Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

High Culture, Religion, Philosophy and Esoterica.
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by cassowary » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:37 pm

neverfail wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:33 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:35 am

Don't you agree that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation spurred economic growth?
...and unleashed inflationary pressures that moved the Fed to raise interest rates for the first time in years.

Current growth rate is not sustainable!
I think it will be 4% again in Q3. Tax cuts and deregulation have spurred economic growth. The current inflation rate is only 2.9%. That comes from his tariffs.

neverfail
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by neverfail » Fri Aug 10, 2018 4:41 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:37 pm
neverfail wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:33 pm
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:35 am

Don't you agree that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation spurred economic growth?
...and unleashed inflationary pressures that moved the Fed to raise interest rates for the first time in years.

Current growth rate is not sustainable!
I think it will be 4% again in Q3. Tax cuts and deregulation have spurred economic growth. The current inflation rate is only 2.9%. That comes from his tariffs.
Watch this space. The evening is still young.

You may believe in instant results but I think long term.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by SteveFoerster » Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:04 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:35 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:38 pm
And once again, everyone: The president of the United States does not control the economy!
I agree there are a lot of factors that affect economic growth that is beyond the control of any President. But that does not mean the President has no effect on the economy at all. Don't you agree that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation spurred economic growth?
If the tax cuts had been accompanied by spending cuts, then I would say yes, but since they didn't, and are leading to a record deficit, I don't see them as a harbinger of stronger long term growth. They were also as much a function of Congress as the Trump Administration, since revenue bills constitutionally must originate in the House of Representatives.

Yes, deregulation, for which Trump is the primary mover, is a good thing, and helpful in the long term. But he far more than undoes that good through his economically illiterate trade war. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox said in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "Okay. So, ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, huh?"
cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:43 am
I know you don't like Trump. But give credit when credit is due.
So, if the guy in the Oval Office is what matters, then why weren't you calling it the Obama Recovery? (Or even the "oBUMa" Recovery?) You were right not to praise Obama unduly three years ago, so be right in not praising Trump unduly now.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by cassowary » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:55 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 10:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:35 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:38 pm
And once again, everyone: The president of the United States does not control the economy!
I agree there are a lot of factors that affect economic growth that is beyond the control of any President. But that does not mean the President has no effect on the economy at all. Don't you agree that Trump's tax cuts and deregulation spurred economic growth?
If the tax cuts had been accompanied by spending cuts, then I would say yes, but since they didn't, and are leading to a record deficit, I don't see them as a harbinger of stronger long term growth. They were also as much a function of Congress as the Trump Administration, since revenue bills constitutionally must originate in the House of Representatives.
Spending cuts in an election year? It is easier for pigs to fly. Cutting spending is the right thing to do but this is beyond the ability of most democratic governments. This is the weakness of the one man one vote system as I pointed out in my book. You must do the popular thing even though it is ruinous economically.

Congress is indeed responsible for taxes. But it is also responsible for spending. If you don't want to give the credit of the tax cuts to Trump, you also cannot blame Trump for not cutting spending.

The way I see it is different. Trump was a major mover for tax cuts which he promised during the election campaign. He deserves some credit even though it was ultimately up to Congress which fortunately was in Republican hands. The Republicans do not have the courage to cut spending in an election year. Maybe next year, if they retain Congress. But I don't have much hope for that even if they win in November. And that is a big 'if'.

I blame that on the one-man-one-vote system where you have to be popular. Cutting spending is always unpopular. So I am afraid the US is stuck between a party that pays lip service to balancing the budget and another party that does not even do that.
Yes, deregulation, for which Trump is the primary mover, is a good thing, and helpful in the long term. But he far more than undoes that good through his economically illiterate trade war. Like Zaphod Beeblebrox said in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, "Okay. So, ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking, huh?"
I agree that free trade is good and I am very uneasy about the trade war. But Trump's public statement after the G7 meeting in Canada tells me that he is not an outright protectionist. He is using the tariffs to pressure US trading partners into giving US companies a better deal. This is especially true for China which is the biggest cheater on trade. Free trade is good. But what if you keep your door open to imports while others keep theirs closed?

