US government is running out of money faster than expected, Mnuchin warns

[LV426]

after Obama doubled our debt it's a wonder we are still operating.

You would wonder that because you're an idiot.

Obama left behind a deficit lower than the one he inherited, and your shitty tax cut has ballooned the deficit up to $1T again because you don't know what the fuck you're doing, and you never have.

[LV426]

I have never advocated additional tax cuts but neither would I favor increases.

Except that by arguing "tax cuts let you keep more of what you earn", you actually do advocate for additional tax cuts. That's the entire premise behind what you said.

You say that tax cuts "let people keep more of what they earn"
Then you also say "I never advocate for tax cuts"

Yes you do...you advocate for them when you make that highly emotional argument.

Is this how you convince yourself you are a moderate?

I did favor reductions in the corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive and remove the incentive to keep profits abroad.

How does lowering the corporate rate, to a rate still above most of these other countries, make us "more competitive"? That makes no sense. You say "I want to make the US more competitive with countries businesses outsource to because of lower tax rates, but I'm not going to lower the rate below those countries."

So...lowering the rate to 22% didn't make America more competitive, all it did was starve the Treasury of revenues and increase the debt. And guess what? Companies still outsourced jobs and still kept their profits overseas.

You just don't want higher taxes because you don't want people to have health care or an education...if people are dumb and sick, they're a lot more desperate and easier to convince than if they're not.

[CFM]

You would wonder that because you're an idiot.

Obama left behind a deficit lower than the one he inherited, and your shitty tax cut has ballooned the deficit up to $1T again because you don't know what the fuck you're doing, and you never have.

The debt doubled during his time in office.

Keep puckering, boy. Your lips keep getting browner.

[LV426]

And, nobody ever advocated "trickle down." That was just a term invented by opponents to play on the anti-rich sentiment some are attracted to.

The premise is that the wealthy will trickle down their gains to everyone else.

Except that never happened, and we have the data that shows it.

So you want to make this a matter of branding, rather than a matter of fact and results.

You have a dogmatic, fundamental belief in the prosperity gospel, and that there exists some benevolence among the wealthy who will toss crumbs down, or trickle down if you prefer, on the workers. That because they're rich, they're somehow hard workers deserving of the wealth and deserving of the authority on how to spend it.

That makes you a fucking idiot.

[LV426]

No, it is not simply emotional. It is a political choice that allows more freedom for the public to spend money as they choose, slows down government spending and size and size of the deficit and debt that reduces the amount of money we have to borrow and pay the interest on.

It is also a decision about what is the proper rate of taxation. If somebody set it at 99% for all Americans most think that is excessive; yet, it would take one of those horrible tax cuts to reduce that amount. The point is that it should never have been set at 99% to start with. Why? Because that is a political opinion. Whether you are cutting or increasing taxes that is simply a matter of what the proper rate should be.

I have seen studies in which many Americans agree with the statement "the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes." But, when asked what is their fair share it is usually between 15-20% with some saying as high as 40%. So what many Americans think is "fair" is actually less than they pay now.

I have never advocated additional tax cuts but neither would I favor increases. Like Trump and Obama, I did favor reductions in the corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive and remove the incentive to keep profits abroad.

Here's the real knife in the heart of your "I'm better at spending money than the government" argument; if you truly, honestly believe you as an individual know how to better spend your money than the government, wouldn't that also mean you, as a worker, know better how to spend the money a business generates than the business?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to determine how much money you should get from the business, rather than let the business keep the money for itself? If, as you say, you know how to spend money better than them. Unless you're going to now say you don't know how to spend your money better than a business, and that the business somehow has the authority over how to spend your own money more than you do. That's what they're doing when they're withholding revenues from you. Don't you think a business shouldn't get to determine how much of their revenues they give to you, since you think you're so much better at spending money?

Does your company know how to spend your money better than you? If not, then shouldn't the business not withhold as much of their revenues from you, and increase your wage since, as you argue, you know how to spend your money better?

Don't worry, I know you won't respond to this argument.

[Gonzomin]

Mnuchkin,it is math. It is addition and subtraction and you have a huge staff compiling those numbers. The lack of money was predicted by people who do the math and others who paid attention to it. This is not a surprise. Do your fucking job.

[LV426]

Mnuchkin,it is math. It is addition and subtraction and you have a huge staff compiling those numbers. The lack of money was predicted by people who do the math and others who paid attention to it. This is not a surprise. Do your fucking job.

Yup.

Tax cuts reduce revenues, expand deficits, and then Conservatives screech and oink about the deficits their tax cuts caused.

In 2015, without a tax cut, Obama achieved 2.88% GDP growth and reduced the deficit by 10%, while creating 2.7M jobs.
In 2018, with a tax cut, Trump achieved 2.85% GDP growth and increased the deficit by 17%, while creating 2.6M jobs.

Obama wins.

