Trump’s policies are doing the exact opposite of what Democrats warned

Trump’s policies are doing the exact opposite of what Democrats warned

"..For those of you who survived the Great GOP Tax Cut Massacre, things are finally looking up. The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent last month, the lowest rate since 1969. The economy added 263,000 jobs in April, beating expectations. Wages are rising...Even the liberal Tax Policy Center estimated that 65 percent of Americans paid less last year (6 percent paid more) thanks to tax *reform. More than 44 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. (Though corporate taxes are also a tax on consumers, so cuts benefited nearly everyone.)

henever you hear people bellowing about the wealthy benefiting most from across-the-board tax cuts, they always leave out the fact that the wealthy pay the vast *majority of income taxes: The top 20 percent of income earners paid over 95 percent of individual *income taxes in 2017, the top 10 percent paid 81 percent and the top 0.1 percent paid nearly a quarter of all federal income taxes."

LIBERALS: " The rich need to pay their fair share!!!"

KLATTU said:

Trump’s policies are doing the exact opposite of what Democrats warned

Click to expand...

Umm...wut? Maybe you should try listening to our warnings. The what Democrats actually said is that they would cause completely unnecessary deficits without doing any real good for an economy that was already very good. All of that is 100% true. The economy is still growing at about the same rate it was before. The stock market actually went negative last year, and our deficits are through the roof at a time when we should be paying down our debts instead of incurring new ones.

Sorry, but your revisionist history isn't going to work. The American people know full well that Trump's idiotic policies aren't causing our strong economy. They're just thankful he hasn't destroyed it yet like Bush did. Furthermore, Trump's popularity is already incredibly low despite the strong economy. With a year and a half before the election and a number of different economic indicators looking bad you better hope your bluff lasts or 2020 is going to be a bloodbath for the Republican party.

MrWonka said:

Ue what Democrats actually said is that they would arty.

Click to expand...

I'll finish that sentence.

In December 2017, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s former treasury secretary, warned that tax reform would kill more than 10,000 Americans every year. Summers was just one of the many fearmongers.

The same month, after cautioning that passage of tax cuts would portend “Armageddon,” then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explained that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.”
” Kurt Eichenwald tweeted that “America died tonight.” “I’m a Depression historian,” read the headline on a Washington Post op-ed. “The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929,” proclaimed the same writer.

There’s a $2 tril**lion tax cut last year. Did you feel it? Did you get anything from it? Of course not. Of course not. All of it went to folks at the top and corporations,”


That's what Democrats said.

WRONG WRONG WRONG and WRONG!

KLATTU said:

In December 2017, Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s former treasury secretary, warned that tax reform would kill more than 10,000 Americans every year. Summers was just one of the many fearmongers.

The same month, after cautioning that passage of tax cuts would portend “Armageddon,” then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi explained that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress.”
” Kurt Eichenwald tweeted that “America died tonight.” “I’m a Depression historian,” read the headline on a Washington Post op-ed. “The GOP tax bill is straight out of 1929,” proclaimed the same writer.

There’s a $2 tril**lion tax cut last year. Did you feel it? Did you get anything from it? Of course not. Of course not. All of it went to folks at the top and corporations,”

Click to expand...

None of this matches up with your OP at all. They're saying it was a bad bill, and that is true. Because it's going to increase our deficits, hurt people who need help the most, and help people who need no help at all. All of that is true.

It is what Republicans said that hasn't come true. Trump said winning trade wars was easy. It's not. He said we'd have 4% GDP growth. Still haven't passed 3%. He said tax cuts would fuel investment. The stock market was negative last year. He said it would create jobs. Job creation is equivalent to what it was in 2015 under Obama before the tax cuts. He said the increased economic productivity would pay for itself. We're running huge deficits.

Literally nothing Trump and Republicans told us would happen has come true. Everything Democrats said would happen has either come true already or is looking more and more likely every day.

MrWonka said:

hurt people who need help the most, ery day.

Click to expand...

Explain that one?

KLATTU said:

Explain that one?

Click to expand...

For starters in order to help offset these massive tax cuts for the wealthy they eliminated certain tax credits that largely benefited the poor. Homeowners tax credits and Student Loan tax credits to name a few. But more importantly than that now that we have these huge deficits again what are Republicans trying to do about it? They're using the deficits that they created via THEIR tax cuts to try and justify cuts to medicare, the ACA and any other service that benefits the poor.

But to extrapolate even further, the economy is much like a poker game. Anybody who knows anything about Texas Hold'em can tell you that as some chip stacks get huge while others dwindle the big stacks use their enormous wealth to push the small stacks around.

