Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

1
1

Lunatic Larry Promises Trump Candyland for Election Year

By thomasdong1776 follow thomasdong1776   2020 Jan 18, 8:56am 541 views   39 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, a top economic adviser to President Donald Trump, said Wednesday that the White House plans to unveil a plan for additional tax cuts later in 2020. “I am still running a process of Tax Cuts 2.0. We’re many months away – it’ll come out sometime later during the campaign,” Kudlow told CNBC. “Tax Cuts 2.0 to help middle-class economic growth: That’s still our goal…. We will unveil this perhaps sometimes later in the summer.”

There is nothing like a tax cut to buy votes

It is important for Trump to announce middle-class tax cuts just before the election because everyone in the middle class now knows (or should) that the massive Trump Tax Cuts that were first on his agenda went to the rich. Even major pro-capitalist, Republican-leaning, Republican-owned magazines like Forbes acknowledge this:

For the first time in American history, the 400 wealthiest people paid a lower tax rate than any other group…. It’s never been more clear that our country’s tax code is built to serve only those who have the most money. While hedge fund managers, private equity executives and venture capitalists benefit from the carried interest tax loophole, everyday Americans barely get a deduction for their student loan interest payments…. Income inequality is widening to record levels and there’s no reason to believe the trend will slow down…. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 was the largest tax overhaul in over three decades. It was rushed through congress and it’s working exactly as it was intended to do so: to line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the working class. Optically, it was championed as a way to boost the economy, but the fact is that unemployment was already low and the cuts came amidst a long bull market…. The tax cuts are deficit-financed which … means that “resources will be taken away from future generations as well as today’s working class.” Forbes

That steep deficit growth is without Kooky Kudlow’s newly promised additional tax cuts that also will not pay for themselves because they never do! Of course Kudlow & Co. will promise, as they did last time, that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (However, US voters have already been fooled three times by promises that “supply-side” tax cuts (or “trickle-down” tax cuts) will pay for themselves. so triple shame on them! The Kudlow Kraze will be the fourth time if the nation falls for it, and people most likely will fall for it because people want to fall for it because people want to believe we can have the strong military we have, fight innumerable endless wars in countries around the world, and have all the welfare we want and still pay less in taxes. People routinely deny reality in order to have all they want, and politicians certainly know how to squeeze votes out of that. We’re being juiced.
1   rocketjoe79   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 18, 9:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Wait - taxes were cut - and business is booming!
1. Manufacturing took a hit but looks like it's bouncing back
2. Unemployment is WAYYYY down
3. Inflation is low
4. Interest rates are low
5. Wages are up
6. Stocks are crushing it
7. Housing starts had a record month

But this is BAAAAADDDDDD! The sky is falling! Run to the bomb shelters!
I grow tired of Forbes.
2   goofus   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 18, 9:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Yes, the corporate tax rate went down to 21%, in line with the rest of the OECD:

"The 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. This large rate reduction was necessary because the U.S. had fallen far out of step with global corporate income tax rates. For example, the average rate in the OECD was below 25 percent, while the U.S. was still at 35 percent. The rate cut helped all U.S. businesses, including banks, and created incentives to expand operations." [https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2019/12/corporate-tax-rates-and-a-financial-transactions-tax-in-2020/]


This differs entirely from GWB's tax breaks for the rich, which focused on estate tax and capital gains. Trump's cuts had a stimulatory effect on business, encouraging US firms to redomicile cash and reinvest in the US.

"Thanks to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law in December, U.S. companies will no longer have an incentive to stash profits generated overseas to avoid high taxes at home. The new law dropped the U.S. corporate rate from 35% to 21%, put minimum levies on low-taxed foreign earnings, and imposed a one-time tax of 15.5% on cash parked outside the U.S.—which BofA Merrill Lynch estimates to be a total of $1.2 trillion for S&P 500 nonfinancials. In a survey, companies told BofA they were most likely to use the repatriated cash to pay down debt and buy back stock." [https://fortune.com/2018/02/22/us-companies-overseas-cash-tax-cut/]


The middle class, outside of the high tax / house price coastal regions, benefited from the tax plan. The standard deduction increased to 24K for a married couple, 12K for single, and gave the average, non-itemizing family reduced taxes (for us, 4K less than 2017).

