sturg33
I
Oh I fully expect Trump to completely destroy our deficit.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
Oh I fully expect Trump to completely destroy our deficit.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I was thinking more that he'll turn the deficit into a giant mind-numbing economy-crippling mega-deficit monster. There simply isn't enough of a federal budget to reasonably cut without increasing the deficit given his tax cut proposal.
sturg33
I
I was thinking more that he'll turn the deficit into a giant mind-numbing economy-crippling mega-deficit monster. There simply isn't enough of a federal budget to reasonably cut without increasing the deficit given his tax cut proposal.
I read he was considering John Allison for Treasury Secretary... that would have made me very happy. As you probably know, he was the former head of the CATO institute and a prominent speaker in the tapes you sent me.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
And instead we get Mnuchin. I realize there are issues with Dodd/Frank, but in the absence of some curbs on lending, I think we are going to see an overheating economy built on a shaky foundation and a return to those glorious days of the late-1970s with rapid inflation and interest rates climbing in an effort to combat it.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Remember a few years back when Bill Maher caught all that flack for saying the American people were morons?
Supply side economics---Destroy regulations----Anything goes lending practices---Eff the environment---7-10 years of false prosperity---Wealth redistribution upwards---Warning signs ignored--Crash and/or meltdown, rinse, repeat.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I just see a bacchanalian splurge that will send us into a real tailspin. Supply-side economics have never done what they are purported to be able to do over an extended period of time. Tax cuts aimed at the supply side of capital can (and sometimes do) spur short-term economic activity, but in the long term, they just add to the deficit and make it more difficult to address the supply side of labor through public investment in programs to raise their productivity.
sturg33
I
Heaven forbid we curb the deficit with spending cuts.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
That certainly has to be part of the equation. My point is that supply-side tax cuts don't really work in the long run. If you want to tend to the deficit and cut taxes, corresponding cuts in spending must also take place. The problem is no one wants to tackle entitlements or defense. Military spending and veterans' benefits comprise over 60% of the discretionary budget and a lot of the other programs are simply pass-through dollars to hold down state nad local level taxes.
sturg33
I
Correct. The problem is the budget never gets smaller... I believe it has risen 38% in last 8 years!
So it's not just unwillingness to cut... it's unwillingness to not increase.
That's why the panic over the sequester was such a joke. It wasn't "cuts"... it was "cuts" to planned increases
And we'll tackle entitlement and defense spending eventually when math forces us too... it'd be nice to start earlier though.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Hey, you watch your langauge!!!
My theory about this type of system (which has never been very popular around here) is that supply side economics does exactly what it was designed to do, it's just that it was designed to do isn't at all what we are told it was designed to do.
Let's start at the beginning, tax cuts for the wealthy. Let's face it since they are the ones who pay most taxes that's pretty much whose taxes you'd have to cut if you were going to cut anyone's, and since they've been whining for the last 15-20 years about being overtaxed and supporting the whole system by their poor mistreated selves, that seems reasonable, but what does that do? It makes the rich richer. I'm not judging at this point, just stating a fact.
Then the rich are trusted (with absolutely no official commitment, requirements, or fail safe, to invest that money into new businesses and other job creating entities, right? Well I think they really did that to a large extent in the 1920s version, so what then? Who makes the most money from businesses, just like who makes the most money from casinos? The house, right? The richer, who just got richer, got even richer still. Again, not judging just stating a fact.
They did create jobs back then anyway, which did help other socioeconomic groups, which is good, but every effort is taken to keep wages to an absolute minimum, including the crushing of unions. Still people are working, making a living (more or less) which is a good thing, but instead of saving they see stuff they want to buy, stuff that everyone else already has or is about to acquire so they spend money on stuff, which makes them happy in the short run, gut does nothing for "tomorrow" and the demand for this stuff drives the companies to make even more stuff, which provides both more jobs and/or extended employment for the workers, which is a good thing, but just as before who makes the most profits? Same as with the casinos, the rich get still richer which regular people adapt to living paycheck to paycheck and as long as they can pay their bills and buy some more occasional stuff they're pretty happy. Again, just stating facts.
So what's happening with the stock market? Well, the stock market rises and rises,. because things look good on the surface, which makes everyone (to an extent) richer, but mainly those who have the most invested in the market, which would be...you guessed it the casinos. the problem here is that more and more regular people see the fortunes to be made in the market so they start buying stocks but either they don't know what they're doing (lack of training/experience) or they put their money into one of those funds where their "adviser" only charges like a 2% fee for managing their fund, but somehow that 2% winds up being almost 1/2 of their total savings because of what I call "mafia accounting" so those at the top of the food chain keep getting richer and richer from every which direction while those at or towards the bottom think they're doing OK, but most of their wealth is really only on paper and dependent on other people's trustworthiness or good will of others and we all know how that turns out.
Now it's important to remember that in the 1920s this (sort of) worked, for a while anyway, but in the 1980s and especially during W's 2 terms there are so many things and places for the rich to invest in (which don't even help the economy at all) that there's really no need for them to create jobs, just put their money in a nice safe place where it can both earn interest and not get taxed and let nature take it's course.
Then after that 6, 7, 8, 9 years the warning signs that the bubble is about to burst are evidence but those at/towards the bottom have no idea and those at the top aren't telling (assuming they know, which they usually do) so they get out of the market, slowly and quietly, ala ole Joe Kennedy in 1929, leaving the majority of people who aren't experts or can't afford experts, holding the bag when the crash comes. The wealthy then just go inside, close their doors, windows, and shutters, and start the "downsizing" and hibernate while the majority of people try to figure out how to survive.
Then, because of the crash/meltdown the government establishes regulations that should have been in place all along but now that we know the dangers of noone driving the bus we can avoid this happening again. Since the wealthy are the only ones with enough money to tax, they are taxed and the whining (and the hiding of money) commences.
Then in another 15-20 years the DUMAS American people and their MTV attention spans have forgotten and it all starts back up again. Does this sound fairly close? The bottom line is, this type of system helps exactly who it was intended to help, but for the rest of us, it just gives us the illusion that everything is fine, until the bottom drops out, again.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
so, the "deal" that he and his awful lemmings are touting after he said if you take jobs overseas we will tax you
is actually his boy pence letting half the jobs leave for mexico but the other half stay cause they are giving them a tax cut
wow, just wow
is actually his boy pence letting half the jobs leave for mexico but the other half stay cause they are giving them a tax cut
wow, just wow
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Everyone should read Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Crisis of the Old Order, the first volume of his FDR trilogy. They shouldn't read it for Schlesinger's worship of Roosevelt, but for his description of how crony capitalism worked in the era of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. I fear we are going to see the same thing for the next four years as companies line up for government help while they threaten to move their business.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
And they all whine and complain 24/7 about our horrible corporate tax rates, but how many of them actually pay even a fraction of those rates? Should you get to whine if you're cheating to avoid doing something, yet you lament and pay your mouthpieces to scream all the time about how overtaxed you are?
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
Looks like it's Giuliani. That's so funny. He was just toying with Romney.
I'm afraid that's the kind of guy he is and the kind of president he'll be. Why did Christie find himself on the poopie list again?
If it's Rudy instead of Romney that sucks in at least 2 different ways. I think Romney would put forth a much better image than Rudy, but that's just me.
I don't see anything about Giuliani getting the nod.
I've come around on Romney the past few weeks ... but I'm still not there. I guess, at the end of the day, I would greatly prefer him to Rudy. Corker and Petraeus are palatable, I suppose - but it all boils down to what position you see the United States in around the world (both now and in the future).
My question is whether or not Trump actually likes Mitt. Selecting him would be a very Team of Rivals move, not to mention a coup de grace for legitimizing the administration. But Trump is Trump and don't know if his hubris would allow it.
I've come around on Romney the past few weeks ... but I'm still not there. I guess, at the end of the day, I would greatly prefer him to Rudy. Corker and Petraeus are palatable, I suppose - but it all boils down to what position you see the United States in around the world (both now and in the future).
My question is whether or not Trump actually likes Mitt. Selecting him would be a very Team of Rivals move, not to mention a coup de grace for legitimizing the administration. But Trump is Trump and don't know if his hubris would allow it.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Looks like it's Giuliani. That's so funny. He was just toying with Romney.
Where did you read this? Link?
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Of the names floated thus far, I would say Corker would be the best. I just don't see Trump as a Team of Rivals guy.
57Brave
Well-known member
oh this gets dicier
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-investment-carriers-parent-company/84593308/
Donald Trump profited from an investment in the parent company of a business he has slammed for laying off 2,100 workers in Indiana and moving production to Mexico.