It looks like Trump want to explode the deficit

ocean515 said:

Can you explain the wild difference between the report I provided a link to, and that which you are claiming?

The report you linked included this statement:


How Much Are the Federal Subsidies, Taxes, and Penalties Associated With
Health Insurance?

CBO and JCT currently estimate that in 2016 the federal subsidies, taxes, and penalties associated with health insurance coverage will result in a net subsidy from the federal government of $660 billion, or 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). That amount is projected to rise at an average annual rate of 5.4 percent, reaching $1.1 trillion (or 4.1 percent of GDP) in 2026. For the entire 2017–2026 period, the projected net subsidy is $8.9 trillion.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about spending due to the ACA (exchange subsidies, new Medicaid/CHIP, small business tax credits): Table 3 of your CBO document.

You're referencing all federal health spending, period. Including the $266 billion tax expenditure on the employer tax exclusion, $203 billion in spending on the pre-ACA Medicaid population, and $80 billion in net spending on Medicare--none of which are ACA expenditures.

ocean515 said:

I was only taking exception to a comment about ACA not costing much.

Was that confusing to you?

Click to expand...

But the cost of ObamaCare won't even be an issue in a month, will it? Now TrumpCare, on the other hand...

Captain Adverse said:

I'd just like to hear some workable suggestions from the economic brain trust we appear to have in this Forum that will both reduce government debt while simultaneously stimulating the economy.

Click to expand...

'kay

Of course, first you have to identify what drove up the deficit in recent years: Bush cutting taxes while waging two major wars (who does that?!?), plus the financial crisis.



It should be obvious that the Bush tax cuts punched a huge hole in federal revenues.


Next, accept that the deficit has in fact reduced almost every year since 2009, which was basically massive because of the aforementioned Bush-era policies. I.e. we can in fact get things under control, mostly using the policies that will be described below.




Then, you have to understand is that government debt is actually not a big problem -- as long as we can manage interest payments (which is not a problem any time soon) and as long as we don't go hog wild. E.g. if Trump continues to run deficits, that's not really a big issue. However, if he slashes taxes, spends like a lottery winner, and insists that his policies will "eventually" reduce the debt? Then we've got a big problem.

So, right now, what we should do is:

1) Devise a revenue-neutral simplification and cleanup of the tax code.

2) Figure out a way to make it easier for US-based corporations with foreign subsidiaries to repatriate foreign earnings. We'll have to reduce those rates a little bit, but it's better to take a hit on the statutory rate in order to collect the taxes, than to have those companies continue to stockpile cash internationally. (This is one of the few cases where Laffer is correct -- lowering rates will probably increase those revenues.)

3) Reverse all the Bush tax cuts, except perhaps a few for middle class incomes. This will slightly increase revenues, and help imbalance income inequality.

4) Do some intelligent infrastructure spending. We don't need a lot right now, and we should keep our powder dry in case there is another downturn. But we do have to fix a few things up and build some new infrastructure to ensure prosperity moving forward.

5) Provide funds to retrain people who are out of work, so they can do the jobs that need to be filled.

6) We can do some spending cuts, particularly in DoD. We might have no choice but to scale back some Social Security spending, perhaps to make benefits more progressive.

7) NOT get into a massive trade war with our trading partners; rather, we should do whatever we can to enhance exports without violating our various trade agreements. This may include revising existing treaties.

8) Do NOT hand over half the planet to China's influence, by indulging in nativism and protectionism and giving up on international trade agreements.

9) Invest more in sustainable energy, in part to further reduce energy imports, but also because that will probably be a huge growth industry in the future.

10) Judiciously use enough regulation to prevent certain bad actors (like hedge funds, banks, mortgage originators etc) from melting down the US/global economy again.

11) Do more to protect consumers. Figure out better ways to deal with foreclosures, bankruptcies, credit cards and more to help everyday Americans from getting screwed by big financial players.

12) Figure out a way to ensure that failing banks won't capsize the world economy again. This most likely includes stronger capital requirements, continued restrictions on trading and similar risky investments by those large entities, and breaking up some of the larger banks in the least traumatic way possible.