Just one example... Landlords that are already wealthy can now afford to buy more property to rent. That drives up housing costs making it even harder for lower income people to buy. They then get stuck throwing their money away on rent because as much as they'd like to make a better financial decision they can't afford to.

MrWonka said:

F

But to extrapolate even further, the economy is much like a poker game. Anybody who knows anything about Texas Hold'em can tell you that as some chip stacks get huge while others dwindle the big stacks use their enormous wealth to push the small stacks around.
to.

Click to expand...

I guess that's why they try to help the short stack by not making them pay ANY income taxes.

But that analogy isn't accurate. In a poker game- if one guy wins, the other loses . By definition. The economy is not like that. Typically if the big stack guy makes out, so does the small stack guy. It's what economicllay illiterate liberals derisivley refer to a s' tickle down' but it's working for the small stack guys as we speak. Job creation and wages are up.

KLATTU said:

Trump’s policies are doing the exact opposite of what Democrats warned

"..For those of you who survived the Great GOP Tax Cut Massacre, things are finally looking up. The unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent last month, the lowest rate since 1969. The economy added 263,000 jobs in April, beating expectations. Wages are rising...Even the liberal Tax Policy Center estimated that 65 percent of Americans paid less last year (6 percent paid more) thanks to tax *reform. More than 44 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. (Though corporate taxes are also a tax on consumers, so cuts benefited nearly everyone.)

Whenever you hear people bellowing about the wealthy benefiting most from across-the-board tax cuts, they always leave out the fact that the wealthy pay the vast *majority of income taxes: The top 20 percent of income earners paid over 95 percent of individual *income taxes in 2017, the top 10 percent paid 81 percent and the top 0.1 percent paid nearly a quarter of all federal income taxes."

LIBERALS: " The rich need to pay their fair share!!!"

Click to expand...

What Republicans said would happen as a result of the tax cuts was that business would invest and that would be a boost to GDP. Meanwhile, there’s no sign of the vast investment boom the law’s backers promised. Corporations have used the tax cut’s proceeds largely to buy back their own stock rather than to add jobs and expand capacity.

Moreover, families are now paying $800 per year more due to Trump tariffs, which negate any gain from tax-cuts. In 2018, we’ve had two quarters of fairly fast economic growth, but such growth spurts are fairly common -- there was a substantially bigger spurt in 2014, and hardly anyone noticed. And the 2014 growth was driven largely by consumer spending and, surprise, the 2018 growth was government spending, which wasn’t what the tax cutters promised.

If we take the awayback machine all the way back to 2017, when the cuts were made, Republicans thought that these cuts would be so popular and produce so much growth that it would give them an electoral victory in 2018's elections. How did that work out?

MrWonka said:

Umm...wut? Maybe you should try listening to our warnings. The what Democrats actually said is that they would cause completely unnecessary deficits without doing any real good for an economy that was already very good. All of that is 100% true. The economy is still growing at about the same rate it was before. The stock market actually went negative last year, and our deficits are through the roof at a time when we should be paying down our debts instead of incurring new ones.

Sorry, but your revisionist history isn't going to work. The American people know full well that Trump's idiotic policies aren't causing our strong economy. They're just thankful he hasn't destroyed it yet like Bush did. Furthermore, Trump's popularity is already incredibly low despite the strong economy. With a year and a half before the election and a number of different economic indicators looking bad you better hope your bluff lasts or 2020 is going to be a bloodbath for the Republican party.

Click to expand...

Only revisionist on this thread is you, Wonkster. First off the economy is growing at a far greater rate. The stock market is doing just fine, still almost up 40% from the day Trump was elected and only 2-3% off its 52 week high and UP almost 3000 points since January 2. . Deficits are not "through the roof - CBO is predicting a deficit this year that will be less the 4 of the 8 deficits Obama recorded. And they've also lowered long term deficits from those just projected in January. Oh, and revenue is up for the year. Problem as always is spending.

MTAtech said:

Wd. Corporations have used the tax cut’s proceeds largely to buy back their own stock rather than to add jobs and expand capacity.
ut?

Click to expand...

GROAN . The stock buyback zombie meme. It just won't die.

