Trump Voters: Behold your success

[Jack Hays]

You can claim that the bill *only* raises the deficit by a trillion dollars or so, and accept that it does so by raising taxes on the middle class, or;
you can claim that the tax-cuts will be renewed by future Congresses and admit the deficit will balloon beyond the $1 trillion, but;
you can't claim both.

What is dishonest is presuming what future legislators will do. It's much more likely that the GOP will use deficits as an opportunity to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, because of these awful deficits that they themselves created.

Your fire is misdirected. I authored a thread at DP to argue there should be no tax cut at all, so I'm not interested in defending it. But I don't like phony arguments, and the "temporary tax cut" line is one of them.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And yet...since Trump became president, even the expectation of reduced government burden on businesses and consumers ahs caused a stock market boom and continued GDP growth and lowered unemployment.

And you can go ahead and bleat on about this all you want...but the simple fact remains...you...people like you...you never said **** about Obama more than doubling the entire national debt in one administration. NOW you care. NOW.

:lamo

OMG! Just the thought that Trump might cut taxes on wealthy corporations is the cause of the stock market boom! Wow! All we have to do is start rumors, not actually do anything.

Moreover, now that there is a Republican, even a faux one, in the White house, the debt no longer matters.

 

[Jack Hays]

This is SOP for the GOP. Cut Taxes claiming they will generate growth and pay for themselves -> Result? Debt Increases -> GOP calls for cuts to programs they don't like to pay down the debt they created by cutting taxes. The GOP has been doing this since Reagan, with Bush I being the only non-participant.

Normally I just roll with these cycles, but it seems certain that this time they are going to try to starve SS and Medicare, 2 programs I've been paying into for over 4 decades. And I'm just getting to the age where I need to be able to get some return on my investment. "We needed to give tax breaks to multi-millionaires" doesn't wash with me. And remember, these clowns are the party that created Medicare-D when they did the last round of tax cuts.

I authored a thread at DP to argue there should be no individual income tax cut, so don't expect me to defend it. One point though: Medicare Part D is the only part of Medicare shown to lower health care costs.

". . . I would remind everyone of this recent research result:

In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit.
​

And here's another research result:

Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending. . ."
​

The cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit - Marginal ...

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/.../the-cost-of-the-medicare-prescription-...


Sep 15, 2009 - Megan and Andrew Sullivan are having a squabble about how much it cost (and here). I would remind everyone of this recent research result: In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, theMedicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual […]



Medicare benefits for prescription drugs - Marginal REVOLUTION

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10/medicare-benefi.html


The Medicare prescription drug benefit was, from the beginning, flawed in the details of its execution. But in general terms it is turning out to be one of the best health care investments our government is making: Rewarding inventors with […]

 

[VanceMack]

OMG! Just the thought that Trump might cut taxes on wealthy corporations is the cause of the stock market boom! Wow! All we have to do is start rumors, not actually do anything.

Moreover, now that there is a Republican, even a faux one, in the White house, the debt no longer matters.

Did you miss what happened to the markets last week when ****head newscasters put out a false news story regarding Flynn and his testimony? Yes...even rumors impact the markets.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Did you miss what happened to the markets last week when ****head newscasters put out a false news story regarding Flynn and his testimony? Yes...even rumors impact the markets.

Come to think of it, you do have a point. It's like when Obama was coming to get our guns, and there was a boom in arms sales. I wonder if wall builders have experienced a similar boom?

And the economy started up even before the election, which means that someone must have anticipated the outcome in advance, right?

 

[VanceMack]

Come to think of it, you do have a point. It's like when Obama was coming to get our guns, and there was a boom in arms sales. I wonder if wall builders have experienced a similar boom?

And the economy started up even before the election, which means that someone must have anticipated the outcome in advance, right?

Snark aside...it IS a valid comparison. Every time leftists start ****ting themselves over MOAR GUN CONTROL!!!! Indeed...people buy more guns. And yes...when Trump was elected over Hillary, the markets responded positively as has the jobs market. Any time that is threatened people immediately respond...they have to because minutes can mean millions in the markets.

 

[Jack Hays]

OMG! Just the thought that Trump might cut taxes on wealthy corporations is the cause of the stock market boom! Wow! All we have to do is start rumors, not actually do anything.

Moreover, now that there is a Republican, even a faux one, in the White house, the debt no longer matters.

Did you miss what happened to the markets last week when ****head newscasters put out a false news story regarding Flynn and his testimony? Yes...even rumors impact the markets.

". . . Republicans on average are better liked, and deliver somewhat higher real earnings growth. The more investors like a candidate at the time of his election, the higher growth he delivers. . . . "11

What's Really Driving the Trump Bump - Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/.../what-s-really-driving-the-trump-bump


Aug 9, 2017 - With the stock market at highs and amid positive economic news, the so-called Trump bump is salient. The left credits Obama administration policies, which Republicans are screwing up. Right-leaning commentators treat the bump as optimism about the Republican agenda, which Democrats and party ...

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I authored a thread at DP to argue there should be no individual income tax cut, so don't expect me to defend it. One point though: Medicare Part D is the only part of Medicare shown to lower health care costs.

". . . I would remind everyone of this recent research result:

In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit.
​

And here's another research result:

Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending. . ."
​

The cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit - Marginal ...

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/.../the-cost-of-the-medicare-prescription-...


Sep 15, 2009 - Megan and Andrew Sullivan are having a squabble about how much it cost (and here). I would remind everyone of this recent research result: In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, theMedicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual […]



Medicare benefits for prescription drugs - Marginal REVOLUTION

marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/10/medicare-benefi.html


The Medicare prescription drug benefit was, from the beginning, flawed in the details of its execution. But in general terms it is turning out to be one of the best health care investments our government is making: Rewarding inventors with […]

Re Medicare-D:
I'm not sure if that is accurate, but I don't view Cowen as a hack so I'll leave it until I have a chance to investigate more. However, even that data shows Medicare-D to be a net loser. My point was that the GOP was passing what they like to call "unfunded liabilities" while also cutting taxes, and that stands.

I'll also note that wars tend to generate economic activity/growth. The Bush admin. started 2 of those to go with the 2 rounds of tax cuts. Defense spending doubled during those 8 years.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re Medicare-D:
I'm not sure if that is accurate, but I don't view Cowen as a hack so I'll leave it until I have a chance to investigate more. However, even that data shows Medicare-D to be a net loser. My point was that the GOP was passing what they like to call "unfunded liabilities" while also cutting taxes, and that stands.

I'll also note that wars tend to generate economic activity/growth. The Bush admin. started 2 of those to go with the 2 rounds of tax cuts. Defense spending doubled during those 8 years.

The GWB administration started one war, Iraq. The other war, Afghanistan, was started by Al Qaeda.

No, not a net loser: "Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending."

 

[<alt>doxygen]

No, not a net loser: "Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending."

That part seems to be in conflict with the other point you clipped out:

In spite of its relatively low benefit levels, the Medicare Part D benefit generate $3.5 billion of annual static deadweight loss reduction, and at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation. These two components alone cover 87% of the social cost of publicly financing the benefit.

The other 13% would be a net loss. I'm also unsure as to how this was measured and validated:

...at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation.

As I said, I'll check this later.

 

[Jack Hays]

That part seems to be in conflict with the other point you clipped out:


The other 13% would be a net loss. I'm also unsure as to how this was measured and validated:

As I said, I'll check this later.

Two different studies.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Two different studies.

Right. They seem contradictory.

I find it hard to believe that Medicare-D is essentially cutting enough from other Medicare expenditures to pay for itself. If you followed the legislation as it was being written, it was probably the worst example of "swamp" in congress I've witnessed. Here are some highlights:

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[27] and 58%[28] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.

Swamp critters:

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R–La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group. Medicare boss Thomas Scully, who threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he reported how much the bill would actually cost, was negotiating for a new job as a pharmaceutical lobbyist as the bill was working through Congress.[30][31] A total of 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

Another take:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/

Ten years ago this week, Republicans enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state since the creation of Medicare in 1965 by adding a huge unfunded program providing coverage for prescription drugs to the Medicare program.

TODAY'S ECONOMIST
Perspectives from expert contributors.

For years, responsible critics had said it was a system flaw that Medicare did not pay for prescription drugs along with hospitalization and doctors’ visits. By 2003, strong bipartisan support existed for expanding Medicare to include prescription drugs.
Republicans were keen to make sure that the legislation enacted was theirs, because the Democrats were certain to include cost containment for drugs in their legislation. It was widely believed that if the federal government used its buying power to pressure drug companies to cut drug prices, the cost of providing drugs to Medicare recipients would be substantially reduced.

But forcing down drug prices would diminish the drug companies’ profits and Republicans were adamantly opposed to that. Consequently, despite their oft-repeated opposition to new entitlement programs, they got behind the new drug benefit, now known as Medicare Part D, and made sure there was no cost-containment provision.

George W. Bush strongly supported this effort. Looking ahead to a close re-election in 2004, he thought a new government giveaway to the elderly would increase his vote share among this group. According to exit polls, those over age 65 gave Mr. Bush only 47 percent of their vote in 2000, with 51 percent going to Al Gore.

From the beginning, Republicans decided to forgo dedicated financing for Part D. Except for trivial premiums paid by recipients, the entire cost would fall on taxpayers. Moreover, Republicans refused to raise the Medicare tax or cut spending to cover Part D. Hence, the deficit increased by virtually the entire cost of the program.

 

[Jack Hays]

Right. They seem contradictory.

I find it hard to believe that Medicare-D is essentially cutting enough from other Medicare expenditures to pay for itself. If you followed the legislation as it was being written, it was probably the worst example of "swamp" in congress I've witnessed. Here are some highlights:




Swamp critters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

Another take:
https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/medicare-part-d-republican-budget-busting/

The prescription drugs preempt other, more expensive therapies.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The prescription drugs preempt other, more expensive therapies.

I'll need to read how they calculated that, same as with the "at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation".

Something is out of whack. Here's some cost numbers (from the wiki link):

As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[18] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 billion. Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.[19]

From a budget perspective, Part D is effectively three different programs. Based on 2012 budget numbers:

About $26 billion is spent for the about 10 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries (20% of those on Medicare) mentioned above and the drug costs of some of the people on Part C. This expense was previously (before Part D was implemented in 2006) mostly covered by Medicaid, the VA, and state pharmaceutical assistance programs. This is not a new expense to the government as of the implementation of Part D.
About $20 billion is premium support that allows about 10 million middle-income Medicare beneficiaries and the rest of the people on Part C (about half of those on Medicare altogether) get drug coverage. After the first five years of Part D, government-accountability-office research shows that this expense in the Part D budget actually appears to be holding down other Medicare Part costs related to provider services. Although it is much too early to tell, because people are better at taking their medications the middle-income portion of the Part D program may actually pay for itself in the long term.
About $13 billion of the Part D budget covers re-insurance for catastrophic drug costs as described above. Part D pays 95% of costs over about $6,000 out of pocket a year at retail. This part of the budget helps about 1% of the people on Medicare who are very ill.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The prescription drugs preempt other, more expensive therapies.

I'll need to read how they calculated that, same as with the "at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation".

Something is out of whack. Here's some cost numbers (from the wiki link):

As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[18] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 billion. Projected net expenditures from 2009 through 2018 are estimated to be $727.3 billion.[19]

From a budget perspective, Part D is effectively three different programs. Based on 2012 budget numbers:

About $26 billion is spent for the about 10 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries (20% of those on Medicare) mentioned above and the drug costs of some of the people on Part C. This expense was previously (before Part D was implemented in 2006) mostly covered by Medicaid, the VA, and state pharmaceutical assistance programs. This is not a new expense to the government as of the implementation of Part D.
About $20 billion is premium support that allows about 10 million middle-income Medicare beneficiaries and the rest of the people on Part C (about half of those on Medicare altogether) get drug coverage. After the first five years of Part D, government-accountability-office research shows that this expense in the Part D budget actually appears to be holding down other Medicare Part costs related to provider services. Although it is much too early to tell, because people are better at taking their medications the middle-income portion of the Part D program may actually pay for itself in the long term.
About $13 billion of the Part D budget covers re-insurance for catastrophic drug costs as described above. Part D pays 95% of costs over about $6,000 out of pocket a year at retail. This part of the budget helps about 1% of the people on Medicare who are very ill.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'll need to read how they calculated that, same as with the "at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation".

Something is out of whack. Here's some cost numbers (from the wiki link):

I'll need to read how they calculated that, same as with the "at least $2.8 billion of annual value from extra innovation".

Something is out of whack. Here's some cost numbers (from the wiki link):

Enjoy.

 

[Moderate Right]

If you voted for Trump (or a Republican congressional member) and your household makes less than 70,000 dollars a year, I just want you to understand that you just voted to increase your taxes.

Or rather, in your name, your congress members just voted for it, and Trump will sign it. I just want you to understand that your president candidate lied to you when he told you cared about you, he lied to you when he said he understood your problems, and he lied to you when he told you he wasn't part of the establishment. It's not a secret on this forum that I don't like Democrats, but the Trump tax cuts will cut trillions from Medicare/Medicaid (something you paid into but will see much, much less of now), it will make it exponentially harder for your children to get a good education and now unless you are personally very wealthy, your children will never get access to higher education, especially in good industries right now like science and technology. And within a decade or sooner, it will increase your taxes, just so that rich people can have theirs lowered.

Trump isn't a part of the media establishment, but the Republican party bow down and kiss the feet of their rich lords. In Trump's case though, he just stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars, at your expense, personally, so he doesn't even need donors to influence his decisions. Trump is a rich lord who wants to see you hovel before him without dignity. Everything for him and his friends, and nothing for you. That's what Trump represents, that's what Trump cares about.

Not true. Just about everyone will pay less in taxes the first 10 years. How about some Democrats coming over and joining us and voting to keep these tax cuts permanent and allow deductions for state and local income taxes? What's wrong with that idea?

 

[Jack Hays]

Not true. Just about everyone will pay less in taxes the first 10 years. How about some Democrats coming over and joining us and voting to keep these tax cuts permanent and allow deductions for state and local income taxes? What's wrong with that idea?

A deduction for state and local taxes is a subsidy for state and local taxes. I don't really like this tax cut, but I like ending that deduction.

 

[LostArtist]

- Possibly and possibly not. It will depend on the details of your tax return. Someone demonstrated that in an earlier thread.
- If you decide to drop coverage because the penalty for having none, it gives you more freedom. If you're stupid, that can come back to bite.
- What you pay for yourself, you value more and work harder at. If you are really good, the university will often pay. If not, take out a loan. You stand to make much more money, if you don't study something that doesn't pay.

Nope. There are ways to criticise it, but those are not them.

"If you're stupid, that can come back to bite." or you know, you come down with Cancer or get in an accident or get sick in some way that's way expensive....

oh, don't worry, those of US that do have insurance will PAY for you when our premiums go up because YOU got sick. You're Welcome, MOOOCH

 

[LostArtist]

Not true. Just about everyone will pay less in taxes the first 10 years. How about some Democrats coming over and joining us and voting to keep these tax cuts permanent and allow deductions for state and local income taxes? What's wrong with that idea?

I'll actually probably end up paying about the same since I wont' be able to deduct my student loan interest anymore. Then I'll end up paying more in the end, THANKS TRUMP! conartist jackass

 

[reinoe]

All we have to do is start rumors, .

Isn't that how the MSM works?

 

[Dittohead not!]

". . . Republicans on average are better liked, and deliver somewhat higher real earnings growth. The more investors like a candidate at the time of his election, the higher growth he delivers. . . . "11

What's Really Driving the Trump Bump - Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/.../what-s-really-driving-the-trump-bump


Aug 9, 2017 - With the stock market at highs and amid positive economic news, the so-called Trump bump is salient. The left credits Obama administration policies, which Republicans are screwing up. Right-leaning commentators treat the bump as optimism about the Republican agenda, which Democrats and party ...

What if they're both wrong, and the president doesn't actually run the economy? How do we know there's a cause and effect between the letter after the president's name and the stock market's rise and fall?

 

[Jack Hays]

What if they're both wrong, and the president doesn't actually run the economy? How do we know there's a cause and effect between the letter after the president's name and the stock market's rise and fall?

Did you read the linked article? It offers the best explanation I've seen.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

What if they're both wrong, and the president doesn't actually run the economy? How do we know there's a cause and effect between the letter after the president's name and the stock market's rise and fall?

The stock market isn't the economy. That said...

Trump was expected to cut taxes and regulations, which are near term wins for big money and large companies. Therefore I expected the market to go up with Republicans in control, and I'm heavily into equities. However, I believe that this is, and has been since '09, just another bubble. Enjoy, just cash your chips before it pops. We are due for a pop within the next 12 months, imo.

If anyone doesn't think this is a bubble, explain what actually increased in value that the market's increased value is reflecting. New products? Markets? Services???

 

[Jack Hays]

The stock market isn't the economy. That said...

Trump was expected to cut taxes and regulations, which are near term wins for big money and large companies. Therefore I expected the market to go up with Republicans in control, and I'm heavily into equities. However, I believe that this is, and has been since '09, just another bubble. Enjoy, just cash your chips before it pops. We are due for a pop within the next 12 months, imo.

If anyone doesn't think this is a bubble, explain what actually increased in value that the market's increased value is reflecting. New products? Markets? Services???

Inflation-adjusted earnings growth. Please see the link in #132.