Trump

[Shocker1976]

jd your posts are entertaining; while I too don't care for Trump's childish and boorish behavior IMO his policies and programs are far superior to those demanded by the democrats/socialists/progressives. I often wonder if his tweets and public statements are deliberate; by doing so he is able to divert the obstructionists who hate and oppose him from his efforts to implement strategies/efforts to accomplish his campaign promises.

An unsolicited suggestion - pull your head out of rectum in defilade and objectively evaluate what Trump has accomplished regards achieving his campaign promises which lead to his (according to the pundits) impossible election to become President of the United States.

[jdshock]

jd your posts are entertaining; while I too don't care for Trump's childish and boorish behavior IMO his policies and programs are far superior to those demanded by the democrats/socialists/progressives. I often wonder if his tweets and public statements are deliberate; by doing so he is able to divert the obstructionists who hate and oppose him from his efforts to implement strategies/efforts to accomplish his campaign promises.

An unsolicited suggestion - pull your head out of rectum in defilade and objectively evaluate what Trump has accomplished regards achieving his campaign promises which lead to his (according to the pundits) impossible election to become President of the United States.

I don't really understand where this post is coming from. In this thread, I haven't talked about his tweets or whatever in at least the last couple of pages.

Timeline of events:
1: unprovoked, Shockm decides to call out the "Trump critics" for taking the day off.
2: Shockm, once again calls out the "Trump haters" and accuses us of being unhappy that the economy is doing "so good" simply because we're unhappy that Trump is succeeding.
3: I clarify that I think it's really dumb economic policy and explain why.
4: Shockm appears to ignore all of that and just says the policy is a long-time coming and that I'd rather give money to poor people than a job.
5: I more thoroughly explain why I believe it is bad economic policy.
6: You say that I'm too focused on his behavior but I need to pull my head out of my rectum and evaluate his policies?

What is this bizarro world? Honestly?

[C0|dB|00ded]

Stay strong JD! Your participation is necessary otherwise this thread would turn into a giant circle jerk. Thank you!


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

Man, I haven't heard that line of reasoning in a long time on this forum. It sounds suspiciously familiar... It's like 2016 all over again. 8D

[WstateU]

https://media.giphy.com/media/7AkpwSgCZOI3m/giphy.gif

[C0|dB|00ded]

Lots of people in the country aren't unhappy about the economy doing well, but they are unhappy about the method because it isn't sustainable. There are many of us left scratching our heads why you would pass a giant fiscal stimulus package during a time of unprecedented economic growth. During the recession, Obama's administration got an $800 billion stimulus package passed. And then the Republicans last fall were like "what if we doubled it?" and passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut despite strong economic growth and low unemployment.

So I'm certainly not unhappy about how I'm doing, but I just think it's shortsighted and I believe we should focus on reducing deficits during times of growth, so that we can stimulate the economy as needed when we are in recessions.

Obama? OBAMA???

https://nypost.com/2017/04/01/obama-was-terrible-for-economic-growth/

JD pining for B.O's "new normal"?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/30/the-united-states-is-doing-better-than-it-did-duri/

Those days are over son. The Donald, as dumb as you may think he is, just made The Community Organizer's entire legacy irrelevant - other than as an instructive manual for future political hopefuls on how NOT to run a country.

Trump Growth is necessary if we are to stave off a shift in the balance of power in this world. Top economic power begets top military power which then allows the owner to set world policy. Do you really think it would be a good idea for Communist China to be the leader of the "free" world?


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

If you're going to call us out by saying we "took the day off" because we didn't post for a day on a political sub-forum of a Wichita State message board, why don't you talk about the actual economic issues I've brought up?

The tax cuts are a fiscal stimulus package, and it doesn't make any sense to pass a fiscal stimulus package during times of great economic growth. During Trump's administration the unemployment has been affected by what? Less than 1%? It was about 4.7% when he took over and it's at about 3.9% now?

I'm saying if we're going to spend a trillion dollars (or more) on jumpstarting the economy, let's do it when unemployment is about 10% as opposed to around our longterm, natural rate of unemployment. Recessions are for deficit spending. Growth periods are for paying down debt.

