Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 32048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4107
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2017, 08:47:10 AM »
Yeah, the arguement is a moving target... I guess I'm just wondering whether I'd rather have our friends in Washington continue to pass budgets that increase the deficit while I pay more in taxes, or have our buddies pass budgets that increase the deficit while I pay less in taxes. I think I know the answer. 

In an ideal world, I'd like my personal good to align with the common good, meaning I could get a tax cut, while D.C. figures out how to actually reduce the deficit, but I won't hold my breath for that.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2017, 08:52:37 AM »
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt.
At post # 25, I was commenting on why the people who voted for him that we were discussing were wrong (his "plan" would benefit the rich, not those voters).

In addition, on post # 31, it will add trillions to the debt, so it's bad for the nation as a whole.

It's just not good.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #37 on: May 02, 2017, 08:55:32 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple. 

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4107
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2017, 08:58:04 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2017, 08:58:25 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
It is if the plan doesn't have a way to offset the loss of revenue, which most tax plans do have (even if they are bullshit), but this one does not, and in fact is not really a "plan" but more of a memo.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2017, 09:09:15 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2017, 09:13:14 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.

True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case.  Also, this tax plan as it stands now (I still know little of it, but one part has hit the local news in NJ about removing the property tax deduction) would hurt me greatly.

Offline Grappler

  • Posts: 473
  • Gender: Male
  • Victory, Illinois Varsity
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2017, 09:26:26 AM »
True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4107
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2017, 09:27:04 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.

Absolutely, and cutting the corporate tax rate as aggressively as he wants to, in theory, could be a job creator. More jobs = more people paying taxes.
You are correct in the abstract.  But notwithstanding the oft-irrational moving target criticism of anything having to do with Trump by Trump critics, I agree with Hef generally that large-scale tax cuts as a rule generate more deficit.  The only ways to generate budget surplus are to increase revenue or decrease spending.  Government spending is and has always (in recent history) out of control.  I don't see Trump's cuts changing that.  So the only option to reduce debt and generate surplus is to increase revenue (i.e. tax).  Cutting tax is the opposite of that.  Of course, as you point out, that is overly simplistic and doesn't take the long-term view of stimulating the economy and spending so that there is a net gain in tax revenue despite the cuts.  I get it.  But that hasn't really proven itself out in the past.  So I see the debt increasing.  Now whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up for debate.  In isolation, of course it is bad.  But there are certainly arguments that, taken as a whole, it is but one piece of an overall economic plan that is "good" for the country overall.  That's fine.  It's also difficult to argue because it is such a big, complex, multifaceted thing to argue.  But as far as just the argument of increasing debt, I don't really see it working any other way.

Good post, so if you think a budget surplus is achieved by (1) increasing revenue and (2) decreasing spending, do you think Trump should be barking up the other tree? Meaning should his team be focusing on decreasing spending and maybe not tax reform (i.e. revenue increasing and/or decreasing)?

Offline The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3951
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2017, 09:29:10 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
But every time it has been tried, it has not worked. Tax revenues go down and debt goes up. It happened with Reagan, with Bush, in Kansas and it will probably happen again.

Maybe if the resultant invigoration of the economy was to a massive and unprecedented degree, it might work out but generally they're too small to cover the loss of tax revenue AND most major economic gains go to the top earners and not to the middle class.

So it's entirely logical to criticize his tax plan as being both a hand out to the rich and bad for the debt at the same time.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19298
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2017, 09:31:23 AM »
True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.

That's what I do with mine every year. This year I took my Fed and State money and paid off just shy of $3000 in credit card debt (used strictly for unexpected car servicing, vet bills, and hospital visits). I bought $1000 worth of new stocks like I do every year. And the rest went into the "future housework fund". I guess the last one I mentioned is considered stimulating the economy, but I haven't spent that money yet.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2017, 09:36:47 AM »
Tax cuts don't necessarily mean more debt.  It means more money in peoples pockets (and more money within the US, not offshore) which could mean more spending/investing and you make that money back in other taxes.  I don't know if that actually works, but you can't just easily assume less taxes = more debt.  It's just not that simple.
But every time it has been tried, it has not worked. Tax revenues go down and debt goes up. It happened with Reagan, with Bush, in Kansas and it will probably happen again.

Maybe if the resultant invigoration of the economy was to a massive and unprecedented degree, it might work out but generally they're too small to cover the loss of tax revenue AND most major economic gains go to the top earners and not to the middle class.

So it's entirely logical to criticize his tax plan as being both a hand out to the rich and bad for the debt at the same time.