The upper-middle class paid more. Those hammered with high state and local taxes, plus mortgages, found themselves owing more than the previous year. They were unable to write off more than 10K (roughly) on the itemized form after 2018. Those most affected live in high tax, Democratic-controlled states, within pricey enclaves.
3   Ceffer   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 18, 9:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tax cuts work for people who actually work.

Loan forgiveness works for deadbeats who don't want to work but make the taxpayer (aka workers) foot their bills.

So, which party is the more reprehensible again?
4   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 18, 10:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tax cuts are great. Let us spend money our way.

Politicians hate it, they lose ability to plunder us legally.
5   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (49)   2020 Jan 18, 10:42am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reagan raised taxes, therefore CONFISCATION! is a SACRAMENT!
6   thomasdong1776   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 18, 10:48am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The problem with Trump promising a new round of tax cuts — this time for all the rest of us — is we’re not paying for the tax cuts Trump already gave. The Trump administration (with the blessing of the majority of voters) chose to save the rich by tapping the economic strength of future generations in order to pull money forward for our benefit now.

The 2020 deficit is projected to come in somewhere between a trillion and 1.2 trillion dollars. And future deficits are projected to grow parabolically like this:

Revenue in the first year of the tax cuts dropped by a minor 0.4%. Since population keeps growing, it’s rare for government revenue to drop unless the nation is going into a recession, which was not the case in 2018. Moreover, revenue needed to rise by about 2% just to keep up with inflation in 2018.

Corporate taxes, which were cut the most, are far from paying for themselves, and individual tax revenues have remained about the same, but should have grown due to population growth, while revenues from payroll taxes, which were not cut, have increased because of population and job growth. The losses from corporate tax cuts have been covered by the record-breaking Trump Tariffs (mostly paid for by American companies and handed down to consumers). If those eventually go away, there will be a larger revenue shortfall. Even the Trump administration’s Phase One China charade may reduce tariffs enough to leave the nation with less revenue than it had in prior years.

More significantly, tax revenues benefited hugely in 2018 and 2019 from foreign profit repatriation (yet corporate tax revenue still declined) because that was front loaded into the tax cuts. Money that had been kept outside of the country suddenly came in as profits, benefiting the government with taxes that likely would not have been collected at all if not for the repatriation program. Repatriation of past profits, however, was a one-time opportunity that is now fading away because most corporations have likely brought back home about as much of those past profits as they intend to.
7   CovfefeButDeadly   ignore (7)   2020 Jan 18, 11:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Please more tax cuts. One more reason to Re elect president Trump!
8   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 18, 11:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
The problem with Trump promising a new round of tax cuts — this time for all the rest of us — is we’re not paying for the tax cuts Trump already gave. The Trump administration (with the blessing of the majority of voters) chose to save the rich by tapping the economic strength of future generations in order to pull money forward for our benefit now.


His mistake is not pairing tax cuts with spending cuts, which has been the case for politician actions...basically forever (that does not exonerate tRUMP in my eyes - he was supposed to be different). He actually INCREASED bloated military spending.

Tax revenue has not decreased with his tax cuts: https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762 which means that taxes were too high and that his tax cuts were good for country. Thanks to someone on Patnet for pointing this out, I thought that tax decreases will mean less revenue, but it appears to not always be the case.
9   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 18, 12:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Two weeks before the Election when Hillary is the "Shoo In" Candidate: "Ignore Deficit Scolds" Krugman pre-emptively advises her
After Trump takes the oath: "Deficits Matter" sez Krugman
10   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 18, 2:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Great news. Bring them on! Taxation = legalized theft by govt coercion. We shouldn't be paying a dime before all illegals and deadbeats are reigned in.
11   TrumpingTits   ignore (3)   2020 Jan 20, 6:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
The problem with Trump promising a new round of tax cuts — this time for all the rest of us — is we’re not paying for the tax cuts Trump already gave


Yes we are. By making impossible for big socialist spending like Green New Deals and Mediscare-For-All.

Works for me. In fact, anything that leads to future Starving of the Government Beast works for me.

thomasdong1776 says
Corporate taxes, which were cut the most, are far from paying for themselves
. Yes they are. Just in other forms. Tax receipts from income taxes are up too.

