Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

White House budget proposes increase to defense spending and cuts to safety net, but federal deficit would remain


Recommended Posts

HUUGE DEFICIT....................Can't say I didn't say so :news: So much for that $16 billion surplus the Trump Admin predicted for 2027, now the Trump Admin is predicting a $450 billion deficit for 2017.

Quote

 

White House budget proposes increase to defense spending and cuts to safety net, but federal deficit would remain

The White House released a tax and spending plan Monday that would not eliminate the federal budget deficit after 10 years, its first public acknowledgment that large spending increases and the $1.5 trillion tax cut are putting severe pressure on the government’s debt.

The proposal, titled “Efficient, Effective, Accountable: An American Budget,” sets forth President Trump’s priorities as Congress prepares to consider spending bills for the next fiscal year.

It would continue to markedly increase military spending and set aside money for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The plan also calls for major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs, reductions that conservatives have long sought.

But even with these reductions, which add up to more than $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, the proposal would not bring the budget into balance because of the lost tax revenue and higher spending on other programs.

The White House projects a large gap between government spending and tax revenue over the next decade, adding at least $7 trillion to the debt over that time. In 2019 and 2020 alone, the government would add a combined $2 trillion in debt under Trump’s plan.

Even with upbeat economic forecasts and numerous proposed cuts to social programs, most of which will be dead on arrival in Congress, the Trump administration projects that it would run a deficit of $450 billion in 2027.

Last year, the White House projected its tax and spending proposals would lead to a budget surplus of $16 billion in 2027, which meant the government would have brought in more money through taxes than it spent on programs, something last accomplished in 2001.

The budget plan was met cooly by many Republicans.

“Budgets are aspirational documents and seldom have a real impact on spending,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus. “Certainly I applaud the president’s willingness to address our military, veterans and many suffering from the opioid abuse epidemic. I am not investing much time critiquing the budget when it has little to do with what Congress actually spends.”

Democrats, though, reacted with hostility, saying it confirmed their long-held belief that Trump would pivot from large tax cuts for corporations to a push to scale back government benefits for low-income Americans.

“The Trump budget proposal makes clear his desire to enact massive cuts to health care, anti-poverty programs, and investments in economic growth to blunt the deficit-exploding impact of his tax cuts for millionaires and corporations,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “These cuts to critical federal investments are so extreme they can only reflect a disdain for working families and a total lack of vision for a stronger society.”

The biggest factor in the White House’s deficit problems appears to be issues caused by the tax law, which the Trump administration had previously refused to acknowledge would occur.

The White House had promised that last year’s tax cut plan would pay for itself by generating so much revenue that it would not add to the deficit. This ran in sharp contrast to numerous forecasts that found that it would add $1 trillion to $2 trillion to the debt over 10 years.

Monday’s budget proposal paints a much different picture of the tax plan’s eventual effect compared to what the Treasury Department and the White House had projected. It forecasts that tax revenue will plummet in the next few years and never recover to the levels forecast before the tax plan was enacted in December.

It projects that tax receipts will be $314 billion lower in 2018 than it forecast last year and almost $400 billion lower in 2019.

The White House even projects that tax receipts will be $200 billion lower in 2027 than forecast last year, even though it had promised that the plan would fully pay for itself by then.

Republicans have long called for eliminating the budget deficit, but Trump has ushered in a new economic strategy, jettisoning deficit fears in favor of a low-tax, high-spending model that he thinks will boost the economy. Such an approach has risks, particularly as government debt levels are projected to grow at least $7 trillion over the next decade.

The budget and deficit problems actually may be much worse than the White House’s budget sets forth. That’s because some of the cuts would be difficult to pass through Congress.

For example, the budget would cut $554 billion from Medicare spending over 10 years.

Medicare is the federal program that provides health benefits to older Americans, and more than 55 million people used the program last year.

The proposed changes to Medicare include changes to drug pricing. The government would reap $47 billion in savings over a decade from a change to Medicare prescription drug plans that would have seniors progress more slowly through the coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” Far fewer people would reach the catastrophic phase, where they pay 5 percent of the drug cost — and where Medicare is on the hook for 80 percent.

That change could increase out-of-pocket costs for some seniors, but others would have a protective effect. The budget also says that the rebates negotiated on drug prices should be provided directly to seniors when they pick up their prescriptions and proposes a limit on the maximum out-of-pocket payments by seniors.