If closing your door forces them to open theirs, it is a good outcome. But if the end result is everybody closes their doors, then that is bad. Trump is doing a high risk high reward strategy. We don't know the outcome.
cassowary wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:43 am
I know you don't like Trump. But give credit when credit is due.
So, if the guy in the Oval Office is what matters, then why weren't you calling it the Obama Recovery? (Or even the "oBUMa" Recovery?) You were right not to praise Obama unduly three years ago, so be right in not praising Trump unduly now.
That's because oBUMa was a closet Socialist.

neverfail
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by neverfail » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:53 am

cassowary wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:55 pm


Spending cuts in an election year? It is easier for pigs to fly. Cutting spending is the right thing to do but this is beyond the ability of most democratic governments. This is the weakness of the one man one vote system as I pointed out in my book. You must do the popular thing even though it is ruinous economically.

No cassowary; it is a bi-product of the fact that members of the US House of representatives have to stand for election once every two years.

A product of political necessity; don't blame it on the voting system.

They spend one year clearing away their debts to supporters then the following year garnering support for their coming re-election bid. It is a wonder that any of them can ever take time off from politics to do anything useful.

If they had terms of four years between elections you would very likely see a behavioural change for the better. In countries where MP's have such longer terms between elections; when they know they have to do something unpopular like raise taxes and/or make spending cuts they make sure they do it during the first year or two of a new parliamentary term: on the premise that by the time the next election comes due the voting public will probably have forgotten about it.

Members of the US House of Representatives never have that luxury.

Now that you know the real reason: will you kindly cease and desist from your reactionary agenda of pushing the denial of voting rights on sections of society whom you disapprove of?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by cassowary » Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:03 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:53 am
cassowary wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:55 pm


Spending cuts in an election year? It is easier for pigs to fly. Cutting spending is the right thing to do but this is beyond the ability of most democratic governments. This is the weakness of the one man one vote system as I pointed out in my book. You must do the popular thing even though it is ruinous economically.

No cassowary; it is a bi-product of the fact that members of the US House of representatives have to stand for election once every two years.

A product of political necessity; don't blame it on the voting system.

They spend one year clearing away their debts to supporters then the following year garnering support for their coming re-election bid. It is a wonder that any of them can ever take time off from politics to do anything useful.

If they had terms of four years between elections you would very likely see a behavioural change for the better. In countries where MP's have such longer terms between elections; when they know they have to do something unpopular like raise taxes and/or make spending cuts they make sure they do it during the first year or two of a new parliamentary term: on the premise that by the time the next election comes due the voting public will probably have forgotten about it.

Members of the US House of Representatives never have that luxury.

Now that you know the real reason: will you kindly cease and desist from your reactionary agenda of pushing the denial of voting rights on sections of society whom you disapprove of?
Then how come Greece went broke? Their MPs are elected for four years. The Deputies of Venezuela's National Assembly are elected for 5 years and they also went broke.

Face facts, Neverfail. Politicians in democracies have to do what is popular and often these things are not good for the economy. That is why nearly all democracies are in debt.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Tax cuts did not reduce revenue

Post by cassowary » Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:30 am

Tax revenues were higher
Perhaps you’ve read that the federal budget deficit is rising again, and that’s true. But what you probably haven’t heard is that the main reason is spending, not falling revenue from tax cuts.

The Congressional Budget Office released its budget summary for July this week, and the deficit for the first 10 months of fiscal 2018 reached $682 billion, up $116 billion from a year earlier. Federal spending increased by $143 billion for all the usual reasons—especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

But revenues were higher as well—up $26 billion. Corporate income taxes were down substantially as expected in the wake of the tax reform that cut the corporate rate and added 100% expensing. But individual income taxes increased by $104 billion, or 7.9%, despite the cut in individual tax rates. How could that be? CBO says one reason is that withholding from paychecks increased by $32 billion, which “largely reflects increases in wages and salaries.” In other words, a faster-growing economy employed more people who made more money.