The entire deficit is caused by out-of-control spending, not revenue shortfalls.
12   Shaman   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 20, 7:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tax receipts are slightly up from before the tax cut.
Spending is way up.
And you’re saying that the tax cut is the problem?
LOL!
13   theoakman   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 20, 8:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

There is nothing like a tax cut to buy votes?

You mean...letting people keep their own money?
14   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 20, 8:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
And future deficits are projected to grow parabolically like this:


The old hockey stick graph. Hasn't this been debunked elsewhere?
15   marcus   ignore (12)   2020 Jan 20, 9:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
rocketjoe79 says
1. Manufacturing took a hit but looks like it's bouncing back

NO it doesn't. It's not even half the waty back from the recession lows, to 2007 levels. And way more of that bounce happened before Trump than after. '
'
I should qualify that. I'm talking about manufacturing employment. The truth is that manufacturing never lost nearly as much ground as manufacturing employment. Turns out right wing political propagandists don't want to distinguish between automation and globalization as factors affecting manufacturing employment.

rocketjoe79 says
2. Unemployment is WAYYYY down

This stat is a measure of the percentage of people eligible for unemployment benefits. Labor participation rate is actually surprisingly flat.

rocketjoe79 says
3. Inflation is low
4. Interest rates are low


This is in spite of Trump maneuvers that would be inflationary if not for the huge amount of debt out there.

AS for the others ? Sure the economy is pretty decent. Largely becasue of low interest rates. Which is not Trump's doing.

Some say when the economy is good deficits should decrease. But we manage to run trillion dollar deficits. The republican deficit hawks say nothing, and instead talk about increasing the deficits even further to win votes.

"Wippeeeeeee !!!"
16   marcus   ignore (12)   2020 Jan 20, 9:19am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
TrumpingTits says
anything that leads to future Starving of the Government Beast works for me.


I'm not sure that defaulting on our debt, and losing global reserve currency status is exactly the same as starving the beast. Or at least not in a good way.

"anything that leads to future Starving of the Government Beast works for me"

Such a transparent and ethically revealing rationale. It goes something like this. "We'll deficit spend like drunken sailors, even at a cost to the public good, running up deficits when we are in power, so that we can advocate all the more strongly against deficit spending when the democrats are in power."
17   marcus   ignore (12)   2020 Jan 20, 9:34am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
The tax cuts are deficit-financed which … means that “resources will be taken away from future generations as well as today’s working class.” Forbes


Yes, some conservatives (or a few anyway) are true conservatives in the traditional American meaning of the word.

Right wing is something anti-American and all together different. In fact right wing is actually what we fought in WW2, no matter how much the dimbulb liars want to deny it.
18   thomasdong1776   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 20, 1:13pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment. And even with weak investment, the US had to borrow massively abroad: the most recent data show foreign borrowing at nearly $500 billion a year, with an increase of more than 10% in America’s net indebtedness position in one year alone.

Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016. The 2018 goods deficit was the largest on record. Even the deficit in trade with China was up almost a quarter from 2016. The US did get a new North American trade agreement, without the investment agreement provisions that the Business Roundtable wanted, without the provisions raising drug prices that the pharmaceutical companies wanted, and with better labor and environmental provisions. Trump, a self-proclaimed master deal maker, lost on almost every front in his negotiations with congressional Democrats, resulting in a slightly improved trade arrangement.

And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level. Even the unemployment rate, at a 50-year low, masks economic fragility. The employment rate for working-age males and females, while rising, has increased less than during the Obama recovery, and is still significantly below that of other developed countries. The pace of job creation is also markedly slower than it was under Obama.1

Again, the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people can’t work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970, with some two million people currently behind bars – or so discouraged that they are not actively seeking jobs are not counted as “unemployed.” But, of course, they are not employed. Nor is it a surprise that a country that doesn’t provide affordable childcare or guarantee family leave would have lower female employment – adjusted for population, more than ten percentage points lower – than other developed countries.