It goes over big the with the Warren / Sanders knownothing crowd,

http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/stock-buybacks-are-not-the-enemy/e reality is the precise opposite: Repurchases channel corporate earnings from old-economy stalwarts lacking profitable places to reinvest the cash to the industries of the future. “Shareholders get the money from companies with no compelling projects for future growth, and get to invest it in the next Apple or Amazon,” says Rob Arnott, chief of Research Affiliates, a firm that oversees investment strategies for $170 billion in mutual funds and ETFs. Repurchases furnish capital that private equity deploys to reinvigorate under-performers, that the venture capital community raises to launch a Facebook or Snap, and that IPOs provide to take disruptors to the next phase of disruption. It’s the cash distributed by a P&G or GM that, through this fluid ecosystem, funds expansion in fast-growers hungry for capital, in areas from cloud-based services to e-commerce distribution centers to electric cars. When those young companies hit their stride, they tend to generate the extra-robust sales and profits per worker. Put simply, shareholders’ freedom to direct cash to its highest and best use drives productivity, and it’s rising productivity that swells paychecks.

KLATTU said:

I guess that's why they try to help the short stack by not making them pay ANY income taxes.

But that analogy isn't accurate. In a poker game- if one guy wins, the other loses . By definition. The economy is not like that. Typically if the big stack guy makes out, so does the small stack guy.

Click to expand...

False. 100% false. That couldn't be more false. This is the core delusion of the right. Capitalism is about competition, and if one person is able to provide a good or service that leaves someone else who could have provided it high and dry. The housing example is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. The additional tax cuts to the wealthy allow them to buy up more property driving up the costs so that the poor can't compete. The same way a big stack in poker might raise the pot so high that a poor person can't afford to play. In fact it's even worse because in poker a small stack with a big hand can still go all in even if they can't match the raise. In this scenario they cannot.

The poor person then gets stuck paying the rich landlord rent which basically just covers the rich landlords mortgage. The rich landlord essentially gets a house for free paid for by the renter whose only renting because he can't afford a down payment because he's paying astronomical rent.

But let's look at an example of a business with employees like a restaurant. You see a McDonald's or a Subway open up and hire workers and think it's a wealthy person creating jobs. You are wrong. The jobs are created by the demand for the good. People are hungry and need food. That is what created the jobs. The person who opened the restaurant simply filled the demand that was already there. So why was it a wealthy person that filled the demand and not a middle class person? Why didn't the middle class person see the opportunity and open their own restaurant? Is it because they're not smart enough to recognize the demand? No, it's because they can't afford to. They're not in good enough financial shape to take such a risk. They'd have to borrow the money to build the restaurant or open up the space.

As income inequality becomes worse and worse it is the wealthy who are the only ones with the capital necessary to start a business. The middle class have no choice, but to work for someone else. They can't afford the start up costs, and the only way they could would be to borrow the money with interest from the wealthy because they're the only ones with the wealth to start a business they just keep getting exponentially richer.

You see the wealthy as some kind of hero for starting a business and giving you a job, but the reason they're the ones starting the business and not you is because they're the only ones who can afford to, and the reason they're the only ones who can afford to is because they're using the wealth they already have to consolidate more wealth and cut off your other avenues of economic advancement.

It's exactly like a poker game. The big stacks can raise the pot and force the small stacks to either fold or risk everything in order to try and compete. The big stakes on the other hand can afford to play almost every pot, and even if they don't have the best hand to start with they can see an extra card and hope they get lucky and if they don't they just use their wealth to push the smaller hands out.

KLATTU said:

Job creation and wages are up.

Click to expand...

Not because of Tax Cuts, and they are still no where even close to where they were before Ronald Reagan.

KLATTU said:

Shareholders get the money from companies with no compelling projects for future growth, and get to invest it in the next Apple or Amazon,

Click to expand...

Is that why the S&P 500 was negative in 2018?

KLATTU said:

says Rob Arnott, chief of Research Affiliates, a firm that oversees investment strategies for $170 billion in mutual funds and ETFs.

Click to expand...

WOW!!! Color Me Shocked!!!! You're telling me that a rich asshole who massively benefited from these tax cuts has convinced himself and wants to convince you that they'll be good for everyone?

KLATTU said:

the venture capital community raises to launch a Facebook or Snap

Click to expand...

Except they don't know who that is, but it doesn't matter because they have so much money they just throw it at anybody with a Computer Science degree which is what caused the .com bubble. When .com's became a bit more risky they turned to old reliable. They bought up real estate like it was going out of style building houses like crazy and borrowing money to anyone and everyone at ridiculously high rates assuming that even if the borrowers couldn't pay them back they'd just foreclose and then resell the house at an even bigger profit.

Here's an idea. How about instead of a handful venture capitalists playing roulette we just tax them, and use the money to pay off the student loans of all those Computer Scientists so they don't need Venture Capital to start their own companies?

KLATTU said:

It’s the cash distributed by a P&G or GM that, through this fluid ecosystem, funds expansion in fast-growers hungry for capital,

Click to expand...

But why are they hungry for capital in the first place? Why does it have to be private venture capitalists deciding who gets it? Here's an idea, how about we just continue taxing the wealthy at a higher rate and then offer small business loans directly from the government with no expectation of a high rate of return on those investments. Let the people who actually earned the money keep it instead of having to pay it back to venture capitalists.

KLATTU said:

When those young companies hit their stride, they tend to generate the extra-robust sales and profits per worker. Put simply, shareholders’ freedom to direct cash to its highest and best use drives productivity, and it’s rising productivity that swells paychecks.

Click to expand...

Again, I ask you...why do we need shareholders to direct cash? Wealthy individuals direct the money to those who benefit the individuals not society. If society as a whole directs the money they can direct it to those who benefit society as a whole.

You mention Facebook or Snapchat. Do either of those things really improve anybodies lives that much? A lot of people use them, and their very profitable, but do they really benefit society that much or do they just make a handful people who are already wealthy just insanely rich?

MrWonka said:

False. 100% false. That couldn't be more false. This is the core delusion of the right. Capitalism is about competition, and if one person is able to provide a good or service that leaves someone else who could have provided it high and dry. Thagan.

Click to expand...

Couldn't be more true. If it were a zero sum game , GDP wouldn't grow. And it does. The pie gets bigger.

The other stuff you said is just capitalism at work. The superior company wins out over the inferior one. Surely you aren't suggesting taxing the superior company more to help the inferior one??

"You see the wealthy as some kind of hero for starting a business and giving you a job"

I see entreprenuers as some kind of hero for giving me job . Not all of them are wealthy but they GET wealthy if they are good.
And they are more likely to suced in a low tax environment.
Low tax environment-> company grows> Company hires more.( aka trickle down)

simple logic

Bullseye said:

First off the economy is growing at a far greater rate.

Click to expand...

False. Still hasn't topped 3%. Growth was roughly the same under Obama even while he was reducing our deficits.

Bullseye said:

The stock market is doing just fine, still almost up 40% from the day Trump was elected

Click to expand...

It was negative in the first full year of his Tax cuts and his trade war. Obama's policies were still in place for a year after Trump was elected. It's after Trump's policies were implemented that the market cooled off. In the first two years after Obama's economic policies were implemented the stock market doubled. That's a 100% increase. 100% > 40%.

Bullseye said:

UP almost 3000 points since January 2.

Click to expand...

Because it crashed so badly in December it had no place to go but up.

Bullseye said:

Deficits are not "through the roof - CBO is predicting a deficit this year that will be less the 4 of the 8 deficits Obama recorded.

Click to expand...

Obama was dealing with a Recession, two wars in the Middle east, and Bush's tax cuts in his first four years in office. All things problems caused by the previous Republican which he ended. Obama needed economic stimulus in order to get the economy headed back in the right direction, but because he was a fiscally responsible president he understood that once the economy got back on it's feet we needed to dial back the stimulus and start paying down our debts. Deficits in a recession make sense in order to get us out, but once we're out a deficit is reckless and irresponsible. Running a deficit when you already have a strong economy is how you create a bubble.

Bullseye said:

Oh, and revenue is up for the year. Problem as always is spending.

Click to expand...

Revenue and spending always increase unless there is a recession. They're supposed to and we know this. Republicans voluntarily reduced our revenue without touching spending. They chose the deficits. They told us that the economic boost from the tax cuts would cause growth so high it would make up the difference. As always it did not. Unless you're in a recession where you actually need stimulus if you don't have the votes to cut spending then you are reckless and irresponsible if you cut revenue an incur more debt.

LOL- is there anything you CAN"t put a negative spin on?

We all know good economic news for the Country is bad for Democrats so it's your sworn duty as a loyal party member to attack the economy but do you have to be so obvious about it?

MrWonka said:

False. Still hasn't topped 3%. Growth was roughly the same under Obama even while he was reducing our deficits.

Click to expand...

Are you paying attention? We just range up a 3.2% GDP growth. The only deficits Obama reduced were the four trillion dollar deficits HE RANG UP.

MrWonka said:

It was negative in the first full year of his Tax cuts and his trade war. Obama's policies were still in place for a year after Trump was elected. It's after Trump's policies were implemented that the market cooled off. In the first two years after Obama's economic policies were implemented the stock market doubled. That's a 100% increase. 100% > 40%.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. Total bull****. The market was moving sideways when trump took over and it jumped immediately.

