if you estimate too low on money and too high on temps, supporters the same if the opposite). It's like saying you can predict what the stock market will be in 2050. 

I would also suggest you look into some of the costs of inaction.

This part is what is hilarious to me.  There is an article that claims a high cost of net zero and you call it a lie even though it is a projection of what might happen.  You say its absurd because there are too many variables.  In the next statement you suggest I look up the costs of inaction.  What were those costs of inaction based?  The theory the climate change is caused by CO2?  Based on predictions of weather events with *too many variables*?  I would never call you a liar, but I will say you based this assumption on something that is compariable to predicting the stock market in 2050.

You’re right, I don’t think there is a problem, just over zealous polititians that want to declare an emergency to spend more money.

Edited June 24 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 12,172]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/24/business-tax-2024-fortune-00163668

Businesses were a big winner in the Republicans’ 2017 tax law, but with debt concerns mounting, they are on the defensive.

(emphasis mine)

 

Corporations were among the biggest winners when Republicans pushed through sweeping tax cuts in 2017, getting a whopping 14-percentage point cut in their tax rate.

But with lawmakers facing intense pressure to extend trillions in tax cuts next year that mostly benefit individual Americans, both Republicans and Democrats see corporations as a potential piggy bank to cover the huge hit to the budget.

“There’s a bubbling-up concern that we should not be doing the bidding of corporate America,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who says he’d consider kicking the corporate rate up to 25 percent, from the current 21 percent, if it means being able to extend breaks for individuals and small businesses.

“I’d like to see corporations getting with the program and saving America, instead of just looking at their bottom line.”

Such anti-corporate sentiment is running high among increasingly populist-minded Republicans, and former President Donald Trump’s recent proposal to shave a point off the corporate rate will face resistance from some GOP lawmakers.

Business lobbyists are already blitzing Congress, making their case about the costs of higher taxes.

“The last place that policymakers ought to look in trying to fix the fiscal situation is with business tax increases because those businesses are the ones that are creating jobs,” said Josh Bolten, head of the Business Roundtable, adding his group intends to spend eight figures fighting for lower taxes.

(That sounds like "trickle down" economics to me. Corporations don't hire people simply because they have more money, they hire people because the need them to increase capacity.)

It’s a sign that next year’s debate over whether to extend major portions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act could be very different from the one that created it.

Back then, Republicans were primarily concerned the then-35 percent corporate rate was so much higher than in other countries (true?) that it put American firms at a competitive disadvantage. They had considered cutting it to 20 percent, as Trump is now proposing, and even to as little as 15 percent, before deciding that was too expensive and settling on 21 percent.

This time, the focus for lawmakers in both parties is different, as they try to prevent tax increases for millions of Americans, even as warning lights are blinking red over the deficit.

Lower tax rates, a bigger standard deduction, a larger child credit and a slew of other provisions affecting individual Americans are set to expire at the end of next year.

Extending everything in TCJA would cost $4 trillion. Even if lawmakers only re-up provisions benefiting people under $400,000, as the administration demands, the tab would still run more than $2 trillion over a decade.

At the same time, budget forecasters are warning the deficit this year will reach $2 trillion, despite low employment. And next year, the Congressional Budget Office predicts, annual interest payments on the debt will exceed $1 trillion for the first time.

The Biden administration says any tax agreement must not add to the deficit. Most Republicans are not going that far, but some say they need to do a better job containing costs this time around.

Though Trump would cut just a single percentage point off the corporate rate — a plan he floated earlier this month to the Business Roundtable — it would add billions to lawmakers’ budget headaches.

A one-point reduction would cost at least $130 billion, but that’s probably not all. It would also put a lot of pressure on lawmakers to reduce taxes on unincorporated “pass-through” businesses as well, so they don’t favor one over the other. And that could squeeze out other myriad priorities lawmakers hope to include.