Even judging by GDP, the Trump economy falls short. Last quarter’s growth was just 2.1%, far less than the 4%, 5%, or even 6% Trump promised to deliver, and even less than the 2.4% average of Obama’s second term. That is a remarkably poor performance considering the stimulus provided by the $1 trillion deficit and ultra-low interest rates. This is not an accident, or just a matter of bad luck: Trump’s brand is uncertainty, volatility, and prevarication, whereas trust, stability, and confidence are essential for growth. So is equality, according to the International Monetary Fund.

So, Trump deserves failing grades not just on essential tasks like upholding democracy and preserving our planet. He should not get a pass on the economy, either.
19   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 1:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment.


Nothing wrong with share buybacks - sometimes it's the best way to invest money instead of spending more and more. Most of these companies have a large war-chest but given a steep recession they really only have enough money for a few months to 2 years of losses, exactly because they are employing so many. Plus long time investors deserve to make money for sticking with the company and committing their money for so long.

thomasdong1776 says
So, Trump deserves failing grades not just on essential tasks like upholding democracy and preserving our planet. He should not get a pass on the economy, either.


lol Record low UE, strongest wage growth among the lowest earners - there may be many things you can at least make a weak case against Trump, but the economy is certainly not one of them - that's why Trump will win by a landslide in 2020.
20   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 20, 1:45pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

thomasdong1776 says
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment.

Tax cuts did not lead to increased deficits unless FACTS DO NOT MATTER:

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion

Seems to me that problem is NOT tax receipts and tax cuts (receipts went up after cuts), but out-of-control spending, which is the thing tRUMP should be criticized for.

Agree with share buybacks tho, this should be made illegal - but it was allowed long before tRUMP became ORANGEMANBAD in chief. Blame Ronnie's SEC.

For most of the 20th century, stock buybacks were deemed illegal because they were thought to be a form of stock market manipulation. But since 1982, when they were essentially legalized by the SEC, buybacks have become perhaps the most popular financial engineering tool in the C-Suite tool shed. And it’s obvious why Wall Street loves them: Buying back company stock can inflate a company’s share price and boost its earnings per share — metrics that often guide lucrative executive bonuses.

...Stock buybacks enrich the bosses even when business sags.
21   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 1:54pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rd6B says
thomasdong1776 says
The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits (almost $1 trillion in fiscal 2019) in a country supposedly near full employment.

Tax cuts did not lead to increased deficits unless FACTS DO NOT MATTER:

U.S. Tax Revenue by Year
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion

Seems to me that problem is NOT tax receipts and tax cuts (receipts went up after cuts), but out-of-control spending, which is the thing tRUMP should be criticized for.

Agree with share buybacks tho, this should be made illegal - but ...


How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.
22   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 20, 2:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.
23   Shaman   ignore (2)   2020 Jan 20, 2:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rd6B says
Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.


Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?
24   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 2:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rd6B says
mell says
How is a company supposed to shrink shares from the float if they deem it necessary? Why shouldn't they be able to buy back their own shares? I can see nothing wrong with it. The market is "manipulated" at all times, when you announce news, share dilution, etc. etc. If you can dilute shares there must also be a way to shrink them besides a reverse split which also changes the price proportionally and is essentially a no-op.

Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.


True, but they could simply raise their base salary or yearly bonus, at least with the share buyback the investors (and many employees) participate too.

Shaman says
rd6B says
Problem is that share buyback can and is used by executives to goose their compensation.


Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?


I'm really uncomfortable with "compensation laws", but surely one has to ask what happened between the times where executive to worker comp ratio was anywhere between 10:1 and 50:1 and nowadays where it is pretty much anywhere from 500:1 to 10000:1. Maybe we need some sort of inner/outer bounds for compensation codified into law.
25   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 20, 2:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Shaman says
Wouldn’t this be better resolved with laws against excessive executive compensation?


I don't know, perhaps executive compensation needs to be delayed for a few yrs to see if what they did to company works. Otherwise, we will have Boeing buying shares back like crazy and hiring "engineers" in foreign countries for $6/hr to design and program airplanes, with predictable results...no doubt money saved on hiring Americans was well-spent on buybacks.
26   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 20, 2:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
I'm really uncomfortable with "compensation laws", but surely one has to ask what happened between the times where executive to worker comp ratio was anywhere between 10:1 and 50:1 and nowadays where it is pretty much anywhere from 500:1 to 10000:1. Maybe we need some sort of inner/outer bounds fro compensation codified into law.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, Wall Street Weasels will find a way to get around any laws...remember how they paid themselves $TRILLIONS in bonuses after Obama and Bush bailed them out on backs of taxpayers...
27   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 20, 3:44pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What we could use is some more shareholder control.

For example, demanding the Board demonstrate how 1000:1 compensation for executives provides returns superior to a 50:1 ratio, of course that cannot be done.

I believe many excellent Asian companies have senior Execs making a fraction of US Execs, but are the market leaders with superior sales and ROI.

I also don't like that many of the same Fortune 500 companies have shared board members across multiple huge multinational companies.

Shouldn't board members be focused on basically one huge company? Can they execute the same oversight of 8 companies vs. 1? Probably not.
28   goofus   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 20, 4:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Some dishonesty here, perhaps:

"The tax cuts were supposed to spur a new wave of investment. Instead, they triggered an all-time record binge of share buybacks – some $800 billion in 2018 – by some of America’s most profitable companies, and led to record peacetime deficits"


The stock buybacks were redomiciled corporate cash, formerly outside the US, brought back under Trump's 15.5% tax offer. Additional cash in the US economy, whether used for buybacks or not, is NOT the cause of deficits. As Mell above points out, tax receipts have increased under Trump. But yes, spending (particularly military) needs to be reduced.

"Likewise, Trump’s trade wars, for all their sound and fury, have not reduced the US trade deficit, which was one-quarter higher in 2018 than it was in 2016."


The NAFTA rework has only recently been adopted. 2018 will not show those results (nor will 2019). Likewise tariffs have only been levied against China in 2019. The 2018 results tell us nothing about the efficacy of Trump's "trade wars."

"And despite Trump’s vaunted promises to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, the increase in manufacturing employment is still lower than it was under his predecessor, Barack Obama, once the post-2008 recovery set in, and is still markedly below its pre-crisis level."


I would like to see proof of this. Does manufacturing here mean "sandwich creator" as it did under GWB?

From a Quartz article (left-leaning), the top 10 industries that grew faster under Trump than Obama are heavy industry and resource-extraction related: mining (support), oil/gas, primary metals mfg, machinery mfg, mining (primary), fabricated metals mfg, rail transportation, electrical equipment mfg, computer/electronics mfg, rental/leasing services.

The top 10 industries that grew faster under Obama than Trump are service related: warehousing and storage, motion pictures/sound recording, other information services, department/general good stores, travel arrangement services, health/personal care stores, textile product mills, clothing stores, specialized design services.

https://qz.com/1347200/the-jobs-created-under-trump-are-different-than-under-obama/

"the low employment rate is not a surprise, not least because unhealthy people can’t work. Moreover, those on disability benefits, in prison – the US incarceration rate has increased more than sixfold since 1970"


Unhealthy people, disability, prison -- none have increased under Trump, compared with Obama. The low unemployment rate on the other hand IS improving under Trump.
29   Rin   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 4:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

goofus says
But yes, spending (particularly military) needs to be reduced.


Disagree here because for the most part, our boys aren't getting killed under Trump.

https://patrick.net/post/1329577

What Trump is doing is feeding the Pentagon cash but not allowing them to send the boys into harm's way w/o his oversight.

Remember, if you don't feed the Pentagon, you get assassinated. Just ask Jack (or Bobbie) Kennedy.
30   goofus   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 20, 4:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

True enough, Rin. Some parts of the swamp are more lethal than others.
31   Chiromancer   ignore (0)   2020 Jan 20, 5:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion


That's pretty thin tea to claim the tax cuts worked. Not sure where these numbers arrived from. But an increase of .01 Trillion recieved is nothing, wont keep up with low inflation. Everything else is estimated, by who?. Remember we are in an expanding ecconomy around 2 % growth but it was supposed be higher 3 4 5 6% according Trumpian economics. And the mojo Is fizzling but the cuts continue. TRILLION DOLLAR deficits as far as the eye can see. Real wages are flat. No question it has juiced the stock market. What happens when the economy flatens or goes into recession? Trump and the Republicans are praying it doesn't happen before the election.