Unemployment numbers are quite misleading. You may even call them Fake News. After a period of time despondent job seekers drop out of the "unemployment" calculation and actually appear to the public, for all intents and purposes, as employed. The job situation in America is a helluva lot better than 4.7% to 3.9% lol.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html

There are more jobs than applicants at the moment. We statistically have negative unemployment. Still a lot remain who have fallen "outside" the workforce during the B.O. oppression. But they are coming back!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-06/americans-are-pouring-back-into-the-workforce-jobs-data-show

T


...:cool:

[Shocker1976]

jd my post was not addressing any single post by you but the "entertainment value" of the numerous post you have made explaining your view of the Trumpster.

As regards the "great economic growth" to which you referred IMO this growth is due in large part to

1. The tax cuts

2. Cancellation of Obama's restrictive executive orders

3. Elimination of numerous departmental regulations

4. Neutering ObamaCare

5. Withdrawal from Trans Pacific Partnership

6. Renegotiation of NAFTA

I will admit I was reluctant to vote for the Trumpster but he has performed as I thought (hoped) he would, i.e. a CEO focused on achieving the "goals" he has set for his Administration.

[jdshock]

Am I being incredibly unclear? I truthfully don't understand. None of the posts so far are responsive at all.

Yes, the economy is doing great. The economy was doing well when Trump started.

As Cold said, we are under the longterm, natural unemployment rate.

So, why would we ever want to increase our deficit to give a boost to the economy? Why wouldn't we use great economic growth to reduce our debt?

[C0|dB|00ded]

The great economic growth is coming because of deregulation, tax cuts, and faith in the current administration's business friendliness. The economy with respect to true employment was not doing well when Trump started. I submit that only now are we beginning to approach the "old days" when America was great. Great could be defined as true full employment across the class spectrum with rising wages. Full employment is hard to define due to government obfuscation, but job openings > applicants is a strong clue.

Get the economy firing on all cylinders and the budget will take care of itself (basic Republican mantra). I also think they want to allow inflation to grow a slight bit over the historical average to impact our national debt positively. That means you better not have cash sitting idle. You need to be looking at inflation proof investments; ie, stocks, real estate.


T


...:cool:

[wufan]

Am I being incredibly unclear? I truthfully don't understand. None of the posts so far are responsive at all.

Yes, the economy is doing great. The economy was doing well when Trump started.

As Cold said, we are under the longterm, natural unemployment rate.

So, why would we ever want to increase our deficit to give a boost to the economy? Why wouldn't we use great economic growth to reduce our debt?

You are correct! We ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be using the economic growth to reduce our debt. That is my biggest economic beef with the Republican Party.

[wufan]

If you're going to call us out by saying we "took the day off" because we didn't post for a day on a political sub-forum of a Wichita State message board, why don't you talk about the actual economic issues I've brought up?

The tax cuts are a fiscal stimulus package, and it doesn't make any sense to pass a fiscal stimulus package during times of great economic growth. During Trump's administration the unemployment has been affected by what? Less than 1%? It was about 4.7% when he took over and it's at about 3.9% now?

I'm saying if we're going to spend a trillion dollars (or more) on jumpstarting the economy, let's do it when unemployment is about 10% as opposed to around our longterm, natural rate of unemployment. Recessions are for deficit spending. Growth periods are for paying down debt.

Some various philosophical differences here:

I don’t see the tax cuts as an economic stimulus package. Lower tax rates on businesses are a philosophical economic structure. Supply side economics is a philosophy that if businesses have more money to invest, then they will increase R&D and create products that people want to buy. This stimulates the exonomy in a positive feedback loop which actually creates increased tax revenue.

Gov spending on infrastructure or projects are not economic jump starts. These actions should be used to supplement new and existing businesses and citizens in achieving economic prosperity or to protect the rights of the citizenry.

There are fair and honest critiques of this philosophy, but it explains why a Republican can look at the economy and be thrilled and a social democrat can look at the same economy and see a bubble. There is validity to both perspectives.

[jdshock]

Some various philosophical differences here:

I don’t see the tax cuts as an economic stimulus package. Lower tax rates on businesses are a philosophical economic structure. Supply side economics is a philosophy that if businesses have more money to invest, then they will increase R&D and create products that people want to buy. This stimulates the exonomy in a positive feedback loop which actually creates increased tax revenue.

Gov spending on infrastructure or projects are not economic jump starts. These actions should be used to supplement new and existing businesses and citizens in achieving economic prosperity or to protect the rights of the citizenry.

