The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 95685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

trump's budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.

trump varies between wanting to cut taxes between half a trillion and a trillion a year. when pressed, he says he wants to have a balanced budget. that's not possible. if you read his website, he says they use "dynamic growth" models which would cause the buget to become balanced. that's another way of saying his cuts in spending wouuldn't do the job alone.... he relies on voodoo economics to do the job. it's called voodoo economics cause it goes against a very simple idea... cut taxes massively, get massive revenue decreases. so simple a kindergartner can understand it. just look at the graph from history below, which proves it.

http://www.factandmyth.com...

it's not possible to cut his way to solvency. he doesn't want to touch social scurity or medicare or interst on the debt. and wants to increase spending on defense and infrastructure and other pet projects. he says we will make ends meet by cutting "waste fraud and abuse", a vague notion. if you look at the numbers though, it's not possible to get enough of that. for indeed, social security medicare interest and defense account for more than ninety percent of the budget. even if you wiped out the rest of the budget, which would be hte height of irresponsibility, you couldn't even balance the budget now, let alone pay for his tax cuts. if he's like most other republicans out there including past presidents, he would just run us into debt at the end of the day.

thus his budget numbers dont add up, and are irresponsible.
harrytruman

Con

As my opponent hasn't posted any links to what policies she is refering to I am unable to respond to this specific claim or tell how much the deficit/surplus would e under a trump presidency. I can however say that it is entirely possibly to have both a balanced budget and low taxes through tis thing called "reduced spending."

I can also tell you that the liberal version of "taxing the rich," is just a term they use to make everone think they are "bringing change," whilst in reality they just raise taxes for the middle class and actualy decrease taxes for the rich.

Under trumps tax system corporations won't be able to cheat out of their taxes by "moving" to Bermuda (i.e. they say they live in bermuda and pay no taxes), and the top 1% pay 25% of their income to the feds, if trumps tax plan goes into effect these will be raised by 8% to 33%. In all, federal revenues should increase by roughly 1.5 trillio according to my estimations based on his tax plan alone, accounting for reduced regulations and taxes, and increased jobs and industry, the total amount should be around 2 trillion.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com...

Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con says we can cut our way to solvency. he just ignores though that i pointed out that he wont cut 90% of spending and make increases, so the remaining ten percent won't even balance the budget, let alone pay for his tax cuts.

con cites trumps website for a source. of course trump thinks he can grow his way out of that mess. but in a poll, zero percent of economists thought that we could get more revenue by cutting taxes than not.
http://econlog.econlib.org...

con is falling prey to voodoo economics
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
harrytruman

Con

Actualy we spend 3.79 trillion annualy {1} and receive 3.18 trillion annualy {2}, so let's do the math, by reducing spending by 10% the budget will become 3.2 trillion. By increasing taxes on the very rich but ultimately reducing them from what they were supposedly, and by getting rid of corporate loopholes trump will increase revenues by at least 500 billion. which will give us a 480 billion surplus.

And thoug decreasing taxes may not increase tax revenues,, it is used by those rare politicians who actualy care about the good of the people and not just squeesing as much money as he can from the public:


{1}. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
{2}. https://www.nationalpriorities.org...

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

where do you get your numbers that he'd increase the taxes on the rich? i've only heard he'd increase them. he might tweaka few things especially for hedge funds that make their decrease not as much, but it's overall less. and the top rate now is closer to forty percent, under the new plan it's thirty three percent. they might pay a marginal rate of twenty five but that's a different story the top rate.

plus, where do you get a ten percent decrease in spending? if he does as he says and not touch entitlements and defense and interest, he'd have to wipe out government as we know it practically just to get a ten percent cut.

not sure why you posted that last picture. it shows with higher taxes theres more GDP growth. i know you were making a concession about revenue but it doesnt help your point.

last as i said in the comments his first post nontrump link was a liberal site. i dont know specifically why he cited it except maybe it had a factoid that helped him. overall it doesn't though.
harrytruman

Con

“where do you get your numbers that he'd increase the taxes on the rich? i've only heard he'd increase them. he might tweaka few things especially for hedge funds that make their decrease not as much, but it's overall less. and the top rate now is closer to forty percent, under the new plan it's thirty three percent. they might pay a marginal rate of twenty five but that's a different story the top rate.”

So you don’t believe that Trump would increase taxes on the rich, because you’ve only ever heard that he would increase them (but this is correct), I do not see the difference between increasing taxes on the rich and, well, increasing taxes on the rich.

Now, Trump isn’t necessarily increasing taxes on the rich, the top rate decreases, so officially the rich are taxes less, but if you were to account for the fat that most times these clowns cheat out of their taxes, use corporate loopholes, or shell companies that reside in the US (onshore is the new offshore apparently), then the mega rich, not the upper class, end up paying more taxes since they actualy will end up paying their taxes, but their official rate is decreased.

It sounds complicated but it really isn’t, let me explain; say you ear 100$, and the official law is you pay 50%, so you should end up paying 50$, but instead you legally launder your money through loopholes that the mega rich had added into the US tax code so they could tax dodge. So you only pay 10$, but someone else comes along, reduces your rate to 25%, but abolishes the loopholes, this way your official rate has lowered to 25%, but the actual amount you pay has increased by 150%! In this way trump can both increase taxes and decrease taxes on the rich at the same time


“plus, where do you get a ten percent decrease in spending? if he does as he says and not touch entitlements and defense and interest, he'd have to wipe out government as we know it practically just to get a ten percent cut.”

Well this is embarrassing; you were the one that said he would do a ten percent cut in Round 2:

“he just ignores though that i pointed out that he won’t cut 90% of spending and make increases, so the remaining ten percent won't even balance the budget, let alone pay for his tax cuts.”



“not sure why you posted that last picture. it shows with higher taxes theres more GDP growth. i know you were making a concession about revenue but it doesnt help your point.”

Actually, I never said that reduced taxes equal more GDP growth, I just posted that graph with the intention of proving it, so my opponent just basically validated Reaganomics! The point was reducing taxes is responsible since it puts the interests of the public first, which is kind of the whole entire point of government, so if they can do this by reducing taxes they should- it’s their job actually, that’s why they’re called “public servants.”

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 8 months ago
dairygirl4u2c
i didn't even point out that the other site con mentioned was a liberal site, counter his points.
No votes have been placed for this debate.