[Flash]

Here's the real knife in the heart of your "I'm better at spending money than the government" argument; if you truly, honestly believe you as an individual know how to better spend your money than the government, wouldn't that also mean you, as a worker, know better how to spend the money a business generates than the business?

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to determine how much money you should get from the business, rather than let the business keep the money for itself? If, as you say, you know how to spend money better than them. Unless you're going to now say you don't know how to spend your money better than a business, and that the business somehow has the authority over how to spend your own money more than you do. That's what they're doing when they're withholding revenues from you. Don't you think a business shouldn't get to determine how much of their revenues they give to you, since you think you're so much better at spending money?

Does your company know how to spend your money better than you? If not, then shouldn't the business not withhold as much of their revenues from you, and increase your wage since, as you argue, you know how to spend your money better?

Don't worry, I know you won't respond to this argument.

Silly comparison. The business made that money and the owners get to decide how to spend it. In the case of taxpayers they made the money and should be able to decide how to spend it.

They must pay a certain amount in taxes to run the government but they even have a say over how that is spent through their elected representatives. As part of the democratic process they get to influence how much they pay in taxes and how that money is spent.

We also have an influence over business by choosing whether to spend our money for their products and services. We can put the largest corporations out of business if we don't patronize their business (and have done so).

From your argument it sounds like you 1) don't think the taxpayers should have anything to say about how government spends their money; and 2) think government knows how to spend their money better than they do.

If a worker needs a new car that might be a better way to spend his money than government deciding to give a grant for some study to find out how classical music affects cats (recent NIH study). They throw up fewer hairballs.

[LV426]

Silly comparison. The business made that money and the owners get to decide how to spend it.

But they don't know how to spend it better than you.

That's what you're saying about the government; so I fail to see the difference here.

The government collects revenues from taxes, the business from sales; both are revenues. Yet one you think you're smarter than, and the other you're saying you're not. That's why your entire argument for tax cuts falls apart. It's all based on your subjective judgment of your own personal fiscal abilities.

It's absurd to pretend that you know how to spend your money better than a $3T federal government, but not better than a $150B private company.

[LV426]

In the case of taxpayers they made the money and should be able to decide how to spend it.

We did decide...taxes to pay for health care and education. That's what we've decided to spend the money on.

So you think you're smarter than the $3T federal government, but not smarter than the private company with a market cap of $100B?

How fucking arrogant.

[LV426]

They must pay a certain amount in taxes to run the government but they even have a say over how that is spent through their elected representatives.

But you just said that the government doesn't know how to best spend the money; you insisted you did.

So...I guess, individuals up to a certain point know how to spend their money, but then at that arbitrary and ambiguous point -subject to your personal view- they cease being wise with it?

That's your argument.

[LV426]

We also have an influence over business by choosing whether to spend our money for their products and services.

It's adorable that you think we live in a free market and not in an oligopoly where market share is dominated in almost every industry by a handful of multinational corporations.

[LV426]

We can put the largest corporations out of business if we don't patronize their business (and have done so).

Oh really? Like who?

What corporation has been punished by consumers for their mismanagement?

The banks? No, they increased their market share after the Great Bush Recession.

The auto companies? No, their sales have increased only after the federal government bailed them out.

The telcos? Nope, they are consolidating even more and now AT&T is the largest corporation in the world with a market cap of about $150B.

So...you're just talking about punishing small businesses who can't compete. The small business is undercut by the conglomerate, and according to you, that's the way it should be because consumers have spoken.

[Gonzomin]

Silly comparison. The business made that money and the owners get to decide how to spend it. In the case of taxpayers they made the money and should be able to decide how to spend it.

They must pay a certain amount in taxes to run the government but they even have a say over how that is spent through their elected representatives. As part of the democratic process they get to influence how much they pay in taxes and how that money is spent.

We also have an influence over business by choosing whether to spend our money for their products and services. We can put the largest corporations out of business if we don't patronize their business (and have done so).

From your argument it sounds like you 1) don't think the taxpayers should have anything to say about how government spends their money; and 2) think government knows how to spend their money better than they do.

If a worker needs a new car that might be a better way to spend his money than government deciding to give a grant for some study to find out how classical music affects cats (recent NIH study). They throw up fewer hairballs.

The workers create the wealth. Owners just confiscate the profits, Corporations are at all-time high profits and wages stall That money is going somewhere. Just not to the workers, the wealth creators.

[LV426]

From your argument it sounds like you 1) don't think the taxpayers should have anything to say about how government spends their money

WTF? I'm for taxation with representation. You're the one who says on the one hand that you can spend your money better than the government and then, in literally the next breath, you say that taxpayers are better at spending the money when they are organized into a government and represented by elected officials.

So then individuals don't spend their money any better or worse than the government, which you also say spends money according to what taxpayers want.

So...what's the point of tax cuts, then? If, as you say, taxpayers are good at spending tax revenue because they elect representatives to do so, what's the point of cutting individual taxes, then? Wouldn't you just be taking away money from the taxpayers who are good at spending the revenue?