There's plenty of reason to criticize and debate.  Just using blanket statements is more so what I was arguing against (both today and yesterday)

True, plus I don't think you can really predict what people will do with extra money.  It's easy to say people will pump that money back into the economy, but that's not always the case. 

When Bush included the $600 stimulus in tax refunds in 2008 due to the start of the recession, I chose to pay down debt rather than spend gloriously in retail products.  I didn't need a new TV or appliance, but I did want to pay off my car loan.  The economy didn't see one cent of that stimulus money from me.

That's what I do with mine every year. This year I took my Fed and State money and paid off just shy of $3000 in credit card debt (used strictly for unexpected car servicing, vet bills, and hospital visits). I bought $1000 worth of new stocks like I do every year. And the rest went into the "future housework fund". I guess the last one I mentioned is considered stimulating the economy, but I haven't spent that money yet.

Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out (assuming you made money) you will be taxed accordingly (same with the house when you sell it for more money).  So both of those are examples of what I was trying to say even if it doesn't actually work out that way in the past or in the future, it's not so simple to say less taxes equal bigger budget.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2017, 09:48:48 AM »
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2017, 09:50:32 AM »
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

One, says you. NEITHER will really benefit.    "Taxing the 1% and giving free shit to the bottom 25%" didn't work for 8 years, why would you expect it to miraculously work under Bernie and/or Hillary?

Two, they're not that much different in many ways (the tariffs, the falsely claiming that they can "keep jobs in America" without radically changing the training requirements and the industrial focus we currently have).   

Three, probably the best economic growth - individually - that we've had since Reagan was under Clinton, and both Hillary and Trump were tripping on their dicks during the election to distance themselves from that - AND IT WAS HER OWN HUSBAND!   Hell, even Bill, in the spirit of maintaining the gravy train he is currently on, distanced himself wrongly from some of the things he did.   

WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19298
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2017, 10:06:51 AM »
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.

Fair enough.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2017, 10:09:42 AM »
Also buying stocks is stimulating the economy and when you pull that money out...
Actually, I would argue that, even aside from pulling the money out, investing in the first place is stimulating the economy.  Not in the sense of directly generating other tax revenue on the money spent.  But you are putting money into that company, which allows them to use it, which, in theory, has the effect of stimulating the economy.  Same with Grappler's choice to pay down debt.  Stimulating the economy isn't just going to Best Buy to pick up a new TV.

I totally agree, I was just relating more to taxes since there is a tax with gains on that (and the relation of less money taxed means the governement can still get that money in other ways).  You definitely are stimulating the economy by investing in the first place.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2017, 12:09:16 PM »
Some research from Democrats about why people in Michigan and Wisconsin swung from Obama to Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/
Quote
The poll found that Obama-Trump voters, many of whom are working-class whites and were pivotal to Trump’s victory, are economically losing ground and are skeptical of Democratic solutions to their problems. Among the findings:

50 percent of Obama-Trump voters said their incomes are falling behind the cost of living, and another 31 percent said their incomes are merely keeping pace with the cost of living.
A sizable chunk of Obama-Trump voters — 30 percent — said their vote for Trump was more a vote against Clinton than a vote for Trump. Remember, these voters backed Obama four years earlier.
42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

I think the vote against Hillary was pretty obvious, but surprised so many viewed Republican economic policies more favorable than Democratic.  Seems that view made a huge difference.

I still think it's kind messed up that those few specific voters in those few specific counties got to decide the whole election.

But it's a misnomer that they "decided the election".   The way they counted the votes makes it look that way, but without Texas, North Carolina, Florida, or any of the other 26 states that voted for Trump, none of this matters.  The importance of those VOTERS - regardless of state - was highlighted by that, but if all the other states didn't fall into line, it wouldn't have mattered any more than that surplus of voters in California did. 

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 812
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2017, 01:33:55 PM »
I'd say net neutrality and single payer hit most of your should be's

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2017, 03:12:50 PM »
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

I'm a little iffy on SHOULD BE #2 but overall I'd vote for this.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2017, 05:08:28 PM »
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

Pretty sure these are on the liberal agenda through Bernie Sanders, just maybe not the solutions you agree with.
We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2017, 07:14:52 PM »
Well, they are flat wrong about which economic groups will benefit from Trump's policies vs. Democratic policies.

One, says you. NEITHER will really benefit.    "Taxing the 1% and giving free shit to the bottom 25%" didn't work for 8 years, why would you expect it to miraculously work under Bernie and/or Hillary?

Two, they're not that much different in many ways (the tariffs, the falsely claiming that they can "keep jobs in America" without radically changing the training requirements and the industrial focus we currently have).   