Conversely, budget forecasters have been ratcheting up how much money could be brought in from a corporate rate hike, making it a tempting target for cost-conscious lawmakers. The old rule of thumb was that every percentage point (0.1 % ?) increase generates $100 billion.

Then, in December 2022, forecasters kicked that up to $130 billion. They haven’t released a revised estimate, but it’s likely more now thanks to higher corporate profits.

Compounding the challenge for corporate America: It has fewer friends on Capitol Hill.

Most of the Republicans who pushed TCJA into law have since retired, replaced by more populist-leaning members who have battled big business in recent years over everything from diversity programs to the 2021 Capitol Hill riots to socially conscious investing.

At the House Ways and Means Committee, former Chair Kevin Brady, a one-time chamber of commerce executive, has been replaced by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who makes no secret of his skepticism about big business. It was Smith who warned last month that some of his Republican colleagues are ready to join Democrats in hiking the corporate tax, though he did not advocate that himself.

Over in the Senate Finance Committee, the business community had a reliable ally in since-retired Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) — whose replacement, Republican J.D. Vance, recently teamed up with liberal Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to propose raising taxes on corporate mergers.

Many Republicans are in the leave-it-alone camp when it comes to the corporate rate — neither seeking an increase nor a decrease.

“I am satisfied with it” at 21 percent, said Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa), a tax writer.

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), another tax writer, definitely doesn’t want to increase the rate.

“I’m very concerned about undoing what we did that, I think, has been very productive,” he said.

Asked about Republicans’ appetitive for further reducing the rate, Smith was noncommittal, saying that’s something lawmakers could study.

Of course, big business will face far tougher sledding if Democrats win in November. For many of the party’s lawmakers, raising the corporate rate is a foregone conclusion, and only the beginning.

“Every Democrat thinks the 21 percent corporate rate is far lower than is necessary,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a tax writer. He says he’d put it at 27 percent or 28 percent.

Added Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): “Western civilization is not going to end if there’s some increase.”

Biden, who’d pin the corporate tax at 28 percent, has also proposed more than $1 trillion in other business tax increases, including quadrupling a new charge on stock buybacks, expanding a minimum tax on some companies and hiking levies on foreign profits.

Republicans could consider some of those as well.

 

Edited June 24 by homersapien

[Mims44 1,969]

On 6/22/2024 at 12:16 PM, auburnatl1 said:

While both sides will inevitably blame the other (because that’s all they seem capable of doing),  bottom line is that the deficit is becoming imo the greatest threat to this country since the Soviet Union. Trumps tax cuts, Biden’s student forgiveness programs, ect. It is literal moronic insanity. Both parties struggle with understanding the strategic nature of a basic budget. And it’s 6th grade math. There is a disaster coming.

The state of Florida has it in their constitution that they cannot have a budget deficit, or the budget fails. It may be time to consider the same nationally since neither side has a clue. 

httpsw://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/2024-federal-budget-deficit-projection-rises-2-trillion/story?id=111254226

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/#:~:text=Maintaining the National Debt&text=How much the government pays,spending in fiscal year 2024.

These threads always get my attention, BUT...

On 6/22/2024 at 12:46 PM, TexasTiger said:

Trump suggested declaring federal bankruptcy:

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichés about the evils of federal debt accumulation. “I am the king of debt,” he said. “I love debt. I love playing with it.”

But he replaced fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion — a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy.

“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal,” . “And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can’t lose.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/06/donald-trump-on-us-debt.html

Looking at this.

On 6/22/2024 at 1:21 PM, SaltyTiger said:

https://federalbudgetinpictures.com/us-budget-vs-family-budget/

Makes me think this is a false equivalency.

Maybe the reason Biden and Trump don't seem to care so much about it isn't because they are both morons. Maybe it's not as important as we think it is. People make the graphs above and it seems terrible, but what happens when someone goes bankrupt in America? It sucks for them, everybody else continues on with no issues.

However, if the USA were to go bankrupt there would be a worldwide economic collapse. Therefore it behooves all the people we owe to, to kinda be very lenient on this debt.

