buffalo Loc: Texas

Just as long as they don't touch that sacred military spending which amounts to BILLIONS in corporate welfare, eh. No, I will also agree with you that government employment at all levels is bloated and unnecessary. I would also do away with useless federal departments that are a waste of tax money, also.
Department of Education and its funding--let the states tend to education. EPA. Department of Housing...let the states tend to that. The DEA--spends $20 BILLION enforcing pot laws that are changing rapidly. The ATF. The Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy...STOP CORPORATE WELFARE!

Abolishing those useless, tax money wasting departments would go a long way to shrinking the bloated, wasteful, inefficient federal government and also cutting the bloated, wasteful military budget would help tremendously. How else are you suggesting the size of the federal government be reduced? Repulsives want to cut out the very programs that actually could pay for themselves if politicians would stop robbing the funds. And your right, lift the income ceiling on Social Security.

But, I also realize that NONE of that will ever happen as long as corporations and money control both the left and right wings of the DC goose that lays the golden egg of tax money for them.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Since WWII, name ONE war that was not immoral, illegal, or unecessary and not for the benefit of some corporations.

son of witless

Yea, it's all good.

JoyV

Trump's tax plan is NOT Trickle Down Economics. There are some similarities, but also some important differences.
1) Trickle down gives break to only the wealthy. Trump's tax plan gave tax breaks to ALL.
2) In Trickle Down there are no consequences for taking the money and outsourcing.
3) In Trickle Down there are no consequences for American business bringing in their outsourced products to sell within the US.
4) In Trickle Down there is no incentive to money repatriation. Trump's one time tax which was also reduced, encouraged businesses to repatriate their money thereby having it available for use within the US.

As for Trump's tax plan; despite being somewhat watered down by Congress, it has produced real benefits over a short time.
>During his campaign, Donald Trump pledged to revitalize industries like coal mining and manufacturing that have been hit hard by job losses, and a little under a year since President Trump took office, both of these industries have rebounded.
>The U.S. manufacturing industry posted a net gain of 196,000 jobs in 2017 compared to 2016, which saw a net loss of 16,000 manufacturing jobs.
>As of December 2017, there was 12.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States, the highest since February 2009.
>During President Trump's first year in office, American factories added jobs at the fastest pace in three years.
>Together, the manufacturing and construction industries added a combined 406,000 jobs in 2017.
>Coal production is up 12 percent since President Trump took office, marking an industry rebound after years of layoffs.
>Increased business community's optimism about the economy stems from President Trump's e******n and regulatory rollback.
>On top of the growth that has already occurred, President Trump has made increasing the number of apprenticeships associated with blue-collar industries like construction a top priority.


These numbers are from FactCheck (a left wing organization)
**Employment growth slowed by 12 percent. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate kept dropping, reaching a 17-year low.
**The number of job vacancies rose, also to a nearly 17-year record.
**Economic growth picked up to a 3.2 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter from 1.5 percent for all of 2016.
**Manufacturing jobs grew faster than employment.
**Coal mining jobs grew, but not as much.
**Real weekly wages rose 1.1 percent.
**Corporate profits and stock prices hit new records.
**The federal debt rate slowed and the actual debt rose less than 3 percent.
**Employee bonuses.

This is from CNBC for 2017:
+The construction industry added 30,000 jobs last month, according to the Labor Department.
+That brings the sector's 2017 gains to 210,000 positions, a 35 percent increase over the previous year.
+Construction spending is also soaring, up to a record $1.257 trillion in November, according to the Commerce Department.

This is from Forbes:
1. Venture capital investment in startups has surged to its highest level ever — $148 billion last year alone.
2. The patent system may finally be turning itself around. (This is not due to the tax cut but due to Trump's eliminating Obama's weakening of the patent system through his so called "reforms".)
3. Discounted rates for pass-through business increased freelancers and other on-demand employees to 35%.
4. Increase in investments in small business.

kemmer

And adds 2.3 trillion to the National debt.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Only if the economy does not ramp up. It'll be a little tough for you to comprehend.

kemmer

Obviously YOU’RE a little shy of understanding stuff.

JoyV

Forecasts are guesses. Depending on how experienced the forecaster is, and whether they have an agenda; the figures can fluctuate wildly. So instead of looking at the forecasted figures, why not look at the actual figures. The deficit increased by 3%. Now before you jump on the fact that it increased, look at the rate of increase in the last few administrations and now. The rate of increase had been rising exponentially. Now the rate of decrease has dropped off considerably.

