PDA

View Full Version : Why Does Trump Take Credit For the Economy?



Agent Zero
01-23-2018, 05:10 PM
A good read, particularly when jobs gained in Trump's first year of the presidency less than each of Obama's last three years Source (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth/)


https://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Trump-claims-credit-for-what-is-still-mostly-12504720.php


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump relentlessly congratulates himself for the healthy state of the U.S. economy, with its steady growth, low unemployment, busier factories and confident consumers.But in the year since Trump's inauguration, most analysts tend to agree on this: The economy remains essentially the same sturdy one he inherited from Barack Obama.Growth has picked up, but it's not yet clear if it can sustain a faster expansion. Hiring and wage growth actually slowed slightly from Obama's last year in office. Consumers and businesses are much more optimistic, but their spending has yet to move meaningfully higher."I don't see any noticeable break over the past year," said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "We tend to overstate the degree to which the president has the ability to control the economy."The U.S. public appears to have a similar view, according to a Quinnipiac University poll last week. It found that two-thirds of American voters say the economy is "excellent" or "good," the highest since the poll started asking about the economy in 2001.Yet 49 percent of respondents credited Obama for the economy's health, compared with 40 percent who credited Trump.Trump's successful push for income and corporate tax cuts and his steps to loosen regulations have helped drive a surging stock market rally fueled by the prospect of higher corporate profits. And most economists are optimistic that growth will continue at a solid pace this year.

Kalkin
01-23-2018, 05:18 PM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

Agent Zero
01-23-2018, 05:29 PM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.

Whyso?

Agent Zero
01-23-2018, 05:32 PM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

Note: The current economic boom began in June 2009. Under Obama.

The determination that the last expansion began in June 2009 is the most recent decision of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Announcement Dates with Links to Announcement Memos

Turning Point Date
Peak or Trough
Announcement Date with Link


June 2009
Trough
September 20, 2010 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html)


December 2007
Peak
December 1, 2008 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html)


November 2001
Trough
July 17, 2003 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html)


March 2001
Peak
November 26, 2001 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/)


March 1991
Trough
December 22, 1992 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/March91.html)


July 1990
Peak
April 25, 1991 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/april1991.html)


November 1982
Trough
July 8, 1983 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july1983.html)


July 1981
Peak
January 6, 1982 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan1982.html)


July 1980
Trough
July 8, 1981 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july1981.html)


January 1980
Peak
June 3, 1980 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/june1980.html)






http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Captdon
01-23-2018, 06:59 PM
Trump put the market on a jet ride. Companies are expanding because a Dem won't be screwing the laws around. People feel better about spending since he got them taxed less.People don't have to get permission from the feds for everything they do. Companies are going to bring their money back in because of the break. That money will help the economy.

Basic premise: Dems are a bunch of blood suckers who want to spend your money and Trump doesn't.
The liberal lie has been found out and they are on the run.

Captdon
01-23-2018, 07:01 PM
But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.

Whyso?

Because more people didn't have jobs. Now they can be a little choosy. Didn't think of that? Thing is, people who eat from the public trough should be quiet. We real world people know something you don't. WORK.

Kalkin
01-23-2018, 07:57 PM
But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.

Whyso?
Because five years into his term the situation was so bad that there was much more room to go upwards. Obama was a shitty president. His policies stunted the cyclical growth of the economy, extending the misery far longer than it would've been in a low tax, low regulation environment. Hope this helps you to understand.

Kalkin
01-23-2018, 07:58 PM
Note: The current economic boom began in June 2009. Under Obama.

The determination that the last expansion began in June 2009 is the most recent decision of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Announcement Dates with Links to Announcement Memos

Turning Point Date
Peak or Trough
Announcement Date with Link


June 2009
Trough
September 20, 2010 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html)


December 2007
Peak
December 1, 2008 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html)


November 2001
Trough
July 17, 2003 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.html)


March 2001
Peak
November 26, 2001 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/)


March 1991
Trough
December 22, 1992 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/March91.html)


July 1990
Peak
April 25, 1991 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/april1991.html)


November 1982
Trough
July 8, 1983 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july1983.html)


July 1981
Peak
January 6, 1982 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/jan1982.html)


July 1980
Trough
July 8, 1981 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/july1981.html)


January 1980
Peak
June 3, 1980 (http://www.nber.org/cycles/june1980.html)





http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Like I explained before, the economy is cyclical. Obama's policies hindered recovery, but even his incompetence wasn't enough to stall the cycle.

resister
01-23-2018, 08:06 PM
But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.