Granted, this is a bit off-the-cuff, but it's worked for the past 6 years, which is a very good sign.

In contrast, every President who has pursued supply-side economics has failed. Reagan increased the debt by 189%; Bush 41, by 55%; Bush 43, by 86%. Bush's policies took a $2.3 trillion surplus, and turned it into $9.8 trillion deficit.

I.e. the reason it's easy to say that "cutting taxes and increasing spending does not reduce debt" is because cutting taxes and increasing spending does not reduce debt. :mrgreen:

rocket88 said:

But the cost of ObamaCare won't even be an issue in a month, will it? Now TrumpCare, on the other hand...

Click to expand...

So you just projecting the future based on nothing. Seems to be a valuable exercise. :roll:

Incisor said:

No, you're inferring that from my post because there's no other way your argument makes any sense. I never said the only way to grow the economy is to increase government spending. You are trying to put words in my mouth in order for you to make an ideological point. Here's the thing; in no world will the private sector ever be able to make up for the drop in demand from government spending cuts. No way. Not ever. What Conservatives argue for, whether they know it or not, is deflation. And deflation is the worst possible thing to happen to the economy.

Click to expand...

Ah, the deflation boogie man the Lefts been warning us about for the last 8 years rears its ugly head.....again

Not grounded in any reasonable or intelligent basis its no wonder it has yet to come to pass.

QE was supposed to counter deflation as the increase in te money supply made its way out into the economy. But most of the new money created by QE sits idle to this day deposited at the FED where its earning a whopping 0.5 % interest.
Guess the Fed never factored in just how bad 8 years of Obamanomics woul be.

Banks would rather sit on over 4 Trillion in new money earning nothing than risk it in a Obama economy, and who could blame them ?

Of-course Progressives and Keynesians buy into the deflation myth owing to their fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to how free markets work.

There's a mechanism built into the free market that accounts for deflation, beleive it or not.

But no, Progressives seem to think that falling prices will make people buy less...Lol !

That consumers for some ungodly reason would sit idle, putting off purchases as prices plummeted into the dreaded deflation " death spiral " ...thats never going to happen.

As for Fiscal stimulus ? It ofcourse doesn't work. Its implemented by people who think the govt could or should step in when private sector capital investment doesn't

The thing is it IGNORES why private sector capital investment has dried up, it literally papers over it with massive debt and cronyism because typically investors are responding to foolish tax and regulatory policies.

ocean515 said:

I isolated this part of the comments in your OP.

Isn't costing much right now?

This Is How Much Obamacare Will Cost Taxpayers in 2016

New projections from the Congressional Budget Office, however, anticipate that the federal government will need to spend more on Obamacare than previously thought.

The non-partisan office estimates that the program will cost the federal government $1.34 trillion over the next decade, an increase of $136 billion from the CBO’s predictions in 2015. In 2016 alone, Obamacare will cost a total of $110 billion.​

I don't know what your measure is for "costing much right now", but $110 billion and growing fit's in my category of costing much right now.

Click to expand...

Actually there are Taxes that PAY for ACA. (unlike the much fatter Bush 'Part D' Medicare).
Taxes like the 3.8% Surtax on Capital Gains (23.8 vs 20) on High earners.

IOW, this 'cost' is actually an economic Stimulus.
Instead of going into the next $10 million/Billion of one person's pocket that does Not get spent.. it now does, and stimulates the economy with a multiplier effect.
Velocity of money is what creates a healthy growing economy.

When wealth disparity is too high, there is no velocity. Too few have too many of the marbles, and it sits.
Wealthy individuals and Corps currently sit on record Hoards of cash, and don't invest because there isn't enough money in the hands of the bottom Half to justify building another factory.
So it sits in .1% T-bills.
The idea is to get it out, not cut their taxes and pad it.

mbig said:

Actually there are Taxes that PAY for ACA. (unlike the much fatter Bush 'Part D' Medicare).
Taxes like the 3.8% Surtax on Capital Gains (23.8 vs 20) on High earners.

