One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Trump's Attacks on the Working Class 2 - The Tax Cuts
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
May 25, 2018 15:32:54   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
straightUp wrote:
Aw... sunshine and butterflies... Never mind the fact that these "new steel plants" are in reality just one retired blasting plant being reopened in Illinois. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think it's great that the plant will open up 500 new jobs, but is it worth all the jobs now at risk because of the tariff?

The American Institute for International Steel, a pro-trade advocacy group, says about 142,000 Americans work in the steel industry. Those workers would stand to benefit from the tariffs. But the institute says about 6.5 million Americans are employed by steel-consuming companies. Some of those jobs would be at risk. How many is hard to say.

The point of the tariffs is to add enough cost to imports that consumers will switch to domestic sources. When you consider the fact reported by S&P that the price of US-made steel is up 71% since Trump's election victory in 2016 you get the a sense of how drastic the impact will be on steel-consuming companies and their 6.5 million workers.

So, your basically cheering Trump for threatening the jobs of 6.5 million workers for the sake of 500.
Aw... sunshine and butterflies... Never mind the f... (show quote)




I think the islands China built as military bases gives credibility to their "Diabolical" plans, considering the location. China has long wanted Taiwan and islands off of Japan which is not in dispute. My point in America only being able to engage in one major military engagement is the opportunity for China to further extend their military presence. In the past we have parked a few aircraft carriers, destroyers and support ships in protest of China. A direct conflict say with Iran may open a door for China to further expand. Educated speculation based on China's behavior in the past. I doubt China would want a direct conflict with us, but neither do we.

Last I looked China only makes up +/- 10% of our world trade. However China has already taken action to damage America's economy and stopping steel would not hurt them nearly as much as the damage it would inflict on America.
The reason steel is up, simply because lack of competing with other American steel companies. Yes, a steel smelter is being brought back to life, but investors are preparing to get in on steel market with several plants projected to open and leases on land to mine, but subject to Trump locking in long term commitments to tariffs.
I disagree with companies being harmed by tariffs. Short term yes, but not long term.
Your comment that 6.5 million jobs are threatened is silly hyperbole. America's future will be far stronger not depending on other countries and being at their mercy. I just don't understand why you don't see this. History should show you how our economic dynamics have changed over the last 60+ years becoming dependent on outside resources, closing down domestic resources.

Reply
May 25, 2018 15:47:27   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
Were about four weeks behind, but the weather or temperature will be in the mid 90's during that time and our swimming pool is right out the door. Guess we'll have to suffer... Lol

Decided to detour from California coast up 101 through the Oregon coast for a few weeks on our way. The fifth wheel is already fully prepped and excited since it will be our first trip in our new fifth wheel. If you have been to the Oregon coast you know how beautiful it is. I pushing to extend our trip into Washington for a visit to the Straits of Juan D Fuca and stuff myself on Dungeness Crab. By July the Shells will be full, also it is claimed the straights have the largest Dungeness with the sweetest meat.
Have I teased you enough... Lol
Were about four weeks behind, but the weather or t... (show quote)


Sounds like a bit of heaven!!!! Excellent and yes, I have been up the coast way to and through Oregan.. Lived in Bellingham for 4 months when my hysband was alive.. He was a trouble shooter for Lockheed Martin, Engineer of military aircraft.. When something was wrong in the design or whatever he was sent to get it right..

So yes, very familiar with it and the beauty of Oregon and Washington.. Altho you can have their everyday rains... loll

The fifth wheel idea is no better way to go see our beautiful country and all its majestic wonder!!

Reply
May 25, 2018 21:50:05   #
son of witless
 
straightUp wrote:
A little over simplified but at least you got the general idea... very good (clap, clap, clap) Of course none of this conflicts with anything I've said so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. Are you just trying to let people know you're not as ignorant as you seem when I constantly thrash your arguments?


Wow you're a live one. Are you still trying to win ? Actually I will be kind to you because in your own way you at least do me the courtesy of addressing my individual points. That makes you a freaking genius compared to all of the other Liberals on OPP.

But to address some of your points. " At least I can SPELL judgment. " Believe it or not when I was in elementary school I was a spelling bee Champion. Me and two girls were always 1,2, and 3. However, since then my spelling has deteriorated to the point where I intentionally misspell just to get attention. However, since you wish to go into unimportant things like my spelling, let me point out that you are not quite as smart as you think you are. Judgement or Judgment are both technically correct. Some spell checkers allow both. Some not. You are correct that Judgment is the more common spelling, it just is not the only acceptable spelling.

" If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won? " They didn't. If you knew what you think you know you would know it isn't true. The Russians did not care who won. What they did was support the weaker candidate. That is what they always do. They did not want one candidate to win big. They want a divided America. They made the same mistake Y'all made. They believed the lying polls that said Hilly in a landslide. So they wanted Trump to cut into her victory margin, but they did not care who won.

" Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right? " Obama interfered in the Israeli election because he hates Bibi. Why is that different than what Putin did ? The point is, it doesn't matter what the Russians or Trump did. No legally it does not matter except if they acted in concert. That is Collusion and you and yours got squat on that. Logically, if you were capable of thinking logically, you would know that if Putin had coordinated with Trump he would have the evidence and he would make it public. Putin only cares about weakening America. What better way than to give evidence that would get Trump impeached. The crisis would weaken America and that helps Vlad. Since Vlad has not done it, he has no evidence.