Another provision would eliminate “facility fees” charged by hospital-owned medical practices. The government would receive $33.9 billion over a decade from simply paying the physician rate to hospital-owned physician offices that aren’t located at a hospital.

It also would make changes to Medicaid, the health program for lower-income Americans that is funded by the federal government and states. It would create a “market-based health-care grant” that could fund programs in addition to the traditional Medicaid program, a change that would lower Medicaid spending by about $250 billion over 10 years.

One program that would face the biggest reduction is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is a version of food stamps run by the Agriculture Department. The White House proposes cutting $214 billion from the program over 10 years, although Congress often fights about changing SNAP and rarely has enacted changes.

It would cut an additional $1.5 trillion over 10 years by reorganizing the government and instituting a plan that would cut a number of programs by 2 percent each year, something that probably would not pass Congress because lawmakers agreed to increase spending across the board last week.

Other parts of the White House’s budget are less defined. For example, it proposes to save $139 billion over 10 years by reducing “improper payments government wide.”

Last year, Trump and his budget director, Mick Mulvaney, sought to use the budget as a way to promise that the deficit would be eliminated over 10 years, even though many of its proposals were not enacted.

But this year’s proposal comes just days after Congress agreed to increase spending by $500 billion over 10 years, boosting a combination of military and domestic programs to secure votes from both parties.

That agreement, combined with the major revenue losses from the tax plan, made the deficit issues much more difficult for the White House to reconcile.

Trump’s budget assumes even hotter growth in the coming years than Wall Street economists predict, which is significant because this dynamic helps them increase projected tax receipts. It relies on growth hitting 3.1 percent this fiscal year and staying above 3 percent through 2024, a sustained stretch that hasn’t occurred since the 1980s.

That’s an even loftier estimate than Trump’s budget last year, which was widely panned for using fantasy figures. The Congressional Budget Office has been assuming a much more modest 1.9 percent growth figure for the next decade, since most experts anticipate there will be a recession at some point.

“It assume much higher economic growth than nearly all outside forecasters,” said Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “The budget counts on these and other assumptions to reduce deficits to sustainable levels – and without them, debt would continue to rise rapidly and indefinitely.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-budget-proposes-increase-to-defense-spending-and-cuts-to-safety-net-but-federal-deficit-would-remain/ar-BBJ2Bso

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BOHICA said:

Add 7 trillion of debt over 10 years.  Much better the 9-10 trillion in 8 years the last administration added

He's doing this without even starting a couple of useless wars. Wait until this Cadet bone spurs starts a chicken hawk war or two.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said:

Suddenly liberals are concerned about spending 

Haven’t they always been concerned with spending on useless wars vs investing in their own citizens?

Im quite sure they’ve been consistent for a number of years in comparing how much war costs bs how much it would cost for health care and higher education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Haven’t they always been concerned with spending on useless wars vs investing in their own citizens?

Im quite sure they’ve been consistent for a number of years in comparing how much war costs bs how much it would cost for health care and higher education. 

No,

liberals are never concerned about spending, only finding more creative ways to raise taxes :finger:

 

btw, those endless wars that liberals voted for and Obambi had eight years to end? 

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Breaux (D-LA), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Cleland (D-GA), Yea 
Clinton (D-NY), Yea 
Daschle (D-SD), Yea 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea 
Edwards (D-NC), Yea 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hollings (D-SC), Yea 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Miller (D-GA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

11 minutes ago, f7ben said:

Fuck Donald Trump

Yup, he sucks too  :thumbsup:

Edited by Sleepr2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said:

No,

liberals are never concerned about spending, only finding more creative ways to raise taxes :finger:

 

btw, those endless wars that liberals voted for and Obambi had eight years to end? 

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Biden (D-DE), Yea 
Breaux (D-LA), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Cleland (D-GA), Yea 
Clinton (D-NY), Yea 
Daschle (D-SD), Yea 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea 
Edwards (D-NC), Yea 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hollings (D-SC), Yea 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Miller (D-GA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Yup, he sucks too  :thumbsup:

I think you are very stupid. But you are also blind. Many liberals compare the costs of the military to the costs of health care. You just go on the wrong sites.  Do a google search and you’ll find out what both of those wars would have paid for. 