IOW, this 'cost' is actually an economic Stimulus.
Instead of going into the next $10 million/Billion of one person's pocket that does Not get spent.. it now does, and stimulates the economy with a multiplier effect.
Velocity of money is what creates a healthy growing economy.

When wealth disparity is too high, there is no velocity. Too few have too many of the marbles, and it sits.
Wealthy individuals and Corps currently sit on record Hoards of cash, and don't invest because there isn't enough money in the hands of the bottom Half to justify building another factory.
So it sits in .1% T-bills.
The idea is to get it out, not cut their taxes and pad it.

Click to expand...

Redistribution of wealth by government edict is inefficient and always destined for failure. The wealthy aren't squirrling money away in pillow cases, and corps have been sitting on cash due to uncertainty.

What people are missing is that the economy has been poised to realize tremendous growth, but policy and agenda have been keeping the lid on. When a changing of the guard, I am looking to see that change.

ocean515 said:

Redistribution of wealth by government edict is inefficient and always destined for failure. The wealthy aren't squirrling money away in pillow cases, and corps have been sitting on cash due to uncertainty.

Click to expand...

False.
There is complete certainty, that lower taxes rates on the Rich and Globalization/lowering of wages, has destroyed the Middle Class.
There isn't enough money in enough hands to justify production of more goods. Nothing uncertain about it.

ocean515 said:

What people are missing is that the economy has been poised to realize tremendous growth, but policy and agenda have been keeping the lid on. When a changing of the guard, I am looking to see that change.

Click to expand...

The/OUR economy is doing very well considering the rest of the Developed world, and our Unique demographic situation. Retiring boomers (10K a day) are putting pressure on Growth and deficits.
We are doing about as well as can be expected in those circumstances.

Can we do better (with Trumpov's tax cuts). Yep, Temporarily the Hyper-stimulus of tax cuts will boost growth.
But EXPLODE the deficit.
Same Trickle Down Tricks failed with Reagan (1987 CRASH), and Bush II (2007/2008 CRASH/Depression), when the positive false stimulus was overtaken by accumulated Debt.
Trumpov's 'Tax Plan' (aka 'Lollipop'), will do the same. See ALL Tax Policy orgs for the staggering deficit numbers. I may post them them anyway.

Let me further answer the first section because it pretty humorous.

ocean515 said:

Redistribution of wealth by government edict is inefficient and always destined for failure.

Click to expand...

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)

Year/ Top Rate%/ Over

1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950

Click to expand...

So in FACT, the worlds largest and Greatest Middle class was engineered with Redistribution.
Starting with T-R hitting only the top 1%.

That's primarily - imo - why the markets are skyrocketing...the promise of more cheap money thrown at the economy.

All major economies have become completely addicted to handouts from the government/central banks - whether money or ultra low/negative interest rates.

Visbek said:

Not much. Nothing that makes his calculations work any better.

5) Conservative / Republican-run states like Kansas have tried this approach, slashing taxes and insisting the growth will eventually increase tax revenues. They're on year 5 now, and all it's done is create 5 years of fiscal crises for the state. (They are facing another shockig $346 billion shortfall: Kansas faces $346 budget deficit in current fiscal year | The Kansas City Star) They can't borrow, and the state spends very little, so they are raiding transportation taxes and slashing education budgets. It's a disaster.

Click to expand...

Ohio shows it can work as well. Just gotta have a diverse economy, something Kansas doesn't and a willingness to bite the bullet on private/public partnerships. Kasich pushed Villages, Towns and Cities to raise taxes for programs they wanted to support.

So they have to justify it.

Kushinator said:

Why or how do short rates go back to three/four percent?

Click to expand...

They don't for a while.


It's why the US could restructure it's debt from short to long term. Or borrow massively long term (30 years) and rebuild **** we need to and it can economy produce GDP to pay it off (via taxes) in the future. But alas everybody worries about this year or next year in federal spending (be it MMTers or Keynesians). A 10 year stimulus program to overhaul power grid, highways, mass transit and internet backbone.. is what's needed.

Visbek said:

Social Security spends less than 1% on administration. There is nothing to cut except benefits.

Click to expand...

You can extended retirement age to 67.

Visbek said:

There aren't many options to cut Medicare costs. They can't cut doctor and hospital payments much without losing more doctors and support. Attacking fraud requires spending money, and stories about legit recipients losing benefits. They could reduce pharmaceutical costs, but that's not much, and would require Republicans to repeal part of Bush's Medicare Part D law which... Republicans put into place. In fact, one of the best ways to keep costs down is with, wait for it... the ACA. Which is going bye-bye. Eventually. In theory.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are several options to Medicare because of the purpose of it. Every teaching hospital in the US accepts Medicare because of DGME and CHGME (Children's Hospitals) payments. Here are Ohio numbers for 2013. Some of these numbers are out of whack. If we are paying more then double the residents salary then the program can be overhauled as the point of the program is to make sure the resident gets paid (as they pay the costs of the education).


ACA doesn't keep costs down at all.

Visbek said:

You think they can cut VA spending? No.

Click to expand...

They can actually fix the **** show. They can actually expand the Tricare program that many retirees get to those wounded in combat or suffer PTSD.

Visbek said:

Again, they cannot cut interest payments without blowing up the world economy.

Click to expand...

US can lower the higher interest rate debt by rolling over it's debt that was issued before 2008 (10 year and 20 year) to 30 year today.

KLATTU said:

So he's talking about cutting taxes AND a big infrastructure project.
Now that probably won't come to pass but that sounds incredibly reckless.

I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now

I haven't seen any evidence about cuts anywhere else. What am I missing?
Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!

Click to expand...

I don't know the infrastructure projects you speak of, but of course congress has to vote on such things first.

If he scales back agencies like he said he wants to, there might be money for such things.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

You're missing the part where you explain why increasing the deficit to spend on infrastructure will harm the economy. As always.

Click to expand...

I would say it's the deficit spending on social programs that are the biggest problem Not infrastructure,which produces jobs. We need to work towards getting the populous off of social programs.

But then....

The democrats would never allow for that. They would lose too many dependent voters!

mbig said:

False.
There is complete certainty, that lower taxes rates on the Rich and Globalization/lowering of wages, has destroyed the Middle Class.
There isn't enough money in enough hands to justify production of more goods. Nothing uncertain about it.

The/OUR economy is doing very well considering the rest of the Developed world, and our Unique demographic situation. Retiring boomers (10K a day) are putting pressure on Growth and deficits.
We are doing about as well as can be expected in those circumstances.

Can we do better (with Trumpov's tax cuts). Yep, Temporarily the Hyper-stimulus of tax cuts will boost growth.
But EXPLODE the deficit.
Same Trickle Down Tricks failed with Reagan (1987 CRASH), and Bush II (2007/2008 CRASH/Depression), when the positive false stimulus was overtaken by accumulated Debt.
Trumpov's 'Tax Plan' (aka 'Lollipop'), will do the same. See ALL Tax Policy orgs for the staggering deficit numbers. I may post them them anyway.

Let me further answer the first section because it pretty humorous.


So in FACT, the worlds largest and Greatest Middle class was engineered with Redistribution.
Starting with T-R hitting only the top 1%.

Click to expand...

False.

The Middle Class was created when domestic industry expanded via an investment culture among the rich, as well as corporations.

This never ending effort by the takers to connect carefully selected dots, while ignoring other circumstance, in order to make a case for government confiscation of individual effort is where the real comedy can be found.

austrianecon said:

You can extended retirement age to 67.

Click to expand...

It already is for those born after 1960.

JohnfrmClevelan said:

You're missing the part where you explain why increasing the deficit to spend on infrastructure will harm the economy. As always.

Click to expand...

Then why collect revenue at all? Imagine how great the economy would be if we ran $3 trillion deficits and allowed everyone to pay $0 in taxes. Why would that harm the economy?

austrianecon said:

Ohio shows it can work as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not so much.

In January 2011, the state predicted an annual deficit of $7.7 billion. That was a reasonable guess, but it was also too high; it turned out to be $6 billion that year -- and that wasn't because of tax cuts, as they hadn't taken effect

He didn't turn that into a $2 billion annual surplus. What happened was that by 2015, Ohio was able to improve revenues enough to salt away $2 billion in a "rainy day" fund.

His tax cuts actually turned out to be more of a tax shift. He cut estate taxes and the Local Governing Fund, both of which resulted in pushing the shortfalls to local governments. As a result, some of those local governments had no choice but to raise taxes in order to keep schools funded and firefighters paid. He also cut spending to education, always a smart move when your residents need to be retrained for a changing economy....

He slashed income taxes and raised both sales and cigarette taxes, both of which are regressive forms of taxation. Typical.

How much of a tax cut (shift) did he sign again? Not much. Kansas' cut is roughly $1344 per person; not including local tax hikes, Ohio's was more like $422 per person. Given how some of that was clawed back by municipalities, it's no surprise that the harm was nowhere as severe.

There's no indication that the tax cuts had a major impact on growth. Ohio rebounded because... the national economy rebounded as a whole. E.g. unemployment in Ohio dropped from 9.2% in 2011 to 5.3% in 2015 -- in tandem and almost identical to national figures. While I will defer to professional economists who have studied Ohio more closely, I don't see much indication that Ohio accelerated its growth as a result of its tax cuts.

Kasich came into office when state revenues were depressed by the economic downturn, and state revenues mostly grew not because of tax cuts, but because the national economy recovered. He deserves some credit, but at the same time, he's primarily the beneficiary of really good timing.

What else ya got? :mrgreen:

austrianecon said:

You can extended retirement age to 67.

Click to expand...

We're already doing that. It will be fully phased in by 2022.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/ageincrease.html

Actually, there are several options to Medicare because of the purpose of it. Every teaching hospital in the US accepts Medicare because of DGME and CHGME (Children's Hospitals) payments. Here are Ohio numbers for 2013. Some of these numbers are out of whack. If we are paying more then double the residents salary then the program can be overhauled as the point of the program is to make sure the resident gets paid (as they pay the costs of the education).

Click to expand...

...and that's a drop in the bucket.

Sorry, but we can't nickel and dime our way to major savings on Social Security and Medicare.

ACA doesn't keep costs down at all.
You're confusing one year of moderate premium rates (after numerous years with lower-than-pre-ACA increases) with the ACA keeping down Medicare costs. ACO's have already saved Medicare $1.2 billion, and that's just in a few years.
Forbes Welcome

They can actually fix the **** show. They can actually expand the Tricare program that many retirees get to those wounded in combat or suffer PTSD.

Click to expand...

First, the VA is nowhere near as bad as conservatives claim. It's done an excellent job for many years, and veterans are very satisfied with it.

Second, the things that need to be fixed? Fixing them will not be cheap. They need to modernize their records, and that's going to be very expensive. They need to provide more care to rural residents, and that's going to be expensive. They need to add doctors and resources in order to reduce wait times at specific facilities, and that's going to be expensive.

And again, veterans are aging at a rapid clip, like the rest of the US. That means the costs of caring for elderly veterans is going to skyrocket very soon.

US can lower the higher interest rate debt by rolling over it's debt that was issued before 2008 (10 year and 20 year) to 30 year today.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but nope

The Treasury Department sells government debt with a variety of term lengths, ranging from 4 weeks to 30 years. The debt is in the hands of various private entities and foreign governments. When they roll over, they are issued at the current rates.

The federal government could, in theory, purchase a large amount of pre-2008 bonds. However, as those hold slightly higher interest rates, the government would need to pay a premium for them, and we can't force current owners to sell them to the federal government. As a result, the higher purchase price will wipe out the advantage of the lower interest rates.

Federal debt is not like a consumer rolling over debt to a new credit card.

Click to expand...

KLATTU said:

So he's talking about cutting taxes AND a big infrastructure project.
Now that probably won't come to pass but that sounds incredibly reckless.

I know there is talk about dismantling the ACA but that isn't costing much right now

I haven't seen any evidence about cuts anywhere else. What am I missing?
Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!

Click to expand...

Well, there is this thing that is done in business. You issue private bonds against the project guaranteed by the government*. For example, lets take rebuilding and widening a freeway. We fund the project with federal bonds. Work generates taxes and jobs now. When the project is finished, the municipality pays out of it's tax base. Good infrastructure attracts jobs.