JoyV

The Clinton results were not due to controlling spending (fiscal responsibility), but due to gutting the military and defense spending. And some other things like border patrol. But at least his spending wasn't out of control.

cold iron Loc: White House

LOL, You think I will buy info from Obama's Negro Broadcasting Co?

JoyV

Since the military is not a corporation, and is not meant to earn a profit; it can't be corporate welfare. The military has not even recovered yet from Clinton's gutting. You would have thought with the big military spending by the GW Bush administration, that the military would have recovered. But instead a lot of money went to private companies which provided support for the military and the expense of the Iraq War. Our Navy lost more than half their ships and almost all their carriers. Those under construction were stopped. Those under repairs were delayed indefinitely.

JoyV

Is that a prediction or has it actual increased that amount?

rational1

Also in the Wall St Journal, not a lover of the Left. The money is going to the top 10%, even more to the top 1%, big executive bonuses, pay raises and the increased value of their shares, through the stock buybacks. YEAH, I know you will all scream Trump H**e, how about FACTS for a change.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I believe the CBO uses Static Accounting. If they do they cannot predict the effect tax cuts may or may not have on the deficit over ten years.Told you it was to much for you coal bucket.

truthiness

...
"We'll have to see" is the key phrase that proponents of trickle-down spew. Just as I said above, the usual trickle-down verbiage. So to repeat for emphasis from my post above:

'The usual answer to this claim that trickle-down works is that it takes time for the system to adjust. Workers have waited >30 years for a change in their paychecks including through Reagan's try at trickle down fiasco which he finally admitted did not work. It is interesting that you buy this theory, CrazyLibertarian, because it is not even valid libertarian dogma. True libertarianism would say that the financial system should stand on its own without help from the government just as you expect the individual person to do--after all, we know from Mitt that 'corporations are people too.' Sounds like CrazyLibertarian is a trumpster deceitfully trying to hide under a legitimate libertarian cloak. 'Fess up or become a true libertarian'.'

I found this parable either on OPP or somewhere else (in a newspaper, I think) that explains the "thinking" of the trickle-down hucksters:

Metaphors abound to explain economic situations—e.g., “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Another describes a horse well-fed with oats excreting undigested oat kernels that are then eaten from the manure by the lowly sparrow; this is meant to depict the trickle-down (aka supply side) theory of economics where the wealthy at the top of the financial chain are given special favors (e.g., lower taxes) to benefit the middle and lower financial classes as they pick up possible financial scraps from the investments of the wealthy.
The trickle-down parable might be valid for horses and sparrows, but it does not describe financial reality. Tax breaks to the wealthy are often prescribed under supply-side theory, but the GDP per capita growth rate was 4-times higher when the income tax was 81-85% than when it was in the 51-74% range.
David Stockman, as Reagan’s budget director, realized that supply-side economics would not work as he described in his self-admitted “youthful screed,” 'The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.' Now a hedge fund manager, Stockman extends his thinking to an inevitable future financial collapse in an even ‘screedier,’ 'The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America' where he describes contemporary financial problems being fueled by twin problems: “FDR’s repudiation of the bipartisan tradition of sound money and the New Deal’s incubation of crony capitalism.”
Stockman’s villains in his critique include Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Burns, Heller, Friedman, Connally, Schulz, Laffer, Weinberger, Greenspan, Gingrich, Ruben, W. Bush, Paulson, Geitner, Mack, Krugman, Summers, and Obama while his heroes through the years include Glass, Willis, Coolidge, Hoover, Douglas, Warburg, Truman, Eisenhower, George Humphrey, Martin, Dillon, Simon, Volcker, Baker, Domenici, Clinton, O’Neill, Ron Paul, Shelby, Bair.

One notes that these are not Republican vs. Democratic divides. While Democrats are correctly seen as loose spenders and Republicans are equally correctly categorized as the prime perpetrators of crony capitalism, Stockman’s list blurs that divide. It would seem that a possible impending financial crisis and its solution are not found in the vision of the political parties. Who will lead us out of this serious problem? Some folks on this site will offer Trump. But is there any evidence in the past fifteen months that The Donald has the answer as he vows to keep Social Security and Medicare in place and as he stacks his administration with the epitome of crony-capitalist bankers from Goldman Sachs?