American prosperity of Trump era marks real turning point in history

Doc91478 said:

American prosperity of Trump era marks real turning point in history​

By Arthur Laffer
July 27, 2018

Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the measure of choice when assessing the health of any economy, especially in the United States. GDP, which is measured at annual rates, includes the value of production of all goods and services produced in a country. In the one year since President Trump took office, the first quarter of 2017 through the first quarter of 2018, real GDP grew at a 2.55 percent annual rate. This is higher than the growth for six of the eight years former President Obama was in office, or even five of the eight years when former President George W. Bush was in office.


Source: thehill.com/opinion/white-house/399324-american-prosperity-of-trump-era-marks-real-turning-point-in-history#bottom-story-socials



~~~~~~
IMO, the problem is our current growth is being driven by tax cuts without corresponding cuts to spending, just more deficit spending of which both Bush and Obama were the worst culprits, Trump is correct that entitlements have to be cut back, or in many cases completely ended. To begin with, a cutback of 10% on all entitlements by Congress would significantly help. If not, eventually our chickens will come home to roost, then we will face the choices of cutting spending and raising taxes or printing money as Obama had the Federal treasury do during his administration..Neither will be pretty and the odds of anyone giving up entitlements are pretty slim but are necessary for full recovery. Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats encourage and want people to suck on the teat of the government hoping for votes in return from the disenfranchised. They have no “Plan” for fiscal responsibility. And these people praising democrats don’t give a rat's arse about the health of the country, just their false moral/altruistic fantasies... Whoever can “Champion” the most gets more liberal brownie points ala Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
Can PMS-Democrats please make up their minds? Do they support spending trillions on social entitlement programs (and the deficits that come with them) or not?

Click to expand...

Doc91478 said:

American prosperity of Trump era marks real turning point in history​

By Arthur Laffer
July 27, 2018

Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the measure of choice when assessing the health of any economy, especially in the United States. GDP, which is measured at annual rates, includes the value of production of all goods and services produced in a country. In the one year since President Trump took office, the first quarter of 2017 through the first quarter of 2018, real GDP grew at a 2.55 percent annual rate. This is higher than the growth for six of the eight years former President Obama was in office, or even five of the eight years when former President George W. Bush was in office.


Source: thehill.com/opinion/white-house/399324-american-prosperity-of-trump-era-marks-real-turning-point-in-history#bottom-story-socials



~~~~~~
IMO, the problem is our current growth is being driven by tax cuts without corresponding cuts to spending, just more deficit spending of which both Bush and Obama were the worst culprits, Trump is correct that entitlements have to be cut back, or in many cases completely ended. To begin with, a cutback of 10% on all entitlements by Congress would significantly help. If not, eventually our chickens will come home to roost, then we will face the choices of cutting spending and raising taxes or printing money as Obama had the Federal treasury do during his administration..Neither will be pretty and the odds of anyone giving up entitlements are pretty slim but are necessary for full recovery. Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats encourage and want people to suck on the teat of the government hoping for votes in return from the disenfranchised. They have no “Plan” for fiscal responsibility. And these people praising democrats don’t give a rat's arse about the health of the country, just their false moral/altruistic fantasies... Whoever can “Champion” the most gets more liberal brownie points ala Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
Can PMS-Democrats please make up their minds? Do they support spending trillions on social entitlement programs (and the deficits that come with them) or not?

Click to expand...

Doc91478 said:

American prosperity of Trump era marks real turning point in history​

IMO, the problem is our current growth is being driven by tax cuts without corresponding cuts to spending, just more deficit spending of which both Bush and Obama were the worst culprits, Trump is correct that entitlements have to be cut back, or in many cases completely ended. To begin with, a cutback of 10% on all entitlements by Congress would significantly help. If not, eventually our chickens will come home to roost, then we will face the choices of cutting spending and raising taxes or printing money as Obama had the Federal treasury do during his administration..Neither will be pretty and the odds of anyone giving up entitlements are pretty slim but are necessary for full recovery. Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats encourage and want people to suck on the teat of the government hoping for votes in return from the disenfranchised. They have no “Plan” for fiscal responsibility. And these people praising democrats don’t give a rat's arse about the health of the country, just their false moral/altruistic fantasies... Whoever can “Champion” the most gets more liberal brownie points ala Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
Can PMS-Democrats please make up their minds? Do they support spending trillions on social entitlement programs (and the deficits that come with them) or not?

Click to expand...

Doc91478 said:

~~~~~~
IMO, the problem is our current growth is being driven by tax cuts without corresponding cuts to spending, just more deficit spending of which both Bush and Obama were the worst culprits, Trump is correct that entitlements have to be cut back, or in many cases completely ended. To begin with, a cutback of 10% on all entitlements by Congress would significantly help. If not, eventually our chickens will come home to roost, then we will face the choices of cutting spending and raising taxes or printing money as Obama had the Federal treasury do during his administration..Neither will be pretty and the odds of anyone giving up entitlements are pretty slim but are necessary for full recovery. Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats encourage and want people to suck on the teat of the government hoping for votes in return from the disenfranchised. They have no “Plan” for fiscal responsibility. And these people praising democrats don’t give a rat's arse about the health of the country, just their false moral/altruistic fantasies... Whoever can “Champion” the most gets more liberal brownie points ala Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.
Can PMS-Democrats please make up their minds? Do they support spending trillions on social entitlement programs (and the deficits that come with them) or not?

Click to expand...

Doc91478 said:

IMO, the problem is our current growth is being driven by tax cuts without corresponding cuts to spending, just more deficit spending of which both Bush and Obama were the worst culprits, Trump is correct that entitlements have to be cut back, or in many cases completely ended.

Click to expand...

Bullseye said:

Tax revenue, as reported by CBO, has increased since tax rates were reduced.

Click to expand...

chad said:

From the CBO,

"Revenues are expected to decline as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)—from 17.3 percent in 2017 to 16.6 percent in 2018—below the average of 17.4 percent of GDP recorded over the past 50 years."

"The decline in revenues as a percentage of GDP in 2018, and to a lesser extent in 2019, results from the enactment in late December 2017 of Public Law 115-97, referred to here as the 2017 tax act."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53770


"The deficit that CBO now estimates for 2018 is $242 billion larger than the one that it projected for that year in June 2017. Accounting for most of that difference is a $194 billion reduction in projected revenues, mainly because the 2017 tax act is expected to reduce collections of individual and corporate income taxes."

"Laws enacted since June 2017 are estimated to make deficits $2.7 trillion larger than previously projected between 2018 and 2027, an effect that results from reducing revenues by $1.7 trillion (or 4 percent) and increasing outlays by $1.0 trillion (or 2 percent). The reduction in projected revenues stems primarily from the lower individual income tax rates that the tax act has put in place for much of the period."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53651

Click to expand...

Waddy said:

You all can forget about fixing this problem. First of all, demographics drives the economy and government. These young people, called millennial's, are NEVER going to turn into proper big ticket consumers.

We have 78 million baby boomers. They want to downsize. And retire. But they didn't save for it. However, they will need health care, and financial support for years ahead.

Only 62% of ALL WORKING AGE adults are now in the workforce. They will have to pay for everything, along with their employers.

We'll have a train wreck, then we'll muddle through. It won't be pleasant, but hopefully nobody starves.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers and they aren't quite as provincial.

Click to expand...

chad said:

Trumps tax cuts do the following,

Raise workers after-tax income by 0.8%
Raise middle class after-tax income by 1.5%
Raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5%
Raise the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%

Click to expand...

chad said:

Republicans then plan to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Click to expand...

chad said:

What benefits do you see from giving the richest 1% of Americans huge tax cuts, and then cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Click to expand...

chad said:

Did the richest 0.1% of Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet actually need a 14.2% tax cut?

Click to expand...

chad said:

Did these billionaires need extra money to buy something or to start a new business?

Click to expand...

Waddy said:

You all can forget about fixing this problem. First of all, demographics drives the economy and government. These young people, called millennial's, are NEVER going to turn into proper big ticket consumers.

We have 78 million baby boomers. They want to downsize. And retire. But they didn't save for it. However, they will need health care, and financial support for years ahead.

Only 62% of ALL WORKING AGE adults are now in the workforce. They will have to pay for everything, along with their employers.

We'll have a train wreck, then we'll muddle through. It won't be pleasant, but hopefully nobody starves.

Click to expand...

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,“but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That's true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Click to expand...

MTAtech said:

First, Obama, as president, couldn't have the Treasury "print money." That authority is the Federal Reserve's, which was correct to increase the money supply during the worse recession since the Depression.

Second, let me address your rant that: "Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats encourage and want people to suck on the teat of the government hoping for votes in return from the disenfranchised." Besides trying to make it appear unseemly for candidates to promise voters programs that would improve their lives, your right-wing belief in "government dependence" is a made-up fallacy.

Social Security has no link at all to this "government dependency," which requires work to be eligible.

Moreover, the best available research done by ( An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Anti-Poverty Programs in the United States ) show that the programs conservatives most wants to slash, Medicaid and food stamps, don’t even have large negative effects on work effort either.

But the whole idea that subjecting people to starvation and homelessness creates an incentive to work is just an excuse for selfishness. Throughout most of human history the poor were left to starve and die in the streets and it didn't provide them the incentive to lift themselves out of poverty. Yet, conservatives contend the poor are worse off with government help.

This fallacy serves the interests of the wealthy conservatives that benefit from those policies. Modern conservatism uses the smoke-screen of self-reliance, individualism and character to mask policies which are self-serving, bigoted and cruel. The cadre of conservative billionaires don't want to pay higher taxes that will be used to help "those people." Thus, they invent a myth that the best way to help the poor is to NOT provide them any help at all. This way, according to them, their misery will give the poor the incentive to become educated and industrious. As I said earlier, this has never worked in all of human history.

The objective of the rich is to keep taxes on them low and keep government out of their hair. But these people's numbers are small, so they need to fund propaganda groups like the Heritage Foundation to create false data and spread the message to middle-class conservatives, who are generally malleable enough to swallow their lies. Thus the pro-life conservative-leaning worker who listens to Rush Limbaugh will repeatedly vote for the party that is less likely to protect his safety, less likely to protect his job, and less likely to benefit him economically.

Now let me school you on some basic economics.

Growth is measured by GDP. The formula for GDP is:

GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)

Where:
C = private consumption
I = gross investment + government investment
G = government spending
X= exports
M = imports

Cutting government spending (G) reduces GDP. Thus, growth decreases.

Moreover, you advocate lowering taxes and cutting cutback of entitlements (e.g. benefits Americans paid for) by 10%. Well, taxes are generally paid by working people and the wealthy. So, you essentially want to cut taxes, which will benefit rich people, and pay for it by cutting programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Excluding the moral decay of that idea, the economic effect would be throw the economy into recession or depression, as a large portion of Americans lose disposable income.

I am delighted that you are not in a position of authority. Unfortunately, there are people in power with similar hair-brained views.

Click to expand...

chad said:

Trumps tax cuts do the following,

Raise workers after-tax income by 0.8%
Raise middle class after-tax income by 1.5%
Raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5%
Raise the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...to-richest-1-new-analysis-finds/#21a8dd7265b9


Republicans then plan to cut Social Security and Medicare.
https://www.newsweek.com/tax-plan-social-security-medicare-welfare-republicans-rubio-729133


What benefits do you see from giving the richest 1% of Americans huge tax cuts, and then cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Did the richest 0.1% of Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet actually need a 14.2% tax cut?
Did these billionaires need extra money to buy something or to start a new business?

Click to expand...

chad said:

Trumps tax cuts do the following,

Raise workers after-tax income by 0.8%
Raise middle class after-tax income by 1.5%
Raise the richest 1% of Americans after-tax income by 13.5%
Raise the richest 0.1% of Americans after-tax income by 14.2%

https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetn...to-richest-1-new-analysis-finds/#21a8dd7265b9


Republicans then plan to cut Social Security and Medicare.
https://www.newsweek.com/tax-plan-social-security-medicare-welfare-republicans-rubio-729133


What benefits do you see from giving the richest 1% of Americans huge tax cuts, and then cutting Social Security and Medicare?

Did the richest 0.1% of Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet actually need a 14.2% tax cut?
Did these billionaires need extra money to buy something or to start a new business?

Click to expand...

Joecool44 said:

It's always been obvious to me that the tax cuts will always benefit those who pay them most taxes. Last I had read, something like over 40% of US citizens pay no federal taxes.

And yet, the ones not paying are the ones complaining about how unfair tax cuts are. Here's an appropriate story:



https://ijr.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/

Click to expand...