And the hand wringing about the spending tuggs at the heart strings. Hardly a peep when this was passed. I remember Corker was oh so worried about the debt and voted for it anyway. They didnt want spending cuts they wanted stimulus if this was deficit neutral, no stimulus for the their corporate masters.
32   mell   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 5:15pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Chiromancer says
mell says
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted
 FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion


That's pretty thin tea to claim the tax cuts worked. Not sure where these numbers arrived from. But an increase of .01 Trillion recieved is nothing, wont keep up with low inflation. Everything else is estimated, by who?. Remember we are in an expanding ecconomy around 2 % growth but it was supposed be higher 3 4 5 6% according Trumpian economics. And the mojo Is fizzling but the cuts continue. TRILLION DOLLAR deficits as far as the eye can see. Real wages are flat. No question it has juiced the stock market. What happens when the economy flatens or goes into recession? Trump and the Republicans are praying it doesn't happen before the election.

And the hand wringing about...


The argument to cut spending is valid but there's no doubt the economy has been on fire under Trump, why is this even questioned when we have record low UE and fastest wage increases in the lower earners. We need to cut spending, the problem is that the leftoids and some of the mainstream Republicans have made it impossible to cut the most useless and largest segment: welfare and immigration, esp. illegal. If you take away all the incentives you'd save tens of billions each year and would reduce the amount of immigrants coming naturally. Revoke birthplace citizen right - it's a joke. Cut welfare and government fat, cut subsidies to big corporations, remove all unconstitutional "diversity"/AA laws and lay off anybody working in these useless positions sucking on the taxpayer's teat. To balance the budget, have a temporary wealth tax on the top 0.1% until the budget is balanced, which can and should only be implemented after all the steps mentioned before have been implemented, the removal of all money going to deadbeats and illegals.
33   Rin   ignore (4)   2020 Jan 20, 5:31pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

goofus says
True enough, Rin. Some parts of the swamp are more lethal than others.


Which indicates that Trump cares about the lives of Ivanka, Don Jr, Eric, Tiffany, & Barron. Sure, he's a self-centered egotist but he also doesn't want to lose his children to 'unforeseen' accidents.
35   marcus   ignore (12)   2020 Jan 20, 9:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
Reality check on the employment situation. For the illiterate out there, (or if you can't read the small print), low labor participation is a bad thing. It means the complete opposite of what low unemployment rate stats supposedly indicate.



Weird right ?

The unemployment numbers everyone gets so excited about represents the number of people eligible for unemployment benefits.

One would think male labor participation rates could go up at least a couple percent if the economy is so great.

mell says
there's no doubt the economy has been on fire under Trump


In my book there's plenty of doubt if male labor participation can't even inch up a little, not even with trillion dollar deficits.
36   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2020 Jan 21, 7:18am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Reality check on the employment situation. For the illiterate out there, (or if you can't read the small print), low labor participation is a bad thing. It means the complete opposite of what low unemployment rate stats supposedly indicate.


Marcus, can you think of any unstoppable trend that would result in labor force participation dropping?

Something that had been known for decades would happen about now?

Here's a hint: 1950 + 65 = ???

I've brought this up with you over and over again, but maybe it's worth a third or forth or more try.
37   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 21, 7:39am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
The unemployment numbers everyone gets so excited about represents the number of people eligible for unemployment benefits.


Correct. People should at least know what the number is saying, and unemployment is literally the number of people on unemployment benefits list/ working population. It's not necessarily all unemployed people / working population.
38   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Jan 21, 10:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
One would think male labor participation rates could go up at least a couple percent if the economy is so great.

Males are discriminated against in current labor market, in child custody, in criminal system (they get stiffer penalties than womyn for the same crimes by far), demoralized about "toxic masculinity", drugged at school for their natural behavior, and basically they all should go and just jump into sea so that womyn could live freely without being oppressed. No surprises then that they withdraw from society and become basement-dwelling losers. Trump has nothing to do with that.
39   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Jan 21, 1:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NoCoupForYou says
I've brought this up with you over and over again, but maybe it's worth a third or forth or more try.

Just beCAUSE!

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions