Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
One can only imagine the meetings, if there were any; for the decision making process.
On the side of irony:
"U.S INSTITUTE OF PEACE "The Budget proposes to eliminate earmarked Federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), given it serves a niche mission that duplicates other Federal programs. The funding included in the Budget reflects close-out costs for USIP, particularly to pay severance costs. No additional Federal funding will be needed in 2019 or beyond."
He said that his plan aka Thumpcare will "cost less and everybody get coverage. It is gonna be terrific, you will see." Only 24 millions (largely the poor and old demographic) Americans will lose medical coverage.
"4-5 % GDP is achievable". Whatever he is having I want some of that too!
It's worth highlighting the NYMag article. (This is the one I saw yesterday, there are many other ones out now.)
Yesterday, reports (e.g. NYTimes here) that broke down the changes in this "spending neutral" budget showed $2T in savings from economic growth.
It's odd to put economic growth on the expense side of a budget. Normally, and what Trump had been saying, was that tax cuts (i.e. revenue reductions) would be compensated for by economic growth resulting in more taxes, so revenue would also be neutral.
But this "economic growth" appeared on both sides of the ledger. This is why the administration has been caught flubbing accounting 101.
Ah, but @Ted, don't you see that the psychology is fascinating. Start with a budget starving both children and granny, then, when people scream about the children half, work on a compromise saving babies and children and just let the other half ride. (or vice versa) And so on for the entire budget line items. People scream about the line items, not the overall policy. That way they presumably prioritize and you can keep the vote next election.
It may be genius or it may be short sited. It depends on how granny reacts to her sacrifice or, if the vice versa plays out, how many news outlets start running stories of hungry and sick children that would have been saved in the past century.
Dismissal may be premature. The voter sensitive distancing has begun. The fix may be in soon.
Comments
On the side of irony:
"U.S INSTITUTE OF PEACE
"The Budget proposes to eliminate earmarked Federal funding for the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), given it serves a niche mission that duplicates other Federal programs. The funding included in the Budget reflects close-out costs for USIP, particularly to pay severance costs. No additional Federal funding will be needed in 2019 or beyond."
"$1T in infrastructure spending over 10 years" - $200B budgeted over ten years,
hoping that the private sector will add $800B more that but for Trump would not have been spent
"No one will lose health coverage" - $800B cut from Medicaid
Consistent?
Massive gov support for the (undeserving) rich, the rest can die.
This is comical:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-budget-based-on-usd2-trillion-math-error.html
Mnuchin close to as hapless as Mulvaney, who is exceptional:
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141394/meet-mick-mulvaney-trump-goon-wants-poor-kids-go-hungry
"4-5 % GDP is achievable". Whatever he is having I want some of that too!
Sounds like he's putting his dog down. With this statement a lot of my confusion has dissipated.
Regards,
Ted
Yesterday, reports (e.g. NYTimes here) that broke down the changes in this "spending neutral" budget showed $2T in savings from economic growth.
It's odd to put economic growth on the expense side of a budget. Normally, and what Trump had been saying, was that tax cuts (i.e. revenue reductions) would be compensated for by economic growth resulting in more taxes, so revenue would also be neutral.
But this "economic growth" appeared on both sides of the ledger. This is why the administration has been caught flubbing accounting 101.
It may be genius or it may be short sited. It depends on how granny reacts to her sacrifice or, if the vice versa plays out, how many news outlets start running stories of hungry and sick children that would have been saved in the past century.
Dismissal may be premature. The voter sensitive distancing has begun. The fix may be in soon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/upshot/why-work-requirement-became-a-theme-of-the-trump-budget.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/trump-budget-director-denies-making-childish-math-error.html
as though he's not real
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf
I suppose it could be viewed as a joke book for the green eyeshade crowd.