" The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot? "

Us Deplorables are a known quantity. We hated Hillary and Obama. We were outvoted in 2008 and 2012. Our demise was joyfully predicted by the media. We were disappearing. Hillary did not even try to appeal to us because we were yesterday's news. Low and behold Trump wins. No way can Democrats admit that we were strong enough to win. Their little snowflakes cannot be told that they lost to us knuckle draggers. It had to be Russia.

" Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians. " That cannot be true. If it was Vlad would fire most of the liberals because they are pathetic in their arguments against my boy Trump.

" I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist. "

They ARE Communist in all except name. Russia is mostly a natural resources economy. Oil, Gas, and minerals. When Putin took over he quickly reinstated Central Control over most of the economy. Putin is a Communist. He does not know any other way. Just as Central Economic Control strangled the old Soviet Union's economy, so Putin's State Capitalism will continue to strangle Russia's. He cannot allow Private Capitalism to fix his economy because it would threaten his power.

" I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless " Perhaps. I don't spin fantasies, but if I chose to, you are not smart enough to catch it.


" so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. " That you do not know history at all. World politics has always been conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests. The United States is in a competition with China, Russia, and Iran in that order. The Chinese because of their growing economy are the strongest long term threat. They are very smart and very ruthless. Obama had no clue in dealing with them or Putin. Trump does. " China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. "

That statement proves my point that you are clueless.

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2018 21:55:40   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
lindajoy wrote:
Good Morning,buffalo...
Always enjoy your informative posts..

I have no doubt the rich are going to reap more in the long run.. To say they will not is a lie..
But I also like the measures taken for the middle class and do believe it will be better than the lying media slant on everything Trump does or doesn't do...

The rich who run this country anyway will spend/invest more into our country as well..They are really the ones that “ keep us a float”..,

I would have preferred a flat tax or even something along the lines of Cain’s 999 presentstion..

The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers.... A better business climate is the reason cited by two moderate GOP senators who had initially wavered in support for the tax cut, Bob Corker of Tennessee( who seems to already being much better in tsxes as I recently read) and Susan Collins of Maine??? (Not sure) when they announced their ultimate decisions to support the bill..Also The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank,( putting that out to you) said it believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade.

Right now what we have is sheer speculation .. We’ll just have to see what takes place... My accountant seems to believe given where I fall in income it may do well for me and I’m not rich by any means.. I’m in that middle income bracket.
Good Morning,buffalo... br Always enjoy your infor... (show quote)

Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying? He's basically saying the same thing I am saying with regard to the tax cuts. Buffalo mentioned that research is suggesting only a small portion of these corporate tax cuts will be shifted to workers. You said "thanks for the informative post" then went on to say "The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers...."

You also mentioned that the Tax Foundation believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that. There's no basis for it. 339,000 more jobs... (not 340,000 but 339,000)... Obviously, they are using an algorithm for the estimate and as someone who spent 15 years designing business intelligence systems that use algorithms to make predictions I can tell you how far removed that science is from being perfect. I can also tell you how easy it is for interested parties to make slight adjustments and generate any kind of prediction they want. The Tax Foundation is an interested party. You yourself described them as "right-leaning" and really, all you have to do is visit their site and read their blog to see their "independent and unbiased" veneer wearing off like a cheap paint job.

Paul Krugman in his NYT Blog described the Tax Foundations approach... "So while they’re peddling an analysis that implicitly predicts huge trade deficits and a large jump in income payments to foreigners, they’re using a model that has no way to assess these effects or take them into account. Maybe they’ll eventually do this stuff. But what they appear to be doing now is fundamentally incapable of addressing key issues in the tax policy debate."

And then there's the stats I mentioned in my original post, citing record breaking buybacks in contrast to a minimal rise in wages. These stats tell us that so far, things are not going the way the Tax Foundation had predicted.

Reply
May 25, 2018 23:29:43   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
jack sequim wa wrote:
I think the islands China built as military bases gives credibility to their "Diabolical" plans, considering the location.

You mean the ocean right off their own coast? Have you looked at the military bases WE have in their vicinity?

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/cf_images/GA/2005w47/Map.gif

And you're calling THEM diabolical? Do you see any Chinese bases in Canada or Mexico? On your trip, did you see any Chinese fleets off the beautiful Oregon coast? It just seems a little hypocritical to be calling China's placement of a military base less than a few hundred miles from their own coast "diabolical" when we literally have them surrounded with military bases. If you remember, we fought two wars to influence their immediate neighbors, Korea and Vietnam. I think it's far more likely that their base in the South China sea is a defensive position.

jack sequim wa wrote:

China has long wanted Taiwan and islands off of Japan which is not in dispute.

Well, culturally speaking, Taiwan *IS* Chinese. They even call themselves the Republic of China and it's very, very close to mainland China AND (surprise, surprise) the U.S. has an airbase there. Think about our own struggles with Cuba being a Soviet satellite... Taiwan is no further away from China than Cuba is to Florida. So again it seems hypocritical to slam China for being possessive toward Taiwan, when we're just as possessive toward Cuba.

jack sequim wa wrote:

My point in America only being able to engage in one major military engagement is the opportunity for China to further extend their military presence. In the past we have parked a few aircraft carriers, destroyers and support ships in protest of China. A direct conflict say with Iran may open a door for China to further expand. Educated speculation based on China's behavior in the past. I doubt China would want a direct conflict with us, but neither do we.