Whyso?
Link? Leftist claims are not to be trusted, especially certain ones.

resister
01-23-2018, 08:07 PM
22424

zelmo1234
01-23-2018, 08:44 PM
But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.
Whyso?

Obamacare was a great driver of part time jobs. and of course under Obama the Service Sector was the big winner. And those are the low paying jobs that everyone wants to raise minimum wage over

Trump can hang his hat on 3 things #1 The economy is likely to grow at a stronger rate than any of the Obama Years #2 He is producing nearly double the manufacturing jobs. and #3 he finally got his Tax plan through, and that will start to show up in the second half of next year.

So No we need to talk about a few things. Either the first year of a presidency belongs to the new president or the old we can't have it both way. So If Obama gets credit for this year, I am OK with that, but then the First Year of Obama's Presidency belongs to GWB and that means he is responsible for the start of the recovery. It also means that Clinton would be responsible for the first year of the GWB presidency and that means Clinton did not have the surplus but was in deficit as well.

Trump being elected and working on what he promised gave companies hope that the would be rid fo regulations, High taxation and Obamacare mandates. That that we why we will have the growth that we saw.

It is not rocket science

Dr. Who
01-23-2018, 09:40 PM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.
Actually, the stats show otherwise:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

Tahuyaman
01-23-2018, 09:45 PM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.
Trump has removed obstacles placed in the way of economic growth.

Tahuyaman
01-23-2018, 09:46 PM
Actually, the stats show otherwise:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

Reality proves the partisans wrong.

Peter1469
01-23-2018, 09:56 PM
Slashing needless regulations certainly helped.

Tahuyaman
01-23-2018, 10:23 PM
Slashing needless regulations certainly helped.
Slashing the corporate tax is also a biggie.

Tahuyaman
01-23-2018, 10:26 PM
Slashing needless regulations certainly helped. By definition regulation is intended to control. Reducing government imposed regulations takes control away from government. That's why liberals oppose reducing regulations.

Kalkin
01-23-2018, 11:14 PM
Actually, the stats show otherwise:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

Actually, you and your link are incorrect. Try thinking for yourself instead of relying on links. Logic and common sense go a lot further in discovering the truth than blindly believing what other biased sources tell you to think.

Tahuyaman
01-23-2018, 11:24 PM
Actually, you and your link are incorrect. Try thinking for yourself instead of relying on links. Logic and common sense go a lot further in discovering the truth than blindly believing what other biased sources tell you to think.

I don't know of any time where cutting tax rates did not result in greater economic growth.

Lowering tax tax rates takes more power and control away from government. Liberals and leftists can not tolerate that. To them the purpose of taxation is to control behaviors not generate revenues.

Dr. Who
01-23-2018, 11:30 PM
Actually, you and your link are incorrect. Try thinking for yourself instead of relying on links. Logic and common sense go a lot further in discovering the truth than blindly believing what other biased sources tell you to think.

I wouldn't think that Business Insider would be a seditious liberal website.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2018, 12:14 AM
I wouldn't think that Business Insider would be a seditious liberal website.

Liberals have infiltrated nearly everything. They can not tolerate disagreement anywhere at any time.

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 12:23 AM
Liberals have infiltrated nearly everything. They can not tolerate disagreement anywhere at any time.

As a liberal, I think I'm pretty tolerant. LOL. However business and their publications tend to support that which is pro-business. Why would they deliberately deceive, since it would not be in their own best interests?

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 12:30 AM
Just to be perfectly transparent, I just checked and Business Insider may have a slight left of center bias, but they post facts accurately however may use loaded words to express their bias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/business-insider/

Tahuyaman
01-24-2018, 12:32 AM
As a liberal, I think I'm pretty tolerant. LOL. However business and their publications tend to support that which is pro-business. Why would they deliberately deceive, since it would not be in their own best interests?

The Wall Steet Journal was once a very conservative publication. Then it morphed into the business section being conservative, but the editorial section becoming liberal. Now both sections are liberal.

You do face disagreement better than most. At least most here. However, liberals as a group do not tolerate disagreement. To most liberals, disagreement is considered an insult.

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 12:49 AM
The Wall Steet Journal was once a very conservative publication. Then it morphed into the business section being conservative, but the editorial section becoming liberal. Now both sections are liberal.

You do face disagreement better than most. At least most here. However, liberals as a group do not tolerate disagreement. To most liberals, disagreement is considered an insult.
I am not insulted in the least by disagreement, but by responses that fail to make any argument but just dismiss because one has a different opinion. I think liberals are not uniquely guilty of that behavior, having been the recipient of same from your people. :wink: It would be nice if everyone would make a good faith effort to simply argue the topic in good faith rather than simply making derogatory remarks.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2018, 12:55 AM
I am not insulted in the least by disagreement, but by responses that fail to make any argument but just dismiss because one has a different opinion. I think liberals are not uniquely guilty of that behavior, having been the recipient of same from your people. :wink: It would be nice if everyone would make a good faith effort to simply argue the topic in good faith rather than simply making derogatory remarks.
There are a few irrational conservatives who call for the execution of those who disagree with them, but they are the exception to the rule. Generally conservatives use disagreement as a reason to engage someone in a debate.

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 01:02 AM
There are a few irrational conservatives who call for the execution of those who disagree with them, but they are the exception to the rule. Generally conservatives use disagreement as a reason to engage someone in a debate.
When that happens, I enjoy the process. I like a civil debate, regardless of who scores the most points.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 01:42 AM
I wouldn't think that Business Insider would be a seditious liberal website.

Did I say anything about it being a liberal site? Nope. We can have a link battle where we both find credible people who believe what we do. I'd rather not waste my time in such ways.When people have more money, people spend more money. When business isn't shackled by onerous regulations, business flourishes. Do you deny this logic?

Kacper
01-24-2018, 06:18 AM
A good read, particularly when jobs gained in Trump's first year of the presidency less than each of Obama's last three years Source (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth/)


https://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Trump-claims-credit-for-what-is-still-mostly-12504720.php
I personally am not sure what is going on with the economy in this regard. Trump really has done nothing substantial, yet at the same time, it would be hard to deny that the stock market has been thundering ahead since his election.

texan
01-24-2018, 01:10 PM
A good read, particularly when jobs gained in Trump's first year of the presidency less than each of Obama's last three years Source (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth/)


https://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Trump-claims-credit-for-what-is-still-mostly-12504720.php

You guys are hilarious. There is no question this will get fought about no matter what switching from president A to president B.

However, all the way to the end he blamed Bush for him not doing what he said he would do in 8 years. Then when the election occurred confidence went up that tax reform would happen. It is a republican! Trade is being cleaned up. Money brought back in etc.

Yeah sure it is Obama's great work. BTW all the time people used post "do you like your 401K" say thanks to Obama. His returns were fair and marginal. So do you people like your returns now? Can't wait till it goes down some and everyone's talking points become Trumps economy sucks. So fing predictable.

Captdon
01-24-2018, 01:49 PM
Actually, the stats show otherwise:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-growth-2012-9

One person's opinion, playing with numbers. I was well intro my work life when Reagan cut taxes. Suddenly, the economy took off. According to this guy, the economy should have tanked. It didn't. You can't use just sources you find to support your argument.

Captdon
01-24-2018, 01:53 PM
I wouldn't think that Business Insider would be a seditious liberal website.

Doesn't make them right either. There has never been a tax cut that sent the economy backwards. This is a Paul Klugman theory. He said trump's election would crash the stock market and cause a recession. Didn't. Why? Because he was more anti-Trump than economist.

Captdon
01-24-2018, 01:56 PM
As a liberal, I think I'm pretty tolerant. LOL. However business and their publications tend to support that which is pro-business. Why would they deliberately deceive, since it would not be in their own best interests?

It's just a magazine. So is Mad Magazine. Where would their readers go. It was one person using numbers whatever way it helped him. Again, no tax cut has ever hurt the economy.

Captdon
01-24-2018, 01:59 PM
I personally am not sure what is going on with the economy in this regard. Trump really has done nothing substantial, yet at the same time, it would be hard to deny that the stock market has been thundering ahead since his election.

The investors knew he would cut regulations and taxes. Not that hard to figure if you have any money in stocks.

Tahuyaman
01-24-2018, 02:11 PM
I personally am not sure what is going on with the economy in this regard. Trump really has done nothing substantial, yet at the same time, it would be hard to deny that the stock market has been thundering ahead since his election. Removing several needless regulations which were obstacles to economic growth and lowering tax rates are very substantial things.

Agent Zero
01-24-2018, 05:20 PM
Doesn't make them right either. There has never been a tax cut that sent the economy backwards. This is a Paul Klugman theory. He said trump's election would crash the stock market and cause a recession. Didn't. Why? Because he was more anti-Trump than economist.
You're wrong.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/

A history of taxing the rich

Like much of the industrialized world, the United States did not begin imposing income tax on the wealthy until the 1910s. Since its introduction, the tax rate has varied wildly.


The Reagan taxreforms dropped the marginal rate to 28%.1988

During WWII, the Revenue Act of 1942 raises taxes to 94 percent, the highest level ever.1944


Source: Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2)
When tax cuts are given to the wealthy, lawmakers often justify the cut by claiming it will spur economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning think tank, argued in its analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign proposal (https://taxfoundation.org/details-analysis-donald-trump-tax-plan-2016/) that lowering the top income tax rate would lead to increased job opportunities.
This core tenet of supply-side economics guided Reagan and Bush during consideration of their proposed tax cuts. Still, it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration’s full embrace of the theory, which coincided with economic growth in the mid-1980s. Many supply-siders (http://www.aei.org/publication/pro-supply-side-economics-worked-wonders-for-reagan-obama-should-give-it-a-shot/)use this example to advocate for cutting tax rates further.
On the other hand, Bush’s administration proposed and Congress enacted a set of supply-side-focused tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that some blamed (http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/29/burying-supply-side-once-and-for-all/) for the Great Recession.

Agent Zero
01-24-2018, 05:22 PM
I personally am not sure what is going on with the economy in this regard. Trump really has done nothing substantial, yet at the same time, it would be hard to deny that the stock market has been thundering ahead since his election.

As I've stated, job creation under Trump has actually fallen below the levels of Obama's final three years of the presidency.

Shady Slim
01-24-2018, 05:26 PM
But job growth was higher under Obama his last three years in office.

Whyso?

I cannot believe a word a lefty says. Provide a link or all your narratives are false. You can not go around making a claim such as that without links or citations from credible sources.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 06:08 PM
As I've stated, job creation under Trump has actually fallen below the levels of Obama's final three years of the presidency.
Job creation is not the end all and be all of the economy.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 06:10 PM
The investors knew he would cut regulations and taxes. Not that hard to figure if you have any money in stocks.
I have plenty of money in stocks. I just don't see that as a legitimate reason. If that truly is the explanation, then there is going to be an ugly period when the recession comes.

Peter1469
01-24-2018, 06:17 PM
You're wrong.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/

A history of taxing the rich

Like much of the industrialized world, the United States did not begin imposing income tax on the wealthy until the 1910s. Since its introduction, the tax rate has varied wildly.


The Reagan taxreforms dropped the marginal rate to 28%.1988

DuriThomas Piketty (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2)ng WWII, the Revenue Act of 1942 raises taxes to 94 percent, the highest level ever.1944


Source: , Paris School of Economics (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2)
When tax cuts are given to the wealthy, lawmakers often justify the cut by claiming it will spur economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning think tank, argued in its analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign proposal (https://taxfoundation.org/details-analysis-donald-trump-tax-plan-2016/) that lowering the top income tax rate would lead to increased job opportunities.
This core tenet of supply-side economics guided Reagan and Bush during consideration of their proposed tax cuts. Still, it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration’s full embrace of the theory, which coincided with economic growth in the mid-1980s. Many supply-siders (http://www.aei.org/publication/pro-supply-side-economics-worked-wonders-for-reagan-obama-should-give-it-a-shot/)use this example to advocate for cutting tax rates further.
On the other hand, Bush’s administration proposed and Congress enacted a set of supply-side-focused tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that some blamed (http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/29/burying-supply-side-once-and-for-all/) for the Great Recession.





