The Harris Proposed Economy means 1.7 Trillion ten year deficit. hmmm

1. 87

   tsmogposted 7 weeks ago

   The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on Aug 16th released their assessment of the economic proposals by Harris. The bottom line is it would increase the deficit by 1.7 trillion over ten years.
   
   The Kamala Harris Agenda to Lower Costs for American Families by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Aug 16, 2024)
   https://www.crfb.org/blogs/kamala-harri … n-families
   
   Note: Relatively short article getting to the main points. There is a graphic for Summary of the Fiscal Effects of the Harris Agenda to Lower Costs for American Families.
   
   "Much of this agenda is regulatory, including a ban on “price gouging” of food and groceries. The tax and spending elements of the agenda include:
   
   ** Expanding the Child Tax Credit by making it fully refundable, increasing the base credit from $2,000 to $3,000, and further increasing the credit to $6,000 for children in their first year of life and $3,600 for other children under six years old.
   
   ** Extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that reduce premiums paid by households buying health insurance on the exchanges, which expire at the end of 2025.
   
   ** Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit by increasing the credit available to workers who do not have child dependents for tax purposes.
   
   ** Establishing a First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit of up to $25,000 to help cover the cost of a down payment.
   
   ** Further supporting affordable housing with tax incentives for building starter homes, an expansion of existing tax credits to support the development of affordable housing, and a $40 billion housing innovation fund.
   
   ** Lowering prescription drug costs by capping the cost of insulin, accelerating drug negotiations, and increasing transparency and competition among drug manufacturers.
   
   What is the risk vs reward assessment in your mind?
   
   Is it benefiting the 'right' people? For instance, Gen Z, Millennials, and seniors on social security?
   
   Thoughts, criticisms, accolades, and/or commentary?
   
   For the curious the Committee's assessment of the proposed 2025 Budget
   
   Analysis of the President's FY 2025 Budget by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Mar 11, 2024)
   https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-pr … 2025budget

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      As I look through her ideas I see:
      
      set price limits of groceries
      
      Give money to individuals for having children
      
      Give money to individuals for health care
      
      Give money to individuals for NOT having children
      
      Give money to individuals to buy a house
      
      Set pricing for drugs
      
      Somewhere we've lost our way when a politician can actually propose simply giving money to everyone in sight without concern for the needs of the nation.  We've lost sight when it's about giving money to the "right" people, according to age, sex, race, etc.
      
      I didn't see anything in there about where we were going to find that magic money tree to pay for all this.  Do we dismantle our military?  End Social Security?  Stop welfare?  How do we pay for all the giveaways?

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         "** Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit by increasing the credit available to workers who do not have child dependents for tax purposes."
         
         The EITC is a "refundable" tax credit (what a misnomer!), meaning you do not need to owe taxes to get it.  It is simply given out.
         
         I am 74 years old and will never have children again.  Is Harris proposing that I get $1500 per year ( or whatever the figure is) because I don't have kids?  Will my wife get the same?  Underage children?  My neighbor, 16 years old, has a child and gets aid - if he did not would he get that expanded EIC (or whatever she will call it)?

         replyreport
         1. 87

            tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Good questions!

            replyreport
      2. 87

         tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         "I didn't see anything in there about where we were going to find that magic money tree to pay for all this."
         
         From the first paragraph of the article we discover;
         
         "The Harris campaign has said this would be paid for through taxes on corporations and high earners and that they support the revenue raisers in the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget but has not put forward specific offsets as part of their Agenda to Lower Costs for American Families."
         
         You would have to read the complete article to get the specifics as shared by the authors. It is tied to the proposed 2025 budget. A link has been provided at the OP for that.
         
         Ever since the first of the year when I made several posts about our debt and deficit spending I keep a sharp eye on it sharing news from The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They don't hold back and are fair in my mind critical of the present administration and past ones.
         
         There Debt Thermometer is interesting if curious. It shows years 2020 - 2024.
         https://www.crfb.org/debt-thermometer

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Yes, I know.  Politicians always say they can pay for their programs...and then tax the people to do it.  I don't believe Harris is going to raise corporate taxes and taxes on the rich enough to pay for half her wondrous giveaways.  If she does it to corporations they will leave, and if she taxes the rich enough they will take their money elsewhere even if they don't leave physically.
            
            That is the way of these things; buy votes with pie in the sky promises and then either back out or force people to pay for what they don't want.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

               ~ magnifying glass:
               
               "If she does it to corporations they will leave, and if she taxes the rich enough they will take their money elsewhere even if they don't leave physically." Widerness

               replyreport
   2. 70

      abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is horrific; she stands there as Queen, promising gifts, if the good subjects will only submit.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yes. See how many times she refers to herself (I) during her speech.
         She has, (will have,) checks and balances.
         She acts like she doesn't, (won't.)
         
         ... and they say Trump will be a dictator?
         
         Furthermore, she is misleading her supporters in so many ways while offering exactly what they want. So, when/if she gets in, she will give them what she never even mentioned.
         
         ~and she did not so well! Such smooth talk I have never heard.
         Especially from her!
         How did she do it?

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            (remove not
            and she did so well ... with her speaking.)
            
            She sounded so convincing and sure of herself, for a change.
            Rehearsing MUCH?

            replyreport
   3. 84

      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      After reading the article, I found myself perplexed by how anyone could support such an agenda of spending or by the audacity of a woman who stands at a podium making such promises. Almost all of her proposals, except for negotiating lower drug prices, would require Congress to pass legislation to fund these giveaways.
      
