The GOP sold gullible Americans on the promise their tax give-a-way to the rich and corporate America would mostly benefit the Middle Class. Why isn't it.
They said all of this money staying in corporate coffers would go to investment, more jobs, and higher wages. It has been six months now and other than a flurry of advertising gimmick bonuses to a few hundred employees nothing has happened relative to the middle class.
On the other hand, a lot has happened for the privileged class and rich corporations, not the least of which is increased dividends and HUGE stock-buybacks such as described here.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/invest … index.html
What Is Wrong With This Picture?
The only thing wrong is the implication that the GOP said all the tax refund would go to the middle class. It didn't.
(Do you think only Billionaires own stock? That there are no IRA's or 401k plans in the stock market? Or that those shares don't get dividends and don't increase in value with stock buybacks?)
This creepy looking greedy man named Steve Mnuchin who showed up at Fort Knox a while back with his weirdo elitist gold digger wife just to smell the gold bars, was given the delicious chocolate cake and workers got the left over crumbs which have already been gobbled up and then some by Trump's higher gas prices, higher health insurance premiums and lost jobs: What else could anyone expect but dangerous democracy destroying scam after scam perpetrated on the American people when a Russian Poodle takes control of the white house?:
Workers are getting the shaft not a pay raise, but what else other than Trump University style scams did his cultees expect? As a matter of fact worker's cost of living is skyrocketing under Bozo: Even stock buy-backs are not working under Mr. Trump's and republican's corporate welfare tax cut scheme, the Dow Jones suffered the greatest point loss in history a few short months ago despite greedy CEOs buying back shares outstanding which is primarily a symbolic gesture to show investors they are doing everything within their power to artificially 'prop up' shareholder value and project the illusion of stability even in dire economic times such as these:
Everyone knows buying back stock doesn't protect or hedge against brain dead Donald's collapsing economy which is exactly what we are witnessing: Vladimir Putin must be all smiles in celebration, drinking premium vodka in a private room at the Kremlin as he calculates his next move to undermine the USA, crush our military and economic capacity and of course annex more sovereign territory:
There you go again, Wilderness, misquoting me. To most thinking people "mostly benefit" does NOT equal "All" does it.
ALSO - "privileged class " does NOT equal "Billionaires", does it.
Mmmmmm - tell me, if you read/listen to these can you NOT THINK the GOP tax cut was ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS
“The entire purpose of this is to lower middle class taxes.” — House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.)
“Primarily, and priority number one, is middle-class Americans.” — White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
“The theme behind this bill is to get middle-class tax relief for most people in the middle class.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Fox News on Tuesday
AND how does the fact that 10% of the richest people own 84% of all stocks square with "Do I think only billionaires own stock?" implying that they don't. Since I didn't say billionaire, obviously I don't think so, but I do think the "privileged class" does.
"...their tax give-a-way to the rich and corporate America..."
I don't see anything about middle class citizens getting any. Can you highlight it here?
"The theme behind this bill is to get middle-class tax relief for most people in the middle class.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Fox News on Tuesday"
And that's exactly what happened, isn't it? Most of the middle class got some tax relief.
You know, one day you just have to recognize that tax reform, whether cuts or increases, should not be designed to forever increase the disparity between what different people pay. The idea that all tax increases have to go to the rich and all the tax cuts go to anybody except the rich, very simply, is neither "fair" (however you choose to define fair) or moral. We ALL live here; we ALL need to be paying taxes. And at as near equal as possible.
The simple fact is, it is the rich who benefit MOST from our system of government, therefore they should have to pay proportionately for that benefit - and they don't.
The simple fact is, it is the rich, because they are rich, are able to USE our system of government to further enrich themselves beyond anything they earn from their labor. - Therefore they should have to pay proportionately for that benefit - and they don't.
Which "taxes" are you talking about, btw?
I'm sorry - I don't see the rich man getting any more protection from the military than I do. He probably uses the roads less than I do. He probably doesn't eat any more food inspected by the government than I do. He doesn't gain any more than I do.
And if, as you insinuate, he is paying politicians to increase his wealth (won't argue that point for I believe it to be true), then he is already paying for the privilege and using it as an excuse to grab more money from him is a fallacy.
But either way, the rich are already paying a thousand times what you or I do in taxes, and there is no end to the greed of liberals that will take even more. Somewhere it has to stop as we're very close to "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" already; witness the cries that the rich are taking their money off shore to protect it from liberal greed. You cannot steal ever more without the victim eventually taking steps, drastic ones, to protect themselves.
You're idea of "proportional" is, very simply, to take every dime you can get your hands on. And it is destructive, not productive. It isn't enough to grab a thousand times what YOU pay; you want more. And more and more and more, without end.
A thousand times?? Let's see, that means each rich person pays around $40,000.000. I don't think so.
You forgot to mention:
- Get special unearned privilege from taxpayer supported TSA inspection lines reserved for premium tickets
- Rich people get much more "justice" from our tax payer supported Justice system simply because they can afford high priced lawyers
- Supreme Court decisions under conservative courts favor the rich much more than they do the lower classes
- Tort laws favor the rich much more than they help everyone else, even if everyone else could afford adequate counsel.
- Rich people, based only on their status, have much more access to tax payer supported politicians than anybody else.
- Even in Christian churches, against Christs teachings, rich parishioners are treated better than normal parishioners.
From the tax tables, the tax on one million of earnings is about $350,000, not $40,000. Of course there are such things as capital gains that will lower it, but the person earning a million per year is going to pay more than $40,000. Which is what I said.
So they paid for special TSA treatment. I got the same line the last time I flew and didn't pay any extra.
So they paid for the high priced lawyer
You'll have to prove that SCOTUS decisions favor the rich - the claim is meaningless as far as I can see. Just another unsupported claim coming out of dislike of wealthy people.
Again, you'll have to prove that tort laws favor the rich. Or do you mean they pay for expensive lawyers?
Yes, they pay for that access in donations and other means.
Want to bet they aren't paying for that special church treatment (as if that means they get more benefits from the government)?
That's what I said, isn't it? What extra bennies the rich get they are paying for, and outside of the confiscatory taxes you want.
I figured you would try to use the fact the rich can afford lawyers but that is EXACTLY the point. - The Rich Can Afford to BUY justice while YOU can't. Justice is supposed to be blind in America, but if you got money, it is less blind for you.
The rich can afford good lawyers (and good cars and good planes and good food, too). And therefore they must give their money to you to use for your purposes.
I'm sorry - I'm not really following the logic here. It truly just sounds like a rationalization to justify taking money from someone you don't like. People are good at that - rationalizing an immoral action into something more palatable that the gullible might swallow.
Yes, and if you're looking at the long game, the income gap keeps widening, the poor receive fewer and fewer resources, the rich hoard the wealth, and society as we know it eventually becomes unsustainable.
Keep enabling it. It won't happen in our lifetime, but it will happen if we continue down this road. Of course, I am assuming you care about what happens to future generations. Maybe you don't.
"the poor receive fewer and fewer resources"
You mean like housing? Like food? All free without need to produce something of value to trade for it? Those kinds of "resources"?
Sorry, but I don't see the poorer getting fewer and fewer resources; I see them doing just the opposite.
Perspective is an interesting phenomenon, isn't it?
????? The tax cuts are working wonderfully... We will have to wait a bit to see if they backfire. I am not going to list all the economy stats, but anyone that has been following economic news should know the economy is thriving.
I agree, that just shows how strong an economy Obama left Trump. But ... that is before Trump's trade war. If the economy reacts to this trade war as they have every other trade war a president has gotten America in to, we should be in a recession sometime in 2019.
"that just shows how strong an economy Obama left Trump"
You've got about 12 months to concoct excuses when the projected recession doesn't happen. Better get cracking.
It is odd you would think Obama left a good economy? The economy was flat, actually failing? You need to really to do some real research on the economy Obama left Trump. The economy has improved due to deregulation, tax reform, and good old confidence. You are fooling yourself, sort of sad. Have a real open-eyed look at the Obama economy. It was scary, and to be kind falt.
It's amazing to me how short memories are. Bush made the economy grow too with deregulation, until the huge recession because of... deregulation.
We should all get our heads out of the sand. Obama's economy was good. Trump's economy is good right now.
But comparing them and saying one is bad and one is good is just politics. Both are/were good. However, the question is why?
The answer is simple: massive deficit spending. Both Trump and Obama. So if you want to tout Trump's economy, you better realize he's doing the same thing as Obama, just on a larger scale - massive deficit spending.
He's jacking the national deficit from $1 to $2 trillion. Pump that much money into the economy and of course it's going to grow.
Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said something to the effect that Trickle Down doesn't work, it all runs up?
Warren Buffet might have to eat his words given what millions of retirement plans have done in the 19 months or so.
I'm sure you can do math, right? The stock market under Trump has gone up about 30% roughly. Under Obama it doubled.
But Obama was the worst President ever and Trump is the greatest President ever. How does that work?
Because the value of leadership is way beyond secondary to what manipulators do to the stock market . You should know the basics by now cranky.
Intellectual that you think you are .
I'm just presenting facts. I know how confusing math can be sometimes.
Under Trump the stock market has gone up 30%. Under Obama it went up over 100%.
If you are using the measurement of stock market increase to evaluate the President, then Obama is better than Trump.
But now you're saying that Obama manipulated the stock market but Trump isn't?
No , I'm saying and you should know this , the stock market goes and has gone up and down whether Trump or Obama or Bozo the clown is the president .
Boy, I know this is hard to comprehend, but I'm responding to a post where Trump's success is being touted based on stock market increase.
If you are using stock market increase as your data point for evaluating a president, then Obama was the better president.
Furthermore, the current increase is due, in large part, to stock buybacks. Companies, as a result of Trump's tax policy, are taking their excess profits, and using them to buyback their stocks, thereby raising the price.
Both presidents used deficit spending to improve the economy.
So your saying it took Obama eight years to attempt to accomplish what Trump is doing almost instantly ?
-International economic confidence
-Energy co. confidence
So wall street had a field day and as they say ;
"If it aint main street doing well it's wall street"
I know which one real Americans care about .
So, if you'll recall, when Obama became president, the economy was in full recession and the stock market was at about 9,000. So I take it you're blaming him for that? Regardless, turning an economy that's in the toilet like that doesn't occur right away.
As to what Trump has done "instantly", he's poured about $1 trillion into the economy and raised the national debt significantly, so it's not that big a surprise that the economy would respond positively. After all, we have more money to spend! And hey, I like the tax cuts. I have more money.
Just wondering, since you blame Obama for the recession he inherited, do you blame him for the government's response to Hurricane Katrina like 33% of Louisiana Republicans?
As most most economic expert minded layman I blame Obama for prolonging a recession for his entire eight years , not that it didn't get somewhat better , he prolonged the agony of it !
-High gas prices
-Heating oil costs
-Energy co. layoffs
Boom ! Trump gets elected and the economy begins climbing out of its confidence nosedive -immediately !
Unemployment for ALL down , NOT just social programs , federal and state workers raises, wall street , stimulus beneficiaries like academia , grocers and food stamp printers , private prison compounds , BUT EVERYONE benefits from the Trump difference
.There is no stimulus spending and phony monthly job numbers that can equal the successes of free ,unregulated economic growth .
Here are some pretty unbiased results from Obama's presidency, good and bad:
The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.
Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 4.0 percent after inflation. The gain was 3.7 percent for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.
The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.
The federal debt owed to the public rose 128 percent. Deficits were rising as Obama departed.
Home prices rose 20 percent. But the home ownership rate hit the lowest point in half a century.
Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.
Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.
Production of handguns rose 192 percent, to a record level.
The murder rate dropped to the lowest on record in 2014, then rose and finished at about the same rate as when Obama took office.
Much of these are a direct result of the depression. Immigration, for example - illegals quit coming because there were no jobs. Home ownership declined because so many lost their jobs and were foreclosed on. Average earnings rose considerably...after stagnating or falling during the recession. And so on.
Others tell only part of the story - millions got health insurance, paid for by the taxpayer, that was far too expensive for the poor to ever use. The net effect was to pay insurance companies for something of no value. Carbon emissions from power production dropped...following events that raised the cost of power and made it even harder for the poor to survive.
Things are seldom as simple as they are made to appear.
Well then, I am sure you have some equally good explanations for why the economy is doing so well now? Could deficit spending have anything to do with it?
Tax reduction is a part of it. I believe the dreaded trade war, making it economical to hire American workers, is a part of it. A president making it known he is pro-business rather than anti-business and anti-profit is a part of it even if he hasn't done a great deal yet. Perception plays a great part, and if a business believes that government will do all it can to prevent profits it isn't going to invest much to grow.
Under Obama, corporate profits and the stock market were at all time highs.
Your not leaving me much to say, Crankalicious, lol.
Except that the middle class seems to have benefited after all. Increasing stock prices have done wonders to IRA's and 401's, and if stock buy-backs resulting from a tax cut resulted in that, then the middle class benefited. Big time.
Well, then I return to the math. Obama did a better job during his presidency of creating an economic environment that improved stock prices.
But he's the devil and Trump is a genius according to many.
And as for the stock buybacks, while the middle class may benefit, the process is generally considered a way to temporarily increase stock prices. If stock prices are a reflection of a company's value, stock buybacks will not hold and the perceived value will return to normal at some point. There's only value if the middle class is selling off their IRA's and 401K's as a result.
I am not sure that giving corporations so much money all they know what to do with it is buy back stocks which drive up stock prices (and give themselves huge dividends which the middle class sees very little of)- it is all smoke and mirrors. Also, the middle class saw very little in the bonuses that made all the news the first of the year and then disappeared.
The middle class has seen little in the way of REAL improvement in their situation. Wages have stagnated again, according to the last two or three monthly unemployment reports.
If the middle class hopes to benefit from all the stock buyback generated stock increases is to cash out all those IRAs and 401Ks before early 2019 when the Trade War recession happens.
Fortunately, my retirement locks every two years, which just happened Aug 1, so it can't be wiped out in 2019.
Skipped right over the main point, didn't you? Just ignore that the middle class benefited greatly from stock price increases as well as dividends.
Nor does pretending there will be a massive depression, losing all the gains, carry any water - as it hasn't happened, and won't, it is a "sky is falling" kind of thing. On the other hand, those "trade wars" just might produce a lot of jobs - good paying jobs - as imports become unavailable.
Mr. Trump's tenure so far has ushered in Inflated gas prices, Inflated healthcare premiums, inflated consumer goods cost, corporate welfare tax cuts that have resulted in the rich getting richer with CEO stock buybacks and no pay raises for workers, the greatest point stock market crash in history which there is no recovery in sight, constant sabotaging of our healthcare systems while Melanie does just fine in the hospital, caged children, sabotaging of our allies including our once close trade partners, insane tax hikes on consumer goods as a result of Mr. Trump's insane trade war tariffs: American Jobs moved to foreign lands and the undermining of NATO
Whether anyone wants to believe the obvious or not, this is an agenda Vladimir Putin must be proud of:
One would have to be a deaf mute [no offense to deaf mutes ] to believe that Trump tax cuts don't work ; Of course given today's younger generations of almost inevitable unproductivity ?
Well........... ?!? If you won't produce you won't attain growth !
If America DID suffer a short term recession in this liberal concocted trade war ; It would still be for the benefit of America long term . We've had Enough ! Enough of an economy where the worlds varied trade organizations exploit America's consumerism for only THEIR economic benefit .
What a bunch of socialist crap .
" The poor receive fewer and fewer resources "
Either one is not old enough , educated enough , poor enough or life educated enough to realize the moronity of that statement . Todays collective social and economic safety nets are far , far more advanced than they ever have been in America . If you weren't around in rural America in the 1950's , 60's or even into the seventies and experienced even borderline poverty AND either experienced or witnessed the acts of seeking assistance , then you have absolutely NO clue about what you're talking about . Period .
But , It does fit well into the liberal agenda .
Ask more and you will receive .
Methinks Ahorseback has no clue what he is talking about.
Isn't deficit spending kind of like saying ,"Tax Cut -Costs " Or what it "costs" us to cut taxes ?
Well , we have to hope Trump sees the writing on the wall about deficit spending although until he cuts enough waste we won't see a reduction in deficits or debt.. I was thinking about how democrats whine about the "cost " to them of tax cuts .
Ahorseback, there isn't enough fraud, waste, and abuse in gov't to put a dent in the deficit, it is just not that big, relatively speaking.
Also, the way Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus was by raising taxes on the wealthy coupled with reductions in programs and services the federal government provides (mainly on the backs of civilian defense dept jobs*) coupled with doing the things needed to keep the economy growing for the longest period in U.S. history.
* That backfired on him. Since our workload wasn't reduced three things things had to happen: 1) more expensive contractors were hired to do the work my fellow civil servants were doing, 2) the dumbing-down of the federal workforce RIFing experienced workers, often expert in their field, and 3) weakened the ability to provide oversight of acquisition and program management.
Oh , I suspect that in time our national debt may be just as negotiable as trade tariff deficits with China . We are obviously at a huge loss with China with our debt but China , without US consumerism , might also be a willing negotiator OR the US might just renege in the interests of strategic economic maneuvering who knows ?
Do Americans with huge credit card debts always pay them of in full or are negotiations a factor ? I don't know but suspect that our national debt may be as negotiable . You think ?
ahorseback, it sounds like you are ignoring that the U.S. national debt is a public debt - financed by Treasury Bond and securities sold to the public.
How would he negotiate a reduction of that debt with just China without negotiating with all bond and security holders?
China only holds around $2 trillion* in bonds and securities. Domestic U.S. bond and securities holders have about $3 Trillion*
Do you think he can legally pick and choose who gets screwed?
Why not? The law didn't stop Obama from picking and choosing which classes of illegal aliens would be allowed to remain...
(Sorry, GA - just had to stick that bit of snark in!)
I don't fully understand all our debt or economics , only in that I was laid off twice in the Obama years and paid way too much for gas and heating , But I do know how we can eliminate our debt to China and evaporate China's trade fixing and currency manipulation , I do know that it will be Trump who possibly accomplishes that and not congress .
But, ahorseback, our "debt to China" is factually the amount of treasury bonds and securities China, as a government, and China, as in Chinese investors, own.
So what is it that you know Pres. Trump could do about those treasury bonds and securities that he wouldn't have to do to all bonds and securities - to even make a claim it was legal?
G.A. Please , Do us all a favor and explain where our national debt actually is ? I admit that I don't understand our debt . It does however seem to me that there is perhaps even more to be gained by these trade tariff negotiations than not in terms of our nations losses and economic growth.
Horse , The largest part of the national debt. Aug 2018 was borrowed from Social security 15%. Then the next largest debt is 13% to the Federal Reserve. We have borrowed from the Military Retirement Fund, Banks, State and Government pension funds, Medicare, 3.3 % from other countries. China being the biggest loaner. You name it, we have hit it up... And Obama ran up epic dept. And one could say, where did it all go? This was one reason I voted for Trump. Just can't afford any more giveaways... The debt Obama acquired was actually astounding, should have been enough to scare anyone. However, it seems many in our society have become blind to reality when it comes to debt. And some worry about trade wars. We need cash and fair trade could equal trading practices, and add cash to our coffers. I hope Trump can start paying down debt as he has talked about. This country will suffer if Social security goes under as well as Medicare. No one wants to really wants to talk about the national debt or point a long finger at the Dems for creating the biggest part of it. Yes, fair trade could help return some of what has been borrowed, it will certainly stop up the drain...
https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the … bt-3306124
Sharlee , Thank you for that , I agree wholeheartedly , Democrats and Obama's disastrous addition to debt by the numbers alone shows all the proof I need . I bookmarked that page . I still say "watch out " the left is totally ignoring the power of Trumps economic wisdom . Remember people ---Trump owes no one anything .
You can actually smell the self-righteousness and hypocrisy coming off the computer screen!
Please! Nobody cares about the national debt. Do your own research and see how much, relative to what they started with, the debt was raised by Reagan and George W. Bush. And now with Donald Trump. Republicans don't seem to care much and Democrats don't seem to worry about it either.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-dona … time-ever/
Here's what we've learned as a country: spending works (not saying it's ultimately true, but that's what we've learned).
Reagan spent. Bush spent. Obama spent. And now Trump is spending (doubling the yearly national debt by a trillion dollars). Presidents spend because it provides an economic boost that makes them look good.
"Please! Nobody cares about the national debt. Do your own research and see how much, relative to what they started with, the debt was raised by Reagan and George W. Bush. And now with Donald Trump. Republicans don't seem to care much and Democrats don't seem to worry about it either."
"Self-righteous'? Is your statement telling? The truth is the truth, I don't feel it's self-righteous to face the truth of our national debt. I do not search out media explanations "to make it all better"... Your resource is laughable in my opinion. The subject in regard to the national debt is based on science. It is based in mathematical stats. I see from the resource article you depend on media to explain away a very ugly situation.
"No one cares about the national debt"? How nice of you to speak for all... And I might add how liberal of you. You need not remind me of the ugly fact that many do not consider the national debt. It's been very clear for many years that not many actually know anything about the national debt. And that the fact is the majority of the debt has been borrowed from our own piggy banks... If you look at the debt you can see Obama is the king so far of creating the largest debt. And nothing much to show for the expenditure. My comment was strictly based on fact. Maybe you should do some research other than a news outlet... When the peoples piggy bank is empty, we can then turn to borrow a larger percentage from other countries. , we can then collapse. Yes, we have always been insolvent back as far as America's creation. That should not comfort you, due to the very percentage rates of our borrowing have risen dramatically over the past 10 years. And in regards to Trump and that he will leave, that is yet to be seen... I for one hope he controls spending.
President Obama has “the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt.”
Reagan $1,873 $5,413 34%
GHW Bush 1,484 $6,492 29%
Clinton 1,268 $10,472 12%
GW Bush 4,899 $14,549 34%
Obama 8,296 $18,164 46%
When Regan left office the debt was $5,413 he had added $1,873
When GHW Bush left office the debt was $6,492 added $1,484 to debt
When Clinton left office the debt was Clinton $10,472 Clinton added $4,010 to debt.
When GW Bush left office the debt was $14,549 he added $4,899
When Obama left office $18,164 he added $8,296.
We have a winner...
"Presidents spend because it provides an economic boost that makes them look good."
This is true. However, Trump has already added over a trillion to the economy due to the repatriation of offshore money and job creation. So far he is improving what we are worth as a country. Hopefully, he will not create the need to borrow over his tenure. If he gets better trade deals our economy will continue to do well., and the debt could actually not increase but stabilize under Trump.
You miss my point.
Nobody cares about the national debt because, as you have shown, every President adds to it willingly and enthusiastically, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat.
Ask yourself why. Democrats were thrilled that Obama added to the debt because they got stuff. Republicans are thrilled that Trump is adding to the debt because they're getting stuff they want.
Blame Obama if you want. He added more to the debt because when he arrived in office, the national debt was higher than it had ever been.
Once again, do your research. Grasp the math. Relativity is important.
Relative to what the debt was when they entered office, by what percentage did each of those presidents raise the debt?
Did you read the link? Of course not. I was not using that link to explain anything away. What I'm saying is that every President has raised the debt. Trump is talking about eliminating the debt ceiling.
What I'm saying is that, spare me any partisan self-righteousness, neither party demonstrates that they care about the national debt.
Here's a pretty decent summary:
And if you're going to blame Obama, read this first:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 63f3761917
This is from Forbes, which leans conservative. Go, read it. Here's the opening paragraph:
"Republicans use a sound bite that the federal debt doubled under Obama. In looking at the numbers that is close to being numerically correct but falls short of being 100%. However when you take into account the Great Recession, making W. Bush’s temporary tax cuts permanent, increased Social Security and Medicare spending as more Baby Boomers retire and become 65 years old and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars he inherited the story is quite different."
Here is how much each president increased the debt since Reagan:
W. Bush: 93%
Hey look, science! (really, based on science? So is climate change. Don't see you too hot and bothered about that)
Further, Obama grew the national debt at a SLOWER rate than all of the Republican presidents. I'm not trying to excuse Obama, but he had some definite challenges that were completely out of his control, such as: War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's permanent tax cuts, and Baby Boomers retiring and stressing the various systems.
Another critical component to understand is that President Obama added to the debt in an effort to give all Americans healthcare, Bozo Trump is adding trillions to the debt to give rich greedy Anti-American Wall Street Elites even MORE of our money in the form of his corporate welfare tax cut scam:
"Nobody cares about the national debt because, as you have shown, every President adds to it willingly and enthusiastically, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat."
Well, Obama's debt made many wake up and wonder where are we headed with this large of national debt with Social security is pretty much going to an end. And all the liberals can offer is more government spending, it's all going to be free... This is the Dems platform, their main agenda. The funny thing is they can actually sell it to some? Oh, but then when a problem pops up, try to fix it by banning straws. Yeah, that will work... I can see very clearly why they voted for Obama.. I can't see why anyone would defend his job performance? Maybe your attitude and millions of others are not so smart? It seems when any big problems come close to exploding is when some want to recognize it as a problem, and thy start wringing their hands pointing fingers.
Did you read the link? Of course not" No, as I said I do not respect the media as a resource on something like the national debt. There are websites that supply actual stats. And do not add political bias. Just don't play that game.
One of Obamas biggest expenditures or should I say the taxpayer's expenditures was paying for Obamacare... Just sit back and consider how much we would have to borrow for socialized medicine? However, it does appear you don't worry about where the money is coming from? Because after all the debt goes up with every president. Why worry?
Whatever. You clearly don't understand and all you're doing is politicizing.
Wake up. I gave you math. Reagan drove up the national debt at the highest rate of any president and you want to complain it's all Democrats. It's not. It's everyone.
Oh stop it !, Democrats are the Admitted spenders , Look how many are dead set against giving Tax cuts for one thing . Not one Dem Vote for the cuts ?
Yet the Republicans add tons to the debt as well and are just as guilty. Look at Reagan. 184% increase. The largest of the deficit spenders relative to the size of the debt when he took office, setting the precedent for future presidents.
One might argue that, in fact, Reagan is responsible for all this fiscal mismanagement because he proved that a conservative could be successful adhering to Keynesian economics.
Interestingly, Reagan and Obama were similar in this regard because they both entered office during recessions and spent their way out of them.
You'r eright, Ds do admit they like to spend money on helping non-wealthy Americans - they aren't hypocritesout it ab.
On the other hand, Rs spend just as much if not more than Ds, but their focus is on making the wealthy, wealthier (on the backs of the less well off) -- and then lie about doing it. This makes them world class hypocrites doesn't it.
Never said it wasn't, now did I? I certainly did not claim it was only Obama. Just said he was the King of debt. Please reevaluate the amounts added to the debt.
Btw, would you like me to agree that Obama added the most to the debt in terms of dollars? I will happily do that because it's true. Math don't lie.
However, would you agree that Reagan added the most to the debt relative to the debt he inherited?
And would you agree that prior to Obama, George W. Bush added the most to the debt in terms of pure dollars?
Reagan - No. From 1937 to 1945 (8 years) FDR raised the debt from 36B to 260B - a rise of 720%. 1981-1989 (8 years) Reagan increased the debt from 998 to 2857 - an increase of 280%.
Not sure what Bush (biggest prior to the biggest) has to do with much. But would suggest that the best comparison may be how much the % of GDP rose. Not the biggest relative to what was inherited or the biggest prior to the biggest. If one earns more, one can afford to borrow more and it factors in inflation automatically.
Hoover, for instance, more than doubled the percentage, from 16% to 39% (increase of 143%), and did it in just 4 years. Reagan managed 31 to 50 (increase of 61%), GW went from 55 to 83 (increase of 51% and Obama shows up going from 83 to 103 (increase of 24%). Of course, this begs the question of just how much of GDP is reasonable to borrow?
I very much agree with you Math does not lie. Yes GW Bush added plenty to the debt and held the recorded in pure dollars before Obama.
Yes, Reagan Added $1.86 trillion, which was a 186-percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget.
In regards to pure dollars no I dod not that GW Bush added the most dollar wise? GW Bush Added $5.849 trillion, a 101-percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget,. He beat Obama by percentage.
Obama Added $8.588 trillion, a 74-percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget. Dollar wise, Obama holds the record.
I don't know why we always end up comparing? I was only replying to a post in regard to national debt, and where the government borrows from. Then the subject was hijacked to who and how much was added by past presidents. I was more fired up due to the fact we owe ourselves so much cash, and I did express I hoped the trade deals might add to our coffers.
I am going to tell you something, I would get mad at Obama at times, but I always hoped he would succeed. Plus, I respected him as our president. Now I find myself having to disparage his job performance. Comparing him to the present president. Which has only been in office for two years? We just don't know the future. But I hope he succeeds just as I did Obama.
I said specifically that George W. Bush held the record in pure dollars PRIOR to Obama.
And I certainly hope that Trump succeeds. In fact, I think the situation has presented itself that he had (and may still have) the opportunity to be one of the greatest presidents of all time, but he's spending his time emboldening conspiracy theorists, tweeting, and encouraging psychos to murder journalists.
If y'all are going to talk dollars that span more than three years, they need to be converted into constant dollars. Otherwise, there is no meaning at all.
Also, when measuring percentage increases over time, they must also be done in constant dollars because otherwise, they are also very misleading.
(From my cost analysis 101 classes)
Clinton actually brought the debt down, in real terms, before Bush blew it up again.
BTW, why does everybody on the Right ignore the fact that about 80% of the increase in deficit (and therefore the National debt) was driven solely by the conservative recession and President Obama's successful polices to keep us out of a full blown depression and ultimately turn the worst economy since 1937 around.
What "conservative recession"? The one rooted in the idea that everyone can have a house so banks were forced to increase the number of sub-par loans? Although congress passed it, that very much sounds like a "progressive" (read: liberal) concept.
I certainly agree that the Obama administration did well with what they were handed. We have been discussing national debt and actual stats. This is just my opinion... The Great Bush Recession was caused by unsound real estate loans. The reason the banks made these loans dates back to the Community Reinvestment Act, from Carter’s administration. Under this act, the Federal Government was allowed to coerce banks into making loans they would not normally make to ‘benefit’ minorities. In fact, it didn’t benefit anyone. The minorities who got the loans without the ability to pay lost their investments and the banks were stuck with a property in areas where they could not recover their costs. The bad debt was bundled into large investment groupings and resold at a loss. The bad loans affected the stability of banks and mortgage insurers, while their being bundled into investment grouping affected the investment community. It took a long time, but ultimately the bad paper caused an economic collapse. It was a typical Democrat plan - very bad. Ys it was under Bush's watch, but not of Bush's doing. One could say Bush, as well as Obama, were handed economic problems, that trickled down. Like a huge snowball rolling down a hill. Trump was handed a better deal and is clearly so far doing well with recovering the economy. Time will tell. Trade wars could go either way. Hopefully, it goes our way.
So, believe it or not, I like what Trump is doing with China.
We agree this is good... and I like you most likely, I too am keeping my fingers crossed...
I don't, because the inevitable outcome must be lost American jobs, lower American profits overall, and probably a recession.
How do you figure lost jobs? If we don't import Chinese goods, but still want those goods, won't they be manufactured here, producing jobs rather than losing them?
Or are you trying to insinuate that China imports more of our goods than we do of theirs?
Hello again My Esoteric,
Let me jump in once more as devils's advocate - just to spur the conversation in the tangent it has taken.
Other than consumer savings, what would we lose if there were no consumer goods Chinese imports?
Regarding "lost profits," relative to China closing markets, (even if only by tariff retaliations), wouldn't the new openings from that lack of Chinese options compensate?
Wouldn't those lost jobs due to the loss of production for overseas Chinese consumption be mitigated by the increase in jobs for national consumption? *Wait! I understand the importance of the size of the Chinese market. I am not speaking of proportional mitigation.
Is there a possible national benefit greater than the probable consumer detriment?
A thought occurs... (hmm ... should I just let it go?) Could the 'cost' of paying more for a cell phone be worse than the idea of the benefits that might be possible if cell phone production occurred in the U.S,, with U.S. workers? Would the Chinese still benefit from stealing our technology if they couldn't sell it back to us?
Grabbing an often used 'Leftist' perspective, would it be so bad if the capitalist corporations, like Apple, had to pay more to get their products produced using U.S. labor?
Damn! I think those are good questions, but, it could be the martinis talking. What say you?
Good questions, GA. First, I think you would agree the benchmark for measuring the effect of the Trade War would be the status quo just prior to the implementation of tariffs. There are, it seems to me, for parts to consider; two on the import side and two more on the export side. I'll only cover our side.
Status quo is that companies in each nation participating in the war (it is not just China, but most of the industrialized world). Businesses of all nations have an expectation of a certain level of sales and costs to earn those sales. Consumers are used to paying a certain price for the various things they buy. By definition, a trade war is designed to upset that balance that supply and demand have determined.
When we impose a tariff on another nations products, say steel. Several things must happen:
* The American manufacturers of steel are helped as are the jobs associated with the production as orders and prices of steel increase
* The American manufacturers who use steel will see higher costs which will result in either higher prices, lower profits, or probably both. The result, which we are now seeing, are lower sales and lost jobs.
* The American consumer will (and are) seeing higher prices for products made of steel. With higher prices, demand must decrease.
* Bottom line - Consumer purchases drop due to higher prices and net job loss, depressing GDP; investment in non-steel producing business decreases due to lower sales, depressing GDP; in steel producing businesses investment increases for a while (until demand drops) and more jobs (until demand drops), increasing GDP in the short term.
When a nation slaps tariffs on America, this is what MUST follow, consider soy beans:
* Prices increase on the soybeans that are exported which drives down demand in the importing nation. The reduced foreign demand translates into reduced sales for domestic farmers. This leads to lower profits, reduced production, and lost jobs. It apparently leads to federal welfare for the farmers which will save some jobs.
* The lower demand also depresses the price of soybeans (which was already falling and now the bottom has fallen out).
*Lower soybean prices, besides killing farmers, will reduce the cost of domestic users of soybeans and probably increase profits of manufacturers using soybeans. If they don't pass on the lower costs, then sales will not increase and therefore production and therefore jobs won't increase either.
I won't cover, for now, how this new round of tariffs will kill companies like Walmart, Target, and Amazon while driving consumer prices way up.
That was fun.
"The result, which we are now seeing, are lower sales and lost jobs."
Except you're forgetting the increase jobs in the steel industry (after steel tariffs). Jobs which produce people with income that will buy the things made of steel. More steel jobs.
Using the same kind of logic you did, the inevitable result is a GDP that at least triples - everything builds on those extra jobs until we reach total economic control of the world. WalMart opens stores (more jobs) on the moon and Amazon begins selling homesteads on Mars. Target...well, Target died along the way because no one ever liked Target anyway.
No, Wilderness, I didn't forget about them. In fact, I specifically mentioned them. Then I said the NET effect was a DECREASE in jobs.
The problem with your logic is that NEVER in history of America has a trade war worked. NEVER. And it won't this time. Everyone has been followed by a serious recession - so will this one.
I am off to a faltering start My Esoteric. For now, I will take your word for history's examples of trade war consequences. Also, for now, I agree the trade war -- apparently on the horizon -- does include more nations than just China. However, I think that will change. Just speculation of course.
I don't see your "status quo" point in the same way. I do agree that a trade war will, and is intended to, upset the status quo. But, I am viewing that status quo as would typically be considered - 'the way things are'
I don't see it the way you apply it to businesses. Businesses must, and do, adjust to changes all the time. Changes in demand, markets, costs, and tons of other variables that will affect their decisions, and, expectations. I think the only way "status quo" could ever be applied to business would be that change is the status quo.
But, I would agree the dislocations you mention are almost certain to occur. My question would be are they short-term or long-term? Could they be beneficial, (upsetting a perceived inequitable status quo), or must they by nature be detrimental?
If that 'devil's advocate' thought that short-term losses and pains could possibly result in more beneficial long-term gains has merit, then wouldn't the question be whether the pain was worth the gain?
I phrased that as I did because with the occurring changes in our work environment; automation, computerization, and modernization, I don't think it is safe to predict any results based on historical examples.
The point of those questions was to consider whether it is the accepted status quo; trade wars are bad, the quest for cheapest consumer prices is the quest for the grail, the way things are is the way they must be, etc., that must be changed to enhance our future productivity as a nation.
I suppose that we will have to wait to see if there is a trade war before we can determine where to place our chips.
GA, yes, you have status quo right, it is simply a base line from which to measure change. You are also right businesses react to changes all of the time. But what changes are they reacting to? I would argue natural market forces.
Tariffs are artificial, political changes designed to interfere with the interaction of supply and demand. They are equivalent to Rent Control which totally screw-up the market. I suppose if you favor rent control then you probably support tariffs because the outcome is the same, a market that no longer functions properly.
Also, if you support tariffs, you de facto support the president picking which American industries Win and which American industries Lose.
Most dislocation are mid-term. But some, like what is happening to agriculture, they are very long-term. Soybean farmers have lost market share, market share that they won't get back when Trump ends his war or we toss him out on his ear in 2020 or he us impeached (I don't think Pence will continue such an anti-GOP policy). Why have they lost it? Because buyers like Mexico have found other suppliers and have made trade agreements to lock in the change.
Tariffs have another downside. They are government's attempt to tell American consumers what choices they can make. Tariffs regulate (ironic isn't it) the choices consumers have.
I hope your use of "you" was generic My Esoteric, because I am still sitting on the fence on this issue. Not on any of the negatives you mentioned, (the soy bean loss example is fact, (not sure about not being able to recover market share), but on whether this will become a full-blown trade war.
I do believe there are trade issues that we should have, and must deal with, but the majority of those are China related - in general, with specific single-item issues with some of our other trading partners.
I suppose my thoughts are best described as optimism that the threatened trade war is a negotiating, or leveraging tactic. Could the recent EU meeting and proposed agreements support that thought?
But, if I must be forced, (later), to establish a bottom line ... it would not be supportive of a full-on trade war.
What qualifies as a full-blown trade war to you? To me it is when one nation attacks another(s) with tariffs (this is how nations conducted non-shooting wars back in Adam Smith's day) and that or those countries retaliate. Then the first country attacks again and the attackee retaliates again. We are already past this point, the best I can tell.
As for negotiations, that hasn't happened yet. All the EU meeting was was an agreement to talk some more.
Beginning later in Aug, another $60B goes into effect and Trump as an additional $200B in process. China, Canada, EU, Mexico and all of the other nations Trump has attacked won't cave. Together, they are bigger than the US and the Americans, especially those who voted for Trump and will be hurt the most, have no stomach for the pain that is coming.
Sorry, that is not what caused the Great 2008 Recession. While all those things you listed were present, they were not the cause. What allowed the recession was conservative economy theory.
There are six things behind EVERY financially-based recessions such. (Which I have proven that in my hubs on Recessions, Depressions, and Panics as well as my soon (finally) to be published book.) They are:
- Greed (ever present and only controlled by regulation)
- Lack of Regulations, especially in the financial industry.
- Easy Money (think NINJA loans)
- An Asset Bubble
- An event or events that burst the bubble.
There have been over 15 financially-based recessions that reached the major category (i.e. the 2008 Recession) and Everyone contained these six elements! They are there because conservative economic theory has two major faults. One, conservative economic theory does not have a natural negative feedback mechanism to correct the economy when things start to go terribly wrong and two, there are features of conservative economic theory that actually make things much worse when the economy becomes abnormal. Greenspan, by the way, realized this but it was too late to do anything about it.
What is different between this conservative philosophy that allows this series of events to happen and liberal economic theory that doesn't? Government intervention. When there has been effective government financial regulation (liberal economics), there NEVER has been a major recession.
Why is that?
I am always glad to do a favor ahorseback. Here you go:
In rough numbers:
About one third of our National debt is held by Federal Accounts, that is money our government has borrowed from other government trust funds, (like the Social Security Trust Fund), and entities that have surpluses. Meaning, it is money the government borrowed from, and owes to, itself.
Approx.one-third, (it is slightly less), is held by domestic U.S. investors, State and Local governments and entities, and finally, the Federal Reserve.
Approx. one-third is your favorite target - Foreign Investors. of which China and Japan hold the most,
So there it is, If you really wanted an effective target to reduce, or at least slow the increase, of the national debt, I think that Federal Accounts debt would be a good target.
Stop the politicians from plundering our own government trust funds.
Here is a representative tidbit; As of 2014, the politicians had "borrowed" almost $3 Trillion from Social Security alone.
SS funds must be doing well then , Once most Americans felt that all our SS was spent long ago and it was now coming out of general funds . Maybe I;m too fiscally responsible but I fail to see how so many people simply want MORE entitlements coming out of our federal funds.
-Free Higher education
-Free Family leave
-Free Day care.
by Holle Abee 8 years ago
Four Democrats and Lieberman voted with the Republicans. I have mixed feelings about this, according to the research I've done. It seems that "economy experts" are split on their views. Some argue that increasing taxes on the upper economic class will stifle jobs, while others say that...
by Stump Parrish 4 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will...
by Alex Frias 8 years ago
Question. If the Bush-era tax cuts were so popular and such the "economic reality" as it's being coined, then why did Obama fail to see this until recently. Where was his voice in favor of the Bush tax cuts 6 months ago, or even 2 years ago..?Yes Obama has always maintained...
by theirishobserver. 9 years ago
Good afternoon,Ten years ago, Congress passed broad income tax cuts. But in a cynical accounting trick designed to mask their long-term impact, they scheduled these cuts to expire next January. Now we are approaching that cliff, and millions of Americans are facing thousands of dollars in...
by Brian 8 years ago
I was on facebook earlier today, and a friend of mine posted a Youtube video about just how much money is being used to support the Bush tax cuts for the rich. 100 Billion dollars of the average tax payer's money! Which amounts to over $83,000.00 a year for a single individual making over...
by Nickny79 10 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|