Wonka said:

Because it crashed so badly in December it had no place to go but up.

Click to expand...

But that's not what you said. You said it was down for the year - total lie.

MrWonka said:

Obama was dealing with a Recession, two wars in the Middle east, and Bush's tax cuts in his first four years in office. All things problems caused by the previous Republican which he ended. Obama needed economic stimulus in order to get the economy headed back in the right direction, but because he was a fiscally responsible president he understood that once the economy got back on it's feet we needed to dial back the stimulus and start paying down our debts. Deficits in a recession make sense in order to get us out, but once we're out a deficit is reckless and irresponsible. Running a deficit when you already have a strong economy is how you create a bubble.

Click to expand...

LOL, all this bull**** aside, Obama oversaw the worst recovery since WW II and the economy he turned over was the economy of 2016 not 2009. An economy that never even reached 2% GDP growth.

MrWonka said:

Revenue and spending always increase unless there is a recession. They're supposed to and we know this. Republicans voluntarily reduced our revenue without touching spending.

Click to expand...

And yet CBO says revenues are up. Do you ever fact check anything before you spew your love songs to Obama?

MrWonka said:

chose the deficits. They told us that the economic boost from the tax cuts would cause growth so high it would make up the difference. As always it did not. Unless you're in a recession where you actually need stimulus if you don't have the votes to cut spending then you are reckless and irresponsible if you cut revenue an incur more debt.

Click to expand...

LOL, where do you come up with this trash? The economy is booming, wages are booming, jobs are being created so fast we can even fill them all.

KLATTU said:

Couldn't be more true. If it were a zero sum game , GDP wouldn't grow. And it does. The pie gets bigger.

Click to expand...

Wow! That has got do be the dumbest, least economically intelligent statement I have ever heard. Do you even know what the word Gross means in this context? Did you even know that's what the G stood for?

First, as long as the population increases the GDP will increase along with it over time.

Second, gross domestic product means the total of everyone's product. So if you have 5 people who make $2, $2, $2, $2, $2 your gross is $10. If the next year you have 6 people who earn $1, $1, $1, $1, $2, $6 your gross is $12. While that is a higher number it is very clear that four people lost, 1 stayed the same, and the 6th won. The increase in GDP did not come from "everyone" making more money.

Third, even if everyone does make a little bit more money you have to weight that against inflation. If 60% of the country sees 2% wage growth, but the other 40% drive inflation up to 3% it means that the 60% are actually in worse financial shape than they were even if they're making more money.

KLATTU said:

The superior company wins out over the inferior one.

Click to expand...

Except the company isn't superior because it's actually a better company. It's a better company because it had more money to start with.

KLATTU said:

Surely you aren't suggesting taxing the superior company more to help the inferior one??

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with superior or inferior, it's about wealthy versus poor. I'm saying tax the wealthier company to prevent it from consolidating more power and wealth thus preventing competition.

By your logic we should give the Super Bowl Winner the 1st over all draft pick. In professional sports leagues a Salary Cap improves competition it doesn't hinder it. The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers aren't better than everyone because they have better management. They're better because they have a bigger bankroll to start with just like a poker tournament. They've been around longer and they're in bigger markets. The bankroll gives them the advantage not the quality of their ownership, and their current ownership did little to generate their current bankroll.

KLATTU said:

I see entrepreneurs as some kind of hero for giving me job.

Click to expand...

Slave owners gave people jobs too. They fed their slaves, gave them a bed and a log for the fire, and medical treatment when they needed it. The slave owners didn't do it because it was good for the slaves, they did it because it was good for themselves. Without the slave owners though they could have divided the plantation up among all the slaves and they could have been their own bosses.

You're only focusing on the paycheck you get from your boss, but you're not thinking about the paycheck you could make for yourself if your boss wasn't using his wealthy to restrict your other choices. You may have more choices today than slaves had in the day, but it's still not as many options as you deserve.

KLATTU said:

And they are more likely to suced in a low tax environment.

Click to expand...

False. Blue liberal states with the highest income taxes actually have the highest wages and the most businesses.

KLATTU said:

Low tax environment-> company grows> Company hires more.( aka trickle down) simple logic

Click to expand...

Not even remotely logical. He're real logic for you...

High tax environment -> government invests in your education ->covers your health care-> Improves your quality of life and frees up more money for you to start your own business.

Access Denied

Out of the top ten best states in the country 8 voted for Obama twice.

Out of the bottom ten worst states all but 1 voted for Trump.

Sort by Economy...

6 out of the top 10 voted for Obama twice.

8 out of the bottom 10 voted for Trump.