This is done by the fed's now, but there is no private bonding, so the "payments" go into the general fund and then get shoveled into the government furnace, while the debt remains. It has become a "phantom income stream" and has been knife in the back of taxpayers ever since it started.

* low risk = low interest rate

Visbek said:

Yeah, not so much.

In January 2011, the state predicted an annual deficit of $7.7 billion. That was a reasonable guess, but it was also too high; it turned out to be $6 billion that year -- and that wasn't because of tax cuts, as they hadn't taken effect

He didn't turn that into a $2 billion annual surplus. What happened was that by 2015, Ohio was able to improve revenues enough to salt away $2 billion in a "rainy day" fund.

His tax cuts actually turned out to be more of a tax shift. He cut estate taxes and the Local Governing Fund, both of which resulted in pushing the shortfalls to local governments. As a result, some of those local governments had no choice but to raise taxes in order to keep schools funded and firefighters paid. He also cut spending to education, always a smart move when your residents need to be retrained for a changing economy....

He slashed income taxes and raised both sales and cigarette taxes, both of which are regressive forms of taxation. Typical.

How much of a tax cut (shift) did he sign again? Not much. Kansas' cut is roughly $1344 per person; not including local tax hikes, Ohio's was more like $422 per person. Given how some of that was clawed back by municipalities, it's no surprise that the harm was nowhere as severe.

There's no indication that the tax cuts had a major impact on growth. Ohio rebounded because... the national economy rebounded as a whole. E.g. unemployment in Ohio dropped from 9.2% in 2011 to 5.3% in 2015 -- in tandem and almost identical to national figures. While I will defer to professional economists who have studied Ohio more closely, I don't see much indication that Ohio accelerated its growth as a result of its tax cuts.

Kasich came into office when state revenues were depressed by the economic downturn, and state revenues mostly grew not because of tax cuts, but because the national economy recovered. He deserves some credit, but at the same time, he's primarily the beneficiary of really good timing.

What else ya got? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

BTW, Ohio discovered "Evil" oil... and sold it!

KLATTU said:

Thankfully Mexico will pay for that wall or it would be even worse!

Click to expand...

I haven't seen anywhere where this is going to actually happen. Do you have a link?

mbig said:

False.
There is complete certainty, that lower taxes rates on the Rich and Globalization/lowering of wages, has destroyed the Middle Class.
There isn't enough money in enough hands to justify production of more goods. Nothing uncertain about it.

The/OUR economy is doing very well considering the rest of the Developed world, and our Unique demographic situation. Retiring boomers (10K a day) are putting pressure on Growth and deficits.
We are doing about as well as can be expected in those circumstances.

Can we do better (with Trumpov's tax cuts). Yep, Temporarily the Hyper-stimulus of tax cuts will boost growth.
But EXPLODE the deficit.
Same Trickle Down Tricks failed with Reagan (1987 CRASH), and Bush II (2007/2008 CRASH/Depression), when the positive false stimulus was overtaken by accumulated Debt.
Trumpov's 'Tax Plan' (aka 'Lollipop'), will do the same. See ALL Tax Policy orgs for the staggering deficit numbers. I may post them them anyway.

Let me further answer the first section because it pretty humorous.

So in FACT, the worlds largest and Greatest Middle class was engineered with Redistribution.
Starting with T-R hitting only the top 1%.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

False.

The Middle Class was created when domestic industry expanded via an investment culture among the rich, as well as corporations.

This never ending effort by the takers to connect carefully selected dots, while ignoring other circumstance, in order to make a case for government confiscation of individual effort is where the real comedy can be found.

Click to expand...

Which PART are you claiming is false?
How the economy is doing? NO
Uncertainty you claimed, but I refuted? NO

The past and Failed Tax Cut attempts of the Two GOP Presidents? NO
Globalization (that lowers wages)? NO

That there IS wealth disparity that's part of the problem? NO.
The 70-90% Top tax rates from 1920 to 1985 when the Middle Class flourished? NO!