Individual tax receipts were down a bit in July but that was more than offset by record revenue in April, the biggest month for tax receipts. Meanwhile, don’t believe everything you read about tax reform and deficits. Higher spending is the real problem.
The tax cut did not decrease revenue.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be cut. The welfare state needs to be reined in before it ruins the country.

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1409
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: Tax cuts did not reduce revenue

Post by Milo » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:46 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:30 am
Tax revenues were higher
Perhaps you’ve read that the federal budget deficit is rising again, and that’s true. But what you probably haven’t heard is that the main reason is spending, not falling revenue from tax cuts.

The Congressional Budget Office released its budget summary for July this week, and the deficit for the first 10 months of fiscal 2018 reached $682 billion, up $116 billion from a year earlier. Federal spending increased by $143 billion for all the usual reasons—especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

But revenues were higher as well—up $26 billion. Corporate income taxes were down substantially as expected in the wake of the tax reform that cut the corporate rate and added 100% expensing. But individual income taxes increased by $104 billion, or 7.9%, despite the cut in individual tax rates. How could that be? CBO says one reason is that withholding from paychecks increased by $32 billion, which “largely reflects increases in wages and salaries.” In other words, a faster-growing economy employed more people who made more money.

Individual tax receipts were down a bit in July but that was more than offset by record revenue in April, the biggest month for tax receipts. Meanwhile, don’t believe everything you read about tax reform and deficits. Higher spending is the real problem.
The tax cut did not decrease revenue.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security need to be cut. The welfare state needs to be reined in before it ruins the country.
Some of these tax cuts have not even been implemented yet and when they are, they will often have little to no effect on cash in hand until next year, when people have to pay their taxes or not.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/when-the-n ... ake-effect

Furthermore, the US fiscal begins in October, not January, hence the period of "10 months of fiscal 2018" quoted above. Trump signed these changes into effect in December: the 3rd month of the fiscal year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Unit ... ral_budget

At best, we are at a wait and see stage of the efficacy of these changes. But the WSJ long ago abandoned any pretense of being apolitical.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Tax cuts did not reduce revenue

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:23 am

Milo wrote:
Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:46 pm
Some of these tax cuts have not even been implemented yet and when they are, they will often have little to no effect on cash in hand until next year, when people have to pay their taxes or not.

https://smartasset.com/taxes/when-the-n ... ake-effect

Furthermore, the US fiscal begins in October, not January, hence the period of "10 months of fiscal 2018" quoted above. Trump signed these changes into effect in December: the 3rd month of the fiscal year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Unit ... ral_budget

At best, we are at a wait and see stage of the efficacy of these changes. But the WSJ long ago abandoned any pretense of being apolitical.
Agreed on all.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Sorry Democratic Socialists, you are still pushing poison

Post by neverfail » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:38 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:03 am


Then how come Greece went broke? Their MPs are elected for four years. The Deputies of Venezuela's National Assembly are elected for 5 years and they also went broke.

Face facts, Neverfail. Politicians in democracies have to do what is popular and often these things are not good for the economy. That is why nearly all democracies are in debt.
Greece and Venezuela: the two exceptions that prove the rule.

Why have not a lot of other countries whose elected leaders have longer parliamentary terms not gone broke? Why has my own country that has enjoyed one adult one vote for the better part of one and one half centuries by now not gone broke?

I tried to open your eyes as to what I see as a flaw in the US Congressional system and you reject it by trotting out your tiresome old canard about Greece and Venezuela in order to prove your point about the iniquity of giving every one the vote. Focus on the negative and ignore the positive if you will; it is a bogus way of trying to prove a point.

In any case nations, including many ruled by decidedly undemocratic tyrannies where the people have no say in how they are governed have been going insolvent since the year dot and have subsequently rebounded and recovered. Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. Your depiction of it as though it were seems to reflect a peculiarly Chinese kind of insecurity.

Politicians in democracies CAN and HAVE done unpopular things (like when WW2 wartime Allied governments brought in wartime rationing of food and other consumer goods) and can still do so: on condition that they can make out a good case to the nation for doing so. The trouble is that quite often during our times they have not put forth a convincing case to call upon the public to make sacrifices for the common good. I despise the current generation of elected "leaders" :?: for being such moral midgets.

Post Reply