Three, probably the best economic growth - individually - that we've had since Reagan was under Clinton, and both Hillary and Trump were tripping on their dicks during the election to distance themselves from that - AND IT WAS HER OWN HUSBAND!   Hell, even Bill, in the spirit of maintaining the gravy train he is currently on, distanced himself wrongly from some of the things he did.   

WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.
This is a good post. I think it's a great example of why it's so needlessly counterproductive, the instance these days that everything needs to be labeled "liberal" or "conservative", when really, there's a lot of nuance that gets lost. When people drop the labels for a minute, there really is a lot of common ground.

For instance, while we may have different ideas about some of the details or nuances or some of those points, I agree with you on pretty much all of those points.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7989
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2017, 10:40:41 PM »
I still don't understand anyone's talk around here that the economy has been in the tank.

My local news just reported that we had our first flatline....after 7 years of growth. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2017, 11:45:06 PM »
My local news
There's your answer.  There will always be outliers in localities somewhere.  Your locality obviously isn't indicative of the national trends. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline 73109

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4962
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #58 on: May 03, 2017, 01:10:10 AM »
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3273
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #59 on: May 03, 2017, 04:46:35 AM »
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

No, you are not crazy.....at least in respect to this topic you aren't.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Gender: Male
  • Inventory!
    • Overhaul
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #60 on: May 03, 2017, 06:58:00 AM »
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I've disagreed with you (or rather the other way round :lol) in P&R before, but even though I'm not American, this post make so much sense. Great stuff!
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19298
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #61 on: May 03, 2017, 07:12:35 AM »
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.

I don't see any of that on either the Liberal OR the Conservative agenda.

Getting health care out of the hands of employers should be one of this country's highest priorities. People shouldn't have to avoid fields they'd excel in just because of what kind of health plan they can get, and people shouldn't be apprehensive to start business because they'll have that extra financial burden.



Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #62 on: May 03, 2017, 07:57:10 AM »
WE SHOULD NOT BE MINING COAL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING TV SETS.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TAXING IMPORTS.

We SHOULD BE incentivizing technological innovation (particularly in the energy sectors)
We SHOULD BE focusing on breaking the "I should be able to do the same job, for the same company in the same town for my entire career, at ever increasing wages!" mentality.    Indians and Mexicans and Irish uproot their families to come to America to get jobs, and a miner from West Virginia won't move to TENNESSEE for a job?  That's INSANE.   
We SHOULD BE incentivizing training and education and improving the versatility of our workers.
We SHOULD BE separating the devil's bargain of "healthcare" tied to "employment".   
We SHOULD BE legalizing marijuana (and even some other scheduled drugs).  Yes, this will improve the economy and improve the lot of the individual.
Hey, Pal, listen here:



I don't really disagree with any of that lol
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2017, 09:16:24 AM »
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

Yes!  Well, maybe not "crazy", but you're not accurate.   "Tax cuts' DON'T necessarily mean "less income for the government".  You can, as with all things, go too far and get to a point where too many tax cuts do, but it's not accurate to say point blank that "a tax rate of 30% gives you 5% more revenue across the board (from all sources) than a 25% rate".    The common fallacy is that we look at the government - a $20 TRILLION dollar multifaceted enterprise - and equate it with the economics of, say, our house.  Where you have generally one source of income, and you allocate that income - usually static - to your expenditures.  And if you don't go to that fancy restaurant on Friday, now you have an extra $100 to go to Home Depot with on Saturday.  That is not at ALL how the government works.   

When you take money - that would have been paid to taxes - and invest it in property, the government makes money (via taxes, fees, insurance, and property taxes).   When you put it in the bank, the government makes money (on those investments backed by Treasury bills).    When you put it into goods, the government makes money (on the sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees).   When you put it into services, the government makes money (on the wage taxes and SS/FICA taxes paid by those workers).   It's an incredibly complex mechanism that isn't anywhere near as easy as ANY of our candidates make it out to be.    And on that note, I am not at all talking about the simplistic "trickle down economics that was sold to us (and likely doesn't work as described).   "Trickle down" doesn't account for all the other income streams either, and doesn't have the multi-dimensionality that I am talking about. 


Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16173
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #65 on: May 03, 2017, 09:24:38 AM »
^ essentially what I was trying to say yesterday

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2017, 09:28:45 AM »
^ essentially what I was trying to say yesterday

You most certainly were (and I understood what you were saying).

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2017, 09:33:09 AM »
Well, wait a minute.  At post #25, the tax plan is bad because it benefits the rich.  Then that was questioned, and at post #31, it is bad because it adds trillions to the debt. 