You only deny, without near the evidence I posted, what created the Middle Class.
90% Whiff.
You are not economically versed at all, just politicized.

mbig said:

Which PART are you claiming is false?
How the economy is doing? NO
Uncertainty you claimed, but I refuted? NO

The past and Failed Tax Cut attempts of the Two GOP Presidents? NO
Globalization (that lowers wages)? NO

That there IS wealth disparity that's part of the problem? NO.
The 70-90% Top tax rates from 1920 to 1985 when the Middle Class flourished? NO!

You only deny, without near the evidence I posted, what created the Middle Class.
90% Whiff.
You are not economically versed at all, just politicized.

Click to expand...

LOL

You are welcome to your opinion biggie.

Visbek said:

We're already doing that. It will be fully phased in by 2022.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/ageincrease.html

Click to expand...

We can do it tomorrow and not have to wait another 5 years. We can also cap payout to age 67, meaning you can't work another few years to boost your payout.

Visbek said:

Sorry, but we can't nickel and dime our way to major savings on Social Security and Medicare.

Click to expand...

It's not about nickel and dime our way to major savings this year (2017). Rather future years as there is automatic rate increases. So if we cut in 2017, $20b it could save $80 or $100b over 5 years.

Visbek said:

You're confusing one year of moderate premium rates (after numerous years with lower-than-pre-ACA increases) with the ACA keeping down Medicare costs. ACO's have already saved Medicare $1.2 billion, and that's just in a few years.
Forbes Welcome

Click to expand...

No, I am not confusing anything. You are bringing up two SEPARATE issues of ACA. I am talking about ACA rates (individual) prior to this year were artificially low so it looked as it was saving people money. Prices have risen and will continue to rise without Government ponying up more subsidy money (an added cost not calculated yet).

What you are talking is the ACOs which is the idea being paying bonuses to Doctors and Hospitals to do their damn job in the first place. Most asinine thing ever. Medicare and Medicaid should pull funding for poor results to force Hospitals and Doctors to treat the patient properly not paying them to do so. This is a waste of money.

Visbek said:

First, the VA is nowhere near as bad as conservatives claim. It's done an excellent job for many years, and veterans are very satisfied with it.

Click to expand...

LOL really? The VA is a **** show and has been for years.

Visbek said:

Second, the things that need to be fixed? Fixing them will not be cheap. They need to modernize their records, and that's going to be very expensive. They need to provide more care to rural residents, and that's going to be expensive. They need to add doctors and resources in order to reduce wait times at specific facilities, and that's going to be expensive.

Click to expand...

We've already dumped $10b into the VA over the last 2 years and they didn't fix dick. Oh and if you read the article, the commission, concluded that what I actually suggest happen.. take place.

Visbek said:

And again, veterans are aging at a rapid clip, like the rest of the US. That means the costs of caring for elderly veterans is going to skyrocket very soon.

Click to expand...

This is false as well. It's not health care costs that are a problem. But disability and pension pay for disabled vets. VA and others pushed Veterans to try and claim disability for almost anything, including pre-military service injuries..43% of all Afghan and Iraq War vets are on disability which is the most expensive group. It's literally a joke on what you can claim today.

Visbek said:

The federal government could, in theory, purchase a large amount of pre-2008 bonds. However, as those hold slightly higher interest rates, the government would need to pay a premium for them, and we can't force current owners to sell them to the federal government. As a result, the higher purchase price will wipe out the advantage of the lower interest rates.

Federal debt is not like a consumer rolling over debt to a new credit card.

Click to expand...

Treasury Department does sell bonds, but this is what you don't get.. those bonds in private hands and foreign governments are sold all the time. The Fed has been buying them. But the Treasury can easily issue 30y bonds and buy back 10y bonds (2008-2011) out there already with higher then 3% interest rates and the longer 30 years. You may not get all of them as you are right, you can't force a sale, but you can many to sell because of positions they want to move to. So what you ended up doing, without paying a "premium", you can lower the average interest rates by up to 1% (more likely .5%).

Never said Federal debt was like that. But any time the US Governments to, it can change the terms of payment, as they do via inflation.