A $2 Trillion Error and More…

CREDIT: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais.

The math in crafting the budget was seemingly too difficult for an administration embroiled in scandal. President Donald Trump promised that he would balance the budget for the first time in over a decade and he would do it without cutting spending for defense or Social Security. The numbers were flawed, however.

According to New York Magazine, Trump’s budget assumes a $2 trillion increase in revenue through economic growth that can’t be verified or supported by any estimations by anyone, anywhere. Even the Trump administration’s supposed economic growth wouldn’t pay for the $2 trillion error. Previously, Trump claimed his cuts would be paid for by the growth expected to come in, as a result of his tax breaks. The plan is akin to a credit card that has an interest rate that pays off your card as you spend money on it. The administration has double counted the growth.

Via Raw Story.

This whole mess is turning out to be worse than the Fuck You Healthcare Plan. Apparently, our Tiny Tyrant is not in the least disturbed by numbers which simply do not work. It will be great, yes, of course it will, because it has ‘greatness’ on the label, see, and if you have branding, you don’t have to care about anything else. Might be best if everyone prepares for bankruptcy. There’s a great deal to be disturbed about, so here’s the Oh Fuck Roundup:

Congressional Republicans balk at the arrival of Trump’s cruel budget: Not everyone’s on board; in fact, plenty aren’t.

Trump’s budget sacrifices diplomacy for bigger guns: The State Department would see massive cuts, while the Defense Department would get its budget padded further.

Here’s where the White House got its insane growth projections: Trump’s budget sets a wildly implausible growth target and then seeks to achieve it by cutting food stamps and disability benefits.

Student loan borrowers should brace themselves for Trump’s budget: The news is particularly grim for graduate students.

The outrageous assumptions hiding a $6 trillion hole in Trump’s budget: The budget is so detached from reality, it’s created its own theory of economic growth.

Trump’s budget would destroy the health coverage of at least 14 million poor people: The budget blueprint embraces Trumpcare’s massive cuts to Medicaid — and then cuts the program even more.

Trump’s ‘welfare reform’ will destroy the program: Welfare fails to help families in poverty. Trump would make it much worse.

Asshole Mulvaney’s Take.

That’s enough bad news, ennit?


  1. timberwoof says

    Much of Rethuglican ideology is economic. They love to trot out all the Economics 102: Macroeconomics vocabulary words and present themselves as superior thinkers. Anyone who supports Trump’s budget get an F in economics in my grade book. Just as anyone who did not take high school geometry is not qualified to say whether the Earth is flat or round, they are disqualified from rendering opinions on the subject.

  2. Kengi says

    Don’t get me fucking started on conservative economics. I have more arguments with idiots over this topic and anything else. Never mind that supply-side boosting has never actually seemed to work (with America’s largest growth occurring during times of highest taxes), but basic common sense should prevent anyone from buying into it now.

    Does anyone actually think the problem with big corporations right now is they can’t get access to investment money? Apple is sitting on how many billion in cash? If we lower Apple’s taxes will they suddenly start producing more iPhones? Macs? If they needed more production, they can get it at the drop of the hat. Even if they didn’t have the billions in cash laying around, interest rates are still at near historic lows, making financing of investment cheaper than ever.

    If you want Apple to sell more product, more consumers need the money to buy them. Demand-side has been stretched so thin since the 80’s far too many people can only afford basic goods and services to live on. If they do use a smartphone, it’s often because they no longer have a computer or broadband internet connection at home.

    Supply-side growth inherently implies there is a supply-side problem. All, extremely obvious, evidence suggests this isn’t the case. If you really want 3%+ growth over the next ten years, take half of what the top 1% has and give it to the bottom 30%. Basic inequality of our economic system means, with that kind of growth, the top 1% will get that money back in about a decade.

    It really is a Randian fantasy to think taking more money away from the poor and giving it to people who put most of their current money in foreign bank accounts will have anything but a negative effect on growth at home.

    Fuck, people are gullible when it comes to economics.

    And when even some of this gets passed and implemented and results in contraction rather than growth, future conservatives will simply drag out the tried “we didn’t go far enough” argument.

  3. johnson catman says

    Mulvaney went on to say “you have to have compassion for folks who are receiving the federal funds, but also you have to have compassion for folks who are paying it.”

    How about compassion for folks not wanting to pay to add another 10% to an already hugely bloated military budget. You could use that money to actually do some good instead. That would be compassion.

Leave a Reply