      It is factual that the United States is struggling to maintain the solvency of its primary social programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Given these financial strains, is it realistic to consider that the nation could take on several additional social programs as proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris?
      
      Typically, my posts are quite long, but I’ll keep this brief. In short, I find Harris's agenda to be completely absurd and leaning towards communism or a significant shift in that direction. Hopefully, Harris will keep sharing more of her ideas, giving Americans a complete view of her grand plan.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         How quickly history is forgotten. Remember President J. Carter? The days of long lines at the gas pumps? Expensive everything!
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU6PWT1rVUk

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Kathryn ---   Absolutely, it's surprising how quickly some of the challenges faced during President Carter's administration seem to fade from memory. Along with the long lines at gas stations due to the energy crisis, there were other significant issues that plagued the country during that time. Inflation was rampant, with the cost of living soaring, making everyday essentials increasingly expensive. Unemployment rates were very high, creating economic uncertainty for many families. The Iranian hostage crisis was another major issue that dominated headlines and contributed to a sense of national frustration, and fear.
            
            These problems collectively painted a bleak picture. One that shaped the political landscape for years to come. What I see today, feels very familiar, with what I witnessed at that time in our history.
            
              Hopefully, we won't stay on this destructive path. We can't afford to continue spending, taking the gamble that more spending could well add to our economic problems. Harris's agenda calls for tons of spending. We need to work on solving problems that are pressing currently, not creating more by adding more spending on free stuff. Makes no sense at all. Hopefully, now that Harris has outed her plans, more Americans will wake up and see what problems could occur with her as president.

            replyreport
2. 72

   Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks ago

   Harris' proposals are the finishing steps needed to collapse the current system to allow in full blown central government communism.
   
   Smarter people than me have already recognized this:
   https://twitter.com/RobertMSterling/sta … 8008391127

   replyreport
   1. 70

      abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Sterling nails it!

      replyreport
3. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

   Folks, when a country gives away its revenue stream through tax cuts, there are consequences - usually for the people who are least able to cope with them.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Inflation is caused by the Federal government spending more than it earns, because they just print more money to make up the difference.
      
      To solve inflation, reduce wasteful government spending. Your tax dollars should be spent well, not poorly.  ~ Elon Musk
      
      I presented you with a few links that explained how the tax cuts and other efforts of the Trump Administration improved revenue and associated areas like personal spending, not so long ago in another thread.
      
      Federal Revenues Hit All-Time Highs Under Trump Tax Cuts
      https://www.investors.com/politics/edit … -deficits/
      
      Did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Pay for Itself in 2018?
      https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/ … tself-2018
      
      What occurred, Corporate Taxes went down, other efforts by Trump to strong arm corporations to "stay" in America or "build" in America were successful... corporations had more money... but corporations were also being forced to spend/develop that money IN America/Americans.
      
      The benefit... the incentive for corporations to flee to other nations went down because they were no longer getting taxed at the higher rate... it actually made financial sense for them to stay in America.
      
      Alright, well, I'm not going to go deep into the bushes on this one... but those tax cuts put MORE money into American's pockets... and they spent it ... those tax cuts put MORE money into Corporation's pockets in one hand and they were getting strong-armed into "staying" in America ... more jobs, higher salaries that are all taxed... and people have more money to spend.
      
      What the government has done the last three years is spend. spend. spend. spend. spend. spend. spend. raise taxes. add regulations. pass new laws requiring more restrictions on energy production. pay for wars. and more wars. and more wars.
      
      And when Harris becomes President we are really going to see the screws turned on... spend. regulate. restrict. spend. confiscate. criminalize. spend. spend. spend.
      https://twitter.com/CilComLFC/status/18 … 3302953442
      
      Collapse.
      
      Communism.
      
      You do know who Harris' father was right?
      
      This clip is an example of the mindset she was taught/believes:
      https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/statu … 2558823557

      replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      When this country thinks that the wealth of the people belongs to the politicians there are consequences.  And we are at that point.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

         One can also assume that the people who are filthy rich (Donor class) and the Institutions (BlackRock) that literally pay for the elections and allow the political class to live in the luxurious way that they do... want to take as much power and wealth from the lower classes as possible.
         
         They want to control the masses and impose their will more than the politicians in DC do... the likes of Cuban and Soros can't stay out of sticking their noses into the remake of society, of the world.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            What better way to control than to keep the masses destitute and ignorant?  And they are doing both.

            replyreport
   3. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      The term, survival of the fittest, comes to mind.

      replyreport
4. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

   Wasn't it a Republican, Dick Cheney, who said "Deficits don't matter?"
   
   
       "So Cheney was mainly right, subject to two provisos: first, that the deficits are not the source of inflation; and, second, investors continue to have confidence that they will get repaid. Unless and until another country can rival the US economy and emulate its relative political stability, deficits will indeed not matter very much."
   
   Arnold J Clift
   Brattleboro, VT, US
   Deputy Secretary, World Bank, 1993-96

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      And yet the interest payments are either the second or third largest item in our budget.  What could we do with that money had we not shoved our costs onto the future, all those years ago?
      
      I don't think Cheney was right at all.  It is fine and good to borrow, for example, war time costs, but we do it for everyday expenses that will continue indefinitely into the future.  We want it, we just don't want to pay for it, so force someone else (our kids) to pay it for us.  They will have to do without just to make the interest payments, let alone the principle.

      replyreport
5. 76

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 weeks ago

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … kes-28000/
   
   "Trump cites “government” numbers, but economists say the math makes no sense."

   replyreport