You might want to open your mind further and compare what Obama accomplished vs. Bush.  Bush wanted to kill Bin Laden. 1 trillion late and 1,000’s of dead soldiers. Bin Laden is still alive.  Obama approved the mission that killed Bin Laden.  And he didn’t even put on a uniform and pose under a mission accomplished banner.

or compare Iraq to Libya.  Bush wanted to “to free the peaceful people of Iraq from Saddam”. 1 Trillion dollars and how many soldiers?

 Obama wanted to free the people of Libya from khadafi. 

Care to tell us how much money and how many American lives that cost?  

I wouldn’t want to quote a site that doesn’t meet your approval. Why don’t you look things up and quote the numbers?

my guess is that you will deflect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

I think you are very stupid. But you are also blind. Many liberals compare the costs of the military to the costs of health care. You just go on the wrong sites.  Do a google search and you’ll find out what both of those wars would have paid for. 

You might want to open your mind further and compare what Obama accomplished vs. Bush.  Bush wanted to kill Bin Laden. 1 trillion late and 1,000’s of dead soldiers. Bin Laden is still alive.  Obama approved the mission that killed Bin Laden.  And he didn’t even put on a uniform and pose under a mission accomplished banner.

or compare Iraq to Libya.  Bush wanted to “to free the peaceful people of Iraq from Saddam”. 1 Trillion dollars and how many soldiers?

 Obama wanted to free the people of Libya from khadafi. 

Care to tell us how much money and how many American lives that cost?  

I wouldn’t want to quote a site that doesn’t meet your approval. Why don’t you look things up and quote the numbers?

my guess is that you will deflect. 

ROFLMAO! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Sadly the Generals are winning out with Trump.  

How is it the great outsider ended up being a party line neocon puppet inside of one year?

Tax cuts , sabre rattling and expanded military operations , expanded military budget , assault on individual rights , reduction of social programs , reduced oversight and regulation

......AND MASSIVE MASSIVE INCREASES IN SPENDING

 

How in the fuck is it that this is what we got.....I'll tell you how. The game is rigged and we dont even have a seat at the table anymore

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said:

ROFLMAO! 

No shit.  The guy is all in on the liberal bias.  Gotta lottaballs calling anyone stupid, given what is coming to light.   Newsflash, they lost the election for a reason, and will lose the next one too.  Count on it. :bc: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f7ben said:

How is it the great outsider ended up being a party line neocon puppet inside of one year?

Tax cuts , sabre rattling and expanded military operations , expanded military budget , assault on individual rights , reduction of social programs , reduced oversight and regulation

......AND MASSIVE MASSIVE INCREASES IN SPENDING

 

How in the fuck is it that this is what we got.....I'll tell you how. The game is rigged and we dont even have a seat at the table anymore

 

Winning!!!!!! Freedom!!!!! MAGA!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DriftBusta said:

No shit.  The guy is all in on the liberal bias.  Gotta lottaballs calling anyone stupid, given what is coming to light.   Newsflash, they lost the election for a reason, and will lose the next one too.  Count on it. :bc: 

I had to laugh when he claimed I read the wrong sites and brings up the

debunked “ mission accomplished “  line :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said:

ROFLMAO! 

 

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

No shit.  The guy is all in on the liberal bias.  Gotta lottaballs calling anyone stupid, given what is coming to light.   Newsflash, they lost the election for a reason, and will lose the next one too.  Count on it. :bc: 

Compare the costs of Libya to Iraq. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

No shit.  The guy is all in on the liberal bias.  Gotta lottaballs calling anyone stupid, given what is coming to light.   Newsflash, they lost the election for a reason, and will lose the next one too.  Count on it. :bc: 

DERP DERP DERP .....Good post snowrider !!!!111111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, f7ben said:

How is it the great outsider ended up being a party line neocon puppet inside of one year?

Tax cuts , sabre rattling and expanded military operations , expanded military budget , assault on individual rights , reduction of social programs , reduced oversight and regulation

......AND MASSIVE MASSIVE INCREASES IN SPENDING

 

How in the fuck is it that this is what we got.....I'll tell you how. The game is rigged and we dont even have a seat at the table anymore

 

Wrong Ben.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...