I'm not sure what your "educated speculation" is based on but I would agree that neither country wants a direct conflict. Besides, China has been far more interested in conquering world markets through free trade than through warfare and this is where I think it's such a shame that we insist on these militant assessments. We have every opportunity to work with them peacefully but we keep resorting to the old ways of imperial ambition and fear-mongering.

jack sequim wa wrote:

Last I looked China only makes up +/- 10% of our world trade. However China has already taken action to damage America's economy

Well, things have changed since 1974 jack, you should update. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative under the Trump Administration, China is our #1 trade partner and that's just based on tangibles. Our #1 export, sadly, is debt. And guess who's buying almost all of our debt? That's right, China is. This is why economists have said that if China decided to stop buying our T-bills our economy would immediately crash, suggesting it would be just as devastating as a nuclear weapon, if not more. If that's not bad enough, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that the only two laws Trump has so far signed, the tax cut and the spending bill, together will drive our deficit to $1 trillion by 2019, which as I'm sure you know will drive out national debt even higher, which makes us even more vulnerable to a Chinese decision to pull the plug.

(Never ceases to amaze me how the same people that were screaming about spending and debt two years ago, have nothing to say about it now.)

jack sequim wa wrote:

The reason steel is up, simply because lack of competing with other American steel companies.

Steel went up by 71% SINCE Trump took office. So are you saying that before Trump there were more American steel companies in competition? If so, what happened to them?

jack sequim wa wrote:

Yes, a steel smelter is being brought back to life, but investors are preparing to get in on steel market with several plants projected to open and leases on land to mine, but subject to Trump locking in long term commitments to tariffs.

OK... well, when that happens let me know. Until then, I'm dealing with facts not speculation.

jack sequim wa wrote:

I disagree with companies being harmed by tariffs. Short term yes, but not long term.

What are you basing that on? Or is this just a gut feeling?

jack sequim wa wrote:

Your comment that 6.5 million jobs are threatened is silly hyperbole.

Don't blame me, I was quoting The American Institute for International Steel. They're the ones that said 6.5 million workers are employed by industries that consume steel. So do they disagree with jack's gut feeling too?

jack sequim wa wrote:

America's future will be far stronger not depending on other countries and being at their mercy. I just don't understand why you don't see this.

One word... "Globalization". You should read about it so you can ditch your 1950's mindset and see the world they way it really is today.

jack sequim wa wrote:

History should show you how our economic dynamics have changed over the last 60+ years becoming dependent on outside resources, closing down domestic resources.

All the more reason to consider the possibility that things are still changing. The difference between us is that I'm looking toward the future where we have adapt and reinvent ourselves to stay relevant. You on the other hand seem to want to revert to the way we used to do things. If history tells you anything at all, it should tell you that nations never revert to their former selves because global conditions are always changing the rules. America can NEVER go back to 1950.

Reply
May 26, 2018 03:42:26   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
son of witless wrote:
Wow you're a live one. Are you still trying to win ?

LOL... there's no winning in this game, you know that. I've made my point... some people got it, some people didn't.

son of witless wrote:

Actually I will be kind to you because in your own way you at least do me the courtesy of addressing my individual points. That makes you a freaking genius compared to all of the other Liberals on OPP.

I wouldn't say that... I think there are some pretty smart liberals on this site. But I appreciate your gesture.

son of witless wrote:

But to address some of your points. " At least I can SPELL judgment. " Believe it or not when I was in elementary school I was a spelling bee Champion. Me and two girls were always 1,2, and 3. However, since then my spelling has deteriorated to the point where I intentionally misspell just to get attention.

so... you're spelling has deteriorated... but it's intentional?

son of witless wrote:

However, since you wish to go into unimportant things like my spelling, let me point out that you are not quite as smart as you think you are. Judgement or Judgment are both technically correct. Some spell checkers allow both. Some not. You are correct that Judgment is the more common spelling, it just is not the only acceptable spelling.

It's really not my wish to go into unimportant things like spelling... When I said "at least I can SPELL judgment" it was more of a passing remark in response to your "behind-my-back" insult when you told jack... "He knows just enough to be dangerous, which is far less than what he needs to know to make sound judgements on economics and politics." See the context now? As for your information on the spelling of judgment vs judgement, I will concede, I didn't know "judgement" was acceptable. I learn something every day and you finally scored a point on an "unimportant" issue ;)

son of witless wrote:

" If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won? " They didn't. If you knew what you think you know you would know it isn't true. The Russians did not care who won. What they did was support the weaker candidate. That is what they always do. They did not want one candidate to win big. They want a divided America. They made the same mistake Y'all made. They believed the lying polls that said Hilly in a landslide. So they wanted Trump to cut into her victory margin, but they did not care who won.
br " If they were best buddies why were the ... (show quote)

That's an awful lot of conjecture there witless. I mean if any of that is true Mueller really needs to call you in for an interview because no one else seems to have that much insight into Russian motives. LOL

Aside from pointing out that Trump was the weaker candidate none of the rest of what you said makes any logical sense. You're essentially saying that Russia wanted to even things out to keep America divided. First of all, America has always been divided politically and it never mattered if an election was a landslide or a nail-biter. Secondly, none of that has any impact on Russian interests anyway. It makes more sense to assume that our foreign policy is more of a concern to Moscow than the nature of domestic squabbling in America and to that end the choices were between a President with previous experience as a Secretary of State with direct experience in Syria and an egotistical TV celebrity with no military experience, no diplomatic experience and an already proven weakness for temptation.

son of witless wrote:

" Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right? " Obama interfered in the Israeli election because he hates Bibi. Why is that different than what Putin did ?

It's different because Obama's State Department gave $233,500 to OneVoice a non-profit organization based in New York that represents Jewish AND Palestinian interests in a two-state solution. There was nothing secret about it, the funding was reported appropriately and explained as an effort to help OneVoice raise awareness of the two-state solution that NuttyYahoo is trying to silence. There was no computer hacking, there was no secret meetings with campaign managers... The similarities are pretty much non-existent.

son of witless wrote:

The point is, it doesn't matter what the Russians or Trump did. No legally it does not matter except if they acted in concert. That is Collusion and you and yours got squat on that.

Actually, it does matter. We have actual laws that say it matters. But you're right about there being no evidence (yet) of direct collusion, but keep in mind, YOU were the one that brought up the Russians not me.

son of witless wrote:

Logically, if you were capable of thinking logically, you would know that if Putin had coordinated with Trump he would have the evidence and he would make it public. Putin only cares about weakening America. What better way than to give evidence that would get Trump impeached. The crisis would weaken America and that helps Vlad. Since Vlad has not done it, he has no evidence.

You making a huge assumption here that impeaching Trump would weaken America. A more prevalent perspective is that keeping Trump in office is the best way to weaken America, in which case Putin's job is done and there's no need to reveal any evidence of anything.

son of witless wrote:

"The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot? "

Us Deplorables are a known quantity.

Yes, about 24% and it's been pretty consistent. No one else is joining you.

son of witless wrote:

We hated Hillary and Obama.

Gee, I couldn't tell.

son of witless wrote:

We were outvoted in 2008 and 2012. Our demise was joyfully predicted by the media. We were disappearing.

Don't get ahead of yourself... No one thought the deplorables were disappearing just because they were being outvoted by a larger majority of Americans.

son of witless wrote:

Hillary did not even try to appeal to us because we were yesterday's news.

That's not the reason... Seriously, what sense would it make for her to spend precious time and money on appealing to a crowd that makes it very clear how much they hate her? When crowds a chanting "Lock Her Up" that's sufficient reason to spend efforts elsewhere.

son of witless wrote:

Low and behold Trump wins. No way can Democrats admit that we were strong enough to win.

You weren't strong enough to win... You lost the popular vote by 3 million. In case you didn't know, the popular vote is the one you actually participate in. Trump won because of the way the Electoral College voted, which has nothing to do with your vote. The only politicians that are actually elected by the people are the representatives in Congress. The president is not elected by the people, the president is elected by Congress, using special electors, one for each congressional district. The general expectation is that the electors will vote for the candidates chosen by the popular votes in their respective district, but depending on the state that may not be a rule. Electors in some states can vote for whoever they want and sometimes they vote for the candidate that the people in the district did NOT vote for, these are called "faithless electors" and there were a number of them in 2016, mostly from districts that voted for Clinton who went ahead and voted for third party candidates anyway.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if the Russians had any pro-Trump influence on the 2016 elections it was only to to minimize what may have been a far greater loss than 3 million on the popular vote. As for the official election, you should be thanking the Electoral College.

son of witless wrote:

" Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians. " That cannot be true. If it was Vlad would fire most of the liberals because they are pathetic in their arguments against my boy Trump.

I said Russians, not Vlad.

son of witless wrote:

" I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist. "

They ARE Communist in all except name. Russia is mostly a natural resources economy. Oil, Gas, and minerals. When Putin took over he quickly reinstated Central Control over most of the economy. Putin is a Communist. He does not know any other way. Just as Central Economic Control strangled the old Soviet Union's economy, so Putin's State Capitalism will continue to strangle Russia's. He cannot allow Private Capitalism to fix his economy because it would threaten his power.
br " I would LOVE to hear you try to describ... (show quote)

It's not just that you're wrong, it's that your blatantly wrong about something that is so easily verifiable. Russia is almost entirely capitalist now, the ONLY sectors still under central control is energy and defense. Industry and agriculture has been privatized since the 90's. Maybe you should look a few things up every now and then instead of making up stories about the private motivations of world leaders.

son of witless wrote:

" I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless " Perhaps. I don't spin fantasies, but if I chose to, you are not smart enough to catch it.


LOL - I catch 'em every time.

son of witless wrote:

" so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. " That you do not know history at all. World politics has always been conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.

We don't live in history witless. We MAKE history. It's important to understand this because sometimes patterns change and you're not going to see that if you're constantly expecting history to repeat itself verbatim. These changes are why history get's divided into eras. If you go back far enough, humans were nomadic and there WERE no countries, but politics, being a function of human behavior, existed anyway with power being a matter or merit. Countries didn't happen until humans shifted to an agrarian existence where power was granted through land titles. From the Renaissance onward power has been shifting from land to capital.

Today, capital accounts for almost all the power in the world. Unlike land titles, capital is fluid. This makes your assessment that countries are the functional units of politics antiquated at best. The problem we are increasingly running into is that while capital is flowing all over the world at light speeds, humans are for the most part trapped in their locations because of human things like family, friends, jobs, schools etc... It this contrast that underlies the problems we see today such as off-shoring... which is where capital is free to find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world leaving the American worker searching for jobs in the location he is fixed in. Countries are loosing their significance as political units. We see this more and more now on the battlefields as we find conflict with an increasing array of stateless organizations. The list of transnational corporations is also increasing then there is of course the NWO that some of you folks are constantly ranting about.

Even now I'm watching you folks cheering the slow the death of our own Republic as you push for smaller government and more privatization. You folks get so caught up in ideologies and your assumptions that private business is more efficient than government that you don't realize that between the two, it's the private company that can be owned by foreign nationals and that our constitution only applies to our government. These are facts that may never be realized by someone who assumes all politics are conducted by each country looking out for it's own interests.

son of witless wrote:

The United States is in a competition with China, Russia, and Iran in that order.

Competition for what?

son of witless wrote:

The Chinese because of their growing economy are the strongest long term threat. They are very smart and very ruthless. Obama had no clue in dealing with them or Putin. Trump does.

You can say what you want about Obama vs Trump, but the evidence so far indicates that Obama got results, so far all Trump has given us is entertainment.

son of witless wrote:

"China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. "

That statement proves my point that you are clueless.

THAT statement proves my point yet again, that you are delusional.

Reply
May 26, 2018 07:28:57   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
straightUp wrote:
Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying? He's basically saying the same thing I am saying with regard to the tax cuts. Buffalo mentioned that research is suggesting only a small portion of these corporate tax cuts will be shifted to workers. You said "thanks for the informative post" then went on to say "The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers...."

You also mentioned that the Tax Foundation believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that. There's no basis for it. 339,000 more jobs... (not 340,000 but 339,000)... Obviously, they are using an algorithm for the estimate and as someone who spent 15 years designing business intelligence systems that use algorithms to make predictions I can tell you how far removed that science is from being perfect. I can also tell you how easy it is for interested parties to make slight adjustments and generate any kind of prediction they want. The Tax Foundation is an interested party. You yourself described them as "right-leaning" and really, all you have to do is visit their site and read their blog to see their "independent and unbiased" veneer wearing off like a cheap paint job.

Paul Krugman in his NYT Blog described the Tax Foundations approach... "So while they’re peddling an analysis that implicitly predicts huge trade deficits and a large jump in income payments to foreigners, they’re using a model that has no way to assess these effects or take them into account. Maybe they’ll eventually do this stuff. But what they appear to be doing now is fundamentally incapable of addressing key issues in the tax policy debate."

And then there's the stats I mentioned in my original post, citing record breaking buybacks in contrast to a minimal rise in wages. These stats tell us that so far, things are not going the way the Tax Foundation had predicted.
Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying?... (show quote)


Yes, I know what buffalo said.... I do enjoy buffalo’s posts even if we disagree politically, I still like the person...

Straight if you read my posts you will not see where I claim the tax cuts as fabulous or the best they could come up etc because it does have its pit falls.. Remember where I said if left to me I would have preferred a flat tax or even Cains’ 999..

As for the algorithms used, You will also see where I said at this point its all speculation whether its your numbers or the numbers I used and we will just have to wait and see what really happens..

Ad for Krugman he may well be right~ and time tells all...

I wasn’t disagreeing with you on the tax projections as much as I was about claiming Trumps policy was behind Harleys decisions..

I don’t have anything to hide about the resources I looked at ect..To admit a right leaning site is just that isn’t wrong.. I figure having multiple considerations only make the debate more interesting..It isn’t a win /lose draw for me.. Its looking at all scenerio’s and learning what others believe and why..

Reply
 
 
May 26, 2018 10:02:38   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
Cut to the chase. Trump's and the repulsive's Tax Cut and Jobs Act is flat out welfare for the wealthy and big corporations. PERIOD... By all reasonable estimates it is going to balloon the federal deficit by $1.5-$2.3 TRILLION. Do the repulsives know this? Yes. That is why they, led by House
Speaker Lyan Ryan, are blaming programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as they always do and and now calling for "entitlement reforms" ie cuts to those programs. Who will that hurt? Of course the elderly and poor.

Will it boost the economy? Doubtful. The wealthy and big corporations were already doing very well without a tax cut. Even the Tax Foundation, generally regarded as the most sympathetic of the various Washington organizations that crunch tax numbers, doesn’t think the tax cut will boost growth enough to cover its cost to the federal budget.

If history is any indication giving the already cash flush wealthy and corporations more will not create economic growth that will "trickle down" to the working class...more supply-side bullshit. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.

What does it take in today's economy to be middle class. To be able to afford to own a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools and pay one's property taxes and homeowners insurance, to afford a new or newer car and a good second car and the insurance for them, to send one's kids to a state university, not a private one, to afford decent health CARE for one's self and family? The median income is around $55,000 annually and those things are NOT affordable on that income and THAT does NOT make one middle class!

The tax cut and jobs act is welfare for the wealthy and big corporations and bullshit for the bottom 60%!

Reply
May 26, 2018 11:11:22   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
Just what is your idea on stimulating the economy?
buffalo wrote:
Cut to the chase. Trump's and the repulsive's Tax Cut and Jobs Act is flat out welfare for the wealthy and big corporations. PERIOD... By all reasonable estimates it is going to balloon the federal deficit by $1.5-$2.3 TRILLION. Do the repulsives know this? Yes. That is why they, led by House
Speaker Lyan Ryan, are blaming programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as they always do and and now calling for "entitlement reforms" ie cuts to those programs. Who will that hurt? Of course the elderly and poor.

Will it boost the economy? Doubtful. The wealthy and big corporations were already doing very well without a tax cut. Even the Tax Foundation, generally regarded as the most sympathetic of the various Washington organizations that crunch tax numbers, doesn’t think the tax cut will boost growth enough to cover its cost to the federal budget.

If history is any indication giving the already cash flush wealthy and corporations more will not create economic growth that will "trickle down" to the working class...more supply-side bullshit. Since World War II, the tax rate has changed significantly six times. The effects on the economy were different each time: the tax rate on high income earners has no relationship to economic growth.

What does it take in today's economy to be middle class. To be able to afford to own a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools and pay one's property taxes and homeowners insurance, to afford a new or newer car and a good second car and the insurance for them, to send one's kids to a state university, not a private one, to afford decent health CARE for one's self and family? The median income is around $55,000 annually and those things are NOT affordable on that income and THAT does NOT make one middle class!

The tax cut and jobs act is welfare for the wealthy and big corporations and bullshit for the bottom 60%!
Cut to the chase. Trump's and the repulsive's Tax ... (show quote)

Reply
May 26, 2018 12:48:28   #
buffalo Loc: Texas
 
JFlorio wrote:
Just what is your idea on stimulating the economy?


Which economy, J? There are 2 economies in the US. One for the richest 10% and one for the bottom 90%. You see,J, the economy for the richest 10% is and has been booming even during the horrible obammy reign. They garnered 90% of the income gains during his 2 terms. The wealthy and big corporations were setting on TRILLIONS in cash. Why weren't they investing it in productivity, jobs and wage increases then? As of 2016 the richest 10% segment of US society owns 77.2% of the country's wealth while the bottom 90% hold just 22.8%, down from 33% in 1989.

The booming stock market has contributed greatly to the ever expanding wealth inequality. The average stock portfolio among the bottom 50% (less than 50% of which hold ANY stocks) is worth about $52,000. That's up significantly from 2010, but down from $55,300 in 2013. By contrast, 93.6% of the top 10% income group owned stocks in 2016. Their average holdings stood at $1.4 million last year, up from $999,400 in 2013. The economy for the wealthiest 10% of Americans is and always has been booming. Not so much for those in the bottom 90%. I said median income was $55,000 earlier but research reveals it is now over $60,000, that is before the tax cuts.

Is $60,000 enough to own a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools and pay one's property taxes and home insurance, drive a new or newer car and own a decent second car, put a kid through a state university, forget a private university, pay for health CARE, and feed and cloth one's family? NO And that is considered middle class? LOL

If politicians really wanted to stimulate the economy of the bottom 50% of Americans they would raise the minimum wage to a livable wage ($11.00), pass HR676 (Medicare for All) and tax the unearned incomes of the wealthy for Medicare and Social Security.

Supply-side economics is voodoo economics. Demand from the masses is what drives and ultimately stimulates the economy for the bottom income groups.

One economy, that of the richest 10% is and has been booming no matter how stagnant the economy for the bottom 50% of Americans is. So which economy are you referring to?

Reply
May 26, 2018 14:39:44   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
lindajoy wrote:
Yes, I know what buffalo said.... I do enjoy buffalo’s posts even if we disagree politically, I still like the person...

Straight if you read my posts you will not see where I claim the tax cuts as fabulous or the best they could come up etc because it does have its pit falls.. Remember where I said if left to me I would have preferred a flat tax or even Cains’ 999..

As for the algorithms used, You will also see where I said at this point its all speculation whether its your numbers or the numbers I used and we will just have to wait and see what really happens..

Ad for Krugman he may well be right~ and time tells all...

I wasn’t disagreeing with you on the tax projections as much as I was about claiming Trumps policy was behind Harleys decisions..

I don’t have anything to hide about the resources I looked at ect..To admit a right leaning site is just that isn’t wrong.. I figure having multiple considerations only make the debate more interesting..It isn’t a win /lose draw for me.. Its looking at all scenerio’s and learning what others believe and why..
Yes, I know what buffalo said.... I do enjoy buffa... (show quote)

It was good to see this response from you linda and yes, I did notice your comment about the tax cut being perhaps not the best answer. At some point, I'd like to learn more about your opinions on tax alternatives. It's been a little frustrating that you (and others) had assumed I was blaming Trump for the decisions Harley-Davidson made though because that wasn't what I said at all.

But this is why I post on OPP... to test my communication skills anonymously. When I write under my real name, I'm far more careful about what I say. My self-assessment here is that while I got the point across to the liberals I failed to get it across to conservatives and I'm pretty sure it's because of my stated hostility toward Trump. Had I left that out, I'm sure more of you would have read through the Harley-Davidson lead-up and arrived at the main point of my argument about the tax cuts like the "liberals" did. But that's the challenge of my exercise; This is part of a series I'm working on that ultimately *IS* an attack on Trump. Not just because I hate him, but because I honestly think he is making things worse for the American working class.

There are two ways to look at the tax cut, there is the hard reality in which government revenue will be cut and then there is all the speculation about how it will encourage economic growth. There's good reason to be concerned about the hard reality because cutting revenue to the government, especially when it's already suffering from a budget deficit, forces it to either defund programs or borrow. That translates to hurting Americans now (defunding) or hurting them later (debt). Everyone knows this, including conservative leadership which is why they turn to speculation to assure Americans that harm won't come to them because the corporations will pass their economic advantages to the American people. So what they are essentially doing is saying "Trust the corporations... Everything will be fine."

Hmm... "trust the corporations."

Hence the point of bringing Harley-Davidson into the picture. Did they get an economic advantage from the tax cuts? Spending $700 million on stock buybacks in the first fiscal period following the tax cut says they did. Did they pass that economic advantage to their workers? Closing a plant and laying off 800 workers says they didn't. There maybe other factors involved, I don't want to rest my conclusion on an over-simplified assessment of one company. So I brought in the big picture, the one I've been highlighting in red like this... corporate stock buybacks hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018; average hourly earnings for American workers are up 67 cents over the past year..

The pattern seems pretty obvious to me and it tells me that trusting the corporations might be a little naive at best. Now before we launch into a conservative "pro-business" vs liberal "anti-business" spat, let me just say that I find no fault in what Harley-Davidson did. In the simplest terms I can find... corporations are not responsible for the well-being of the American family; that responsibility falls squarely on the government. So in my opinion, the transgression is the tax-cut itself that shifts the means of insuring the welfare of the American family from the government responsible for it, to the corporations that aren't.

Reply
 
 
May 26, 2018 18:31:37   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
straightUp wrote:
Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying? He's basically saying the same thing I am saying with regard to the tax cuts. Buffalo mentioned that research is suggesting only a small portion of these corporate tax cuts will be shifted to workers. You said "thanks for the informative post" then went on to say "The tax cut’s stated goal is to boost the economy, leading to higher incomes and better job opportunities for millions of American workers...."

You also mentioned that the Tax Foundation believes the bill will create 339,000 more jobs and boost GDP growth to by 0.29 percentage points a year, to 2.13% from 1.84% over the next decade. I'm not sure why anyone would believe that. There's no basis for it. 339,000 more jobs... (not 340,000 but 339,000)... Obviously, they are using an algorithm for the estimate and as someone who spent 15 years designing business intelligence systems that use algorithms to make predictions I can tell you how far removed that science is from being perfect. I can also tell you how easy it is for interested parties to make slight adjustments and generate any kind of prediction they want. The Tax Foundation is an interested party. You yourself described them as "right-leaning" and really, all you have to do is visit their site and read their blog to see their "independent and unbiased" veneer wearing off like a cheap paint job.

Paul Krugman in his NYT Blog described the Tax Foundations approach... "So while they’re peddling an analysis that implicitly predicts huge trade deficits and a large jump in income payments to foreigners, they’re using a model that has no way to assess these effects or take them into account. Maybe they’ll eventually do this stuff. But what they appear to be doing now is fundamentally incapable of addressing key issues in the tax policy debate."

And then there's the stats I mentioned in my original post, citing record breaking buybacks in contrast to a minimal rise in wages. These stats tell us that so far, things are not going the way the Tax Foundation had predicted.
Linda, did you understand what Buffalo was saying?... (show quote)







When President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on December 22, 2017, the new legislation was met with mixed reviews. In today’s volatile and highly partisan political environment, it’s no surprise that some celebrated it as a landmark accomplishment while others criticized the plan as possessing gaping holes.

From where I stood, as the CEO of sweetFrog Frozen Yogurt, I was delighted that the new tax was signed into law. In fact, I was proud to play a small role in the process, as I had asked for much-needed tax reform in a November 2017 Op-Ed that ran in Virginia Business. I firmly believed that small business owners needed tax reform to thrive, and I was happy to see our government work together to pass mission critical legislation.


Now, regardless of what you think of President Trump as a man and a leader, I’d like to offer some reassurance that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will help small-business owners build on the fantastic momentum generated by the American economy in 2017. The stock market is up, jobs are up, sales are up, and this tax reform may help small business owners do even better in 2018.


Shutterstock


reasons why I believe Trump’s tax reform will provide economic jet fuel for small business owners from coast to coast:

Tax rates have been reduced.

As you likely are aware, small businesses will be receiving a deduction of 20% for qualified business income. But, back in the day (that is, before December 22, 2017), income from a small business would pass through to the proprietor on their own taxes, and these individuals were sometimes saddled with income tax rates as high as 39.6%.


The new tax rates are certainly fairer to the business owner, which should encourage more people to take the leap and start their own business. There have always been countless reasons that interested entrepreneurs have wanted to join the sweetFrog family, but, at the same time, I can’t help but think that we and every national franchise now have another selling point. We can remind interested owners that they’ll pay a lower rate on their taxable income than they would have if they had purchased a franchise a year earlier.But, that deduction does more than just help the business owner. It helps the business itself, and now owners will have more money freed up to hire more people and to invest more in infrastructure.

Would you agree small business, medium size corporations are the engine of growth and hiring?

I believe we won't see the tax cuts full effect until into Trumps mid to end third year to fourth year in office.

The mainstream media academia, and the public at large are focused on large corporate tax cuts, which given time, many will expand, reinvest, adding jobs. But where the largest growth factors will be seen are small businesses. I don’t think confidence has reached a momentum that individuals will take the leap, the risk, leave the security of their job and start their own business just yet. The depth of 08/09 with the fears it brought are still very fresh.
However Trump is repealing parts of Dodd Frank that have handcuffed banks from lending small business loans, and loans at large. Even Frank has been quoted saying "the regulations went to far and were overly restrictive". During the entire two terms of Obama, more businesses closed than opened a first time in American history. During the heat of 08/09 over 7000 Auto dealers went out of business directly related to Dodd Frank because banks would not extend "Flooring Plans" and tens of thousands of other businesses that depend on loans also went out of business. With a new and improved Dodd Frank combined with many other positive factors, expect a boom in small / medium sized new business and existing business expansion. The one factor that would be a catalyst would be new home construction which todate has not been overly impressive but fully expect to catch on fire mid 2019 with contractor's pocketing the tax cuts. In summary it's just to early to be over critical considering just how bad the recession really was/is.
If we use the same methodology of computing the GDP, unemployment, CPI now, that was used during the great depression then we did not have a "Great Recession" but a Greater Depression than 29 and had it not been for unemployment insurance being extended 18 months, food benefits, welfare, Social security and Social security disability benefits we would have turned on our favorite news channels to see millions in soup and food lines. We still have not climbed out with "Real" unemployment numbers 15-18% not the 3.9% lies served up to the American public.
What should be troubling more people is the stock market and we agree it has nothing to do with the economy as an indicator of economic health. The bond bubble, banking bubble are far greater than 08/09 and stocks in general being so over valued that a real correction would likely be in the 8000 pt range if it over corrects and 12-15000 range for an actual correction.

Last, thank you for the time you invest in expressing your views. I should not have retaliated. During Obama years I was right in the pack of conservatives attacking Obama's policies and agendas, but what I didn't do was express attacks towards Obama in name calling him and it bothered me when others did. When you used certain verbiage towards President Trump just as leftist progressives do, which I see as demeaning and lack of respect for the office, I placed you in the same box as Anti-Americans, vitriol hating-Trump haters incapable of decrening
rather based in emotion and ideology.
Our mutual challenge is and will be sifting through misinformation. I have learned most information is misleading and when researching for the truth, more often than not it leads to more misinformation.
I apologize for my tone and moving forward will offer repect in our differing views.
Side note : I'm not one to sit in front of a computer, instead keep mobile using my phone. It's not as simple as a computer when addressing multiple topics in a single thread reply.
Hope you're enjoying Memorial Day
Jack

Reply
May 26, 2018 19:10:50   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
straightUp wrote:
All the more reason to consider the possibility that things are still changing. The difference between us is that I'm looking toward the future where we have adapt and reinvent ourselves to stay relevant. You on the other hand seem to want to revert to the way we used to do things. If history tells you anything at all, it should tell you that nations never revert to their former selves because global conditions are always changing the rules. America can NEVER go back to 1950.




http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/investing/us-debt-dumped-foreign-governments-china/index.html

If we look back a decade we see China's selling off of t-bills, but the greater risk is the agreement between China, Russia to stop using the Petro dollar which the Arabs agreed to, walking away from the 1972ish agreement they signed with Nixon. Since China finalized the agreement with Russia over a dozen other countries have jumped on board. If memory serves the agreement to do away with the Petro dollar was about 2012+/-.
Then I'm sure your up on china's mega bank they began, their version of our Federal reserve and now countries are going to China buying their version of the T-bill instead of the U. S.. In my opinion China has already begun a war (economic) with the US and the media remains quite.

Where do you think will be the result of a disappearing Petro dollar?
Currently china's mega bank is a small fraction of our federal reserve but that can change quickly, what then?

Reply
May 26, 2018 19:43:43   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
BS Buffalo. There has always been a difference in the economy for rich and not rich. Fair? Probably not but your left wing talking points are just that. I’m doing the best I ever have done. And I wasn’t doing bad before. You jealous people always disparage supply side economics. Fine. Tell me what’s better and when did you work for a poor man? I am for a flat tax period. No bribes, everyone has skin in the game. Full disclosure, I believe stock buybacks should be illegal.
buffalo wrote:
Which economy, J? There are 2 economies in the US. One for the richest 10% and one for the bottom 90%. You see,J, the economy for the richest 10% is and has been booming even during the horrible obammy reign. They garnered 90% of the income gains during his 2 terms. The wealthy and big corporations were setting on TRILLIONS in cash. Why weren't they investing it in productivity, jobs and wage increases then? As of 2016 the richest 10% segment of US society owns 77.2% of the country's wealth while the bottom 90% hold just 22.8%, down from 33% in 1989.

The booming stock market has contributed greatly to the ever expanding wealth inequality. The average stock portfolio among the bottom 50% (less than 50% of which hold ANY stocks) is worth about $52,000. That's up significantly from 2010, but down from $55,300 in 2013. By contrast, 93.6% of the top 10% income group owned stocks in 2016. Their average holdings stood at $1.4 million last year, up from $999,400 in 2013. The economy for the wealthiest 10% of Americans is and always has been booming. Not so much for those in the bottom 90%. I said median income was $55,000 earlier but research reveals it is now over $60,000, that is before the tax cuts.

Is $60,000 enough to own a nice home in a nice neighborhood with good schools and pay one's property taxes and home insurance, drive a new or newer car and own a decent second car, put a kid through a state university, forget a private university, pay for health CARE, and feed and cloth one's family? NO And that is considered middle class? LOL

If politicians really wanted to stimulate the economy of the bottom 50% of Americans they would raise the minimum wage to a livable wage ($11.00), pass HR676 (Medicare for All) and tax the unearned incomes of the wealthy for Medicare and Social Security.

Supply-side economics is voodoo economics. Demand from the masses is what drives and ultimately stimulates the economy for the bottom income groups.

One economy, that of the richest 10% is and has been booming no matter how stagnant the economy for the bottom 50% of Americans is. So which economy are you referring to?
Which economy, J? There are 2 economies in the US.... (show quote)


/e and I was doing fine.

Reply
May 26, 2018 20:17:20   #
jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho
 
straightUp wrote:
All the more reason to consider the possibility that things are still changing. The difference between us is that I'm looking toward the future where we have adapt and reinvent ourselves to stay relevant. You on the other hand seem to want to revert to the way we used to do things. If history tells you anything at all, it should tell you that nations never revert to their former selves because global conditions are always changing the rules. America can NEVER go back to 1950.




I'm not desiring to go back to the fifties except in social issues, nor am I an isolationist as some political parties seek. Trade in today's global economy is important. What i do believe, America needs to be self sustainable on specific resources so that we cannot be held hostage. I have given examples on your post in a few threads.
I don't see China steaming their aircraft carrier's to our coast or lobbing a nuclear weapon, but in their region they are pushing and putting pressure that can only lead to expansion of territory. I believe Russia is a greater threat, not through direct engagement but proxy wars, such as arming Iran as an example. Probable and possible are terms to consider if Russia did want first strike engagement. In the movie Red October with Sean Connery, the Russians developed a nuclear submarine that was undetectable and for several years now that has become a reality. Would they park a few submarines off our coast and launch a few dozen multiple head nuclear missles that we would have zero defense against? Highly unlikely, but plausible.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.