Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump's bribes/tax cuts would greatly increase the deficit and the debt (Table 4)
"[Trump's] proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036 (table 4 and figure 1). Assuming the tax cuts are not offset by spending cuts, the national debt would rise by an estimated 39 percent of GDP in 2026 and by nearly 80 percent of GDP by 2036"
Hillary's plan would reduce the deficit and debt. (Table 3)
"Including interest savings from reducing the federal debt, Clinton’s proposals would reduce the federal debt by over $1.2 trillion over the 10-year budget window(table 3)."
#1 Yes Trump's plan would in fact increase the debt more than Hillary's.
#2 Hillary's plan would in fact increase the debt too though according to neutral non-partisan sources...your source is as legit as asking Michelle if Barack is a good president.
#3 Your skewed source makes it seem like the $20 Trillion that Hillary will (likely) inherit will shrink...it will rise...the national annual deficit is set to steadily start rising again soon under current laws. Your skewed source is assuming best possible scenarios (much like Trump does for his BS on this issue) and then pretends that the debt would shrink do to some BS slowing of the deficit in some areas while the overall debt grows and other areas of the budget accelerate the annual deficit.
What seems to be lost too many times by the "experts" is that you can only tax those who work. So it is not a static figure. If many more jobs are created then the revenue lost by looking at the lower rate only is misleading. Those losses are offset by the taxes paid by people who now have jobs. These people who are now employed and paying taxes also now do not need public assistance.
Been proven quite a few times throughout history. It is not a fixed pie.
What seems to be lost too many times by the "experts" is that you can only tax those who work. So it is not a static figure. If many more jobs are created then the revenue lost by looking at the lower rate only is misleading. Those losses are offset by the taxes paid by people who now have jobs. These people who are now employed and paying taxes also now do not need public assistance.
Been proven quite a few times throughout history. It is not a fixed pie.
That makes too much sense waltergulick but it may be above their heads.
What happened to your "Numbers" you like to use as fact now? Wouldn't Obama be the "King" of Debt since he now holds the record? Or doesn't that fit your agenda? Say Hypocrite. Know any?
No it's not a good ad. It's a feel good ad. I didn't hear how he would do any of this. Did you?
Its a Great Ad, and sounds very appealing to all but Liberals, who want everything for free and don't want to work for it. You have a choice of what Trump will do or become a "Milk Cow" for Hillary and Bernie's Socialist States of America.
Its a Great Ad, and sounds very appealing to all but Liberals, who want everything for free and don't want to work for it. You have a choice of what Trump will do or become a "Milk Cow" for Hillary and Bernie's Socialist States of America.
But where did he say how he would make any of this happen. That's what I want to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
