Posted on 03/25/2016 6:23:49 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
What Trump implicitly promises is a closing of the gap between federal revenue and spending without any pain for ordinary voters. He claims that better management, led by him, is all it will take. It is the worst kind of wishful thinking and deception.
On entitlements, Trump is essentially in agreement with most Democrats. He says he won’t make any changes to Social Security or Medicare benefits. In previous years, he also said Medicaid shouldn’t be cut. He says he now favors converting Medicaid into a block grant to the states, although he has not promised that this switch would reduce federal costs.
It is not possible to address the nation’s fiscal challenges while protecting, now and in the future, entitlement spending — unless you are willing to impose massive tax hikes, such as those President Obama proposes.
In 1970, combined federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid was 3.7 percent of GDP. Today, spending on these programs, plus the new subsidies for insurance under Obamacare, accounts for more than 10 percent of GDP. And spending on these programs will reach 14.2 percent of GDP by 2040 unless they are changed to reduce their costs.
President Obama’s answer to the growing problem of entitlement spending is simple: more revenue. Over the past fifty years, federal revenue has averaged 17.7 percent of GDP. Tax hikes implemented during the Obama years would already push revenue up to 19.4 percent of GDP by 2040. But the president and his supporters want to raise taxes even more to cover the rising costs of entitlement programs.
Trump says he disagrees. He has proposed a tax cut of at least $10 trillion over the coming decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
You looking forward to Cruz’s VAT tax?
Where are any plans on entitlements?
You certainly post a (lot) of anti-Trump nonsense.
Just saying.
Almost like you’re advocating for someone else.
According to Trump, it’s not the giant, overreaching government programs that are the problem. It’s the people running them. So don’t expect anything to reduce in size or effectiveness under a Trump presidency.
Big bureaucrat layoffs.
He’s already said that he plans to increase tariffs.
National Review=TRASH
Higher taxes neither increase revenue nor reduce deficits, but this strategy does destroy incentive.
And without incentive, there is no growth, without growth, there is only contraction.
We have had ten years of contraction. Had enough?
In order to get ANY spending under control, the unending swarms of illegal invaders must be dealt with first. They are the ones overwhelming the system, not Americans, and that is by design, by the way.
And we spread billions upon billions of dollars around the world for, shall we say, less than worthy causes that should be made available here.
Mr. Trump will get a handle on both. He understands the problem and has the intestinal fortitude to steamroll the liberal nonsense that’s killing us.
The others, even if they do understand what it will take to right this ship, simply won’t get the job done. Period.
No president can change the tax plan. It may be possible for the president to work with congress to change taxes. I see NO chance of Cruz doing that so his plan is meaningless.
I think Trump has a chance of getting congress to work. Business at Trump’s level is about finding win-win solutions and getting different, often opposing, groups to work together.
Trump’s plan shows us what direction he wants to go. It’s almost certainly not going to be passed as-is.
The 2 main issues are
1. WE NEED TAX REFORM
2. CONGRESS IS DYSFUNCTIONAL
Who is most likely be be able to overcome 2 in order for congress to do 1? Same goes for immigration, trade, health care, debt, and lots of other issues where congress has agreed for a decade we need to fix but has done nothing about.
In an election, you cannot say you are going to eliminate “social” spending without being excoriated by the mediots.
These are not entitlements, they are vote buying schemes. You are entitled to the air you breath....that’s about it.
Trump, or anyone else who intends to cut such spending would do well to not discuss their plans until after the election.
There is simply no reason to hand them the rope to hang you with.
This is the groaning BS the stupid elites pulled on Reagan when he proposed supply side economics. Reagan was right and the doom sayers where wrong, and so is the Nasty Review.
How many more anti-Trump threads do you have to start before you get paid?
All the anti-Trump midget brains are showing their true “conservative” colors.
Flush-em out Donald and take the note.
Nobody is paying me. I post so much because I think Trump would not be a good candidate in the general election or good president if elected. There are lots of staunch Trump supporters on this site. I don't assume they are being paid. Don't assume Trump critics are hacks either.
To understand what is coming, just look at the different price level of America, even in the 1920s boom, and the price level today. And look also at today's $300,000+ homes that were trading under $10,000 in the 1930s, even after Roosevelt devalued the dollar to 1/35th of an ounce of gold.
Your & National Review's attempts to discredit Trump are only discrediting the anti-Trump movement. All Trump needs to do is cut a few programs out; make the remaining bureaucracy more efficient; reduce the tax consequences of repatriations of Corporate funds held overseas; restore confidence, and watch what happens, when those paper money reserves flow back into the market.
Do not misunderstand me. I was certainly not in favor of the Keynesian expansion of the money supply. But do not ignore the effect on the deficit--which admittedly cheats the bond holders--in you analysis. (Just because you deplore a policy--the Bush/Obama policy--does not mean you should ignore its ultimate effect.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.