So I haven't read the thread and am just posting because I'm avoiding doing work, but aren't the two mutually compatible if not mutually expected. Tax cuts benefit the rich insofar as the rich pay less taxes. Less taxes then means less income for the government, less income for the government without much change in spending habits adds to the debt.

Am I crazy?

Yes!  Well, maybe not "crazy", but you're not accurate.   "Tax cuts' DON'T necessarily mean "less income for the government".  You can, as with all things, go too far and get to a point where too many tax cuts do, but it's not accurate to say point blank that "a tax rate of 30% gives you 5% more revenue across the board (from all sources) than a 25% rate".    The common fallacy is that we look at the government - a $20 TRILLION dollar multifaceted enterprise - and equate it with the economics of, say, our house.  Where you have generally one source of income, and you allocate that income - usually static - to your expenditures.  And if you don't go to that fancy restaurant on Friday, now you have an extra $100 to go to Home Depot with on Saturday.  That is not at ALL how the government works.   

When you take money - that would have been paid to taxes - and invest it in property, the government makes money (via taxes, fees, insurance, and property taxes).   When you put it in the bank, the government makes money (on those investments backed by Treasury bills).    When you put it into goods, the government makes money (on the sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees).   When you put it into services, the government makes money (on the wage taxes and SS/FICA taxes paid by those workers).   It's an incredibly complex mechanism that isn't anywhere near as easy as ANY of our candidates make it out to be.    And on that note, I am not at all talking about the simplistic "trickle down economics that was sold to us (and likely doesn't work as described).   "Trickle down" doesn't account for all the other income streams either, and doesn't have the multi-dimensionality that I am talking about. 
^That is all true.  However:

1.  The level of detail is excruciatingly complex to the point that the "experts" in our own government can't even come to an agreement over what will put us in the black.  So simplifications and generalizations for purposes of discussion on a music-related Internet forum are certainly appropriate (provided we acknowledge that they are imperfect and, depending on how deep you go, inaccurate in varying degrees). 

2.  Taxes in all their varying forms ARE the single largest source of revenue, are they not?  And a great many of the things you mention are taxes.  They simply aren't income tax.  But some of the things you mention do not go to the federal government at all, such as "sales taxes and/or other fees, like license and registration fees [mostly]," for example.  Those are for state and local governments. 

So going back to your main point, tax cuts don't necessarily mean less revenue for government.  But, by and large, the practical reality is that if you cut the government's biggest revenue stream, that will de facto result in less revenue.  But again, we're talking about something really complex with lots of moving parts.  I heard a commentator the other day talk about it in terms of a sliding scale, and his point was, if you tax the population at 0%, you get zero tax revenue because nobody is paying anything.  If you tax the population at 100%, you get zero tax revenue because people cannot live on nothing and will instantly revolt and destroy your government.  As you move away from either extreme and more toward the center, you theoretically find that sweet spot where revenue is maximized.  But finding that sweet spot is exceedingly difficult because of lots of moving parts, some of which are not quantifiable.  For instance, in any given economic climate, is the tax rate deemed to be so oppressive that the government inadvertently creates a higher likelihood that more people will dodge taxes and not pay their share?  Do tax breaks or incentives end up socially engineering people out of maximizing their taxable income because they end up with a better net income that way?  Who gets the most tax breaks in a given economic climate?  And on and on and on.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2770
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #68 on: May 03, 2017, 12:14:16 PM »
My local news
There's your answer.  There will always be outliers in localities somewhere.  Your locality obviously isn't indicative of the national trends.
According to the World Bank, the US overall has had positive economic growth every year from 2010 to 2015 (the most recent year they have data presented for), ranging from about 1.6% to 2.6% per year.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that there was a net increase in jobs steadily from October of 2010 to present.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

I have no doubt that some regions of the country didn't benefit from this as much as others, and that folks in some locations really have been experiencing rough times, and that absolutely does need to be addressed. The US economy as a whole though seems to have been doing well for the past six or seven years.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #69 on: May 03, 2017, 12:19:02 PM »
Yeah, I know, TL.  I'm not one to jump on the "the economy was in the toilet during the Obama administration and immediately course-corrected the day Trump was elected" bandwagon because, while some elements of that argument may be true, there are a variety of factors and elements of the economy that can be looked at that will tell completely different stories simply depending on what factors you are looking at and what story you are trying to tell.  But I think my point to JD is still completely valid.  There always will be specific outlier localities that do not necessarily follow the national trend, for any number of reasons.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."