 

***Disclaimer: I'm not saying I have a high degree of confidence in this thought. Just asking "What if?"

@homersapien Tagging the Homie cause I like hearing his opinions on stuff.... sometimes  

On 6/22/2024 at 4:40 PM, I_M4_AU said:

How about this fact:  $7.5 billion has been allocated to build EV charging station nationwide and only 7 or 8 have been completed since 2021 of the 500,000 proposed.  And why the hold up?

But Biden may only have himself to blame.

Shortly after taking office, the president signed an executive order mandating that the beneficiaries of 40 percent of all federal climate and environmental programs should come from "underserved communities." The order also established the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, which monitors agencies such as the Department of Transportation to ensure the "voices, perspectives, and lived realities of communities with environmental justice concerns are heard in the White House and reflected in federal policies, investments, and decisions."

In order to qualify for a grant, applicants must "demonstrate how meaningful public involvement, inclusive of disadvantaged communities, will occur throughout a project’s life cycle." What "public involvement" means is unclear. But the Department of Transportation notes it should involve "intentional outreach to underserved communities."

How these equity requirements are relevant to the construction of a single electric vehicle charging station is unclear, Meigs said. But all applicants for federal funding must in many cases submit reports that can total hundreds of pages about how they will pursue "equity" every step along the way.

This leads to delays and increases costs throughout the construction process, one senior Department of Transportation official told the Free Beacon. "Highly Qualified" applications, internal memos state, must "promote local inclusive economic development and entrepreneurship such as the use of minority-owned businesses."

https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/white-house-equity-requirements-holding-back-ev-charging-station-construction-internal-docs-show/

The article sums up the problem:

But the propensity for a local population to actually use an electric vehicle charging station appears to be an afterthought for the Biden administration, Meigs said. Instead the various regulations seem to serve more as a way to pay off Democratic constituencies—in the form of minority-focused contracting and hiring—at the expense of completing any projects in a timely or cost-effective manner.

"At a certain point you have to ask, is the point of these programs to reduce emissions or is the point to spread taxpayer money around and support groups that vote for the Democratic Party?"

Talk about special interest groups; its a twofer.  Greenies and DEI.

But that is just an opinion.

As to the *lie* of the cost of net zero, we have the Deputy Secretary of Energy about the $50 trillion and he would not answer the question of how much it would cost.  He also couldn’t or wouldn’t answer how much this cost would reduce the temps.  Senator Kennedy asked the questions and it is recorded and it is ridiculous.

fifty billions dollars?

How on earth are they gonna get fifty trillion dollars?

What tax rate is gonna be needed for this fifty quadrillion to net zero plan?

[I_M4_AU 8,888]

26 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

fifty billions dollars?

How on earth are they gonna get fifty trillion dollars?

What tax rate is gonna be needed for this fifty quadrillion to net zero plan?

Senator Kennedy’s assertion is from an article, the Deputy Sec of Energy never agreed with the cost, however, didn’t come up with his own.  Kennedy, being a steward of our tax dollars, asked the right questions and the sec of energy had no clue if all the mitigations could reduce the increase in temps.  Just seems like a money grab to me, but some believe it is worth the debt, whatever that may be.

[SaltyTiger 8,526]

53 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Maybe it's not as important as we think it is. People make the graphs above and it seems terrible, but what happens when someone goes bankrupt in America? It sucks for them, everybody else continues on with no issues.

However, if the USA were to go bankrupt there would be a worldwide economic collapse. Therefore it behooves all the people we owe to, to kinda be very lenient on this debt.

Good stuff and sure many people think the same. Much more concerned about the price of a simple item in Home Depot being twice the price vs five years ago.

[Mims44 1,969]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Good stuff and sure many people think the same. Much more concerned about the price of a simple item in Home Depot being twice the price vs five years ago.

It sucks for sure, my household income is up over 50% from 2019.

But we're still living and saving the same due to all the increases.