Picketty is problematic. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52354-The-new-left-economists-are-as-wrong-as-the-old-ones?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

He over estimates income inequality.

Agent Zero
01-24-2018, 06:21 PM
:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:
Job creation is not the end all and be all of the economy.
Tell that to Trump. He brags about it constantly.

I cannot believe a word a lefty says. Provide a link or all your narratives are false. You can not go around making a claim such as that without links or citations from credible sources.


I'll go you one better.

How 'bout I provide you a whole thread?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/93812-Why-Does-Trump-Take-Credit-For-the-Economy
lol...it's THIS ONE! :smiley_ROFLMAO: :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Kacper
01-24-2018, 06:28 PM
:smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:
Tell that to Trump. He brags about it constantly.

He was not the one I was discussing it with.

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 06:34 PM
Did I say anything about it being a liberal site? Nope. We can have a link battle where we both find credible people who believe what we do. I'd rather not waste my time in such ways.When people have more money, people spend more money. When business isn't shackled by onerous regulations, business flourishes. Do you deny this logic?

Well, when you are asserting that lowering taxes promotes economic activity, there needs to be objective supporting evidence. A theory alone is not proof that people, businesses or other economic factors will behave as predicted.

Agent Zero
01-24-2018, 06:47 PM
Picketty is problematic. http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/52354-The-new-left-economists-are-as-wrong-as-the-old-ones?highlight=Thomas+Piketty

He over estimates income inequality.
lol. Matt Lynn?

Isn't he the novelist who also predicted: "(Apple) will sell a few to its fans, but the iphone won't make a long term mark on the industry"?

Peter1469
01-24-2018, 06:56 PM
lol. Matt Lynn?

Isn't he the novelist who also predicted: "(Apple) will sell a few to its fans, but the iphone won't make a long term mark on the industry"?
What does that have to do with his article about Picketty?

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 07:00 PM
Well, when you are asserting that lowering taxes promotes economic activity, there needs to be objective supporting evidence. A theory alone is not proof that people, businesses or other economic factors will behave as predicted.
No, all you need is a grasp of logic. If people have more money, people spend more money. Do you deny this? Do I really need to supply a link to such a common sense conclusion?

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 08:33 PM
No, all you need is a grasp of logic. If people have more money, people spend more money. Do you deny this? Do I really need to supply a link to such a common sense conclusion?
Kalkin, I supplied a link to show that on numerous other occasions where taxes were lowered, common sense didn't happen. In fact, perversely, economic activity increased when taxes were higher. Thus the conclusion is that there has to be something other than lower taxes that spurs economic activity - not that lower taxes cannot stimulate such activity, but there must be other factors that also apply.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 08:41 PM
Kalkin, I supplied a link to show that on numerous other occasions where taxes were lowered, common sense didn't happen. In fact, perversely, economic activity increased when taxes were higher. Thus the conclusion is that there has to be something other than lower taxes that spurs economic activity - not that lower taxes cannot stimulate such activity, but there must be other factors that also apply.
I think for myself, you require links. All good.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 08:43 PM
I think for myself, you require links. All good.

Then explain why the $800 stimulus checks didn't stimulate the economy back when those went out.

Dr. Who
01-24-2018, 08:55 PM
I think for myself, you require links. All good.
I'm glad that you think for yourself - so should everyone, but while thinking for yourself perhaps just wonder whether you are only looking at one small section of the jigsaw puzzle and that there may be more pieces needed to complete the picture than just lower taxes.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 08:56 PM
Then explain why the $800 stimulus checks didn't stimulate the economy back when those went out.

I spent mine, thusly stimulating the economy more than if I hadn't. So did millions of others. Tax cuts help to stimulate the economy, but they aren't a magic wand that can fix everything.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 09:02 PM
I'm glad that you think for yourself - so should everyone, but while thinking for yourself perhaps just wonder whether you are only looking at one small section of the jigsaw puzzle and that there may be more pieces needed to complete the picture than just lower taxes.
Agreed. Tax cuts definitely help the economy. You like links, here are some for you to chew on:

https://taxfoundation.org/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Times%20Wrong%20Again.htm

And here's one from team obama:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-economic-advisor-says-keeping-taxes-low-spurs-economic-growth-leads-more-tax

Kacper
01-24-2018, 09:12 PM
I spent mine, thusly stimulating the economy more than if I hadn't. So did millions of others. Tax cuts help to stimulate the economy, but they aren't a magic wand that can fix everything.

Most people spent them but it didn't stimulate the economy because they spent them on debt related to goods and services already consumed. Either way, our economy seems to be in some sort of Schumpeter's gale situation at the moment.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 09:13 PM
Most people spent them but it didn't stimulate the economy because they spent them on debt related to goods and services already consumed. Either way, our economy seems to be in some sort of Schumpeter's gale situation at the moment.

So many used them to pay off debt accrued stimulating the economy at an earlier date. Same thing.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 09:16 PM
So many used them to pay off debt accrued stimulating the economy at an earlier date. Same thing.

Unless people use their tax break to pay down their mortgages. It is not the same thing, at least not if stimulating the economy is the end-goal because money paid to lenders does not circulate in the wider economy the way money paid to restaurants does.

Peter1469
01-24-2018, 09:26 PM
Unless people use their tax break to pay down their mortgages. It is not the same thing, at least not if stimulating the economy is the end-goal because money paid to lenders does not circulate in the wider economy the way money paid to restaurants does.

That is the question with the new tax law. If the standard deduction is higher than what you can itemize, I may just pay off my mortgage.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 09:56 PM
That is the question with the new tax law. If the standard deduction is higher than what you can itemize, I may just pay off my mortgage.

It is going to be problematic and likely the reason most analysis only predict a temporary bump in the economy. Even beyond the deductibility issue, your biggest consuming class isn't getting the biggest chunk which is why you see stocks climbing--it will be a trading boost but likely not a revenue/dividend boost. I guess it is a matter of one's perspective on inflation, but Wall Street sucking up all the excess cash generated by quantitative easing and then sucking up all the tax cut cash is not going to be sustainable although it has at least kept inflation and interest low.

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 10:17 PM
Unless people use their tax break to pay down their mortgages. It is not the same thing, at least not if stimulating the economy is the end-goal because money paid to lenders does not circulate in the wider economy the way money paid to restaurants does.

Lenders pay employees, employees spend money in the economy, including at restaurants.. You won't convince me that letting people keep more of their money isn't good for the economy.

Kacper
01-24-2018, 10:22 PM
Lenders pay employees, employees spend money in the economy, including at restaurants.. You won't convince me that letting people keep more of their money isn't good for the economy.
They are not going to be keeping more of their money. It all will get sucked into Wall Street. If you gave me a million more dollars, I still wouldn't hire any more employees and I still wouldn't give employees a big pay raise. There is nobody other than Donald Trump and his apologists who even remotely thinks that there will some huge impact from this tax cut in the overall economy. Here is a clue: The government would be spending that money if it was taking it in, so how do you expect you spending it instead of the government is going to somehow increase GDP?

Kalkin
01-24-2018, 11:33 PM
They are not going to be keeping more of their money. It all will get sucked into Wall Street.
Some will, some will get spent in the economy. Do you seriously think every extra dollar a taxpayer saves goes directly to Wall St? That's just silly.

If you gave me a million more dollars, I still wouldn't hire any more employees and I still wouldn't give employees a big pay raise.
Just because you're a stingy cheapskate doesn't mean everyone else is. The news is full of examples that prove you wrong.

There is nobody other than Donald Trump and his apologists who even remotely thinks that there will some huge impact from this tax cut in the overall economy.
There will be an impact. The size of it may be debated, but the existence cannot be.

Here is a clue: The government would be spending that money if it was taking it in, so how do you expect you spending it instead of the government is going to somehow increase GDP?
Here is another clue: The government will spend money whether it takes it from the taxpayers or not. Have you heard of that thing called "the deficit"? So, the logical conclusion is the government will spend regardless, and the taxpayers, seeing less of their earnings confiscated, will spend more. The economy grows. It's not rocket science.


Question: Do you feel the government spends your money more wisely than you do?

Tahuyaman
01-25-2018, 12:54 AM
Why does a healthy and growing economy upset liberals so much? They receive the benefits of it too.

Kacper
01-25-2018, 09:08 AM
Some will, some will get spent in the economy. Do you seriously think every extra dollar a taxpayer saves goes directly to Wall St? That's just silly.

Not all of it goes to Wall Street. Some of it goes to the slave shop suppliers of Wall Street goods.


Just because you're a stingy cheapskate doesn't mean everyone else is. The news is full of examples that prove you wrong.

The news is also full of examples of people losing their jobs that prove I am not.


There will be an impact. The size of it may be debated, but the existence cannot be.

As I have stated, estimates outside of the Trump Mafia all expect a slight, temporary bumb but mostly a ballooning national debt.


Here is another clue: The government will spend money whether it takes it from the taxpayers or not. Have you heard of that thing called "the deficit"? So, the logical conclusion is the government will spend regardless, and the taxpayers, seeing less of their earnings confiscated, will spend more. The economy grows. It's not rocket science.

I know the right really doesn't care about the deficit, but that will change when they cannot get China to buy any more US Treasuries.



Question: Do you feel the government spends your money more wisely than you do?

Of course not. I feel that the government spends your money more wisely than you do.

Captdon
01-25-2018, 01:40 PM
You're wrong.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/gop-tax-rate-cut-wealthy/

A history of taxing the rich

Like much of the industrialized world, the United States did not begin imposing income tax on the wealthy until the 1910s. Since its introduction, the tax rate has varied wildly.


The Reagan taxreforms dropped the marginal rate to 28%.1988

During WWII, the Revenue Act of 1942 raises taxes to 94 percent, the highest level ever.1944


Source: Thomas Piketty, Paris School of Economics (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2)
When tax cuts are given to the wealthy, lawmakers often justify the cut by claiming it will spur economic growth. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, conservative-leaning think tank, argued in its analysis of Trump’s 2016 campaign proposal (https://taxfoundation.org/details-analysis-donald-trump-tax-plan-2016/) that lowering the top income tax rate would lead to increased job opportunities.
This core tenet of supply-side economics guided Reagan and Bush during consideration of their proposed tax cuts. Still, it's unclear whether cutting the income tax on the wealthy boosts economic growth.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration’s full embrace of the theory, which coincided with economic growth in the mid-1980s. Many supply-siders (http://www.aei.org/publication/pro-supply-side-economics-worked-wonders-for-reagan-obama-should-give-it-a-shot/)use this example to advocate for cutting tax rates further.
On the other hand, Bush’s administration proposed and Congress enacted a set of supply-side-focused tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that some blamed (http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/29/burying-supply-side-once-and-for-all/) for the Great Recession.






WWII? Really. Good God, we were fighting the biggest war in history. That relates to any other time how? I don't expect much from you but you should be able to do better than this. Companies were guaranteed a 10% regardless of cost. Want to go back to that? My father was in that war. I know that time right from his mouth.

The Great Recession was caused by the collapse of the money market. Too many loans that were known would never be paid back. Taxes had nothing to do with it. You need a good check-up.

You must think everyone here is as unknowledgeable as you.

Captdon
01-25-2018, 01:43 PM
Well, when you are asserting that lowering taxes promotes economic activity, there needs to be objective supporting evidence. A theory alone is not proof that people, businesses or other economic factors will behave as predicted.

Past history.

Captdon
01-25-2018, 01:45 PM
Then explain why the $800 stimulus checks didn't stimulate the economy back when those went out.

It was a one-time event and not a change in the economy.

Kacper
01-25-2018, 01:50 PM
It was a one-time event and not a change in the economy.

$13B is a lot of money to not stimulate the economy

Captdon
01-25-2018, 01:53 PM
They are not going to be keeping more of their money. It all will get sucked into Wall Street. If you gave me a million more dollars, I still wouldn't hire any more employees and I still wouldn't give employees a big pay raise. There is nobody other than Donald Trump and his apologists who even remotely thinks that there will some huge impact from this tax cut in the overall economy. Here is a clue: The government would be spending that money if it was taking it in, so how do you expect you spending it instead of the government is going to somehow increase GDP?


Well, you being greedy is on you. A hell of a lot of companies are doing what trump said they would. That's what kills you. Trump was right and you're still wrong.

Captdon
01-25-2018, 01:54 PM
Not all of it goes to Wall Street. Some of it goes to the slave shop suppliers of Wall Street goods.



The news is also full of examples of people losing their jobs that prove I am not.



As I have stated, estimates outside of the Trump Mafia all expect a slight, temporary bumb but mostly a ballooning national debt.



I know the right really doesn't care about the deficit, but that will change when they cannot get China to buy any more US Treasuries.




Of course not. I feel that the government spends your money more wisely than you do.

Not one sane remark in the response.

Tahuyaman
01-25-2018, 01:54 PM
History is full of specific cases where cuts in tax rates causing increases in economic growth. Why do liberals continually deny this? Why do they also deny that this economic growth results in greater revenues flowing in to government?

History Is also full of cases where tax increases resulted in less revenues flowing in to government and lower to no economic growth. Why can't they recognize that as well?

resister
01-25-2018, 01:56 PM
History is full of specific cases where cuts in tax rates causing increases in economic growth. Why do liberals continually deny this? Why do they also deny that this economic growth results in greater revenues flowing in to government?

History Is also full of cases where tax increases resulted in less revenues flowing in to government and lower to no economic growth. Why can't they recognize that as well?
22451

Kacper
01-25-2018, 06:10 PM
Well, you being greedy is on you. A hell of a lot of companies are doing what trump said they would. That's what kills you. Trump was right and you're still wrong.

Trump is an dye job orangutan who is only right to the extent a clock is right twice a day

Kacper
01-25-2018, 06:12 PM
Not one sane remark in the response.
I wouldn't expect anyone from the state of Lindsey Graham to recognize sanity

Kalkin
01-26-2018, 03:35 AM
Of course not. I feel that the government spends your money more wisely than you do.
Those are the feelings of an insecure jackass, no offense intended.

Kacper
01-26-2018, 04:26 AM
Those are the feelings of an insecure jackass, no offense intended.

Oh but there you are wrong. I have full faith on myself. Others not so much.

Hoosier8
01-26-2018, 06:12 AM
Economists and those at Davos credit Trumps policies. This has the democrat media complex in overdrive to credit Obama.

Hoosier8
01-26-2018, 06:14 AM
Trump is an dye job orangutan who is only right to the extent a clock is right twice a day

So glad to see you think he is right twice a day. Must be the cause of all the winning for Americans the left hates so much.

hotair
01-28-2018, 03:34 AM
Trump isn't the driver of the economic boom, the people and businesses are. Trump can only claim credit for setting the stage for growth by undoing the economy-stunting agenda of obama. Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

Funny . . .

Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

Some six thousand years of recorded human history has proven that just the opposite is true. This is not the first time around the block for these ideas. They have been implemented before, and every single time the end result has always been the same. This time around is not going to provide any different result, no matter how badly you wish that it would!
Even more recent history (the great depression (the first one), the Reagan Crater, the second great depression (sometimes referred to as the w meltdown)(aka the great recession)etc.) shows us that the end result has always been just the opposite. Regulations exist for very good reasons, getting rid of those protections, only feeds greed, while causing massive destabilization of the markets.
Stimulating greed, is not the same thing as stimulating investment. Getting rid of the regulations that protect the unwary investor does not promote growth.
True enough, in any con there is a winner, put it is never the mark that wins. There will be some who will end up coming out ahead. After all it will be their game, and the house always wins.

Peter1469
01-28-2018, 04:57 AM
Your broke?
Funny . . .

Lower taxation and less regulation always stimulate investment and growth.

Some six thousand years of recorded human history has proven that just the opposite is true. This is not the first time around the block for these ideas. They have been implemented before, and every single time the end result has always been the same. This time around is not going to provide any different result, no matter how badly you wish that it would!
Even more recent history (the great depression (the first one), the Reagan Crater, the second great depression (sometimes referred to as the w meltdown)(aka the great recession)etc.) shows us that the end result has always been just the opposite. Regulations exist for very good reasons, getting rid of those protections, only feeds greed, while causing massive destabilization of the markets.
Stimulating greed, is not the same thing as stimulating investment. Getting rid of the regulations that protect the unwary investor does not promote growth.
True enough, in any con there is a winner, put it is never the mark that wins. There will be some who will end up coming out ahead. After all it will be their game, and the house always wins.