There are fair and honest critiques of this philosophy, but it explains why a Republican can look at the economy and be thrilled and a social democrat can look at the same economy and see a bubble. There is validity to both perspectives.

Even the Cato institute has acknowledged that the tax cuts aren't increasing tax revenue. Even if they were to increase activity, they absolutely are not increasing tax revenue. https://www.cato.org/publications/co...er-under-trump

That's obviously aside from the fact that the tax cuts are really going into debt as opposed to new spending: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621

[ShockingButTrue]

Even the Cato institute has acknowledged that the tax cuts aren't increasing tax revenue. Even if they were to increase activity, they absolutely are not increasing tax revenue. https://www.cato.org/publications/co...er-under-trump

That's obviously aside from the fact that the tax cuts are really going into debt as opposed to new spending: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621

Fear not jd. The President knows what he's doing. He's implemented domestic policies (economy) that have so far been proven to be the correct ones, which no one would dispute -ahem-

BUT, it's his foreign policy "techniques,"executed in a strategical fashion, that should help America regain it's status as an honest trade leader/partner. That would mean bringing our true adversary to heel; that would be red china. He's the man for the job. A politician couldn't/wouldn't get it done. It's his temperament to be Bullish. No?

[WuDrWu]

It seems like these discussions will never go anywhere......both sides are telling truths, and both sides are ignoring problems.

We simply have entitlements, promises, that are too big for our income. Does anyone see that changing anytime soon? I don't. It should, but it won't.

If revenues go up, then spending will increase, and never go back down. More promises to the future that we can't possibly pay for.

[Guest]

The biggest unfunded entitlement we currently have is the Trump tax break.

[WuDrWu]

That's so insanely incorrect it should be automatically deleted. The board isn't in crayon.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Ah yes, that rare glimpse of truth behind the liberal/socialist ideology. That profit isn't yours, thus that business isn't yours. Be thankful we let you keep running it.

Profits are an entitlement...

It wasn't too long ago we would round people up who talked like this. Soviet ideologies still persist even though we "won" the war on stupidity decades ago.

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/23951116.jpg


T


...:cool:

[ShockerPrez]

I just want to say thank you to my beloved and benevolent government. It is so gracious that they, through their generosity, implemented a system that allows me to get up every morning apply skills during the day, and get to go home. Then twice a month, give my employer money, who in turn, give me money!!! Can you believe it??!! The most generous, beloved government actually gives money to the most despicable, greedy people in the world, businessmen. And the businessmen, only because the governmemt makes them, passes along some of the money from government to me.

Although, it should be a lot more. The greedy businessmen take most of the money given to them by government and keep it for themselves.

But thank goodness the democrat party works hard to fix this problem. As long as i keep voting for them, I know, that someday I'll be as rich as the democrats I vote for. We've been trying for 50 or 60 years already. Hopefully in 50 or 60 more years, we can have our utopia.

[wufan]

Even the Cato institute has acknowledged that the tax cuts aren't increasing tax revenue. Even if they were to increase activity, they absolutely are not increasing tax revenue. https://www.cato.org/publications/co...er-under-trump

That's obviously aside from the fact that the tax cuts are really going into debt as opposed to new spending: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...mounts-n886621

Although that article points to a decrease in revenue, every other article I can find says that tax revenue has increased. My only guess is that the CATO article is using a decrease in revenue vs projections rather than an actual decrease. If that is the case, then the issue is spending, not tax rates. Agreed?

[jdshock]

The CATO article explicitly differentiates between revenue and spending. The CBO also expects reduced revenue: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/cb...ally-paid-for/

Every major source on the topic agrees that revenues will not increase: https://www.businessinsider.com/mnuc...ng-debt-2018-8

Even conservative organizations agree on this. It is not controversial. Revenues may increase in the short term for a variety of reasons. Heck, I imagine a lot of people are going to roll over 401ks to roth iras this year to take advantage of historically low rates. But basically every major source (including the CBO and the White House) agree revenues will drop.

[Guest]

Decreasing revenue is the same as spending to the bottom line. Sometimes it takes crayon, I guess.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Stop using that term. Revenue is the income that a business has from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers.

The government taxes. Kind of like how a leech taxes your blood.


T


...:cool: